ODDS ON HOPE

The Economist has run a leader on the American presidential race under the headline: “Donald Trump is very likely to be the Republican nominee - so his chances of re-entering the Oval Office are uncomfortably high”.

 

Its concluding paragraph reads: “All of which means that you should take seriously the possibility that America’s next president will be someone who would divide the West and delight Vladimir Putin; who accepts the results of elections only if he wins; who calls the thugs who broke into the Capitol on January 6th 2021 martyrs and wants to pardon them; who has proposed defaulting on the national debt to spite Mr Biden; and who is under multiple investigations for breaking criminal law, to add to his civil-law rap sheet for sexual assault. Anyone who cares about America, about democracy, about conservatism or about decency should hope that Mr DeSantis or one of the other non-Trump Republican candidates can defy the odds and best him”

 

I am assuming that the reference to Mr DeSantis is to indicate that, because he stands no chance of actually being elected president, he would be a preferred Republican candidate; however, one could hardly call him a non-Trump politician. If anything he is more Trump in outlook than non. The policies he currently advocates in Florida are just as divisive

 

The Editor-in-chief of The Economist is Zanny Minton Beddoes. She is the first woman to hold the position. Her education is Moreton Hall School, Oxford (BA) in PPE, and Harvard (MA) Kennedy Scholar. She has been very much involved in finance, the IMF and the economics of Central and Eastern Europe. She is clearly someone who knows her stuff.

 

She is married to Sebastien Mallaby, author and Journalist on Economic matters, Eton College and Oxford with a first class degree in modern history. He spent some time at the Economist and the Washington Post and is a prolific writer on economic affairs.  In 2022 he published his fifth book, The Power Law: Venture Capital and the Making of the New Future, a history of the venture capital industry’s development in the U.S. and globally over the last seven decades.

 

He appeared at a Miami Book Fair in November of last year to give a talk and promote his book which can be seen at: https://www.c-span.org/video/?523858-11/the-power-law

 

He too, is someone who knows his stuff. He has done a lot of research. It is also clear that he is a great supporter of venture capitalists.  He seems to favour Arthur Rock and most ‘West Coast’ venture capitalists as opposed to the Bostonians. He is also a fan of Sequoia Capital, who are apparently responsible for much of the entrepreneurship in Silicon Valley, China, India, Eastern and Western Europe. This one company is responsible for capital investment and enterprises across the globe. What is interesting is their approach to risk. Whereas they invest in numerous ventures, they are unconcerned if only 1 in 10 is successful, because that 1 in 10 will produce 1000% in revenues, rendering any losses in respect of the other nine insignificant. I repeat 1000%.

 

The VC, as Mr Mallaby calls them, is more of a super-agent and deal maker. The VC will have built up a portfolio of engineers and blue-sky thinkers, that can be joined up to form start-up companies with possible potential. S/He will have a stable of investors ready and willing to finance whatever scheme the VC might want to promote. The multiplicity of ventures is spread so that the risk is distinctly calculated. Whilst Mr Mallaby accepts that government or public investment can certainly kick-start enterprise, it is only when passed on to the private sector that real benefits begin to accrue. By real benefits he no doubt means greater financial return. This can, from a certain point of view,  be extremely beneficial to the general public as well, due to positive collateral fallout from the enterprises concerned. One does have to accept though, that it is using public funds to chiefly benefit the few, but that is the power law. Government investment is great for research and development in the early stages (eg; development of covid vaccines), but perhaps better distributed by the private sector. So is the theory. One Wonders.

 

It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall at meetings between the Chinese Government and the executives of Sequoia Capital (China Branch). It would seem, whether we like it or not, Sequoia Capital is the global power law. Its Wikipedia entry opening paragraph is:

Sequoia Capital is an American venture capital firm headquartered in Menlo Park, California which specializes in seed stage, early stage, and growth stage investments in private companies across technology sectors. As of 2022, the firm had approximately US$85 billion in assets under management. Sequoia is an umbrella brand for three different venture entities: one focused on the U.S. and Europe, another on India and Southeast Asia, and a third on China. Notable successful investments made by the firm include Apple, Cisco, Google, Instagram, Linkedin, PayPal, Reddit, Tumblr, WhatsApp and Zoom.

