Between Two Evils



In a few short words one union boss, Romain Altmann, captured the feelings of millions of French voters immediately after Emmanuel Macron’s victory in the recent election when he stuck his face in front of a TV camera:

It is like voting for your own hangman“, he said. Continue reading


From the Scottish Enlightenment to the European Union


Images: Adam Smith and David Hume

The dust has long since settled on the Brexit referendum and most of the hysteria that went with it. Now seems like an appropriate time to raise some pertinent issues in relation to this major event last year. Prior to the vote many people gave different reasons to justify their personal choice at the ballot box. However, a recurring theme within the Scottish intelligentsia in support of their position to maintain the social and political bond with the EU was ever present. One of the main foundations on which they based their argument to remain was the historical relationship Scotland has always had with old Europe. From the vantage point of the Scottish intelligentsia, these ties to Europe are indispensable; this is, in their view, a relationship based on social, cultural and political longevity, therefore it should be retained at any cost.

At the outset, this assertion that we should continue to place our faith in this relationship with the EU on the basis of longevity and past alliances suggests an absence of solid analysis in the present day context.  After Brexit some felt compelled to say they voted to remain because of their “love for Europe” — but they were keen to make the distinction that their wish to stay was not for any distinctive appreciation of the EU. Well, there is no one loves or appreciates the diverse cultures of Europe more than I, (Camões, Monet, Goethe, Caravaggio, Beethoven) cultural giants  of which I never seem to get enough.  But that is not the point here.  From where the integrationists stand, ignoring the obvious conflation that should be made between old Europe and the modern day plutocracy that the EU has become is, at the least, misguided, if not entirely wrong.

Notions of old Europe and the EU are interchangeable. In the modern day they are one and the same — including all of the negative social and political aspects membership of this organisation entails. Therefore, when we talk in a modern day context about our “love of Europe”, we are also referring – whether we like it or not – to the social, political and financial foundations that underpin Europe; the union itself.

However, this raises some fundamental question: how  was it possible, if a thoughtful critique was being applied to the issue of Brexit, to view “Europe” in its current manifestation as an entity distinctly separate from the European Union?  What powers were acting against the awareness and conscience of the Scottish intelligentsia when they divided one and the same entity into two?

Yes, the distinct cultural riches that we identify with old Europe are indeed undeniable: the great musicians, writers, sculptors and painters — all of those beautiful cities and architectural gems that produce within us experience of the sublime, and endear so many Scots to Europe and its people is, nevertheless, projected and sanctioned under the auspices of the European Union.  Culture and politics are inextricably linked by place and time.

Of course we do have much shared history with Europe to look back on. Our national achievements are many, for we have been innovators across the main disciplines: education, science, mathematics, engineering, philosophy, sociology, literature and art.   We have accomplished so much for such a small nation of approximately five million people, whose ingenuity and genius has demonstrated to the world our capacity to be pioneers in every field.

Also, in no small measure, our innate ability as Scots to adapt and integrate has allowed us for centuries to forge prominent relationships with the other diverse peoples of Europe — and many cultures around the world.  We only have to look at Robert Louis Stevenson’s impact on the Polynesian island of Samoa and its indigenous people to see how integration with others comes naturally to to the people of Scotland.  In short, our nature has always been outward looking, European to a certain degree — with an outlook forged by the characters which inhabited those striking paradigms of the Scottish and European Enlightenments.

From our painters such as Gavin Hamilton and Alan Ramsay, who practised and honed their skills in Italy and Sweden, to John Locke, who based his ideas of good governance in the  ‘social contract’, to our national poet, Robert Burns, whose sojourns to the European continent saw him strike up a brief but intriguing collaboration with Beethoven — to the historian and philosopher David Hume, who spent some of the most rewarding time of his life in France, befriending Jean Jacque Rousseau while the Frenchman was being hounded around Europe — we have always reached out to our European neighbours, recognising, at times, a kinship of social, political and philosophical thought. We earned our place at the European table; deservedly so, through our willingness, essentially, to express the ideals of the Sottish Enlightenment.

However, in relation to last year’s referendum, our historical links to Europe raise other questions in the context of the 21st century. Was this nostalgia — for the friendships, alliances and cultural links we enjoyed with ‘old Europe’ — the overriding driver behind the majority vote of Scotland’s intelligentsia to remain in the EU?

Furthermore, is nostalgia acting as a brake on a broader and more objective consensus on the role of the EU in the lives of common people around Scotland, and holding back the people of this nation, rather than offering the Scottish people a progressive future that means real independence and much more than something just in name?

These two premises offered above, in the face of all documentable facts on EU corruption — complicity in imperialist wars of aggression — and the slow but reckless destruction of key European economies such as Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy, may offer cogent explanations in understanding the inexplicable loyalty demonstrated by the bourgeoisie in Scotland to their political masters in Brussels.

