WHAT KIND OF DISCIPLINE ?

Having coffee morning with Steve Jacobi. We talked about writing. I stated that I lacked the discipline required to finally sit down and write “the book”. Indeed, discipline was very much a required trait if one was going to write seriously. As a word, it conjures an entire monograph of its own multiplicity of meanings. It can be field of study in itself.

It can refer to a subject matter, branch of knowledge, speciality or curriculum. One’s personal discipline. It can refer to  regimen, drill, regulation, method, exercise of training. It is also a type of control, direction, supervision or strictness, as well as self control, maintaining one’s self restraint, orderliness or calmness. It is also a course of punishment, a chastisement, correction or punitive measure. It can lead to pain or fulfilment. 

There are many aspect to writing, discipline being one of the principle characteristics to have in order to maintain the direction of thought and endeavour, and to avoid the pitfalls of displacement activities, which, even although interesting and diverting, does just that, and moves us away from an intended objective. Diversions always lurk no matter our direction. It is unproductive if the detour moves us completely away from the intended destination, but can be helpful if it brings us back on to the projected path. An instructive and perhaps necessary diversion is always welcome and sometime inevitable. That discipline gives us a strength and sharpens the mind the more we use it. Keeping that control hones ones thinking. As Goethe proposed, “thinking is no more and no less an organ of perception than the eye or ear. Just as the eye perceives colours and the ear sounds, so thinking perceives ideas”. That perception gives us strength, perhaps even power. 

There is an exchange in the script of Lawrence of Arabia, between Prince Faisal (Alec Guiness) and Colonel Brighton (Anthony Quayle) in Faisal’s tent, in which the Colonel speaks of the power of discipline, which makes England “great”, whereas the Prince puts it down to the power of the British Navy and its guns. An interesting argument around refined discipline, hardware, traditional behaviour and culture. It says much about different kinds of discipline, the one failing to see the logic of the other. Herewith the scene: 

In an exercise of his own discipline, Steven has just written another book which I have had the privilege to read (a draft) and which I hope will soon find a publisher. His agent has expressed that he loves the book and I assume is keen to get on with it. I hope he is and I hope that others will be equally delighted. It is a simple tale of a family’s progress and the developing relationship of a brother and sister over the years. As such, it is, in my view, a very universal theme and should strike a cord with most readers. It is well written and flows gently across the page. It is a very intimate, thought provoking and searching story about finding understanding and family love. An uneasy discipline for many of us. How do we cope with growing up, separation, education, work, marriage, divorce, in-laws, aged parents, death, inheritance, brothers and sisters ? In short it is very well told unique, but universal, family story that gives us all much to think about. 

It reveals a very Stanislavski method approach to writing, reaching into one’s inner memories and very private personal, and sometimes embarrassing, experiences. That requires a great deal of discipline as well as courage. Anyone with a modicum of theatrical knowledge will certainly appreciate the work, as should any reader, regardless of their own personal discipline. I will or course let you all known when it is released, as I’m sure it will find a publisher. If it does not, I must clearly have lost all sense of critical values. 

I also listened to a discussion on Radio 4 this morning concerning the falling birthrate in the UK, as well as elsewhere.  Some see this as a serious risk to the welfare of the state whilst still others are of the view that we will adapt to a world which has smaller populations. The number of deaths are apparently exceeding the birthrate. This indicates the possibility of a smaller but older population, with fewer able-bodied citizens to work, and keep the economy running, sufficient to cover the welfare needs of that aging population.  There are, of course, a number of reasons the current child bearing populace are deciding not to have children, or are perhaps incapable of having them. This development is mainly in the nations with higher economies, where birth control is more available and since the majority of women have become more concerned with independence, career employment and equality then before. Not that it wasn’t a concern for some considerable time, particularly during the two world wars when women became indispensable to the work force to keep the country going. Indeed, following on from those conflicts people were encouraged by the state to have children. In France, for a long time, there has been substantial financial support given to families encouraging them to have children. 

I am on the side of those who believe that the nation states will adapt to smaller populations, which may well ease the tax burdens on the average citizen by slowing down or reducing the necessity of a growing welfare bill. The fact that people are living longer  may also indicate  that they are healthier and perhaps less in need of welfare,  although at present the number of health problems among the elderly seems to be escalating rather than decreasing. There may come a cross over point where the need for welfare is lessened by a shorter time between illness requiring care and death. I say this as a positive as opposed to a negative depressing point of view. None of us wants to be a burden for any great length of time. We may as well laugh and be jolly along the way. 

In our morning coffee discussion, I raised the above subject with Steve, who lives in Shanghai, and it would appear that despite its population of 1,404,890,000, the growth rate is -0.24 percent. He states that the Chinese are well aware there may be a growing problem. As of now, it has a definite reducing population. How this will play out, who knows? In any event it will require a disciplined population to adapt to whatever new situation develops as a result.

I will not now comment on the undisciplined chaos of the current administration of the United States  of America. Whilst the growth rate has receded it is still positive at +0.51% and the median age is 38.7. In the United Kingdom the Growth Rate is currently at +0.30 percent but down by 72% since 2023. The median age is 41.1. In the United States, the projected median age by 2050 is 41.9 and in the UK it is 43.8. So go the statistics. 

I confess I am surprised by the median age statistics in the US. It would seem that the median age in 1960 was 28.3, by 1965,  27 and by 1970, 26.7,  since when it has been slowly creeping up to the current 38.7. What can possibly have possessed a country of 30 somethings to favour an addled 80 year old criminal idiot suffering from NPD as their president? Clearly a lack of emotional and educational discipline.

A SHORT NOTE ABOUT MALAISE

Malaise.  A word for our time. A vague feeling of bodily discomfort. A feeling of unease or sickness not symptomatic of any particular ailment. Something undefinable and not necessarily associated with depression. There is an element of the expectation  of something which makes one wary or cautious. Although that ‘something’ is not necessarily to be overly worried about, as it could be something hopeful and positive, yet one is nonetheless chary. 

I suppose this is a feeling that has been present in our lives since the beginning of time. It has been explored in countless ways, most notably but Samuel Beckett. His Waiting for Godot is a prime essay on the subject, as is Molloy: “When a man in a forest thinks he is going forward in a straight line, in reality he is going in a circle. I did my best to go in a circle, hoping to go in a straight line”.

I have a notion that my blog is much the same. I had hoped to no longer dwell on the calamity the the American State Department has brought upon the world. The number of horrendous choices they have made over the years makes one cringe. In most cases it revolves around the simple choice of choosing sides. Invariably they have chosen what they considered to be that faction which purports to uphold free enterprise and the capitalist economic agenda ready to do business with American enterprise. They see it as a win win situation, even though the factions may prove to be repressive and corrupt. There are a number of instances where a simple change of course might have changed the entire nature of global affairs. 

The decision to back and support Chiang Kai-shek, a corrupt nationalist would be dictator, rather than come to an early arrangement with Mao Zedong, who as early as 1944 might have been amenable to compromise and accept the assistance of the then United States had it held out a supporting hand.  Similarly had Ho Chi Min been approached and assisted as he should have been over Ngô Đình Diệm and which was clearly on the cards at the time in 1955, the Vietnam war might never have happened. The Cuban crisis could have been avoided if, as in the beginning of Castro’s regime a simple accommodation would have been possible but for the stupid obstinacy over the word Communism, or the idea of socialism. The horrors of Chile, had Allende’s democratic election been left in place, would never have occurred. 

You may think the suggestions far fetched, but there were, if not direct negotiations with the parties concerned, there was certainly indirect contact. Indeed, as regard Vietnam in 1954,  had the US given more thought, they might have brought the French onside, despite the debacle of Dien Bien Phu. It was certainly a possibility at the time to exercise rational foresight. As to Cuba, Mr Castro was feted in New York in 1959, at which time real deals could have been made. Chile, of course, we know was direct CIA interference to satisfy the various US oil and commercial interests, not in keeping with a social democratic government that might nationalise certain enterprises.  In the end, in order to propagate authoritarian regimes that were assumed to be completely acquiescent to US commercial interests and eminently corruptible, the State Departments went with the ‘strong man”. In my view, the wrong man. You can check the history for yourselves. I don’t think I am too far off the mark.

