The Radicalisation of Feminism

Anger has become the primary stereotype of feminism

Feminism is one of the most important developments in modern society, and one of the most vital in the development of our democratic society. The emancipation of women is widely acknowledged as being a primary objective in developing states in order to dramatically improve their economic and political prospects and has become a key aim of the United Nations and a multitude of aid groups worldwide.

I am a proud feminist. I find the concept of the institutionalised oppression and suppression of women abhorrent. The practice of treating women as second-best to men is scientifically, economically and morally wrong. It is with this foundation, and the acknowledgement of the importance of feminism in our society, that I am so disappointed with the chaos feminism has descended into.

“Feminist” has become a dirty word. This will likely be an offensive thing to say for some, but it does not take much social observation to notice it. If someone labels themselves a feminist the resulting impression is of bitterness, over-sensitivity and hatred of people's enjoyment of life. To label someone else one tends to be based far more on the impression of a man-hating, superior, patronising and generally angry individuals. Where once it was a label of someone who simply supported equal legal and social treatment for both sexes (itself once a radical concept), it has become something far more radical than that. The radicalisation of feminism is such that both women and men who completely support equality feel the need to use qualifying phrases such as “I'm not a feminist or anything but I think women should be equal” or “I'm a feminist but not the man-hating kind”.

This development mirrors one which developed in 1950s America of an entirely different political nature. With the fall of Nazi Germany and the rise of Soviet Russia the Red Scare swept across the United States. Communism had become the great enemy. But the labelling did not stop at the door of the “C” word. The USSR was the United Soviet Socialist Republic. Socialism, with its own vital importance to the development of the modern liberal democratic state, was swept up in the fear and hate directed at the expanding wave of Communism. Even today socialism, despite its basic grounding in state provisions for the poor and equal opportunity for all, is a dirty word in American politics. Anyone on the right or centre will gladly smear anyone seen as drifting too far left with the term, as if they were Lenin come again to bring revolution and destroy private property. Socialism, despite its fairly basic and sensible foundations, was swept up in the radicalism of revolutionary communism.

It is this fate which has befallen feminism, but it is not one unique to the United States. Across the developed world the concept that is so vital for the ongoing development of the third world is under widespread attack. But what people attack is not the fundamentals of feminism itself, the concept of relegating women to second-class citizens is not one any respectable group would ever support, but instead the radical fringes which have claimed the term for themselves, and robbed it from their moderate allies.

These fringes claim that they are the only true feminists. Far more broadly than those who “only” support institutional and legal equality, they take aim at every facet of society. Their aggressive and exclusive approach to their campaign has made them a hostile movement, but in doing so has also provoked hostility in return and isolated them from the society they seek to change.

In reality, these feminists are a tiny fringe of the movement, a movement which covers most of society. However, the fundamental movement has suffered the same fate as the socialist centre-left and the religious moderates in that it has become defined by its loudest and most aggressive elements. The outrage the radical fringes express in response to almost any news story even vaguely connected to their interests has eventually developed the stereotypical image of the totalitarian Stalinist socialist, the raving new born evangelical Christian and the bitter man-hating feminist, all to the detriment of their moderate would-be allies. These stereotypes have swamped the messages of the moderate majority, to the despair of all that support them, but what pushed feminism to this point?

Feminism emerged as a term in the late nineteenth century and came to prominence in the campaigns of the suffragettes to achieve equal voting rights, the first wave of feminism. This was a wave of the institutionalisation of equality, one which gave birth to the second wave, one which took aim at the sexism inherent in western institutions. With the post war years this wave brought reproductive rights, labour rights and a huge push towards cultural and social equality.

However, what came with it, and with the third wave that followed, was a spreading front which directed its campaigns not only at concrete issues such as votes and jobs, but at society's values in general and aspects of culture far more fluid and open to interpretation. The feminist movement targeted such a broad spectrum of issues that it began to divide along lines not possible in its earliest years. As many turned to the third-wave's attack on the cultural norms of society others became "post" feminists who believed with the second-wave's main aims accomplished it was now simply a case of keeping the ball rolling.

It is the third wave which has borne fruit to the radicalism which has turned feminism into an isolated and hostile movement. This fringe, which sees itself as the only real feminists, sees the entire culture of its surroundings as hostile, and therefore is hostile in return. They claim the social construct of the patriarchy, an ultra-masculine complex of social mechanisms and norms, makes all of society take for granted male superiority over women. This almost subconscious construct has society in general acting in ways which promote the dominance of the masculine over the feminine without even realising it.