Then there are the refugee and migrant questions. In allaying ourselves with the EU, we are committing to an elite group of autocrats who have not only overseen the gradual breakdown of Europe and the bankruptcy of several countries operating within the auspices of the remit, but we are also dealing with an organisation that has greatly exacerbated the migrant crisis. The hypocrisy of the EU knows no limits: so-called leaders like Merkel have castigated eastern European nations for not doing enough to accommodate the flood of people coming in from three continents. It’s certainly true, some nations could have done much more, particularly for the traumatised Syrian refugees

However, as leader of the union what was Merkel’s solution to such a grave problem? Instead of diversifying budgets and resources, putting in place a well devised plan, she and several acolytes decided that the EU would be better to placate a dictator who is presently destroying his own country, and pay Erdogãn £6 billion of the tax payers money as a down payment to corral, indefinitely, hundreds of thousands of refugees from Syria into holding pens; thus prolonging the human agony.

This seemed, from Merkel’s vantage point, like a good plan for managing the “livestock”. Better be relieved of these huge sums of money and pass on such a grave problem than do what they’re paid to do from the public purse and create real solutions. However, Erdogãn acting true to character, reneged on the initial agreement and would only support such a plan on one condition: the EU must find another 6 billion as final payment, or their would be no such deal. The leaders of the EU willingly obliged and accepted this extortion.

This is one of the more overt examples of EU bureaucracy — efficient in pushing paper, drafting diktats, standing by while a haemorrhage of tax payers money is squandered on a plan that cannot possibly resolve such a grave crisis. — but entirely incapable of being proactive and demonstrating a capacity to problem solve one of the greatest issues Europe, and the world at large, has faced in almost seventy years. Our European ‘leaders’ were unable to devise a long term strategy of their own that would adequately serve a redistribution of funds, resources and manpower — and provide a long term humanitarian solution acceptable to those unfortunate refugees, all of whom, have been broken by civil war.

If we are to be honest with ourselves while maintaining our romantic attachments to old Europe, it also behoves us to follow the tenets of the Scottish Enlightenment — and the message its greatest thinkers like Adam Smith and David Hume conveyed — all of whom advised that we do not forget to enquire into the social realities of our time — acting on them accordingly.

The fathers of the Scottish Enlightenment expected everyone to apply the process of objective analysis, question social and political legislation of the day, challenge social injustice in our time, express informed opinions, to come up with our own solutions, to have our voices heard at the highest level — not simply absorb standard political narratives and believe what we are told to believe and place our trust in a failed union and failed policies.

Today, in the 21st century, we are told that the EU is a force for good and that full integration will benefit every Scottish citizen. Yet when we take a closer look at historical facts — and the negative economic impact the EU has had on Scotland, the political and economic evidence does not stack up to support such an erroneous view. We only have to absorb Brussels’ poorly thought out fisheries policies to see how Scotland has been denied its natural capacity to sustain its own fishing industry — and that is only one industry among others which suffers a resounding economic disadvantage at the hands of the EU while many key decisions on Scotland are made in Brussels.

Consider the following sobering fact: since European legislation of the fisheries policy, Scotland has had to endure an annual loss of £1.5 billion per year. No. This is not a misprint. Scotland’s economy has forfeited one and a half billion pounds every single year since they were compelled to accept the Common Fisheries policy (CFP). Despite annual protestations, legal challenges, high profile meetings, and an appeal from the Scots who understand the industry, nothing has changed in over a quarter of a century.

One does indeed wonder if the integrationists would still somehow find a way to justify such an inconceivable haemorrhage of the public purse despite the hard facts which point to this policy of social and economic vandalism. Such is the fundamental leap of faith large swathes of the Scottish intelligentsia place in the EU.

A deeper critique of the argument put forth by the Scottish intelligentsia that we should never relinquish those key ‘economic benefits’ while remaining in the EU (presumably they mean we get more out of the EU than we put in) is completely misguided. Those who voted in the referendum to remain because they believed that Scotland is financially better off in such a relationship should also consider some other facts: Scotland has, historically, been a “net” contributor to EU funds, a fact acknowledged by the Scottish National Party, which of course means that historically they are putting in more to EU funds than they take out.

So let us look in more detail at Scotland’s once lucrative fishing industry as an example of the pitfalls Scotland is forced to negotiate in this relationship. On the website, ‘Scottish Independence and Scotland’s Future’, Dr James Wilkie and David Thomson present a compelling case for Scotland to take its fishing industry out of the hands of the bureaucrats in Brussels and repatriate these policies to the control of the Scottish government to prevent further haemorrhaging of its annual budget.

The financial consequences of conceding authority of such a lucrative industry to Brussels, and its Common Fisheries policy (CFP) is very clear; my ellipses in the following passages serve only for the purpose of brevity:

“Fishing has been a key element of the Scottish industry for many centuries… During these centuries the Scottish fishing industry harvested the seas while maintaining healthy fish stocks in balance with the rate of exploitation. In 1970 all that changed with the advent of control from Brussels, a move that resulted in an economic, environmental, ecological, social and cultural disaster… The clear purpose [of the ‘Common Fisheries Policy’ (CFP) was to gain unrestricted access to the rich (being strictly conserved) fish stocks of the UK, Ireland and Norway…especially Scottish waters, which they would otherwise have been unable to exploit.

