TEXT AND SYMBOLIC INTERACTION

Some 12 years ago I was contemplating doing a research degree having completed an MA in performance writing under the tutelage of Jerome Fletcher, a most excellent instructor and advisor. My subject was intended to examine the performance of writing in the environment, displaying social identity. 

The premise was that every sign in a public space is open writing, a public ‘text’. This included all posters and placards pasted on walls or held up on demonstrations, advertisements, shop signs, bus stops, traffic signals, subway stations, the entirety of all public displays of images and words in the environment including the digital world.  It is writing addressed to a public audience continuously reminding the observer of ‘reader’ of some official or unofficial information, or some social or political position. Some of these public signs are significant public art. Indeed artistic displays of any kind are a form of public text to be viewed and read.

My initial questions were whether this ‘writing’ signified as social and political? Do the majority or ruling groups support their political and territorial interests through the use of public writing? Does this ‘public text’ perform as a display of the social identity of a given group? Does public text  have  real  power and influence? Can one include aural rhetoric as a form of writing? 

As you can tell the questions go on and on and I was never able to pinpoint any specific question to explore which would encapsulate the essence of the performance of text other than it ‘informs’. It simply imparts information which can be either accepted and acted upon or just observed and ignored. It is similar to an accept all, reject all or accept essential only, as in the manner of cookies. 

But what is public. Does one include books and magazines. They are displayed and open to the public, although they have to be bought or at least handled by the reader, which requires the reader to actively seek out whatever the book or work conveys. Likewise any open performance, film, television or online streaming requires the deliberate participation of the reader. There is stuff just put out on display whether anyone likes it or not. Is that really a distinction? 

So far as the power of text is concerned, there are statutes and laws which are written and necessarily available to the public, which the public are deemed to understand and abide by. The fact that one is unaware of a particular prohibition or mandatory action is considered inexcusable. The rule of law is embodied in text. . 

The more one looks into Text, the more one accepts Jacques Derrida’s statement "Il n'y a pas de hors-texte” - There is nothing outside the text. In effect, there is nothing but text. In preparing my project back in 2013 I put together a short video in an attempt to formulate “The Question”: 

  

In my view, on reflection after 12 years, it is perhaps not sufficient, as it does not to take into account the myriad of public texts which was the object of the investigation. In particular, when it comes to social identity, it does not stress enough the real power that text has on our daily lives. Legality, religion, economics, health, nationality, political affiliation, employment, status, everything is dependent on the “written manual’ that goes with it. That text has its influence is one thing, but of course, along with the reader is the writer. Someone has put the text on display. Whether it is done simply to display a statement without expectation of reaction or comment, or with a very specific intent of causing reaction and comment, it will cause, by itself,  reaction and comment, both positive and negative. There will be some interaction between people. How human beings act towards other people or things is based on what meanings are assigned to them. 

There is a theory of symbolic interaction which focuses on the analysis of the patterns of communication, interpretation and adjustment between individuals. The theory is a framework for understanding how individuals interact with each other and within society through the meanings of symbols (or text) Both the verbal and nonverbal responses that a listener then delivers are similarly constructed in expectation of how the original speaker will react. 

There are a number of people who has pronounced on the matter. Erving Goffman believed that when an individual comes in contact with other people, that individual will attempt to control or guide the impression that others might make of him by changing or fixing his or her setting, appearance and manner. At the same time, the person the individual is interacting with is trying to form and obtain information about the individual.Herbert Blumer (set out three basic premises of the perspective:
•    "Humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings they ascribe to those things."
•    "The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with others and the society."
•   "These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative process used by the person in dealing with the things he/she encounters."

Others, such as George Herbert Mead and Joel M. Charon have expressed views. In deed Charon is the author of Symbolic Interaction An Introduction, An Interpretation, An Integration. Mr Charon expresses five central ideas symbolic interaction. Briefly, 1- The human being must be understood as a social person, 2- The human being must be understood as a thinking being. 3- Humans do not sense their environment directly, instead, humans define the situation they are in.4- The cause of human action is the result of what is occurring in our present. 5- Human beings are described as active beings in relation to their environment.