Not only is society as a whole unconsciously oppressing women, but it is doing so to everyone not rich, white, male and straight. The radicalised feminist movement has long moved on from being just about women and has taken on much of neo-marxist theories of emancipation. The theory of privilege, that the patriarchy privileges a small minority at the expense of all others, has become central to this feminist group.

I have no doubt that this article will be met with claims that in terming them "radicals" I am spreading the oppression of the patriarchy, that from my position of privilege (despite most readers having absolutely no idea as to my identity) I am waving aside oppression because I am not personally affected by it. That from my privileged pedestal of white, male, straight affluence I can no more comment on these issues than I can on the pain of childbirth or the experience of racism.

The point is that this is all completely irrelevant. I could be all or none of these things and still be perfectly able to see what has happened to the term "feminist". Doing so is as simple as asking a series of people in the street if they are feminists could achieve this. By taking aim at the whole of society around them, even those on their own side for not being quite unprivileged enough to comment, the radical feminist fringe has become isolated from the society it is so hostile towards. By claiming themselves far more worthy of the term feminist than mere supporters of legal equality, by being the loudest and most aggressive of this almost society-wide label, by turning out those of this collective who do not subscribe to their theories of an absolutely, aggressively, oppressive society that we live in, they have turned feminism into a stereotype. A stereotype of angry, bitter, man-hating, humourless women who wait for every little slip-up you might make to lash into your ignorant sexism. The kind of stereotype which leaves people uncertain whether it's acceptable to open a door for a woman or whether it can be ok to want to settle down as a stay-at-home mother.

This is not what feminism is. Feminism is one thing and one thing only at its most fundamental - no matter what sex you are you deserve to be treated equally regardless of that sex. This is not only an admirable position, it is a fundamental element of our society, that everyone should be treated equally regardless of sex, race, creed, sexuality or any number of other arbitrary divisions. That this term could be made not only to represent only a radical part of itself, but to turn its very label into a dirty word is a travesty.

The radicalisation of feminism is not unique. It has happened to every political movement that has come before or since. The most passionate, the angriest, the most radical, will always be those who to some extent define their ideology ahead of the meek and the moderate. It is long past time feminism was reclaimed by society at large, regardless of their privileges, and the people of the western world realised that feminism is in no way a dirty word. Something so simple as to turn from exclusion and aggression to inclusion and explanation could make all the difference. It is an ideology we all share, and we should all be proud to call ourselves feminists.

Equality in Marriage - Because Everyone Deserves the Right to be Unhappy

Republicans have gone from small-state to voyeur-state

This article is a guest piece from Sam Wood. He is a graduate of the University of Bristol and holds an MSc in International Secuirty

Two weeks ago two cases were brought before the Supreme Court of the United States relating to the legality of same-sex marriage. It has come to be seen as another potential landmark ruling in the Court’s history, similar to Roe vs. Wade on abortion and Brown vs. Board on segregation. As people begin to discuss the gravity of the hearing, both the Christian far-right and the pro- civil rights groups have been present and visible in front of the courthouse.

The issue of gay marriage in the 21^st Century is largely used as a distraction from pressing issues, it should be legal and we should focus our efforts on helping society in other obvious ways. In many ways however, gay marriage is an issue like other civil rights causes, with the LGBT community simply asking for equal standing before the law.

How then, would so many people appear to oppose it? The answer, in part, may lie with a small group of political ideologues that have been present in Washington for decades – the Neoconservatives. Based on the ideology of creating a true moral compass for American society, the Neoconservatives despised the moral relativism that comes with liberalism. Before 1980 Pastors and other church officials in America discouraged political engagement. In 1981, the Reagan campaign mobilised the Christian population to swing the vote overwhelmingly in Republican favour, thanks to the ideas of the Neoconservatives. What began as re-establishing a true moral compass turned ugly for the party a decade later at the Republican National Convention where speakers were booed off the stage for espousing true conservative values, such as a woman’s freedom to choose what happens to her own body.

Thus the Christianisation of freedom issues within sections of American society was the work of a small band of political theorists and policy makers. After all one of America’s founding principles was the freedom of religion, not the dictate of a sect of Christian moralists. Arguments relating to the Biblical sense of marriage, with the irksome phrase “marriage is between a man and a woman” bantered around, are often deeply flawed in themselves. Biblical marriage would also allow a man to marry several women, his rape victim, a female prisoner of war and a woman’s property, i.e her slaves. Thus, if considered properly, common law forbids many forms of Biblical marriage. It is simply an attempt to rebuff notions of equality, and a sloppy one at that.

