Terror Attacks with Reference to Jeremy Corbyn

As usual, Jeremy Corbyn is one of the few politicians making sensible remarks. Regarding recent terror attacks in Europe and the U.S. two points must always be remembered.

Any political theorist, casual observer or even Tony Blair and Barrack Obama will admit that there is a direct link between Western military intervention in the Middle East (Afghanistan, Iraq) and the rise of ISIS; this is because our military presence has destabilised the area, creating unrest and further hatred for the Western world. This is what Corbyn recently pointed out. Thus, whether we like it or not, many Western governments are complicit in this whole affair. On one side, there is an already existing religious fundamentalism; on the other, there is our violent military intervention.

To say, as Boris Johnson has, that Corbyn is in anyway trying to justify or legitimate the actions of terrorists is a complete misinterpretation or calculated twisting of words, I find it hard to believe this man is Foreign Secretary. To disagree with the West's obvious link with the rise of ISIS, as Tim Farron has, is erroneous and ought to cast doubts on this man's political and intellectual capabilities. Farron has also argued that Corbyn is using the terror attack to further his own political ends; this too is erroneous. Corbyn is, importantly, reminding us of an obvious and widely agreed on connection; we must always see these atrocities with clarity in order to combat them; we must never shy away from the reality of the situation. To accuse Corbyn of "muddled and dangerous thinking", as Sir (ughh) Michael Fallon has, is to cast doubts on this man's capabilities too, seeing as though Corbyn is attempting to look at what has happened fairly and from all sides. This isn't about being "loony lefty" or "hard right", its about being fair and looking at complex situations in a complex way.

Another point is that horrific terrorist acts and other atrocities occur regularly in the Middle East that we simply do not hear of in the popular press; this should not be the case.

Media Bias with Reference to Jeremy Corbyn

The media creates a landscape that structures and greatly influences how we view the world. 

Individuals and groups can come up with notions and ideas that have no basis in reality, that are unfounded and invalid. When such notions and ideas circulate widely enough in our media-landscape many, many people start believing them.

It is important that we all properly reflect on how we've come to our views and whether we can back them up. 

With ideas there can be degrees of validity; some ideas may be more valid than others depending on how much evidence one has to support them. 

We need to think about these things if we want to relinquish the control that media has on us.

British national newspapers - The Sun, The Daily Mail, The Daily Express, The Daily Mirror, The Telegraph, The Times, etc. - have a tremendous influence on the thoughts and lives of the British public. They create a landscape in which many ideas and views circulate. 

Now one idea I am thinking of that has been very widely circulated is that Jeremy Corbyn is a weak leader. Admittedly a minority of our journalists and national newspapers may dispute this. But this is, by and large, the general consensus. It is a view that the conservative campaign actually rests on, for the alternative to Corbyn is Theresa May’s “strong and stable leadership”. 

The view that Corbyn is a weak leader always seemed completely unfounded to me. I couldn’t find a scrap of evidence to back it up.

Looking at Corbyn’s past, thoroughly, will show you that he is an individual of unique consistency and integrity. He has taken anti-inequality and anti-establishment stances throughout his career. Despite pressures even from within his own party he has never wavered on his principles. He is one of the few politicians to properly stand up to corporate greed and war and the most elite members of society. In this respect he is not remotely weak.

Many of our national newspapers, which, to iterate, circulate ideas and influence thoughts, are owned by billionaires with deeply vested interests. It is thus safe to say our media-landscape is intensely skewed and uneven, mirroring the dominant interests of those with money and power and the unfair neoliberal system in which we live.

Recently, Corbyn has been accused of being a “terrorist sympathiser” in reference to the IRA. This is because, about 30 years ago, he was present at a number of peace negotiations with members of Sinn Féin. This has become a major issue in the media-landscape, reaching front pages and headlines across the national papers. 

However, what has not become nearly as major an issue in the this landscape is the fact that May, a few months ago, met the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. The British government has sold and continues to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia who, as of 2015 to the present, is bombing Yemen. As Mark Curtis has pointed out, "the Saudis have been funding terrorism for decades". 