The theories as proposed by these three are very similar, and in particular I note “Human beings must be understood as thinking beings”, “Human act towards things on the basis on the meanings they ascribe to those thing” and “When individuals come into contact with other people, the individual will attempt to control or guide the impression that others might make of him/her by changing or fixing his or her setting, appearance and manner”

Of course, the theory of human beings being understood as thinking beings presupposes that the human in question is an honest and ethical individual. On the whole one should be able to suppose that integrity and character are widespread. I have often stated before that human beings, when  departing from the norm, do  two thing, they steal and they hit. Violence or dishonesty is what appears to be the default mode when human beings fall short of clear thinking. 

I should like to add here that civilisation has accepted that, in order to survive as thinking human beings, we have a duty or care towards one another that follows on from the rules which have been written as rules of law which ensure that we can interact with each other even symbolically. There is a passage written by Northrup Frye, a Canadian literary critic and theorist who commented on the law and artistic endeavour as it relates (in my view) to symbolic interaction:
All respect for the law is a product of the social imagination, and the social imagination is what literature directly addresses.…If the law were to be completely absorbed into the internal discipline of honest men, there would be no more law and we should all be living in the Garden of Eden. We are not there, but in the meantime law still depends upon the imagination, and the fostering and cherishing of the imagination by the arts is mainly what makes [the] profession honourable, perhaps even what makes it possible.

In the light of all of the above, I am compelled to ponder on the beings who are now in the process of scarfing up the planet and turning it to shit in the very neighbourhood of the supposed site of the garden of eden. They are not at all what one could describe as truly thoughtful and the only interaction they seek is to control. They preen and pose like peacocks and are prone to violent outburst of insult and arrogance, and are unable to adhere to any duty or care or rule of law. They are not honourable men and women and have no concept of what service to a nation means. Thoughtlessness, violence and dishonesty are their go-to norms rather than the opposite. You know who they are. Unfortunately their 15 minutes of fame has been extended for far too long. If ever the world needed the American people to come up trumps, it is to clip Trumps wings on the 3rd November 2026. It is hoped the other miscreants will follow suit. 

MEMORIES AND REFLECTIONS

There is far too much going on at present to have any grasp on sanity. The continuing Trump generated world wide catastrophe is almost impossible to take in. It not only affects international relations, but the collateral damage to domestic politics is just as depressing. In the United Kingdom the right of the political spectrum initially supported Mr Trump’s shenanigans then wavered and made attempts at distancing themselves from his agenda. The financial repercussions, already in chaos, have become even more problematic as a result of Trump’s middle east war.  Attacks on the British Prime Minster roll along. Accusation and insult are hurled totally unaccompanied  by any serious assessment of a situation that he or anyone else is able to control. Self righteousness and arrogance abound. Problem solving is at its lowest ebb. 

If anything is to make headway, all hostilities must cease worldwide and various parties must sit down, reflect and properly assess the world situation and devise domestic and global solutions that promote prosperity and bring health safety and security to all nations citizens, regardless of the domestic political arrangements in place. Clearly that is impossible in the current climate, although there are signs that perhaps in the European Union some cohesiveness is on the cards. Also, the Canadian Prime Minister, Mr Carney, has indicated his willingness to approach nations other than the United States to form agreements on trade and other matters. He demonstrates a world wide approach to governance to the benefit of his own citizens. The Australian Government is equally showing signs of such diplomacy, and there are others; however, it will all go to nought if the hostilities, recriminations and psychotic Trumpisms continue. Mr Trump believes the world revolves around him and so long as he is allowed to continue in that vein, the chaos will prevail. He must be told “It’s over!!!”. It is up to as many European and Far Eastern leaders as possible to get that message across. Stop enabling the insanity.  