It is something that keeps happening and the American public keep voting for representatives who go along with  very poor international decisions to keep the ‘communists’ from taking power. It is still the dirty word. Anything that smacks  of a socialist agenda is vilified, as are the democrats now. The party is seen as a party of demons and monsters from which America must be saved. How is that at all rational? The current Mayor of New York claims to be a Democratic Socialist and the city is still standing.  The colossal hypocrisy and stupidity is without doubt the failure of the American dream. How is it possible, given the current state of the United States, that there should be any question about who should be voted out of office across the country. It is as plain as the nose on anyone’s face, yet the midterm elections are in flux. What is wrong with the American voter? How can they not have had enough? You would think the polls showing the dissatisfaction with the Trump regime would be clear; yet, it is not. 

I have seen and heard pundits who urge people to get out and vote. The voters should need no encouragement. They should be chomping at the bit  and already standing in line to get to a polling booth. No encouragement should be required. 

In any event I sit and wait, waiting to shed my malaise, pondering what that 'something' I am waiting for could be. Will it be specific positive effect in the UK from our new Prime Minster in the coming month, or a landslide democratic vote from the coming November elections in the United States. I hold out no hope that the conflicts in Middle Europe and the Middle East will be resolved by then, though that would not be so bad. Like the refugees in Casablanca, we wait and wait and wait. 

PUBLIC DIAGNOSIS AND THE GOLDWATER RULE

Celia has suggested that instead of my ranting about Donald Trump and attributing a clinical diagnosis of my own invention (psychopathic narcissist) I should do the research and find out if anyone has actually made a professional psychiatric analysis of Mr Trump’s behaviour. So I have put the question out on the net. The replies are various and quite a few people has made assessments of the situation. Some of the results: (I have corrected the American spelling of some words)

“A number of psychiatrists and psychologists have publicly assessed Donald Trump’s behaviour, with many arguing he meets criteria for extreme narcissism or related disorders and others warning about antisocial or paranoid traits, while a separate cohort criticises such remote diagnosis on ethical grounds under the Goldwater Rule. The debate coalesces around a handful of prominent voices—Bandy X. Lee and contributors to The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, John Gartner, Justin A. Frank, Allen Frances, Dan McAdams and groups behind open letters—whose conclusions range from “malignant narcissism” to cognitive decline, even as professional ethics and methodological limits are repeatedly invoked.
1. Bandy X. Lee and The Dangerous Case contributors: duty to warn and diagnoses
Forensic psychiatrist Bandy X. Lee edited The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, a collection in which 27 psychiatrists and mental health experts argued that Trump’s public behaviour constitutes a “clear and present danger” and advanced diagnoses including malignant narcissism, narcissistic and antisocial personality traits, and paranoid features—framing their public commentary as a “duty to warn” despite prevailing norms discouraging off-site diagnosis. Lee and co-authors explicitly challenged the American Psychiatric Association’s restraint, arguing that observable, prolonged public behaviour justifies professional alarm and public statements about fitness for office
2. John Gartner, Duty to Warn, and the petitioners
Psychologist John Gartner organised petitions and advocacy arguing that Trump exhibited a “serious mental illness” rendering him unfit for office, forming groups like Duty to Warn to press for removal or at least public scrutiny; his position typifies clinicians who say sustained observation of public conduct meets DSM behavioural criteria even without direct examination. Gartner and allied clinicians have used terms such as “malignant narcissism” to describe a combination of grandiosity, deceit, and lack of empathy that they judge dangerous for a leader.
3. Large open letters and consensus claims: antisocial and malignant narcissism
In 2024 more than 200 health professionals signed an open letter declaring that Trump meets behavioural criteria consistent with antisocial personality disorder and “malignant narcissism,” citing repeated lying, recklessness, impulsivity, and lack of remorse as DSM-observable behaviours and arguing the Goldwater Rule is outdated when a public figure’s conduct is so highly documented [3]. That letter explicitly used DSM-V behavioural criteria to justify public diagnosis and positioned the signatories against the APA’s ethical prohibition on remote diagnosis.
4. Individual clinicians with deep applied analyses: Justin Frank and others
Clinicians such as Justin A. Frank and others who conducted extended applied psychoanalytic assessments concluded that Trump is psychologically unsuited for the presidency, describing him as a menace based on hundreds of hours of analysis and clinical interpretation of public material; these efforts aimed less at formal diagnostic labels than at explaining personality structure and functional danger. Psychoanalytic and clinical writers often highlight grandiosity, impulsivity, and minimal capacity for reflection as core elements of their conclusions.
5. Alternative views and ethical cautions: Allen Frances and mainstream scepticism
Prominent sceptics within psychiatry, notably Allen Frances—who chaired the DSM-IV task force—have criticised fevered public speculation, arguing that remote diagnosis is unethical, stigmatising, and methodologically unsound; Frances framed media-driven diagnoses as a misuse of psychiatric authority and urged restraint. This institutional and methodological counterpoint undergirds the APA’s longstanding Goldwater Rule and has been repeatedly cited to push back against clinicians who publicly label Trump without a personal exam.
6. Psychologists offering dimensional descriptions rather than formal diagnoses
Some psychologists, including narrative personality researchers like Dan McAdams, have stopped short of clinical diagnosis while offering dimensional portraits—stubbornness, aggression, grandiosity, present-focused thinking—that explain behaviourally observable patterns without invoking formal DSM labels, a position that signals caution while still contributing psychological interpretation to the public conversation. Family-sourced commentators such as Mary Trump have provided insider-based psychological narratives that align with clinicians’ descriptions but are not clinical assessments per se
Conclusion
The public psychological commentary about Trump clusters into two camps: clinicians and organised groups who—citing prolonged public behaviour—argue for labels like malignant narcissism, antisocial or paranoid features and warn of danger, and professional sceptics who stress the Goldwater Rule, methodological limits, and ethical restraint; both sides are visible across the sources, and many individual analysts (Bandy X. Lee and contributors, John Gartner, Justin Frank, the 200+ signatories, Allen Frances, Dan McAdams) are repeatedly named in the debate. Reporting shows consensus about certain behavioural descriptions—grandiosity, lying, need for praise, aggression—while disagreement persists about whether those descriptions legitimately constitute clinical diagnoses without direct examination.” 

In addition, the very first paragraph defining ‘Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) states:
Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a complex and heterogeneous personality disorder characterised by patterns of grandiosity, entitlement, low empathy, and interpersonal difficulties, which can manifest as either grandiose ("thick-skinned") or vulnerable ("thin-skinned") forms. Grandiose individuals display arrogance, social dominance, and exploitative behaviours, while vulnerable individuals show shame, inferiority, hypersensitivity, and extreme reactions to criticism. NPD often involves impaired emotional empathy, superficial relationships, and difficulty tolerating disagreement. It is often co-morbid with other mental disorders and associated with significant functional impairment and psychosocial disability. 

If ever there was a description of Donald Trump's behaviour, this is it. He is actually both thick-skinned as well as thin skinned. His reactions to any simple criticism or what he perceives as being critical is met with bombast arrogance and insult. In addition he has no sensitivity, knows no shame, eschews any idea of inferiority and does display extreme reactions to criticism.  His whole demeanour is, I would suggest, a textbook case of advanced NPD.

There is a caveat imposed by the Goldwater Rule which "is the eponymous rule established by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in Annotation 7.3 of American Medical Association's (AMA) code of ethics. Section 7 of AMA's Principles of Medical Ethics states that medical doctors have a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health. As a subsection therein, Annotation 7.3 (also known as "Goldwater rule") is addressed to psychiatrists and mandates that, when asked to comment on public figures, they shall refrain from diagnosing, which requires a personal examination and consent."

 “A physician shall recognise a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health.
On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorisation for such a statement.”

American Psychological Association suggests: “Similar to the psychiatrists' Goldwater Rule, our code of ethics exhorts psychologists to "take precautions" that any statements they make to the media "are based on their professional knowledge, training or experience in accord with appropriate psychological literature and practice" and "do not indicate that a professional relationship has been established" with people in the public eye, including political candidates. When providing opinions of psychological characteristics, psychologists must conduct an examination "adequate to support statements or conclusions". In other words, our ethical code states that psychologists should not offer a diagnosis in the media of a living public figure they have not examined.”

