BULLIES GALORE - WHEN WILL THEY BE BROUGHT TO BOOK?

Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize?  Brown nosing has reached a new peak. The entire world surely must be able to see through the scale of flattery accorded to Mr Trump by those who interact with him seeking a positive result in their favour. Nato leaders and now Mr Netanyahu’s cringing letters to the Nobel Committee, copies of which he ceremoniously presented to Mr Trump, all the while putting a ring in the presidential nose and shoving his own prime ministerial nose further up the presidential posterior. A remarkable feat of physical dexterity. Mr Trump preens with delight. His orange glow matches perfectly with Benjamin’s brown snout. Their meeting is reminiscent of the scene between Johnny Rocco played by Edward G Robinson and Ziggy played by Mark Lawrence in Key Largo (1948). One is selling counterfeit currency to the other. “Ya know something, I bet inside a two years they’re gonna bring back prohibition”. So here we have no change, one selling counterfeit currency to the other. Costa Gaza is still on their minds. A sleazy felon and an internationally indicted criminal/corrupt politician, laughing like movie gangsters over the spoils of war. Where is our Humphrey Bogart to take them out for a ride?

What Trump and Netanyahu are proposing is completely illegal and contrary to international law. They appear not to care one way or the other. Both countries seem to have withdrawn from the rule of law in any form, just as Mr Putin has in respect of the Russian State. How the Nobel Committee could have anything top do with such miscreants is beyond me as they are beyond the pale. The bullying of the Palestinian people has surely gone on long enough.  To expect an entire population to just move to neighbouring states or to be confined to an area practically equivalent to a concentration camp is an outrage. What has happened to the United Nations and to the leaders of the other western democracies that they are silent? When will they take a stand in this affair? 

A RAMBLING RANT ABOUT NEWS AND INFORMATION

In the light of what I posted last Saturday, I confess to be exasperated by the apparent  lack of understanding by journalist of how representational government works. I say ‘apparent’ because they seem to impose extraordinary expectations and powers on people they interview who hold political office, and who, somehow, should have magic wands to impose their policies on everyone else. Nor do I comprehend why government ministers allow themselves to be questioned as if they were actually able to perform these feats, whilst also being at odds, or even at war, with their party. The party’s executive branch is chosen to effectively put into action the policies of the party as a whole. That is presumably what they were all elected to office, but no one has a magic wand. 

Wanting a particular policy to be put into action is an aspiration, and getting it approved can be extremely difficult. Even if it doesn’t happen as expected, that is not necessarily a failure. A set back, maybe, but a forward movement nonetheless. If the policies then prove ineffective and fail to improve the lot of the electorate, then the electorate will find alternative representation. It’s not so much about being combative as being able to improve the situation. At least that’s what it should be. Having impossible and inappropriate expectations does not help and the world of Harry Potter is a fiction. 

Given the nature and manner in which this country seems to cling to a first past the post method of elections, and the diverse, multicultural and differently able composition of the electorate, is it any wonder that there are such different political views regardless of political affiliations and parties. We have seen and heard the alleged disputes between prominent members of all political parties. Journalists and pundits just love to comment and stir the pot when such differences occur, as if they’ve discovered some strange and devastating anomaly of “rifts within the party!!”. But that is the nature of party politics in a democracy. Rigidity, conformity and enforced discipline is what leads to dictatorship. 

The very word ‘uniformity’ screams out its problematic meanings, particularly when applied to party politics. It not only exposes rigidity but even goes so far as to impose a dress code. A recognisable uniform that emboldens and implies a kind of menacing solidarity. Brown shirts, black shirts, red bandanas, any number of chosen identifiers of rigidity, conformity and singularity of thought. That its not what democracy is about. Yes, some situations require uniformity, but strictly for purposes of identification and avoiding confusion. The military, law enforcement, team games, nurses, medical staff and any number of other organisations that, of necessity, must be easily identifiable. 

Political democracy is not like that. There are no nations without diversity, whether physical, mental or indeed aspirational. There is a general feeling that conflict is unnecessary or at the very least avoidable.  Causing harm is frowned upon and allowing harm is equally reprehensible. The differences are how we deal with it. We have to deal with disability, poverty, homelessness, illness and any number of misfortunes. As citizens we expect our elected representatives to find the right balance of compassion, empathy, order and economic acuity. In a reasonably informed society the pressure on representatives is heavy, and rightly so. Finding solutions to the problems of humanity is ever present and expectations run high. We all have opinions.

The problem of American influence, however, is causing some consternation. What has changed beyond all recognition is the almost free availability of transmitting information. Facts and opinions flow out at breakneck speed. Sadly, populist opinion seems to have overrun the new information highway. The vulnerable, who are generally poorly educated and resentful, (particularly in America) have latched on to people who have promised them a cure for all their ills. Nothing of the sort will be accomplished as it would seem most representatives (again, particularly in America) are gangsters and opportunists. In fact, what has happened is an explosion of violence, supported by fanatics and fraudsters. Division is the modus vivendi of most countries. Some have barely maintained any sort of civility. This is evidenced by the introduction of more repressive legislation on law enforcement issues, which may come back to haunt the parties that instituted the legislation in the first place. 

The economic disparity between high income, middle income and low income have widened as has the geography of wealth the United States. On the whole, it would appear that the States with the lowest incomes favour the Republican Party and by extension Donald Trump. The North East and West coasts with seemingly greater income and education seem to favour the Democratic Party. However, those with greatest wealth are favoured by the Trump Administration. 

The world is indeed turned upside down. Whereas from the late 18th through to the early 20th century, revolution began with the deprived  and oppressed. Now, these same groups seem to favour dictatorships. I am struggling for some kind of understanding of where we are. I am confused. 

I confess the voices I hear almost daily, in terms of news, are from the BBC. Their analysis and opinions have a certain style. They claim objectivity and impartiality. There is a view that their approach to interviews is a sort of cross examination for the benefit and interest of the listener. I do not entirely agree. It is a combative style of interview and more often than not there are far too many interruptions. I do not object to interruptions per se, but it is far too often an attempt to push the interviewee towards a specific answer (trying to put words in the mouth of the person concerned as if seeking to score points?) because of time constraints imposed by producers and programers. Most European politicians are quite used  to this style of interview; however, the Americans find it impossible to deal with and usually take umbrage.  Trump supporters and acolytes take grave exception and become offensive in the same manner as their hero who instantly attacks journalists for disrespect and fakery, no matter what the question. 

Trump advisors have been particularly sharp and rude to Victoria Derbyshire and Sarah Montague. I do find these two a bit worrying myself, as I feel they are both a bit towing the line. Far too supporting of an establishment point of view, despite their so called impartiality. I suppose it’s just the nature of the job. There is an element of arrogance that goes with it. Chris Mason, like Laura Kuenssberg before him, exhibits the same attitude as Political Editor. Does it go with the territory? They mean to be objective, but clearly are not. In my view, they often confuse analysis with opinion, although I’m sure would be offended by the suggestion. 

Relations between government and the press can be difficult, particularly in democratic governments. Government Press secretaries have quite a history. They can be outright propagandist or genuinely concerned with providing information  about the intentions of the government and the leaders movements and appointments. There is  the Joseph Goebbels school of propagandist at the extreme end. Further down the scale, so far as the UK is concerned, not that many press secretaries are that well known. We have had a few with very firm views with the likes of Alastair Campbell for Tony Blair, Bernard Ingham for Margaret Thatcher, Gus O’Donnell for John Major and Allegra Stratton for Boris Johnson. They are a long way from Goebbels. However, Donald Trump’s choices, Sarah Huckabee-Sanders, Kayleigh McEnany and Karoline Leavitt are pretty close to the German orator. Their willingness to spout outrageous falsehoods is breathtaking.  The reverence they appear to hold for Mr Trump is extraordinary. Nothing is beyond them. 

We all know that, in any event, a free press is essential. A relationship between the press and  government is equally important.  It is from this relationship that we get our information about the workings of a democratic government. It provides us with what we need to know. Just how good journalist are at doing it can vary. How far we trust the information we receive varies with how much we trust the source of that information.  Journalists and presenters have a lot to answer for. I continue to trust that my trust in the BBC is not misplaced. Or is it? 

APOLOGIES TO MR STARMER - YOU MAY ASK WHY

I have perhaps been expecting too much. My political views and feelings are not in issue. I have not been elected to political office, nor have I sought to obtain political office. I have not tested my points of view with the public at large in order to gain sufficient support to be elected to any political office. Being elected as a public servant has not been something I have contemplated. I do not seek to serve, nor have I sought to rule. I have however the freedom to voice my opinion because some people have sought public office and consequently have promulgated my rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of atheism and freedom from illness. They have helped codify these human rights through legislation and have given of their time and effort to secure the rule of law and the duty of care.