However, after it became obvious that free access to the fishing grounds for all was going to have disastrous ecological and economic effects, an enormous complex of rules and quotas was drawn up in a futile attempt to correct the damage — but without addressing the root cause of the damage. These ‘sticking plaster’ amendments — the real CFP — only made matters worse… The predictable result was the collapse of fish stocks…and there is still no sign of any genuine reform of the CFP.

The dog-eat-dog” situation created by abolishing the three mile limit and allowing European fleets into the national Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) pitched Scottish fishermen against each other, and this accelerated the reduction of fish stocks, particularly in the Firths and Minches. Scots pair trawlers and pursers felt they should harvest the coastal stocks before Continental vessels caught them.

The British government failed to institute local fishery management schemes, as it had in effect conceded… authority to Europe. The situation again changed dramatically when Spain and Portugal joined the Community in 1986. Offshore fishing in Spain is in the hands of large industrial combines that exert considerable political power.

Spain entered the CFP with a huge fishing fleet not much smaller than the entire remaining Community fleets combined, and contributed nothing substantial to the sum total of Community resources. From the beginning, the by now already over-fished Scottish waters were a prime target for … exploitation, [and as a consequence] the fishing sectors of Scotland and other northern countries were systematically run down to make way for the incomers.”

These are the unpalatable facts. Indeed, in the face of such gross exploitation of Scottish waters, it is difficult not to view this, if one is looking at this objectively, as a policy which is inherently piratical. There is no other realistic way to look at it; a major Scottish industry has been destroyed, and the fish stocks of the northern hemisphere depleted by an act of greed — brought on by a pact agreed between the European Union and the UK government.

In the case of the UK government, this appears to be another depressing example — if the Scottish people do indeed require further proof — that the British government, (and Brussels) still programmed by imperialist mentality, consider Scotland and its people to be no more than a mere outpost — but a lucrative one that benefits both Westminster and its ally the EU.

The Scottish people only have to consider that for fifty years the proceeds of their own oil industry in the North Sea — and the financial benefits of their oil, waters, and fishing industry — have continued to flow south to London, and west to Europe, uninterrupted. Should Scotland tolerate such exploitation indefinitely in the misguided belief that EU membership is, somehow, beneficial to our national economy?

Significantly, later on it was revealed that the initial estimated loss to the fishing industry and the Scottish economy as a whole of £900 million per year was an honest but severe underestimate. An additional 2009 critique by Dr Lee Rotherham for the Taxpayers’ Alliance concluded that the final amount is much higher – in keeping with the figures referred to above:

“The total annual economic cost to the UK of the EU Common Fisheries Policy is £2,813 million, or 2.8 billion… Of that total, £2,100 million was from the loss of access to home waters. Since Scotland has over 66% of the EEZ, then £1,400 million of that loss relates to Scotland. Adding the other estimates proportionally from the TPA study [above] now make the Scottish fisheries sector loss due to the CFP over £1,500 million every single year.

[NB] The 2004 calculation of £0.9 million including the wider related sectors is therefore forty per cent lower than the more recent TPA figure. Little wonder that nobody in the UK government or Brussels repudiated the [initial] estimate at the time.”

Implicit in that final sentence above lies the inherent dishonesty of both the UK government, and the autocrats in Brussels who oversee the inward and the outward flow of finance from Scotland. Indeed, in that final sentence above it is not only the familiar smirk of exploitation we see — but also the sheer dishonesty of the system which is, essentially, saying: “if you don’t notice we’re robbing you, we’re not going to inform you of the practice”.

The EU is precisely the same type of animal that the UK government has always been — they are one and the same when it comes down to extracting the natural resources of many smaller countries like Scotland for the benefit of big business. Hence the core objective which fuels the desire of many leaders within Brussels who wish to homogenise the whole of Europe into one superstate — obliterating social, cultural and economic distinctions — a self-serving relationship in which EU leaders feed off smaller host states while using their resources to sustain the insatiable appetite of corporations to monopolise and gain control of new markets.

The claim that the EU is an indispensable force for good is part of an old narrative, a derivative of post-World War 2 thinking that has largely remained unchallenged for over forty years. It is a neo-liberal narrative — an integral part of the psychology behind the machine in Brussels — an autocracy designed to impose, above all, harsh austerity measures on the ordinary people of Europe in order to furnish the banks and corporations with financial opportunities. To confirm this, we only need to look at the Troika — (European Central Bank, International Monetary Fund, European Union) — and what they did to Greece, and the impossible financial demands they have placed on Spain, Italy and Portugal as part of so-called austerity measures.

The EU is essentially geared to appropriate all viable resources, natural and man made, of the integrated nations within the community, then centralise them in order to assert absolute control of related economies — and by extension, the social, political and international direction of these nations. The question is, will the people of this country stand by while the EU continues to dictate the direction of Scotland’s social, political and economic policies, denying native Scots the opportunity to have a comprehensive say in the shaping of their country?