Regardless of what one may think about Mr Trump’s public or private behaviour, he appears to have no filter. I suggest that anyone, with a modicum of education and simple interaction and observation of normal human activity, can see for themselves the deeply disturbing reality of Mr Trump and the reactions of those around him who bolster and feed this personification of NPD. This makes him vulnerable and in effect easy to manipulate. This is clearly indicated by the influence Mr Netanyahu and Mr Putin seem to have over him. That in itself is highly dangerous. So, it is clear in my view that the man should be sectioned. How long will that take? Will it ever happen? What is wrong with the American public to have allowed this to go on for so long?

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO ARGENTINA ?

I know many people have already  made   comment about the about the disgraceful way in which Argentina played in the World Cup, but I feel impelled to add to that commentary. I cannot understand where that appalling violence exhibited by the Argentinian team came from.  This is a squad whose players ordinarily play in Europe, and many who play in the English League, including Aston Villa, Manchester United, Tottenham Hotspur, Chelsea and Liverpool. On the European mainland we have Marseille, Benfica, Strasbourg, Inter Milan and four of their forwards play for Atletico Madrid.  

The European leagues are not known for violence. Strong uncompromising play maybe, but not outright thuggery and violence. There is a will to win, but to win at all costs  regardless of rules of the game? The number of times I saw opposing players pushed and pulled to the ground, virtually knee capped and deliberate elbowing in the body and neck, was outrageous. How the referees let that sort of behaviour continue on the pitch is stupefying. I appreciate they can’t have eyes everywhere or see through people, but there are four linesman who are not there just to flag offside. They also have a role as referees to spot infringements and seriously dangerous play. That is what the Argentina teamed produced throughout theses games, seriously dangerous play. 

I am baffled by a team which has some very gifted players, who would ordinarily coordinate their team play for strategic effect and flow, and instead became so desperate to win back to back world cups, that they threw away everything they know about real football and resorted to punching and kicking the opposition off the park, rather than playing them off the park. The after game, appalling sportsmanship, bad faith resentment, spilling over into deliberate attack of opposing players, was an outrage and should result in the team being admonished though some sort of suspension from world cup qualification in the future and a heavy financial penalty. 

I am not an avid football fan, but I do like to watch and admire the skill exhibited by the players. Not only the balletic forwards and midfielders, but the defenders who do not score as many goals, but save the day in many different ways.

Last night's shameful display by Argentina against a truly unified Spanish ensemble was shocking, and the thought that Argentina might actually score a fluke goal and/or win on penalties was deeply disturbing. It is no wonder most of the rest of the world watching were overjoyed at the Spanish win. If ever skill over thuggery was destined to triumph, last night’s event proved it. I’m pretty sure the Argentinian fans, deep down, were ashamed and embarrassed by the spectacle they watched despite their obvious adoration of their international team. They certainly made their feelings felt for Mr Messi who was clearly moved by the support for him. Tears in his eyes were not for losing the match, but for the emotion he experienced looking up at that crowd of supporters showing their appreciation and respect for him, despite the loss.

Few people  get to experience that kind of popular approbation in life. It’s a shame it had to be expressed in such sadly shameful circumstances. 

NEWS FROM CALIFORNIA AND A WASHINGTON DIVERSION

I received an email from my friend Bob in California in response to my Optimistic Thought of the Day:

Ah, yes! DJT is trying his best to corrupt our mid-term elections. It's an all-out effort, which includes pushing a bill on limiting voting in national elections to be passed by Congress, and the threat of either national guard units in the states being activated to mess with the voting, using ICE to intimidate voters, and/or using the Jan 6th criminals he pardoned to hang around the polls in the swing districts while displaying their firearms.

He's pulling out all of the stops, because if the House becomes Democratic, they'll certainly impeach him. That will put a great deal of pressure on the Republican senators, who have to run in 2028, if they don't remove him. Dems may not get a majority in the Senate after the mid-terms, which means, due to a change in the filibuster rules by Republicans, that the Republican senators can approve DJT's departmental appointments and judges by a simple majority. Now, that's tilting the playing field.
Bob

It is clearly difficult to maintain any kind of optimism in the United States, given the current psychotic leadership in Washington DC. 

As to the United Kingdom, we have a very nice, if difficult, weather system hovering over the South of England. It’s a bit like living in Southern California. I am enjoying that immensely. Tee hee.

I have recently been watching the BBC War & Peace serial from 1972, adapted by Jack Pulman, and directed by John Davies, with Anthony Hopkins as Pierre Bezukov, Morag Hood as Natasha  Rostov, Alan Dobie as Andrei Bolkonsky. Angela Down as Maria Bolkonsky, David Swift as Napoleon, and loads of other great actors. Anthony Hopkins won a BAFTA TV award for Best Actor, but they all deserved an accolade. 

There are a number of dramatised versions of War and Peace including Sergei Bondarchuck’s Russian version from 1965 which is excellent and very Russian. There is a rather odd version from 2007 with Clemence Poesy as Natasha, Alexander Beyer as Pierre and Alessio Boni as Andrei, and in the cast Malcolm McDowell and Brenda Blethyn. It is a very international cast of actors; however I found some changes in the adaptation of the novel by the three main writers quite wrong and mistaken. They distracted rather than added to the work. Unfortunate. 

There is also a 2016 version with Paul Dano, Lily James, James Norton, Greta Scacchi, Adrian Edmondson, Tom Burke, Stephen Rea, Jim Broadbent among others. Although very well done and adapted by Andrew Davies in 6 episodes, does not quite match up to the 1972 version.  There are some very good performances though. Nonetheless if you want a binge treat, the 20 episode 1972 version is a great view.  

In keeping with a theatrical theme, Oliver Cotton’s Play The Score, will be opening at Harman Hall in Washington DC on the 11th September 2026 until the 18th October 2026. Tickets will be gong on sale soon. Herewith picture promo:

I would strongly advise anyone in the US who can get to Washington DC on those dates makes an effort to see the play. The Tag line “How does art survive when despots rule” is particularly applicable in the USA of today.

MY OPTIMISTIC HOPE FOR THE UK TODAY

I am afraid it is impossible not to comment on current events in the light of a new Prime Minister starting the job on Monday next. That there should be such a seamless transition of leader in such a volatile climate is extraordinary. There are of course complaints galore as well as anger or even outrage, but little in the way of actual explosive noise or panic in the streets. Andy Burnham it is.

How he will fare is keeping many on tenterhooks, but I believe the general anxiety is one that wishes him well. Indeed is it in all our interests that he succeed in establishing himself as a leader of consequence at this time. It is also, in all our interests, that it be recognised that he has no magic wand and that he be given the time to establish his framework, and that framework should be given time to show positive results. If it does not, in what should be a reasonable amount of time, then, by all means, there should be a general election, although to what end I am not sure. 

Should this Burnham led government fail, then I cannot see that there is any current political party that has the quality or personnel fit to lead the United Kingdom into what is left of the 21st century. Sadly that seems to apply to the rest of the world as well. Consider that what we have now is a flurry of leaders and would be leaders who are under investigation by the courts or convicted felons. Note: 
1- Marine le Pen, convicted fraudster having to wear an ankle bracelet during a prospective general election in France.  
2- Benjamin Netanyahu, still awaiting criminal trial in Israel and wanted by the International Criminal Court Court.
3- Donald Trump, convicted felon and adjudicated sex offender, with more indictments yet to come as he is already in breach of international law with his illegal war and activity in the Gulfs of Hormuz and Mexico. 
4- Vladimir Putin, wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity
Etc…

These are only four of the major nations, three of which are causing havoc across the globe. The gangsters have completely taken over world politics, and the general public appears not to care. I would have included Nigel Farage in the above list but he is not in power, and the rate at which he seems to be exposing himself to the public as a scrounger and extremely venal politician, he may well be set aside. Nothing is certain and the fact that many of the voting public, in loads of countries, are prepared to vote for criminals and fraudsters, he may well stay the course. Who can tell?

So we are left to hope for Mr Burnham’s success as one of the better leaders in the free world. I do hope he makes his mark and that he has the acuity to do so effectively and within a reasonable amount of time. Remember, there is no magic wand and do not hold to impossible expectations. He has a history of working hard and trying hard. I’m informed that he wants to be liked by everybody but then who doesn’t. He will not be, and he will have to get used to that if he isn’t already. Just give the man a break and hope for the best. My optimistic thought for the day.

OPTIMISM FOR 2026

I woke up quite early yesterday. I tend to wake up quite early these days. It is a sign of age. I plugged in the iPhone to charge for the day and read a couple of news items on the BBC, the Guardian and a couple of subtitled pieces on YouTube. Nothing brought any kind of solace but rather made me want to scream at the top of my voice, the internal rage became so intense. I did not do so. I had decided that I would no longer indulge in venting about politics, either local or foreign. The image of Edvard Munch “The Scream” came to mind and I knew exactly what the artist intended.

