activism | ukwatch.net

Interview: Jon McClure of Reverend and the Makers

JamieSW — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:04:41 +0000

Jon McClure, lead singer of Sheffield band, Reverend and The Makers, hosted the recent 4,500-strong Love Music Hate Racism Rotherham Carnival. He speaks to Lee Billingham about his music and politics

How did you get into music?

I got into music by being a kind of poet and writer. I put on parties and performed poetry. I also wrote stuff for the Arctic Monkeys’ website. I used to write it under various pseudonyms, which kind of increased their mythology. It was more politically inclined than their music would be.

It was around the time of the Iraq war, during which time I had an Iraqi girlfriend for six years. She was from a Shia family, so we were increasingly politicised. That led me into being in a band called 1984 for a number of years, which were really political. I always had the nickname “The Reverend”, not for any religious reason but because people were always saying, “Oh, he’s like a preacher man.” After a while I started putting the prose and poetry into a more musical form, which has led me to be where I am now.

How do you feel about the music industry and the extent to which you can express yourself, particularly regarding political ideas and lyrics?

It’s difficult because here there’s no one doing it. There are people like Damon Albarn, Ian Brown and 3D from Massive Attack and people like that, but among new artists there’s only me and MIA who seriously and permanently question British government foreign policy.

That is really dark compared to the counter-culture in the 1960s and the punk movement in the 1970s and Red Wedge in the 1980s. They were a kind of social voice but now there’s none. This is at a time with the current economic situation, being at war in two countries, with the possibility of a war in a third country – or fourth if you include Pakistan – there’s the situation with climate change and there’s the rise of the BNP.

I would argue we need a politicised voice more than ever, but within mainstream music there’s no one, and you have to ask yourself why. I think one of the reasons is that it has been recently a bit of a commercial suicide to entertain politics in your music.

But my heroes were political – Bob Marley, John Lennon, Joe Strummer. It’s become un-cool to care about the world you live in. It’s become cool to take crack. I don’t think that’s a rebellious act. I think it’s far more rebellious to question the country we live in and the government. I never fell out of love with the idea of it being cool to care about the world you live in.

Do you think it’s something that’s actively discouraged in the music industry? Did you, personally have to be more subtle or have you always been overt with your messages?

I’d sooner be more overt, and increasingly the messages are becoming more overt. When I first came out two years ago the climate wasn’t there for me to be saying these things but now people are saying, “Maybe you’re right actually.”

I think there is conservatism in the music industry because of vested interests. But then there are really good people in the music industry too. There are some good journalists at the NME and there are some good people who work in the industry who want change. People are thinking, “We’re bored of guitar bands doing the same old shit,” and looking for something of a little more substance.

Until recently I was very pessimistic. But my optimism’s returning and I think it’s because people don’t want to listen until it affects them and suddenly all these things are starting to affect them. People are starting to think, “Petrol prices are going up. I wonder if that’s got something to do with Iraq.” Damn right it’s got something to do with Iraq! I think people are starting to put two and two together.

If people don’t give a shit about the world, that’s when the BNP comes to power. Suddenly they’ve got all these seats and people are thinking, “How did that happen?” I’m an eternal optimist. I think that’s one of the main differences that separates left from right: the left have an undying optimism in humankind and the human spirit.

What is your Instigate Debate project?

It’s a website I set up to talk about meaningful subjects to people in the public eye. We’re encouraging people to go up to celebrities, and rather than asking for a photograph or an autograph to ask them a question that means something.

We had a bit of a debate with a lad who works for the NME – while he liked the idea he didn’t think we were maximising it. But rather than us just being a closed shop or getting into a slanging match we said to him, “Why don’t you come and help us?” This thing has to be formed. In the same way that punk was unpopular at first, people have to help shape it and mould it, and he’s very kindly agreed to help us with it. What we’re doing is building a bit of a coalition of musicians, and the music press is going to get behind it. In that regard it becomes a real movement. It’s tangible, because there are kids out there who are ready to go and do this. As a way of encouraging people we’ll go and play at their house. It could be the start of something quite big. I’m excited.

The idea was to hold to account some of the journalists from papers like the Sun, and in particular the Daily Mail and people in the right wing press who really hold more power than the people in Westminster. They’re unelected “people-shapers”. If the government had any morality they’d pass some kind of monopolies bill for press freedom, because Rupert Murdoch and the people who own the Daily Mail have a monopoly on people’s minds.

I’ve got a song on my new album called “Hard Times for Dreamers”, and it really is. Unless we fight back and make people aware, and we make these people look like the bigots they actually are, we aren’t going to get anywhere. For example the “Fagin’s Heirs” headlines about the Romanian pickpockets that were supposedly running rampant in London: no one was ever charged but there was no retraction, maybe a one-line thing. The truth becomes completely distorted, which gives rise to the BNP.

What do you think about the rise of the BNP and using the culture of music as a weapon against them?

The rise of the BNP has been fuelled by the right wing media who are putting the blame on immigrants. The blame within society should be over the mismanagement of the economy and foreign policies by successive Tory and Labour governments.

The problem isn’t immigrants. Unfortunately the fuel being thrown onto the fire by the right wing press is making white working class people, who are looking for someone to blame for the things they see to be wrong with society, put their faith in the BNP. But what these people think they are doing is safeguarding Britain. What they’re actually doing is giving power to Nazis, people we fought a war against. I remember talking to an ex-RAF fellah. He said he didn’t understand it: “I fought for six years against them Nazis only for them to get elected where I live.” I thought that pretty much summed it up.

Other musicians taking a stand against them is good, because young people listen to music and also there’s a much funkier and cooler message in it than marching up and down a street with Dr Martens boots on.

It’s sad to say, but looking at the music world people seem to be more into making money than they are into making any sort of statement. I think it’ll be a bit like the speculators in the stock exchange – they’ll be caught out for that. They’ll be caught out for chasing dollars. They’ve got no substance. I’ll laugh at them when that comes. They won’t have any career left. Their own greed will be their downfall.

What did you think about the LMHR event in Rotherham last month and the effect it had on South Yorkshire?

The event was brilliant. I think the effect on South Yorkshire has been massive because everybody knew about it. I’m in favour of grandiose political gestures: you need a gig with thousands. Even people who were just there for the bands got the message loud and clear. I think the BNP will have an increasingly difficult time in Rotherham after that and it gives us the chance to make networks to go back to next election and say, “Remember that gig we did? Well, this is why we did it. In these elections we don’t want you voting for the BNP.”

You and your family have been getting some grief for your work with LMHR.