When the majority voted in the referendum to remain within the controlling mechanisms of the EU and embrace the most disturbing aspects of integration, the most ironic alliance was revealed: the following morning, after the hangover of the Brexit vote, the Scottish intelligentsia found themselves waking up with the most incongruous of bedfellows; their new partners were the privileged members of London’s financial elite, who voted with them in large numbers to remain within the EU. Yet few within the ranks of Scotland’s intelligentsia appeared to recognize this irony.

Or, given their hatred of some for the establishment in the south, (I should note here that as a Scot, I have my own large issues with Westminster and the British government) they could not bear to discuss such an alliance even beneath a whisper. It was okay to shout loud and proud about being a “European”, but apparently it was another thing entirely to discuss how their political ideology now aligned itself with corporations, banks and the financial elites of London, all of whom voted in line with the integrationists in Scotland. Strange days indeed.

This was a scenario that probably reminded the Scottish integrationists of the more reckless moments of their misspent youth when, after a night of drunken debauchery, they woke up and opened their eyes, looking through a crack in their fingers (but only for a moment) to find themselves staring at a partner they vaguely recognized from the night before but one who was, nevertheless, sharing the opposite pillow. I can only assume this was an intimacy they could not bear to acknowledge, either privately or publicly. Therefore it was was a moment to remain tight lipped and slip quietly out of the door — blaming all and sundry — with the exception of the EU’s reprehensible behaviour — for this debacle called Brexit.

On all of the social platforms I visited after the result, and there were a few, not once did I come across any pertinent questions being asked by the integrationists of Scottish voters about their reasons for voting No in the referendum. That is not to say such questions did not take place. However, more often than not any personal comments by members of the Scottish electorate who indicated they voted to leave the EU were drowned out — aided and abetted by a plethora of memes — all of which focused on racism; the implication was self-evident: every single vote rejecting the EU was a vote hijacked by right wing lunatics, or misinformed people who just did not appreciate the gravity of such a vote — unable to understand the broad complexities reached at such a political juncture.

More than once I read comments aimed at those who refused to be taken in by EU promises of better days ahead — comments which were generally typical of Scotland’s middle class at the time:

“If only they realised what they were doing” — which meant, presumably, that those who said No to Junker and Tusk in Brussels did, essentially, require cerebral guidance at the ballot box, but only in order to make sure that the ill-informed electorate mark the same option as the integrationists. Sometimes symmetry is so pleasing on the eye.

The chief targets of the integrationists were large swathes of the English electorate — immediately implying, or leveling accusations, of “racism” at the general majority of these English and Scottish voters who had the temerity to say No. At this juncture I should note, there were indeed despicable examples of racism, audible and visible, leading up to this crucial vote — not least from the obvious suspects such as UKIP and other more nefarious organisations south of the border whose hatred of the ‘Other’ demonstrated little restraint normally associated with common human decency.

That said, here in Scotland, we also had the misfortune to experience explicit examples of racism/bigotry (one of which was broadcast live on BBC during a debate prior to the vote).

Is it not time for the people who have enjoyed some financial perks derived from brutal neo-liberal policies to recognise the financial plight of their fellow citizens—and the mirrored aspirations which arise as a consequence of unemployment, poverty and destitution?

Choosing to cherry pick the small personal benefits that some have enjoyed via EU payments and therefore point up the EU as a liberal model for good but choosing to ignore the unpalatable consequences of neo-liberalism in creating mass poverty and a series of financial crises — precipitating the fracture of Europe and its people — is difficult to credit..

What about the men and women working two or three jobs in order to feed and clothe their children? Or the woman polishing the marble floors of banks and employed on wages below the minimum rate, trapped in zero hour contracts, merely to earn a pittance which may keep a roof over her head and her family? This is precisely the kind of slave labour enshrined in the TTIP, an agreement promoted and highly favoured by the European Union. More of which I’ll say in a separate commentary to this one. However, a short comment will suffice here.

The TTIP has two distinct elements: first the agreement to cooperate on regulation — which essentially is designed to ”standardize” employment laws within all countries signed to the agreement. However, given the climate of greed, it’s difficult to credit this agreement being aimed at raising the living wage in order to standardize it in favour of the employee; basically the TTIP agreement will drive down basic wages — and no EU law can stand in its way and prevent this. Why? The EU is fully committed, despite vigorous public protest, to embrace TTIP. A clear conflict of interest is being entertained by the EU here in terms of their law, for example, on the setting of a minimum wage.

The second element of TTIP is the ‘Investor State Dispute Settlement’ (ISDS) which, in the event that a country’s laws threaten corporate profits, this part of the agreement allows companies to sue governments by way of an offshore tribunal. [author’s italics]. The very definition of democracy is negated with this agreement here. Instead of the electorate democratically retaining the power to change certain elements of governance which run contrary to fairness and equality, ISDS prevents the electorate from having a say in such matters.

The predictable but awful consequences of such an agreement between the EU and global corporations is evident in recent cases brought before the tribunal: British American Tobacco sued Australia which passed legislation on a law that limits cigarette advertising; the French company Veolia sued Egypt for increasing the minimum wage, to name only two cases. However, the leaders of the EU are more than comfortable with TTIP.

As Claire Provost said recently when commenting on the serious consequences of this agreement, “This will have a huge impact on health, access to medicines, education and the environment.”

