Is it Racist?

I have some questions to ask?

Why is it acceptable for British politicians to criticise decisions or actions made by the USA?
Why is it acceptable for British politicians to criticise decisions or actions made by France or Germany?
Why is it acceptable for British politicians to criticise decisions or actions made by North Korea?
Why is it acceptable for British politicians to criticise decisions or actions made by China or Russia?
Why is it acceptable for British politicians to criticise decisions or actions made by the EU in general?
But why is it not acceptable for anyone to criticise decisions or actions made by the Israeli government?

Why does the media get behind outside influences attempting to overthrow an elected government in Venezuela, but ignores Palestine?

Why is it that you can criticise any race or culture in the world but one is exempt?
Why is antisemitism not just called racism? Why does it deserve a special word?

Actually, I can answer all of those questions. The IHRA - International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance - is a body who have created a 'working definition' of antisemitism. It is recognised by the UN and most countries appear to have adopted it in some form or another. It essentially defines antisemitism as any criticism of anything that is related to Jews is a criticism of the Jewish people. So if you think Benjamin Netanyahu and his band of Likud politicians are unjust in their treatment of other dwellers in a similar area to where most of them live and you voice this opinion contrary, you are a racist.

I find that disturbing.

What I find more disturbing is that the Labour party is systematically accused on an almost daily basis of being antisemitic, yet I've only ever heard one example of their antisemitism in almost two years and that was a tweet from a radical leftie criticising Likud over it's treatment of Palestinians. He's been expelled. For tweeting racist antisemitic comments...

I'm sorry, but, what the actual fuck?

My paternal grandmother was Jewish, albeit lapsed and ostracised because she married a gentile, but it's in my blood somewhere and I wouldn't give a holocaust denier the time of day; I'd shout down anyone who would actually be racist - calling a Jew a kike or a Yid. I wouldn't call myself antisemitic (I even worry about criticising Daniel Levy - the Spurs Chairman - for fear of having some nutter accuse me of being a racist. He's a weird looking bald guy but I don't think that has anything to do with his religion...) but by virtue of believing Likud - the current Israeli government - is a paramilitary organisation intent on some kind of radical eradication of Palestinians, I am, by definition, antisemitic. If the BBC reported this they would not report the content just that I'm an anti-Jewish racist who probably worships the alter of Jeremy Corbyn...

You know that I can call Sadiq Khan, the Muslim mayor of London and that would be 100% acceptable, but I can't include the definition 'Jewish' without being accused of racism; like saying 'Jewish' is saying 'dog shit eater' or 'child abuser'. To include one specific race in a definition is worse than any other derogatory description or labelling? If it's to do with the number of Jews who died in the Holocaust, what about the number of Muslims or Hindus who died in the Partition of India? That was done in peace time, not in a war. If I said 'Jewish film producer and serial sex pest Harvey Weinstein' I'd probably get pilloried for suggesting his Jewishness had everything to do with it. But if I mention that the London mayor is a Muslim then everyone else can jump on the bandwagon; including Donald 'Man-Baby' Trump.

How does that work then?

The thing is I firmly believe if the general public who have had antisemitism rammed down their throats for years saw some of the never-mentioned exampled antisemitism most would seriously wonder what the fuss is about. The problem to that is we get no balanced coverage of what is happening in Israel and especially what is happening in Gaza and other Palestinian enclaves. Whatever the politics, the rest of the world is sitting by and silently witnessing Israel obliterate a nation, without a hint of irony. Yes, the Palestinians are 'terrorists', but that's our fault and the Israelis for radicalising them through oppression (but, I can't say that because it's antisemitic). Like it was our fault that there is a rift that won't be healed on the Indian subcontinent or that much of former British Empire-controlled Africa is falling apart.

The media do not tell us what happens in Israel; we don't really know what's going on; the place is more like Soviet Russia for visiting journalists or reporters (Simon Reeve proved that recently on TV). Israel is outwardly a very welcoming country practising an aggressive isolationist politics to its neighbours - who pretty much don't and have never wanted them there.

