Shall We "Tone It Down" Or "Tune It Out?" Choose Freedom of Speech - Go with the Latter!

Did you see the images of the mobs in the streets of Pakistan calling for death to those who favor changing the blasphemy law of that country that outlaws speech deemed critical of Islam? These fascist lunatics make Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and the hate-mongers on the Far Right seem moderate. Yet, the two groups, one there - the other here, are separated only by cultural norms - if the named Americans were in Pakistan, I have little doubt but that they would be in the streets calling for the heads of Democrats and any freethinkers who dared offend their passionate medieval worldviews.

But, it is futile and otherwise unhelpful to expect or hope for reason to ensue from the Right as a consequence of the killings in Tucson. One reason is that these fanatics won't change. Already statements from Beck, Limbaugh, Palin and that crowd of shrill demonizers have made that clear. They are not about to cease and desist in their crazed, inflammatory talk. Be real - this is what they do, who they are. They won't change - this is their bread and butter. But the larger reason is that there are simply too many out there just like them - the depravity in this country and amongst the Islamic extremists elsewhere differs only in degrees - for now. As to the idea that their venom might set off those who are mentally unstable, well, I think the connections there are a little tenuous. Surely it does the disturbed no good to hear hate talk in any form,. However, people afflicted with mental problems, estimated at 45 million in the U.S., are so numerous any actions are likely to be insufficient. Many are predisposed to go off for many different reasons. It’s surprisingly, really, that it happens as seldom as it does, given the incendiary rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh and Palin et. al.

The healthier strategy on a personal level is to ignore the Right Wing hate-mongers in order not to get stressed and made ill from the poisons that spew into the atmosphere. Being exposed to their hot airs is to suffer unbreathable stressors. Just stay out of their range. Seek a bit of peace and happiness (or a lot of such) elsewhere, out of range of the madness.

Fortunately, there are plenty of people of good sense pushing back with some influence and effectiveness. They deserve our support.

But, on a personal basis, there is little to be gained and much serenity to be lost focusing on or attending to unsettling news stories or watching the toxic bloviators on programs like Fox TV and other media outlets.

Exercise your right to free speech, as I do here, but spend the bulk of your time pursuing a good and decent life of learning, love, exuberance, kindness and happiness, looking after yourself as best you can. This trumps fretting over the deplorable state of human affairs in this country and elsewhere.

Good luck.

FELLOW TRAVELLERS OF THE RIGHT: The Origins of New Labour

At his second appearance at the Chilcot enquiry into the Iraq war on January 21^st, Tony Blair once again defended his decision to stand ‘shoulder to shoulder’ with George W. Bush. Not to have done so, he said, would have damaged Britain’s ‘special’ relationship with the United States. He as good as admitted that for him this commitment took precedence over any question of legality raised by the failure to secure a second U.N. resolution to legitimize the invasion. Although Blair pursued the Atlanticist policy more enthusiastically than any of his predecessors, New Labour’s subservience to the government of the U.S. was no new departure. It goes back at least to the early 1950s.

Conspiracy theories are often no more than the concoctions of cranks. But that is not to say that there are no conspiracies. Things are not always as they appear to be. For example, in Britain we are encouraged to believe that the police forces are to be trusted and that they operate transparently within the law. In recent weeks ample evidence has emerged to show that such beliefs are naïve: peaceful protest and environmental movements have been infiltrated by police spies who act as agents provocateur. The Metropolitan Police has almost certainly colluded with powerful corporate interests to withhold information from victims of illegal mobile phone hacking by tabloid journalists. The ramifications of the latter case go to the very top of government.

The rightward trajectory of the Labour Party over several decades, culminating the abandonment by New Labour of the last vestiges of the party’s social democratic heritage, has been dealt with in earlier Letters from the UK. Explaining this rightward passage does not require resort to conspiracies or conspirators. The shift to the right was accomplished by leaders who, for the most part, believed that what they were doing was in the best interests of the party and the country. But an important element in the story was missed, although the facts at the heart of it have been known for more than forty years. The triumph of a right-wing leadership in the Labour Party in the early 1960s was made possible by a well-organized and financed CIA conspiracy. 

From the late 1940s, with the onset of the cold war, the U.S. vigorously pursued the crusade against what was described as the ‘international communist conspiracy’ to subvert and destroy the ‘free world’. In some respects this resembled the Third Reich’s crusade against ‘bolshevism’ in defence of ‘western civilization’, and it is not particularly surprising that in pursuit of the anti-communist campaign the US sometimes engaged the services of former Nazis who had valuable experience in these activities. But the defence of the free world required a far-reaching global vision. During the second world war Allen W Dulles, head of the Office for Strategic Services had run a network of effective agents many of whom were to become engaged with the OSS’s successor organization, the Central Intelligence Agency. Dulles set about organizing a range of spying activities to combat the Soviet influence over the international communist movement – a movement regarded by Dulles as a conspiracy. Important targets of CIA operations were the left-wing parties in Western Europe, including particularly the British Labour Party.

In 1945 the newly elected Labour government embarked upon a programme of wide-ranging social reform which involved the establishment of a national health service and the nationalization of many of Britain’s biggest industries. Despite divisions between left and right in the Labour Party and government there was a general commitment to the establishment of a ‘mixed economy’ in which the ‘commanding heights’ of the economy would remain under state control and a progressive taxation system would ensure a fairer distribution of wealth. In the years 1945 – 1951, the left wing of the party, although not in control of policy making, remained a strong influence. After its defeat in 1951, Labour was out of office for the next thirteen years.