This country of Great Britain has evolved into a parliamentary democracy maintaining a monarch who acts as figurehead and ceremoniously signs legislation into law.  The monarch maintains an apolitical stance and, in theory, embodies the concept of duty to the nation. The monarch keeps the flag flying. Parliament rules. It has power over everything. It creates the rules, maintains order, security and health of the nation. It upholds liberty and consequently the freedom of every individual under its umbrella. It is sovereign and always will be. The whole idea of a deeply misguided Brexit, was to take back control. Brexit was misguided in particular because Parliament had never relinquished control. Parliament is sovereign and has always had the interests of the citizen as its single reason of existence. It is after all an elected body of representatives who gather together to conduct the business of the state which is to provide the citizen with all those things mentioned above. 

Great Britain is but one nation in a world made up of many nations, most of whom have developed parliamentary systems of their own. Just as people interact with each other to trade services and goods to allow each other to survive and live (for the most part) in a civilised manner, so do nations trade services and goods. There is therefore a global economy that has developed and each country tries to work out just how it is to fit into that economy and at the same time work out just how it will conduct its own internal economic affairs so as to provide the best environment for their own citizens to prosper.  

In order to accomplish this and govern this country, a number of people have put themselves forward as a person qualified and committed enough to act as representatives of the people. They have come together to form political parties, willing to take on the responsibilities of state. Each party puts forward an agenda by which it intends to rule the state. In effect it proposes a method of operation to the electorate and a political philosophy as to how best the state should function and under what rules and regulations. There are differing ideas on just how much of the state’s operations should be performed by the state and how much should be performed by private enterprise and industry. But regardless of how much is pubic and how much is private, overall, it is Parliament that has the final decision in all matters. It is sovereign. 

That being the case, in order for government to function it has to permanently employ a group of people who actually put into action the decisions made by Parliament, The Civil Service is just that. Since the Government must effectively employ these individuals, there must be an executive branch chosen form the elected representatives. That executive government chosen to run things does so by consent of the majority of the members of Parliament who have been elected by the citizens as their representatives. It is that majority that allows the executive to govern and it is that majority that decides, in the final analysis, just how much of the executives decisions they will put into legislation and effect.  

That is how the whole thing works. So if the executive proposes certain legislation and the members of parliament think the proposals are inadequate or simply wrong, they make their views felt. That can bring about changes in the executive as well as changes in their collective decisions. There is after all an executive responsibility to parliament as well a to fellow executives. It is called cabinet responsibility. 

We have a democracy after all. Things change all the time and hopefully for the better. So the state has to balance its priorities in terms of what is best for the nation in all areas. Because of global and internal economics it has to decide just how much of a budget (derived from finances provided by the citizens through taxes and investments) it will allow for the efficient and effective operation of all its endeavours. Health, security, environment, employment, housing, education etc.. Under health there are a variety of disabilities and illnesses among the citizens that require additional help and therefore funding to make life bearable, worthwhile and possible. Under security, there are a number of branches for dealing with civil disorder, criminality, the Armes forces etc.. that require substantial funds. Providing housing, employment and education likewise requires some form of government financial assistance, 

So it must raise the finances to effectively do all these things. It does so through taxation and investment and when necessary borrowing. The country is the welfare of its people, it is not a business. If it were a business, its business would be looking after its people. Overspending, given the nature of people’s foibles, desires and needs will inevitably create borrowing. It is the nature of things. Parties, in order to be elected, claim they are more efficient and can accomplish the task of running things better than other parties, without putting any excessive burden on the citizens  through taxation. 

The dichotomy is that in order to accomplish good and efficient government, taxes have to be paid; however, the citizen’s are reluctant to pay the amounts they should pay for government to provide the needed services and, consequently, seem to elect the political party that claims it will tax them the least and still be able to provide the services.  This is a big mistake, ridiculous to believe, and even more ridiculous to promise. Do not complain that things are not working if you are not willing to help make them work. If societies are to thrive, they must support each other. Those with the most, because they are getting the most, should contribute accordingly. They still have the most regardless. 

So when a government sets out its financial agenda it is scrutinised by all members of parliament. Regardless of its majority in Parliament, whatever the executive proposes will be scrutinised. Representatives will have their priorities and if, for whatever reason, the executive is not meeting those priorities, then the representatives will make their case. The representatives are indeed obliged to make their case. That is what parliamentary responsibility and sovereignty is all about. It is not a question of U turns, failure or weakness, it is what supposed to happen. The sovereignty of parliament is being exercised. That is what this democracy is about. The citizen benefits and we should be pleased that our democracy works. Our representatives are performing their function. 

So when Mr Starmer,  Ms Reeves, Ms Kendall or whoever, accepts a change in legislation or policy,  they are accepting that parliament is supreme over all. They may not like it, personally, but they accept it politically, which must be lauded and not derided or mocked. 

We are a nation that looks after its citizens. The numbers of people requiring assistance is unfortunately very high, and the cost of services to cope with their needs is extremely high. Accounting for the cost, which is rising all the time, is not easy when one has to constantly bear in mind the reluctance of a citizenry that  complains about any public money being spent on people they may see as freeloaders or refugees who they see as an unnecessary and outrageous burden. We have no choice but to cope with all of it. 

Derision of a change of view by ministers in some cases, is not really acceptable. That is why I apologise to Mr Starmer et al.. That is  not to say that I am altogether happy with the way in which he and his co-executives in government have dealt with Mr Trump. But the same thing can be applied to all the Nato Heads of government at present.  But that is another aspect of executive government. At least we do not have a supreme court that, it would seem, allows for presidential executive orders, that are clearly unconstitutional, to go into effect. The complete abandonment of checks and balances in the American government is a danger to the entire world. At least the United Kingdom lives up to its reputation as the mother of parliaments and hence real democracy in action. 

As we approach the fourth of July, the current Labour party will have been in office for one year. The United States will be celebrating its 249th anniversary. Between the 1st and 3rd July 1863, United States forces overcame the confederacy in a bloody battle to save the Union at Gettysburg. Mr Lincoln delivered an address in commemoration of the dead on that battlefield 162 years ago on the 19th November 1863. If things continue as they are, the United States will have completely reversed the meaning of his  speech and that country, so rigorously fought for, shall indeed have perished from the earth.

ADDENDUM TO THE MIRROR STAGE - THE WAY OF THE WORLD

I must apologise for the many mistakes in the last blog. There were unfortunate errors and repeated sentences and phrases that should have been edited. Also, there were some unfinished notions from Mr. Erik Baker’s piece in Harper’s Magazine. He concluded his article with the following paragraph:

“For his part, Trump, with the perverse insight with which he is blessed, was able to perceive the cruelty and ruthlessness of the America he grew up in earlier than many of his peers. He concluded at a young age that reason and principle are deceptions—­that there are only power and domination and instinct. Now he is far from alone. It will continue to prove impossible to extirpate social Darwinism as long as the American Empire refuses to part with the violence, cruelty, and exploitation that give it plausibility as a description of reality. The main reason Americans keep listening to the propagandists who inform them that some people are inherently better than others is that they live in a society whose organisation and daily operation present them with that same message. “I happen to be a person that knows how life works,” Trump remarked in 2017, explaining why he trusts his instincts. This is the fatalistic kernel within all instantiations of social Darwinism: everything you see around you—­all the irrationality, all the hierarchy, all the pain—­is just the way of the world. The only way we can debunk this claim is to create a world that works differently.”

I think perhaps a very cynical view. I do not entirely agree. The current propagandists may well present an hierarchical system based on wealth, power and hence influence, but that is not what the founding fathers subscribed to when they wrote, debated and approved the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration Of Independence. Nor is it the rhetoric of what we are taught in most educational institutions, as to what are our greater aims and beliefs. Indeed, even the basics of Judaeo-Christian religions preach tolerance and inclusion. 

In my view, the world does work differently. I accept that there are at present a mass of people who function in a world that accepts “all the irrationality, all the hierarchy, all the pain” is the way of the world, but that is not what our institutions tell us is the case. There are many voices in this world, and particularly in the United States. The megaphone that is the American way has resounded around the globe. Publicity and fame lead to fortune. It is just that, at the moment, a kind of retrograde insanity has become the dominant voice and, what was once a feeble political group of representatives in congress have somehow gained a majority. I say feeble, because, having obtained their position, they have no idea what to so with it, and accordingly they acquiesce to a populist overblown narcissistic leader who has dazzled them with his tinselled life style on reality television. Indeed reality television is what it’s all about. It is non stop.

Our governments proffer the belief that we live by a rule of law, based on the duty of care we owe to each other. Our finest instincts are enshrined in our constitutions, legislations and religions. The state is meant to operate for the benefit of its people.  In effect, we already know how the world should work. Even Donald Trump spouts for peace and stop the killing. He would love to win the Nobel Peace Prize. He would love the increased attention and adulation it could bring. But peace does not make for good television. So chaos rules and Trump promotes it with an entourage of feeble, chaotic, narrow minded men and women who embrace with gusto “all the irrationality, all the hierarchy, all the pain”. His ‘instinct’ to ‘keep them guessing’ is his primary goal. He doesn’t really care about anything but himself in the mirror. 