Our choice, egalitarian in essence, is to reject the EU machine which enables the most affluent of society to live a life of relative ease — in juxtaposition to hunger, homelessness, and above all, the abject sense of hopelessness felt by millions of people around Europe at the mercy of a neo-liberal clique. All of these nations and cultures have one thing in common: they are being assaulted by a relentless force which denies them the most basic human rights, denies them the will to live a life of quality and hope. It is a system devoid of human creativity, of cooperation between cultures, a system devoid of empathy and compassion. In the place of the eurozone we have a dead zone.

If we do not challenge the movers and shakers operating at the heart of Brussels, then we are choosing a global system over human aspiration. If we chose to cling on to this old narrative, that the EU has our best interests at heart, then we give them our consent, not so much as a result of our silence but by virtue of our own self delusions — and by extension we lend our support to an organization which is primarily designed for two things: to make money and centralise power.

If we continue with this evangelical belief in such a system — in spite of all the evidence available — then we give our consent to fracking, to the destruction of the natural environment, to the pollution of the planet’s most valuable resource — our water table — (the EU has already sanctioned the use of a Monsanto product, Glyphosate, on our crops and soil despite a petition signed by hundreds of scientists in Europe warning that there remains concrete evidence of its dangers as a carcinogenic). However, for the EU, profit always has the last word.

If we continue to believe that in such a relationship with the EU there is a common good inherent to their policy making, then we say yes to the cult of neo-liberal greed. We are saying yes to large corporations, protected by TTIP, to the hollowing out of the earth and the strip mining of its minerals — to the cutting down of our trees and the decimation of our rain forests. We are saying yes to a society which enables the narcissist, the hoarder, the opportunist, the sociopath and the monopolist; trapped in this self-delusional state, numbed and silent, we give them our vote and our consent.

In our love of the European model we experience a psychological bind in which the traits of capture-bonding are manifest — and in spite of the future dangers, and the risks of increased abuse, we have formed a traumatic bond with our captor. We in our millions are vaguely aware that our former lover has become our abuser — a bizarre form of Stockholm Syndrome — but we must extol the virtues of our master, we must identify with his regressive behavior and his cycles of greed and aggression.

However, we seem unable to break the emotional ties to our captor. So we sit back in the chair and sigh as the suffering unfolds on our screens; and we ask ourselves: what will be next? We whisper to ourselves: there is nothing I can do; I am as much a victim. For we empathise with our captor. Then we succumb to his cruelty, to the persistent cycles of abuse. We embrace the punishments and the rewards.

We have formed an emotional bond with our master. By an irrational expression of identification, we defend the indefensible. Then we withdraw into our own parochial existence and live out our fantasies as proud Europeans. Yet, in our silence our abuser still hears our insane mutterings: “we consent; come and do to us as you will”.


The content of such an extensive poem as this could represent, to use one of Frost’s terms, a “momentary stay against confusion…[and one which] ends in a clarification of life.” (1)  Modern day existence does indeed require a stay against the crippling social, political and economic pressures which are ranged against the individual trying to make his/her way in a global society which is finely tuned to expedite two things: the grand accumulation of power and the building of capital regardless of human cost.

Therefore the journey on which one embarks is made much more difficult when faced with Dantesque sins such as the greed and plunder of our elected officials, from lowly councillors to presidents—and the acts of piracy routinely perpetrated by the world’s bankers, those mercenaries who operate below the radar of fiscal regulation.  Therefore the desire to have more than a momentary stay of such relentless pressure, to carve out a niche in life and apply oneself to such a purpose, requires the simple capacity to breathe—wholly independent of the ventilator to which one becomes attached in a capitalist society.

Paradoxically, the state remains a life support system which crushes the very life out of the common man. In one way, then, this poem may be construed as the individual’s desire to breathe, to speak, to be heard, to live out one’s dreams—as an alternative to slow asphyxiation by the state.

To live in such times does indeed mean for many an acute sense of their own isolation, the attendant apathy, and more often than not, a debilitating sense of hopelessness. One does not require a mental leap equivalent to Jiujitsu, as Christopher Hitchens put it, to recognise that a life of quiet desperation awaits many unfortunate people around the world—and is certain to be one’s lot in this universal dystopia—a global society which is trapped in an endless purgatorial cycle of boom and bust. So much for human progress, then, or to be more succinct, so much for Cameron’s “big society” and the mantra that we are “all in it together”.

Taking account of those institutions to which I allude — the banks, money lenders, venture capitalists, (see MItt Romney’s Curriculum Vitae), and the grotesque vanity of the billionaire playboy, (Trump) one is left with the indelible sense that it will always be thus for the common man—at present I include the middle classes in this critiquea as they have suffered just as much as the general labourer in the wake of the perfect economic storm which had traversed the shores of the entire globe by 2011, collapsing homes, factories, small and large businesses alike. This tsunami destroyed everything in its path– sweeping away thousands of properties and vast tracts of land—forcing millions of people into the path of bankruptcy and unemployment, and sending entire communities to the wall. It also created a universal culture of fear and anxiety which presently exists in every country around the world today.
For many who could not cope with such crippling losses, they were pushed over a financial precipice to their deaths by the hand of capitalism—literally compelling some to leap from their balconies—as we saw in Spain and other countries around Europe. As hard as these facts are to accept, this was the preferred solution for many, as opposed to the humiliation of watching their homes taken from them by the very financial institutions that precipitated the global recession in the first place.   After such a harrowing experience, not even the kings men could put those victims back together again, regardless of what they chose to do — live and endure a life of debt, penury, humiliation, and ultimately, defeat — or simply be done with it and end it all.