Part of the reason for same-sex marriage becoming an issue is the culture of the 21^st Century. The exchange of private information, which many people willingly participate in, has reduced the classic sphere of private liberty. People seem too concerned with the actions of others, and too little concerned with political engagement and their own actions in society. How would two men getting married even affect most people’s lives? It wouldn't  Chances are if you hate the idea of it you won’t be attending a same sex wedding anyway. Thus it is probably down to the fact that people, millions of people, are willing to involve themselves in the personal lives of others, and then claim a breach of privacy when people examine theirs.

It is perhaps time to move beyond these arguments. Freedoms should be granted quickly so progress can be made in dealing with the massive issues of our day. Before we achieve equality in society as whole, there will be only sluggish attempts at fixing a very sick world.  

The Boomer Bust

Right now the Baby Boomers rule London, but will their policies alienate them when they move on?

As the Second World War ended there was a massive increase in birth rates across the Western Allies as soldiers returned home after six years of brutal conflict. The result was the baby boom. Stretching 18 years until 1964 it produced the largest generation in British history. Following the boom came the X-generation of disenfranchised angst who grew up to witness the fall of the Berlin Wall and finally the Echo Boom of the Millennial children of the massive Baby Boomer generation.

Given the periods of the Boomer and Millennial generations, the Boomers are now aged between 48 and 66, and are nearing the end of their working lives. Pressing against the war-era Silent generation on the one hand, and the far smaller X-generation on the other, they wield a disproportionate share of power in Britain. By contrast the next large generation, the Millennials, are generally at their broadest as aged between 12 and 30, concentrated on those coming of age into employment or university. 

Or at least, that is how the Boomers would have experienced their early 20s. They reached adulthood as the United Kingdom began to emerge from the rationing and austerity of the post-war years, into a new University system. As they emerged into employment between the 1960s and 1980s they were able to help drive the growth which would lead to the late 1990s boom, a boom they more than profited from. By 2004 the Boomers had spread their dominance in population into a dominance of economics, by 2004 they held 80% of the entire nation's wealth.

2007 was the tipping point, as the Boomers began to retire. For decades economists had predicted a huge slowdown of western economies from this point. What happened instead was the 2008 financial crisis, the turn-of-the-decade credit crunch and the ensuing Eurozone crisis. None of this can directly be tied to the existence of the Boomers themselves, but the boom they helped create through economic clout can be tied to the over-optimism and risky trading which resulted in the bubble which collapsed in 2008.

What the Boomers created until 2008 relied on their huge population and rise through a strong economic foundation. Unfortunately, as they retire, they are robbing that same opportunity of the Millennials. In 2012 even the youngest are approaching retirement, and will produce the largest welfare-dependent community that Britain has ever had to support. The ratio of workers to OAPs is projected to tumble under 3-to-1 by 2020 and the average age of the population shoot up to 40.

The denial of the Boomers as to their increasing age and looming retirement has stopped many from preparing for their retirement, which for many will last three decades. This short-sightedness also left them dragging the carpet from beneath the feet of the Millennials, burdening them with student debts totalling on average £53,400. Many more will struggle through unemployment which may well have damaged their employment prospects for years to come. As a triple-dip continues to threaten Britain many will have to turn to positions from which it will be very difficult to return to the career paths they would have enjoyed should they have been born several decades earlier. The Millennials have become the "boomerang" generation, forced to shelter beneath their Baby Boomer parents long after they would have been expected to escape into independent adulthood.

The combination of their failure to prepare to support themselves and a similar failure to equip the next large generation to support them instead is a recipe for a generation clash. The Millennial generation has been robbed of the education and employment it needs to see the prosperity their parents enjoyed, largely due to a crash that the older generation created. The Boomers not only created an economic boom, but financed their boom with mountainous debts which their children will not be willing to shoulder the burden of. Nor will the Millennials happily reach into their pockets to support a generation post-retirement who themselves took away the futures the Millennials looked upon with such hope only four years ago.

As birthrates have fallen across the western world and life expectancy have swelled, many governments have yet to fully take into account the huge strain which will fall on the shoulders of national health and social security schemes. Even now many who are retiring will spend over thirty years in retirement. By the end of this period many of them will be bound to care homes and even hospitals by chronic age-related disabilities. These hospitals are already struggling to cope, the vast majority of their services being overrun, funded by the taxes of a dwindling working population.