So, as far as making the world work differently, it's just a matter of switching channels. Please pass the remote, if not before, at least by November of 2026. 

THE MIRROR STAGE

The world has swallowed the American myth about the Presidency of the United States, that it is the most powerful office in the free world, if not THE world. It is also a myth that proliferates and engulfs the mind of Donald Trump. There are various reasons why I believe this to be the case. 

Born in New York, I grew up partly in America, and partly in Europe. My very early years were spent in the United States where I attended primary school, and learned to read and write in English. I do recall, in some small detail, that, like all the other kids at Pennington School in Mount Vernon, New York, I was taught the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. I started school in 1947, only two years after the end of the 2nd World War. The United States was on a high, whilst the rest of the world, notably Europe and the Far East, were struggling to get back to some form of normality and economic stability. The United States initiated the Marshall Plan in 1948 in order to provide economic assistance to Western Europe as well as a bulwark against the Iron Curtain established by the Soviet Union, and marking the west’s resistance to the communist world. At the time, the United States was the only nation able to do this and it grew in military as well as economic power. One was indoctrinated to believe that the United States was the most powerful country on earth. 

Being at an American school during this time, I had begun to be indoctrinated into the spirit and myth of American power as the saviour of the world. We all were. Moving to Europe in 1949. I continued with my primary education learning to read and write in French. We lived in Le Cannet and I attended a school in Cannes. I was an American kid that my French classmates were very curious about and,  I assume, imbued me with all the propaganda that was being dished out at the time. France was a recipient of lots of economic assistance under the Marshall Plan and the United States Naval Forces Mediterranean (soon to be called the 6th Fleet) had temporarily parked an Aircraft Carrier just off the Cannes seafront in the Bay of Cannes. Indeed, my family, and others, had been invited on board for some publicity visits to the accompaniment of a Naval Band playing the Stars and Stripes and other such marches.  Americans sailors were ever present and the dollar went a long way. My class mates clearly were of the view that all Americans were strong and rich. So I benefited from this impression, and because of that, I began to believe it as well. Why wouldn’t I? 

My family returned to the United States and in 1952 we were in California, where I attended my final primary school in Beverly Hills. The American propaganda machine was re-enforced. 

We retuned to France in 1953 and I subsequently attended a  Lycée on the outskirts of Paris. The American myth was till very much in vogue.  The power of the United States was still supreme and Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force that made the D Day landings and liberated France, was now President of the United States. The dollar was still the king of currencies and America was booming. The only fly in the ointment, that began to penetrate my mind, was the execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Stickers, pasted on lampposts and trees had appeared in our town, depicting Eisenhower as Nosferatu hovering over a trembling couple with the words “Sauvez les Rosenbergs”.  The idea that the American President could be an evil vampire was puzzling, but still the myth played on. 

We returned to California in 1956 where I attended Beverly Hills High School, where the Pledge Of Allegiance was renewed. Full force Americana was taking place, but so were the seeds of doubt  in my mind,  and I subsequently removed myself back to Europe on the 4th July 1965. Nonetheless the idea of the Powerful Presidency remained. So did it remain in the minds of most of the western powers that aligned themselves with the United States, snd sill does. 

Donald Trump, only three years younger, grew up wholly in America during this time, with a great deal more wealth and privilege. He is still the infant that would have gone through an even deeper indoctrination into American mythology than I. He still relates to Dell Comics and Superman. He is the complete “Where were you in 1962?”. He is American Graffiti through and through, and just as disoriented, chaotic and capricious. He relies on what he would call  his instinct. His mind operates like Gwendolyn Fairfax. “My first impressions are invariably correct”  which she repeats each time she changes her mind. So does Trump repeat his contradictions without a care in the world as if he’d never said whatever nonsense he said before. As an instance in point, he claims never to have said, about Hillary Clinton, “Lock her up” despite numerous recording and videos showing he said exactly that.

There is an interesting take on Trump by Erik Baker in the July 2025 edition for Harpers, “Easy Chair -Trump’s Darwinian America” wherein Mr Baker quotes Trump as saying “I’m a very instinctual person, but my instinct turns out to be right”. Mr Baker goes on to state:

“The veneration of instinct has led many observers to describe Trump as a social Darwinist.This interpretation of Darwin’s work, celebrating the triumph of the strong and the extermination of the weak, is a common thread uniting the otherwise ideologically disparate set of historical leaders Trump has praised from the American Empire builders of the late nineteenth century to (according to his former chief of staff John Kelly) Adolf Hitler.”

There is a piece in the Guardian 25/06/25, by Rafael Behr which begins:

“It was as close as Donald Trump might get to a lucid statement of his governing doctrine. “I may do it. I may not do it." the president said to reporters on the White House lawn. “Nobody knows what I’m going to do.”….
Behr goes on:
“Volatile inconsistency is a trait of the presidential personality, but also a learned management technique. Keeping everyone around you guessing, lurching from charm to menaces, swapping and dropping favourites on a whim – these are methods of coercive control. They generate disorientation and vulnerability. People who are braced for sudden mood swings must hang on the leader’s every word, looking for cues, awaiting instruction. Individual agency is lost, dependency is induced. It is something cult leaders do.”

My own view is that these observations about Mr Tumps’s behaviour are far too sophisticated where Mr Trump is concerned. Taking into account the excessive narcissism, I believe Mr Trump has not moved on from the mirror stage of development as defined by Jacques Lacan’s psychoanalytic theory:

“This recognition is as crucial developmental phase where infants, typically between 6 and 18 months, begin to recognise their own image in a mirror or similar reflective surface. This recognition is a misrecognition, forming a sense of self based on an idealised, unified image rather than the infant's actual fragmented and uncoordinated body. This identification with the mirror image marks the beginning of the "Imaginary Order" and lays the foundation for ego formation and the development of subjectivity.”

Mr Trump is still there, clutching that mirror, and for historical reasons, from the end of the 2nd World War, the myth of American wealth and power that hung over Europe remains, and people cannot understand they are looking at an American President stuck in the mirror stage. We have to grow up. Somehow that mirror has to be shattered.

HAVE WE GIVEN OUR HEARTS AWAY?

The world is too much with us, complained William Wordsworth in 1802, just after the turn of the 18th and 19th century. The French New Republic, formed after their own revolution,  were having problems over the Haitian Revolution, and putting down Toussaint Louverture. The Treaty of Amiens had brought an end to hostilities between the United Kingdom and France. Napoleon Bonaparte was made First Consul for life. In the United Kingdom, Lord Elgin had begun removal of, what is now referred to as, the Elgin Marbles from the Parthenon in Athens. The Rosetta Stone was brought to England. Marie Tussaud first exhibits her wax sculptures. First accounts of Wedgwood’s experiments in photography. The Tories had won the 1802 General Election and the newly elected Prime Minister Henry Addington, finding fault and breach of the Treaty of Amiens, declared war again on France in 1803. On top of all that the Industrial Revolution was in full swing  and Britain had become the leading commercial nation. The first of the Factories Acts began in 1802 to improve conditions of industrial employment. That is still going on. 

In the arts, Beethoven had published his Moonlight Sonata. The first Burns Night was held on 29th January 1802, which was thought to have been his birthday, but this was corrected the following year to the 25th January and has been held on that day since then. Victor Hugo and Alexander Dumas were both born in 1802. 

In effect much was going on then as now. There certainly was a continuous level of violence going on, and the recognition of human rights was being determined all over the globe. Revolutions and hypocrisies were rife, nonetheless we have established, in more than one area, a human rights convention and an International Criminal Court to oversea flagrant breaches of a rule of law that we are all meant to observe. So as Wordsworth cried out in 1802 against a disappearance of decency, so we cry out now that the world is indeed too much with us. Relief from this insanity of nationalist imperialism and violent religious bigotry, would not come amiss. Must leaders of democracies be tyrants in the making? Is arrogance and narcissism a prerequisite to governance? Why do so many cling to people of such colossal ego with extravagant and amoral prejudice? Is it necessary to create a bogeyman on whom to heap vile insults, such as Hitler on the Jews and Trump on all immigrants? Is it essential to so obviously twist the truth? 

For goodness sake, there are pictures and recordings of events, clearly illustrative of appalling actions and criminality, which are turned on their head. Why is that accepted? Are the populace so totally mesmerised as to be made deaf, dumb and blind? I presume we all saw the disgusting attack on Senator Alex Padilla, to prevent him from daring to enter an open press conference. It was filmed. Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security,  told obvious lies in the face of the recorded evidence,  and Mike Johnson, speaker of the House Of Representatives,  called for Mr Padilla to be censured for barging into a “press conference” as if it was a private meeting.  When will the congress of the United States step up and reassert its powers to uphold the rule of law? When will this Orwellian horror show be over?

