Traditional Values Vol. 1: Nationalism

Never before have we seen so many advances and changes to our world as we are seeing today. Climate change, the rise of biotech and infotech. The proliferation of automation and the move toward artificial-intelligence which could either improve our wayso of life, or challenge who we are as humans. The mainstreaming of electric cars and the growing awareness of plastic pollution. Widespread movements to give previously overlooked or unrepresented factions of society equal rights. The rise of Asian economies which may soon rival our own in strength, and may even become superior which could change the ways we conduct business and alter long-standing loyalties. I was even shocked recently to find out that China even has plans to build a base on the moon and mine our little white dot in the sky for hydrogen.

This is the stuff of science-fiction!

The point is: we are in a transitional phase and are suffering the existential question of how to cope with the challenges we read about in our papers and see on our television screens and social media feeds. When faced with an uncertain future, people often look to their past. To “traditional values” to guide them through the turbulence. But what exactly are traditional values and do they offer us any guidance for the future?

Nationalism

Nationalism seems to be on the rise in the West and has led to two of the most significant changes that we have seen in our lifetimes: the U.K’s vote to leave the European Union and the vote in America for Donald Trump as President. As an answer to perceived outside threats, two major powers have turned to isolationism.

Globalisation was a worn out word by the end of the referendum of 2016. As was elites. Sometimes we heard “global elites”. The European Union, as pushed by Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and sundry others, was a product of globalisation.

Leavers pointed to levels of immigration and told the people that it was the European Union’s open border policy that was to blame. Leavers pointed out the disenfranchised peoples of towns that had been left behind when the U.K turned from a material and production economy to a service driven economy. The European Union was blamed again for moving production facilities abroad. The decline of U.K fisheries, blame the E.U. Red passports, blame the E.U. Curved bananas, blame the E.U. Hospital waiting times, blame the E.U. Rise in crime rates, blame immigration, thus blaming the E.U.

So, can the problems listed above be solved by a move toward nationalism as was what happened in 2016?
In regards to immigration, yes, technically nationalism has the potential to cut numbers of immigrants or stop them altogether.

But is that really in the national interest? Or is it in the interest of nationalist groups? For instance, whilst the cutting might benefit those who just want see less faces of colour or to hear different languages on their streets (the nationalists) the nationalist approach itself does not do much for our economy, our public services or for our reputation as “global players” which was a phrase championed by Leavers during the referendum campaign and even now.

Whilst the phrase “global player” was used extensively throughout the referendum, the truth is that the actual action of leaving the biggest and most successful trading bloc in the world was seen by many around the globe as an act of closing one’s own doors on trade.

The NHS is dependent on nurses and doctors from the E.U and further abroad but since the Brexit vote we have seen a dramatic decrease in the amount of people applying for university courses in nursing and a drop in job applications from outside the U.K. This is indicative of the trend that those from within Europe and outside the Union were no longer interested in investing in the U.K.

Nationalists might see this drop in foreign applications as a good thing as there is potential for British citizens to take the jobs. The problem however is that it takes years to train doctors and nurses and, in the meantime, care within the NHS would have plummeted. Ironically, it would be those older voters which chose leave who would suffer the most. With around 100,000 vacancies already within the NHS, this further reduction could potentially cripple certain elements of patient care.

As is being witnessed, the idea of being both nationalist and a “global player” is not compatible.

The main problem of the referendum, however, was that it focused anger outward toward the largely neutral E.U, when the truth was that the problems that the U.K faced were actually born and bred within its own borders.

Austerity due to bailing out the banks that had lead us into the financial crash of 2008. The rise in crime as a result of Conservative initiative to cut policing numbers so that there were fewer bobbies on the beat. (Remember Theresa May telling the police federation to stop “crying wolf” in 2015 regarding police cuts). Disenfranchisement of communities as the economy changed toward services and offices were centralised toward London. Those who were workers within communities who worked within extraction and production were never provided the means to retrain, and were instead left to become outdated.

A lethal combination occurred when the finger was pointed at immigrants for pushing wages down. The fact that immigrants were benign agents in the entire mess of things was rarely pointed out and the fact that it was actually exploitative practices being undertaken by business owners. Business owners have been largely left alone by the most recent governments, after all, it is good practice to be the party of business.
This goes to show that the so-called “global-elites” were actually the people within our own borders. Our very own Prime Minster of the day, David Cameron found to be putting money into offshore Panamanian accounts. For years we watched as the government refused to impose proper tax initiatives that would have seen large companies paying their fair share of tax which could have put toward social ventures for our children, thus keeping them out of gangs and preventing such a sharp increase in knife-crime. Not only were companies doing so, but the Conservatives were helping them maintain the status quo.