Munch had begun the painting in 1893 some time around the month of May when there was a quick clay slide in Norway’s Verdal Municipality which destroyed 1054 farms and killed 116 people. Not that that was the only catastrophic event in the world of the 1890’s. The 1893 Panic was an economic depression in the United States which deeply affected every sector of the economy and produced various political upheavals. 

The noted Norwegian writer Arne Garborg is quoted as saying:

"It is said that with money you can have everything, but you cannot. You can buy food, but not appetite; medicine but not health; knowledge but not wisdom; glitter, but not beauty; fun, but not joy; acquaintances, but not friends; servants, but not faithfulness; leisure, but not peace. You can have the husk of everything for money, but not the kernel.”

I am sure there were many incidents around the glob that prompted Munch to contemplate the work, of which he had painted some 4 versions; however, Munch himself wrote: 

I was walking along the Road with two Friends. The Sun was setting. The Sky turned / blood red and I felt a wave of Sadness. I stood still tired to Death, above / the blue-black Fjord and City blood and Flaming Tongues hovered. My Friends walked on. I / remained behind shaking with Angst. I felt the great Scream in Nature.

Just what is this Great Scream of Nature? I believe there is no doubt that the stress caused by this current ambience is clearly something we all feel at various times. It is not fear but a very significant anger that causes this internal shriek. Indeed, it is something that comes with almost every generation. Allen Ginsberg’s Howl, from 1954/5 is an instance in point:


I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by 
madness, starving hysterical naked,
dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn
looking for an angry fix,
angel-headed hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly 
connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night,
who poverty and tatters and hollow-eyed and high sat 
up smoking in the supernatural darkness of 
cold-water flats floating across the tops of cities 
contemplating jazz, 
who bared their brains to Heaven under the El and 
saw Mohammedan angels staggering on 
tenement roofs illuminated, 
who passed through universities with radiant cool eyes 
hallucinating Arkansas and Blake-light tragedy 
among the scholars of war, 
who were expelled from the academies for crazy &
publishing obscene odes on the windows of the skull, 
who cowered in unshaven rooms in underwear, 
burning their money in wastebaskets and listening 
to the Terror through the wall,
………etc…….(it goes on a bit)

That howl becomes even more resounding because it has been going on for so long, as if the lessons of our past are of naught. Why does such unequivocal knowledge fail to connect and fall away to nothingness? 

However, when I ask my desktop Mac “Causes for optimism in 2026” I get the following:

 

It speaks of 64 Global Developments Heralding a Flourishing Future, including
1- Global mental health support system
2- Wellbeing beats GDP in Policy
3- Historic Breakthroughs in Global Health (Malaria Vaccine)
4- Polio on the brink of extinction
5- Childhood malnutrition at all-time lows
6- Smoking and tobacco use plummet
7- Global COVID solidarity and resilience
8- Women’s leadership reaches new heights
9-  Marriage equality becomes a global norm
10- Death penalty becoming obsolete
Etc…

These are the first ten in the list. You will note topics 8, 9 and 10 are very much open to question. I suggest you go to the website for further information on remaining optimistic:
https://worldhappiness.foundation/blog/community/a-world-of-happytalist-progress-64-reasons-for-optimism-in-2026/

You may find some of the suggestions a bit odd. At 21 we have “Drones delivering hope and health” I presume the Ukrainians and others in the Middle East may need to rethink hope and health. Nonetheless we must maintain some sense of hope and stay healthy. What else can we do?
Good luck with that.

WHOSE FOURTH OF JULY ?

It being the 4th July it is not possible not to make political comment. There are events which occurred on this day which require comment or at least a recognition that these events had some significance. Two years ago on this day in 2024, in the United Kingdom, the Labour Party headed by Keir Starmer won a general election with 411 seats in Parliament, giving it a clear majority of 172 seats. This is not an insignificant number. 

Another event of historical note is that on the 4th July 1776, at a meeting of worthy colonial citizens known as the Second Continental Congress, the United States Declaration of Independence was adopted, formally announcing and explaining separation from Great Britain and the creation of the United States. Again, not an insignificant turn of events. 

That country was almost incinerated during a civil war which lasted 4 years. The most significant battle of that war occurred at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania between the 1st and 3rd of July and on the 4th July 1863, the Confederate Army under General Robert E Lee withdrew from the battlefield, signalling the beginning of the end of the Civil War. In that same year, five months later 163 years ago, President Abraham Lincoln delivered an address over the burial of those who had fallen during the battle. He began by saying: “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”  He ended his speech with the comment: “…we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

The deep divisions that slowly grew from the foundation of the new nation, which exploded into that vicious conflict 87 years later, were quelled with Lincoln’s notion of a new birth of freedom which has persisted for the last 163 years, and the nation has not perished - yet. 

I say, yet, because that nation is in great peril. Never before has any President of the United States been such a divisive figure. Never before has any President been so crass and venal as well as being a psychotic narcissist. He seeks nothing but his aggrandisement by putting his name on every cherished edifice in America and by attempting to associate his image with that of the Presidents depicted on Mount Rushmore. The obsessive vanity is without parallel as is his stupidity. He has pissed on real American values and is going boldly around the United States in full bullying braggadocio manner, spouting crap, abusing and embarrassing the United States with every utterance. This is a gangster charlatan in full flow with his acolytes of lick spittles. 

His catastrophic effect on the world is intolerable and yet he remains unchecked.  When will he be told, in no uncertain terms, by the rest of the world’s leaders that his time is up. Which brings me back to Mr Starmer and his own 4th of July reminiscences. He has managed, with other European Leaders, to  reach some sort of modus operandi in dealing with Mr Trump. He has dealt with the United Kingdom’s foreign affairs as best he can, yet somehow has been unable to galvanise or uplift the British population out of its current doldrums. Perhaps the less than aggressive European accommodation towards Mr Trump is symptomatic of that lack of brio. Well meaning but too straight. 

So, the United Kingdom, after two years, with the Labour Party still in possession of that huge majority gained on the 4th July, is perhaps about to have its own new birth of freedom  with its appointment of a new Prime Minister. Whoever that person is, they should, without question, first make it clear to Mr Trump that any cajoling or mollycoddling is over. The United Kingdom is a sovereign nation and is taking back control. The United Kingdom’s special relationship is with the people of the United States and not the executive horror that purports to lead it at the present time. The Prime Ministers of all European countries should make it clear to the entire Congress of the United States that it is through them there will be dialogue and future discussions. Make the United States Congress stand up and be the effectual representative body it once was. If the 4th of July’s Declaration of Independence, established by that Second Continental Congress, is to have any meaning, then it should now stand up and be counted. 

While the new Prime Minister is doing that, perhaps he or she can spend some time sorting out the United Kingdom using that 172 seat majority obtained by Mr Starmer on the 4th July 2024. 

 

WHAT'S ON THE HOME FRONT ?

In keeping with the latest trend on the World Cup, I wish to make the following observation. The England team is about to play against one of the hosts of the games, Mexico in their own home stadium in Mexico City. The game will be televised in the UK at 1:00 am on Monday 6th of July 2026. There is a minor debate going on in the UK as to whether parents should allow their children to stay up late to be able to watch the match which is likely to go on until possibly 3:30 am or later. Indeed, the England Team manager Thomas Tuchel has expressed the view that children should be allowed to stay up to show support of the team. It is however a school night and the children are expected to be in school on Monday morning as normal. Views have been expressed from a variety of sources both for and against the proposition. The Education Secretary has stated that she expected the children to be at school and alert on Monday morning. What individual parents intend to do is another matter. I’m sure it will be a mixed bag. 

My own view is that, given the style of play the England team are exhibiting, the children are more than likely to fall asleep in no time and surely after the first 15 minute of play. They will all be safely tucked up by 1:30 and ready to attend school by 8:45 AM. So perhaps a bit shorter sleep than 8 hrs, but enough to get through the school day at 3:00 or 3:30 pm. They will be saved the depression that will most probably prevail as Mexico progresses to the quarter finals against either Brazil or Norway. 