The Labour party or a big part of it is against backing Israel [specifically Likud] in this conflict; therefore they are antisemitic. Labour party members asked questions of certain MPs of Jewish origin why they supported Likud. They were branded antisemitic? Really; this is how it started: a member for Wavertree asked how Luciana Berger could be a Labour MP and yet support the fiercely right wing Likud party and it blew up out of all proportions, with Berger defending her position by quoting the IHRA. Eventually, she received proper antisemitic abuse, but whether these were from genuine Labour members or from newly-created social media accounts has never fully been explored by our media - because they don't want to report the truth when the lie is so much better.

So, it started with almost innocent questions and exploded into something ridiculous. Berger, Margaret Hodge and a few others used this as a stick to beat the leader they didn't want and the right wing media - whether controlled by Jews or not - saw a way of undermining the Labour party, while simultaneously pushing an Islamophobic agenda and supporting the Tories.

But... You say... How come Labour MPs or Jeremy Corbyn doesn't go on telly and tell people this truth about the 'racist Labour party'? Don't you understand yet? You cannot discuss Likud or Israeli politics; it's not allowed. Apparently, it's called being antisemitic. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy, you can't discuss the elephant in the room in case the elephant gets offended that you might be talking about it, even if it's to comment on the colour of its painted toenails or how it produces nice oranges.

If you can't talk about or address the elephant in the room about why you can't talk about it you can't debate it. Accusations of antisemitism are 97% this. If you mention the Israel government or Likud you are a racist. I can't say it enough, because if the 'press' won't explain it to people who don't care then it's up to me and people I know to do it; without fear of being called a racist (because I will be, especially if people read this and can use it as another stick to beat the Labour party... Except, I'm not a member any more).

No one has ever told me why Jews have to have their own word for racism, unless it's not really racism as we understand it. Zionism is also a word that just to say it has you teetering on the edge of antisemitism. Zionist doctrine is followed by Likud; Zionism is not allowed to be criticised because it is Jewish. That's like the Tories passing a law saying any criticism of their party is an act of racism - a hate crime. Let that sink in and if you think I'm wrong, please tell me why.

On Your Marks... Get Set... Split

Parliament is currently going through a kind of amoeba stage; it's breaking up into groups of like-minded individuals. At the moment we have: the Conservatives, Labour, SNP, LibDems and then you have Plaid Cymru, the DUP, Sinn Fein, a few actual independents and now the Independent Group. But... If it was only as simple as that.

You have a hard left wing of the Labour party which is, by and large, anathema to the rest. You have your moderate Labour MPs, those who won't move because they're in cosy seats. Then you have your centrist or Blairite Labour MPs and you have the defectors. Over on the Tory benches, you have the ERG - the hardline, right wing, Pro-Brexit fanatics who want to literally rip up the rule book and start again in 1840; you have your Conservatives - the likes of Ken Clarke, who are old school politicians and you have your centrists - three of which have jumped ship and arguably as many as 10 more who would join them.

The LibDems could be rubbing their hands together over a possible 'deal' which would, at present, see a block of 22 MPs, which would begin to look like a movement rather than a rebellion. In my mind, the likely outcome of this is a re-branding of the entire set, which essentially would be a new right-centre-left coalition under one umbrella, with a probable manifesto consisting of more investment, more social conscience and a continuation of Blairite-themed economics; trying to please both sides without giving either an orgasm.

As much as I want to sneer at the Independent Group - a limited company, not a political party (so therefore they don't have to name their investors or sponsors) consisting of career or no-mark politicians, the nihilist in me wants to see it flourish. The same nihilist that talked three years ago about being interested in seeing what the hell would happen if we left the EU. For newcomers; while I could never have been correct in what actually happened, I was closer to the mark than many others and in reality we haven't actually left until the end of next month. Therefore many of the worst Project Fear scenarios I might have come up with haven't had a chance to happen yet.

As we won't get what I and many of my friends want; which is a General Election and a Labour government; the realist in me now sees that Corbyn probably isn't going lead the country; the best chance of anything close to his vision might be Keir Starmer - an astute politician but with a personality that makes Theresa 'Skeksis' May sound like an ideal dinner date. He retains his respect and he seems aligned but distant from Corbyn. Starmer isn't what I'd call a socialist, but he has shown he is also a man of integrity. The problem is, if you read my last entry - A Pox on All Your Houses - you'd see I was advocating a new type of politics and political structure in this country and I think, being conceited for a moment, that I'm a bit of a prophet... The thing is a new leader might be too little too late.

