Slavery, Islam and the Arab world-view

We all accept that slavery is bad but ignore the reality, which is that without Islam, slavery would never have become as pervasive as it was, or is, today.  We accept the Atlantic (Western) slave trade as if it was possible to exclude the crucial contribution to that trade made by the Arab slave traders. But without the Arab slave trade, without their physical labor and the financial benefit they derived from it, little of the western trade would have been possible. It was possible because that trade was at least eight centuries older than the Atlantic slave trade. The Muslim Prophet Mohamed did not refute the legitimacy of the slave trade. In fact the taking of slaves was encouraged as war ‘booty’. He saw it as a normal economic activity that benefited the Arab people. Because the Arab people were ‘gifted’ the Koran by Mohammed, they were the only and true ‘Chosen people’ and their racial superiority became part of the legacy of their history and of their successful conquest across three continents (Africa, Asia and Europe). Contempt for the ‘Other’ as personified in the institution of slavery followed the Muslim immigrant everywhere.

This ethnic bigotry was part fashion (fair skinned slaves being favored as concubines), part history (successful conquest equates with self-justification for the means employed and the profits enjoyed) and finally, part Koranic incitement (the Islamic faithful were exercising their right to benefit from the willful attitude of non-Muslims in not converting to the true faith).  The ease with which black slaves were seized made for the reinforcement of this prejudice which often saw the captive placed on a level little higher than beasts.   Europeans often fared little better. 

The racial aspect of the Arab trade was an inevitable reaction to Western engagement with the Arab world in the 18^th and 19^th Centuries – which was on Christian terms, not Muslim. But European nationalism and the intellectual expression of racial theories in the 19^th Century soon found resonance in an Islamic world fed a narrative of millennia old, blood drenched glory against the infidel.  After all, if the Arabs were gifted Gods favor, then infidel encroachment must have a purpose. Islamic faith was (and is) inseparable from imperial endeavor so this violation of Muslim-Arab suzerainty could (and still is) only possible to explain in theological terms, as testing the resolution of the faithful.

Ronald Segal wrote in ‘Islam’s Black Slaves’ that slavery in Islam was mainly a service industry. “Slavery itself was primarily a form of consumption rather than a factor of production.”  There existed in Arab lands a substantial peasant class so early attempts at using slave-labor for production ended very badly.  Uprisings and massacres (the Zanj Revolt for example) were of unbelievable scope (according to the 10^th Century historian al-Masudi 300,000 people died in Basra alone). So instead, usually, slaves were utilized as concubines, servants and soldiers.  In fact, while the ratio of male to female slaves in the Atlantic slave trade was 2:1 in favor of men (as an indicator of slave use as a unit of production), in the Muslim world the ratio was reversed (2:1 in favor of women as an indicator of slave use as a unit of service).

While the manumission (freeing) of slaves was certainly encouraged, in opposition to this, Slavery was heavily regulated by Sharia law.  In distinct contradiction to the Atlantic slave trade, slaves and former slaves could attain great status in the Muslim world, but they experienced a terrible mortality rate. And the soldier slave could be killed at will.  This kept the slave trade active well into the twentieth century and it continues to this day because the Islamic faithful do not view any part of the Koran as time specific.

In the Muslim world there is no precedent for the legal annulment of a theological mandate. In this Muslim world, the institution of Slavery is an economic resource that is mandated by God; therefore, it cannot be theologically abrogated. To the purist, the trade is strictly and humanely administered, the safeguards laid down as holy writ. But if the sanction against abuse exists, it has been violated so often, and so egregiously, we can only conclude that prejudice and ideas of superior racial purpose make the institution of slavery an ideal means for demonstrating power. And to the fundamentalist, what took place in the Seventh Century is as relevant today as it was fourteen centuries ago. To paraphrase Thomas Mann: Compassion, veils her face.

Today, Slavery remains as it has always been, a blemish smeared across the human stage. Two short examples will suffice:

Saudi Arabia abolished slavery in 1962 but it needed further legislation in 1990 to reinforce the original law. In 2007 Slavery was abolished for the fifth time in the Islamic republic of Mauritania.

At a conference organized by UN Watch in February 2013 it was explained that “some 20 percent of Mauritanians, about 600,000 people, are still slaves. Mauritania uses Sharia to justify a racist system where Arabs exploit the country's black African population.” In fact the number of people enslaved is believed to be somewhere between 600,000 and 800,000. In another case: “Saudi Princess Meshael Alayban was accused of human trafficking in the U.S., this has caused a stir throughout the world” but how was this story uncovered? “A few weeks ago, the victim, identified as 'Jane Doe,' escaped Alayban’s home where she alleges she was forced to work 16 hours a day, 7 days a week; her passport held by Alayban to prevent escape. Jane Doe then flagged down a bus, explained her situation to another passenger who helped her phone police. When the police went to investigate, they found four other women at the home claiming to be in the same situation.” Walkfree.org 31^st July 2013

I watched Steve McQueen’s movie, ‘12 years a Slave’. For me it was grueling, for the black woman next to me it was worse and from time to time she quietly sobbed. I understood why. I cannot sit though a movie about the Shoah. I would not have voluntarily chosen this one either, nevertheless, ‘12 years a slave’ stands as a reminder that the fruits of inaction are an assumption of indifference and through indifference, approval.