It was during these years that the CIA devoted its attention to destroying the influence of the left in the Labour Party and ensuring that its leadership became firmly committed to an Atlanticist policy. Interesting to note is that from the late 1940s through the 1950s there was a ceaseless flow of anti-communist propaganda circulating in Western Europe. Whatever the intention of their authors and however valid their critique of the Stalinist system in the Soviet Union, books such as Orwell’s Animal Farm and 1984, and compendiums such as The God that Failed, played an essential part in the campaign to present all forms of socialism and state control of the economy as the harbingers of totalitarian tyranny – the slippery slope of what Hayek called ‘The Road to Serfdom’. The CIA, with limitless funds and a well-trained army of skilled agents began the task of breaking the influence of the left and the power of the trade union movement in Britain. It was taken for granted that the Communist Party – never very influential in Britain despite its base in some trade unions – was little more than an agent of Soviet Russia. The real target of CIA operations was the non-communist left in the Labour Party and the wider labour movement. It was against such people that the term ‘fellow traveler’ was leveled. Those labeled fellow travelers were said to be either secret communists or ‘useful idiots’ – unwitting tools of communism.

It is of interest that some of the most influential ideologues in harness to this CIA conspiracy were themselves former leftists. Probably the main inspiration for the1950s anti-communist crusade was James Burnham, (author of The Managerial Revolution and The Coming Defeat of Communism), former right-hand man to Leon Trotsky, transformed into a passionate ‘free market’ conservative and enemy of all forms of socialism. Likewise, Jay Lovestone a former member of the US Communist Party, who became a secret spy for the US government, and former Trotskyist Irving Kristol. But most influential of all was another ex-Trotskyist from New York City College – Melvin Lasky.

The CIA conspiracy in Britain followed on the founding in 1950 of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, founded with unlimited funds that year in West Berlin. In 1953 the English language monthly magazine Encounter was launched under the editorship of Irving Kristol. It was aimed at the right-wing of social-democracy and immediately recruited to the ranks of its regular contributors some prominent Labourites, most notably Anthony Crosland. He was one of the party’s leading intellectuals and the author of the influential ‘The Future of Socialism’, which argued that in a reformed capitalism which had achieved full employment, there was no need for traditional policies such as public ownership. The leader of the party, Hugh Gaitskell was an early enthusiastic supporter of Encounter. Another publishing enterprise secretly funded by the CIA was Socialist Commentary, which became the mouthpiece of the right wing of the party. Former communist party member Denis Healy, by now firmly on the right of the Labour Party, wrote about 80 articles for Socialist Commentary and its US counterpart, New Leader (also funded by the CIA) before he became Defence Minister in Harold Wilson’s government in 1964. Crosland, as a member of the International Council of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, worked for many years to re-model the Labour Party on the lines of the U.S. Democratic Party. Others associated with the CIA inspired and funded enterprises were Douglas Jay, Patrick Gordon Walker and Roy Jenklins – all to play important roles in eliminating the influence of the left in the party and making it more like the Democratic Party. In 1960, at the time of the defence debate in the party which resulted in the decision to abandon nuclear weapons, a policy championed by the left, the right launched the campaign group ‘Victory for Sanity’ to oppose the ‘Victory for Socialism’ group on the left. Its CIA –funded campaign, which far outspent the meagre resources available to the rank-and-file of the party, backed Gaitskell’s call to ‘fight, fight and fight again’ to reverse the policy. It succeeded the following year in doing so. With the left seriously weakened, the Labour Party’s commitment to NATO was restored.

It is interesting to note that Melvin Lasky and his fellow CIA conspirators did not object to their protégés continuing to call themselves socialists. Crosland and his colleagues called their enterprise the Campaign for Democratic Socialism. The word could mean whatever they chose it to mean – but it would have nothing in common with the socialism which inspired – and continues to inspire – the left.

The CIA enterprise was blown apart in 1967 when the U.S. magazine Ramparts revealed that 90% of the funding for the Council for Cultural Freedom had come from the CIA. The editors and contributors to the magazine Encounter, were in the pay of the CIA. There followed further exposure in the New York Times. Ex-CIA officer, Richard Bessell, who organized the Bay of Pigs invasion, revealed that ‘The technique is essentially that of penetration. In some countries the CIA representative has served as a close counselor of the chief of state.’

It is true that many of those involved apparently had no idea about the company they had been keeping for so long. Decent, but somewhat naïve liberals such as Encounter editor Stephen Spender, were shocked. Perhaps their fat pay cheques may explain their gullibility. They had been only too keen to dismiss many on the left as ‘fellow travelers.’ Michael Foot, himself so smeared, was led to ask, ‘who were they traveling with?’

They were, of course, fellow travelers of the right. The CIA’s endeavours paid off. The word ‘socialism’ and almost everything it stands for, was expunged from the lexicon of New Labour politics. It remains to be seen whether, faced with the tasks ahead, the Labour Party will be able to shake off this malign encumbrance.     

Money Wars: Beating Up On Beijing?