One should normally be respectful of other people’s views, no matter how difficult they may be. To have divergent opinions is a healthy thing. We are individuals and not all alike. We may seethe inwardly, but honest opinion is to be respected. Honest opinion, not one founded on mendacity, bigotry and ignorance. With the likes of Putin, Trump, Netanyahu, Lukashenko, Orban et al, it is a calculated and pernicious obsession to retain power. Any lie and appeal to ignorance is acceptable. It is strategic condescension, as defined by Pierre Bourdieu, used to maintain that power. Is it any wonder Trump claims to “love the poorly educated”? 

I sometimes feel at wits end and deeply troubled by an inability to act. It is all very well to rant at my MacBook Air screen, but it changes nothing. I know I am not alone in my point of view. It is irrational, but I loath the poorly educated. I do not speak of the ignorant, or the intellectually challenged,  as they are for the most part able to distinguish truth from lies. I loath the people who claim education and knowledge when it is, in effect, based on deceit, duplicity, lies and fabrications. Believing in myths and ghosts is harmless, but calling on people to obliterate those with whom we do not agree, and calling them scum, is a crime against humanity. This is what our current leaders seem to do, and want to do. It is who we have elected. How sad is that?

The world is too much with us; late and soon,
Getting and spending we lay waste our powers;
Little we see in Nature that is ours;
We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon! 

PLEASE HAVE A READ

There is a well thought out piece in the Guardian and I reproduce it here as I think it is worth a read. You may not agree with any of it, or maybe only some of it, but do give it consideration:

"Western leaders call for diplomacy, but they won’t stop this war – they refuse to even name its cause
By Nesrine Malik - Mon 23 Jun 2025 06.00 BST

The political centre sees the US and Israel’s war on Iran as a crisis to be managed, while the gap between their detached rhetoric and bloody reality widens.

Since the war on Gaza started, the defining dynamic has been of unprecedented anger, panic and alarm from the public, swirling around an eerily placid political centre. The feeble response from mainstream liberal parties is entirely dissonant with the gravity of the moment. As the US joins Israel in attacking Iran, and the Middle East heads toward a calamitous unravelling, their inertness is more disorienting than ever. They are passengers in Israel’s war, either resigned to the consequences or fundamentally unwilling to even question its wisdom. As reality screams at politicians across the west, they shuffle papers and reheat old rhetoric, all while deferring to an Israel and a White House that have long taken leave of their senses.

At a time of extreme geopolitical risk the centre presents itself as the wise party in the fracas, making appeals for cool heads and diplomacy, but is entirely incapable of addressing or challenging the root cause. Some are afraid to even name it. Israel has disappeared from the account, leaving only a regrettable crisis and a menacing Iran. The British prime minister, Keir Starmer, has called for de-escalation. But he referred to the very escalation he wishes to avoid – the US’s involvement – as an alleviation of the “grave threat” posed by Iran, all the while building up  UK forces in the Middle East.

The president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, underlines for importance of diplomacy while making sure to assert that Iran is the “principal source” of instability in the region. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, had seemed to be inhabiting the real world, warning against the inevitable chaos that would be triggered by regime change in Iran and in repeating the mistakes of the past. But by Sunday France had fallen into line, joining the chorus calling for de-escalation and restraint in vague general terms, and reiterating “firm opposition” to Iran’s nuclear programme.

If this seems maddeningly complacent to you, let me reassure you that you are not, in fact, missing something. The war with Iran is very bad news, and introduces a number of profoundly destabilising scenarios: regime change with no day-after plan, leaving a large cadre of armed military and security forces in play; the amassing in the region of western military forces that could become targets and flashpoints; or simply a prolonged war of attrition that would seize up the region and open a large festering wound of anger and militarisation. It’s also – and this is something Israel’s assaults have inured us to – killing hundreds of innocent people. To say nothing of the fact that it is, above all the extant risks, illegal.

But most western leaders continue to treat it as just another chapter of unfortunate but ultimately fixed realities of the world to manage. And here is the sinkhole at the heart of the entire response to Israel over the past year and a half – a vacant centre. Trump is Trump. No one is expecting him to have a coherent, brave and stabilising response to Israel. But the problem predates him: a political establishment of ostensibly liberal, reliable custodians of stability that has no moral compass, and no care for the norms it constantly claims to uphold. Under its watch, international and human rights law has been violated again and again in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria and now Iran. Its answer has been to get out of Israel’s way at best, and arm it and provide it with diplomatic cover at worst. Joe Biden’s administration set the tone, and European governments followed. Collectively, they have clung on to a status quo of unconditional support for Israel and, in doing so, shattered the legal and moral conventions that imbued them with any measure of integrity or authority.

And yet they still carry on amid the wreckage. Their pronouncements about the importance of diplomacy sound like echoes from an era that has long passed – one before a live streamed genocide demolished any semblance of a coherent system of international law. What the current moment has revealed is a cohort of regimes fundamentally unsuited to crisis, fit only for management; a crop of politicians whose very role is not to rethink or challenge the way things are, but simply to shepherd geopolitical traffic. Their mandate is indeed to stabilise, but only in the sense of locking in a world order of failing assumptions and hierarchies. It is not to make the world a better place, but to cast a veneer of credibility over why it is necessary that we live in this worse one.

This is not to be confused with “pragmatism”. Pragmatism implies a lack of position or vested interest. What is obscured by the language of reluctant engagement is that it is underpinned by beliefs that are defined not by values, but by tribal supremacy. Iran is a country which, in the eyes of a liberal establishment, is never fully sovereign because it has diverged from western interests. It has no right of response when attacked (and in fact, must show restraint when it is). Its people have no right to expect a careful consideration of their future, or indeed the entire region’s. Israel, on the other hand, is a super sovereign, and never culpable.

This default position is so naked in its hypocrisy, so ignorant and parochial in its worldview, so clear in its disregard for human life, that it represents a colossal erosion of sophistication in political discourse, and a new low in contempt for the public. Support for Israel can only be defended by facile, logic-defying references to its right to defend itself even when it is the aggressor, and Iran’s ‘threat to the fire world". Forgive me, but is that the same free world that backed unilateral attacks on four Middle East territories by Israel, a country whose leader is wanted by the international criminal court ? At this point, the biggest threat to the free world is itself, which will sacrifice everything to ensure that not a single challenge to its power is allowed to pass.

The end result is that such leaders are not only irresponsible, they are unrepresentative, unable and unwilling even to manufacture consent any more. An accelerating nihilism has taken hold. Mandates fray as centrist governments and political parties stray further and further from the public, which in Europe declares a historically low level of support for Israel.. In the US (including Trump supporters), a majority opposes involvement in war with Iran. And so the gap between a detached politics and bloody reality widens even further. The managers of western hegemony hurtle into the void, taking all of us with them."

Nesrine Malik is a Guardian columnist

IT HAS COME TO THAT

There is a deep sorrow pervading around my brain. That is not to say that I am depressed to any great degree, but there are things going on around the world which are disturbing to say the least. In trying to distract my thoughts towards a brighter outlook I turn to the BBC podcasts and other soundscapes to entertain one’s little grey cells. I listen to a lot of Poirot with the wonderful John Moffat as well as the various Simon Brett series, No Commitments and his Charles Paris Mysteries.

On browsing through the Drama category of listening on offer I came across a piece entitled The Film by Martin Jameson with the flowing caption:

April 1945. A Ministry of Information army film crew enters Bergen-Belsen to record the unimaginable horrors of the Holocaust that many were already refusing to believe. But faced with all this footage, the head of the unit - Sidney Bernstein, is overwhelmed. He needs to get a film out there as soon as possible, but how to do justice to such suffering? So he summons his friend Alfred Hitchcock from Hollywood. And Bernstein - who later establishes Granada Television - determines that together they can create an irrefutable cinematic testimony.
Sidney Bernstein.........................................Henry Goodman 
Alfred Hitchcock.........................................Jeremy Swift 
Richard Crossman…………………………........Geoffrey Streatfeild 
Mrs Haig.......................................................Fenella Woolgar Secretary.......................................................Hamilton Berstock
 

Over the years I have seen pictures of the Holocaust. Images impossible to forget; however, I was not aware of the Sidney Bernstein and Alfred Hitchcock connection. Appallingly, their work of 1945 was actually shelved for 40 years until an edited version, produced through the Imperial War Museums broadcast by PBS Frontline in 1985 as Memory of the Camps. It was originally entitled German Concentration Camps Factual Survey. Apparently the full length version of the film was restored in 2014 by scholars around the world and is in the Imperial War Museum, London.