Today there are estimated to be thirty million human beings held as slaves around the world. They generate some thirty billion dollars worth of income to their slave owners.

Piracy, Slavery and Inhuman Rights

The Treaty of Tripoli was approved in 1796– this was to be a Treaty of peace and amity between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Tripoli (part of the Ottoman Empire). Its intent was to bring to an end three centuries of Muslim, government sanctioned piracy by the nations of the Barbary Coast of North Africa - what we today call the Maghreb i.e. Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and Libya.  Before then, any ship passing through the Mediterranean and many of the settlements along both the Mediterranean and the North Atlantic coast was subject to constant harassment by Barbary pirates.  Thousands of ships were lost to piracy, entire stretches of European coast-lands were uninhabitable and this was wholly because of the constant raids carried out by Arab slavers.    Those attacks enriched the Ottoman Empire with European slaves and goods. Often, hostages were taken for the purpose of extracting enormous ransoms from their respective governments, communities and families.  If unable to pay the tribute that was demanded for their lives, hostages not already allocated to the lucrative business of slavery, were consigned to slave markets, often they died while awaiting their freedom. During this three century period at least one and a quarter million European slaves are believed to have been lost to the Ottoman Slave Trade and the general Muslim market in North Africa and the Middle East.

The Treaty of Tripoli was violated during two significant periods at the start of the nineteenth century and led to both the First and the Second Barbary Wars.

We have failed to learn from this period of history that unless governments are willing to accept whatever consequences follow on from acquiescence to threats, intimidation and violence the ultimate result of failing to act against a rogue nation is escalating demands.  Says Luis Fleischman in a report for the Center for Security Policy: “Weakness generates a morbid pleasure on the other side. It is always weakness that invites more violence because it makes it easier for the perpetrator to carry it out.” 

http://www.theamericasreport.com/2012/09/04/the-importance-of-the-war-of-ideas/

It is a lesson from history that we have failed to learn, to our cost, in the war against the pirates that plague the Horn of Africa (principally along the Coast off Somalia).

But perhaps the most controversial result that emerged from the Treaty of Tripoli is what is referred to in Article 11 of the treaty.  “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Muslims,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Muslim nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

The usual interpretation is that this was no more than the reaffirmation of the principle of ‘Separation of Religion and State’ by the Founding Fathers of the United States of America. But a single question in popular culture often expresses the theory that this single document and its single paragraph (Article 11) has a pivotal role in guiding the US Department of State in its relationship with the whole of the Muslim world and has continued to do so since its signing 216 years ago. 

This unwillingness to take sides in ethical disputes between Western nations and the Muslim world are more than reluctance to pass judgement according to our own values. They demonstrate weakness and intellectual cowardice. They send a message to those with whom we have the strongest of objections to their behavior that we will not act against them even when they abuse us in our own homes.  This does not show our cultural superiority or our legal excellence in managing our differences in our multicultural societies. Instead it shows that we don’t care and that does make us appear weak.

Ultimately, history is based on what we choose to do. Inaction sends an equally clear message.

And so, to return to what is referred to by many historians as the Muslim Slave Trade, and if we isolate it and instead refer to the more specific Arab Slave Trade, between the 7th and the 20th century this one particular economic enterprise (the Arab slave trade) stole mores souls than the Atlantic Slave Trade and it killed far more human beings. For every slave that made it to the markets, four or five people died. The current estimate is that this particular trade saw somewhere between eleven million and up to forty million people seized from their homes and taken into slavery.

“If Christianity was responsible for the Atlantic slave trade, it was also Christians who led the campaign to abolish the Slave trade and then slavery itself.  In Islam, slavery was never the moral, political and economic issue it was in the West, where it engendered a multitude of tracts and books in denunciation of the institution.” (Ronald Segal ‘Islam’s Black Slaves’)

And the institution of slavery informs, educates and reinforces the believer in their attitudes and behaviors towards the ‘other.’  Ridicule is a central component of literary incitement and it leads to genocide – in Hitler’s Germany it was ‘the Jew’ portrayed as ‘rat’ (bringer of plagues). In much of Islamic holy literature it is both Christian and Jew who are portrayed as monkey, ape, pig or dog.  As recently as January 2014 Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei gave a televised speech in which he called Israel the "rabid dog" of the Middle East. The Koran and its affiliated literature are replete with contemptuous anthropomorphic references to the infidel.