There’s some far right websites where I’ve been threatened and someone would phone up my parents to say I’m a psychopath. My parents have had to go ex-directory. It’s upsetting because my parents aren’t me. If you’ve got an issue take it to me. It’s just cowardly.

It also underlines the tactics of fear that the far right and the BNP use. I would never threaten them physically. I’m completely opposed to everything that they stand for politically, but I would never threaten them or any member of their family. It’s disgusting that they stoop that low, but I won’t be deterred.

One of the first things that brought you into politics was the illegal invasion of Iraq. What do you think about the situation in the Middle East now?

I think the occupation of Iraq should end, primarily because the Iraqi people don’t want the US or British troops there. Everything else is an irrelevance. The other problem is people don’t talk about Israel. People are scared to talk about it because of accusations of anti-Semitism. The state of Israel, however, is holding the democratically elected government of the Palestinian people to ransom, and Gaza has become a big concentration camp. Hamas, whether people like it or not, were the democratic choice. If we go around the world espousing the merits of freedom and democracy we have to respect other people’s choices. We can’t have democracy but only when it’s the people we want to get in. You can’t espouse freedom and democracy while we’re allying with Azerbaijan or Saudi Arabia, two of the world’s most brutal dictatorships.

The Israeli government should accept the fact that they have to come to a permanent accommodation with the Palestinian people the same way that the white South Africans and white Rhodesians did, because the three of them were all in alliance in terms of counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism manoeuvres. In actual fact there’s not a lot of difference really. For Barack Obama and US presidents to just blindly profess their support for Israel, no matter what it does, is very dangerous. And we have no cause to be in Iran at all. The US aren’t going to be able to win in a military fashion. It’s just not going to be possible.

As well as the politics of your music you give expression of an experience, particularly a working class experience, and perhaps an experience of the north of England.

There’s a slight bit of humour in it, I think. You hear it in a lot of Sheffield music – a bit of cynicism. We’ve been fucked over for so many years I think people resort to humour. Hearing Jarvis Cocker’s lyrics and Richard Hawley’s and my own, it’s that slightly tongue in cheek, “It’s shit up here, innit? But let’s have a laugh.” My first record was quite regionally specific. It’s located in the working class because that’s where I come from. I could never make that record twice because that’s not where I am anymore, but it’s certainly rooted in that. I don’t want to be a rock star who talks about leaving Sheffield. There’s only me and Richard Hawley who still live in Sheffield of the Sheffield musicians, and I think that keeps you grounded.

The 1980s Sheffield scene seems to run through your music. What’s your attitude to making music?

I’m very open-minded and I owe a lot of debt to Cabaret Voltaire, Human League and Pulp. I think the thing is that in the 1980s everyone was so skint that they couldn’t afford new gear. Everyone ended up with analogue synthesisers and stuff.

Sheffield has always had an artistic community and because all the steel factories shut down the students and the artists could move into them and use them. That’s why electronica took off because people were saying, “We’ve got a synth and an empty room. Shall we do something with that?” That’s literally how it began, and in that regard it’s a really organic thing. I think people assume Sheffield music began and ended four years ago with the Arctic Monkeys, but there’s a lot of things happening – Warp Records and Squarepusher, and everything from Cabaret Voltaire and Human League era. It’s a very vibrant city, I think our music is a fusion of all of the stuff put together.

What plans are there for the Northern Carnival 2009?

The same way the Rotherham gig sent a message across South Yorkshire, I think the Northern Carnival will send a message across the whole of the north of England, saying, “What are you doing? Stop this. We don’t want the BNP round here.” Hopefully people will sit up, take notice and actually listen to what we’re saying.

The message will be a very loud and powerful one, and that’s needed. We had the one in London last year, but a lot of the problems are in the north, a lot of the deprivation, a lot of the racial tension. I think we’ll smack it next year and it should be beautiful, and I think the BNP will be put out of existence.

Websites:

Reverend and the Makers

Jon McClure’s politically charged side project

Going Overboard

JamieSW — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:07:14 +0000

AS ROSSPORT ACTIVISTS TAKE ON SHELL IN IRELAND

The protests against Shell’s Corrib gas project in Rossport, Ireland, saw waves of direct action this week. More work has started on the pipeline with a special pipe-laying ship arriving last weekend with just two weeks to do its job. But it’s yet to start – so if protesters can stop or delay it over the next week, the project will be set back a long way and cause massive problems for Shell. Protesters are asking people to come and help them resist at this crucial time…

DANGEROUS WATERS

Yesterday (21st) at 10am, fifteen Shell to Sea activists entered the water at Glengad Beach as dinghies, surfers and swimmers surrounded the machine and stopped work. Three Gardai in a boat began arrests and taking the boats an hour later. With no regard for health or safety, they wrestled with protesters in the water. On at least one occasion they worked together with the Shell security team who grabbed a protester and held him until the Gardai got there.

Then three protesters moved onto a rock in the sea near the dredging operation. At around 11.40am the dredging machine started picking up large amounts of debris from the sea bed and dumping it within inches of the protesters – as the Gardai stood and watched – before then arresting all three.

Mary Jones, who witnessed events said, “It was so dangerous. The huge dredging machine continued working right over those lads’ heads and then the Gardai half drowned them. It’s amazing no one was killed. It’s a crime that the Gardai can work for Shell like that.”

SOLIDARITY CAMP BACK ON

With the gas refinery half built, Shell are now starting work on the accompanying pipeline.
In late July, the company set up a compound on Glengad beach (former site of Rossport Solidarity Camp) to begin preparatory pipeline work. A causeway was constructed and over half a mile of 10 foot high steel fencing was used to cordon off a large part of the beach. Many local people resisted Shell’s occupation of Glengad and destruction of the pristine Broadhaven Bay (a Special Area of Conservation). They were met by a joint team of 40 Gardai and 70 Shell specialist security – 13 were arrested and one hospitalized for several weeks after being injured in Garda custody.

This week, in anticipation of the arrival of the world’s largest pipe laying ship, the Solitaire, a week of action was called. Booked up solidly for the next two years, it is believed to have just two weeks before going off to the next job. Marine & Public Information Notices had announced the Solitaire would arrive in Broadhaven Bay last weekend, but at present it is still docked over 5 hours away in Donegal Bay.

Last Saturday, a team of kayakers – some fresh from the Camp For Climate Action’s Rebel Regatta – began the week of action by reclaiming Glengad beach. To a crowd of cheering onlookers they entered the compound via the water, hanging a banner inside.

On Monday, Rospport Solidarity Camp was reborn and a large marquee and tents were set up in Glengad, just 100 metres from the compound. In a display of things to come, as soon as the marquee was up, Shell’s compound was invaded.