Are the U.S. and China on a collision course? Consider the following:

During the 2010 mid-term elections, some 30 candidates for the House and Senate are blasting China for everything from undermining America’s financial structure to fueling the U.S. unemployment crisis.

The Obama Administration is accusing China of manipulating its currency to sabotage the U.S. exports trade, and the U.S. House of Representatives just passed a bill to slap huge tariffs on Chinese goods unless Beijing allows the renminbi, China’s currency, to appreciate.

A recent Financial Times article on the failure of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to resolve the currency issue says, “The hostility between Washington and Beijing has escalated into something resembling trench warfare.” Last year a CNN poll found that 71 percent of Americans thought China was an economic threat, and 51 percent of those polled thought Beijing represented a military threat as well.

If one adds to the above the growing tensions with China in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Straits, some kind of dust up seems almost inevitable, though any “collision” would be a diplomatic one. But a major diplomatic fallout between the world’s two largest economies has global implications.

What is going on here? Is China indeed manipulating its currency to beggar the U.S.? Does it bear some responsibility for the high jobless rate and the inability of the American economy to recover from the deep recession?

The answer is both yes and no, and thereby hangs a tale.

The U.S. charges that China is deliberately undervaluing its currency, the renminbi, which makes Chinese export goods cheaper than its competitors and thus undermines other countries exports. 

China is indeed manipulating its currency, although it is hardly alone. In one way or another, Brazil, Japan, Switzerland, Thailand, South Korea and others have recently acted to keep their currencies competitive. Nor is currency manipulation something new. During the 1980s the Reagan Administration and Japan jimmied their currencies to deal with a huge trade gap. Indeed, the current free market orthodoxy regarding currency is a recent phenomenon in world finances, a reflection of the “Washington Consensus” model that has dominated institutions like the IMF and the World Bank for the last two decades.

How one sees the current dispute depends on where one sits. With U.S. unemployment above 10 percent, Americans are focused on policies that will bring that rate down. But from China’s point of view, any major upward evaluation of the renminbi would simply transfer U.S. jobless rates to China.

Since it would also reduce the value of the dollar, it would lower the value of the massive debt the U.S. owes China. “And that, to the Chinese, would feel suspiciously like a default,” says Stephen King, chief economist for HSBC.

In short, a lose-lose deal for Beijing.

From the Chinese side of the equation, the U.S. is essentially trying to unload the consequences of the economic meltdown that Wall Street caused onto them. And they dispute the fact that the huge trade surplus is all that relevant to the current crisis.

According to Avinash D. Persuad, chair of Intelligence Capital Limited, even if China’s $175 billion trade were to somehow vanish, it would only have a 0.25 percent impact on global GDP. “The Chinese economy is one quarter of the U.S. economy, and at the peak of the U.S. trade deficit, China’s surplus was less than a third of it. David may have toppled Goliath, but he couldn’t carry him,” says Persuad.

Exports have certainly been important to China, but they have only accounted for 10 to 15 percent of growth over the past decade. The main engine for Chinese growth has been investment. According to the World Bank Growth Commission, of the 13 countries that have enjoyed 7 percent growth rates over the past 10 years, all had high investment rates. These countries suppressed consumption by keeping wages low, allowing them to amass enormous pools of capital to pour into upgrading infrastructure or subsidizing industry.

The Chinese economy is booming—it never fell below 8 percent growth during the recession—but it has some vulnerabilities. The Chinese recognize that they need to shift their economy, away from an over reliance on exports to one based more on internal consumption,. To this end, private wages and consumption have been growing at a respectable 8 to 10 percent yearly. The thinking is that as consumption goes up, China will absorb more of its own products, and thus the trade deficit will go down.

China’s new five-year plan is trying to do exactly this. Shifting some of the economy away from the wealthy coastal areas toward the more depressed inland part of the country will help alleviate some of the wealth gap between city and country, and encourage urbanization in the interior. All of these moves will increase consumption.

If China were to suddenly raise the value of its currency, however, it would tank a number of export industries and flood China with unemployment. Since the jobless have no money, consumer spending would fall, setting off yet another round of layoffs and plant closings. This is, of course, exactly what Americans are discovering.

Beijing has begun raising the value of renminbi—it has risen 2.5 percent since June—but the slow pace has not satisfied Washington. The Americans are making other demands as well. For instance, the U.S. would like China to lower its interest rates, which the Americans argue would encourage consumption.

But as Michael Pettis, a professor of finance at Guanghua School in Beijing University and a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment, points out, “This would be terrible for China. Lower interests rates and more credit will fuel a real estate boom and boost both capital-intensive manufacturing and infrastructure overcapacity—all without rebalancing consumption.”

From China’s point of view the problem is not its currency, but the lack of controls over American finance that can lead to tsunamis of money flooding into underdeveloped countries. In 1997, waves of international investment money poured into Thailand, tanking the currency and spreading a recession, the so-called “Asian Flu,” throughout the region. The Thais took action Oct. 12 to block a similar “hot wave” of money pouring into the country by imposing a 15 percent withholding tax on capital gains and interest payments on government and state-owned company bonds. Besides Thailand and South Korea, other countries in Asia, including Singapore and Taiwan, have also intervened to keep their financial ships on an even keel.