The PBS Frontline edit can be seen at:  https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/camp/

Clearly this is not something to pull one out of sorrow, and rather the opposite, but I was curious to hear what Mr Jameson had made of the Bernstein/Hitchcock encounter. I had no knowledge of the collaboration or their friendship, and certainly had no idea that their very difficult work had been shelved for so many years. I also had no idea of the involvement of Richard Crossman as writer. The effort and trauma that they had gone through to educate the world of 1945 as to what had just occurred, to lay out the facts of what can happen to a society that allows a madman to take control of the state, must have taken a great toll on their own lives. For it to be shelved for what is practically 7 decades is extraordinary. Not only did the British Government at the time take the view that it was ‘not the right time’ for the film to be shown, but the premise was to emphasise that all manor of dissidents, catholics, communists had been killed as well as jews and homosexuals. The fact that 6 million jews had just been exterminated  was not the immediate issue. 

A lot of the footage taken by a variety of soldiers and serving officers from the allied armies was of course shown at various times over the years, but Bernstein had gathered  over 75 thousand feet of film to work with, about 14 hours worth. It was a very painstaking and difficult assignment to complete. The resentment and confusion they must have felt as a result of the decision to shut them down must have been agonising in the extreme. Taking in the realisation that, the hours, days and months of looking at such horrors, trying to collate it all together into some form of explanation as to why, how and what had happened to the German people and the rest of the world over the previous decade, was for nought, must have been soul destroying. In addition, when later in the year the revelations of what had occurred in Japanese Prisoner of War camps in the far east was revealed, their efforts would have given even greater perspective on the insanity of imperialism. 

None of the above is in anyway distracting or strategic topic drift; however, it is a glimpse of a small event in the continuing history of human activity. It is a clear indication that we have all been here before. Historical events are repetitive, but they do not appear to be educational. We seem not to learn from mistakes. We remember the calamity resulting from mistakes, but we seem to forget the events and activities that brought about the calamity. At times comparisons are made between current and past events, but for some reason they are dismissed as being distinguishable and no longer relevant. Trump’s rants, raves and diatribes against immigrants and enemies of the state, when compared to fascism are dismissed. The actions of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, when likened to the GESTAPO is considered inflammatory, unpatriotic and exaggerated, even although they are exactly that. The very idea that their actions could lead to a holocaust is derided and mightily condemned.  The miscreants even demean the opponents of their activity by using the fact of the holocaust as an example of preposterous exaggeration with scornful claims of ‘it can’t happen here’. 

 

Having started with a radio drama called The Film, I reference another film Judgment at Nuremberg (1961). There is a scene in the film between Judge Dr. Ernst Janning (played by Burt Lancaster) and Chief Judge Dan Harwood (played by Spencer Tracy) which is rather relevant and appropriate:

PERHAPS IT'S THE PILLS I'M TAKING, BUT WHAT'S NEXT?

On the 4th October 2024 I posted an item entitled Protection of the People 2 - Nothing seems to have happened in the last nine months to change my view. If anything it is clear the situation has got worse. The shameful refusal of western leadership to strongly condemn Mr Netanyahu for his behaviour and activity is appalling. The level of his deceit is gargantuan. Calling for the Iranian citizens to revolt against their current government, all the while conducting a vicious campaign against what are claimed to be “military targets” without any care or concern over “co-lateral damage” (euphemism for he does’t care who he kills). He does this with the knowledge that the Iranian regime is not popular with his supposed allies, who will of course not interfere with his actions, and are effectively suckered into saying nothing and continuing to support him. What is even more disturbing is the extraordinary amount of time the Israeli secret services seem to have taken in preparing for this war through subterfuge and insertion of agents into the Iranian Regime. 

The levels of his chicanery are even greater than either Trump or Putin. Machiavelli has nothing on Netanyahu. He seems intent on dragging the entire world into conflict, or not caring if he does. I stated in my previous blog (see below) that he was not to be trusted. I fear I was underestimating how dangerous he actually is. His perfidy appears to come at just the right time, as most of the leaders around him are perfidious men.  Herewith is that entry from October 4, 2024:

PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE 2

Perhaps I am being a bit harsh in respect of the ongoing situation in the middle east, but the attempts at reconciliation and movement towards a peaceful and fruitful co-existence in the area has not been helped by the general treatment of the Palestinians by the Israeli authorities. Division and suspicion breed nothing but division and suspicion. The problem has persisted my entire lifetime and I was born in 1942. Is it not about time that vendetta and vengeance be set aside?

There is a very good point of view from Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian at:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/04/israel-israelis-gaza-war-7-october-anniversary
 

Nonetheless, the question “who started it?” is no longer relevant. It should not matter anymore, and the grownups must step up and out of the playground mentality that seems to pervade any talks leading to settlement and compromise. An accommodation must be found. What is so difficult to understand? So long as the posturing and blaming carry on, so long will all the people of the middle east continue to suffer. Leadership requires rational intelligent thought, with a view to the future. Why must I continue to put myself in other people’s shoes to see a point of view. I can see and sympathise with people’s suffering from demolition, disease and death. I do not want to watch this anymore.  It has surely gone on long enough.

I have taken a view on the insanity which may not be to everyone’s liking; however, the current arms rattling and bristling between the Israelis and the Iranians is endangering the entire world, now so full of governments that see nationalism and populism as the preeminent form of coping with domestic as well as international affairs. Repression and control under the guise of maintaining order in society, is still repression and control. So long as the likes of Netanyahu puff out their chest, there will never be closure. His position is to remain in control, that’s it, and so long as military action persists, he will exploit it.  Do not be fooled by his posturing as protector of the people. He is merely protecting himself. His trial on corruption charges is still ongoing. It hovers in the background and he will do anything to make it fade into the distance. He is not to be trusted.

That is not an anti-Israeli point of view. It is merely what the images and reporting from the region indicate is the case. I know ordinary Israelis as well as ordinary Palestinians are desperate for peace. Their so called protectors are the problem. The leaders have become entrenched in their religious and fanatical enmity and are blinded and made dumb. The irony is that the same God hovers over them and permits the slaughter to continue.

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO ISAIAH ?

Insanity upon insanity. The criminals are let loose on the world and all we get is ridiculous analysis from pundits and journalists who are meant to be experts and fully briefed on the activities of these miscreants. What is absurd is the lack of spine in the restraining from condemning the obvious outrage of their actions. The spurious reasons given by Mr Netanyahu for launching yet another attack is flatly accepted without reply by western leaders and journalists alike. It is no longer a question of being evenhanded and non partisan. The decisions being taken by Trump, Putin, Netanyahu et al deserve condemnation from every civilised human being on the planet. The insidious false claims of emergencies should be roundly denounced. Most of these people have already been charged and summoned before the International Criminal Court,  so why are they not in the dock. 

The fact that violence breeds violence is a fact. It is not opinion or speculation. It is an established fact. The destruction that pours out of Russia, Israel, Iran, the United States and other areas of conflict is clearly there to be seen. There are real pictures, not photoshopped or computer generated imagery. Violence is a virus seemingly without a cure. The only method is to disempower the perpetrators. Its effects are real. How many times does it need saying?

Consider the notion of banning the bomb and so called non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, part of the excuse of Mr Netanyahu’s attack on Iran. How twisted an argument is that? If having access to nuclear weapons is a deterrent, then how is it that so many non nuclear weapons, every bit as lethal, in enormous supply by most countries, is not a deterrent? How successful has being armed to the teeth been a deterrent to the violence being perpetrated throughout the world? Having weapons of mass destruction is a misrepresentation of the facts. We already have weapons of mass destruction in operation all over the world. What else can one call machine guns that fire thousand of rounds a second and aircraft that carry computer guided very explosive and devastating bombs? 

What difference has the possession of nuclear weapons made to the differences between India and Pakistan in Kashmir other than to threaten and supposedly excuse the lethal weaponry already being deployed. It is insanity upon insanity. 

In the bible, the book of Isaiah 2:4 states:
    He will judge between the nations
        and will settle disputes for many peoples.
    They will beat their swords into plowshares
        and their spears into pruning hooks.
    Nation will not take up sword against nation,
        nor will they train for war anymore.

That was supposedly over 3000 years ago, and written in the promised land. How has it worked out so far? Clearly Mr Netanyahu missed out on his bible classes. 

Isaiah - Sistine Chapel -Michaelangelo

Wikipedia states:

“Isaiah was the 8th-century BC Israelite prophet after whom the Book of Isaiah is named.
The text of the Book of Isaiah refers to Isaiah as "the prophet",[12] but the exact relationship between the Book of Isaiah and the actual prophet Isaiah is complicated. The traditional view is that all 66 chapters of the book of Isaiah were written by one man, Isaiah, possibly in two periods between 740 BC and c. 686 BC, separated by approximately 15 years.
Another widely held view suggests that parts of the first half of the book (chapters 1–39) originated with the historical prophet, interspersed with prose commentaries written in the time of King Josiah 100 years later, and that the remainder of the book dates from immediately before and immediately after the end of the 6th-century BC exile in Babylon (almost two centuries after the time of the historical prophet), and that perhaps these later chapters represent the work of an ongoing school of prophets who prophesied in accordance with his prophecies”

The fact of the matter is that we have had the word of God for over 3 millennium. It has been made available in almost every hotel room around the globe. It is by far the world’s best selling book with over 5 billion in sales, from a world population of almost 9 billion souls, and still nations take up swords against nations. What price deterrence?