You will note this is internet, technology, media, communication and information. Make of that what you will.

 

Returning to the Republican politicians who have confirmed they are in the running for the office of President of the United States, we have the following six apart from Donald Trump:

There may be others in the running in due course, including John Bolton, Mike Pence, Chris Christie, Rick Scott and Chris Sununu.  The primaries don’t start until January 2024 so we will wait and see.

Whether any of the above - most of whom do not have any profile outside of the United States, let alone in the United States apart from their home state - have any chance whatsoever is questionable.

 

DeSantis has most assuredly made a media impact in Florida with his anti-woke pronouncements and his disputes with the Disney Company. Listening to his ridiculous nonsense, I find in very difficult to believe his educational credentials.  A BA, magna cum laude from Yale in 2001, teaching History at Darlington school in Georgia, and then graduating in 2005 from Harvard with a JD, cum laude ??? I do not believe any of it.  The motto for Darlington is “Wisdom more than knowledge, Service beyond self, Honor Above Everything”.

 

All of which have nothing to do with Mr DeSantis who, whilst in the Navy, served at Guantanamo and oversaw forced feeding of prisoners and God knows what other tortures.  How is it possible this man can be lauded? I do not think Mr Trump will have any difficulty in disposing of any charge from Mr DeSantis. Nor is it likely he will face any trouble from the others who have declared their intentions. I am afraid Ms Beddoes’ hope is doomed to fail. 

 

On the other hand, I have a vague feeling that there are still sufficient numbers of American citizens and voters to quell and rise above any Trump support. That is my hope, but I cannot claim to be confortable with it.

JUST FOR FUN

 A little reminder of times gone by - Just a mix of music to dance around to for a few (28:34 min) minutes:

 

IN LIMBO? I'D RATHER BE IN PARIS 1918-1939

We are in limbo, betwixt and between, in abeyance, up in the air. Call it what you will, but I realise now that this chronic anxiety is but the expression of living in a seemingly endless liminal space.

 

The current situation in the United Kingdom is a country living with a caretaker government, trying to stave off a general election as long as it can, knowing that its demise is inevitable; and so we wait, and wait, and wait, and wait. I refer you to the opening sequence of Casablanca, and ask you to make the connections.

We are indeed at the end of a refugee trail and the leadership is fully intent on rounding up the usual suspects by the most draconian means. A government in its last throes, flailing about, at odds with itself with no real place to go. I would not be surprised if it sought to extend legislation condemning protest and issuing dictatorial executive orders, to doing away with elections altogether.   Ministers are now in hiding and refuse to be confronted by the press. It is a sad spectacle and although there are some in the conservative party who hang their heads in shame, there are others who display yet more arrogance and petulance in their approach to governing.

 

Why can they not take the example of the football league. When a manager, or caretaker manager is out on a limb, he is encouraged to go. His/her services are at an end, and they go. There is no hanging on to see what becomes. Just go. The trouble is there appears to be no one to tell them to go. The sad fact is that the majority of the British Press, which is best placed to headline, JUST GO, are perfectly happy to support this charade. As a result, the British public suffer and exist in limbo. The unions and the genral populace, not really knowing what to do in the face of an administration fully deserving of the epithet all mouth and no trousers. We all just wait, and wait, and wait.

 

In the interim I have been reading several pieces by Janet Flanner reprinted in the New Yorker. Janet Flanner (Wikipedia entry - March 13, 1892 – November 7, 1978) was an American writer and pioneering narrative journalist who served as the Paris correspondent of The New Yorker magazine from 1925 until she retired in 1975. She wrote under the pen name "Genêt". She also published a single novel, The Cubical City, set in New York City. She was a prominent member of America's expatriate community living in Paris before WWII. Along with her long-time partner Solita Solano (born Sarah Wilkinson) Flanner was called "a defining force in the creative expat scene in Paris." She returned to New York during the war and split her time between there and Paris until her death in 1978.

