Britain needs to stress that it sees the euro as the great danger to Europe.

Add to that his argument that Cameron was actually protecting Europe by exercising his veto … all in order to undermine those evil Germans and French and their efforts to dominate Europe. Looks like this one was written after a night on the piss. But why do I have sense of déjà vu about all of this?

 

A few juicy snippets from the accounts of Res Publica, the ‘think tank’ set up by the portly protagonist, Phillip Blond, in the glory days of the Tory election campaign. Blond, you may recall was doling out large dollops of economic and social advice to David Cameron – big society, locality, family, moral economy, virtuous elites, common popular customs.

But Blond is on less firm ground dealing with his own economic realities: funding shortages, staff laid off, rented premises locked due to unpaid rents (more here and here). So let us have a closer look at a few records (available at £1 per item from Companies House).

First, Blond is the sole director …

member …

and shareholder:

A dodgy set-up, is it not, as Political Scrapbook points out? All of which becomes even more dodgy when Res Publica is not, as is usually the case with such valuable social institutions, a non-profit organisation, but actually a private company:

Given that Blond plays cymbals, drum, ukelele and mouth-organ, he can also undertake business dealings purely with himself:

And his liabilities should the whole business go belly up?

Nice, cosy set-up, especially in light of some big sums in the creditor-debtor columns:

No wonder his guru, John Milbank, should come to the ‘rescue’ earlier this year, becoming a second director:

WTF! Is Milbank related to Maclagan? Bugger me …

I can’t help thinking that a careful reading of Max Horkheimer might aid the red(-faced) tories and sundry hangers-on during their effort to sup with the devil Cameron. A snippet from Criticism of Theology (with a few inserts).

One of Horkheimer’s main themes in his texts on religion is the role of the state – that collective gone bad. His experiences were not the best: he had fled the Nazis in the early 1930s, resettling the Institute for Critical Theory at Columbia University in New York; he had witnessed from afar what was taking place under Stalin in the Soviet Union; he and Adorno were not enthused at all by the vigorous capitalism in the United States. With these tendencies all around, it should not be surprising that Horkheimer would scan history for similar tendencies – and he found it with both Christianity and Judaism.

As for Christianity, Constantine the Great – son of a Christian mother and who himself converted at least in 312 CE (if not earlier) before the famous battle of the Milvian Bridge in which he gained control of the Roman Empire – is the main culprit. By 313, Constantine and Licinius (then emperor in the east) issued the Edict of Milan, which legalised Christianity, and Constantine set about an aggressive programme of building churches (in the main centres of Jerusalem, Constantinople, Rome and elsewhere in the empire), paying for a whole new class of state-bureaucrats, the priests, calling church-councils (especially the first ecumenical council in Nicaea in 325 CE) for the sake of Christian doctrinal unity, and ensuring favourable treatment for Christianity. Even though it was not until 380 CE that Theodosius I proclaimed Christianity the sole religion of the Empire, the deal had been done and the Christian church had moved from a marginal religion under pressure of state-censure to become extraordinarily powerful, wealthy and used to employing strong-arm tactics against opponents.

For some, this epochal shift was the sign of Christianity’s success. The Eastern orthodox and oriental orthodox churches made Constantine a saint, and ideologues such as Eusebius of Caesaria, the first church-historian (and Blond’s much more illustrious fore-runner), opined in 320 CE that a unified Christian empire was God’s will. For others, it was the great moment of betrayal. Radical Reformers in the sixteenth century, who suffered persecution at the hands of both the Roman-Catholics and the Protestants, saw Constantine’s conversion and adoption of Christianity as the religion of empire as the moment when Christianity sold out and betrayed that for which Jesus and the early Christians had stood. Horkheimer agrees wholeheartedly: this was when Christianity became rather embarrassed at what Jesus had said and done. And so it developed ‘a secret and indomitable hatred for that attitude of mind for which its founder had earlier been put to death’.

The consequences for theology and practice were momentous: evil and hell became necessary categories for those who did not conform; orthopraxis combined with orthodoxy to define who submitted to the will of the Church and who broke ranks; prayer slid from intercession for rain, the crops, the ruler or the people to the furtherance of one’s own (later bourgeois) goals; theology began its delicate task of reconciling the clear demands found in the Gospels with the requirements of power (a deifnition of radical orthodoxy …). On this last item, Horkheimer and G.E.M. Ste. Croix would have had much to discuss over a long night, many empty beer-bottles and an overflowing ashtray – Horkheimer with the theoretical depth and Ste. Croix with his inexhaustible references.

Yet the theme that keeps recurring in Horkheimer’s observations concerning this complex betrayal is the way the longing for the other becomes identical with longing for the mother-country. At this point, Horkheimer’s invocation on the ban on idolatry from the second and third commandments in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 has some weight: ‘critical theory … rests on the thought that the Absolute – that is God – cannot be made into an object [nicht zum Objekt gemacht werden kann]’. Adorno would make this ban on idolatry into the Bilderverbot, a persistent leitmotiv of his thought; even though the theme is more muted in Horkheimer’s writings, it still has significant critical bite. Identification of the state, the mother-country, with the Absolute is the worst form of idolatry. And, like all idols, it demands sacrifice in blood, justifies wars of aggression and bloody suppression.

Horkheimer compares this compromise to a skyscraper, in which the ‘basement is a slaughterhouse, its roof a cathedral, but from the windows of the upper floors, it affords a really beautiful view of the starry heavens’.

A good number slipped over to Scribd to read the earlier version of the red tory piece, but there is now a revised and thereby much better version now up.

Soon to come out in the Bulletin for the Study of Religion, a pre-publication of our piece on Red Toryism. Some reading while I am away from those blanketing waves of  internet and mobile-phone connectivity.

In writing a piece on the Red Tories (with some able co-authorship) called ‘Thin Economics; Thick Moralising: Red Toryism and the Politics of Nostalgia’, I happened upon a key but hitherto unknown document. Here are a few choice quotations:

On localism, versus liberalism and socialism:

In the Red Tory conception of history, man is man only by virtue of the spiritual process to which he contributes as a member of the family, the social group, the nation, and in the function of history to which all nations bring their contribution. Hence the great value of tradition in records, in language, in customs, in the rules of social life … Red Toryism is therefore opposed to all individualistic abstractions based on eighteenth century materialism; and it is opposed to all Jacobinistic utopias and innovations…

Red Toryism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Red Toryism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon … Red Toryism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State.

On morality:

This positive conception of life is obviously an ethical one. It invests the whole field of reality as well as the human activities which master it. No action is exempt from moral judgment; no activity can be despoiled of the value which a moral purpose confers on all things. Therefore life, as conceived of by the Red Tory, is serious, austere, and religious; all its manifestations are poised in a world sustained by moral forces and subject to spiritual responsibilities.

On religion:

The Red Tory conception of life is a religious one, in which man is viewed in his immanent relation to a higher law, endowed with an objective will transcending the in­dividual and raising him to conscious membership of a spiritual society.

You’ll find this key document here.

Vulgar Marxism has gathered all of the juiciest pieces from my earlier blogs to paint an ‘attractive’ picture of New Hobbiton, which Milbank, Maclagan, Blond et al have begun to call home.