In the West we discuss inequality as if it is White, Middle class and a product of Judeo-Christian civilization.  Perhaps the philosophical idea of equality and its absence is, in itself, indeed a product of that synthesis.  But so what?  It exists without our airing it so it is only when we discuss it that we consider our treatment of others in both the past and in the present time.  It is only thus that we are able to judge our culpability and pronounce judgement on our ethical failures. Then it is possible to appreciate a need for change.  This is something that is largely if not wholly absent from any local or national dialogue in the Muslim world. 

The question that we should be asking is: how, can we raise the bar on what may be discussed in society, without causing a major crisis in our relationship with the Muslim world?  And if we cannot avoid such a rupture, is it worth it?

I suspect that that last question would never have occurred to the Abolitionists in the USA, or to Thomas Clarkson and William Wilberforce in England. And if it did occur to them they would have known in their hearts and their minds that such a question was never truly worthy of asking.

In my next blog I will ask why the question is even more relevant today than it was in the past.

The American Constitution and the Limits of Free Speech

If I refer to the American Constitution it is because it is the template for most modern democratic nations in the way they aspire to treat human rights – even if only in theory. That American Constitution was approved 236 years ago, on September 17, 1787. It was created following a war that witnessed up to five times as many people die from disease and starvation as died in battle. There were those that felt it was not possible to fight for liberty if human rights were ignored. However, the main driver for the constitution was the need to provide a framework for a federal form of government without which the thirteen original member states remained disconnected from each other.  One nation was not possible without its unifying provisions. And it provided for civil rights that would be consistent across the separate states.  But there are two further documents that make up America’s founding, guiding ethos and they are the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. I will discuss them here, later.

People were suspicious of central authority.  They were weary of the abuse of parliament as well as kings (in this case the British one). But all kings and their aristocratic partners existed as self-perpetuating oligarchies.

Kings and emperors aspired to the status of earthly divinity and thereby most who ruled, demanded (and received) absolute loyalty.  Secular society had not yet been created and even when not governed as theocratic nation states, religious leaders inevitably bestowed the mantle of divine appointment on those who aspired to legitimise their rule.  Divine right was a crucial imprimatur to be invoked if things did not always go the way one intended.  Bureaucratic instruments ensured the “right kind of people” provided support; the few always acted against the interests of the many.

And so to return to the constitution, at its creation it did not protect the rights of slaves, Native Americans or women and together, they remained a repressed majority.

The American Constitution, created a blueprint for a society based on organising the nation through an administration that was kept in check by a doctrine of the separation of powers. Its influential opponents included prominent Founding Fathers who argued that the Constitution failed to protect the basic rights of the people. It was John Adams who in 1788 used the phrase "Tyranny of the Majority" to describe “a scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests so far above those of an individual or minority group as to constitute active oppression, comparable to that of tyrants and despots” (Wikipedia) and it was in response to this kind of thinking that the Bill of Rights was enacted. And Alexis de Tocqueville brought the term into prominence internationally when he published ‘Democracy in America’ in 1835.

It was this ongoing agitation that created the conditions for future judicial activism.

The first ten amendments to the Constitution are what we know as the US Bill of Rights and they became effective on December 15, 1791. 

The first amendment grants “Freedom of religion, speech, and the press; rights of assembly and petition.” 

It took a long time and very specific circumstances before inequality was tackled, even as imperfectly as it is today. 

The most controversial document of all was the Declaration of Independence.  It speaks of Natural Rights and in the Preamble it states that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Again, it was all about timing or at least, those that believed in its universal application explained it as an unfinished endeavour, a standard for perfection and one to which the Declaration represented an ongoing ideal awaiting completion.  In that way, after the fact, it became central to both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights it preceded.

In the 18^th and the 19^th Centuries, issues of personal freedom and freedom of expression did not have to contend with mass communication, near limitless wealth and (most) weapons of mass destruction. While it is futile to debate whether the founding fathers would have been quite so idealistic had the conditions been different the basic principles remain relevant even if we are too often insufficiently fast enough to react to threats against the Society those ideals were codified to defend.

Issues of identity, lawful protest and freedom of expression have become no-go areas that we are frightened to tackle as if everything in history is a forward march. But it is not. A nation at war must be able to defend itself while preserving the rule of law. Democracies have to preserve human rights but are too often fighting a war against people and groups happy to use the instruments of democracy to undermine (erode) and destroy those same institutions.

The American Constitution and its ancillary documents represent a framework for society that has stood the test of time.  But they are also ideals that need to be protected from those whose intent it is to invalidate them. It is not just America that is at fault here. Ideals can be placed out of reach so that they do not protect the people they are intended to serve. They become idols that are worshipped for them-selves and they replace that aspect of human responsibility without which we all live in a worshipful state of ignorance.

The most delicate balance exists between protecting the rights of citizens and giving them the licence to destroy the society.