Yet we do not hear, across our national newspapers, that May is a “terrorist sympathiser” doing “dodgy deals” with the Saudis, or that there is “blood on her hands”. 

Why was May not grilled by Andrew Neil in reference to Saudi Arabia and the horrific killings in Yemen? Neil spent much of his interview with Corbyn grilling him about the IRA, because this is what the media has deemed an important issue. 

Our establishment media (which includes the BBC as well as the billionaire-owned rags), so deeply ingrained in the minds of the public, is thus fundamentally rigged from the very start. This is why independent bloggers and online news sites are so inspiring, significant and commendable.

We all need to realise how the popular press operates and we all need to fully reflect on and understand the things we say and the views we hold. There will always be differing opinions and this is okay, but views must always be analysed. 

The Vilification of Jeremy Corbyn

In politics, clear understanding of a party's policies is most significant. What does the party currently stand for? What are it's enduring principles? This should be blatantly obvious and I shouldn't have to make this point. But, judging by the mainstream media, the point, clearly, has to be made.

Recently, I have found it fascinating how a certain British political figure has been so vehemently attacked and undermined by so many people and whose views have either been ignored or distorted by the popular press. The ongoing situation is a symbol or template of much that is unjust, insidious and detrimental in politics and our society, which is why I am so powerfully drawn to it. This situation regards the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn.

The backlash and vitriol directed at Corbyn from so many angles - David Cameron, Tony Blair, Richard Branson, Neil Kinnock, various other members of his own party (see below for sources 1, 2, 3, 4), the popular press in general (see below for sources 5, 6, 7) - is extremely indicative of how our society operates. Corbyn undoubtedly poses a threat to New Labour, the Establishment and Neoliberalism, bearing in mind that these systems have led to the Iraq War, the 2008 Financial Crash and Austerity. There is certainly something going on here. No other recent British political figure has received such unwarranted negative attention and vilification.

Some of the things often said of Corbyn are that he is radical, unrealistic, impractical, a threat to national security. Such reactions exist solely because his views go against the prevailing and underlying values and fictitious stories of our war-mongering (also see this) and neoliberal society. His views are not radical, far from it. They are wholly sensible and pragmatic. Some of the primary things Corbyn wants are a minor redistribution of wealth, a robust NHS and a well-funded Welfare State, and the pledges of his party reflect this. It is the dominant values of our neoliberal society, underpinned and enforced by many of the stories found in our "impartial" news sources, which are radical, in a very detrimental way.

Establishment and billionaire-owned media construct powerful narratives that have little to no basis in reality. Such narratives are often motivated by self-interest and greed and seem to toxify the minds of many people. Sadly, people hurt by such narratives also, often, repeat them. I feel if any person, from any background, can do one thing, it is to accurately understand the nature of media narratives, whether they be from the BBC, the Sun or the Guardian. In this sense, I am talking about perceiving truth or having an accurate awareness of the very world in which we live. Before we can grow and develop as a society, we need to perceive beyond the dominant media cloud of misinformation and find a place of clarity and fairness.

Another insult levelled at Corbyn is that he is not a good leader. I have not heard this insult used against the leader of a party nearly as much as it is used against Corbyn and the people who use it don't elaborate on what they mean or don't back it up with valid points. It is vital to unpack what one means when one says or repeats phrases like good leader.

As far as I'm concerned, a good leader is clear, calm and communicative. A good leader is someone who has a stable set of views and who has demonstrated that they will hold to those views no matter what, in other words a good leader is principled and has integrity. A good leader has a coherent vision of what they wish to achieve. A good leader is someone who can make difficult decisions; decisions that, for example, go against the status quo or familiar. A good leader is someone who will stand up for and give a voice to minority groups and those less fortunate. A good leader is sincere and honest. It is hard to tell whether someone is sincere and honest, but one can get a good idea by looking at their past and seeing whether they genuinely and consistently act on what they believe and espouse. Also a person's public image might point to sincerity and honesty, in that they may not dress and act exactly as they are expected to, they may not give in to such pressures. A good leader is passionate and may not necessarily convey that passion through rhetoric and energetic speeches but by tirelessly acting on what they believe in and never giving in to pressure. I can't think of a better demonstration of passion.

