JUST ANOTHER DAY

Once again Jonathan Freedland has hit the spot. I urge you to read his piece from Friday 8th August 2025 in the Guardian at:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/aug/08/hope-summer-gloom-escapism?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

There are areas of life that have medicinal benefits for our mental health. Not looking at or reading the news and putting on ear plugs is sometimes one’s ‘go to’ strategy to alleviating that ever present sinking feeling that there is something very wrong going on. It is not so much displacement activity or escapism, as clocking in to the fact that there are other things happening despite the surrounding gloom. A gathering of people to observe or take part in a sporting event or entertainment production is just as important as attending a demonstration against some inhuman atrocity or in support of simple human rights. The extraordinary surprise is that sporting events or leisure activity can still manage to take place. The fact that Ukrainians can appear at track and athletic meets, tennis tournaments and musical venues is an instance in point. 

What is even more surreal is the image of our Foreign Minister David Lammy happily fishing alongside Vice President of the United States J.D. Vance on the banks of an English river. Whilst it is laudable that such opposites can find common ground, it is tragic that a ‘Labour Party’ activist, who professes allegiance to a socialist ethic and welfare state politics, can have no influence, not even of any kind, over a right wing nationalist who supports a psychotic narcissist, an Israeli war monger wanted by the International Criminal Court, and a Russian dictator’s desire to claim sovereignty over another country and likewise wanted by the ICC.  Does Mr Lammy really think that flattery and bonhomie will change the course of conduct of a Donald Trump through Vance?

In addition, how can a British Prime Minister listen to Mr Trump denigrating one of his friends and colleagues in the Labour Party, and simply smile and say “Actually he’s a friend of mine”, without pointing out the atrocious and criminal friends and colleagues admired by Mr Trump. Of course that changes nothing. The fact that Mr Netanyahu can just brush aside world condemnation just because he has Mr Trump’s ear and support is an outrage. What influence Great Britain and the EU?

I am sorry to bring back gloom and doom and I refer you once again to the contemplation by Mr Freedland of joyous human activity. It is far better for you.

ABOUT REFUGEES

This is in response to yesterday’s comments concerning refugees seeking asylum. Celia pointed out to me that my observations about their perceptions of what they were facing, or stirring up, in the countries in which they seek refuge, were perhaps a bit right wing and anti immigration. I had not intended for my comments to be anti-refugee or to cast aspersions on their character or knowledge or intentions. I confess I am perplexed by the problem and I was rather trying to find some explanation to clarify my own thoughts about the problems arising from the seemingly endless stream of displaced people seeking places to settle, and find peace. As much as I would like to think they should be welcomed with open arms, without hesitation, to be able to do so is not that easy. 

In the early stages of conflicts, like the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the crackdown on Syrian citizens by Assad, the Taliban in Afghanistan, etc. most western countries welcomed the people uprooted by these violent and horrific outbursts, and who were, somehow, able to get away, and arrive at their borders. They were not seen as illegal immigrants but as victims and genuine refugees. They were invited in and offered refuge by many local citizens. It was seen as the right thing to do. That has not changed. What has changed are the numbers of people affected by the length and depth of the devastation created by these conflicts, as well as depravations across the world. 

Initially refugee camps were set up in neighbouring countries where conflicts occurred. They soon become overcrowded, insecure, unhealthy and cruel. Laudable as they are, no amount of ‘foreign aid programs’ and ‘Médecins Sans Frontières’ can resolve the problems and issues generated by the simple numbers of victims created by conflict. Rather than remain in such settings, people’s instinct is to try to move back home, but if that home has been obliterated or impossible to reconstruct, people will move on to find a better place, somewhere they can survive and actually have a life worth living. These are subjective as well as objective facts I have gleaned from current events I have witnessed and been made aware of. 

The problem then arises of where to go and how to get there. Hence, the long and dangerous journeys across land and seas to western European countries and North America which display wealth and prosperity throughout the world with endless streams of advertising in visual media. These countries however, are no longer so willing to take people in as they once were. Immigration has become a complex political and social problem. In particular, the economic costs, community and cultural differences have caused protests both for and against the acceptance of migrants. These events have produced extremes of violence, racism and bigotry in some countries, as well as the putting up of barriers at borders. All of the European nations, including the United Kingdom have been affected. 