The right to decide what constitutes incitement can change with the times however incitement always creates a momentum for violence that only someone attempting to tear down the edifice of democracy sees virtue in possessing.  Our society seems to have lost the enthusiasm to judge others as readily as others judge us. Perhaps that is because when we are morally selective the only defence is indifference.

The challenge for society is to define the limits of free speech: What is permissible, and what permissible language is not. Passionate beliefs are no excuse for failing to exercise self-control.  And it is irrelevant that some people truly believe they are endowed with divine permission to slander or to kill. Like human sacrifice, there are some uncivilised aspects of human behaviour best left to the professionals to explain and the law to debar.

British Weather and the RMT

Last week my wife traveled by national rail to visit her mother. There was nothing unusual in that. As she waited mid morning for the train to move away from the station the announcer advised all passengers “to be careful in this inclement weather as all surfaces may be slippery in the wet conditions.”  The cloud cover was patchy and sunny, it was a perfect winter day in sunny England and the rain held off until the evening.

Overseas travelers, particularly those who are used to trains leaving on time are often surprised by the penchant that we Britons have for stoically accepting the pathetic excuses rolled out by train operators, almost daily, for the incessant delays and poor quality service, which over the decades has seen year on year price increases that are usually well above the rate of inflation.  We have become oblivious to the contemptuous disregard that both train companies and their staff have for the traveling public.

It defies logic that private travel operators who enjoy monopoly conditions as well as the protection of the government (through an iniquitous system of state subsidies) can be so completely contemptuous towards the public that finances its existence.  And yet it is clear that the national rail system (and that includes the London Underground network) prioritize themselves in order of the following importance:  first comes the generous Staff and Executive Pay (and benefits) and then Company Profits. At no time does the British public figure in benefit calculations.

If we take the police as an example of public virtue as opposed to transportation greed, the police are classified as an essential public service. They do not strike (or cannot strike) and on dates of national significance (such as football tournaments and national holidays) they are drafted in from surrounding districts in order to safeguard the peace.

Contrast this with the National Rail system and on days of sporting interest or holidays the rail companies will find every conceivable excuse to fleece the traveling public – those that actually work will receive double pay, triple pay, time off in lieu, bonuses – the list goes on. It is extraordinary.  Of course they deserve a living wage – a better than living wage, but for years they have extorted with malice and inexhaustible amounts of greed enormous sums from the pockets of the public.

Bob Crow, since early in 2002 general secretary of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) once justified this greed by reference to Bankers pay.  Over the Christmas period London Underground appeared to be scheduling a regular service, but the Overground (a separate company) reported that it would not be operating any services at all due to the need to ‘carry out essential maintenance work.’ And National Rail companies reported (two weeks prior to Xmas) that due to severe weather conditions they would be cancelling services on entire routes during the Xmas holiday period.

What must be appreciated is that here in Britain our weather is overwhelmingly middling.  We do not suffer from extremes of hot or cold; strong winds are rare and flooding, is an annual occurrence caused by successive governments’ commitment to locating housing projects on flood plains.  So we rely on the BBC weather center for our very survival (or so it seems).  And they are barely competent.  At the start of this current winter season the Weather Service warned us all to expect three months of arctic conditions. All of November 2013 and most of December 2013 the country was unseasonably warm, occasionally chilly but rarely freezing.

Why mention the weather? Because trains are frequently delayed due to a) the wrong kind of snow falling on the tracks, b) leaves on the track and my personal favorite is c) the wrong kind of rain on the track.

And for the last week the weather center has been warning us to expect gales, high winds and torrential rains. The obvious point of all this is that in the build up to Christmas - New Year, National Rail employees enjoy a relaxing, extended holiday at our expense and do not provide the service they are overpaid to provide.

We were warned to expect extensive delays to our travel plans and offered advice on when to travel, when to delay our travel plans and when to bring them forward to accommodate the severe weather conditions.

The national rail companies warned us in the run-up to Christmas of massive service cancellations.  We cannot successfully predict our national weather 24 hours in advance but the rail companies were looking forward to their extended holiday break with their excuses aired nationally.

On the 23^rd of December, having already postponed our travel plans on National Rail advice we were uncertain if we would be able to travel. Almost all trains had already been cancelled. Dire weather warnings juxtaposed almost clear blue skies.  We caught our usual train.  It became overcast, it was a bit chilly, and it even rained, lightly at one point in our journey.

The reality is that a conspiracy seems to exist between the government, private train operators and the RMT.  They fleece the traveling public and they display open contempt for the people they are meant to serve.  With tourism bringing around 30 million overseas visitors to Britain each year and London recognized as a global financial center nothing must be done to damage our reputation. In fact it was recently announced that Britain would spend 47 billion pounds on a fast rail system connecting the English North to London i.e. 78 Billion US dollars or 56 Billion Euros.

How will ‘the workers’ benefit from this limited service? No one will ask the obvious questions of who will and how will peace be guaranteed.  But it is the people into whose pocket the government will reach in order to pay for this massively expensive project.