If only one were able to provide an intervention with the group photographed below:

Wishful thinking, although Granville Stanley Hall would most likely be on the side of Mr Trump. He was certainly not a man of the people and favoured a more pompous arrogance so far as I can glean; however, I am sure that Carl Gustav Jung might attempt at a breakthrough. On the other hand, I doubt very much if Mr Trump has any inkling of self examination, discovery and balance guiding personal growth and understanding. His thoughts, feeling, memories and instincts are entirely directed at his own aggrandisement. The ego trip to end all ego trips “like nobody has ever seen before, by a lot”, as he might say.  I hesitate to speculate on what Sigmund would make of Trump. I’m sure that after a mere 5 minutes observation he would have a pretty comprehensive diagnosis. For starters, Mr Freud would undoubtedly confirm that Trump still sucks his thumb.

 

I am sorry to obsess. As a breakaway from world pandemonium, and in keeping with my own memories and experiences, I post herewith a link to a bit of audio reflections on events in the very early 1960’s, when I had just turned 21. Highlight and click on the link or copy and paste if you  care to listen. Its about 14 minutes. I believe it will come up on some form of audio program. Thank you.

https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&id=1l5QmXZTiGFKF8MpWP66jPyk-9vpSsfrZ

WHAT PRICE DEMOCRACY ?

Where do we go from here? 

I post a paragraph I found on the net:

“Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov issued a stark warning to the United States and President Donald Trump, stating the ongoing war with Iran threatens global peace and could escalate into a Third World War. In a major press conference, Lavrov accused the US of triggering the conflict by unilaterally abandoning the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) and blamed Western powers for disrupting regional normalisation between Iran and Arab states. He cautioned that NATO is being drawn into the conflict, expanding beyond its mandate, and warned the war is destroying vital energy infrastructure in the Persian Gulf. Lavrov concluded that the conflict, which he termed US aggression, risks the collapse of international law and could stimulate a global nuclear arms race as more countries seek atomic weapons for self-defence, prompting Russia to push for a UN Security Council resolution to end the hostilities.”

The sentiments and views expressed by Mr Lavrov (if correctly reported) smack of such hypocrisy that it is impossible not to laugh in derision. The remarks appear to be quite a reasonable and probably correct point of view; however, for Russia to be calling for the UN Security Council to produce resolutions or the kind Russia has consistently ignored is, what your average Eastenders might say, taking the pis. 

In any event, the current analysis of events in the Middle East conflict, particularly relating to the the oil crisis and economic fall out, continues non-stop. There is, as expected, a good piece from Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian dated Friday 13 2026 at 17.18 GMT:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/mar/13/donald-trump-iran-war-total-disaster

His concluding paragraph states:
“To confront the Iranian regime was to walk, with a lit match, towards a tinderbox soaked in gasoline. If it were to be done at all, whether by military or other means, it had to be done with the greatest care. But Trump has blundered in, crushing and trampling all before him, making a bad situation worse. He does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. He does not deserve his war to be assessed charitably. He deserves our contempt.”

The chaos that Trump’s war, promoted by Netanyahu, has engendered, is engulfing the globe. Not a day goes by without the disastrous effects rumbling on with no clear end or solution in sight. Indeed, one wonders if there is any concept of lucidity or intelligibility at all in the current government administrations of the, so called, leading nations. There is much talk of ‘transparency’, combined with a derisive tone, as if the statement itself was so obvious,  how could anyone have any doubts. 

The frequency with which Mr Trump’s press secretary and attorney-general claim that he is the most transparent president in the world goes unchallenged, and, in a way, he is. There has never been anyone so self serving, egotistical, venal and power hungry as Donald Trump occupying the office of President of the United States in 250 years. That fact is so glaringly obvious and transparent that one is almost blinded by its clarity. Beyond that, there is nothing but stupidity and murkiness surrounded by a haze of imprecision. Everything is deflection and obfuscation, accompanied by insult, effrontery and anger. This is what politics in America has become. 