I note that, according to various bookmakers and odds checkers, that England are very slightly favourites to win the match.  I put this down to wishful thinking or just the usual economic skullduggery of the gambling industry. Assuming that most people will back the favourite, most bets, and therefore money, will go the bookie’s way - sufficient to pay out on the slightly better odds for Mexico and still make a very good profit. 

Is this a cynical approach to the goings on in the Americas? I suppose it is, but then, swindling and shenanigans seems to be at the very heart of America. This is not a political statement but merely factual. Conflicts of interest and chicanery abound from the very top, so why should we suppose it should be any different elsewhere at this time when money is being made hand over fist on gambling transactions. 

   

I could be very wrong of course and Mexico’s  extraordinary home advantage at the Estadio Azteca will amount to nothing but noise. The England squad may well show flare and initiative, precision and fluidity, and come out on top. It is not as if the team lacks individual football excellence, it is just that a cohesive ensemble seems to evade them.  We wait and see. 

As to the manager’s plea for youth support on the home front, huddled around their family widescreen smart teles, with crisps and Ribena, I’m not sure that image will be at the forefront of the players’ minds, spurring them on to glory; but, who knows?

BRAVO LES BLEUS

The World Cup was providing something really special last night. Some sports commentators called it mesmerising and indeed it was. France -v- Sweden was a joy to behold. No disparaging Sweden who are a very strong team, but the French squad put on a display reminiscent  of the American Basketball Olympic Dream Team of 1992.  No other team has even come close so far. If they continue there display of excellence there is no doubt who will take home the trophy. I would recommend seeing for yourself. It is not often one has a chance to see a sport being played at its best, with all the joy and and sometimes magic that professional sport can convey, not only for the spectators, but for the players themselves.

Recently, the New York Knicks gave New Yorkers a similar uplifting feeling on a national level. Thirty four years ago, on a world stage, the United States Olympic Basketball team provided just such an experience. Those of us who watched it at the time marvelled at the precision and fluidity of that ‘dream team’ going about its business.  Last night in New Jersey, the French 'dream team' gave us that same kick.

Although I stated that I would no longer comment on politics, 1992 was the year Bill Clinton was elected for his first term as President. Bush Senior had lost, essentially because of his boast to the American People “Read my lips, no new taxes” and Clinton campaigned on the slogan “It’s the economy, stupid”. I could draw some parallels here, but I will refrain from doing so. Suffice it to say that it would be so nice if the unending joy of the French World Cup football team were spread around the world. Bravo France - Long may it continue.

 

PUNDITRY SHOULD BE GRAMMATICALLY AND ACCURATELY CORRECT

Flux - mutability, transition, unrest, mutation, instability, modification, flow, fluidity, motion. A constant or frequent change or a flowing in of the tide. It is what is. It is all around us. There is indeed a tide in the affairs of men, and it is all around us. One feels adrift on a peninsula.

In response to this state of drift, I have been watching, on and off, various world cup matches.  Inevitably one is also caught up in listening to, and watching, the various pundits and presenters who front the transmissions. Of course one does not have to listen to the pundits as one can just turn the sound down. When watching the games, however, it is nice to have the sound up so as to absorb some of the atmosphere in the various stadium. This does make it more difficult to avoid the match commentators opinions, comments and mangling of the English language. Usually a person’s manner of speaking is of little concern. It does not detract from a person’s individuality or intelligence. The constant repetition of phrases and unstructured words without any sense of tense or grammar is disconcerting and one wonders at the level of education on display. I find it difficult be believe what some people were not taught at school, or whether they were even paying attention at the tome. 

I am not suggesting that footballers are thick, merely inattentive. Indeed some pundit’s speech has improved grammatically over time and they are, as a result, better able to communicate and explain their views about certain situations. I am being snobbish, I know, but I am sure many people feel the same. Grammar does matter and can easily be improved. 

Some of the opinions however are more difficult to accept, particularly when repeated as a means of emphasis of a view. There is an instance during the match between Germany and Paraguay, when the Moroccan referee Jalal Jayed disallowed a possible winning goal by Germany’s Jonathan Tah for a foul on Paraguay goalkeeper, Orlando Gill, by Waldemar Anton. The incident was shown several times from different angles and after close inspection by the referee, he not only disallowed the goal but issued a yellow card to Waldemar Anton. Commentator Alan Shearer was firmly of the view that it was the wrong call. Football is a contact sport, he kept saying, and the offence as seen by him was nothing out of the ordinary, let alone deserving of a yellow card. He was very firm in this view and made his feeling emphatically.  

From my point of view as a spectator, and an ignoramus when out comes to football and its rules, the referee was absolutely correct. I had seen during the game’s several corners, the same Waldemar Anton getting in the goalkeeper’s face, bustling and jostling and physically applying pressure on the Paraguayan defenders, whilst waiting for the cross from the corner. This had also been observed by the referee and he had verbally cautioned Mr Anton, as well as the defenders about the ‘sporting contact’ in the goal mouth. What Waldemar Anton did was no more than a continuation of this contact to deliberately impede  the goalkeeper. Falling down was maybe, I repeat ‘maybe’, Orlando Gill exaggerating the contact, as Mr Shearer commented; but, if one looks at the totality of Mr Anton’s behaviour on the pitch and particularly in the goal mouth, he got no more than he deserved, a yellow card and a disallowed goal. If the ire of the German squad was directed at anyone, it should be at Waldemar Anton and not the referee. 

Whether or not this incident caused the German squad to feel robbed of a goal, and consequently affected there subsequent performance, is questionable. As professionals they should have put the incident behind them and got on with the job. They were certainly the better team so far as I could tell, as they had most of the possession of the football. The game seemed to be mostly played in the Paraguayan half of the field. The Paraguayans defended bravely most of the time and came out on top of the penalties, for which the disallowed goal had nothing to do. If Germany’s loss can be attributed to anything, it was down to poor finishing and stretching the ‘contact’ of a contact sport by Mr ‘Voldemort’ Anton.. He clearly missed out on his magic wand.

In any event, so far as I’m concerned Mr Shearer got it all wrong, although, I might add that, over the years he has been a pundit, his grammar has decidedly improved. 

Whose punditry is ever grammatically correct?

GIVING VALUE - I KNOW WHAT I LIKE - I THINK?

I feel that I must move the blog in a new direction. My continuing to rant about politics and the disturbing world situation is essentially a waste of time as it does absolutely nothing to change the state of affairs.  I am very grateful to people who bother to read the various entries and offer support and encouragement, but, sadly it changes nothing. I see lots of stuff on YouTube, reporting on events around the world, which has a much wider audience and which might even reach people who are supporters of the likes of Trump and who might just change their views or, at least, begin to examine them. There are some pretty impressive commentators out there who have an audience of hundreds of thousands and even over a million viewers. They are loud and clear. 

In addition, as a member of their audience, I confess I tend to listen to and view those commentators with whom I agree and who reflect my own thoughts on the current situation. I have quite often read stuff in journals that I have already mentioned previously in my own blogs. Not that I have any greater vision, it’s just that lots of people have the same view about the chaos in our current world, so it is not surprising that views are shared.  I do recall a lawyer friend who, having made a comment was told “Lots of people agree with that”, to which he said “Oh really!I must change my view at once.”. One always likes to be original, but one must face the fact that human beings, who have a grasp of civility, will share many of the same views. It is even more remarkable that so many of us place great value on many different things, even if our political views widely differ. 

As an instance in point, I show you a picture of Museums and Botticelli. In just three European cities, there are three Museums known the world over that attract a monumental number of visitors each year. In the Uffizi in Florence, Italy, we have a magnificent collection of works by Sandro Botticelli, full name Alessandro di Mariano di Filipepi (c.1445 - 17th May, 1510). He died 516 years ago - half a millennium - at the age of 65. Much of his work still exists. His painting of The Birth of Venus is valued at between $700 million and $1.2 billion. The painting entitled Primavera is valued at between $800 million and $1.1 billion. His Adoration of the Magi, in which he included his self portrait, is between $100 - $150 million.  According to a website dealing with the matter of the value of paintings, these are the comments:

“The Birth of Venus has no public sale history and is inalienable state property at the Uffizi, so any price is necessarily hypothetical. Based on top-tier trophy-market comparables (Leonardo’s $450.3m Salvator Mundi, Rembrandt’s €175m Standard-Bearer, and major Titian mythologies) and Botticelli’s own $92.2m auction record, a rational unconstrained estimate is $700 million–$1.2 billion. This reflects the work’s unmatched cultural primacy, extreme scarcity, and proven global capacity for blue-chip Renaissance trophies.”