In the United States, the maligning of immigrants has reached a vindictive malignancy fuelled by an unconscionable President. He continues to label all immigrants as violent criminals, sexual predators and mentally deficient. A gestapo clone agency, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a.k.a. ICE,  are rounding up people for ad hoc deportation. Foreign aid programs have been cut. The claims that not a single person has crossed over the southern border with Mexico since Trump’s return to power, abound. A clearly false claim but nonetheless popular with certain sections of the public. So much for  “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”.

In the United Kingdom the slogan of “Stop the Boats” is still hovering over the newish Labour Government and the housing of illegal immigrants has caused ructions. The new Reform Party has fuelled the discontents and the Conservative Party still fluctuates over its failed and now abandoned Rwanda program. The current Government is in difficulties as it has yet to find a successful solution to a seemingly unsolvable problem. Even with the cooperation of the French authorities and the emphasis on getting at the groups providing the boats and landing on the beaches, it has not been able to stop the flow. For a number of reasons it has implied that it is essential for this Labour Government to succeed where the previous government has failed, or it will no longer remain in power. That appears to be the mood of the electorate. Perhaps I am wrong in that assessment.

The only way to stop the boats, is to provide those refugees with a reason not to want or need to risk the journey in the first place. Help them create a homeland they do not need or want to abandon. That means help in preventing the carnage from happening in the first place. That necessitates closer ties between nations, not nationalist separation and divisions and not supporting dictatorships of any kind. Easily said and by rights should be easily done. Surely by now, in the twenty first century, with all the intelligence, artificial and actual, available to the world’s leaders, where almost no area is without a fixed or roving camera, some sanity and rational thought can prevail. 

THEY COULD HAVE BEEN YELLOW

In our bedroom there are three windows, over which hang 3 white venetian blinds, 120cm x 155cm,  from IKEA. They have been in situ for some time. When we first arrived, there were curtain rods from which hung blue, I believe, linen curtains,  which divided in the middle and were pulled either side of the window to let the light in. They had been left by the previous owner.  When we arrived here, some 23 years ago, this room was used as a store room for most of our furniture from our previous dwelling. There are three bedrooms on different levels and we started out using the back bedroom on the middle level. There were occasions when we shifted to the first level bedroom, next to the living room, which was initially used as an office/sitting room/library. Over time, the office was moved up to the loft area,  the furniture was spread around the flat, the store room became our bedroom and the sitting room became just that, with bookshelves housing  the remaining books we held on to. The majority of our books have been given away to a charity shop. It has taken some time for the present configuration to emerge, although it now seems as if it has always been what it has become. That is clearly not the case. 

I am lying on our bed, looking at the three windows, behind the television at the end of the bed (yet another different configuration from when this room became our bedroom) and wondering why it is that I have the feeling I have always been what I have become, when that is clearly not the case. Looking back at the various incarnations of my life, or should I say, thinking about or recalling past events, I consider what changes have taken place. Incidents scroll across my brain, presumably emerging from the hippocampus in the limbic system of said brain. The grey matter with which I was born is the same grey matter which currently occupies the same cranium.  Nothing about that has changed and I can presume that what was ‘then’ is what ‘is now’. But that cannot possibly be the case. The accumulation of incidents have crowded this life and somehow shaped what is known as character in the person I am now. Yet I wonder whether the cumulative effect of these incidents has had any real effect on the nature and personality with which I was born. 

I like to think that I am better behaved than I was or have been. Or is that merely a social adjustment as a result of greater interaction with people that comes with age? My mother was of the view that I was always what I was from birth. Perhaps she came to this view from her parental efforts, in that, no matter how hard she tried to correct the behaviour with which she disapproved, she failed. Yet, I have to confess, that it is probably from my parents that I lean to the left of the political spectrum and have no religious beliefs, not even of any kind, other than in the rule of law. 

Be that as it may, it appears to me that positive character changes are extremely slow to occur, if they happen at all, and if they do, it does not seem to the person concerned that there has been any change at all. As to what one can view as negative character changes, they are very quickly rationalised as having never happened at all. One sees this in particular in the likes of the present United States administration and its supporters. The volte-face is a major character component of the Trumpian entourage, as well as the instant indignation and counter attack at any perceived criticism. This is, I believe, a classic behavioural pattern of the spoilt child syndrome which persists in the mirror stage of development and from which some individuals never grow out of.  It also appears to be something some people admire or are crassly prepared to use to gain position and power through flattery. 