As the planet grows older it hosts a number of nations that have developed some form of democracy organised around what, in most cases, is called the rule of law. That law is founded on the principle that individuals do not harm other individuals either by violence or dishonesty. There is no doubt that so long as nations citizens elect dishonest and violent people as their representatives, He will not be able to fulfil Isaiah’s prophesy; whoever He or they may be. Elections and representatives clearly matter. Think very carefully before you vote or pick a side to line up with. You would do well to steer clear of people who claim to speak for the wants of “The British people” or “The American people” or any of such populist crap. That sort of talk usually just represents their own personal agenda without any real regard for the desires of anyone else, let alone “the people”. 

We are living in a turbulent time. I can only blame my generation who have failed to live up to our initial promise of care, freedom of expression and equality for all, and allowed bigotry, prejudice and narrow mindedness to continue to flourish and infect our children and grandchildren. How did that happen? How is it that mob and corrupt rule can still occur? The racist and xenophobic outbreaks in Northern Ireland, the actions of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency in the US and California, the Israeli Defence Force in the middle East and many more such agencies, are all symptoms of a society we have failed to inspire. We have been no more effective than Isaiah. Je suis désolé.

.

THE BEE'S KNEES

It’s the apoidea’s hinge joint, the moggy’s night ware, the feline’s face fungus or the canine’s scrotum. There are different idioms to describe how good someone or something can be. As I pondered whether these idioms could be translated, I wondered whether google translate would use straight word for word translations or be sophisticated enough to translate the meaning of the idiom. For Italian and Latin it would appear word for word. For the French, it would seem the bee’s knees had been given an anglo-french version “le top du top”. As for the German, there was a variety of translations, although the bee’s knees did cause differences depending on where it came in the list.

My fanciful foray into idioms has been interrupted by an act of piracy in the Mediterranean. The Israeli Military forcibly took control of a British Flagged Yacht, the Madleen, in international waters, making its way to Gaza to deliver much needed aid. This action was in complete violation of international law. The Israeli Government has long ago ceased to understand the rule of law. Under its current leadership there is no respect for laws of any kind. The country is beyond any semblance of a civilised society. It has lost all sense of its own traditions and any claim that it adheres to the Jewish faith and beliefs has been eradicated in the bloody violence it now seems to embrace. There is no faith of any kind left in Israel. It has built new idols in the shape of tanks and other military hardware. That is their new golden calf. What was once a nation dedicated to education, civilised society and a firm grasp of the rule if law, has abandoned all its principles and become a savage rigid and intractable brute. A nation that prided itself on turning desert into gardens of green shoots and fruitful cultivation has turned the land  into such devastation that even the word desert is insufficient to describe it. What has become of that promised land? 

The other disturbance is the complete nazification of the United States in allowing the President of the United to deploy a National Guard unit on the streets of Los Angeles, in a sovereign state, usurping the power of the legal authority in California, with the addition of the threat of federal marine military units being deployed as well. A federal defence force being used to quell legitimate demonstrators exercising their constitutional rights. If that is not the Geheime Staatspolizei in action, what is? Respect for the rule of law seems to have dwindled across the globe. Piracy and violent dictatorship abound. What was the United Nations created for? 

Not only is Trump being allowed to flout the constitution with impunity, he has effectively walked away from any attempt at bringing an end to the fighting in the Ukraine as well as in Gaza. How can any right minded, clear thinking individual have anything to do with this man? He his considered a dolt and a swindler by almost every leader across the globe, or more probably the greatest blowhard ever elected President of the United States, subject to easy flattery to be pulled by the nose by those he professes to admire. When will the American people wake up and get rid of him and his cohorts? Surely there is a constitutional mechanism which can accomplish the necessary steps to be taken. I can only call on the constitutional lawyers of America to unite and find a solution. Please get it together now. If you do, you would become, without question, “Le top du top”.

EYES OF THE LADY ON TOP OF THE CAPITOL DOME

What has become of America? The situation is more dangerous than ever. The harassment of Miles Taylor  (former Trump advisor or appointee to the Department of Homeland Security during Mr Trump’s first term) by Trump’s Department of Justice on his specific executive order is more than an outrage. It is indicative of his leadership which is contrary  to  every principle of humanity and democracy proposed and upheld by the United States government since the First United States Congress convened on the 4th March 1789. 

How the current  majority of members of Congress and heads of the various Departments of Government can adhere to this psychotic narcissist’s agenda is beyond all understanding. The arrogance they display towards any criticism of their actions and the outright misrepresentations and twisting of the law to allow for wholesale criminality, emphasised by the pardoning of convicted fraudster and violent criminals, is appalling. The grifting and corruption in play are now the norm. 

I can recall a time when there used to be respect for education in America. Integrity and upholding the rule of law where revered principles constantly being expressed is a variety of ways, particularly in the arts. Mr Smith Goes to Washington is an instance in point. A film released in 1939, directed by Frank Capra. Capra was born in a village near Palermo, Sicily, Italy. He was the youngest of seven children of a catholic family. In 1903, when he was five, Capra's family immigrated to the United States. He won three Academy Awards for best direction. As to his politics, there is an entry in Wikipedia which states:

“Capra's political views coalesced in some of his movies, which promoted and celebrated the spirit of American individualism. A conservative Republican.  Capra railed against  Franklin D. Roosevelt during his tenure as governor of New York and opposed his presidency during the years of the Depression. Capra stood against government intervention during the national economic crisis. Nevertheless, the Los Angeles FBI chapter in May 1947 regarded Capra's film It’s a Wonderful Life as glorifying “values or institutions judged to be particularly anti-American or pro-Communist.”
 

The screenplay of Mr Smith Goes to Washington  was written by Sidney Buchman, born in 1902 in Duluth, Minnesota, USA in a jewish family. His wikipedia entry includes:

“Buchman was one of the most successful Hollywood screenwriters of the 1930s and 1940s. His scripts from this period include The King Steps Out (1936), Theodora Goes Wild (1936) and Holiday (1938). He would go on to receive Academy Award nominations for his writing on Mr Smith Goes to Washington (1939), The Talk of the Town (1942), and Jolson Sings Again (1949), winning an Oscar for Here Comes Mr Jordan (1941). He also did uncredited work on various films during this period, notably The Awful Truth. He was the 1965 recipient of the Laurel Award of the Writers Guild of America, West. Buchman's refusal to provide the names of  American Communist Party members to the House Un-American Activities Committee led to a charge of contempt of Congress. Buchman was fined, given a year's suspended sentence, and was then blacklisted by the Hollywood movie studio  bosses.”

Here is a scene from the film:

 

There is another entry in wikipedia on Capra:

“Within four days of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour on December 7, 1941, Capra quit his successful directing career in Hollywood and received a commission as a major in the United States Army. He also gave up his presidency of the Screen Directors Guild. Being 44 years of age, he was not asked to enlist, but, notes Friedman, "Capra had an intense desire to prove his patriotism to his adopted land. Capra recalls some personal reasons for enlisting:
‘I had a guilty conscience. In my films I championed the cause of the gentle, the poor, the downtrodden. Yet I had begun to live like the Aga Khan. The curse of Hollywood is big money. It comes so fast it breeds and imposes its own mores, not of wealth, but of ostentation and phony status.’ “

Clearly there is a strong connection between the two men who created work that reflected what was good about American Democracy and the values deeply felt by such a mixed population. That the son of a jewish Russian émigré clothing merchant and an Italian immigrant whose family travelled steerage to the United States on the steamship Germania should come together to make this film is just what the American experience was all about. Both came out of poverty, from close families. Buchman graduating from Columbia University in New York in 1923, and Capra from the California Institute of Technology studying chemical engineering graduating in 1918. One leaning to the left of politics and other to the conservative side within the same country.

Both benefited greatly from education. Apparently “Capra later wrote that his college education had "changed his whole viewpoint on life from the viewpoint of an alley rat to the viewpoint of a cultured person”.  As to Buchman, a year after graduating he travelled to England and worked as an assistant stage manager at the Old Vic. He was also a member of the Communist Party between 1938 and 1945.

Yet both worked on producing films that reflected what were the better values of American society and were, a the time, lauded for it. An entry on the Internet Movie Database states: 
“Along with Frank Capra, he helped raise the studio's prestige and shake off the stigma of having once been a 'poverty row' outfit.”