 

There is a wonderful memoir from the March 11, 1972 issue entitled That Was Paris which dealt with events in the 1920’s to 1940’s and included a short reminiscence of a meeting with Picasso in 1957 at his villa La California, near Cannes. You can find it at:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1972/03/11/the-greatest-refreshment

 

There is also a wonderful profile of Picasso from 1^st December 1939.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1939/12/09/pablo-picasso-one-man-group?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Classics_Daily_051723&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_medium=email&bxid=63e0e698e1daafafbb052bc1&cndid=72778399&hasha=c9d5d70124e14b6dc7c619859f8a3f8d&hashb=48f91286090a61f16c71c379162617c94507416d&hashc=c7c5617568bb8b447a0973bd8b10c624574d2377df7ecbf55f02cad193ec6f8e&esrc=&utm_content=B&utm_term=TNY_Classics

 

I don’t know if these websites will allow you access but it is certainly worth a try and a read.

 

There was a time at the turn of the 19^th and 20^th centuries and between the two world wars, 1918 – 1939, when Paris was clearly the place to be. Les Deux Magots, Le Select, Café Flore, Montparnasse, Saint-Germain, Montmartre, Le Lapin Agile, La Quatrième République, Shakespeare and Company, where one could run into Flanner, Hemingway, Picasso, Stein, Toklas, Sylvia Beach, Joyce, Eliot, Djuna Barnes, Henry Miller, Josephine Baker and so many others. I may be wrong, but I know of no other city that hosted such an array of artistic talent as Paris at that time. There were no smartphones, laptops or ipads but the impression these people have made on the world, I am sure would take up several million gigabytes. If these names and places mean nothing to you, I suggest you look them up.

WHAT COMES NEXT ?

Je suis bouleversé, both shaken and stirred. Political elections are in progress in Turkey and Thailand and we are on the threshold of elections in the United Kingdom and the United States.  Whether the outcome of these exercises in democracy will produce governments sufficiently attuned to the desires and hopes of their electorate, or at any rate, the majority, as well as being able to keep the oppositions ‘loyal’, is what causes my concern.

 

Since 2016 there has been such a polarisation of opinion in many leading democracies, that it is difficult to assess whether or not these nations can even hold together, as the rifts and divisions keep simmering away just below boiling point. It is as if someone is about to take the lid off a pressure cooker without waiting for the steam to subside. Of particular concern to me is what I have seen developing in the United States and the United Kingdom.

 

Since the republican party has devoted itself to Donald Trump, it has become an assemblage of fanaticism. Under his banner of Making America Great Again he has drawn together various factions demanding cult-like devotion to their extreme views on what it is to be an ‘American’. There are the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and a variety of other disciples, all of whom see some mythical strongman wielding guns and kicking ass. To what purpose or effect, one does not know. It is enough that he kicks ass. To be worshipful of a psychotic narcissistic braggart is all that is required. It really is a question of all mouth and no trousers.

 

The policies are entirely negative and repressive. Ban books, limit education, down with ‘woke’, obliterate any opposition. It’s beyond Stepford Wives to Stepford Citizens. It’s the Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Reality and fact have no place whatsoever. Contradictions, hypocrisy, stupidity and ignorance rule. 

 

This may seem harsh, but whilst I see and hear many informed voices on the internet and the American media, and despite the legal judgements and forthcoming possible prosecutions, none of this has any effect whatsoever on his supporters who applaud and revel in his denials. insults and excuses.  To see and hear women who continue to support him, despite his having been exposed as a sexual predator (which he also admits) is incredible. How can they ignore what is so blatant? How can any of his Maga mob ignore so much of what is crystal clear?