Now why is it that my idle thinking comes back to the question of the way of the world, particularly in the United States? There is much to contemplate in the UK and other areas of the globe. A possible explanation is that, in the last 80 years no other President of the United States has made his presence felt in the same way as Mr Trump. Ever since first becoming president in 2016 and the lead up from 2015, he has garnered acolytes and supporters and moulded them into a sort of cult following. He has also become one of the most despicable men on the planet. He has no honour and no code of conduct, save a love of himself. The power of the office of President of the United States has never been made more apparent to the entire world because of its misuse, abuse and corruption by the current incumbent. We would all like to see the back of him. We will all be glad to be rid of him. 

In the meantime, people are being displaced all over the world. They  seek refuge and support from the western democracies. They are told that there are countries that will provide them with the security and quality of life they dream of. Because of the propaganda and reputation put out by these countries, as safe havens and guardians of freedom and democracy, they are easily exploited by  con men and gangsters who, for a fee, will provide them with an entry to paradise. They do not need much coaxing. 

One of the tragedies is that they do not truly comprehend  the problems they are causing their prospective hosts from whom they seek asylum.  Having possibly spent their life savings for a ticket to that paradise, they do not understand why countries that are apparently so rich and bountiful cannot afford to welcome them with open arms.  They are not aware of the already 354,000 homeless local citizens in the United Kingdom or the 770,000 homeless Americans. All they seek is asylum and refuge. They are not aware of the already crowded local queue. They do not understand the resentment they cause by being seen as trying to jump that queue. It does not take much for bigotry and racism to raise its head. 

My anxieties over the conflicts and horror of Gaza, Ukraine and other areas of disaster, are nothing compared to those living it; yet, it affects my health and well being nonetheless. Displacement activity is one way of dealing with it, so I contemplate the Venetian blinds on the windows in my bedroom and wonder whether I’m right about the blue curtains. They might have been yellow.

WHY BOTHER ?

There is so much comment on the World Wide Webb that is critical of the current American President and, by extension, the United States in general, that it is impossible to make additional comment of one’s own. According to the statistics on my blog, in the last 7 days there have been 2651  views in the Americas, of which 1890 were in Brazil; and in the far east there have been 706 views, of which 603 have been in Vietnam. It is difficult, from the available stats, to distinguish just which postings they are looking at, but since this is a recent phenomenon, I assume they are looking at the more current entries, but perhaps not. Herewith list of stats:

The fact is that these figures are actually quite low when you consider the hundreds of thousands who watch YouTube entries from MeidasTouch, The Young Turks, Jack Cocchiarella, Brian Tyler Cohen, Occupy Democrats, The Daily Show etc.. on a daily basis. Indeed, my figures are extremely low and I suspect that the odd fan in South America may have looked at a variety of postings within the last week, which would mean that the actual number of people reading the stuff would be significantly lower than the 1890. So one has to ask oneself, why bother? I can’t even begin to compare my writing to the flapping of a butterfly’s wings in the Amazon causing a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico. Indeed it doesn’t even get off the ground. It would have been nice though. 

So I ask myself again, why bother? I suppose I do it to let off a bit of steam and keep the brain reasonably active in the face of aging disintegration. I am extremely grateful to the friends who have graciously made kind and encouraging comments about my musings, as well as putting up with my sending annoying  emails about the postings. I do apologise if I have caused any nuisance. In any event, should any reader wish to, they can always log on to: https://fbuffnstuff.blogspot.com/   now and again. 

As to the current state of affairs, the insanity of the middle east and middle Europe continues. Mr Trump continues to cheat on his golf courses, which he loves to promote. His ridiculous claims as peacemaker, continue to be publicised. His  relationships with Netanyahu and Putin are clear evidence of his hypocrisy. He would rather support dictatorial power than any kind of democracy or simple humanity. The sham of his repeated statements about too many people dying as against his continued actual support of the killers, rather than shutting them down, is despicable. They will not stop. Given what has been going on, any action taken by the IDF or the Israeli Prime Minister is like a recruitment drive for Hamas. They are not defeating Hamas, they are creating converts. The terror and horror they are visiting on Palestinians in Gaza will come back to haunt them in the future. Many young survivors who have witnessed their parents and siblings dying beside them will not forget. They too will be murmuring ‘never again’. That is the legacy, the tragedy and shame of the power hungry, both past and present, who  prowl the globe. 