Europeans are blowing hot and cold on currency intervention. Last year and this past winter and spring, the EU had good reasons for remaining quiet about the subject of undervalued currencies. The Euro lost 17 percent of its value vis-à-vis the dollar over the Greek financial crisis, which had the effect of powering up European exports, in particular, by Germany.

Germany—the world’s second biggest exporter after China—is as much concerned about the dollar as the renminbi. “We expect the U.S. to continue its policy of printing money,” Aton Borner, president of the German exporters’ association, BGA, told the Financial Times. “This will trigger a currency devaluation spiral that will hit Europe the most.” The dollar has dropped 20 percent against the Euro since June, and German exports have fallen for two months in a row.

The Europeans are certainly concerned about the currency crisis, although they are a good deal more sotto voice than the Americans. “It’s not helpful to use bellicose statements when it comes to currency or to trade,” says French finance minister Christine Lagarde.

Governments that don’t take care of their own during an economic crisis will eventually pay a price at the polls. Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim is certainly concerned about defending Brazil’s currency, but he is careful about applying pressure as a way of finding solutions. “We have good coordination with China, and we’ve been talking to them,” he said, adding, “We can’t forget that China is our main customer.”

China charges that the U.S. is scapegoating it for problems that the U.S. created for itself, and there is certainly a strong odor of China bashing these days, even from intelligent and thoughtful people like Paul Krugman, Nobel laureate and New York Times columnist.

Krugman says that while he wants to avoid “hard ball policies,” he says “China is adding materially to the world’s economic problems at a time when those problems are already severe. It is time to take a stand.” Krugman suggests the U.S. should put a 10 percent surcharge on imports from China, a move more likely to ignite a global trade war than bring China to heel.

Last weekend’s meeting of the G20, representing the world’s leading economies, firmly rejected an American proposal aimed at the Chinese (and also the Germans) and opted for a less confrontational approach. The meeting in Seoul, South Korea essentially asked everyone to play nice. Whether they will or not remains to be seen. The subject is sure to come up again in November when G20’s heads of states get together.

The solution is not a quick re-evaluation of the currency, says the Carnegie Endowment’s Pettis, but “statesman-like behavior, in which the major economies agree to resolve their trade balances over several years.”

“Statesman-like behavior” is not exactly what is coming out of Washington these days.

Politicizing the Tucson Tragedy- When the Right and Sarah Palin Go Viral in De Nile)

Jared Loughner, a psychopath without a trace of conscience, shot Congresswoman Gabriel Giffords and 19 others in a Safeway parking lot rally for the Congresswoman on January 8, 2011. Six people, including a 9 year old girl were killed and the others, seriously wounded. Giffords, shot in the head, survived the attack and is still in critical condition in the University Medical Center in Tucson. Her wound is grave, and it appears that if she survives, things for her will never be the same. Upon hearing the news, I felt down and depressed at what had become of America, our country. Knowing that the random act was that of a crazy person did not seem to ease my depression for the rest of the day.

After the tragic mindless shooting of many innocent victims at had set in, Paul Krugman, Chris Matthews, and a few other reporters pointed a finger at the violent rhetoric of Sarah Palin as a contributing cause. Though the heinous act was committed by a deranged 22-year-old gunman and had no direct connection to Sarah Palin or that what she might have said did, in fact, inflame the mind of a senseless villain, Palin had used the gun talk words of “targeting” and “crosshairs” before when describing how her supporters, be they Tea Partiers, Republicans, or Independents, needed to vote Gabriel Giffords (and her kind in other targeted states in her crosshairs) out of office. Palin’s crosshairs were posted online and fixed on the states during the 2010 Election that Palin said were “targeted” and in the “crosshairs” because the wrong politicians (according to Palin’s beliefs) were incumbent Democrats in those states. And according to Palin, a housecleaning was in order. See Palin’s gun talk rhetoric and Giffords’ video warning of such almost a year ago

Paul Krugman, columnist for the New York Times, may have ignited the first GOP that caught quickly like wildfire that saw everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Bernie Goldberg to O’Reilly, Hannity, (you know the crowd) to cry foul.  A Krugman piece on the Tucson Shooting

Well, all the big league players used their broadcasting Media resources (Fox News, for example) ‘round the clock for days after the shootings, demonizing the Democrats and liberals for “politicizing” the tragedy. They said in monotonous repetitions that made your teeth hurt that this was the act of an insane monster, and to “politicize” it all (like the Left-leaning Media was doing) was horrific and shameful. It went on and on and on for days. You got a slant from Bill O’Reilly and his ghoulish backups like it was the number one hog-rooting, hog-wallowing story that Fox News had to offer. Charles Krauthammer, a regular Fox News contributor hashed it over with O’Reilly in their tandem trashing of liberals about how much they “politicized” the shootings. Under the talking head of Krauthammer were the words, “Harvard educated MD and psychiatrist.” Hmmm. I had had the misfortune to listen to the cadaverous Krauthammer before when I was slumming and flipped the channel to see what new untruth Fox was telling America, and know what? Never did I see that caption under Krauthammer’s difficult to view likeness. Was Fox saving his credentials for just such an occasion that might seem credulous? Then there was Rush. The following piece by Sam Seder commenting on Rush Limbaugh’s comments is pregnant with how violent rhetoric really does incite people to hurt people: Rush and Sam Seder each discuss the likelihood of whether violent hate rhetoric is dangerous

Then came Hannity and all the pig squeals and high-pitched oinks expressing indignation at the Left for politicizing the shooting tragedy. There was Dick Morris, of course, perhaps the only face exuding more bile, dishonesty, and one-way huckster talking points than the Huckster himself, Mike Huckabee. Yada, yada, yada, all day and all night long.