On Tuesday, when the Solitaire still hadn’t arrived in the bay, three kayakers went over to Donegal to meet her there. They paddled 1200 metres out to sea to deliver a letter to the Captain of the ship asking him to reconsider the ships involvement and informing him that if he continued he would meet strong resistance in the waters of Rossport.

NOXIOUS GAS

The story behind this latest stage in the Corrib project is filled with the usual dose of political corruption and intimidation tactics. When Shell first moved into Glengad it appeared that planning consent for the work had not been granted. Later, Minister for Energy Eamon Ryan stated that the authorisation had been given, but the government had made an “oversight” in failing to publicise them. Oversights such as this are a defining feature of the project and exactly what the Green Party minister was so critical of in opposition before he got into office.

This key section of the onshore pipeline at Glengad was granted permission outside of the usual planning process. Eamon Ryan used the Gas Act to exempt this 200 metres of the onshore pipeline from the planning process, which is arguably the most dangerous part of the whole project. Subject to the pipeline’s highest pressures (potentially up to 345 bar, the highest pipeline pressure in a residential area anywhere in the world), it runs from the landfall at Glengad under Dooncarton mountain. Dooncarton mountain is notorious for landslides and the original landfall permission was awarded in 2002 before the devastating 2003 landslide that saw 200,000 M3 of debris washed off Dooncarton, destroying houses, bridges and roads. Despite the obvious dangers, no review has taken place since.

Aside from this, no planning permission exists for the onshore pipeline. The proposed route runs 9km through protected blanket bog habitats, a Special Areas of Conservation, Specially Protected Area (protected habitats under the EU habitats directive), common and farmland. However, activity at Glengad and the arrival of the Solitaire demonstrates that Shell are certain that permission is already in the bag. Perhaps this is because they know the government will be using the Strategic Infrastructure Act to get round any troubling resistance. The act allows chosen planning consents to bypass the local democratic process and be forced through from above. It was surely not just co-incidence that this handy piece of legislation was first proposed by Bertie Ahern after a meeting with Shell where the company expressed concerns at the Irish planning process!

Since Shell occupied Glengad beach, their small army of security have been an ominous presence in the area. The unidentified security (often wearing balaclavas), use video cameras and binoculars to monitor anyone on, or near, the public beach, including children. The company hired by Shell is headed by a former member of the elite Irish Rangers Unit and while the company claim that current members of the defense force are not part of the operation, it is known that other former military personal have been hired.

Meanwhile, Shell has used its usual tactics of divide and rule and bribery to silence resistance from local fishers to the project, overcoming what the company views as one of the final hurdles preventing the Solitaire beginning work in the bay. The local fishers universally expressed concerns over the location of the discharge pipe and its outfall diffuser (certain to pollute both Broadhaven Bay and inshore waters), and disruption to their work during the laying of the pipeline. However, last week, after long negotiations, a significant number of fishers have agreed to keep quiet in return for compensation. On the other hand some remain resolute in their opposition. Fisherman Pat O’Donnell stated that he would continue fishing in the path of the Solitaire. He added that even if a court order was granted, if the state wanted to stop them they would “have to send [him] and the other fishermen to gaol.”

Rossport Solidarity Camp is a hive of activity this week, with new recruits and random boats and water equipment arriving all the time… Actions against the Solitiare will continue for the next few weeks. Sail and rail tickets from anywhere in the UK to the area cost just £35. Pack yer arm-bands and join the fun.

For background see SchNEWS 611, 603, 595

Check out www.corribsos.com for the latest news and videos.

The stakes could not be higher. Everything hinges on stopping coal

JamieSW — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 12:56:13 +0000

As soon as I have finished this column I will jump on the train to Kent. Last year Al Gore remarked “I can’t understand why there aren’t rings of young people blocking bulldozers and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power plants.”(1) Like hundreds of honorary young people, I am casting my Zimmer frame aside to answer the call.

Everything now hinges on stopping coal. Whether we prevent runaway climate change largely depends on whether we keep using the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel. Unless we either leave it in the ground or leave the carbon dioxide it produces in the ground, human development will start spiralling backwards. The more coal is burnt, the smaller are our chances of future comfort and prosperity. The industrial revolution has gone into reverse.

It is not because of polar bears that I will be joining the climate camp outside the coal plant at Kingsnorth. It is not because of butterflies or frogs or penguins or rainforests, much as I love them all. It is because everything I have fought for and that all campaigners for social justice have ever fought for – food, clean water, shelter, security – is jeopardised by climate change. Those who claim to identify a conflict between environmentalism and humanitarianism have either failed to read the science or have refused to understand it.

Our government could lead the world in one of two directions. Roughly one third of our power stations will come to the end of their lives by 2020. It could replace them with low-carbon plants or it could repeat – this time in full knowledge of the consequences – the disastrous decisions of the past. E.on’s application to build a new coal-burning power station at Kingsnorth is the first for many years. At least five other such proposals hang on the outcome(2). Between them they would account for 54 million tonnes of carbon emissions a year(3): as much as the entire economy would produce if the UK, in line with current science, were to cut its emissions by 90%(4).

The government seems determined to make the wrong decision. It has inherited the party’s traditional love for coal, but, being New Labour, now supports the bosses not the workers, and has colluded with them to make the case for a new generation of power stations. It has one justification for this policy: that one day dirty coal will be transformed into clean coal by means of carbon capture and storage (CCS). All that is needed to effect this transformation is a sprinkling of alchemical dust, in the form of the future price of carbon. The market, it claims, will automatically ensure that coal plants bury their carbon dioxide, as this will be cheaper than buying pollution permits.

Last month the House of Commons environmental audit committee examined this proposition and found that it was nonsense(5). It cited studies by the UK Energy Research Centre and Climate Change Capital which estimate that capturing carbon emissions from existing coal plants will cost 70-100 or 90-155 euros per tonne of CO2. Yet the government predicts that the likely price of carbon between 2013 to 2020 will be around 39 euros per tonne. Even E.on believes that it won’t rise above 50 euros. “The gap between the carbon price and the cost of CCS”, the committee finds, “is enormous.” The energy minister, Malcolm Wicks, confessed to the MPs “I hope that the strengthening of carbon markets … will bring forward a sufficiently good price for carbon that it will provide some of the financial incentive for CCS. Will it be enough? I do not know.”