During his interviews and public appearances, I have never seen Corbyn lose his temper and he has always expressed his point clearly. Corbyn and his party have a strong and coherent vision, as shown in their 10 pledges. Corbyn has views, on foreign policy for example, that go against the grain and yet are a necessary step toward worldwide diplomacy and peace, showing he is very much capable of making difficult decisions. Corbyn has been a committed activist throughout his career, fully dedicating himself to helping minority groups and fighting for equality. Corbyn isn't interested in rhetoric, spin, personal attacks and facades and has always acted on what he believes. If one feels compelled to address the concept of leadership, it is necessary to go into more detail.

Corbyn "called on the government to use the money it was spending on the 1986 wedding of Prince Andrew to Sarah Ferguson to improve department of social security advice services, called for hereditary peers to be ejected from the House of Lords, and spoke out against Britain's independent nuclear deterrent" (Rosa Prince, 2016: 99). Corbyn voted against section 28, the 1988 clause of the local government act, that banned the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities (Prince, 2016: 99), unlike Theresa May who voted the opposite. In 1990, Corbyn "helped Tony Benn install a plaque in the crypt of the House of Commons to mark the spot where the suffragette Emily Wilding Davison (who later died by throwing herself in the path of the king's racehorse) hid on the night of the 1911 census to record her residence as Parliament" (Prince, 2016: 99). "While Thatcher declared Nelson Mandela a terrorist and opposed sanctions, Corbyn joined the executive of the Anti-Apartheid Movement and protested outside the South African embassy in Trafalgar Square" (Prince, 2016: 102) and among 100 protesters was arrested for doing so. Corbyn was vice-chairman of the All-Parliamentary Group on Human Rights and chairman of the Parliamentary CND Group.

In 2001, Corbyn helped create the Stop the War Coalition and in 2003 voted, with 149 MPs, against the Iraq war, while 412 MPs voted for it. In 2011, 557 MPs voted in favour of bombing Libya, 13 against; Corbyn and John McDonnell were among those 13. The Iraq war and the bombing of Libya have now been widely shown to be great mistakes, across the political spectrum, as the Chilcot report and the report on David Cameron's Libya intervention have emphatically confirmed.

Corbyn has been committed to anti-war and anti-inequality causes throughout his life, in spite of various pressures, largely from within his own party (for more info see Prince, 2016: 89-106 and 139-153), to do otherwise. I think it is safe to say he is not a careerist and is a consistent and trustworthy individual who doesn't give in to pressure. Some might say he is strong or indefatigable and is undoubtedly capable of making difficult decisions.

In the popular press, which greatly influences peoples lives, it is rare that I have come across sustained, balanced and intelligently argued analyses of situations. Instead I have mostly found dishonest, highly opinionated and unsubstantiated claims. These points are sharply and frequently illustrated in the popular media's portrayal of Corbyn.

A study at the London School of Economics found that three-quarters of newspaper stories about Corbyn either twisted or failed to accurately represent his views. The content of 8 national newspapers were analysed between 1 September and 1 November 2015. While it is true that each newspaper and writer have their own agendas (though some writers achieve more objectivity than others) and that many politicians are ignored or distorted by the media, the degree to which such distortion and ignorance takes place with Corbyn is particularly high. There is a statement signed by 100 intellectuals, the well-informed Noam Chomsky among them, that sums this up:

"The leadership of Jeremy Corbyn has been subject to the most savage campaign of falsehood and misrepresentation in some of our most popular media outlets. He has, at different times, been derided, ignored, vilified and condemned. Few journalists attempted to fathom the reason for his overwhelming victory in the Labour leadership contest in 2015 and few have sought systematically and impartially to explore the policies he has promoted as leader. We do not expect journalists to give any elected leader an easy ride but Corbyn has been treated from the start as a problem to be solved rather than as a politician to be taken seriously. The reason is that he has never been part of the Westminster village or the media bubble and that he has never hidden his commitment to socialistic politics. At a time when austerity, insecurity and racism remain real threats to the lives of many people in the UK, we believe that Jeremy Corbyn can help to provide a way out of the mess we are in. We condemn the unwarranted attacks on his leadership by an unelected media and call on those who want to see meaningful and progressive social change to stand behind Jeremy Corbyn" (see below for source 8)

"Corbyn is electable. Corbyn, the fair and unpretentious leader of the labour party, is one of the very few high-profile politicians capable of leading the country at this time and alleviating many of our societal problems. He is calm, clear and communicative and throughout his career and life has been committed to creating a fairer and more equal society. His past activism and willingness to stand up for what he believes in shows us that he is a man of integrity, someone we can all trust. Obviously, the views and policies he stands behind are of utmost importance. But as an individual I believe one glance at his past tells us that he will steadfastly hold to and fight for those views and in this respect he is a rare and particularly competent leader". Because we are constantly told with such "authority" and conviction that Corbyn is unelectable, unorganised and unrealistic, this is simply what many people think. But if you can reverse such statements on a large enough scale, you can dramatically shift how people think. This is media. This is conditioning.

In light of what's been happening in recent time - continual war, racism, rising poverty, the environmental destruction, austerity, etc. - Corbyn or someone with his track record ought to be embraced by our country. But it is quite the opposite case. We are living in a particularly pivotal period of history. In years to come, with the benefit of hindsight, our period will be analysed, light will be shed, and more people will be able to see more accurately. It is about taking a step back, or forward, and assessing a situation from some degree of distance. Neoliberalism, the Iraq war, the environmental crisis, the 2008 financial crash, austerity, Brexit, Donald Trump, Corbyn. These characters, events and processes are all inextricably woven in a complex drama. The question remains, will enough people understand before its too late?

Bibliography

Prince, R (2016). Comrade Corbyn. Biteback Publishing Ltd: London

Websites

1 - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/19/corbyns-leadership-unprofessional-and-shoddy-says-heidi-alexander

2 - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/22/ex-shadow-minister-accuses-jeremy-corbyn-of-discrimination

3 - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-tended-to-read-from-prepared-script-at-cabinet-meetings-says-former-frontbencher-a7220836.html

4 - http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/07/lilian-greenwood-mp-jeremy-corbyn-continually-undermined-me-job-i-loved

5- https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3499995/the-labour-party-is-not-even-fit-enough-to-be-the-opposition-let-alone-the-government/

6- http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jk-rowling-jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-dumbledore-hogwarts-wizard-politics-a7221981.html

7- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11749043/Andrew-Gilligan-Jeremy-Corbyn-friend-to-Hamas-Iran-and-extremists.html

8- https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/08/labour-jeremy-corbyn-and-the-search-for-the-partys-henry-vii

Post 26

In C.G Jung's Rehabilitation of the Feeling Function in our Civilisation, Marie Louise von Franz points out that the rationalist scientific attitude has taken a large and unbalanced hold on modern society and culture, and that this attitude, taking such precedence, makes most of us feel disconnected from our environment. It desensitises us, inhibiting or delimiting our feeling function. As a result we lack emotional awareness and sensitivity.

Modern science, originating in Europe in the 16th century, translates naked reality into abstract formulas and measurements, and by doing so has achieved technologically astonishing feats. But, Jung and von Franz argue, this process has caused us to lose a raw awareness of reality.

Abstract conceptual systems form an automatic psychological barrier between us and pure experience. We thus feel isolated, from our "truer" selves and from others. Our empathy and ability to "truthfully" observe what is going on around and within us is diminished.