The dialogue from Mr Smith may seem a bit cheesy but worth a read:

“ Just get up off the ground, that's all I ask. Get up there with that lady that's up on top of this Capitol dome, that lady that stands for liberty. Take a look at this country through her eyes if you really want to see something. And you won't just see scenery; you'll see the whole parade of what Man's carved out for himself, after centuries of fighting. Fighting for something better than just jungle law, fighting so's he can stand on his own two feet, free and decent, like he was created, no matter what his race, color, or creed. That's what you'd see. There's no place out there for graft, or greed, or lies, or compromise with human liberties. And, uh, if that's what the grownups have done with this world that was given to them, then we'd better get those boys' camps started fast and see what the kids can do. And it's not too late, because this country is bigger than the Taylors, or you, or me, or anything else. Great principles don't get lost once they come to light. They're right here; you just have to see them again!”

There are indeed voices in the United States that can still speak coherently and with passion on both sides of the political spectrum, without recourse to insult and disparagement. They  also  listen with concentration and a willingness to compromise for the mutual good of the nation; however, the Maga stalwarts are either vicious and inflexible, or feeble and pusillanimous  toadies. They loudly flatter and fawn on a leader  who proudly proclaims “I love the poorly educated”. Their ignorance  allows him to gaslight the public and openly scam the public with his corruption and double dealing. Such are the current Republican congressmen and women who never take the time to look at America with the lady atop the Capitol dome. 

ON REVIEWING PAST ENTRIES

I have been reviewing some of the previous most read blog entries. There is one from four years ago on Monday, 1st March 2021, entitled Angry, Upset and Bitter. It is essentially about the scamming and dishonesty that was proliferating, during the pandemic in particular, and that has not abated since. It has become even more insidious given the scale of cyber blackmail that seems to be affecting major companies and institutions. But the tragedy of the acceptance of dishonesty within the general public and the rise of overt shoplifting is the saddest development. The election of Trump is the most tragic example of the acquiescence to criminality by a general population.

Another blog that attracted numerous readers was posted on Saturday 15th May 2021 entitled, A Question Of Judgment. It referred to the United States Supreme Court and some of its past deplorable decisions and the outrageous hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy  of Senators Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell over the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Bench. Her role in the debacle of Roe-v-Wade will not be forgotten, particularly with her evasions on questions put to her during her confirmation hearing about that very case. These Senators are still with us and still just as reactionary, hypocritical and mendacious as ever. I include McConnell particularly because despite his sometime clashes with Trump he has done nothing to actively prevent him from running for office as he should and could have during Trump’s second impeachment.

Other popular postings include one on Monday the 28th June 2021, entitled A Rambling Reminiscence and another on Friday 25th June 2021 entitled Teachings of a Man Made Church?. The Rambling Reminiscence was just that and covered an extensive recall of events in our lives and also included a covid chart published in the Express, showing the current state of the UK deaths and hospital admissions rate at the time as well as an MSNBC account of the Orwellian dangers continuing as a result of the 6th January 2021 insurrection. 

As to Teachings of a Man Made Church?, you will note the question mark. It was inspired by a report that President Biden had been refused communion during a Church service because of his stance on abortion. It was a mater in which he had no choice as he had sworn to preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, the first amendment of which states: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I commented at the time:
As president Mr Biden therefore has no authority to interfere with or indeed express an opinion on religious matters, or in particular, the will of God. What Mr Biden supports is the individual citizen’s right to choose what religion, or not, they wish to follow and how they choose to lead their religious and moral lives. Religion therefore has no place in politics, nor in the secular education of the nation.  The citizen is free to choose. That is what is of paramount importance, and that is what Mr Biden is protecting and defending. How he personally feels about abortion has nothing to do with it. He is duty bound to support the 1st Amendment, no matter how difficult it may be for him personally.
The sad thing is that the clergy confuse the issue of abortion as being against the teachings of the church, and not a decision to be made by the individual concerned. Choices are individual judgements and resolutions made after considerable thought. The matter of terminating a pregnancy has never, in my view, ever been a matter for the bishops to pronounce upon as if it were the word of God. Whatever the teachings of the Church might be, it is man-made education and not the word of, or the definitive will, of God. Indeed, for a religious catholic to decide on a termination of a pregnancy, that decision having been made in consultation with God, would clearly be the will of God. Consultation with God is not consultation with a Clergyman of whatever denomination. The clergy are not God, despite their desire to give the impression that they are the voice of God. They are not. Consultation with God is with one’s conscience. It is usually an internal conversation and can have many outcomes. It is not for any individual or government to “prohibit the free exercise thereof.”
If God is love and forgiveness, then for any priest to deny communion to any catholic because of a difference of opinion, is in complete contravention of the teaching of Christ and they should be defrocked and drummed out of the church. Again, the teachings of the Church are not the word of God. They are the word of man, and that is always open to question. If the United States of America, is to call itself ‘one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all’, then it is the will of God that individuals have the right to choose. No man can, nor should, interfere in that.

I have not changed my opinion since then. It is a mater of belief and what we chose to believe. Unfortunately some people chose some rather disturbing things to believe. It is a question of fact and fiction. As to memories and going through past entries, I am reminded of the true nature of writing as expressed by Oscar Wilde:

CECILY. - I keep a diary in order to enter the wonderful secrets of my life. If I didn’t write them down, I should probably forget all about them.
MISS PRISM. - 
Memory, my dear Cecily, is the diary that we all carry about with us.
CECILY.
 - Yes, but it usually chronicles the things that have never happened, and couldn’t possibly have happened. I believe that Memory is responsible for nearly all the three-volume novels that Mudie sends us.
MISS PRISM.
- Do not speak slightingly of the three-volume novel, Cecily. I wrote one myself in earlier days.
CECILY.
 - Did you really, Miss Prism? How wonderfully clever you are! I hope it did not end happily? I don’t like novels that end happily. They depress me so much.
MISS PRISM.
 - The good ended happily, and the bad unhappily. That is what Fiction means.
 

You will note the reference to Mudie, which is now mostly lost on us. It refers to Charles Edward Mudie (18 October 1818 – 28 October 1890), English publisher and founder of Mudie's Lending Library and Mudie's Subscription Library, was the son of a second-hand bookseller and newsagent. Mudie's efficient distribution system and vast supply of texts revolutionised the circulating library movement, while his "select" library influenced Victorian middle-class values and the structure of the three-volume novel. He was also the first publisher of James Russell Lowell’s's Poems in England, and of Emerson’s Man Thinking.

The three-volume novel (sometimes three-decker or triple decker) was a standard form of publishing for British fiction during the nineteenth century. It was a significant stage in the development of the modern novel as a form of popular literature in Western Culture..

UNLOCKING THE DOOR?

Preoccupation of the mind. A curious concept. On the one hand it indicates one is absorbed in thought, or engrossed in a particular idea, or dealing with some current situation requiring resolution or action of some kind. The consequence of this mental activity, one’s mind is so occupied that it is unable to entertain any additional thought or matter that may arise. Rather like a cubicle with a sign indicating ‘occupied’. The brain  is certainly capable of dealing with a multiplicity of ideas and enabling multitasking, assuming the physical requirements for such endeavours are available; but, there are moments when the absorption or mental concentration is so deep, that one appears to be distracted and not open to any interaction, not even of any kind. It becomes in effect unavailable for use.

This state of being is naturally transient. We usually work through situations that occupy our minds to such an extent as to effectively close it down. This enables us to interact with others. At any rate, it is the normal and usual course of action between human beings. A give and take exchange of ideas. On the other hand there are minds that are full of specific ideas, so firmly held, that they are permanently occupied. This is a state of being that is beyond preoccupation. Areas of the mind, at its corp, are so completely absorbed with locked in thoughts, that nothing newly apparent or diverting can enter. The mind is not so much distracted but, rather, petrified. Hence interaction seems to take place on  the periphery of the brain. These fixed ideas are retrieved on occasions, not so much to elucidate new thinking, but to reenforce the already fixed idea. It is like a cubicle with a permanent sign indicating “occupied” whichever way one turns the latch. There is no way in. It is never available.

As I sit here preoccupied, pondering, I wonder whether there is an area in my own brain which harbours such petrified thoughts.  Am I a creature of what is called the radical left, or am I capable of accepting certain conservative concepts.  William Pitt the Younger was a Conservative politician,  yet he said in the House of Common "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves”.  A sentiment which any lefty would agree with. Indeed many people in their youth have aligned themselves with the political left and mellowed in their later years to join with a more conservative approach to governance.  I do not think I have gone that far, but there are certain aspects of civilisation, in particular, what might be called the social contract, which may seem conservative on my part. I am a firm believer in the rule of law and the duty of care. There are a number of conservative politicians who would express a similar view. The difference is the extent to which laws are made to control behaviour and thought, and to what extent one enforces the duty of care.