In the wake of such greed, Davis & Monk ask “a simple but epochal question: toward what kind of future are we being led by savage, fanatical capitalism?” (2).   For in the light of recent global events, one certainly does experience feelings of rage and social impotence in equal measures. One also feels an overwhelming sense of hopelessness when reflecting on how little has changed from the nineteenth century victorian model of manipulation and exploitation of the masses by that 1%.—the so-called elite—those who wield real power and, as Davis & Monk put it, seek to “coddle the wealthy at the expense of everyone else…[to create] dreamworlds of consumption and property…where the rich can walk like gods in the nightmare gardens of their deepest and most secret desires”. (3).

In fact, one must question the very nature of society and, in particular, its neoliberal programmes of privatisation—or Corporatism—as many would describe neoliberal policy. Take America, for example, and as Davis & Monk point out,

…”the truly extraordinary statistics, like the recent disclosure that the richest 1% of Americans spend as much as the poorest 60 Million; or that 22 million factory jobs in the twenty major economies were sacrificed to the gods of globalisation between 1995 and 2002; or that rich individuals currently shelter a staggering $11.5 trillion (ten times the annual GDP of the UK) in offshore tax havens…or the naked application of state power to raise the rate of profit for crony groups, billionaire gangsters, and the rich in general… [fuels a] dynamic, ever-growing social inequality (4)

Yet the status quo remains and after centuries of mass exploitation of the African and South American continents by all the European powers, and numerous coups d’état by the United States itself — we now see “the most dramatic neoliberal development schemes — private archipelagos in Dubai, gated communities in Hong Kong, the Mall of America in Minnesota — [which] can even be said to resemble capitalist utopias, free of the chaotic diversity of city life and immune from the concern for the welfare of the broader public [and] serving the interests of an increasingly international bourgeois class…[indeed] Hell and the Mall are never more than a freeway drive apart”. (Davis & Bertrand Monk. 5)

The very instinct of the elites to enrich themselves beyond the point of gluttony, frequently by way of oil and gas, while rejecting any responsibility to the natural world, is a dreadful indictment of modern culture—its selfishness and greed. As as I speak numerous companies of this elite 1% are contaminating the rivers, soil, air and seas of the natural world with absolute impunity. Those individuals and there companies are responsible for deforestation, mass pollution, over exploitation of the world’s resources, and irreversible damage to the seas.

In an article by AFP, titled, ‘UN Fears Irreversible Damage to Natural Environment’ the UN has warned that “coral reefs are collapsing due to the combined blow of more acid and warming oceans, as well as overfishing… [arguing] that biodiversity [is] a core concern for society that would help tackle poverty… meriting as much attention as the economic crisis for only a fraction of the cost of recent financial bailouts”. (6)  However, this is the “fraction” that those in power are unwilling to pay—unless the banks come calling with hat in hand. Looking at this wanton destruction from the vantage point of the elite, these banking institutions view themselves as exceptions to the rule.

In the anthology, ‘Feather Fall’, Jean-Marc Pottiez has pulled together a collection of prose excerpts of Laurens van der Post’s writings and distils the reverence this great philosopher, activist and visionary had for the natural world. Pottiez takes a passage from ‘Man the Destroyer’, in which van der Post speaks of mankind’s predilection for destruction and his woeful attitude to the the natural world. In a prescient warning he appeals to our sense of time, and reason, when he says:

“On the horizons where the great empires, …Thebeses and Babylon’s, have gone down in the dust and rubble which is all that is left of themselves and the abundant world of nature which nourished them, there is a terrifying statement of its danger to man, beast and flower. There were for instance, the great forests of central Asia which stretched from Isfahan eastwards to the Himalayas and the Hindu Kush, and north to the seas of the Caspian, and west to the wine-dark ocean of the Mediterranean. They have all gone. Humble woodcutters and charcoal burners feeding the needs and greeds of cities have left hardly a tree between Tehran and the Caspian… “(7)

“Where are the hanging gardens of Babylon? And what would not have been done sooner with the bulldozers and mechanical saws of today?… No one who has read his Homer, Thucydides and Virgil can be anything but terrified by what is left and in comparison looks like a scorched earth today… The battle must be fought on every level”.(8)

Pottiez then follows up with another stinging rebuke by van der Post declaring how man’s absence from the natural world would be received by any intelligent life which may survive him: “Should the last man vanish from earth tomorrow, there is not a plant, bird or animal who would not breathe a sigh of relief”. (9)

This poem’s defining purpose is, therefore, driven by the desire to experience a “momentary stay of confusion” or to put it more succinctly— a stay against the horrors of modern culture: environmental destruction, social and political elitism, perpetual warfare—and cold, narcissistic obsession with status and money which now holds sway in countries like America and Britain. It is an attempt to hew a “clarification of life” out of this modern chaos, to hew an existence which is substantial and one that is true to the human spirit.