There is a sadness that this exemplar of ‘clarity’ is probably becoming the modus operandi of many countries. I exclude the already established dictatorships among nations as they have made their position quite clear. I say this as my attention was drawn to a report published by the Varieties of Democracy Institute Report, or V-Dem Democracy Report 2026 which can be found at:
https://v-dem.net/documents/75/V-Dem_Institute_Democracy_Report_2026_lowres.pdf

The institute claims, inter alia:

Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) produces the largest global dataset on democracy with over 32 million data points for 202 countries and territories from 1789 to 2025. Involving over 4,200 scholars and other country experts, V-Dem measures over 600 different attributes of democracy.
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in the Democracy Report do not reflect an official position of the larger V-Dem Project, the V-Dem Steering Committee, or theV-Dem Institute. Authors are responsible for the content.

I post below, the Executive Summary of the Report.

 

Just for emphasis one should note the current view of the situation in the United States:
* Under Trump’s presidency democracy in the USA has fallen back to the same level as in 1965. Yet the situation is fundamentally different than during the Civil Rights era.
* President Trump’s second term can be summarised  as a rapid and aggressive concentration of powers in the presidency.
* The speed with which American democracy is currently dismantled is unprecedented in modern history.
* Legislative Constraints – the worst affected aspect of democracy – is losing one-third of its value in 2025 and reaching its lowest point in over 100 years.
* Civil Rights & Equality before the Law, and Freedom of Expression & Media are now at their lowest levels in 60 years.
* Electoral components of democracy, however, remain stable – for now.

 

What is even more disturbing is that the research reveals that the share of the world population living in liberal democracies in 2025 was only 7%. So I ask again where do we go from here? Never before has the importance of voting in the November elections of 2026 been so vital. If you don't want to loose it, vote. I would also recommend your reading the report.

THE ART OF THE DIARY

The situation in the Middle East and round the world moves on apace. Many commentators and pundits have given their views, and various networks have provided us with statistics and polls indicating the feeling of many different groups of people. On the whole, the general consensus is that this latest fiasco created by Messrs Trump and Netanyahu is very bad for business, quite apart from being appalling for the general welfare of humanity and the planet.  I will therefore not dwell on the horrors of Trump and company.

On a cultural note, I went yesterday the the Tate Modern to view the exhibition Tracey Emin: A Second Life. The online headline for the exhibition  is “Step into the tender, confessional world of Tracey Emin”. It goes on:

“This landmark exhibition traces 40 years of Emin’s groundbreaking practice, showcasing career-defining sensations alongside works never exhibited before. Through painting, video, textiles, neons, writing, sculpture, and installation, Emin continues to challenge boundaries, using the female body as a powerful tool to explore passion, pain, and healing.
Dame Tracey Emin is one of the most important contemporary artists of her generation”. 

I am afraid I came away feeling disappointed. I did not think the works on display offered anything other than pain. There was only one drawing which I thought was worthy of being called a drawing. The Textual displays were colourful and were rather like large examples of samplers one sees on Flog It or the Antiques Roadshow.  I felt there was more obsession than passion but I am sure this exhibition of venting is certainly a healing process. I do not mean to disparage her work. Anyone who can achieve what she has achieved in the world of Art is certainly worthy of notice. It’s just that on this day I didn’t get it. Appreciation of any artistic work is extremely subjective and there are no absolutes to understanding. Once published, each work stands alone and either reaches into the mind of the viewer/reader or it does not. I confess on this occasion the works did not. 

Artistic achievement is a very difficult process. The life of an artist is a full on commitment to a vision and a total dedication to the processes of making work. In addition, making work that communicates the artist’s vision and ideas to another, is extremely difficult. No two viewers or readers will see the same vision or interpret a work exactly as the artist intended, or indeed if the artist intended anything at all. It is a miracle that a single piece of work can be lauded by a multiplicity of reader/viewers at all. It is not so much a question of taste as it is mental connection. The skill of the artist in making a piece of work that connects with a number of different people is what always shines through. Continuously creating works that shine through over a period of time is even rarer. Indeed it may even take a great deal of time before the work shines at all. Some artist have only ever produced one work that does. Therein lies the difficulty for the artist. To have the dedication and obsession to continue making work regardless of appreciation or understanding requires a fortitude few of us have. There are the makers and craftspersons, and there are people of genius, but all of it is hard work. Some artist’s, a fortunate few, make work that somehow strikes a particular chord and it rides on the crest of a wave. 