Though Britain will face the struggles of this emerging new demography, nowhere will this strike harder than China. The erroneous one-child policy is increasingly named the four-grandparents policy. By the height of their working careers the present millennial generation will be trying desperately to support both their parents and four grandparents through retirement single-handedly, unassisted by inadequate social security provisions. Where in Britain the change has occurred gradually, spreading the pressure over half a century, in China it will strike harder and faster. The economic crisis this will involve, which will be almost impossible to mitigate, will result in a major generational clash and economic collapse. Retirees may make China the shortest-lived superpower in history.

In Britain the Boomer boom and bust was an evidence of the live large lifestyle they enjoyed, one which also brought us the swinging sixties and the beginnings of the modern protest movement. It created the success of the western world from the ashes of the Second World War. But despite all those successes, the same ethos has robbed the futures of the generation they are hoping will support them in the post-employment world they never prepared for, futures they took away to save their own lifestyles they have yet to realise cannot survive the 2008 financial collapse. With their dramatically lower birth rates, ever-increasing years in retirement and possibly decades of healthcare dependency they are damning the Millennials to an existence of trying to fill an economic chasm left in their wake.

The bitterness this will cause, exacerbated by the betrayal many of the Millennial generation feel as their champion party, the Liberal Democrats, turned back on their tuition fee promises of the 2010 election. They feel robbed and disenfranchised, labelled as lawless and selfish after the Student Protests and the London Riots which followed.

A generation clash is coming, the Boomers have lived too large and spent too freely, as their prosperity is torn away by the financial crash and their careers coming to a close they can expect no sympathy from their bitter children. What they leave in their footsteps is the most devastating economic inheritance since the world wars, one which will shape the developed world for decades to come.

Women at War

Increasingly the taboos of sex and sexuality in the military are tumbling

In January the United States opened combat roles to women for the first time in their military history. This came under eighteen months after the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" restrictions on homosexuals policy was dropped. However there is a dramatic difference between the two changes in policy. Don't ask, don't tell was an entirely psychological restriction, so much so that a homosexual soldier could serve their lifetime in the military without any restrictions so long as they did not reveal their sexuality. Opening the field of combat to women is a very different challenge.

Many attacks on the capabilities of both homosexuals and women to serve in armed forces rely on discriminatory, out-dated and plain offensive stereotypes. Complaints that they do not have the emotional fortitude to hold up under pressure, that they are too weak to deal with the rough army lifestyle, that they ought to stick to traditional gender roles at home. Sexist prejudices have no place in serious analysis, but there remain very serious issues which must be confronted on the front-line.

• Physical limitations - This is perhaps the most significant issue with the idea of women in combat roles. There is no way to avoid the issue that women are (on the whole) significantly weaker physically than men, equality being the exception rather than the rule. This is evidenced by segregation in sports and significantly different standards in fitness tests. Men are simply designed better for combat, in fact that is one of the main ways in which they are designed. Evolution has created the capability for men to manage intense physical challenges in the form of hunting and fighting which was not developed as extensively in that of women. However there are many women (though not the majority) who can not only match their male counterparts but also exceed their abilities. The only possible way of managing this issue is gender-blind recruitment. If women are challenged to meet exactly the same standard as men in all physical challenges there can be no issue. This is the only sensible way a women-in-combat doctrine can be adopted, but could result in as few as 1% of combat forces being women.
• Women's issues - Pregnancy and menstruation are both issues in active duty, combat or not, but especially so in prolonged combat deployments. Although these issues can be mitigated, they still present an organisational issue for armed forces. 11% of women in the US military reported unplanned pregnancies in a single year, a logistics issue in itself but also a major recruitment issue, especially when dealing with individuals who may be ideologically opposed to not carrying pregnancies to term. Menstruation is also a major issue for several reasons, and something which requires careful planning not necessary for men.
• Sexual tensions - Much as it sounds juvenile, this is a very real military issue for combat units, one that featured prominently in the decision behind enforcing "don't ask, don't tell" beyond mere prejudice. Managing sexual tensions is a major issue for unit leaders, especially in an active combat environment where high-stress and violence becomes the norm. Already rape is far too frequent an occurrence in the military and many female units are limited in their co-location with male units. Considering the logistical issues with these limitations it is safe to say this is a very real problem, not an example of sexism.
• Sexism in duty - One of the often-mentioned arguments is that men developing feelings for female soldiers may place their safety above that of others or themselves. Even worse, males could compete to show-off to female soldiers. Considering the extremely close ties that soldiers develop in units and existing levels of competition it can hardly be imagined this is a real issue.
• Sexism in command - It is hardly surprising that in the old-boys club that is military officers there is likely to be some deeply entrenched sexism. However it has been shown that women actually receive more respect than their male peers for attaining the same standard, for beating the stereotypes. More concerning is the tendency of female officers to treat their same-sex subordinates far more harshly than they do men, a tendency also present in business. This tendency could very easily shut out promising female recruits who need role-models to look up to.
• Military policy - Will not change. In the slightest. There's an odd double-standard in women's rights movements that claim that women are both just as capable as men in all respects (ie. no real sex differences) and yet they can also bring something new to the table (ie. sex differences). In reality military doctrine is an ungendered practice based exclusively on pragmatism, not the masculinity of those deciding it. It is also one decided at a far higher level than combat operations, a level women have long been penetrating. It was actually the Republican Bush administration which placed emancipating women in Muslim countries centre-stage. An administration which was deeply unpopular with the female vote and included very few women.