Von Franz uses a quote from Jung as a young student in which he argues that any scientific knowledge obtained from unethical means, such as the mistreatment of animals in laboratory experiments, does not have the moral right to exist. This I feel is an interesting point for, though we may have developed impressive technologies and knowledge through science, at what cost are they developed?

Many people don't genuinely think about how things are produced and what their effects are. Many things and processes are taken for granted. This is understandable since if an oligarchic society doesn't want you to know something that will threaten its position you won't know it, unless you actively seek it out, which can be difficult. As a species we may feel ourselves to be intelligent, for example we have developed very powerful technologies and weapons, but think about what we have done and may intend to do with such weapons. Materially we may be powerful but emotionally, psychologically, maybe spiritually, we are not.

The significant point von Franz addresses is that the scientific method abstracts from reality and thus encourages widespread feelings of detachment, which in turn engender various social problems. To me, however, not enough emphasis is placed on this point and von Franz does not push her analysis far enough. This is where Marshall McLuhan and media analysis becomes enlightening.

Our feeling of being detached or disconnected from our environment can be traced beyond the scientific method to the written word - specifically in the Western or European case, the Greek-developed vocalic alphabet. Alphabetic writing quietly and powerfully underlies modern human society and culture, providing a context that allows such practices as science to come into being.

A more recent thinker, George Monbiot also sees loneliness, isolation or detachment as our major social problem, but he traces this to neoliberalism. Again, while Monbiot is accurate, his analysis does not go far enough, neoliberalism being an outgrowth of the broader ideological positions of materialism and individualism, which have deep and complicated roots in European socio-cultural history. Von Franz goes further, challenging the fundamental materialist attitude of Western society and culture, as exemplified in modern science, but one can go further again.

What distinguishes us from other species is that we have constructed various abstract systems for translating, understanding and relating to the world within and around us. Such systems can be described as mathematical, literary, philosophical, scientific, mythical, historical.

We have set up a world of practices, fields and ideas that allow us to reflect on our internal and external environments. But we often confuse this constructed human world with reality itself and thus feel isolated as reality doesn't match up or conform to our ideas and expectations.

The medium in the West that has allowed us to erect our particular world of concepts and ideas is the Greek alphabet. The main point to keep in mind with this medium is that its symbols or phonemes are particularly abstract, they are intended to represent sounds. Other writing systems visually resemble the things they denote, thus less abstraction.

It is our ability to abstract from reality to such a high degree that has enabled us to achieve our uniquely Western feats and horrors and it is this ability that has encouraged us to feel detached from things. This shouldn't imply that other technological cultures and societies don't feel detached from things too, just not in the same way. It is this global phenomenon of detachment that is the main problem of our species.

Without being properly aware of what is happening here most of us are, most of the time, psychologically and emotionally hindered. Trapped in such a state we cannot, as individuals and by extension societies, healthily transform.

As far as I'm concerned, like von Franz and Monbiot, in order to solve our main problems as a species we need to understand but most importantly feel ourselves to be fundamentally connected to everything else. This is not achieved simply by reading or education in the traditional sense but by being purely receptive to what is going on around and within us, by experiencing reality in a more naked way, by cleansing the doors of perception.

If we learn to combine scientific, abstract and conceptual thought with a deep, genuine and respectful connection to naked reality, if we can reconcile these two modalities, then, I feel, we can healthily transform, as individuals and societies, and reach an increased state of complexity, intelligence and sensitivity, a new evolutionary stage.

Such an ambitious post as this is predicated on a deep feeling of hope and the ability of words and ideas to motivate people and enable them to arrange, interpret and integrate their unique experiences of reality in a practical way. It is predicated on the notion that we are not passive victims of a cruel universe and that, through clarity of insight, personal development, imagination, tolerance and dialogue, we can take the reins and beneficially steer our lives and societies.