This is the sum of government policy: to cross its fingers and hope the market delivers. If it approves a new coal plant at Kingsnorth, it will do so on the grounds that the power station will be “CCS-ready”. CCS-ready seems to mean nothing more than this: that there’s enough space on the site for a carbon capture plant, should the developer deign one day to build it. The committee warns that this meaningless promise could be used “as a fig leaf to give unabated coal-fired power stations an appearance of environmental acceptability.”(6)

The government has already shown us what it wants to do. In January, Gary Mohammed, a civil servant at the business department, emailed E.on to ask whether he should include CCS as a condition for approving its new coal plant. (This gives a fascinating insight into how government works: companies are asked to write their own rules). E.on replied that the government “has no right to withhold approval for conventional plant”. Six minutes later Mr Mohammed answered thus: “Thanks. I won’t include. Hope to get the set of draft conditions out today or tomorrow.”(7)

There is a simple means by which the government could ensure that our future electricity supplies would not commit the UK to stoking runaway climate change. It would do as California has done, and set, by a certain date, a maximum level for carbon pollution per megawatt-hour of electricity production. This would have to be a low one: perhaps 80kg of CO2. Then, in line with the government’s precious principles (or absence thereof), it could leave the rest to the market. I have now reached the point at which I no longer care whether or not the answer is nuclear. Let it happen, as long as its total emissions are taken into account, we know exactly how and where the waste is to be buried, how much this will cost and who will pay, and there is a legal guarantee that no civil nuclear materials will be used by the military. We can no longer afford any rigid principle but one: that the harm done to people living now and in the future must be minimised by the most effective means, whatever they might be.

But I believe the likely response would be more interesting than this. Several recent studies have shown how, through maximising the diversity of renewable generators and by spreading them as far apart as possible, by using new techniques for balancing demand with supply and clever schemes for storing energy, between 80 and 100% of our electricity could be produced by renewables, without any loss in the reliability of power supplies(8,9,10). Unlike CCS, wind, wave, tidal, solar, hydro and geothermal power are proven technologies. Unlike nuclear power, they can be safely decommissioned as soon as they become redundant.

A policy like this requires both courage and vision. So look at the current cabinet – Brown, Straw, Darling, Hutton, Blears, Kelly, Hoon – and weep. Every man and woman with backbone was purged from this government years ago, leaving those who know how to appease the interests that might threaten them. These people won’t stand up to business, even when the future prospects of mankind are at stake.

If fear is the only thing that moves them, we must present them with a greater threat than the companies planning new coal plants. We must show that this issue has become a political flashpoint; that the public revulsion towards new coal could help to eject them from office. You could do no better than joining us at Kingsnorth this week.

References:

1. Quoted by Nicholas Kristof, 16th August 2007. The Big Melt. New York Times.

2. Longannet & Cockenzie (Scottish Power); Ferrybridge (Scottish and Southern Energy); Fiddler’s Ferry (Scottish and Southern Energy); Tilbury (RWE npower); Blyth (RWE npower).

3. Greenpeace makes this calculation as follows: “10.6 GW [the generation capacity of the six plants] x 7884 hours of generation per year, assuming 90% operational = 83.57 TWH/y. 83.57 TWH/y x 0.65 = 54 mt/CO2/y”. See footnote 23: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/c…

4. The provisional government estimate for the UK’s CO2 emissions in 2007 is 543.7 million tonnes. Defra, July 2008. UK Climate Change Programme. Annual Report to Parliament, July 2008, p9. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/ukccp/pdf/ukccp-ann…

5. House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, 22nd July 2008 . Carbon capture and
storage. Ninth Report of Session 2007–08. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmenvaud/654/...

6. ibid.

7. You can open the emails on this page:
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/press-releases/government-climate-pol…

8. German Aerospace Center (DLR) Institute of Technical Thermodynamics Section Systems Analysis and Technology Assessment, June 2006. Trans-Mediterranean Interconnection for Concentrating Solar Power. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Germany. http://www.dlr.de/tt/Portaldata/41/Resources/dokumente/institut/system/p…

9. Mark Barrett, April 2006. A Renewable Electricity System for the UK: A Response to the 2006 Energy Review. UCL Bartlett School Of Graduate Studies – Complex Built Environment Systems Group. http://www.cbes.ucl.ac.uk/projects/energyreview/Bartlett%20Response%20to…

10. Centre for Alternative Technology, 10th July 2007. ZeroCarbonBritain: an alternative energy strategy. This will be made available at www.zerocarbonbritain.com.

Buddhism and Radical Politics

Alex Doherty — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 12:58:42 +0000

UK Watch’s Alex Doherty interviews David Edwards of Medialens on the relationship between Buddhism and radical politics…

You are perhaps best known now as one half of Medialens – the media monitoring project. However before the founding of Medialens you had already written two books which attempted a synthesis of buddhist insights regarding the human condition with the institutional analyses of the radical left. What is it that you feel Buddhism has to contribute? What can radical activists learn from Buddhism?

My first book, Free to be Human (Burning All Illusions in the US) explored how Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky’s propaganda model could help in understanding the root causes of modern social, psychological, spiritual as well as political problems. I mentioned Buddhist ideas alongside a range of influences – Howard Zinn, Joseph Campbell, Erich Fromm, Leo Tolstoy, different mythologies around the world, and so on. Buddhism was a small part of that. My second book, The Compassionate Revolution , was an attempt to argue that the most powerful response to modern political and environmental problems is radical awareness rooted in compassion and concern for others, rather than anger and hatred. There was a far more concentrated focus on Buddhism, but my concern was to suggest an exploration of the case for a compassionate motivation, rather than specifically for Buddhism.

That aside, the first thing to say about Buddhism is that it isn’t a religion, in the sense that most people understand the word. Webster’s New World College dictionary defines religion as “belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshipped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe”.

By that definition, Buddhism isn’t a religion at all. Not only does Buddhism reject the existence of a creator God ‘out there’, it argues that this idea is itself the projection on a cosmic canvas of a belief in the existence of an independent Self ‘in here’. Buddhism argues that Descartes’ assertion, “I think therefore I am”, contains the most pervasive superstitious faith of all – belief in the existence of an autonomous, inherently existent Self, or ‘I’.

Buddhism suggests we try to find the permanently existing Self. Is it found in any particular part of your body – your nose, arm, leg? Obviously not. Is
it your feelings of anger, love, compassion? But these are fleeting, they do not endure. Is it your thoughts? But then there must be millions of constantly changing selves. Well, then, is there a thinker behind the
thoughts? Buddhism rejects the idea – thoughts arise from conditions; there are thoughts and awareness of thoughts, but there is no thinker, no Lord of
the Mind, creating the thoughts. For example, no one chooses to be angry when insulted – ‘Now I will become angry’ – anger simply arises. And certainly no one thinks, ‘Now I will have the thought “Now I will be
angry”’. The idea that it is appropriate to be angry also just arises; it’s not created by some kind of homunculus in our heads.