I will not be concluding this analysis with an opinion one way or the other, as I am genuinely torn. On the one hand there should be no unsubstantiated prejudice between the sexes, women should be given every opportunity to succeed in all the same ways that men do and in every walk of life. If a woman can match or exceed the standards expected of men there should be no reason she should not succeed in any walk of life. On the other hand women in the military, and in combat roles specifically, present a major logistical, organisational, physical and psychological challenge to military forces. Much as these factors are often waved aside by equality campaigners they simply cannot be treated so flippantly. Women in combat roles is simply not an equality issue, it is a military issue. 

Much as liberal equality campaigners may wish to take their fight to the military this area should be ring-fenced. An area where the lives of soldiers fighting are at risk, in conflicts which may very well determine the fate of thousands of others, is not an area which should ever be messed with for ideological purposes. Any decision on whether or not to open the military to women, especially in combat roles, should be based purely on the very real practical concerns involved in doing so. Much as there is no room for discriminatory sexism in the armed forces based on stereotypes and prejudice, there is also no room to wave aside real sex issues for the sake of ideology. The case is still open on women at war, and it is not one which will close until the full implications of the US change in doctrine come to light.

The Burning Oil of Iraq

The oil fields of Iraq and Kuwait have still not recovered from the gulf wars

Ten years ago a "coalition of the willing" invaded Iraq. The incredible campaign of shock and awe wiped out the entire Iraqi military in just six weeks and the Husseins were captured or dead within six months. Eight years ago Saddam was hung, one year ago the last trucks of the US occupation force left the country.

The invasion of Iraq was an event which still scars the political landscape across the world, whether it be the collapse of US popular support across the Arab world or the continued aversion of the west to military force without UN consent. However, the debate which still rages is the one of motive. Why did the duo of George W. Bush and Tony Blair decide to invade what was one of the regional powers of the Middle East?

The word on the edge of everyone's tongues was, and still is, oil. What other explanation could there have been? After the intelligence was discredited, after the weapons they were looking for was never found. Why else would the world superpower invade a country half way across the world which just happened to have the fourth largest oil reserves in the world.

It is a popular theory, it plays well into the idea of selfish capitalist motives for an illegal conflict, of a clique of oil barons and political leaders willing to throw away the lives of soldiers for political gain. But was oil really the reason behind the war?

The argument that it was seems to rest on a very simple line of thought. Iraq has oil - the US uses oil - therefore the US would want to take the oil. This is an argument backed by several factors, including the control of petrodollars, collusion between the government and oil companies and the nonexistence of  any weapons of mass destruction. But all of these factors have their flaws.

• Saddam was planning to shift sales for oil from US Dollars to Euros - So what? The widespread online conspiracy theory about petrodollars and how the US currency will collapse the moment oil moves to Euros makes absolutely no sense. Not only does it completely ignore that currency markets are a huge industry in themselves, but also that Iraq was a relatively low-level exporter.Crippled by rounds of sanctions, Iraqi exports in 2003 were tiny. In fact Iraq cut off its exports completely in 2002 and it had barely any effect on, well, anything. The professional opinion is that the online petrodollar conspiracy theory is no more than that.