“Primavera is an inalienable Italian national treasure in the Uffizi; any price is a theoretical, insurance-style estimate. Benchmarked to Botticelli’s modern auction ceiling and the top end of the global trophy market, a defensible open‑market valuation is $800 million–$1.1 billion.”

“Assuming the panel is a confirmed, autograph, museum‑quality Sandro Botticelli Adoration of the Magi, the preliminary market valuation is $100–150 million. This range is derived from recent top‑end Botticelli auction results, the extreme scarcity of museum‑quality Botticelli panels on the market, and the likely institutional buyer pool.”

You will note that the person on the right, facing out of the painting, directly at the viewer, in non other than Botticelli himself. 

These “valuations” are based on very specific commercial factors. The question of whether the piece is of historical significance, its rarity and substitutability, its market benchmarks and trophy demand, its sales history, its condition and any legal or marketability constraints. It is a matter of its artistic importance, relevance and magnitude. There must be something superlative about it. My question, however, is why do so many people accept the ‘value’ of an artwork, simply because they have read about of been told that it is a very significant piece of work. Why do so many people, who have never seen Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa, queue at the Louvre, to have 30 or so seconds to pass by the painting and assess for themselves what they really think about the work? The lines are long and deep and access to the painting is very regulated to give all a chance to see the wonder of it. I can attest to the fact that it was not so in the 1950’s. At that time its was only during a couple of months in summer that there was any group hovering around the picture. In fact,  it was just another painting on the wall, with no particular special attention given it, other then its reputation. It is now apparently valued at between $5-20 billion. 

There is, in my view, something arbitrary and subjective about the entire matter of ‘value’. What gave gold such great value? Why is it prized so much that it sits as a bedrock of certain countries currencies? Why is the price of an ounce quoted on the stock exchange on an almost hourly basis? Why has it been valued so much since around 40,000 BC? Initially fashioned into objects and then into coins, it has engendered wars and vast movements and migrations of people. Its value has fluctuated up and down over millennia, yet why was the decision to choose it, as opposed to any other mineral, to have such significance that has become ingrained in the minds of men? 

One could also ask, at what point did a picture or drawing become so desirable as to become something worth bartering or paying for? When was it thought desirable to hang pictures on a wall to decorate the cave, or some other form of shelter, These are arbitrary decisions made as a result of some aesthetic whim. Indeed, who was the first person to draw a picture or create a carving or sculpture, not as a ‘sign’ for information or directions or for religious reasons, but for purely aesthetic satisfaction? Who was the first artist? Or was it just some spontaneous and simultaneous activity originating in the minds of human beings? Was it some form of survival mechanism in action towards more civilised behaviour?  

There are a multitude of things on which we place great value, ideas as well as objects. Over the years we have developed a myriad of value systems applied to thoughts as well as works of art, and the differences of appreciation or acceptance of those values is just as varied. Some of us are enthralled, some repulsed and others completely indifferent to objects which allegedly have value.

There is a short poem by American writer Stephen Crane, author of the Red Badge of Courage. He wrote:  

A man said to the universe, 
Sir, I exist!' 
‘However,' replied the universe, 
'The fact has not created in me 
A sense of obligation.’

I would ask, is there any value in that?

A SMALL CALL TO ARMS

There is much that a lot of people are in agreement about. The ludicrous situation in the United States whose president exhibits the most crash and asinine behaviour of any leader across the globe, and is losing credibility and respect on a daily basis, is on show 24/7. This latest circus promoting the worship of violence, crudity and cruelty on the very lawn of the White House is but the latest proof of his rapacious venality. HIs corruption is seemingly without parallel in American politics. To be sure there have been corrupt politicians in high office throughout history, but none have reached the pinnacle that Mr Trump seems to have reached. More significantly the checks and balances, supposedly written into the constitution, have been expunged. The American people have allowed their democracy to collapse into a cesspit. 

I see many congressional oversight committees, on YouTube, where various secretaries of state are excoriated by some, mainly Democratic Senators and Congressional Representatives,  only to be welcomed and uplifted by Republican counterparts and Chairpersons of the various committees. All of this amounts to no oversight whatsoever. It is all bluff and bluster and the gangsterism and cupidity continues unchecked. In effect the constitution has become toilet paper. 

What Mr Trump has managed to do is create the most volatile political climate the world has known   for some considerable time. The concentration of world leaders towards disarmament is ended and we are now in a world that feels obliged to divert a serious increased amount of its economy towards weapons of mass destruction. Across all European Nations governments are struggling to find the funds. 

In the United Kingdom, as in most countries, the electedp government promised to maintain its social program of health, welfare, pensions, education, internal security as well as national defence, without increasing the tax burden on the individual citizens. Many, in the light of current events, are increasingly promoting the imperative view that spending on national defence is more urgent than has previously been considered.  It is very clear that if our democratic governments are committed to keeping its welfare and social services up to date, than any diversion of public funds towards national defence is not possible. No matter what creative and imaginative accounting may be employed, it will be inadequate and counterproductive. Taxes will have to be raised despite the howling opposition parties. Criticise  as they might about keeping promises  not to increase taxes in manifestos and on the hustings, they know full well their complaints are a sham. The situation facing the world caused by Putin, Trump and Netanyahu leaves no alternative. The only true relief will begin with the removal of this trio of war criminals, and a gradual reintroduction of the disarmament principles they abandoned. 

I know that I am not alone in this view. I see many articles, editorials and opinion pieces in many journals that express similar sentiments. Whether our numbers are sufficient to influence political activity and the course of national objectives is another matter. I hear much the same from those around me, and I see, from my observations of digital media, that there are many in the United States who cannot wait to see the back of Trump and his acolytes. I know the will is there but the practical result seems far off in the distance. 

So, if trimming current departmental budgets and supposedly promoting more efficient accounting is not going to do it, then, it only remains for the present governments to decide what level of taxation to impose on individual citizens. Who will pay, how much can they afford to pay, and how will they pay it? The government should do everything it can to get this across to the general public as forcefully as they can. If the majority of the electorate are told specifically of this imperative and objective common sense is brought to bear, than we can have the necessary arsenal. Hopefully, they can in the future be beaten into plowshares. I give you Isaiah 2:4 -

"They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore."

It would have been nice if that biblical sentiment had been observed at the time it was written.  So much for the word of God, or is that being too cynical?

WHOSE VISION IS IT ANYWAY ?

Why is it about vision that causes such a variety of reactions in humans looking at the very same image or images? It seems clear that visual perspective is very different from mental perspective. The comments that one has heard in respect of the disturbances in Belfast over that last couple of days is an instance in point. To be sure, most people have condemned the violence. Indeed, most people condemn violence in general as a means of expressing displeasure. The explanations and opinions offered as to the cause of violent reactions is equally varied and gives cause for concern.

In the United Kingdom two recent images of unrelated events have occurred which have caused rage amongst a number of individuals who have resorted to violent expressions of displeasure.  The footage relating to the killing of Henry Nowak  by Vickrum Digwa, and the vicious assault by Hadi Alodid on Stephen Ogilvie. Although the event relating to Mr Nowak occurred on 3rd December 2025, the footage of the incident was only released for public view on the 2nd June 2026 following the conviction and sentence of Mr Digwa. The footage of the attack by Mr Alodid on the 8th June 2026 was released on the same night. The violence on the streets of Belfast erupted on the 9th June 2026, almost immediately following the release of the images. As to the release of the Nowak images, violent protest erupted in Southampton the same day. In both cases the families of the victims called for calm and reflection. In a statement, Mr Novak’s father Mark, said he “[did] not want [Henry]'s death to be used to create further division, hatred, or tension" and quoted prosecutor Nicholas Lobbenberg as saying: "This is not a case about racism. This is a case about murder.”

In my view, neither incident was about racism, but most assuredly about violence. As to the reactions to the images, given that most people seeing the footage probably knew very little about the facts relating to the incident, they were most assuredly about racism and immigrants in particular. Even although Mr Digwa is a born British citizen, he is seen as a foreign immigrant. Various pundits keep emphasising that Mr Digwa was British, believing that in some way it did not mean that the violent reactions were to do with racism. Indeed, the leader of the opposition Ms Badenoch has claimed “Britain is the least racist country in the world”.  Absolute nonsense.