 

I can only refer you again to Jonathan Freedland’s piece in the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/12/donald-trump-presidency-democrats-republican-joe-biden

 

The outcome of the election on Tuesday 5^th November 2024 is one of the most important events for the safety of the free world, assuming it survives until that time.

 

As to the United Kingdom, we have a very similar situation. Since 2016 and the referendum to leave the European Union on the 23^rd June of that year, the United Kingdom has been split into deep divisions, within both major political parties. The labour party is only just beginning to bring itself together. I presume the obvious failure of Brexit has caused the many labour activists who supported it to rethink their position. Indeed there was much within the so-called broad church of the party to rethink. As to the conservative party the fissures begin to widen. Though still grinding on with a right wing repressive agenda, there is what can only be described as a lunatic fringe calling for even further malignant and mendacious policies and the resurrection of Boris Johnson.  How out of touch can they be? Perhaps they are not. The possible continuation of the conservative government is, I regret, not wholly unlikely, given the eccentric nature of the British electorate. 

 

Having written the above, the results of the elections in Thailand and Turkey are coming through. It would appear the Thai people have supported the opposition parties and have rejected continued military rule. The leader of the Move Forward Party, Pita Limjaroenrat, is claiming to be the next prime minister and has invited Pheu Thai, and other opposition parties, to form an alliance after securing the largest number of votes. Whether he will actually succeed in this is still a question, as the choice of prime minister is not just by the 500 seat House of representatives, but also by the senate whose 250 members were appointed by the military in the last coup. Whether the military will give way to the people’s vote is to be seen.

 

As to Turkey, it would seem that President Erdoğan may have to have a runoff election with Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu as neither will have received 50% of the vote. We can but watch this space. At the moment the President is ahead on the count and is predicting he has achieved the required majority to avoid the second ballot.

 

These results do seem to indicate that there are countries where the conservative autocratic parties are out of favour with the general population, or at least the electorate. Whether the ruling parties will actually allow for the democratic process to be fully realised is another matter entirely. What sort of disruption, if any, will arise if they do not?  It is all in the air.

 

Hence the continued anxiety. It must be remembered that prior to Mr Erdoğan, the military were very much in control of Turkey. He has done much to cement civilian rule, but at what cost to the Turkish citizen? On the surface, what is the difference between a civilian authority under the control of the military, and a civilian autocrat controlling the military and remaining in power. Just who is in control? At least there are elections. How effective they are is another matter. One has to accept that Mr Erdoğan apparently has complete control of the media in Turkey, and rather like Putin in Russia, what the Turkish (and Russian) people hear and absorb is a complete vindication and support for the President of the country. All things considered, what Mr Kılıçdaroğlu has achieved in opposition is quite remarkable.

 

None of this is in any way indicative of what is going on in the United Kingdom and the United States. The British and American constitutions, one written and one not, are not too dissimilar in their approach to a civilian democratic state under the rule of law and duty of care. The concepts of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and protest are fundamental to its system of government. This is far from the case in Turkey or Thailand, but there are a substantial number of citizens in the UK (and USA) who would seek to amend and indeed curb those freedoms under the banner of maintaining order. Do not forget that a majority of journals and other media support the conservative party. Their influence does have some effect and is cause for concern.

 

This position should be opposed as vigorously as possible by every free thinking responsible citizen. Our fundamental freedoms are more fragile that one imagines as evidenced by the outrageous arrests of people opposed to the monarchy and anyone in their vicinity whether or not they were together. This cannot be allowed to continue. One must stop the rot at the next general election. If thirteen years of misrule are a lesson of any kind, then that will happen. I shudder to think what will come next if not.

HOME SECRETARIES AND KEIR STARMER

Civil Liberties have been hacked away by the current conservative government with hardly any protest. The home office has become Orwell’s Ministry of Truth and the allegedly independent Police Force is now firmly embedded as the Thought Police.