When I first arrived in London all weekend travel by public transport was cheaper because all regular maintenance work took place on weekends (and as a consequence the service was inferior).  This arrangement worked.  The public received a tangible benefit for being inconvenienced. Today’s British travel is very expensive, inefficient, unreliable and untrustworthy.  It benefits shareholders and rail company employees but it benefits the traveling public only tangentially.

If we the public, are powerless to enforce good governance and fair pricing in the operation of the rail companies and the management of their employees, and if the state refuses to intervene on our behalf then we must consider that they do not serve the public as is their mandate.  The definition of a criminal conspiracy is:  “An agreement between two or more persons (or entities) to commit a crime”.  The rail companies, the RMT and the government fit that description.

The American Studies Association and Fascism

The American Studies Association or ASA approved a boycott of Israel and NOW we are concerned that these bigots will influence others by their eliminationist agenda.  I read an excellent piece by Peter Beinart, the bête noir of American Jewish literary circles and it is really well written as one would expect from him. In it he deconstructs the hypocrisy of the politically dubious ASA and what he refers to as its ‘morally myopic’ agenda in denying the legitimacy of a democratic Jewish state, even alongside a Palestinian one.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/17/the-american-studies-association-is-really-boycotting-israel-s-existence.html

What is the controversy all about? Simply put, the ASA is a small association of American professors who teach a discipline that is called “American History.” On Monday 16^th December they voted to endorse a boycott of Israeli universities. They did not vote to boycott any other country nor would they. Curtis Marez, chief gauleiter and association president did respond to criticism of their particularistic approach to Israel by limply telling the New York Times “one has to start somewhere.” But while I am not a betting man I would lay very long odds on the chance that the ASA will boycott any time in the foreseeable future any Muslim country, or for that matter, China, Russia or Venezuela.

The issue that the left has with Israel has been crystallizing over many years. The Left is not a hegemonic faith group – so to ascribe to them a universal belief system would be as bigoted as is the ASA. But the characteristic prejudice of the purist is a stain that many would publicly deny but privately wear with pride.  Here are the articles of faith:

1. All Jews are Western.
2. Following on from the crime of being Western, all Jews are colonizers and imperialists.
3. Similarly racist is the contention that all Jews are white skinned.
4. All Jews are middle-class.  Therefore they are the timeless enemy of the workers. This is justified by education and ‘cultural inclination.’

We have brought the problem onto ourselves and not because we have been insufficiently critical of Israel or ourselves as Jews. God knows that we are the most intellectually bellicose, argumentative and too often obnoxious know-alls on the planet.  Our group identity is based on us being a caring and therefore hyper-expressive, thinking people. But because we are not a hegemonic, a missionary faith, we do not silence our internal critics and by allowing a thousand flowers to blossom we are far too often not just at odds with ourselves but in open warfare against each other.  A person who is born of parents who profess a Jewish ‘identity’ who in turn professes a similar ‘identity’ but only in order to use this spurious distinctiveness to attack Jews is a too common intellectual instrument of our enemies.  Jews who use this weapon do so as racists, far too eager to gain acceptance from people they fear will never truly accept them as equals.

The final characteristic of this ‘leftist’ group is that they are fascists.  No matter what proof you provide in contradistinction to the four articles of faith to which I refer above, they will never accept the validity of your arguments because they adhere to formal fallacies or if you wish, fallacy by association.

Because Jews (those that do not agree with them in absolute terms) cannot be anything but as they see them (or us) we have no right to disagree with them and therefore any argument we put forward that contradicts them must be ipso facto, wrong.

Under these circumstances the only remedy is to use identical stratagems.

What do people like Mister Marez fear? It is oblivion. Money is what drives them – lots of it. The louder they are, the more well known they become – the greater their status, the bigger the wad of cash they can claw from the bodies that employ them. There is a balance – academic freedom is not about truth but about what we can ‘get away with saying.’   The professional political racist knows his audience.  Mr. Marez will not be attacking Afro Americans or Latinos nor will he be open to discussion on Chinese or Muslim crimes against humanity. He will certainly hold his tongue and look the other way when the right kind of bigots visits UC San Diego.  Student numbers are directly proportionate to the influence and wealth of the institutions themselves. So discouraging student numbers by attacking the group to which they belong would be an unwise strategy.

Selective morality is unusual neither in nations nor in their universities. Deceit in academia is certainly nothing new.  Self –justification for taking an amoral or actively immoral stand is always easier if we enjoy the support of our fellow academics.  When Iraq was torturing and slaughtering Shiites by the tens of thousand “the Left” kept silent because the anti-war movement deemed resolution of the conflict to be an expression of Western imperialism and therefore, “the Left” would not tolerate any discussion.  Humanitarian concern was met with violent opposition.