And if we argue that the ‘thinker’, the Self, is something separate from the body, from feelings and thoughts, what on earth would that entity look like?
What could it possibly be? How much of ‘me’ would really exist apart from my body, thoughts and feelings?

That aside, Buddhism is primarily a system of thought and action focused on identifying the true causes of suffering and effective responses to it. So, arguably, it is much more a system of psychology than a religion. Its central claim is that by understanding for ourselves the deepest causes of unhappiness, we can learn to experiment with responses that counter that suffering.

This is significant because it follows that blind faith and obedience have no place, or should have no place, in Buddhism. If we mindlessly defer to
some external authority – some priesthood, Buddha or God – without thinking for ourselves, without truly understanding what is being said, then we will
not achieve the authentic understanding of the causes of suffering and so will be powerless to help ourselves. Also, these changes must come from our
own understanding – we cannot be transformed psychologically by external forces. Simply mouthing fine words, bowing obediently, praying to an omniscient power, and so on, are powerless to effect change in our minds. It would be like visiting a therapist – worshipping at his or her feet would
not help us overcome childhood traumas and depression, say.

This is why I generally don’t describe myself as a ‘Buddhist’. For many people, the term suggests submission before a god-like idol, the abandonment
of independent critical thought for comforting, superstitious beliefs. Personally, I have always been very wary of organised religion, as I am of
all hierarchical systems of power. It has always seemed to me that irrational authority, conformity, idolatry and abuse of power are par for the course. But this is not the whole story – we need to separate the ideas from the people who abuse them, and also recognise that large numbers of very sincere contemplatives, practitioners and teachers have achieved remarkable depths of insight and compassion. If we reject a system of thought solely on the basis that it has been exploited for corrupt ends,
then we should reject all systems of thought – Hitler called himself a socialist, after all! If we reject ideas, we should do so on the basis that they are irrational and unhelpful. Erich Fromm wrote:

“The task of critique is not to denounce the ideals, but to show their transformation into ideologies, and to challenge the ideology in the name of the betrayed ideal.” (Fromm – Beyond The Chains Of Illusion, Abacus, 1989, p.126)

A further point I think needs emphasising is that we need to approach these ideas with as much of an open mind as possible. Buddhism is an extraordinarily sophisticated and subtle system of thought. It has often been completely misunderstood and misinterpreted by Westerners who have clumsily compared it to Christianity, Islam and other religions. Much of
early Western academic commentary on Buddhism – suggesting, for example, that it was “quietistic”, “indifferent to suffering” and so on – was not
just wrong, it was an exact reversal of the truth. Very often, what people have dismissed is in fact not Buddhism at all (actually, Dharma, the word
‘Buddhism’ doesn’t exist in the countries of its origin), but a trivialised, distorted version of Buddhism.

What, for me, is so interesting about Buddhism is that it challenges our most common sense notions about the causes of happiness and suffering. It’s very easy in our society to believe that getting what we want – a beautiful, fascinating partner, money, leisure, holidays, whatever – will make us happy.

The problem with this attempt is that we are placing our own happiness at the centre of our attention, at the centre of our personal universe, as it
were. Bear in mind that the fact that we’re chasing these things means we haven’t got them yet, or at least that haven’t got enough of them. So what
does that mean? It means we’re placing what we want at the centre of our attention. That’s another way of saying we’re placing what we lack, our problems, at the centre of our attention. This is like putting a
psychological lens over our problems – they seem much bigger. This attempt at happiness, then, immediately places our problems front and centre; they immediately seem more severe, more important. This is already a cause of suffering. I’m sure you know people who do nothing but talk about their problems – what they need, what they haven’t got. It’s as if they’re playing a lead role in some cosmic drama – the whole world is focused on just them and their problems. No doubt we all do this to some extent, but it’s clear
that excessive self-focus plays a crucial role in making our problems seem far more severe.

What Buddhists suggest is that when we shift our attention away from our happiness, from our problems, all of this suffering, all of this sense of being deprived of what we must have – of our problems being hugely terrible and important – begins to lift. So how do we make that shift? We do it by putting other people’s suffering and happiness at the centre of our
attention. To the extent that their problems seem real and important, ours can seem less severe, more manageable by comparison. Crucially, although we
may feel intense compassion for the suffering of others, this does not need to be depressing and crushing because it precisely annihilates the cause of
psychological suffering – egotism and self-obsession. On the contrary, compassion can be profoundly uplifting, motivating and inspiring. Steven
Stosny, a relationship therapist – who to my knowledge is not a Buddhist – offers an interesting thought experiment:

“Imagine that you’re in a desert so vast that it would take five days to walk out of it. You have enough water for only three days. In other words, you cannot save yourself. But you know that rescue teams are out looking for you, and there’s a good chance you’ll be rescued before you run out of water. You come across a young child, say less than three years old. The
child is dying now, and will die now, unless you share your water. Of course there’s a risk to that. If you share the water, you’ll both die tomorrow, and you might have been rescued on the second day.

“So what will you do? Share the water? Or watch the child die?

“If you think that you might not share the water and give yourself an extra day to be rescued, the rule is that you cannot walk away – if you withhold the water, you must watch the child slowly die, lips cracked, eyes bulging, tongue swelling, skin parched and burned. Imagine how much you would have to fight off the humane instinct to give the child a drink of
water.”

Stosny invites us to imagine how we would feel if we helped the child:

“Close your eyes for a moment and imagine that you are trying to comfort this frightened child in this barren desert. You are the only person in the world who can make her feel better right now. You’re hugging her, rocking her, whispering to her or singing to her, doing whatever you would do to comfort her… [And] she is calming down. She’s holding tightly onto you,
feeling soothed, peaceful, and good, because of you. She feels secure and comforted, wrapped in your compassion.” (Stosny, You Don’t have To take It
Any More!, Free Press, 2006, pp.76-77)

Here’s the curious thing – doing this with compassion, and even imagining you’re doing it, can be a source of happiness and peace of mind. Whereas the pursuit of personal happiness through desire leaves us anxious, frustrated, bored and depressed; working for the benefit of others relieves our suffering and the suffering of others.

By now, there is credible scientific evidence to show that Buddhist monks meditating intensively on compassionate thoughts of the kind outlined by
Stosny achieve high levels of peace of mind and happiness. These appear to be states of psychological well being far beyond what most of us normally
experience. And there is not a corporate product, service, or other source of self-indulgent pleasure, anywhere in sight. I have written about some of
the evidence here.