Let's look at a hypothetical: if another 15 Labour MPs and 8 Conservatives join the new Independent Group that would put them into 3rd Party territory; this will be an important thing because it would give them more time in the Commons, it would allow them certain permissions. If over the next couple of months and post March 29, we see more defections, we could start seeing some serious inward thinking by the two main parties. As much as I dislike Anna Soubry, she was dead right in saying that the far right of the Tory party is in control of it. They have fought the leaders for 40 years and now they have one who will [happily lie on her back and have her belly tickled] acquiesce.

The press have been attempting to create a schism within the Labour party for three years and even if they lose 30 MPs this won't cause one. However, the Tories have always needed something like this happening if normal people want to have a fairer future. The schism could happen there. The only thing that used to keep their party together was greed; Tories are as disparate as Labour, but the term 'a broad church' is used rather than in-fighting; we have got to a position where so many moderate Tories no longer recognise their party and refuse to accept the ERG as true part of it. The ERG are a party within a party and like Red Wedge in the 1970s, this is unpalatable for a lot of Tories.

However, trust me on this one; there is a lot of right wing sentiment in this country; the divisions between Leave and Remain run deeper than the Mariana Trench and there are a large number of Leavers or Brextremists who would be very supportive of a party headed by Jacob Rees-Mogg, with Boris Johnson and the rest of these elite clowns. The level of intolerance growing in this country is astounding and we're beginning to see Tory MPs looking at this in horror. I said it last time and I still think that there's going to be a massive split between the right wing Tories - the Disaster Capitalists - and the moderate Tories who will not allow the country to be dragged into some un-quantifiable unknown.

We may get to the stage where there are seven parties in parliament and none of them can form a government without the aid of others. People think coalitions don't work; the truth is they do, we've just been a socially divided country that has become even more divided, using unbalanced coalitions as the blame. Consensus politics has allowed Germany to become a world leader. It would work if there is a balance between controlling parties.

Whatever happens the elephant in the room has to be addressed; a large percentage of the UK is xenophobic; we've kidded ourselves for a long time that we're a culturally diverse nation; but outside of the major towns and cities there's a deep distrust and casual racism towards most who aren't British. We are going to be screwed as a nation if we don't deal with this. Not just racism but any -ism or phobia. The Blame Game has to stop. The Whataboutery needs to end. The nation's conversation should not be driven by the Media, yet you need a solution that pleases the Libertarians and doesn't annoy the socialists and the newspapers and TV stations would be the obvious way to disseminate that message. So there's a massive immovable mountain that won't be moved.

Civil War is not such a stupid idea. Countries have torn themselves apart over less. The problem is if there isn't the money to solve these problems now, there's not going to be after Brexit. If the country benefits from any of the money we won't be paying out to areas that didn't vote for the government, will we? Any money will go to the privatised sector, either in tax avoidance or simply as shareholders. Like they were with Brexit, the politicians are ignorant of the fact that in many parts of the country, the divisions are spilling into the streets. There was an interesting bit of news that didn't make the nationals or the TV; in a number of areas post-pub and club violence has increased exponentially and more and more police reports are citing 'disagreements over Brexit'. Families have been torn apart. The ever-tenuous truce between the old and the young has been napalmed. These divisions are being played out in a reasonably civil way by parliament but outside in the real world there's an underlying hatred building - for someone - anyone.

Don't get me wrong; I'd have a 2nd referendum tomorrow, but I really don't think that will solve anything. If it is anything but decisive it will be more divisive. What happens when the Remain MPs have to accept that the population has spoken again and not their way? I wouldn't bet a fiver on Remain winning another vote; I'm not confident. If the vote is Remain by a similar margin, how do you quell the right wing? How do you calm the Eurosceptics? How do you stop the violence and recriminations? I'm not being melodramatic; people fight about football teams in this country; Brexit makes football pale into insignificance.