So you take a drive to the post office to get away from such vitriol, and up jumps Rush Limbaugh with his own spin on why people should not listen to the awful Democrats who tried to implicate Palin and her violent rhetoric as perhaps an inciter of such nut cases like Jared Loughner, the Tucson shooter who shot 20 people, 6 of whom were killed. 

The Right Wing groups, be they Tea Baggers, Republicans, or just misguided Billy Bobs whose heroes are Toby Keith and George W. Bush have engaged in non-stop, 24-7 blathering on the airwaves and on television. There has been a non-stop attempt to defend Sarah Palin in order to exonerate her from any blame for her “crosshairs” style of talking trash. These angry right wing groups have flayed the Democrats and Lefties, non-stop for days at least 30 times an hour, or every 2 minutes.  I got one question for them all:

Will the REAL politicizers of this national tragedy please stand up?

I don’t think they even realize what projection truly is nor would they really care if America might really benefit from a statement from Palin that would bring us together and strengthen her chances for the presidency in 2012. Palin could become instantly popular with twice the voters she has now if only she would utter something like: 

“The time has come for us to put down our weapons of hate, not to defend them. If I said anything that might inflame a mentally-disturbed individual to commit such a horrific act, I am sorry. I did not mean it literally, the crosshairs thing, and I will strive to do better just in case there might be a sliver of responsibility attributable to me or my campaign rhetoric.” Former press secretary for President George H W Bush said it best: "The strongest way to rise above would have been to talk about suffering, tragedy, hope, strength and recovery," former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told Politico. "But instead she (Palin) followed the more conventional political route and made it about herself rather than the victims."

I tell you she would bring down the house of undecided voters in America. People would believe she is real. But look at it another way: O’Reilly, Hannity, and Rush would be robbed of just another bone to worry by trashing Democrats. Maybe they would feel cheated, who knows?

After 4 days of silence and lying low, Palin finally did speak. On Facebook she posted a video disclaiming any part of such an atrocity as the Tucson massacre. As I watched her words peel off her lips with surgeon precision, I shuddered to think that she was interested in herself, defending herself, denying any part in the shootings at Tucson, and in taking the opportunity to slam dunk the Liberal Media and Liberals. She was right in saying that the shooter acted on his own, but she did not seem to care that her violent remarks in the past such as “lock and load” or “don’t give up (after losing races); reload” might have played a part in inflaming a mentally-deranged person like Loeghner to wound and kill so many innocent Americans. 

For those in the News Media who said she might have some responsibility in the incitement of mentally unstable individual like Loeghner, she dumfounded many by accusing the Media of having a “blood libel” axe to grind against her. Blood libel is a term used to demonize Jews for the slaying of children to take their blood and mix with their unleavened bread for purposes of worship. Damn! Can you believe she would use such a term? Her anger goes deeper for a Media who challenges her and wants her to answer to charges, right or wrong, than I ever could imagine for her to use a term such as “blood libel” against the Media. Apparently her use of the term also angered many in the Jewish community. Palin’s use of the term “blood libel” disturbs Jews

So in Palin’s Facebook defense of herself, she says that the influence the Media has is minimal anyway and not that important. But as a person whose whole career is based upon media coverage how can we accept that? The Media is very powerful in determining events that affect the lives of all Americans. And those who use and abuse the Media to achieve their goals are, in this reporter’s opinion, ultra sleazy. Just look at the contrast between Palin’s Facebook video and President Obama’s address to the American people. The difference between Obama and Palin

I, for one, cannot understand this infatuation with such a dark and insensitive character as Sarah Palin. It is crystal clear that the overall good of America and the American people is not her quest. She just doesn’t give a damn. She proves that she cares most about Sarah Palin. And should be taken at her word. Lest we all pay for it dearly in the future.

FASCIST MOVEMENTS of TWO CENTURIES

Many view European fascism of the 20^th century as a foreshadow of the Antichrist movement of the 21st – if one believes such prophetic script. In that vein, Nostradamus and Christian apostles concur. To secularist, the emergence of early 20th century fascism suggests a future resurgence in keeping with the canon “History repeats itself” – especially if the populace tends to be handicapped by a short memory due to disdain for education. Either way, the final element is the same, although viewed from starkly contrasting perspectives.

Firstly, 20th century fascism was corporatist. Corporations owned and empowered the government. Secondly, it gained a cultic, nationalistic fervor that appealed to the masses (except the educated class and unionists, many of whom were forced into detention or state-sponsored execution). And thirdly, it employed the influence of right-wing religion and the church to gain power. (In 1933 Rev. Ludwig Mueller, a German evangelical minister, was appointed as “Reichbishop of Germany” by Adolf Hitler who then commissioned him [Mueller] and his clerics to create a new Nazi version of the Bible, completed 1938, containing outrageously anti-Semitic passages.)

Of course, after the fall of the Third Reich, religious leaders denounced Hitler by endorsing revisionist history that claimed the Fuhrer and his followers, the Nazis, were atheists and non-Christian. But history tells a different story illustrated clearly in photographs from the era.