• Removing Saddam would give the US control over Iraqi oil - It is almost universally regarded that the coalition of the willing were completely unprepared for the scale of the insurgency which erupted after the invasion, peaking in 2006/2007. Even then the damage of the war would have set back Iraqi oil supplies, already far from the largest exporter in the region even at its peak. Western powers have a long history of oil deals with dictators they do not get along with Even worse, removing Saddam would remove the US's most valuable asset as a foil to the power of Iran. Why the US would want to overthrow a government they needed to hold back Iran's influence only to take control of a relatively small state they could much more easily strike a deal with? On top of that, what guarentee is there that oil would be seized upon by the US first - The Iraqi government still controls almost all Iraqi oil, and two of the first powers to be involved indirectly are Brazil and Norway. Those are risks not even the US would take just for oil.

• Removing Saddam would open up a huge reservoir of oil supplies - Even if this were the case, it would be one of the largest backfires in warfare since the Vietnam war. Iraq oil production collapsed and the first deals were only signed half a decade after the war. Iraq oil production only recovered to pre-Gulf war levels this year, and are still half that of in 1979. Not only is a decade a hell of a long-game in both political and economic terms, but knowing full well how swiftly the Asian powers were growing the US would also have known most of the trade in oil from Iraq would flow East to China, not West. Not only that but an Iraq with such large oil exports would directly challenge the US's second most powerful regional ally - Saudi Arabia. With Saddam gone Saudi Arabia is the primary regional opponent to Iran, meaning this shift would result in a significant possible reduction in US influence in the region. The exchange of oil for influence simply is not a good enough deal for the western powers to have taken.

• There were no WMDs - This is true. However the argument is now whether this was a mistake or a conspiracy. Although there is a case that the case for WMDs was invented purely for tricking the international community and domestic audiences into supporting the war, it is not a strong one. Firstly, it is very short-sighted, as it would swiftly become evident it was made-up the moment the invasion finished, destroying the reputations of both major powers involved and set back their ability to intervene anywhere militarily significantly (which is exactly what happened). Secondly, it is not a strong excuse, as Pakistan, South Korea, Libya and South Africa all openly developed WMDs and no UN measures were granted for invading these nations. If a UN mandate was not important, why bother with the WMD excuse? Thirdly, the case that it was a genuine problem of intelligence is one that is quite strong. Even individuals against the Iraq war more frequently point to the incredible intelligence failures involved before turning to the concept of conspiracy. There were no WMDs, but it seems that a genuine belief that there were was the driving influence of the decision to go to war.

Iraq was about the oil seems like one of the most often-stated unofficial truths of international commentary, but the case simply does not stand up. That it may well have been one of the influencing factors of invasion is clear, as oil often is in most international affairs carried out in the region, but that it was the only or decisive factor is not. There are many different factors which may have contributed to the invasion in 2003. Oil may have been one. But it was not the only, nor the decisive, factor for the War in Iraq.

The Myths of the British Tax Isles

Yachts, diamonds, champagne and deep corruption - Easy targets in the war against the 1%

"A medieval fortress, surrounded by a moat, run by a mad king who's bent on torturing and raping while looting the country" - The word of Russia Today's Max Keiser, concluding an interview with an investigative journalist dedicated to revealing the deep corruption and child abuse of the British Crown Dependency of Jersey. Ever since the beginning of the financial crisis, with the occupy movement and ongoing Eurozone crisis the "1%" have become enemy number one of the average person struggling to get through the crisis. With millions out of work, most facing severe government cuts and real-term drops in wealth, the fact that the wealthiest continue to enjoy hugely disproportionate wages, bonuses, and tax-avoiding opportunities is seen as deeply unfair and immoral. In this climate anyone and anything which can be linked to this class of people who caused the crisis and yet profit from it is an easy target for anyone seeking to stoke popular outrage.

The ease in which this occurs has spurred the rise of the Tax Justice Network (TJN), a Norwegian-funded enterprise which has turned stoking outrage against specific jurisdictions and the 1% into an art-form. Their chief target - Tax havens: 

The corrupted international infrastructure allowing élites to escape tax and regulation is also widely used by criminals and terrorists. As a result, tax havens are heightening inequality and poverty, corroding democracy, distorting markets, undermining financial and other regulation and curbing economic growth, accelerating capital flight from poor countries, and promoting corruption and crime around the world.

The level of immorality and corruption the TJN levies at what it calls "secrecy jurisdictions" leaves no possible ambiguity that they see these places as one of, if not the primary, evil plaguing the world. These jurisdictions face the charge of robbing the poor and spreading their fundamental corruption across the world.