The problem for most of us is that experiencing this in any depth takes real work – we need to rein in a deeply entrenched tendency to selfishness. But
how can we do this? How do you turn this giant oil tanker of self-centred momentum around? How do you even persuade yourself it’s what you want to do
(if indeed you do)? It’s like Newtonian physics – the equal and opposite force to selfish concern is concern for others. It’s not enough to do have one generous thought, to feel compassion occasionally for a loved one – it takes years and years of intense focus on restraining and reversing greedy, angry and selfish thoughts and actions. Over time, it is claimed this really can progressively remove our selfish tendencies, and the psychological “pollutants” like craving, pride, jealousy and hatred, with a corresponding increase in psychological and even physical well-being.

So that’s really the whole Buddhist ‘path’ – reversing the tendency to self-concern through compassionate training and insight into the non-existence of the self – in the belief that this leads to genuine
happiness for ourselves and everyone around us.

This is all very interesting to me; first, because in my own experience I have never found happiness to be achievable through the pursuit of self-interest. Secondly, because I think our faith in selfish happiness is the real cause of the destruction of the Third World and indeed of our planet. That’s what ultimately drives the state-corporate system, our
complicity with it, and our complacent refusal to join the struggle to change it.

Buddhism doesn’t challenge corporate capitalism at its weakest point – that it exploits the Third World and wrecks the environment – but at its allegedly strongest point: that it delivers happiness to people selfish enough to be part of it.

There are plenty of non-Buddhist writers and thinkers who have looked and, increasingly are looking, into this subject – Erich Fromm, Richard Davidson,
Oliver James, Tim Kasser, Richard Layard, Martin Seligman, Steven Stosny, and others. The whole ‘positive psychology’ movement is exploring these
issues. So my own concern is really not with Buddhism as such, it’s with the whole idea of concern for others as a source of personal and political solutions.

*Many on the left might be reluctant to engage with Buddhism since it is often portrayed as a quietest religion which encourages introspection at the
cost of collective action. How accurate do you think this depiction of Buddhism is?*

As discussed above, I think this is one of the many early misunderstandings. In his book, in The Hope of Nibbana, Winston King described the goal of “equanimity” in Buddhism:

“It is seemingly a calm detachment of eternity mindedness that has little interest any longer in the ordinary affairs of men… the possessor of equanimity goes on, completely unshaken emotionally or mentally by the world’s mental, moral, or social disturbances.” (Winston King, In the Hope of Nibbana: Theravada Buddhist Ethics, LaSalle, Open Court, 1964, p.162)

This is badly mistaken. In fact equanimity is sought precisely in order to facilitate a feeling of unlimited compassion for all sentient beings. The
goal is to throw off restricted compassion and love for one person, one family, one nation or race, the better to embrace all equally. This is said to be a stepping stone towards the true goal: the “unusual attitude”. Which is?:

“Here when cultivating the unusual attitude, its special force is that you think, ‘I alone take upon myself the burden of causing all sentient beings
to have happiness and the causes of happiness; I alone take upon myself the burden of causing all sentient beings to be free from suffering and the causes of suffering.’”

So what level of motivation is this intended to generate?:

“For the wise and compassionate who carry the great burden of [suffering of] sentient beings upon their shoulders, moving slowly like a swan is not attractive: When self and other are tightly bound,
one must make enormous effort.”

Buddhism essentially provides a set of tools based on the conviction that happiness for ourselves and others is achieved through ethical behaviour – through thinking and working for the benefit of others. The idea is that you mix these psychological tools with whatever you’re doing – if you are a doctor, teacher, writer, waiter, the idea is that you incorporate the
compassionate, altruistic motivation in whatever you’re doing. How you make use of these tools is up to you. So you can absolutely incorporate Buddhist
ideas into activism and live a very active and vibrant existence.

*From your books it seems that you follow the “agnostic Buddhism” of writers such as Stephen Bachelor, for whom matters such as reincarnation and
karma are not taken seriously.*

Yes, I would describe myself as agnostic. Buddhists in fact don’t argue for the existence of reincarnation, but for ‘rebirth’, which is not quite the same thing. The concepts of rebirth and karma are tied up with the equally problematic issue of ‘emptiness’ or sunyata. The latter argues for dependent origination, the idea that objects do not exist as they appear – as independent, inherently existing phenomena. It is argued that while objects do exist, they are essentially no more solid and real than the objects we
experience in dreams.

The problem here is that it is claimed that this view of reality cannot be understood, much less experienced as real, without intensive development of concentration, analytical meditation and penetrative insight. This takes a very serious level of commitment and determination over many years. I, for example, have a superficial intellectual understanding of ‘emptiness’, but no deeper realisation, so I can’t really comment. I don’t dismiss these issues out of hand by any means, I try to keep an open mind. But, as
discussed, my own focus is very much on the potential of compassion as a response to problems rooted in greed, hatred and ignorance.

*In a chapter of his book ‘The Awakening Of The West’, devoted to the Vietnamese Buddhist master Thich Naht Hanh, Stephen Batchelor writes:

“Thich Nhat Hanh and his fellow Buddhist activists sided neither with the Communist north nor the anti-communist south. Nor did they harbour any
desire for political power themselves. They sought understanding instead of conflict.”

I imagine you would not agree with this description of a war between a communist north Vietnam and an anti-communist south. Why have Buddhists accepted mainstream narratives such as this? What accounts for the political innocence of Buddhist thinkers?*

Or we could ask: what accounts for the political innocence of Christian, Muslim, socialist and anarchist thinkers?

My point is that some Buddhist thinkers are indeed very innocent politically, whilst some are very astute. Having said that, modern Buddhism
does typically focus on the psychological causes of suffering in individuals. It is much less concerned with social factors – education, culture, politics, economics – generating these causes. The emphasis is
simply to rid the mind of the causes of suffering regardless of their origins. I think this is particularly true of Western Buddhists.

Most people in the West have been deeply deceived by the propaganda system – Buddhism has often been incorporated into this deceptive world view. Erich
Fromm argued that psychoanalysis quickly became a tool, not for achieving full human sanity, but for fitting industrial man into an essentially insane
corporate society. I think one can argue that Buddhism in the West has often been distorted in a similar way. After all, what does it mean to be compassionate but not concerned with understanding the truth about
state-corporate power – with its many massacres in the Third World, its systemic poverty, starvation and oppression? To (rightly) focus on increasing our kindness with friends and family, with ethical behaviour, without focusing also on the fact that our government is killing and mutilating hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, right now, doesn’t make
sense to me.

I feel Western Buddhists would benefit greatly from a more profound analysis of the political and economic factors boosting the greed, hatred and ignorance that fuel the “afflictive emotions”. In what way do
state-corporate factors promote greed, self-obsession, cynicism, hatred of foreign enemies? That’s really what I tried to discuss in my first two books. On the other hand, there is the clear danger that if Buddhism became radicalised, it would be targeted by the propaganda system in the way that socialism and communism have been. Perhaps being ostensibly apolitical helps valuable ideas pass through the propaganda filter system into the mainstream. I’m not sure, it’s not something I really have an answer to.