“The Left” is morally indigent, viewing any concept of morality as governed by purpose and result.  By this reasoning the “oppressed” can do no wrong and the “oppressor” can do no right.  If morality is an instrument of politics then terms are defined not by ethics but by ideology – concepts of morality become not just time specific but also location and community dependent.  Under these conditions the Law is at best a guide and at worst, a conceit.

Peter Beinart summed up the issue with perfect precision when he stated that the issue is “Not that the ASA is practicing double standards and not even that it’s boycotting academics, but that it’s denying the legitimacy of a democratic Jewish state, even alongside a Palestinian one.”

And we should be concerned because outliers create unease but little else, until that is, they build a momentum dictated by fashion.   Hitler did not succeed because all Germans were genocidal racists but because a small and ideologically committed group was able to convince the rest that their way was acceptable; that violence and murder was alright.  And academia actively and enthusiastically collaborated in this program because in it, they saw the benefit to themselves.

Winter Deaths and Economic Myopia

A headline from ‘Metro’ 22^nd November 2013 reads: “How winter kills more people in Britain than in -30C Sweden” and “There were 25,535 ‘excess winter deaths’ – people who died as a direct result of the cold – in Britain in 2011-12 compared with 3,385 in Sweden, it was claimed.”  Once we take into account the differing population sizes the excess winter deaths accounted for 4.61% of all fatalities in Britain compared to 3.76% in Sweden.

Sweden suffers far more from what is designated as ‘severe’ weather than does Britain. It has up to 120 days per year of snow lying on the ground (in London it is less than 5) and the temperature can fall to as low as minus 53 degrees Celsius.  In the UK the lowest temperature ever recorded was minus 27 degrees Celsius.

In 2012-13 the number of people who died due to the freezing conditions rose to 31,100. Most of those unnecessary fatalities were over 75 years of age (82%) and most of those fatalities were women.

It isn’t just energy inefficiency or sub standard accommodation that is at issue here. The attitude in Britain is that energy companies are entitled to make a profit even when, as monopolies, they enjoy protection from competition.  This state protectionism encourages contempt for the consumer and creates an abusive relationship with the public.

Government exploits the poor and the middle classes through its policies and then is coerced by fear of instability to subsidise the marginalised consumer.

People are unable to borrow from banks to purchase property and rents are too high for most workers.  This creates a situation in which government has to intervene to subsidise housing.  The banks profit from a subsidised property market.  The banks enter into a minimum risk relationship with the state to subsidise rental housing and keeps the price of home ownership artificially inflated. The rental market profits the banks that provide the loans to the well off to purchase their rental portfolio while the government controls the spigot of funds available for that housing.  The poor then have to be housed in rental accommodation they will never be able to afford to buy.

Many people have insufficient funds to keep their homes warm in the winter time. Remember that statistic.  The old people don’t complain, they just die - 31,100 people died from cold – the number of people who suffer in the winter (but survive) will be many times greater.

In Britain de-nationalisation was supposed to create competition and efficiency but the imperious attitude plaguing the larger corporations instead protects the economic behemoth.  Banking and Energy are the twin establishment beasts. We want to keep Britain ‘British’ at least in terms of our economic independence but true competition would open up the market place to hundreds of banks and dozens of energy companies. This would reduce costs and yes, it would save lives.  Energy companies would have to reduce their prices and take risks to survive. In Britain today they have no need to do either.

The ‘big six energy suppliers’ refers to Britain's largest energy companies.  According to Wikipedia they supply gas and electricity to over 50 million homes and businesses in the UK and they control 96% of the energy market. Similarly, the retail and commercial banking markets are dominated by only five banks.

Economic and financial resilience is the key to weathering any downturn in the economy.  But the protected juggernauts have no incentive to keep the cost to consumers low or to take any risks with their low value consumer customers and if the government bails them out in the bad times it encourages their recklessness in their high value commercial transactions.  It is the reason that the global financial crisis which has now been running since late 2008 has not touched the energy company’s profits and why the banks in Britain were able to weather the storm – they retain their centrality to Britain’s economy as the government fights to protect them from European interference.

Better policy making by the government (any government) would deliver a strong economy without being reliant on high unemployment, cheap foreign labor and high government protectionism. But an economy that has so many monopolies must create movement of senior personnel between those monopolies but no advantage to those people that utilize their activities.  If that distorts the economic model then social policy is created to prevent frustration from spilling over into violence and disorder. That social policy can only be financed effectively if the government has sufficient revenues to fund it.  With an economy that is so besotted with central control that situation can only become less stable as more people become dependent on government assistance.

The State is influenced in its guiding principles by obsessive regulation of society which is expressed through paternalistic policies offering short term solutions to ameliorate but never solve any of the problems afflicting the economy.  This paternalism has constructed a fool’s paradise in which ‘anything goes and anything is possible’ or at least that is what society, through the media, instructs us to believe.  But then the reality is something entirely different. It is this contradiction that is creating much of society’s stresses and it is also the reason that nine million Britons, (that is fifteen percent of us) has a criminal record.