Britain has for years now been deeply entrenched in off-shore bank account activity that it the global master on managing assets and transferring money to keep it from the hands of nations. It is estimated that half of all global wealth could be locked up in off-shore accounts.

Image source: wikimedia

In the face of problems that originated within our own national system, people turned to nationalism to sort out the problem. That is a new one for me.

In 2013, the E.U offered to give a £22million cash injection into food banks in order to make sure that they were stocked and operational. This was turned down by David Cameron. Whilst our own government strangled the country, the E.U at least offered some kind of help. But that’s not all. The E.U has also been funnelling money into community projects including social groups and buildings, but this is rarely mentioned. The E.U is also a propagator of worker’s rights and is constantly moving to improve pay throughout its jurisdictions. When we are faced with military or cyber warfare, as we have seen from Russia during the referendum campaign and which the U.S witnessed during the presidential campaign, the E.U has close proximity to share information and make sure that each of its member states has the necessary tools to help fight back.

So, nationalism does not actually offer any real solutions to our national problems. Does it offer solutions to wider world issues? In an age of transnationalism, could countries learn from nationalist ideals?
Climate change is not an issue, it is the issue which will determine the very future of human civilisation. And climate change does not recognise borders drawn by man. A tropical storm does not stop when it hits the American coast. It ploughs through and wreaks untold damage. Plastic does not stop at the English Channel. It sweeps in and becomes part of our ecosystem. Just as much as melted ice does not stay in the Arctic Circle but raises water levels around the world.

And when islands start submerging and already challenged countries face drought and famine, we are going to see mass exodus unlike anything witnessed in documented history.
Unfortunately, nationalist interests have often disregard climate change in order to focus on more provincial initiatives such as kick-starting coal mining operations or doubling down on fuel extraction efforts. In the United States, nationalism is often synonymous with climate change denial as is evidential with Donald Trump’s repeated claims that climate change is a “hoax” perpetrated by the Chinese.

In regards to solutions to the climate crisis, nationalist approaches fall short. If nationalists really wanted to make a difference, they would join the global effort to battle climate change which would in turn mean that they are less likely to experience such a high influx of immigrants to their borders. Instead of becoming isolationist, it is within nationalist’s best interests to take part in a multi-national approach in order to combat the effects of climate change.

But then what would be the point in being nationalist when all we are going to do is have to work with countries around the globe and put measures in place which, whether we like it or not, would see the adoption of plans to take in refugees fleeing the effects of an unstable and changing climate?

Throughout history, civilisations have moved and shifted as the cattle migrates or as the living conditions change. After all, if the U.K were to become a dessert wasteland, would we not seek refuge in other countries? But we are the beginning of the catastrophic change where the decisions we make today will effect the next generation. We have the ability to make positive differences to the ways we tackle this threat. But are we capable of doing this as nationalists? Surely we are better prepared against the challenges if we work on an international scale?

Conspiracy Theory Vs Conspiracy Realism

It is almost universally accepted that the public were fed a lie regarding the assassination of John F. Kennedy. It would be hard going to find someone who didn’t believe that there is some kind of cover-up or some greater conspiracy at play.

Was it the appearance and disappearance of the Babushka Lady? Or perhaps it was the astronomical coincidence that the most notorious assassination in a generation was also the scene of the “magic bullet” which bounced around the car and struck Kennedy multiple times? And all this was pulled off by Lee Harvey Oswald, a man described as a mediocre marksman yet who was able to pull off two very accurate shots in quick succession on a moving target.

And we are more convinced of a cover up now than immediately after the shootings because we have the gift of hindsight.

With quick access to information (and disinformation) at our fingertips, the world has become a rife breeding ground for conspiracy theories and we are constantly faced with having to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Slender Man has a tailor on Saville Row.

Russia helped Donald Trump get into the Oval Office.

The world is run by reptilian overlords wearing flesh suits.

China are manipulating the weather.

Up to half of all global wealth is kept in offshore bank accounts and trusts.

Pyramids were built by aliens.

North Korea are experimenting with chemicals that will turn the world’s insects into a swarm of blood-thirsty killers hell bent on taking down the capitalist west.

We can separate the absolutely nonsensical claims from those that hold water. But what about those strange intermediary claims that could sit on the fence between theory and realism?

Well, China are manipulating the weather, but so are governments across the world. It is called cloud-seeding and it has been used to brilliant effect to get more rainfall over arid lands. There is also HAARP. Is HAARP a weapon that can be aimed anywhere the American government wishes? Unlikely. But does the HAARP having weather changing and atmosphere disturbing qualities? Yep. After all its sole focus is to heat up portions of the atmosphere. That is bound to have some kind of knock-on effect.

Above: HAARP – High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme

The difference between conspiracy theory and conspiracy realism is the application of Ockham Razor thinking followed by a small amount of research. And a touch of cynicism.