Russell Kirk (1918-1994) an American philosopher and historian, wrote a book published in 1953 called The Conservative Mind.  In it he suggested five canons of conservatism:
1-A belief in a transcendent order, described as based in tradition, or natural law;
2-An affection for the “variety and mystery” of human existence;
3-A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasise natural distinctions;
4-A belief that property and freedom are closely linked;
5-A faith in custom, convention, and prescription, and a recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence.  

To begin with I find the second premise of an affection for the variety and mystery of human existence, completely at odds with a so called transcendent order or the idea that society requires orders and classes that emphasise alleged natural distinctions. What the conservative mind sees as tradition, natural law and distinctions is thinking of themselves as, by natural right, above the general population and consequently more worthy. They are not. As to property and freedom, they are to some extent linked. There is nothing wrong, in my view, with the freedom to own property, but the conservative view of acquiring property to the extent of preventing others from owning property, is something else again.

As to faith in custom, convention and prescription, it is not so much faith as it is respect. The traditional idiom of minding your p’s and q’s is a reasonable bench mark in social interaction. As regards innovation, by its very nature it cannot be tied to anything although in the light of the current expansion of the internet and AI, and its effect on societies in general, the value of prudence might apply. I confess I lean more towards the age of enlightenment in the persons of Locke, Kant, Smith (with reservations) and in the current era, Chomsky, Derrida, Barthes who probably have more to do with language and thought than politics. There are many more to chose from.

In any event, I am clearly not a conservative but I can appreciate some of its concepts; however, there are those who call themselves conservatives who do not embrace the five canons, and, whilst claiming to embrace small government, seek to impose total government control of their own making. They would impose their idea of what constitutes order, tradition and custom and prohibit any and all opposition to that order, even to the slightest degree. And so we have the likes of Orban, Putin, Trump, Netanyahu, Bolsonaro and others of their ilk.

The current outstanding horrors are unfortunately being dominated by men whose minds are preoccupied in the sense of unable to absorb any new thought. I cannot believe that there are no people in positions close to these individuals who might break through the cubicle door and change some views. Perhaps not. I ponder. 

ADDENDUM TO YESTERDAY'S RANT

The insanity of the conflict in Gaza is stupefying the world. Indeed the whole of the Middle Eastern imbroglio seems to be an insolvable problem. There are two articles on the conflict that make an attempt at understanding the consequences of what is going on. Matthew Syed in an article in the Sunday Times from Saturday 17th May and Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian on Friday 23rd May both express clear and considered opinion, accompanied by a tinge of despair.

Mr Syed’s piece is introduced by: “Like every true friend of Israel, I am obliged to say - enough. With each bomb, each bullet, each meal denied to Gaza’s children, Hamas is getting more of what it wants”. What he means is that as long as the Israeli Government and defence force behave with such disregard for humanity, they are loosing sympathy and support which is now turning markedly towards  the Palestinians. The violence is such that far from turning away from Hamas the population is more likely to increase its membership and support. That goes for any observers as well. Mr Syed is of the view that the atrocity committed by Hamas last year was deliberately intended to draw Israel into this kind of retaliation, sufficient to turn the tide of world opinion, and they have succeeded beyond their wildest hopes. Israel fell fully into the trap.

Mr Freedland’s statement is prefaced by: “A biblical hatred is engulfing both side in the Gaza conflict - and finding them to reason. Israel starving Palestinians, two killings at a Jewish museum: both are atrocities. But vanishingly few can see it.” There is no doubt that the Israeli Government has lost all sense of foresight and that rational behaviour has been exhausted. So much so that any sense of support or sympathy has been eroded and all that is left is blind rage and violence. With mind and eyes filled with blood, all sense of humanity disappears. Endless retaliation is all that is left. It blinds one even to distrust and oppose those who would be on our side and in effect only succeeds in turning them against us. It is blind and therefore ignorant in every direction.

Both articles are considered and worth seeking out to read. They provide no solace, but perhaps something to reflect upon and find some understanding. Finding understanding however is not finding a solution. Finding a way of moving people back to rationality and considered compromise towards coexistence through a Niagara of blood is still far away.

ANOTHER DAY ANOTHER RANT

Seven days of events have passed since my last entry. The conflict in the middle east carries on towards even greater infamy. Netanyahu’s offensive has progressed to open insults directed at other world leaders, the united nations and any institution that dares to criticise the Israeli government. Any criticism from any quarter is now to be regarded as anti-semitism. This is an outrageous claim and fits in with his scurrying to Donald Trump to bolster his arrogance, not unlike the ego maniacs of the 1930’s messieurs Mussolini and Hitler. You may think this is a rash comparison, but how else is one to think of it.

Trump’s administration is uprooting the constitution every moment he is in office. His attacks on well established institutions of higher learning under the guise of eradicating anti-semitism is an outrage. He seeks total control of enrolments, hirings of staff and areas of study. He seeks to stifle any free speech and thought that does not conform to his methods of operation. His will is what matters. He applies this to any institution or profession that might cause him difficulty; hence, his bullying of legal firms and the judiciary. Any criticism or adverse ruling of his so called executive orders is seen as criminal treason. The fact of his own open corruption highlights his hypocrisy. The adulation with which the Republican Party greets this venality and open racketeering is sickening.

His claim, together with his acolytes, that there is no place for hatred in the United States is astounding, given his endless insults, hate tweets and speech over the last eight years of vilifying his detractors and immigrants, enlisting the aid of the likes of Pam Bondi, Kash Patel, and Kristi  Noem. These three alone have spewed hatred with malicious epithets directed at immigrants and any person voicing contrary  opinion.

The comparisons to the establishment of dictatorships in Italy and Germany of the 1930’s grows more and more appropriate. The repetition of adulation of the leader by subordinates and the relish with which they exercise their power is akin to the Stanley Milgram’s experiment at Yale in the 1960’s. The blind arrogance with which they follow their leader belies there supposed education and reminds us of the worst excesses of the French Revolution.

The bizarre nature of the current tit for tat headline grabbing, between the Gaza horror show and the atrocities in the Ukraine, dumbfounds the mind. What are we to do?  There is an ongoing civil war in Sudan and various insurgencies and internal conflicts in Africa. The Democratic Republic of Congo, Myanmar, and Haiti are also facing significant challenges. Violence seems to pervade the world.

The two major conflicts have the United States President at the forefront. He put himself there with his claims, on the one hand that they would never have  happened if he had been President, as he should have been at the time, and on the other hand that he would resolve the conflict within 24 hrs and a phone call. Well, he is in the mix and the situations have got worse. He does a mineral deal with Ukraine which is hardly likely to take effect so long as Mr Putin remains intransigent. Indeed, Mr Putin will continue to pull Mr Trump around by the nose until, by some miracle the light dawns and Trump finally says enough is enough and goes into his bully act. An unlikely scenario as Trump is devoted to Putin and is more likely to just walk away from the problem. He has already threatened to do so. As to Gaza, he is apparently committed to organise food aid distribution as per Mr Netanyahu’s request. Whether that will actually happen is another matter, although Mr Trump’s real estate ambitions of Costa Gaza are always on his mind.

There is of course the problem of violence at home for Mr Trump which he might seek to resolve. Over 1.6 million assault victims  taken to ER hospitals last year in the United States, and nearly 25 Thousand homicides. During Trump’s first Presidency “between 2016 and 2020, the number of homicides in the United States saw a general trend of slight increases, with a notable spike in 2020.. While the data for 2016, 2017, and 2018 showed a relatively stable number of homicides, 2020 saw a significant surge, with the average U.S. city experiencing a nearly 30% increase in its homicide rate, the fastest ever recorded.” It started to reduce under President Biden. In any event, racial hatred and other prejudices abound in the United States. Note another alleged fact:

“In 2018, it was estimated that U.S. civilians owned 393 million firearms, with the U.S. having the highest number of guns per capita in the world. This translates to 120.5 firearms for every 100 residents. As of 2023, 32% of Americans owned at least one firearm, and a larger percentage (44%) reported living in a gun household, according to a 2020 Gallup survey”

There are about 2.2 million military personnel in the Ukrainian army. The average Ukrainian soldier could have 128 weapons each if the US citizens gave up their guns. What kind of world do we live in? Should not Mr Trump clean up his own mess rather than screw up the rest of the planet?

393 million firearms in private hands. A shocking number. I do not understand why any government should have anything to do with a country that is vested in violence to that degree. How the right to bear arms has not been repealed or expunged from the constitution of the United Staes is  beyond comprehension. How can the world even expect progress towards peace from the leadership of the most lethal society in existence? I think that is a fair question. Mr Trump clearly cares not one jot for his own citizens, for whom he claims America First, let alone any other “foreign” citizen, whom he constantly refers to as insane rapists and murderers. We should have nothing more to do with this man. The European countries must take a stand, indeed take the lead. We will get nowhere with this broken collection of so called United States who seem to lack the ability to remove this pariah and his minions from office and truly make America great again.