Fueled by local political figures with no qualms about attacking their own island (whether that be the government or the finance industry which employs up to half of the population) conspiracy theories have bloomed surrounding the small Island of Jersey, drawing in visits from investigative journalists as diverse as Leah McGrath Goodman and BBC's Panorama. The ease with which an Island built upon a finance industry chiefly administering the assets of the 1% can be portrayed as a haven for all kinds of corruption and evil has driven significant public ire. But what are popular impressions are not always correct ones, and the draw of the drama of conspiracy theories cover up the reality of the situation. Here are a few myths of the tax haven compared to the reality of the channel island:

It is a Tax Haven: Yes and no. The finance industry uses the islands largely due to initial tax incentives, but that does not mean the tax is escaping from other governments. The industry can best be understood as the filling of a sandwich. All wealth is taxed at the source of income and where it is invested as the bread of the sandwich. It is impossible to have such large sources of income or places to invest on these islands, they're simply too small. The islands instead form the filling on the sandwich, a tax-neutral place between income and investment where funds can be organised, combined and administered as efficiently as possible without the threat of losing value to tax whilst doing so. If the islands did not exist investments would be extraordinarily less efficient as administrators would simply cut out the stages in the filling to avoid losing value. The strength of the islands is in this tax-neutral filling and a huge concentration of financial institutions and professionals which makes the administration of wealth significantly more efficient, not as a place to hide funds from tax.

It is a Secrecy Jurisdiction: The concept that the islands are used to hide funds from tax is based on the concept that it is even possible to hide funds there. However, with Jersey alone having twenty nine tax information exchange agreements with other states and seventeen more in progress this is not an easy exercise. With the United States' FATCA and the UK's own version to follow, tax information will soon be shared automatically from these islands to states. If the aim of the billions of dollars flowing through the islands was to hide them, investors need to have very stern words with their advisors. Especially as the City of London, New York, Delaware and Switzerland have all been rated more tax-opaque than the British "tax-haven" islands. All of the British crown dependencies are listed as fully compliant with all international financial standards.

Everyone is rich: The image of the tax-haven islands as the sunny refuges of the ultra-rich, where everyone owns a yacht and plays poker with diamonds could not be more bizarre to the inhabitants of these places. As mentioned before, very little income is earned and invested in these places relative to how much is administered. Around half of the populations may be involved with the finance industry, but they are employed by it, not profiting from it. Most capitals look fairly similar to onshore equivalent towns and the most common mode of transport are probably ten-year-old VW polos.

It robs the world of wealth: As mentioned before, very little administered wealth is administered in the islands it passes through. Instead it is simply organised in a fashion to make its future investment more efficient. The islands facilitate investment in every field imaginable, from horse-racing to hospitals. The crown-dependencies alone financed the UK banks a total of £332 billion in just one quarter of 2009, funding which may well have otherwise have had to come from the UK's government bailouts. Far from robbing the world of wealth, these islands facilitate the investment which is vital in all walks of life. In fact several Islands have gone so far as to lead conferences advising developing states on how to avoid tax-evasion.

There is deep-seated corruption: One of the most popular conspiracy theories relating to tax havens is that there is significant collusion between governments, banks and media to create more wealth for the 1% at the expense of the average person. However, there does not seem to be any real incentive for this to happen. The governments of these places maintain tax-neutral policies to support their strongest industry, which is not so much corruption as good governance. If there was such corruption we would surely see more of a revolving door between government positions and banking heads (something much more common in larger states), instead the governments of these islands are dominated by older families who were around long before the arrival of the banks.

Populist rhetoric, portraying the people at large as in a constant battle with a secret world of corrupt elites who dominate anything with money and power, is extremely popular. However, popularity does not equal truth. The British offshore finance centres are exactly that, concentrated islands boasting large numbers of finance professionals with extremely high expertise in dealing with high-value investments. The government governs to support its largest and most valuable industry, one which produces the significant income taxes which allow government to operate at all, governance which requires cooperation with other onshore governments including tax transparency and inter-governmental agreements. The concept of a deep-seated evil in these jurisdiction seems strange to Islanders because in places so small such conspiracies would hardly stay secret for long. Unlike in larger states, most islanders know at least a few members of the political and economic "elite" personally, there is nowhere to hide there. Attempts to portray this as evidence of a population-spanning conspiracy becomes more amusing than significant, as the conspiracy theorists dig themselves into local alienation worthy of David Icke.