Do we really think that Area 51 is reverse-engineering alien flight technology and dissecting bodies, or is Area 51 a military base whose purpose is to create and test state-of-the-art, top-secret war machines?

This photo from the 1950’s shows investigators looking at remains of a so-called alien spacecraft.

Man inspecting what was believed to be a broken-up spacecraft

Whilst people may have believed this story in the 1950’s when there was a lot more trust in governments and figures of authority, nowadays we can look at that photo we can see that the material they are inspecting is the kind of foil used for weather balloons/stations.

The problem that many of us face nowadays is that disinformation can be spread so quickly that the proliferation of conspiracy theories can far exceed those claims that have been scrutinised.

We know that Trump colluded with Russia. If the Mueller Report shows no direct link between Russian involvement and the presidential campaign of 2016, we still know that Trump has laundered money for Russian parties before he took the White House. The difference between conspiracy theory and conspiracy realism is that the answer is often in the middle ground.

Using the above example of Area 51, are we looking at a top-secret facility? Yes. Is it likely that they are experimenting on alien craft? No. Is it more likely that they are working on terrestrial projects like high-tech unmanned surveillance drones? Yes. Then why is it so secretive? Why don’t they open up the facility to show that they have nothing to hide? Because that would mean that America runs the risk of losing the strategic edge in future wars.

Cynicism is also a great weapon when judging claims. If you question what EVERYONE says, chances are you will come to a sound conclusion somewhere in the middle.

Alex Jones of InfoWars, a name as strange as can be for an organisation purportedly providing news, claimed that the government is “turning frogs gay”.

Alex Jones – Info Wars

Alex Jones saw this as a move by governments to try and turn the populace gay which would in turn mean that there would be a drop in the population. Alex has also made claims that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama “smell like sulphur” in a bid to show that they were satanic.

But because a person’s claims border on the bizarre-fanatic spectrum, does that really mean we should discount everything that that person says? Not necessarily. Breaking apart the claim that government is turning frogs gay, you should first ask yourself whether that claim is even possible. Before asking yourself whether it is probable.

Alex Jones had actually come to the conclusion that the government was “turning frogs gay” after it was found out that there have been negative side effects of agricultural practises where runoff has turned out to be toxic and, as a result, messes with hormonal patterns in certain species. The fact that the government is purposefully doing this in a bid to lower birth rates is absolutely unprovable and therefore would demand an investigation of its own whereas we are certain that North Korea is chemically altering and instilling anti-capitalist sentiment into insects… right?

So, are there aliens out there? Of course. It is a statistical probability that life must exist elsewhere in the universe as we can observe it today, let alone in the possibly infinite expanse of the universe beyond what we can observe. Have the Americans reverse engineered alien machines? Well, if they had succeeded in doing so the chances are we still wouldn’t be so backward that we have to use fossil fuels, hydrogen or solar power to keep the machines in the sky.
I actually love conspiracy theories. I’m not just saying that. I really do. I love the possibility that there is so much more out there than what is written in journals or what has been documented throughout history. But sometimes the truth is much more interesting and magical than any fiction we create.

Think of the pyramids of the Egyptian and Mayan civilisations. Even today scientists and engineers have opposing ideas about just how it the peoples of these times managed to build such impressive structures and to such a great degree of detail. Much like the religious will often fill any blanks in the knowledge with ‘God’, there are certain sects who are quick to jump to the conclusion that aliens had come down to earth and showed humans how to undertake such feats of construction.

It is a lack of faith in humanity that leads to such answers. It makes more sense that an ancient tribe would first wonder from whence they came and, not seeing any real-time answer to the question, would turn their eyes to the stars. If there was (and still is) some magic to be marvelled at, it was those twinkling lights in the sky. If something was indeed watching them, it would be somewhere “up there”. Which would explain why Egyptian and Mayan constructions would follow the stars and why the Nazca people created such large and beautiful pictures – the Nazca Lines – aimed at pleasing the people in the sky.

Nazca Lines

You might think that this all points toward alien intervention. But why would a distant traveller in possession of vast knowledge and technological prowess request that the people sacrifice certain members of their tribes to worship them?

History is dotted with geniuses. Da Vinci, Gallileo, Einstein. Why could people of such genius not have belonged to these civilisations and created something incredible? Why can we not just understand that these civilisations were capable of amazing things like advanced construction? And of course some not so amazing things like human sacrifice?

The main argument though is that you should never discount fantastical claims just because they sound too “out there”. Every idea that is against the general norms is considered a conspiracy theory until it is proved to be fact. After all, the world was once considered to be the centre of the universe (and flat) and saying otherwise was not only considered ridiculous but was in fact heresy.

Should we consider conspiracy theories as true? Absolutely. But only until they start overstepping what is possible, and what is probable.