That is, of course, my point of view. There are a number of explanations and theories about what makes art. There are as many views as there are people. Indeed, one has to ask oneself, just what is it that makes “great art”?  Certainly there are a number or works in the world that have acquired a following and are thought  to be the pinnacle of artistic achievement. They are highly prized and valued. Why that is, is a bit of a mystery. The answer is surely not “because it is". So much of what we do and think appears to be arrived at, and begin from, some arbitrary decision. Much depends on our acquired knowledge, personal experience and powers of observation. For some people a thought process is engaged.

To quote a follower of Goethe, one must remember that “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.” Rudolf Steiner (1883), Goethean Science, GA1.

Thus we can perceive art in the smallest of objects and in effect ‘read’ the piece into our thinking. As an example, here is picture of a cork. 

Just an ordinary cork from a wine bottle. I deduce it is from a wine bottle by the tint of red at one of the ends of the cork. Also, there is a printed sign on the side of the cork, L’AIR DE RIEN. It is, one would guess the name of the wine. It must be a red wine, although there is barely a hint of wine coming from the cork if I smell it, but I believe it is there, although that might be auto-suggestion because it is, after all, a cork from a bottle. Usually the name of the wine is printed on the cork along with Mis en bouteille au chateau. In this instance we only have a name, but one which  conjures up all sorts of thoughts.  The air de rien translates as the air of nothing. Or ‘it doesn’t look like anything’. The French phrase is usually applied to something that appears to be nothing but may indeed be much.  “Ca a l’air de rien”. It is also a pun in that it could be referring to the R of Rien. The letter R in French is pronounced ‘air’. As to the cork itself, I could not say which country it came from. I presume the bottle from which it came was a French bottle of wine and the writing is French. According to wikipedia:

Most cork used in French bottles of wine comes from the bark of cork oak trees, primarily sourced from Portugal, which is the largest producer of cork, followed by Spain and Italy. These countries are part of the Mediterranean region where cork oak trees thrive.
 
This little object then has quite a history. Most likely it began its life in a Portuguese oak orchard and made its way to somewhere in France. It was purchased at some point by a wine maker with an interesting sense of humour and who is proud of his wine. He gives it a label suggesting it looks like nothing, but indicates that it becomes so much more in the tasting. One must also remember that the making of wine is a form of art.

So observation and thinking go hand in hand and, if one is of reasonably sound mind, one can make decisions by bringing  together all our knowledge both learned and acquired. It is not always easy to do this in the heat of the moment. To remain rational, thought provoking and considering, requires a calm, almost meditative spirit, is not easy in the world today. The pull and distraction of the world’s current insanity is not really conducive to visiting the Tate Modern, or indeed, an exhibition working through so much pain in what is in effect the diary of a person’s life. To be honest, I rather felt that Tracey, like Gwendolyn Fairfax from the Importance of Being Earnest, might remark. “I never travel without my diary. One should always have something sensational to read in the train.” 

LEGALITY MATERS AS DO LIVES

The criticisms of the Prime Minister, Mr Starmer, over his current dealings with the United States are wholly unwarranted. It is all very well to go on about the ‘special relationship’ with the United States being put in jeopardy, but we are not dealing with the United States that we had a relationship with. To claim that we have to deal with the United States, no matter who is President is complete nonsense. The current President is extremely unpopular in his own country. He is surrounded by sycophants. The United States Congress is virtually powerless, the judiciary has ceased to be independent and the constitution is being flouted at every turn. Because of this President, the United  States is no longer the country that we think it is. There is no relationship with a psychotic narcissist  such as Trump and his entourage.  There is a saying in the United States “Wake up and smell the coffee” or as Ms. Joan Rivers might advise “Grow Up!”. We are no longer dealing with the United States. The nation that was once an ally is no more. It has ceased to be. 

The Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Mr Warren Stephens is a very wealthy billionaire and contributor to MAGA and made a contribution to Trump of $6 million just prior to his nomination as Ambassador. This is a paid for posting, by an Arkansas, right wing, merchant banker. It is a show of prestige for the holder of the office to spend a couple of years in a lovely house in Regents Park in London. What actual relationship this Ambassador may have with the current British Prime Minster is open to question. In any event, this is not someone who is a true representative of the United States either. He is part of the Trump Show.

Why is it Mr Trump can go about spreading insults and injury all over the place and no one is meant to answer back? Is no one to take him to task? How is it he is allowed to exhibit no manners, or decorum, or simple political integrity? This is not an ally. He cannot possibly represent the United States of America that went out of its way to nurture a relationship with the country that, despite everything, gave it birth and the rule of law. It is now trampling on that heritage,  So do not say that we must be careful not to destroy the special relationship. Mr Trump has already done that in spades by destroying the very nature of the United States itself. They no longer have a president. He is a fraud and clown from a reality TV show, and seems to have taken over the country as his personal studio to hurl insults at the free press and stifle the freedoms we all believed to be guaranteed by the constitution of that great nation. When that Nation returns to normality so will the special relaationship.

For the various reform and conservative party opposition shadows to criticise Mr Starmer and support a convicted felon, adjudicated sex offender, bully and liar,  brings them nothing but shame. It is to be completely disloyal to the United Kingdom in order to curry favour with Trump. The Americans understand completely why Mr Starmer has taken his initial stand. He is a lawyer and former head of Crown Prosecution Service, hence he adheres to and believes in the rule of law. (Unlike Tony Blair).

Netanyahu had dragged Trump into a wholly illegal enterprise. Not that that would deter Trump from participating. Trump is a gangster and racketeer and has his many henchmen to engage in his fantasy. The fact that he is so callous and careless about the losses of life will soon penetrate, hopefully, into the minds of his MAGA  mob. It has into the mind of Marjorie Taylor Green who has come out strongly against this latest farrago of nonsense. So should we all.

Spanish Prime Minister, Pedro Sanchez, has made his case and clearly the rest of Europe should follow suit.  

Àabajo el Trumpismo
Abas le Trumpisme
Nieder mit dem Trumpismus!
Dolje s abbasso il trumpismo
Abbasso il Trumpismo
Etc…

CAN YOU CONCEIVE THE INSANITY?

The current situation has revealed a number of rather disturbing views being expressed as well as some rather unfortunate decisions. This is, of course, my own perception of things that I have seen and heard over the BBC. Some may think this is already a tainted source from which to evaluate information; however, I choose to think it is a still a reasonably reliable conduit from which to obtain news. It does sometimes veer away from objectivity towards opinion but then most  media outlets do the same. Some have an outright agenda and have completely  turned to propaganda. In any event, much of what we get is so called analysis and comment, theoretically expressing all points of view from left to right on the socio-political spectrum.

Last night on Newsnight during an interview of John Bolton (former Trump advisor) a short publicity film was shown, to him and to the audience, which was put out as an official White House ‘promotional’ film. I presume it was made to publicise the might and ‘right’ of the United States by promoting ‘truth and justice and the American way’. The film consisted of a compilation of very short clips from movies, such as Brave Heart, Top Gun, Robot animation from I know not where, Superman and other comic book heroes, interspersed  with clips of bomb bursts in Iran. All very gung ho with superman saying “I’m here for truth justice and the American way”. Mr Bolton sort of sneered at it and said ‘I wouldn’t have put it out’. He described it as infantile and probably symptomatic of the current White House, but wasn’t Superman for truth, justice and the American way? He also, when asked to comment on the bombing of a school in Iran, possibly  by the United States, commented that America would never contemplate such a thing and the matter would be investigated and if necessary compensation made. He also added that, given the situation, Iran should not build schools next to military installations. 