Numerous changes precipitated this social and cultural sterilisation of Britain: one was a result of Thatcher’s brutal programme of privatisation in the eighties which gave birth to a Jekyll and Hyde society of rich and poor, entitlement and greed. Then there was the egomaniacal pursuit of power by Scargill, who foolishly considered his union strong enough to tackle a political giant like Thatcher, who would quickly bring down the full might of the state against him and the NUM in order to end the reign of socialism. Social and cultural change also came about partly as a result of the Americanisation of British and European cultures. Should we wonder, then, why the French (demonstrating a trait which I admire) are most radical when defending their culture against the worst excesses of Americana and determined to protect their own art, film, and literary industries from such a corrosive culture— a culture (if that is what it could be called) programmed to equate success with self-aggrandisement, public status, and the abhorrent worship of the sacred dollar.

Furthermore, in terms of naked, imperialist aggression, America has always had “the will to expand…to be pre-eminent…and [this] has meant conflict, wars of many kinds: hot, cold, internecine, savage wars, frontier wars and brush wars—and has made war a motif deeply woven into the social consciousness of national life, the ideal metaphor for a ‘can do’ people.” (American Dream, Global Nightmare (10)

Therefore, not only is this poem about the physical and psychological journey of two men arriving in America to pursue the Dream and better their lives, it also alludes to the obese entity that is the USA—a striped carnivore with an insatiable appetite—one which feeds on new markets and consumes enormous quantities of energy—a nation which presents itself as the world’s policeman and protector but is in fact a wolf prowling at our doors.

Indeed the poem could be said to have two distinct trajectories: the story of two working class brothers trying to survive in the urban metropolis; second, the imperialist narrative of America and its voracious appetite for global control and influence through its military and industrial complex. As in real life and real time, then, the existential journey of the individual is experienced in microcosm — dwarfed by a giant state which gradually expands the narrative, literally consuming the white space behind the words on the page and themes of the poem itself — the imperialist narratives in macrocosm. Here is the modern state—indifferent to one’s suffering, “a dark, Dionysian world which may be defined as a monster of energy, without beginning and without end…that knows no satiety.”  (11).  And for the individuals who, by virtue of life’s trial, finds themselves unmoored and drifting further out on the current, to whom, or to what, do they gravitate for help—for aid in these times of hardship—in these times when rampant right wing ideologies are taking root like destructive knot-weeds in every crevice of society

From which point of the compass does one navigate in order to survive the random chaos of a global society seemingly gone mad? More often than not, it is in the company of one’s fellow man—one who endures the same indiscriminate trial of life, a Kafka-like figure in whom he finds someone to confide and express his sorrows—and wail at the incomprehensible nature of the system—its appetite for human sacrifice—and demonstrable acts of power for power’s sake. In a crowded barroom he may well find himself marooned, but in such a place he is within easy reach of human contact. And in such a place he may raise much more than a simple glass, he may hoist the sail of his dreams—and find a reason to hope in spite of the awful road that was taken. Here he can lament the injuries suffered along the way and most importantly, remember the fatalities—but above all, in this place of respite—he or she may dream; may affirm.

Over and above the texts to which the bibliography refers, there is one particular scene in this poem which conveys the words (verbatim) of the native plains indians documented before, during or at the end, of the American Indian Wars. There are two reasons for employing the actual words and sentiments of those tribes: first and foremost, when one considers the content of the poem and its central thematic concerns—the destructive nature of capitalism, of economic boom and bust—inevitably followed by a long painful period of social hardship and general hopelessness, it was particularly important for me to to set a reminder to demonstrate how the same terrible mistakes of the past are again being repeated in the present moment—that all of those geo-political transgressions are taking place in the name of profit. I also reiterate the case of the indigenous tribes of North America, for their experience of oppression at the hands of imperialist America is similar in many ways to what other cultures experience today:  the native Americans  were demonised, (not unlike the Muslims in global societies at present) ‘ethnically cleansed’ for political and commercial purposes—and gradually exterminated during the economic boom which began at Sutter’s Mill in Coloma, California in 1848 and precipitated the rush of the forty-niners.

It appears to me that the dreadful persecution of the Palestinian people since the Balfour Declaration on 2 November 1917 up until the present day runs on parallel but similar lines.  Only as recently as June 2015 it was reported the real reason for evicting, by gunpoint, many more Palestinians from their homes was to smooth the way for the opening of recently discovered and lucrative gas fields offshore in Gaza.  The hard right Zionist government under Netanyahu has been relentless in extending its long term (racist) plan to create a Palestine in which no Palestinians will exist—leaving these lands open for further Jewish occupation and ‘settlements’.  The Zionist persecution of the Palestinian people, the mass shootings in Gaza, the raising of each Palestinian home by tanks, the detainment and torture of children, the rewriting of history (for few are aware today of the anti-semitic intentions of the ‘Balfour Declaration’) — all of the above will resonate uncomfortably and resentfully with many races, such as the Native Americans still alive today.  For just as American imperialism wrote its own palimpsest while its military and industrial complex expanded westward from 1812 to 1860—Zionist policy (albeit on a smaller geographical scale) today reflects similar motivations and preferred outcomes:  the complete destruction of the Palestinian people, and the exploitation of the land for commercial profit.