I've got to conclude that as things stand, we're all fucked.

A Pox on All Your Houses

One of the interesting (for me) things about writing all of this stuff over the last few years is that the way I've often written about the same thing from an enormous amount of angles or perspectives. Politics is a serious interest for me from an anthropological point of view and toa sit in my armchair and comment on it degree of activism; it has caused arguments and loss of friendships on both sides of the political spectrum - because, I do have friends who vote differently to me, but life is too short to allow flare ups to hinder the big picture. We all have to live together whatever the outcome.

This is the underlying problem with Brexit. We cannot split the country in half and let the Leave side have the bit that's furthest away from mainland Europe; even if it was as simple as that, I don't think even our current government would consider it. So, whatever the Brexit outcome the country is going to have to heal and the shock of the lack of money for investment in all the areas who want change will probably be the most devastating in the long run; the spectre of Brexit is going to linger for generations - even if it turns out much better for many.

A great example of what the UK might end up being like would be if you talked to any social historian who knows Corby, in Northants. 'Little Scotland' is notorious in my old stomping ground, but it is everything that might happen to the UK encapsulated inside 40 years. It boomed, it wavered, it crashed and it was ignored. It took generations to change the attitude of resentment towards any government, any council or anything politics. Corby's working class suffered like almost no one else in the country in the late 1970s and throughout the 80s and 90s. Despite the investment and improvement; the growth and the influx of new people, there are areas that are almost ghettos - yes, I know, there are almost everywhere, but these are enclaves of the habitual unemployed; the petty criminal, a black market and a place that has always existed slightly outside of the rest of the world. The hate of government is so strong, there are areas that do the worst things a right wing government would love. The 21st century brought new opportunities, but the unemployed - long-term and the children of, blamed Poles and foreigners for taking the jobs they believed were rightfully theirs despite probably only a handful actually applying. Unemployment as a career was a life option and it was through government neglect not some plot devised by someone other than cynical governments.

No one has done enough or the right things. What are the right things? Who knows any more. We don't have the equipment to do anything on the scale the country needs; we don't have the politicians who can change things because the powers that be will resist that kind of change regardless of the consequences. Yet, we are seeing the death of politics as we know it. 100 plus years of the status quo being held between two parties and a couple of also-rans could, foreseeably, be destroyed over the next few years. The disdain, lack of trust and anger under the surface from all corners of society is palpable. The blame game is out in force like nobody's business and the information war ratchets up another notch. The problem is the political parties who encouraged their factions and supporters to champion their causes via the internet have created marginalised fundamentalists, unseen in this country before. It is the fault of all the governments of the last 50 years, but escalated with the advent of faster digitalisation.

What can be done about it?

Nothing; is the simple answer. We actually had a referendum a few years ago about some form of proportional representation and that was convincingly dismissed without so much as a complaint from either side about reruns or unfairly handled, but it was the LibDems and they don't really do much at all any more. They're just this small party with 9 seats and a history of propping up the scumbags who caused this mess we find ourselves in. There won't be a change to the way we elect people, so presumably there needs to be a bunch of new parties to sit alongside the Conservatives and Labour, offering a hybrid of policies but with differing ... national... concerns.

This isn't actually a joke. Say all the Tories right of Anna Soubry and left of Michael Gove decided that they were not going to be held to ransom and weren't going to have a No Deal Brexit; a far right 'Tory' party could emerge, maybe stealing the name the Commonwealth Party, looking at Nationalism, independence, reunification of Empire and following the ideology of Rees-Mogg and his cronies. This might sound like a far right party, but it would be marketed as a party that looks after National interests; has many policies that would attract a lot of Tory voters; arguably it would concern CCHQ in seats where being slightly right of fascist is a way of life.