AGING PROBLEMS

 “Le problème avec l’âge” is the google French translation of the phrase ‘the problem with advancing years’ as well as ‘the problem with advancing age’, ‘the problem with age’ and ‘the problem with the age’. There are many nuances that can be applied to the word ‘age’ in both languages. The meaning of the word depends, of course on,  context. The English seems a bit more specific because of the adjective, transitive verb or definite article applied to it. The French language is more  reliant on nuance and context, although the French like to think it is more precise than English. Many French persons believe, incorrectly, that their language has more words than English, which is why it is more reliant on nuance and context. 

A frenchman can say “C’est l’âge” with a meaningful look or gesture and be given a response “Et oui. Voilà” accompanied by similar look or gesture. An English person can make a like remark, but it might not have the same Gallic gesture or knowing look to go with it. The English will or course have an implied irony, where necessary, and it can often be accompanied by an imitative gallic shrug. Indeed, the English know quite a lot about nuance. Perhaps even more so than the French, even although the word itself is French. 

But I digress from ‘le problème avec l’âge’. There are things happening today, in the second score of the twenty first century, that defy reason. It is as if a more thorough knowledge and accessibility  to  history, and the tribulations of the past, had no relevance at all. We are flooded with endless film, video, documentaries and explorations about the past as never before, yet what lessons have been learned, and what ameliorating decisions have been put in place. The problems of nationhood seem entirely unsolvable, and the finer aspects of civilisation seem unobtainable. Bigotry, prejudice, racism, inequality and isolationism seem to be the bedrock of human behaviour rather than being ground into dust as they should have been long ago. 

Considering humans have been on the planet for at least 100,000 years and the neolithic revolution (a.k.a. the First Agricultural Revolution, which was the transition form hunting and gathering to one of agriculture and settlement) was over 10,000 years ago in the Middle East of all places, one would have thought conflict in that region by now would be extinct. Herewith map of area concerned relating to 7500 BC.  So conflict not resolved for 9,500 years? What is wrong with these people? And for that matter the so called allies and peacemakers of the current age? If anything, we seem to have grown further apart. 

Current documentaries relating to research on the “American People”, in particular those of a very conservative and nationalistic disposition, make it clear that there is a great divide. It is all the sadder because so many young Americans have adopted a very narrow mindset and embraced biblical teaching. Their parents claim they are teaching their children to think for themselves, when in reality they are effectively brainwashing them, all the while claiming that the political left, and democrats in particular, are trying to brainwash them. Many are being home-schooled  and as a result are poorly educated. They are the very corps of the Maga movement. Their minds are seriously locked in to some form of overweening christianity, placing more emphasis on the bible all the while claiming the authority of the United States Constitution, which they have probably never actually read.  The divisions are so deep that I do not think the United States will actually survive and may well perish from the earth, and like Yugoslavia will dissipate into separate regions, creating a variety of sovereignties. Watching the various ridiculous separatist arguments in the US Congress on YouTube is an instance in point. The slavish adherence to protecting Mr Trump and his insanity in the face of his obvious criminality is  beyond any rational explanation. No amount of reality or actual facts have any meaning anymore. All one can say is “C’est l’âge, voilà”

Speaking of age, the deterioration of one’s physical being is difficult to take in. On the one hand, some of us deteriorate mentally whilst remaining more physically able, whilst for others it is the reverse. My physical capacity is dwindling, although I fail to fully take it in. I feel mentally able to carry on doing the same things but the body somehow does not always respond as I feel it should. My own fault I am sure, for failing to do the required exercise to keep the physicality up to scratch. So I ponder on the nature of nuance and the various meanings of words. Voilà, c’est tout. (Try to imagine the gallic shrug)

NEW COMMENT FROM BOB IN CALIFORNIA

Ed,

For what it’s worth, we’ve been watching Trump from here, and we have a few observations:

He’s not driven by policy

He is driven by hate

He’s not a good person at heart

He an evil person, who cares not about others

He seeks power

He will do wherever his whim takes him

He never makes a mistake

He deflects questions about mistakes and reflects blame on others

He is disdainful toward his followers

He has no problem hurting the voters who put him in office

He doesn’t know the laws applicable to his actions

He does whatever he wants

He is lazy

He surrounds himself with “yes” men and women, whom he calls “loyal”

He knows little of the world around him

He surrounds himself with incompetents, who are charged with doing his job as he plays golf and watches TV most of the time

He choses to surround himself with ethically and morally challenged people who reflect his own personal flaws

He is untrustworthy, but he demands that others trust him

He is incapable of comprehending many of the results of his actions

He is declining in mental capacity

He makes statements that are primarily false

He explains, when challenged, with “word salad”, many times saying the opposite things in a single answer 

We have 3 1/2 years left of this disaster, and no one knows the final result. Congress, with Republican majorities in both houses are too scared or overwhelmed by Trump to contest almost anything he does. His cabinet, consisting of many of Fox “News” personalities, is unlikely to have enough people who would vote to remove him pursuant to the 25th Amendment. And, his VP, who would replace him, is a person of little integrity and mental ability, who is in the pocket of a ".com” right wing billionaire.

 

Right now, the only bulwark against this is the courts. 

Yep, it’s as bad as it looks.

Bob

WHEN WAS AMERICA LAST GREAT?

There are a lot of people who have expressed views about the terrible damage the Trump administration  - more often now referred to as the Trump Regime -  is causing to the United States and consequently the entire world. I include the Senator of the French Parliament, Claude Malhuret from his speech to the Parliament on Tuesday the 4th March 2025 and several other European politicians; articles by columnists Johnathan Freedland,  Nesrine Malik and others in the Guardian; a variety of United States YouTubers, Meidastouch, Young Turks, Brian Tyler Cohen and others; as well as United States Senators Adam Schiff and Bernie Sanders; congressional Representatives Ocasio-Cortez and Jamie Raskin; and from MSNBC, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell and Jan Psaki. The list is very extensive. Polls have indicated that the approval rating for the President is at an all time low, and yet the Republican Party in America has somehow maintained a hold on power with an Al Capone clone as leader.  The parallels with Bertolt Brecht’s 1941 play The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui are irresistible. 

The hypocrisy of Trump and his followers is, without doubt, beyond brazen. His attack on a journalist asking questions about the decimation of weather services and the Federal Emergency Management Agency in relation to the Texas flooding, calling the journalist an evil person, when he, himself, had made false claims and criticisms about federal assistance  during hurricanes  in Florida and the Carolinas as well as fires in Los Angeles, was  outrageous and venal. He clearly did not see the irony, which is typical of his colossal narcissistic behaviour.

When most of the western powers ponder the question of regime change in Iran, they should be discussing more seriously the matter of regime change in the United States. Instead of kowtowing  to Trumpism they should be seeking to expunge it. Enough is enough. 

It was pointed out to me today by Oliver Cotton, that no-one has yet asked Mr Trump when was America Great. He claims to want to make America great again, but has never actually stated when it was last great from his point of view. This same would apply to his followers. When do they think America stopped being great? What will actually bring it  back to that greatness? Trump would have turned 16 in the middle of 1962, his mid teens; probably a junior in high school and in the penultimate year of John F Kennedy’s presidency.  Was that his great year, or was it 1968 with the comeback of Richard Nixon, when he would have been 22 and eligible to vote for the first time in a presidential election?

There is a lot of speculation about what era Trump sees as great America. The period just after World War Two, during which time the United States was the sole nuclear power, could be on his mind.  This did not last very long, but, nonetheless the Eisenhower years were economically successful. The dollar was the king of currencies at the time. The reality is that one has no idea what era Trump has in mind as he keeps saying whatever he does is the greatest achievement of all time, by a lot. Indeed, one has to agree that a convicted felon and adjudicated sex offender being elected president is the greatest con that has ever been achieved by any grifter. 
 
That however is the state of the United States, a country in complete disarray about where it wants to be in the world.  The leadership controlled by amateur incompetence in chaos. Also, there is no prospective leader on the horizon for either of the two main parties. The republican party may find itself in difficulties after the midterm elections of 2026, but the democrats must become a more cohesive group, and begin now to make clear headway against the Trump movement and break through the mendacity of Maga.  

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 to 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.

.