It is for these reasons I recognize the modern American Republican Party -- with all its tentacles including the Tea Party and religious kooks – as a revival of the Nazi Party laying down the welcome mat for a new strongman, a figurehead – to grapple power away from the indecisive and gutless – from a divided people thirsting for such a person embodying apparent courage and power of conviction to emerge like the Fuhrer forerunner of 1933. Just as Germans held contempt for the weak Weimar Republic without which the Third Reich never would have emerged, contemporary America (via FOX, rightwing media and religious leaders) hold utter scorn for liberals and Democrats that have not held to convictions but attempted to appease and compromise as their modus operandi.

The new “Leader” will embody the spirit manifested by the current trend which mirrors the Nazis with their nasty little prejudices and nationalism. The self-righteousness, the economic ideology where every tenet must be based on commercialism and materialism ("free markets"), the worship of conservative leaders from the past that actually did more damage than good, the turning of an entire political party into a religious rally...... These are the signs not unlike the pomp and pageantry set forth by Josef Goebbels at behest of Adolf Hitler. Leader worship is next, where they will toss flowers and praise at their chosen fuhrer -- whenever that appearance is timed to materialize for greatest impact.

The current right-wing church is ripe for the Antichrist and will adore him. Because he will speak their language and push their favorite sanctimonious buttons – although they will be far off-base from the original teachings of Christ -- doctrines in direct contradiction to New Testament standards. Christ warned; they refused to listen. Now they're prepped to be devoured. "Satan, dressed as a lamb, is going about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour."

On March 8, 2005, I wrote and posted “PARALLELS TO THE FALL. The following are excerpts:

------------------------------------------------------

This politician changed the course of world history. The southern region of the country was where he began his political career and was the launching pad in his effort to capture the highest office of the land. He was not elected by the majority but was thrust into power (appointed) without winning the popular vote. Although he claimed southern customs, he actually was born in another country — while still clinging to southern ways to influence more votes. His accent was southern which sounded “less educated” to northern citizens – while charming to common folk. But his folksy inflections proved beneficial to his political aspirations as the rural block turned out in droves across the land.

Evangelical fundamentalists were also part of his base. For, without them he couldn't have succeeded, because the academic and artistic class in urban centers rejected him. The national election map was charted and showed farmers and small townsfolk overwhelmingly approving him while city dwellers in the industrial centers, labor and academia supporting Democrats. The map was a quilt of red and blue where the red was concentrated in the rural provinces yet covered the most area because of the base's less density.

The nation was dangerously divided until “good fortune” arrived on his doorstep not long after being placed in power. “Terrorists” attacked and burned the main national landmark — or at minimum, that was the official account.

Tragedy became the tyrant's trifecta. The unelected leader went so far as to publicly define the event “good fortune” and “God's will.” Immediately the government imposed new restrictions on civil liberties under the cloak of fighting terrorism. The fact that the leader had not garnered the majority vote was meaningless after the government building went up in smoke. The nation united in that instant becoming a sea of flags as its citizens turned out en masse to demonstrate patriotism. The eagle was the national bird, and the Christian cross was displayed alongside the Swastica as symbols of religious and national pride. “God and Country” was the nation's mantra, and soldiers wore belt buckles with the inscription “God With Us.”

Could all this have been planned from the beginning — before the terrorist attack of 27 February 1933?

This was the rise of the Third Reich, Nazi Germany, 1933-1945. The 1,000 year empire lasted only twelve, but 50,000,000 deaths make it the darkest period in world history. Thus far.

---------------------------------------------------

Not that the burning of the Reichstag in 1933 parallels 9/11 en toto, the reactions are similar in both centuries on opposite sides of the Atlantic. Bush declared 9/11 his “trifecta” on several occasions, as Hitler declared the Reichstag fire his “good fortune.” They both used national tragedy for personal gain – initiating pretext wars on false flag operations that bankrupted both empires militarily, morally, and eventually economically. The right-wing of both centuries seized power and demonized whole classes of people to energize a hate-filled base. We have yet to see the culmination of this movement.

Still, None dare call Bush-Cheney-Rove’s acts “treasonous.” The Obama administration continues covering for them for the sake of “continuity of government.” But justice ultimately demands its due course despite obstruction by the supposed well-meaning.

Still saddled by the willfully ignorant, America is fertile ground for a re-emergent fascism.

Ignorance brings about the repeat of painful history. A people confined to current conventional thought have no foresight and, thus, incapable of preventing disaster. Its citizens cannot see because they have no will to examine the past. A people without vision perish.

The great German philosopher Karl Jaspers wrote: “That which has happened is a warning. To forget it is guilt. It must be continually remembered. It was possible for [Nazism] to happen, and it remains possible for it to happen again in a minute. Only in knowledge can it be prevented.”

And still the biggest puzzle starts and ends with “why?” Why would a nation so cultured and free allow itself to fall? Germany boasted of a sophisticated, educated people, no doubt. It was seduced by the dark side with popular support. America is no different in that regard.

We have not fallen yet. But parallel lines are drawn into the future. A nation cannot endure political heresy for long. Hitler was in power twelve years before the end. How long will America endure – given the current climate of accepted absurdities, right-wing extremism, and Tea Party dogma?