What do you think Buddhists can learn from the radical left?

As above, I think they can learn from systemic analyses that reveal the political and economic causes of suffering. I think the classic ‘three poisons’ of Buddhism – greed, hatred and ignorance – are entrenched in self-perpetuating and self-reinforcing political and economic systems. These shape our minds and culture to ensure we are serviceable to these
greed-based requirements. I think understanding the goals and biases built into a corporate culture helps enormously in extricating oneself from its illusions. For example, if someone thinks it’s cool to smoke, it helps to know that that notion has not simply emerged out of human nature in the natural way of things; it’s an idea that has been endlessly boosted and reinforced by a million moments of ruthless corporate cultural propaganda (Hollywood stars have long been paid to smoke in films, for example). We can start to see ‘common sense’ ideas as psychological Trojan Horses.
Personally, I think it’s a mistake that Buddhism has so little to say about these issues.

Do you think that other religions are as valuable as Buddhism in providing meaningful insights and a way to exist in the world?

I haven’t looked into other belief systems, religions and mythologies to anything like the same extent. The comparative mythologist Joseph Campbell argued that to look beneath the surface of the major human mythologies and cultures, is to discover essentially the same set of ideas: that phenomena do not inherently exist as fundamentally separate objects, that penetrating the illusion of the Self gives rise to unconditional compassion, and that this is the source of true happiness as well as a boon for the world around us. That’s why Campbell called his classic work ‘The Hero With A Thousand Faces’ – it’s the same compassionate vision beneath the many hundreds of cultural forms.

I think this emphasis on unity and compassion does indeed underlie many traditions. But it is often obscured by the corruptions and depredations of
history and power. Tony Blair, for example, believes it is possible to be a Christian and to wage war – a view Tolstoy deemed completely fraudulent and in fact absurd. He wrote in his Notes For Soldiers:

“You are told in the Gospel that one should not only refrain from killing his brothers, but should not do that which leads to murder: one should not be angry with one’s brothers, not hate one’s enemies, but love them. In the law of Moses you are distinctly told, ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ without any reservations as to whom you can and cannot kill.” (Tolstoy – Writings on
Civil Disobedience and Non-Violence, NSP, 1987, p.40)

He also wrote:

“A Christian nation which engages in war ought, in order to be logical, not only take down the cross from its church steeples, turn the churches to some
other use, give the clergy other duties, having first prohibited the preaching of the Gospel, but also ought to abandon all the requirements of morality which flow from Christian law.” (Ibid, xiv)

You have been quite critical of the organised left for the “righteous anger” directed towards powerful individuals in our society. As with Buddhist thinkers you argue that anger is neither productive nor appropriate and you have claimed that elite elements themselves are victims of the propaganda system. Is it not entirely understandable to feel anger towards privileged individuals responsible for monstrous crimes such as a Blair or a Putin for example? In what way can such figures be considered victims?

Well I have to agree its understandable because I get angry, too. By the way, this immediately indicates a difficulty with even having this discussion. To propose restraint on anger and an increase in compassion can seem, for some people, inherently dubious. After all, we could be forgiven for thinking that implicit in the promotion of compassion is the suggestion that the promoter is, him/herself, a paragon of virtue. So it can immediately seem like some kind of backhanded exercise in self-promotion. That is not what Im trying to do. My own failings – and they are many, believe me – are really irrelevant to the discussion. For me the issue is whether we, all of us, are harmed by anger and benefited by compassion, and whether we can change.

My focus on righteous anger isnt about criticising people on the left for being righteous. Plenty of people reject the idea that its a good thing to be angry when you dont get what you want – like a kid who explodes because his parents wont give him an ice cream. But its much more challenging to take issue with the anger people feel when they see gross injustice, suffering, and so on. Thats a very different subject. Thats what I mean by righteous anger.

I think there are two issues here: 1) Is it beneficial or destructive to be angry with these powerful individuals? 2) If we decide its destructive (my own view), is it possible to do anything to rein in the anger?

On the first question, there is any amount of serious scientific evidence to show that anger is devastating to our physical and psychological health. Doctors like Prof. Redford Williams of Duke University describes it as being like taking a powerful poison every day of our lives. He writes:

“When John Barefoot followed them up recently, he found that among those lawyers whose Ho [hostility test] scores had been in the highest quarter of their class twenty-five years earlier, nearly 20 percent were dead by age fifty; in contrast, only 4 percent of those with Ho scores in the lowest quarter had died.” (Redford Williams and Virginia Williams, Anger Kills, Seventeen Strategies for Controlling the Hostility That Can Harm Your Health – HarperPerennial, 1994, p.37)

“On research conducted on doctors: As they aged from twenty-five to fifty, those UNC doctors whose Ho scores had been in the upper half at age twenty-five were four to five times more likely than those with lower scored to develop coronary heart disease and nearly seven times more likely to die from any cause… in addition to contributing to higher death rates via increased coronary rates, hostility might also be contributing to increased risk of cancer as well.“ (p.36)

Psychologically, anger leads to all kinds of problems – anxiety, depression, wrecked relationships, loneliness, isolation and so on:

“As a group, hostile people are unhappy. Timothy Smith, a University of Utah researcher, and his colleagues have found that college students who score high on the Ho scale report more hassles and negative life events, along with less social support.” (Ibid, p.40)

I think chronic anger is very destructive of progressive movements and organisations – a few moments of rage can wreck good working relationships. It also alienates the public who are heavily influenced by the propaganda system and who often have no idea why activists are so angry. They assume they must be witnessing some kind of mass neurosis – people sort of acting out their weirdness. The rage feeds perfectly into the propaganda system which is very happy to portray people on the left as dangerous, violent lunatics who are a threat to society. Thats a wonderful way to get the public to rally round the status quo. Ive written more about this here.

My own view is that compassion – the urge to relieve the suffering of others – is the most powerful dissident motivation. If you look at some of the really notable progressive thinkers and activists – people like Fromm, Chomsky, Herman, Pilger, Zinn – I think compassion is really at the heart of what theyre doing. I think it explains their ability to steer a path through the delusive influences and traps of the propaganda system. The suffering of others is too real, too important, for them to be deceived, to compromise, to hold their tongues. After all, why should it be that just these people can see through the deceptions when so many others cant? In debating with journalists Ive found they are often 100% sincere in their belief that the media is free, the West is benign, and so on. So what separates them from the people Ive mentioned? Are the dissidents just very smart? I dont think thats it at all – there are plenty of smart people who are completely deceived by societys illusions. I think compassion – the sense that people are suffering terribly and its our personal responsibility to do something about it – helps neutralise the personal greed, ambition and egotism that hook us into the propaganda version of reality, that prevent us from seeing through it.