Institutions

When too much abstract intellectual thought has been poured into a movement or revolution that movement becomes rarefied, stiffer. That movement will start telling you how you should think about it and how you should think about other things too. That movement, in short, becomes an institution. This process explains why you get many small factions within movements disagreeing with each other, wasting time, highlighting divisions and neglecting the fundamental, emotional reasons why that movement was born in the first place. Examples of this happening are found in Marxism and Feminism. I would never call myself a Marxist or Feminist because Marxism and Feminism have become institutions, even though I agree with a lot of the ideas that issue from these institutions, like a fair distribution of resources and the fair treatment of all individuals.

Institutions and controlling ideologies need to be overturned if we are to alleviate many unnecessary problems of humanity. Individual liberty and freedom, subtly coupled with an awareness and consideration of our environment, is, in my relative view, the path that needs to be taken.

Ideas and Imagination

Ideas lie behind behind all our actions. Unfortunately many of the ideas many people live by have been enforced upon them and many people are unaware of holding the ideas that they do, which motivate the harmful actions that they make. Thus what I am trying to do on this blog and what I encourage other people to do is take hold of the power to imagine and promulgate ideas.

We have the ability to sing, imagine, realities into existence. In a sense the human race has sung and imagined itself into its current unhealthy state.

Behind such thinking as this is the notion that reality is not fixed or absolute, that reality is mutable, indeterminate, open, which I deem to be a highly positive and accurate notion.

I find it difficult to tolerate the pessimistic and deterministic attitude found in such phrases as "get real" or "dream on" or "that's just human nature and there's nothing we can do about it". These are destructive institutional ideas and attitudes that we are sadly singing into existence and that keep people down, that discourage people from waking up to and standing up for their individuality and worth.

Post 21

It is significant, by thinking clearly, thoroughly and intelligently, to get ones actions and decisions, ones practical and social life, in accord with ones emotions, intuitions and fundamental ideas. To achieve this aim, and concomitant with thinking clearly, we need to perceive beyond the abstract systems and ideologies that usually govern us and reconnect with our actual immediate experiences.

We are pushed around by ideologies and systems which disconnect us from raw experience. We clothe and mask the world with constructs, like spoken or written words, and confuse such constructs with the naked things they are intended to denote. We have come to do this on a massive scale to the extent that many of us are ruled by constructed systems which are usually charged with detrimental (patriarchal, for example) assumptions and opinions.

On a recent post I stated that one of the main solutions to the current cultural dilemma is to open the doors of perception, meaning that we must perceive beyond the languages and ideologies that come between us and reality in its raw state. The raw state of reality would include the rawness of our subjective inner life, of our intuitions and thoughts, and the rawness of our objective outer life, of our environment.

Sadly we are not usually encouraged to connect with naked experience. We are not taught to be properly aware. In fact it takes a (seemingly) subversive unorthodox individual to teach us to mistrust or let go of everything we've been taught and reconnect with immediate experience.

In educational institutions we certainly aren't encouraged to be properly aware. In educational institutions one must not answer back! One must submit, must submit their thoughts and experiences to established paradigms.

In the mainstream news media we aren't encouraged to be fully aware either, here select external events are presented in an ostensibly impartial manner, while they are actually highly subjective presentations with underlying agendas, this is something we simply aren't encouraged to be aware of.

We are being fed through mainstream media abstract solely external information and grow up to feel, due to improper education, that such information is the truth and is all there is, that this is where all our answers come from.

If we were encouraged to be aware of ourselves and our environment in a direct unmediated way then all the events we here of occurring in the world would affect us in much deeper more meaningful ways, they would not be just abstract images and words on a newspaper page, TV or computer screen and we would not simply say from the comfort of our living rooms "oh isn't that terrible" of some horrific happening and carry on as normal with our day to day lives.

I feel that if more people thought clearly and thoroughly about their lives and the world around them they would not go around thinking they were correct, imposing their views onto others; they would be considerate and aware of, they would work in cooperation with, nature, their neighbours, their environment; they would ultimately be far more in touch with their feelings, emotions, thoughts and surroundings.