 

With the pre-emptive arrests of anti-monarchist protesters using the already established and recently produced repressive legislation, the United Kingdom has revived the ‘sus’ laws and all that has goes with them. It has produced a few headlines and some expression of outrage but nothing like the outcry it ought to have engendered. In particular the leader of the Labour Party, once a barrister attached to a set of chambers known for their support of human rights and civil liberties, has not come out full throttle denouncing the legislation and loudly proclaiming a labour government would repeal the whole of the current legislation of Suella Braverman and Priti Patel.

 

How these two harridans have manged to attain their power is unbelievable. They are obsessives who dream of deporting as many unfortunate refugees and foreign immigrants as possible. Their behaviour is equivalent to the worst kind of national front thug. They are undoubtedly racist and xenophobic, so how on earth these two first generation British women came to be such monstrous figures is a mystery. That they have any following at all is incredible and yet they do.

 

I would guess that they both had political ambitions and, being part of a minority ethic group, figured that the best way forward was to appeal to their white conservative constituents by demonstrating how much more nationalistic and bigoted they could be. By gaining the support of these constituents, they could demonstrate to other minority constituents that they could obtain power and influence on their behalf; except, it was not on behalf of their constituents, but on behalf of their own ambition. Both their constituencies (Fareham for Braverman and Witham for Patel) are over 94% white according to the Constituency data of the 2021 census.

 

Their immigrant families obtained a foothold in the United Kingdom and, in order to secure that position, they were not going to let anything intervene by preventing anyone else from gaining even a toehold.  The result is a continuing far-right assault on the very constitution that allowed their families entry into the United Kingdom in the first place, and it follows that any attack on them or their character would be considered racist and, of course, misogynistic. In effect they are the perfect front for the national front.

 

That they hold the position of Home Secretary is down to Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, although it is fair to say that Teresa May first brought them into cabinet government. Rishi Sunak clearly can only deal with one of them at a time. Had he any gumption at all he would side-line them both.

 

Back to Keir Starmer. Why has he not emphatically denounced the current repressive and draconian legislation? Why have not all of the shadow cabinet not come out in force to denounce what is happening to human rights and civil liberties in the United Kingdom under this government?  Why are they hesitating? The financial situation is such that it has created greater anxiety amongst the population and a worried population is more easily subjugated than a confident population. If people’s human rights and civil liberties are secure they can make their economic lives more secure. That is not what this repressive government wants. By keeping the general populace insecure it allows for their exploitation by the wealthy supporters of the current government. This is nothing new. 

 

The rumblings however, of continuing industrial action by nurses, teachers and other members of the general population are the seeds of a growing confidence. They are itching to get rid of this conservative miasma which surrounds them, even although they may seem hesitant. It is up to Keir Starmer and the Labour Party to fully support the growing confidence. Speak up about what’s needed. Return to human values, rights and freedoms. Return to the structures and foundations so long fought for and if you build it they will come, and they will make it better.

 

None of this is new Mr Starmer. Get it together.

In addition to the assault on the right to protest, the illegal migration bill, currently before the House of Lords has attracted criticism from non-other than the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby:

 

This legislation is part and parcel of the Braverman/Patel agenda. It has no hope of stopping boats and might actually create higher revenues for the people traffickers. Harsh measures and harsher penalties have never been a deterrent for anything.  If that were so there would be no bad behaviour of any kind. They keep claiming that they are acting in the interests of the British public and that they are doing what the British public want them to do.  I do not believe that is the case. What I find difficult to understand is why the Labour Party is not more vocal in its objections to this assault on humanity and human rights in general.