The reason I mention this here is that Buddhists claim anger has the effect of annihilating compassion in the mind. You cant feel compassion and anger at the same time; they are mutually exclusive. So rather than focusing on what is best for the people were trying to help, our focus shifts towards attacking and punishing the perceived enemy – big business, politicians, journalists and so on. The shift may not be obvious, but its crucial and changes the impact of what were doing.

There are other consequences – if compassion is annihilated by anger, that makes the mind vulnerable to greed and egotism, because there are no longer these psychological counter-forces present in the mind. So its no surprise if dissidents primarily motivated by anger – suffering the attrition of constant rage – become exhausted by the whole struggle, start to feel the whole thing is futile and start moving in a more self-centred direction. Maybe they return to the corporate world, or have retired to some more quietistic life or whatever. That happens a lot.

This is all very simplistic, obviously – I dont mean to suggest its as black and white as this. We all surely have a mixture of motivations, but I think these issues are worth bearing in mind.

So is it possible to counter anger even for powerful people, say Tony Blair?

We can reflect that Blair is a product of conditions beyond his control – he sees the world in a way dominated by his education, upbringing, friends, family and colleagues. Would he think and act the same way if he had been exposed to different conditions? Is he to blame for the conditions that have shaped his world view? We can ask if he is the sole destructive actor or condition, or is he merely one link in a chain of cause and effect that precedes and transcends him? We can argue, for example, that what has been done to Iraq is actually the culmination of billions of selfish thoughts in individuals over decades, even centuries. After all, where does corporate greed for oil come from? Where does militarism come from? Does it come from Blair? So we can see Blair as being to some extent a tiny part of a vast picture. Hes not really the issue.

If you want to get metaphysical, we can reflect on Blairs lack of inherent existence – who or what actually is Tony Blair? Is he his mind? Which part of his mind – which thought? Is he any particular thought? Is there a creator of thoughts that we can call Blair, or do thoughts merely arise from conditions beyond the control of some background creator, like bubbles forming in a glass of lemonade?

If you believe in karma – or just in the destructive consequences of living a selfish, egotistical, cruel life – you can imagine the suffering Blair will undergo as a result of his uncompassionate actions and as a result of ageing, sickness and death.

We can reflect that if we can muster some compassion for him then this strengthens our compassion for other people who appear less guilty of terrible crimes, less harmful. We visit a gym to lift weights to become stronger, do we not? If we can compassionately lift Blair in our minds, then our compassion will surely be untroubled by most other tests in life.

So there are these ideas – if we reflect on them often enough, particularly as part of some kind of meditation, then they can certainly reduce anger. This can mean we have a clearer, more rational mind that allows us to do more and better work for the benefit of others. I think reducing anger protects our motivation – anger seems very powerful, but it provides a short burst of often quite blind energy that soon exhausts itself.

In the preface to ‘Free To Be Human’ you remark that your work on these topics has been largely shunned – not just by the mainstream but by left publications as well. Does this remain the case? What do you attribute this to?

Yes, it is still very much the case. There is a terrible addiction to specialisation in modern society – ‘Our magazine publishes this kind of material, not that kind.’ Some editors even insist they have a ‘house style – so all their articles have to conform to that style. How tedious is that?! There is also a terror of disagreement, of open discussion and debate. To challenge someone’s arguments often leaves them feeling horribly ‘attacked’ and ‘insulted’, almost violated. There is also a fear of difference, of stirring things up, of being creative. I think this may be the result of our being constantly exposed to a corporate culture that loathes honesty, openness, disagreement and clashing ideas. Corporations want you to see their products and services one way only – in their best light. They want everything to be perfectly controlled, contained and sterilised to the maximum benefit of their public image. And because this
appearance is generally a fraud – the reality is often far less attractive, satisfying and desirable, with many destructive side-effects – they dread people speaking out honestly, randomly, creatively about real issues. Then the cat risks leaping out of the bag. The anarchist writer Rudolf Rocker summed this up brilliantly:

“Political power always strives for uniformity. In its stupid desire to order and control all social events to a definite principle, it is always eager to reduce all human activity to a single pattern. Thereby it comes into irreconcilable opposition with the creative forces of all higher culture, which is ever on the lookout for new forms and new organisations and consequently is as definitely dependent on variety and universality in human understandings as is political power on fixed forms and patterns”(Rocker, Culture and Nationalism, Michael E. Coughlan, 1978, p.82)

We are all victims of this brainwashing to different degrees. So, typically, Buddhist magazines do not like to hear about politics – dismissed as ‘negative’ – and left magazines do not like to hear about Buddhism and
compassion – dismissed as ‘sentimental’ and ‘naieve’.

As far as the left goes, there is huge disdain, even contempt, rooted in deeply entrenched Western arrogance towards Third World cultures that stretches back to the Enlightenment, and beyond. The Buddhist writer and teacher Alan Wallace makes the point:

“For centuries we in the West have wondered whether intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe. If there are highly advanced, intelligent beings out there, what might they have to teach us? Along similar lines we can ask: is there intelligent life on our planet outside of our Euro-American civilisation? Of course that sounds like a dumb question, but it’s still worth asking, since there persists an attitude in our society that we know more about everything than any previous generation and more than any other ‘less developed’ society today.” (Wallace, Buddhism With An Attitude, B. Alan Wallace, Snow Lion, 2001, p.8)

The West has science, technology, power, and we tend to believe this proves we are more modern, more sophisticated, more hard-headed and wise, almost
more evolved, than any other culture in history. So when we approach a tradition like Buddhism, we are looking down as though from a great height at what we assume is primitive, superstitious nonsense. This is a genuine tragedy because, in my experience, our culture is in many ways far less sophisticated, certainly from an ethical and philosophical standpoint.

It is said that many years ago a rather pompous Western professor sat down for tea with a Zen Buddhist master and arrogantly demanded that he be told
what this Zen business was all about. The Zen teacher calmly poured tea into the professor’s cup. He continued pouring until the cup was full and then
overflowing. The professor was shocked: “It is overfull. No more will go in!” “Like this cup”, the master said, “you are full of your own opinions
and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?”

In exactly this way, the left dismisses Buddhism as organised religion and can summon up any number of horrors from history to indicate that it’s a
fraud perpetrated by the ruling classes to control the masses. The left also has deep faith in anger as a source of motivation and a badge of commitment – the angry mind naturally dislikes all talk of compassion and restraint!