We are psychologically conditioned to respond to stress reactions but the purpose of that reaction is survival. We aim to return our situation to a manageable level. If we are unable to exercise effective control in our lives we become stressed. So, on the one hand we encourage unrealistic expectations and then we are dumbfounded by the panoply of medical conditions that appear to be increasing in complexity even as our medical knowledge and sophistication expands exponentially.

The unspoken question that no-one is asking is how we prevent our society from creating enormous pockets of inequality, of deprivation and violence?

And that brings me to my final economic issue.

Mark Zuckerberg believes (FP Magazine December 2013) that “the story of the next century is the transition from an industrial, resource-based economy to a knowledge economy” but that smacks of a “let them eat cake” mentality.  It makes assumptions which are unsustainable without recourse to negative eugenics programs or an apocalyptic vision of death camps in our ‘green and pleasant land’.

It isn’t bureaucracy that keeps unemployment and poverty doggedly high but the attitude of politicians and business leaders that people can adapt to anything.

A member of the British governing classes very recently stated that fifteen per cent of Briton’s have an IQ that is less than 85. OK then, what are this fifteen percent going to do in the knowledge economy?  They won’t become doctors or nurses and they won’t be able to compete with cheaper immigrant labor.

The politicians tell us all to buckle under. They tell us immigration is good for Britain. But they don’t have to compete for jobs. I have a friend who is a master tradesman. He was unemployable because he did not speak Polish.  I am not anti-immigrant. I am ‘anti’ the idiots in government who think that the not so smart and the not so ruthless don’t matter. I am anti the politicians on all sides of the house that dismiss the ‘expensive’ tradesman who has spent most of his (or her) life perfecting his (or her) art because they assume they cannot always find a solution to the problems they created. And I am anti the educators and their bureaucratic henchmen who insist that people are machines to be engineered.

In the 21^st Century, in the giddy rush to progress no-one, no group, no party has a vision for the future that has people, all people, at its centre.  In a world obsessed with the rights of the individual we have raised the individual as a group identity onto a lofty peak, as gods, while we ignore the individual as if they are worthless because as individuals they distract us from the ideal.

In the 21^st Century no one should freeze to death, or live in fear of the cold. Government has condemned too many to suffering and too many to permanent insecurity.  We possess today a model for a society that drives the expectations of the many for a consumerist heaven that does no more than to enrich the coffers of the state and to betray the long term interests of the people.

Incitement Faith and Peace

If competence were the only per-requisite for negotiators then peace would also be achieved through unsolicited concessions and generosity of spirit. But that would be naive. If we do not acknowledge history then we build up the false expectations of one side or the other that history can be repeated. Nations negotiate for advantage, not for any altruistic reason.  Nations build up prejudices over centuries at the expense of the disenfranchised; they exploit weakness to disempower their victim.  If the weak become strong, any atrocities committed in the past are inevitably revenged, creating a new dynamic for conflict and “historical” grievance.  Disequilibrium does not result from inequality but from a shift in relative advantage.

Until they gained self-determination, Jews were a persecuted minority in the Muslim world.  That damaging asymmetrical relationship was the currency of mostly Arab rule from the time that the mythical figure of Mohammad appeared on the scene in the 6^th Century CE (or AD) and until Israel’s liberation in 1948.  Firstly let me explain that last statement.

Religious figures of the magnitude of an Abraham, Jesus or Mohammed are objects of faith – None of them can be proven to have existed.  That is why we call it faith. If we accept their existence by virtue of the writings of the men who followed them it does not automatically follow that we must also accept the theological mandate, or diktat that men of faith have demanded.  That is Islam (submission); it is not Judaism.  Our heroes were never infallible. To accept without questioning all of the religious literature written mostly by men assumes a universal altruism which does not exist in the historical record. Fallibility does not make faith any less important to people’s lives but it does mean that we do, ALL OF US, have a choice. That choice is whether we accept what others write about us in order to impose upon us a label or whether we allow the other their faith, but choose to disagree with the relevance to us of their theology or writings.

If some of those writings are offensive then we must also decide how we are going to interact with both the script and those people who adhere to its message.  At the same time, our response must not make us insensitive to the feelings of either our friends, or out enemies. Jewish fear and past history has made many Jews narrow-minded and fearful of criticism. Taking every slight as a new call for our ethnic cleansing does not help to explain our fears and causes us to appear as if we care for only one issue.

This is our problem and more so for Jews than for Christians and Muslims. For while the Church recognises that some of what has been written over the centuries by Christian theologians was toxic by design and murderous by intent, the Shoah encouraged a reappraisal by many but not all Christians of past narratives and the relationships that they created.

Islam though, has never been forced either by circumstances or by religious necessity to confront the original sin of its creation, its blood lust, and its ongoing narrative contempt for all non-Muslim infidel nations.