 

The government keeps saying that no one is offering an alternative to their solution to the immigration problem, so they must be right in applying theirs.  The difficulty is they do not listen to alternatives,  do not accept them, and journalists allow them to get away with that claim. They have been told time and again to create more avenues for legal immigration, and better facilities through which to process applications. This would involve of course more trained personnel to deal with the volume. If you don’t want people to risk their lives on a boat, give than alternative access. It’s not good enough to say it’s coming down the line and that this outrageous bill is the answer, however temporary. When your own spiritual adviser gets involved in the politics, it's time to listen, not say he’s wrong. But then this government never listens. It has no shame and is utterly without any moral principles whatsoever. Its sole  agenda is to remain in power.

 

They keep saying as much. Their sole purpose in maintaining their current position is to somehow, over the next 18 months, create a situation which reverses the current polls in their favour. That is the sum total of their position. When the polls turn their way, they will call a general election and they will hang on until the bitter end. In what way is that good government, hanging on to a poll percentage?  Do they really think the people cannot see how vacuous that is? Maybe they're right?

 

The Labour Party have got to get a grip. That the outcome of the next general election should still be thought of as in the balance is shocking. Are the expectations of the leader too high? Are the shadow cabinet members up to the tasks assigned? We need to hear more and more from the shadow government if it is going to take power. It has got to say and show what it can do. Put forward real and specific ideas and programs to put into practice the moment they take a seat in government. They need to do this now and they need to stand up for what is right. They cannot vacillate on oppressive legislation such as they are now. For god’s sake take the reins. You may never get another chance.

 

WHAT PRICE RESPONSIBILITY ?

I started to write a piece yesterday with the following paragraphs. I was not sure where I was heading, but I insert them here in order to give you an idea of what thoughts were coursing through my mind:

 

Saturday 6^th May 2023

Today was a rather silly day. I watched the coronation of King Charles and Queen Camilla. It took some two hours to get round to crowning the King, whereas she took about 5 minutes to be crowned Queen. A sort of afterthought throughout the whole process. 

 

To start the day however, I heard that a number of anti-royal protesters had been arrested and detained by police. So much for the start of a parliamentary constitutional monarchy when basic, hard fought for civil liberties are squashed within 9 months of the beginning of his reign.  

 

The past week has had a barrage of repeated programmes about the caring Prince becoming the caring King. All his good deeds displayed and most favourably commented upon by all and sundry, with very little in the way of objection to the whole idea of monarchy. Yes Charles may be a very nice man, but is it worth the cost not only financial but also political in the light of the monstrous repressive action taken by the current government, all in the name of the crown.

 

There can be no objection to the Royal Family continuing their good works, but not at the expense of the nation. The family is most assuredly rich enough to get by on its rental income and investments. It can easily cover its own costs in managing their affairs, both private and public. The idea that it provides fantastic revenue and support for the tourist industry alone is laughable. It should be noted that the arts (theatre, music, film production etc..) which actually does bring in enormous sums of money from abroad, now gets very little subsidy and is in far more need of it that the royals and their entourage.

 

The family gets some £86 million a year. There are now approximately 9 active working royals, which presumably indicates that they account for £9.5 million a year each.  As against that, that sum of money would only add about £1.30 per week to the pay packet of all staff (1,269,228) working in the NHS.

 

So that was the unedited start; but now, on reading Polly Toynbee’s piece in the Guardian published Sunday 7 May 2023, I have to rethink. You can find her article at:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/07/protesters-in-handcuffs-and-nonstop-bling-this-coronation-has-been-an-embarrassment

 

It is worth the read.

 

What is does bring to mind is the power of the myths with which we live. The United Kingdom thrives on its thousand years of monarchy and once great power. It keeps harking back to that place at the top table in world affairs, indeed, as the head of the table for quite some time.

 

In the film Lawrence of Arabia, there is a short exchange between Colonel Brighton (Anthony Quayle) Prince Faisal (Alec Guinness) Sherif Ali (Omar Sharif) and Lawrence (Peter O’Toole):

 

 

Brighton:  Dreaming won't get you to Damascus, but discipline will. Look, Great Britain is a small country, much smaller than yours. Small population compared with some. It's small, but it's great. And why?