With the rise of internet-media and bloggers determined to mine public rage against the 1%, the British offshore finance centres have a long reputational battle ahead of them, but it's one which is beginning to turn. Governments across the islands are investing in a public relations and political response, signing droves of agreements and advertising themselves as what they are: Some of the best regulated, most stable and fairest financial centres in the world.

The Rise and Death of the Tea Party

Perhaps the most well known member of the Tea Party abroad is the most mocked

Last week the most internationally mocked American politician was gracelessly tossed out by Fox News, a network under which she had once developed huge popularity as the right-wing's female star of Obama-bashing and main-stream-media-attacking. Sarah Palin (best known around the world for her portrayals by Tina Fey in Saturday Night Live and Julianne Moore in the less-than-complimentary election film Game Change) has fallen from her heights of media stardom and a doomed campaign to be the first American female vice-president.

However this is not some isolated event of the fall from grace of a single politician, it is part of a wider political shift of the past year in US politics. This shift is the popular collapse of the once powerful Tea Party movement. What had begun with a slow slide in popularity has become a widespread abandonment of the movement and it's rejection from the Republican Party within which it once held so much influence. Where only three years ago almost a quarter of voters affiliated themselves with the movement, now less than one in ten do. Where over half of voters once supported it, now just as many see it negatively and support has fallen to under a third. The 2012 presidential election killed the Tea Party, and it is a sign of much larger changes to come.

Three years is extremely fast for a country-spanning ideological movement to collapse, but the Tea Party's rise was just as spectacular. Emerging in 2007 in the "Boston TeaParty07" event for Ron Paul's presidential campaign, the Tea Party movement only really began to gather pace in 2009, after the response to the financial crisis became the most important political issue in the Western world. Rick Santelli's rant in response to the bailout of the collapsing financial institutions of the time created the new movement as he called for a "Chicago Tea Party". The result was instant. Protests against the bailouts and rising taxes erupted across the United States, rallies which were noticed across the world as the most significant opposition to President Obama's handling of the financial crisis.

The Tea Party movement reached it's peak in 2010, over half of the Republican vote was members and the vast majority of Republican politicians owed the fever-pitch opposition to Obama to its grassroots drive. But what did this grassroots owe their support to? Largely big-business and individual billionaire investors with libertarian leanings. Unfortunately this initially very powerful combination between the anti-tax grassroots and their allies in politics and business opened cracks which would break the movement.

This break began shortly after the Tea Party movement began. Raised in the face of Obama's landslide election victory and his big-government response to the financial crisis the Tea Party was unprepared to face a series of bloody losses to the Obama administration. First the big-bank bailouts and financial stimulus. Then the auto bailouts. Then the healthcare bill. The Tea Party was (and is) not only getting an absolute mauling in national politics but was also losing to successful policies. No matter how huge the airtime dedicated to the "grassroots" movement, funded by big-money donations to media organisations, there was no fighting the tide of goodwill the Democrats faced between 2010 and 2012 as the economy drove towards recovery.

Nor was Obama's political success the only problem. Tea Party candidates were an increasing embarrassment to the Republican Party. Attempts to run inexperienced grassroots campaigners against experienced Democratic politicians was not as effective as the GOP had expected. Continuous gaffs from Tea Party favourites such as Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann destroyed both candidate's hopes in 2012 and could be ill-afforded as the Christian-right joined them in self-immolation on women's rights.

The 2012 elections were the last gasp of an already struggling political movement. In an attempt to secure their vote anti-tax politician Paul Ryan was nominated as Vice President. However not only did securing the Tea Party vote fail to galvanise support and overturn Obama's huge 2008 majority, it actively damaged the Republican vote. In trying to capture the radical-right during the primaries Republican presidential candidates had completely alienated themselves from the centre, the place where all elections are won and where the vital swing-states lie. After months of predictions of Republican victory the right-wing were stunned to watch Obama waltz to an easy victory spurred by the women, industrial working class, racial minorities and LGBT that the Republicans had offended time and time again in their attempts to spur Tea Party-like activism in the radical right.

Now, with Obama yet again sworn into office, the Republicans are cutting the anchor lines to the Tea Party, Christian evangelist and anti-immigrant right wing which lost them the election they seemed so set to win. The sacking of Palin by Fox News is not just a symptom of the collapse of the Tea Party, but of the entire GOP radical right. The Republican party is returning to fight for the centre which will return them to power, and Sarah Palin will not be a mistake they will seek to repeat.