The Muslim triumvirate of holy writings are the Koran (the word of Mohammed), the Sunna (the body of traditional Islamic law based on the life of Mohammed), and the Hadith (the account of things said by Mohammed and his followers which is the canonical basis for Islamic Law.)  The most canonical Hadith is Sahih al-Bukhari. It is said to be 98 per cent violent jihad.  To many Muslims it is the most important book after the Koran.

The Koran ridicules the non-Muslim and while there are said to be many contradictory passages within it, the doctrine of abrogation enables followers to pick and choose; to behave with casual disdain or with violent assault.  Earlier passages in the Koran are more tolerant, probably because they refer to a period when alliances were necessary in order for the faithful to grow in strength and gain control. Later texts are much less tolerant; Mohammad and his conquistadors were powerful enough to repudiate earlier treaties of amity and to assail their competitors.

The tragic reality is that while reciprocity is the key ingredient to tolerance in society, it is wholly absent from countries in which Muslims form the majority and in countries where they are the minority it is the reason multiculturalism has failed.  Demands that we respect the Islamic right to preach hatred and to behave with bigotry are unsurprisingly accompanied by expectations of protection that are often in excess of any thing offered to the targets of that hatred. 

A very small selection of statements by Muslim leaders follows:

 

• Jews are “the scum of the human race, the rats of the world….and the offspring of apes and pigs” Abdul Rahman al-Sudais, imam at the Masjid al-Haram mosque in Mecca.  The Sacred Mosque or The Grand Mosque is the largest mosque in the world and surrounds the Kaaba.  al-Sudais has a global audience.

• Israeli leaders “cannot be called humans, they are like animals….Israel is the sinister, unclean rabid dog of the region.” Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

• “Against us stood the most intelligent people on earth….we succeeded in compelling the Jews to do what we wanted … and what have we given them in return? A piece of paper!....we have established sophisticated machinery to control and limit to the minimum contacts with the Jews. President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. (Ephraim Dowek, Israeli-Egyptian Relations 1980-2000 (London: Cass, 2001) Also, see below.)

• “Over the decades he (Mubarak) reduced interaction with Israel to the minimum level, he fostered a culture of virulent antisemitism in Egypt, turning his country into the world’s most prolific producer of antisemitic ideas and attitudes.“ (Palestine Betrayed. Ephraim Karsh)

Islam’s 'friends' say that these are no more than the extreme views of radical fringe groups. They are not. They are the views of the political and religious leadership of the Muslim world.  These quotations aren’t insane rants of incoherent gibberish nor do they emanate from the orifice of some clinically delusional nut. University professors as well as world leaders believe in the writings of a mythic 6^th Century warlord whose lust for power rapidly built a political force that today threatens to dominate the globe.

If Muslims scream hatred from the political and religious pulpit then peace is not possible, except as a sham.

The USA, desperate to keep Russia from re-establishing its influence in Egypt turned a blind eye to the unadulterated poison pulsing through the veins of the Arab world’s most influential nations (Egypt and Saudi Arabia) just as it now does so, with Iran, Turkey; the Palestinian Authority and Gaza.  Short sightedness fosters greater long term regional instability because it makes nations bereft of trust and insecurity is never a formula for international peace.

I am reminded of the threat of a previous era. During the peace protests of the 1960’s a favoured mantra of the anti-nuclear lobby was the strategic estimate that nine nuclear weapons were all the Soviet Union needed to destroy the UK. The USSR had deployed 50 missiles against mainland Britain. The language used by Israel’s enemies against her and against Jews worldwide precludes nothing.  If words are bombs the greater Muslim world is its premier nuclear power.

The terrible rhetoric of Israel’s enemies has its Islamic foundation in the deserts of Saudi Arabia 1,400 years ago. The US President and his political followers here in Europe expect Israel to trust in them when they have not EVER been minded to sanction those for whom this primeval bigotry is just business as usual. This grotesque tolerance follows naturally on from an extreme form of individualism that accepts elemental chauvinism as a right for others to display, and more frighteningly, as a right of others, to act upon their beliefs, without interference.

Throughout its history Trojan Horses have taken many forms. ‘Religion of Peace’ is one of the memes used by Islam and its western apologists. Most of the Near-East was created by Britain and France after the First World War. In 1920, the San Remo Conference created a legal basis for carving up the defunct Ottoman Empire into artificial states. Those states were always dysfunctional and they could only ever be ruled by force of arms.  Read again the words of hate.  If containment contributed to the fall of Communism, why then, do we actively prop up hate saturated Muslim nations?

Perhaps the main issue is this: the greater Israel’s insecurity becomes, the more difficult it is to negotiate, let alone promote a two state solution. Is it in the interest of the USA and others to ignore incitement from the Muslim side and to subsequently blame Israel for its intransigence?  There are financial penalties for doing what is right, and huge financial benefits to embracing Hitler’s Muslim predecessors.