 

Sherif Ali:  Because it has guns.

 

Brighton: Because it has discipline.

 

Faisal: Because it has a navy, because of this, the English go where they please... and strike where they please. This makes them great.

 

Lawrence: Right

 

Brighton: Mr Lawrence, that will do.

 

The script is from the early sixties, the film was released in 1962. The sentiment of English power is still very much in evidence, but it is no more, as Ms Toynbee so deftly points out. The BBC coverage of the coronation, with its constant referencing of the coronation in 1953 and the continuous streaming of pictures and commentary on the life of Prince Charles, and his good works and achievements, is a propaganda barrage like no other we have seen before. This coverage has nothing whatsoever to do with impartiality.  The very idea that this is a completely apolitical event is laughable and in fact yet another wasted opportunity.

 

Whilst the ‘news’ coverage did show some of the anti-monarchy protests, there was constant emphasis on how wonderful it all was, despite the rain and the brave people who camped out and stood for so long in the wet to trumpet their appreciation of King Charles. There were streams of interviews of worthy pundits telling the various interviewers how great it all is, and what a brilliant King the country will have in the new age of Charles III.

 

For some reason, foreign dignitaries and world leaders attended the service at the invitation of King Charles. These invites were clearly part of the protocol in trying to promote the still existing power of the British monarchy; however they were barely shown on screen. Much was mentioned but little was shown of the influential world politicians and influencers who attended. This man who has, for almost the whole of his life, promoted saving the planet from extinction, seemingly makes no visible effort to gather together his influential guests to promote his cause. Why was that? Is there something going on behind the scenes?

 

The royal fairy tale and myth of empire continues without skipping a beat. The impartial BBC coverage endorsing the whole of it, from the emphatic tones of all of its presenters and, so we are led to believe, impartial journalists. “Here we are with this wonderful crowd of well-wishers” was the mantra of the day. Jingoism is a word that would not be out of place in the circumstances. Even the weather conspired to present the stiff upper lip of the British and their pageantry. No other nation can do that quite like Britain. The occasion, in the midst of inflation, cost of living, NHS and housing crisis, was made joyful by everyone giving the appearance of being joyful.  God save our gracious King.

 

Do not get me wrong. I have great respect for Britain. Its history, although steeped in cruelty and hypocrisy, has produced, through the development of the common law, the very foundations of modern civilisation, the rule of law and the duty of care. It may have taken a thousand years to create that concept, but it outweighs any idea that during that same thousand years the ability to conduct a superior coronation pageant is of any real significance.  What makes Britain great, despite some of its current politicians who think otherwise, is its adherence to the rule of law and to its unwritten, but very active, constitution. Try as this current government might, there will always be voices to cry out when wrong is about to be done. “Let right be done.”  Perhaps I am ever hopeful that that will always be the case in the end.

 

The coronation should have been about cementing relationships with countries abroad and of encouraging others to do what is right. To show to the world that the United Kingdom, despite its problems, will always promote and do what is right. Unfortunately it became a public relations exercise to allow the British public to feel good about King Charles III. As to the rest of the world all it said was “aren’t we good at putting on a show.” Surely the new age of Charles III must be more that that.

 

As to the adherence to myth and legend, the United States has yet again had a mass shooting in Texas. My friend Bob in California sent me a copy of the full article I referred to in my last blog “What has become of America?.” The article is by David French, published in the New York Times titled “Gun Idolatry is destroying the case for guns”. Mr French writes that he and his family have suffered serious harassment as a result of his anti-Trump articles. He states, inter alia:

 

"I was born in Alabama and grew up in Tennessee and Kentucky. As a son of the South, I was no stranger to firearms. We had a gun in our home. I learned to shoot at a young age. So did my wife. After the episode of the man demanding to see me, she not only bought a handgun, she attended multiple classes to train in armed self-defence….