"First they arrested the communists – But I was not a communist, so I did nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then they arrested the trade unionists – and I did nothing because I was not one. And then they came for the Jews and the Catholics, but I was neither a Jew nor a Catholic and I did nothing. At last they came and arrested me – And there was no one left to do anything about it." ~~ Rev. Martin Niemoller, Nazi prison survivor

2011: PAST YEARS’ UNHONOURED LIST

2011 promises to be a turbulent, troubled year. A palpable mood of apprehension and anxiety looms like a threatening cloud above the obligatory joviality and faux optimism accompanying the end of the decade. Even the ConLib government’s defenders and apologists cannot easily pretend that the coming months and years will not be painful. They know that they are heading into mined and uncharted waters. They are hoping that the painful medicine soon to be administered will be swallowed without protest. Their hopes will almost certainly be vain.

It would be pleasant to report that the government faces a determined army of popular resistance led by an opposition party in parliament willing and ready to lead a mass movement against the most draconian cuts in public services ever attempted in peacetime. But it is not so. There will be resistance. It will come from the trade union movement, from students and young people and from the still disparate but increasingly determined and experienced grass-roots campaigners such as UK-Uncut, who have recently appeared on the streets with dramatic effect. But, unless it is dragged unwillingly into the fray, the opposition parliamentary Labour Party will be ineffectual at best, and – at worst – obstructive. Against the inevitable popular anger that will become more potent as the cuts begin to bite, the forces of reaction are already mobilizing. Police handling of demonstrations will become more brutal; the government will attempt to impose harsher restrictions on the already seriously curtailed right to strike; ‘anti-terror’ laws will be used to demonize those deemed to be ‘trouble-makers.’ Already all ‘respectable’ and ‘moderate’ opinion holds that the demonstrations that have so far taken place have been irresponsible. This will be the charge leveled against all striking workers and all who take part in public demonstrations.

Those, including members of the opposition shadow cabinet, who regard themselves as paragons of moderation, apparently believe that those millions whose livelihoods and prospects are soon to suffer savage assault should meekly accept their fate, or, at best confine themselves to grumbling and hoping for a silver lining. Nothing would suit the ConLib government better than this. No matter how unbearable the pain, you must, in the interests of wiping out the deficit, accept it. If you are amongst the millions of young people who were encouraged to believe they had ‘the right to buy’ their own homes but now don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of doing so, you will be expected to wait for better days. If you find yourself amongst the 500.000 soon to be made redundant without prospect of finding work, you will be expected to endure your plight patiently. Whatever you do, don’t protest too much. Trust us. We’re all in this together. We have the national interest at heart. That is the sentiment and the advice of a cabinet of whose 23 full-time members, 18 are millionaires.

Turning to the parliamentary opposition this New Year of 2011, one is struck by the almost complete absence of anyone of serious political substance. This applies not only to the shadow cabinet, but to the parliamentary party as a whole. It is commonplace now, from the standpoint of supposedly sensible, ‘non-ideological’ political moderation, to attach the label ‘old Labour’ to those remaining on the left of the party who still describe themselves as socialists. The term ‘socialist’ itself is now regarded as a badge of sclerotic antiquity, derided as the delusion of incurable nostalgists. This attempt by the political mainstream and its compliant media to elide socialism from serious political discourse, is itself a highly ideological enterprise. It is part of the intensified assault against the left, Marxist and social democratic, launched in the 1970s and 80s by the Friedmanite Chicago School responsible for the lurch to the right under the banner of neo-liberalism. Not only was the term ‘socialist’ virtually banished from the vocabulary of New Labour; it became – and remains - obligatory never to use the term ‘working class’. Instead one must always refer to ‘hard working families’.

One of the most lamentable effects of this right wing offensive has been the seemingly deliberate encouragement of ignorance and disdain for history. It may be objected that this is too harsh; that television is overflowing with historical dramas and documentaries. Most of this is not serious history but part of what may be termed the ‘heritage industry’. It is very popular but has more to do with nostalgia than history. There is a woeful ignorance, not only about the more distant past, but also about the past that is part of the living memory of older people in this country. Those who have been politically active on the left for most of their lives, may be forgiven for occasionally succumbing to sentiments of despair when contemplating this pervasive culture of forgetfulness and ignorance about the history of the Labour movement in Britain.

The title chosen for this column, ‘Past Years’ Unhonoured List’ attempts to address this elision. For those unfamiliar with what has been called the ‘preposterous charade’ of the British honours system, there are three occasions during the year when the queen, on the advice of the prime minister, confers honours on certain people nominated for the outstanding contribution they are said to have made to public life. Additionally, for others there is the supreme accolade of elevation to the House of Lords – the creation of life peerages. Thus we have an arcane array of Lords and Dames, Knights, and Orders of the British Empire. Nearly 1000 have been ‘honoured’ this year. It is worth noting that of the fourteen bankers to have been knighted in past years, eight received their knighthoods under New Labour. Sir Fred Goodwin, who brought the Royal Bank of Scotland to its knees, received his knighthood from Blair for his ‘services to banking.’