This poem seemed impossible to complete without giving a belated voice to the many indigenous Americans whose voices were either airbrushed from the history books—or, all the more appallingly, denied by some so-called historical revisionists — establishment academics who viewed, and still consider, the wanton murders of the plains’ Indians by the US army as only “a little matter of genocide”(12)  In short, it is a social, historical, anthropological, imperative that the North American Holocaust is acknowledged, continues to be remembered, and not denied by those who claim that no holocaust took place on American soil — by Americans —against their fellow Americans.  This contention may not sit well with certain groups, however I believe it is time to attach equal merit to all of the holocausts in human history—and not only the one which took place against Jewish people during the Second World War, for as Pierre Papazian is right to point out:

To claim that the [Jewish] Holocaust was unique can only imply that attempts to annihilate other national or cultural groups are not to be considered genocide, thus diminishing the gravity and moral implications of any genocide anywhere, any time.  It also implies that the Jews have a monopoly on genocide, that no matter what misfortune befalls another people, it cannot be as serious or even in the same category as the Holocaust. 13

Second, the reason the original, verbatim statements by the indigenous tribes of North America are used is because of their spiritual and universal vision during the Gold Rush—their reverence for the natural environment, (which speaks directly to the destruction of our planet in 2015) and their outright condemnation of the way in which the white man raped and exploited the land on which he lived in the name of progress—or Manifest Destiny— as many liked to describe it at that time—essentially a euphemism to justify the plundering and murder of the indigenous people of North America— and to raise another euphemism—used to accelerate ‘ethnic cleansing’ of these same tribes.

However, the respect the Plains Indians had for Mother Earth is a sobering reminder for many people today of how we should treat the natural environment—considering the dreadful examples of large scale poisoning presently taking place by sea, air, land and river.  But, as the phrase goes, “money talks”, and invariably it is always the loudest voice in the room.

In conclusion, the dual narratives which run a parallel course in ‘A History of Feeling: Dreams and Nightmares’, unify the poem in tying together two disparate elements of the text and reminding one that human existence operates on two levels: in microcosm there is the individual’s journey through life, the story of two brothers arriving with renewed hope to the shores of America.  Also operating simultaneously, (almost invisibly, for most people), runs the universal human story in macrocosm: class conflict, global commerce, banking fraud, western imperialism, (personified by the tragic figure of the Vietnam veteran) coup d’état, warfare, greed and corruption.

Then there is the willful destruction of the natural environment by governments intent on enriching themselves and consolidating their power bases by producing excessive levels of greenhouse gasses while entire shelves of the Arctic melt and disappear into the ocean. This highlights the nature of unfettered capitalism and the global culture of narcissistic obsession with personal betterment at the expense of our fellow men.

These social themes have never been more pertinent than they are today in this latest recurring period of economic hardship and mass suffering around the world brought about directly by the insatiable greed of the world’s bankers and the financial elites—and while large regions of the globe are still engaged by civil war and international conflicts.

Therefore, the imperative remains— that the solitary voice of the individual is heard above the babble of parliaments and congresses, above the voices of bankers and billionaires, above the wail of a factory horn. It is imperative, if we are to survive this Orwellian nightmare, that the voice of true democracy is heard—the individual voice acknowledged for what it is: the cry for peace, social justice, hope for the future—in the face of gluttony, self-aggrandisement and the inexorable pursuit of power. It is the individual and collective cry of every man and woman seeking a purpose to their lives. This is the poem’s raison d’être. To channel the cry of the human heart.

Works Cited:
Churchill, Ward, ‘A Little Matter of Genocide’ City Books 2001
City books 2001   (12)

Davies, Merryl Wyn, & Sardar, Ziauddin. ‘American Dream, Global Nightmare’. Icon Books LTD. 2004
Print.   (10)

Davis, Mike & Monk, Bertrand.   ‘Dreamworlds of Neoliberalism’  —Evil Paradises.  The New Press, New York, 2007.    (2,3,4,5,)

Frost, Robert. ‘Collected Poems, Prose & Plays’. New York, NY. Literary Classics Of The United States, 1995.
Print.   (1)

Nietzsch, Frederick, ‘The Will To Power’. Barnes and Noble Library Of Essential Reading.
2006.  (11)
Poittiez, Jean-Marc, ‘UN Fears ‘Irreversible’ Damage to Natural Environment’.
Agence France Press 10 May 2010.
Web.   (6)

Papazian Pierre – “‘A Unique Uniqueness'” — sourced from text above:  ‘A Little Matter of Genocide’    (13)
van der Post, Laurens, ‘Feather Fall’ Chatto & Windus 1994.  (7, 8, 9,)