I share this story to make two disclosures: Yes, we own guns. And yes, I support gun rights, not just for hunting or shooting sports, but for the purpose of self-defence. I’ve  written in support of gun rights  for years. I grew up in a culture that approached firearms responsibly, safely and with a sober mind. They were a tool — a dangerous tool, to be sure — but nothing more. In a fallen and dangerous world, a responsible, trained gun owner could help keep his or her family safe.

 

So what we have here is the classic American view of gun ownership. They are a tool, just like any other tool. Is that not a specious argument?  The constitution saw the necessity for individual citizens to possess a rifle of some kind, in order to put together a standing militia in case of conflict with another nation. At the time 1776, in order for the United States to have an army of any kind, its soldiers had to bring their own kit. This has been translated down the ages as the right to bear arms in any circumstances.

 

What has happened to a country whose citizens are so terrorised by each other that they feel it is imperative that they are armed against one another? To claim that gun ownership is perfectly OK so long as one is a responsible gun owner is a nonsense. Everyone goes on about responsible gun ownership. After all it’s just a tool for self-defence. That a society should be at such odds with each other that they are in constant fear of their lives and require armed response to any possible transgression or interference in their lives, is a moral decay beyond comprehension in more civilised societies.

 

Mr French does point out that the jury’s verdict in finding young Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty by reason of acting in self-defence, is extremely problematic:

 

“When you travel, armed, to a riot, you’re courting violent conflict, and he found it. He used his semiautomatic weapon to kill two people who attacked him at the protest, and a jury acquitted him on grounds of self-defence. But the jury’s narrow inquiry into the moment of the shooting doesn’t excuse the young man’s eagerness to deliberately place himself in a situation where he might have cause to use lethal violence…

Rittenhouse has gone from defendant to folk hero, a minor celebrity in populist America….

Or take Daniel Perry the Army sergeant who was just convicted of murdering an armed Black Lives Matter protester named Garrett Foster. Shortly after the conviction, Tucker Carlson effectively demanded a pardon. Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas responded the next day, tweeting that “Texas has one of the strongest ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws of self-defence that cannot be nullified by a jury or a progressive District Attorney.” Yet Abbott ignored — or did not care — about the facts exposed at trial. Perry had run a red light and driven straight into the protest, nearly striking Foster’s wife with his car. Witnesses said Foster never pointed his gun at Perry. Even Perry initially told the police he opened fire before Foster pointed his gun at him, saying, “I didn’t want to give him a chance to aim at me.”

But the story gets worse. In social media messages before the shooting, it was plain that Perry was spoiling for an opportunity to shoot someone. His messages included, “I might have to kill a few people on my way to work they are rioting outside my apartment complex” and “I might go to Dallas to shoot looters.”

That is not a man you want anywhere near a gun. Kyle Rittenhouse is not a man you want anywhere near a gun."

 

Despite these outrageous events and decisions, Mr French goes on to conclude:

"Gun rights carry with them grave responsibilities. They do not liberate you to intimidate. They must not empower your hate. They are certainly not objects of love or reverence. Every hair-trigger use, every angry or fearful or foolish decision, is likely to spill innocent blood.

Moreover, every one of these acts increases public revulsion over gun ownership generally. The cry for legal and moral reform will sweep the land. America will change and gun rights will diminish. And the gun owners and advocates who fail to grasp the moral weight of their responsibility will be to blame."

From this I assume, despite the continuing killing and the examples he cites, he maintains that gun rights are an absolute necessity and that gun rights should not diminish. He seems to suggest that it is morally wrong to want to change the second amendment. How can any sane individual be in favour of allowing a society to continue to terrorise its own citizens and live in constant fear of their life? 

They may say, if we all behave responsibly with our guns, what’s the problem? The first responsibility of an adult citizen, in my view, would be to get rid of the guns. No gun, no hair-trigger use, no spilling of innocent blood. Responsibility is not about owning guns, it’s about respecting others, the duty of care and  the rule of law. It's what the coronation of a  British King was all about, wasn't it?