The reactions to the images coming so close to one another, produced extreme violence of a similar nature involving protest against ethnic immigrants. If that is not deemed to be racist, than  what is? How can any right minded thinking person not see the reaction as deeply ignorant and bigoted? Not only that, but the violence is mitigated by certain political figures as understandable. Of course they profess to condemn violence, but in this instance I hear certain voices saying “Can you blame them?”   

This reaction is, of course, entirely consistent with the Republican Party’s reaction to the aggravated assault on the Congress of the United States on the 6th January 2021. Denial of truth in spite of the images. 

I would guess that denial is a large factor, or perhaps it more to do with ignorance than denial. Without real knowledge of a situation, it is difficult to form opinion. Then again one should not react to a situation with violence if one is without the relevant facts, and even then one should generally avoid violence. One’s first reaction should be to make every effort to find out before resorting to rage and violence. 

It is all very well to talk of truth, reflection and understanding when there is a very definite group of people whose behaviour is beyond all understanding. It is not easy to recognise this group or to to even spot the individuals who form part of this group. They are not actually a group at all, except they come together when the event presents itself. It’s as if the event itself engenders the coming together of these like minded individuals whose basic reactions are rather simplistic and primitive. They identify or perceive a situation which offends their sense of what they conceive to be wrong. They are the stone throwers who do not hesitate to do so. They would in fact be the ones who would cast the first stone regardless of previous sins. They are more likely encouraged by previous sins. They are however our fellow citizens and, despite anti social behaviour orders, do not hesitate to claim the righteousness of their displeasure. They are also citizens who have a vote. They are the poorly educated so beloved of the populist right wing politicians who are more than able to pull them on side with their jingoistic rhetoric and tacit consent to their unsocial behaviour. Messrs Trump and Farage are instances in point. Although Farage has nothing like the power of Trump, he sees himself as leader in waiting.  He also appears to have similar acolytes including those with very deep pockets to fund his nonsense. 

Unfortunately they are a growing population, the disaffected young men and women who are finding it difficult to find employment in a job they consider worthy of their abilities which they are actually able to do. They may have aspirations and hopes that sometimes exceed their proficiency or qualifications and are thus unable to achieve anything, which, the longer it goes on, leads to more frustration. This state of being makes then vulnerable to anyone offering them a dream. Whoever can make good on that dream by providing them with an activity that goes some way towards that dream, will get their support. A false dream will not work, but it could be good enough to get them onside. That is what the likes of Trump and Farage have on offer and it could be glitzy enough to be working. 

It may not be the equivalent of the Sturmabteilung (popularly known as the Brown Shirts) of 1930’s Germany, but I would not be surprised if something equivalent is going through the minds of the leaders of the conservative right. Is ‘bring back national service’ being contemplated ? Prenez garde?

Combating racism and bigotry with getting the disaffected on side is not easy; however, an attempt must be made. It must be a priority. I do not mean to appear elitist, but unless that group is convinced they have a future that will lift them up, they will continue to riot, cause hate and disruption at the slightest provocation. So called wiser heads may no longer be able to control the situation. I still have hope.   

A WARNING FOR LABOUR

In July and September of 2022 I commented on the then leadership election by the Tory Party. The candidates at the time included Suella Braverman, Penny Mordaunt and Liz Truss. We all know the unfortunate and catastrophic effect of Truss's accession to the office. For 54 days she attempted to push through some fantasy agenda that she was certain would lift the British Economy to stratospheric heights.

She had an extraordinary rise over ten years, from new MP in May of 2010 to Prime Minister in September 2022. Her premiership did not last long, but then her political affiliations were just as transient. Growing up in, what she describes as, a left wing household, she was a liberal democrat in her University days and in 1996 joined the Conservative Party. She was very pro Europe in those days and indeed was so up until the referendum. At the time she was quoted as saying:

"I don't want my daughters to grow up in a world where they need a visa or permit to work in Europe, or where they are hampered from growing a business because of extortionate call costs and barriers to trade. Every parent wants their children to grow up in a healthy environment with clean water, fresh air and thriving natural wonders. Being part of the EU helps protect these precious resources and spaces.”

Difficult to understand how she moved away from inclusive and cooperative thinking about relationships between the United Kingdom and the European Union. Was it purely political ambition that drove her into the arms of Brexit? Certainly her ambition to lead the Conservative Party was real enough. She read Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Merton College Oxford, yet somehow any knowledge she may have gained at University was slowly ebbing away. She had a four year stint working for Royal Dutch Shell qualifying as a chartered management accountant, followed by five years at Cable & Wireless rising to the post of economic director. 

I suppose her working life gave her the impression that she understood numbers and what drives productivity and competitiveness. As it turned out the knew very little about any of it and, convinced of her fantasy, pushed ahead despite the warnings and realities of the situation. When did she give up on protecting the precious resources and spaces she felt the EU was empowered to protect? A minority of conservative party members put her in office and the entire country suffered for it. It fell to Rishi Sunak, who lost out to her with those members, to attempt to repair the damage. It was clearly a lost cause.

The experience of that last chaotic Conservative Party’s attempt to rescue itself should be a lesson to the current tumult in the Labour Party. For some obscure reason it always finds a way to shoot itself in the foot. Having obtained a massive majority in Parliament, it somehow finds excuses for pulling away from cohesion and cooperation toward division and disharmony. The overreaction to a disgruntled populace being preached to by a right wing rabble of discontents and ignorant bigoted political amateurs, is unbelievable. Have the gumption to stand up for the Labour Party and get to work. What we have now is confusion and puzzlement, as if no one knows which was to turn.

The cloud of what happened to the Tory party in 2022 is hovering over the Labour Party. This coming by-election, allegedly proffering a great Aintree hope (rather like betting on the Grand National itself) into returning to Parliament and possibly into number 10,  is yet another fantasy. There is no white horse on the horizon. His pronouncements on taxation, investment, nationalisations, rejoining the EU seem to me to be all over the shop. He has yet to give any idea of how these ambitions will be funded, whilst safeguarding a welfare state so essential to the ordinary citizens, save to indicate that “They will pay for themselves”. He clearly  has been a very fine mayor and is beloved by his constituent, but that does not make him the saviour of the nation. If the Labour Party is to save the nation collectively it had better get to work on working together.

The labour party is a big beast. What was once very clearly a working class political enterprise has very much expanded due to the rise in education, qualifications, employment and economic situation of the children of that 1940’s working class population. They are now the middle classes and those that did not change their points of view towards the conservatives have remained within the party, but from a very different perspective. The spectrum from Blair to Corbyn has already come under fire. It needs to come together or form into separate groups that can find a way to work together.  It cannot continue the way it is currently constituted. Decisions must be taken. You are either together or you go your own way. Floating around in a cloud is no longer possible. There is so much indecision in the air, it is crippling. Rally behind the Prime Minister and help show him a way forward or create another party of the left. Just choosing a new leader of a mishmash group without any centre is not going to work so long as discontent and indecision hover over Westminster. A new leader will not stop the discontent. Get to work putting it together by the next election, or you will all be voted out of office and replaced by yet more discontent and indecision or possibly even worse.  The right wing is indeed just that, waiting in the wings. Do not let that happen. 

A SHORT COMMENT ON HOPE

I was recently listening to a podcast about the late writer Evelyn Waugh. He reportedly said that he needed his catholicism to keep his inner demons from overtaking him and making him the most evil person on the planet. I have always found his catholic faith more than somewhat surprising, given the way he writes about catholic belief and the arguments against it in his novels. In particular Brideshead Revisited and the Sword of Honour trilogy. (I would highly recommend these books to anyone with any interest in the human condition). What is most surprising is the strength and logic of his arguments against this faith and the almost blind acceptance of catholic faith by some of the characters he portrays. 

As examples in Brideshead, the character of Charles Ryder is surprised that his friend Sebastian Flyte accepts the ‘awful lot of nonsense’ associated with Catholic beliefs, such as the story of Christ’s birth. Sebastian replies “Is it nonsense? I wish it were. It sometimes sounds terribly sensible to me.” Later in the novel Sebastian’s sister Julia in explaining why she can no longer be with Charles says “ I’ve always been bad. Probably I shall be bad again, punished again. But the worse I am, the more I need God”. This is most likely how Waugh, a convert to Catholicism, felt himself. 