Those old enough to recall political events of fifty and even sixty years ago may have difficulty in remembering much about the past recipients of honours and peerages. But those with any knowledge of, and affection for, the Labour movement in Britain will have vivid memories of many others who neither sought nor received rewards of that kind. To the wider public some of those on the ‘unhonoured list’ will be unknown. They deserve to be remembered and honoured. Many of us, in the past, may have been critical of them for one reason or another. From the standpoint of a somewhat puritanical Marxism, they sometimes seemed too closely wedded to reformist social democracy rather than to revolutionary socialism. Most of them were members of, or closely associated with, the Labour Party. Many were MPs. They were all proud to call themselves socialists. Many more could be included, but here are some who were outstanding in their day and who dedicated their lives to the cause of the working class and socialism.

Aneurin Bevan. 1897 – 1960.

Best remembered as Minister of Health in the post-war Attlee government, ‘Nye’ Bevan came from a working class Welsh mining background. He was elected for Labour in Ebbw Vale in 1929, a constituency he served in parliament until his death in 1960. He was one of Britain’s greatest orators. Always on the left of the party, during the 1930s he was a supporter of the republican cause in Spain and a staunch opponent of appeasement. As a minister he spearheaded the formation of the National Health Service. In 1951 he resigned from the cabinet when Gaitskell imposed prescription charges for NHS dentures and spectacles. With Labour in opposition after 1951, Bevan became the leader of the left wing of the party and was closely associated with the newspaper Tribune. One of his greatest speeches was delivered at the huge Trafalgar Square demonstration against the invasion of Suez in November 1956. It galvanized the opposition to the war and led indirectly to the resignation of Anthony Eden as prime minister.

Best known books: Why Not Trust the Tories. 1944. In Place of Fear. 1952.

Jennie Lee. 1904 – 1988.

Scottish socialist, married to Aneurin Bevan. Born into a mining family, she was elected to parliament in 1929. At the age of 24 she was the youngest MP in parliament. Her first parliamentary speech was an attack on Churchill’s budget proposals. In 1945 she was re-elected for the mining constituency of Cannock in Staffordshire. After Bevan’s death, in 1964 she was appointed Arts minister in Wilson’s government and was responsible for setting up the Open University. She died in 1988.

Ellen Wilkinson. 1891 – 1947.

Ellen Wilkinson was a dominant figure in the Labour Party and wider labour movement in the1920s and 30s. She was elected to parliament in 1924 for the depressed north-eastern steel making constituency of Middlesborough East. In 1926 she supported the General Strike. She lost her seat in 1931 but was re-elected in 1935 as MP for Jarrow, where, during the depression, 80% of the working population was unemployed. She was the main organizer of the Jarrow march to London in 1936. She immortalized the event in her book ‘The Town that was Murdered’. She was a supporter of the Spanish Republic and visited the international brigades in Spain. In the 1945 government she was appointed Minister of Education – the first woman ever to hold the post. She was only the second woman to be appointed to a cabinet post. She oversaw the implementation of the 1944 education act.

Books: The Workers’ History of the Great Strike. (With Frank Horrabin and Raymond Postgate)   The Terror in Germany. 1933. Why Fascism. 1934. The Town that was Murdered. (1939)

Sydney Silverman. 1895 – 1968.

Born in Liverpool into a working class Jewish family he won scholarships enabling him to attend Liverpool University. Unable to find work in England he spent some years teaching English at the National University of Finland. He later read Law at Liverpool University and qualified as a solicitor. As a conscientious objector during the First World War, he served three prison terms. He was elected to parliament in 1935 for Nelson and Colne, a constituency he served for the rest of his life. During his years in parliament he stood consistently on the left of the party. The Labour whip was withdrawn in 1954 over his opposition to German re-armament, and again from 1961 – 63. He was one of the founders of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and in 1960 became Chair of the Victory for Socialism group. His most enduring achievement was his tireless campaign for the abolition of the death penalty which he pursued from the back benches. His private member’s bill was finally passed in 1965. He died in 1968.

Konni Zilliacus. 1894 – 1967

Konni Zilliacus was one of the most extraordinary MPs of the modern era. He was a left-wing socialist and internationalist who had the unique distinction of being refused a visa for both the United States and the Soviet Union. He was expelled from the Labour Party for being a communist ‘fellow traveler’ and, during the Stalinist trials in Eastern Europe in the late 1940s and early 50s, accused by Moscow of being an agent of British imperialism. The son of a Swedish-Finnish father and an American mother, educated in Sweden, Finland, England and America, he was fluent in eight languages and understood several more. He served in the First World War and was later a member of the British military mission in Siberia. He became a supporter of the Bolshevik revolution. He joined the Labour Party in 1919. From then until 1938 he was also a member of the League of Nations Secretariat. In 1945 he was elected Labour MP for Gateshead. Zilliacus was described by Bernard Shaw as ‘the only internationally minded member of any note in the House of Commons.’ He was an indefatigable campaigner for peaceful co-existence during the cold war and a scathing critic of NATO and the Anglo-American alliance. There has been no one remotely like him since.

Best known of his many books:

I Choose Peace. 1949. New Birth of Freedom? World Communism after Stalin. 1957.

These are just a few of the outstanding MPs who belonged to the left wing of the British Labour Party fifty and more years ago. Today, more is the pity, there is no-one to compare with them.

The next ‘Letter from the UK’ (Fellow Travelers of the Right) will return to this theme with a serious consideration of the evidence that after 1947 the right-wing leaders of the British Labour Party were suborned by the U.S Central Intelligence Agency, which was determined to destroy the party as a viable vehicle for radical social change.