Over on the left, Corbyn's Labour party may end up deselecting a number of MPs who have, frankly, been a thorn in the Labour party's side since Corbyn was elected. Like the Tory Eurosceptics, the Anti-Corbyn MPs are just as dangerous because they represent a very middle ground of the party. If the Tory party drift further right and the likes of Anna Soubry and left of Jo Johnson might be tempted to join up with the middle ground Labour MPs and form a British Democracy Party - as dull and status quo maintaining as you can imagine; but, more important than anything else, with a inclusion manifesto with enough constraint to keep as many happy as possible. Economic policy might not ever do enough to convince more left wing voters, but the point is there would be, at least, four factions of MPs and something's got to give (The reality is there are actually about 10 differing ideologies at play across all parties; but the lines are starting to blur which is why talk of splits and new parties has risen - it shouldn't be ignored; it's the best idea politics has had in years).

There is also the other possibility; a new party that is both a mix of socialist - investment in people and industry - while being slightly protectionist with a sprinkling of national pride and understanding the things that the people are concerned about. A party that steals as many ideas from others in a way that interests voters, the way UKIP did with their 'It's Fun to Be a Racist' slogans and fine line in hate crimes and stupidity.

What is really needed is for someone to look at the major issues that affect different regions; see if these issues can be solved or if they need major surgery in and around to ensure the issues can be solved. If racism and anti-foreign is a problem, then educate people about the benefits of multiculturalism but have enough constraints that people coming to this country cannot expect the same freedoms as they would have once - however you word it, it's going to sound racist.

Equally, we desperately need someone to slowly change the way Brits think about others. Xenophobia - because, deep down it is a fear more than a blatant KKK-styled racism, this is probably the largest part of the problem; the giant pink fluorescent elephant in the room playing the trombone and drums. Yet it isn't just this, it's educating rural people about towns and cities and city people about rural lives. It's ensuring that the social problems of regions stay regional. To get the newspapers to stop fuelling what can only be described as hate crimes in order to continue selling newspapers about the hate they stir up. This is not censorship, this is prevention of propaganda, whether overt or covert and ultimately a public service, even if some red-faced twat in Barnsley thinks it's wrong - tough. Frankly, the media has far too much power now; we once believed that corporations owned the planet, but the media does, and the media is a desperate rabid beast. It is narcissistic and self-destructive; it has essentially become everything science fiction films brushed over because it was too long and drawn out to make interesting. Digital made the media into monsters and the people who own them are beginning to treat the world like it's actually a giant soap opera.

So, we need new types of politics to suit the way the world is. That, ultimately will be two kinds of people - generally speaking - socialist/liberal/conscientious humans or national/libertarian/introspect tribes or tolerance against intolerance. These two 'political' positions are like oil and water - they don't mix and both sides have militants who will go to extremes for their ideologies. History tells us that whenever the Right rises beyond tolerable levels we have a war; the world doesn't look that safe at the moment. If the world continues to fuel wars, civil or major, then the displacement of people will continue; we struggle to 'keep them out' at the moment, if things get worse...

In an existence that has peaceful humans on one side and confrontational humans on the other, confrontation always wins out. Humans are the epitome of chaos.

At home, we do need new parties that offer different agendas and ideas. We need, as crazy as it sounds, more coalitions but less perilous than the last two; we need two parties sitting on 400 seats, split in a way that one cannot bully the other into things that could destroy them for a generation. We need politicians who will work for the country's interest but prioritise its people. If not all of them, then as many as possible - no one is perfect, this world has too many imperfections, but it could be fairer. We have to acknowledge there are a lot of people in this country that would probably vote for a party because of one issue because people have grown so accustomed to economic restrictions they like their scapegoats to become sacrificial lambs. It could be because no one really feels that the government can be stopped and if Brexit goes badly that feeling will fester. The divisions are already too far gone for reconciliation; democracy needs to work and it won't with the present incumbents. The people need to trust politics is working for the people; it needs to be seen doing things in the public interest.

Too much of what is happening recently is about preserving political institutions while looking after personal interests. Governments are not private industry franchises for MPs to make gain; it should never be like that and it should never be so laissez-faire about the way it uses parliament to supplement already largely wealthy existences. Government should be run by people who want the best for as many people as possible. Lobbying should be abolished to be replaced with procedures to make cases for and against things; money should never be more important than a human life. We need to change politics to change the country.

Then, maybe, we need to spend less looking over our shoulders at what others might be doing and more looking forward, together.