The Making of a Rogue State

The increase in settlers and the growing stranglehold of religious orthodox minorities on the Israeli state have also increased the divide with the more moderate politicians in Antlantic powers. Though not taking the form of a rift, we can very clearly see a relationship in flux. Compounded by the increasing reach of J Street in the US, where AIPAC has lost it's monopoly on a jewish truth in America and European nations vexed by the increased intolerance of Likud and the Israeli far right, these evolutions open a window on a future alltogether different from what even the boldest of liberals might have predicted.
In September, when the Palestinian Territories will claim the independence they cannot attain in any other apparant way, they will garner support from many European nations, including France and Great Britain. Even the German position has started shifting, having shaken much of it's former guilt-induced foreign policy stature this last year. In a context where Israel's most staunch ally, after having taken a series of baffling humiliations, has made it increasingly clear that it wants things to move, the Israelis should take note that if they want to maintain a credible international posture, they may very well have to act very boldly, very quickly.
In a world where every other nation condemns Israel for their obvious and reproachable attitude towards the Palestinian Territories, the United States government cannot afford to stand alone with it. The shifting balance of world politics has not been in eithers favour and the US will refuse to become isolated in an a world where it's hold is as tenuous as ever. Thus, the current Israeli posture will eventualy result in a position of complete international isolation, comparable only to that of South Africa in the 1980's. The Israeli state has as much a right to exist as the Palestinian one does. But if the Israelis do not want to end up a despised pariah-state and possibly, a despised minority within a single Palestinian-Israeli state, they had better start working on a compromise.

Cultural Industry

The pistol shot still echoes from the early 1900’s. The cultural industry started off as a private initiative. Writing for the mass media took more then aristocratic ‘genie’. It took a constant flow of letters from the veins of labourers. While the press has all but caved in to these pressures, writing for their daily gains, Xeroxing Reuters statements into user-customised formats to gnaw at the shares of others and giving in to popular demand, the literary world has, strangely enough, maintained a meagre independence. This most likely as the result of it being the target of ‘luxury’ consumption, where people buy goods primarily because of the fact that they are not for the masses. Nevertheless volume and profit also dictate these spheres more then ever.

When we look at theatre, painting and other art forms, however, we can see that industrial standards have settled in, beyond recognition of most and well beyond what we see in literature, where intellect is still a factor to be dealt with (though evil masterminds are probably plotting to get rid of it as we read). Off course, we also see this varnish of ‘genie’ still. But deeper, when exploring the actual layers, they resound industrial production for the market.

The market dictates price and sets the pace. This has mostly been the case, however. Mediaeval artists never existed. They were artisans in every possible way. The great Renaissance artists up until the end of the 19^th century produced for a market and most bended and folded at the will of the commissioners of their pieces.

But then, in the great workshops of Rafael and Rubens, was the production not industrial, as well? It was not, for industry was non-existent. To the contrary, in the course of the 19^th century, the genie of the artist up to a certain point decoupled from this market, especially in the world of painting. Possibly this stance arose through artists who gained so much renown and financial security that they achieved independence from the opinions of the moral and social mainstream and upper layers, whom they used to produce for. Down through the 20^th century, we see the rising of an avant-garde, a core of artists unwilling to give up and step down from this independence, even if it meant hunger, despondency and dependence on other forms of production then artistic slavery. Yet they were free as artists. They did not produce so much for the taste the mainstream as for this true ‘genie’. They took and shook the art world in ways we will never see again.

What has happened to these free genies? They have been enslaved. They have been chained by different forms of authority and control. Over the years, creativity has been funnelled through channels which allowed the moral majority to catch up with these rogue avant-gardists again. One of the major problems has been the funding of these free spirits by governments and organisations. Artists need to live with the constant stress of not being able to make it. They need to chose between art and regular life. Where more so then in art, do extremes lead to greatness? What we have achieved by allowing training and production in the arts to be subsidized? We have gained an enormous mass of technical artists. Who are well-versed in execution. And so they have executed the avant-garde and ventured into the universe of the skilled factory worker, the only reason why they are not clustered into actual factories being that art is a luxury product, destined for consumption upward into the elite.

Too many people posing and wanting to have mental intercourse with their self-image of being ‘different’ have been allowed to venture into the ‘arts’. The enormous means that have been spilled upon the artistic community have allowed average and normal to become the standard where extreme used to reign supreme. Avant-gardism cannot be mainstream. For today, nobody can feel ok being average and normal. The desk-sitting boring man has been declared an outlaw. Originality has become the new average. Ironically this might get to the point were one has to make an art of being as boring as possible to be extreme.

'till debt do us part

So I was looking at some interesting figures about government debts, just now. I don't think I have to hurl the staggering US debt at anyone to make an impression. It would suffice to say that this year, the UK is spending 13% more than it's GDP. If you had a friend spending 13% more then his wage, how long would you two remain friends? How long for him to turn to you, begging for your hard-earned savings?

Many individuals have been acting to this plot. I'm not saying banks have behaved in a responsible way. Few people have as little love for banks as I do. I'm just saying banks behaved in a 'normal' way. If defined as: "ordinary or usual; the same as would be expected", as the dictionary does, that is. What I am saying, is that maybe it is time we all cleaned up our acts. Debt burdens are not healthy. 'But they are a cornerstone of our economic system!'

All the more reason for change. As individuals, as citizens, as politicians and yes, also as bankers, it is time we set ourselves some different benchmarks.