The bigger the State, the bigger the lies
Now that all the Old Bailey verdicts are in, myriad slippery vipers are wriggling out of the shadows in relation to the Hackgate trial. Among these are the deletion of ALL emails from Rebekah Brooks’ time at the NotW – a staggering 41 million of them – the removal of her pc’s hard-drive (which was then “lost”), the questionable nature of her Dubai holiday “ignorance” of the Milly Dowler affair (she emailed, texted and rang the office several times during her absence), crucial evidence of previous use of blagging experts and hackers withheld from the jury – being ruled not relevant to the charges Brooks faced…and further to my point in yesterday’s Slogpost, no, the jury did not see the tape of her admitting paying money to police officers for information.
It seems to me increasingly here that Rebekah Brooks faced exactly the charges she wanted to face; what observers and commentators need to decide now is how and why that situation arose.
We are, all of us in all our different backyards, constantly having to figure out and speculate about what has happened, and why. What really happened about the Golden Dawn arrests and the disguised bailout payment in Greece. Whether the Lazar affair and media protests in Hungary are really about abuse of expenses and a free press, or just another EC-inspired attempt to position Viktor Orban’s government as corrupt and fascist. What’s really going on about the Cretan energy deposits. Why the EU decided to meddle in Ukrainian affairs. What the connection was between the attack on French sovereign bond yields, and the sudden decision of Hollande to do a policy volte-face. Why Stephen Hester really left RBS so abruptly. The list of subterfuge is endless…and the willingness of Middle classes everywhere to go along with the official version infinite.
The larger the size of the tribe, the easier it is for the Truth to hide.
It does occur to me that – across continents and cultures – there is always a desire by the Establishment to position those who question the official line as saboteurs, fantasists, extremists….and then ultimately, as terrorists. When actually, of course, they are merely the Opposition.
I always smile when governments are caught being two-faced, and thus evoke media speculation: within hours, the speculation is condemned as “wild speculation”, “irresponsible conspiracy poppycock”, and “talking the country down”.
Behind all that ironic bollocks is a recognition that the largely depoliticised middle have an innate desire to be respectable. A sure way to keep them on the Party Line is to suggest that it is, for instance, somehow ‘Unbritish’ to suspect conspiracy in the way Rebekah Brooks was tried, or ‘UnAmerican’ to opine that Barack Obama has been one of the most ineffectually anti-libertarian Presidents in US history.
The craving of respectability is a deep-rooted tribal insecurity, based on the fear of being cast out from the stockade and left alone to face the sabre-toothed tiger. Many people will believe any old cock rather than stand against the tide and say, “I’m sorry, but this doesn’t make sense”. I am very well aware of this myself, having spent far too much of my life craving acceptance…..and yet unable to stop myself from raining on every parade that strikes me as anything from jingoistic or ignorant to absurd or inappropriate.
I suspect many people suffer from this sort of tectonic tension within themselves. It comes back, as so often, to the relationship between the good of the pack, and the inestimable ethics of the individual. The Chinese Mao ‘modernised’ language shows ‘nation’ as a Big Man befriending little persons. Most of the European Left shares this well-meaning but essentially dangerous view….yet wish at one and the same time to tolerate every fluffy, every pc idiocy and every illiberal religion. Therein lies the Left’s muddle: it simply cannot make up its mind whether the State or the Individual should be the bigger….and so tries in vain to have it both ways.
The neoliberals have a much more focused – some would say rigid – approach. Their desire is for the State to give way to the Globalist Corporation. Every bit as muddled and dishonest as the Socialist ideal, it is a diaphanously flimsy veil that fails utterly to hide the anarchic greed that lies beneath.
Social anthropology points to an obviously superior alternative: an alternative that uses the experience of the past to guide the future – as opposed to yearning endlessly for Time to be turned back;
Such experience teaches us that a pack (or community) of a size to which the individual can relate is more likely to value the individual – and thus more likely to attract the genuine respect of that individual. Under this regime, citizen and community are equal.
The bottom line of this approach is no power without responsibility.
That is to say, every official must be accountable, and every citizen made aware of the consequences of selfish actions. I repeat tonight an unpopular view: tax paid should be based on behaviour, not income. The first is an encouragement of ethics, the second arbitrary plunder.
Both State Socialism and Neoliberalist Globalism obsess about scale, abhor creativity, and encourage either the trade unionist closed shop or monopoly dominance respectively. By contrast, the mutual communitarian entrepreneurial model rejects both State and Superstate as viable government forms for an intelligent pack species….and actively encourages each person’s contribution – while rejecting protectionism as counter-progressive.
In the non-virtual, real-live community, there is nowhere to hide. It’s easier to get on by being creative, and far, far easier to bring a bureaucrat to boot.
The future is most emphatically not globalist. Hold that thought as we all continue trying to hold our Leaders to account.