Whether this adherence to a church is to do with redemption, atonement or salvation, I can only guess. Most of us have a degree of guilt, self deprecation or embarrassment when we do something we would ordinarily find ‘bad’ or reprehensible, and we seek to redress the wrong with positive actions and apologies. We find no need to address the problem to God and seek absolution from a priest. Many, if not most, of us do not accumulate sins that we take with us to a confessional for ritual forgiveness and prescribed punishments. 

Since the beginning of time there has been a cumulation of patterns of behaviour, within different communities, that is considered proper and acceptable. Indeed, most societies across the globe have a similar idea of what is considered to be civilised conduct as between individuals. Initial respect and acceptance are to a large degree what is required, whilst keeping our prejudices, suspicions or hostilities in check. It is generally how things work, with cooperation between individuals. 

This attitude of initial cooperation and civility occurs despite the multiplicity of religious beliefs and without the necessity of appealing to a deity for approval. Despite beliefs, mythologies and aged sagas, there is little evidence of any God’s interference is the actions of human’s on earth. That, as one might say, is entirely ‘man made’. What is going on in today’s world is clear evidence of the woeful lack of Godly intervention. I ponder in which direction does the almighty turn when the majority of the population of Ukraine and Russia adhere to the same Orthodox Christian Church.  The same prophets, rabbis and imams gave us the bible and the koran and appeal to the same God, yet are at each others throats. Again the situation is entirely man made.

So I ponder who are the men who make it so? Following on from a world shattering economies collapse in the 1930’s a rebuilding and reshaping took place across the world and unfortunately led to an even greater catastrophe in a world war of extraordinary evil. It promulgated and spawned despicable prejudices which more civilised citizen’s were forced into armed conflict to end the horror. In so doing weapons of mass destruction were invented and produced with the caveat that implied ‘we must all behave or armageddon will ensue. It was, so we thought yet again, the war to end all wars. We had hope and faith, and from 1945 to 1963 the world, despite a political cold war and serious outbreaks in Korea and Vietnam, a reconstruction was taking place; yet, with the advent of generations x and y, the dividers, bigoted populists and nationalists are re-emerging from the firmament. It’s as if some rogue seeds had been planted and certain flesh eating maggots have sprung up. 

This brings me to the likes of J D Vance, Pete Hegseth, Elon Musk, Marco Rubio, Victor Orban, Benjamin Netanyahu, Nigel Farage, Vladimir Putin, Marine Le Pen, Marion Merechal, Jordan Bardella, Bernd Lucke, Frauke Petry, Tino Chrupalla, Alice Elisabeth Weidel, Santiago Abascal Conde and unfortunately many others. I have only listed but a few. The most prominent at the present time being Vance, Hegseth and Rubio. Their adherence to the sick outpourings of a delusional psychopathic narcissist is nauseating. 

The demonisation of jews, gypsies and homosexuals in 1930’s Germany spewing out of the mouths of the political leaders of the Third Reich and the general condemnation of ‘immigrants’ worldwide by Vance, Hegseth and Musk as ‘saving civilisation’ is exactly the same. Why is this outrageous stupidity and venal cupidity allowed to continue? Their latest pronouncements on a British tragedy and situation, that has given the nation pause, is so far out of place that it should be condemned in the strongest possible terms. To make these vile pronouncements on the very anniversary of the day the civilised world stormed the beaches of Normandy to rid the world of the very type of individual they themselves personify is, frankly, taking the piss with extreme prejudice. If ever there was an insult to civilised behaviour this is it. 

So where are we and where is God in all of this? Unfortunately it is all man made. I hope there’s still hope. There are moments in history when I feel there is justification in having faith in humanity. Human beings have often come up with surprising civilised solutions, if only after great upheavals. Perhaps we are just going through one of those. I have hope. 

WHAT LESSON LEARNED ? A short reminder

Today was showcase the conservative viewpoint on the Today program on Radio 4 with back to back interviews of ex-prime ministers Rishi Sunak and Tony Blair. Mr Blair has written an open opinion piece about what he perceives is necessary actions for the current Government  to adopt. His viewpoint is now, in effect, a return to Margaret Thatcher’s reliance on the market place to bring about “growth”, which they all keep harping on about. This market place he speaks of is the world of A.I. - Embrace and adopt or die. This technological revolution is in the same category as the industrial revolution. Britain was great then and if it has any ambition to be in the premiership of nations, then it must fully embrace this technology. 

I notice that Mr Blair keeps using his usual strategic condescending tone. He begins a statement, does a little hesitation and then says “look, the thing is…” He keeps saying “look…” as if it denotes sincerity,  honesty and truth. In my view to does none of those things. During Mr Sunak’s interview, Rishi, on being questioned about Mr Blair’s ‘essay’, stated that he supported much of what was said. Mr Blair was most gratified that Mr Sunak agreed with him, with a tone of ‘how could he not’. This view was also expressed when it was suggested that Ms Badenoch agreed with him.  What it boiled down to was that the welfare state, in order to support paying pensions, disabilities, the NHS and defence, could only do so by laying off some of those commitments on to the private sector. So by creating or allowing 'for-profit' organisations to run aspects of public welfare, the state would benefit financially and become part of the power elite of nations. So, while claiming support for human welfare they would fully embrace private enterprise.

What they seem to suggest is that private enterprise must be allowed to flourish, and they could only do that if they were not taxed and allowed to pay people without imposing any additional employers contribution to employees national insurance. In fact it might be better to stop national insurance all together and pass on the whole question of personal insurance for health and welfare to private insurance companies who could then run the whole system; for a healthy profit of course. Hospitals, medical practices and welfare care and homes could then be run as separate private companies receiving their funds from private billing and insurance claims. Whatever state tax burden there was, would be covered from a multiple of private companies. The tax would be less for each individual company but would collectively supply more in total. 

The only problem with that is, private enterprise does not and would not benefit the majority. The wealthy and rich would find no problem in paying for services and insurances (as they do now) but those who live from pay check to pay check and are on  disability benefits or income support, would be locked out. The cost of insurance premiums is unaffordable for those people even now, let alone if the whole system were privatised. One need only look at the United States, which, with all it’s wealth, has very high insurance premiums under its pitiful national health care provisions. 

The only thing of sense that came out of the interviews is that leadership in government must declare a policy. Some direction as to what kind of society we wish to live in. The prime factor is an appreciation for the rule of law. Do we want basic freedoms of speech, thought and religion? Fair employment practices? Health and Safety? Habitable affordable homes? What is the best and most efficient way for the state to provide these basic services for its citizens? Is it really through private enterprise or should the collective state be responsible? 

In addition, what and how is the best and most efficient way to negotiate between nations and the global economy? Can a diplomatic service be handed over to private enterprise? Should there be a United Kingdom Foreign Office Plc. 

Just how far does one go to indulge private enterprise?  I know a number of people think that the country already is or should be UK plc. It is a slogan that has long hovered over Britain; but, that is not the case. The sole purpose of a Nation is to tend to and look after its citizens. To allow them to be safe, healthy, educated and to pursue whatever endeavour they choose to fulfil their lives. 

The attitudes and so called policy decisions preferred by the rich, Sunak, Blair, Badenoch and probably Farage are exemplified in 1843 with the Publication of A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens. Sadly, it is just the kind of political position they have without even realising it. 

“…the clerk, in letting Scrooge’s nephew out, had let two other people in. They were portly gentlemen, pleasant to behold, and now stood, with their hats off, in Scrooge’s office. They had books and papers in their hands, and bowed to him.
“Scrooge and Marley’s, I believe,” said one of the gentlemen, referring to his list. “Have I the pleasure of addressing Mr. Scrooge, or Mr. Marley?”
“Mr. Marley has been dead these seven years,” Scrooge replied. “He died seven years ago, this very night.”
“We have no doubt his liberality is well represented by his surviving partner,” said the gentleman, presenting his credentials.
It certainly was; for they had been two kindred spirits. At the ominous word “liberality,” Scrooge frowned, and shook his head, and handed the credentials back.
“At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge,” said the gentleman, taking up a pen, “it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.”
“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.
“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”
“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “I wish I could say they were not.”
“The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.
“Both very busy, sir.”
“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”
“Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”
“Nothing!” Scrooge replied.
“You wish to be anonymous?”
“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned—they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.”
“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”
“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides—excuse me—I don’t know that.”
“But you might know it,” observed the gentleman.
“It’s not my business,” Scrooge returned. “It’s enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people’s. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!”