The Newsnight guest panellists  of pundits were horrified, as was the presenter, but one had to remember that, although Mr Bolton was deeply at odds with Mr Trump, he is a man on the right of American politics and very much in favour of the attack on Iran. He was also instrumental in breaking off the agreement the United States had previously made with the Iranian Government. 

What surprised me more was the lack of comment or analysis of the White House propaganda piece. The film and its message is a stark reminder of the insanity and psychotic nature of the Trump presidency and occupation of the White House. What could possibly have possessed any serious minded individual to put together such an insane film? To intersperse macho cartoon character and villains with the bombing of Iranian cities and citizens as if they were real upholders of justice and the American way is clearly insane. It is turning reality on its head. Trump and is cohorts clearly  see the world as one giant television screen on which they play video games. It is AI gone completely mad. The film is actually on YouTube.

You may also seek to watch the episode of Newsnight broadcast on Friday 6th March 2026 at 10:30 PM on iPlayer. It is almost impossible to put into words just what to make of this film. It would no doubt be a central part of any psychological analysis of Mr Trump. 

Which leads me on to an interview on the Today Program broadcast today Saturday 7th March 2026 at 7:22 am The interview was with Professor Shahram Kordasti. You can listen to it on BBC Sounds. Professor Kordasti has number of friends and family in Iran with whom he has some communication. He expressed overall that there is still some hope that the situation might lead to a new democratic Government somewhere down the line.  He points out the difficulties but gives the impression that there are many who may welcome the action being taken. Having tried for so long  to change the regime in Iran, and constantly being rebuffed and brutally put down, this my be the last resort and only way of bringing about that change. According to Prof Kordasti they have tried everything else, so what is there to loose, or words to that effect. 

This interview followed on, although not directly, from another discussion about the American B1 Bomber being allowed to land in the UK for defensive purposes.  It was quite clear from the discussion that even though landing and take off permission was approved by the UK Government, whether the use of the aircraft would be entirely defensive in nature was open to question. One had to be realistic about such matters. 

So I ask myself, is this some sort of surreptitious propaganda by the BBC in support of the Government in promoting the ‘defensive but realistic position’ as a corollary to the number of Iranian citizens who ‘welcome’ this intervention as a hope for the future? Perhaps I am being too Machiavellian in my thinking. Nonetheless it is cause for concern.

What is the major concern is that we have a world descending into complete chaos with an insane group of people playing Nintendo  war games behind screens in the White House and the Pentagon.  In the meantime, whilst the comic fantasy addicts play on, Putin and Netanyahu are loving it and feel free to run roughshod over the rest of us,. It really should be time for the adults in the room to pull the plug.

ANOTHER ANNIVERSARY DISTORTED

On this day, the 5th of March 1770 five Americans were fatally shot by British Troops in an event which became known as the Boston Massacre. This would contribute to the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War which began 5 years later on the 19th April 1775 culminating on the 3rd September 1783. The Constitution of the United States was created in September of 1787 and became effective on the 4th March 1789 virtually 19 years after that Bostonian event. Yesterday was the 237th anniversary of that document which firmly established the rule of law in the United States off America. It is of course accepted that the birth of that nation was with the ratification of the Declaration of Independence. That Declaration was written by Thomas Jefferson with John Adams, Roger Sherman, Robert Livingston and Benjamin Franklin. Together they were known as the Committee of Five of the Second Continental Congress. The declaration  was presented  and ratified on the 4th July 1776 and signed by 56 delegates to that Continental Congress. This year will be the 250th Anniversary of the formation of the United States of America; but in my view the true birth of the nation was with the date on which the Constitution became effective. 

From left to right: John Adams, Roger Sherman, Robert Livingston, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin.

It is on that day that the foundation of a Nation was established. It has been underpinned on 27 occasions. The first ten pillars created the Bill of Rights, specific protections of individual liberty and justice, with restrictions on the powers of Government within the United States. These amendments from 13 on, predominantly expanded individual civil rights and addressed issues relating to federal authority and modifying government processes and procedures. The main body was the strict establishment of the checks and balances between the three branches of Government, the Executive, the Legislators and the Judiciary. The whole of the document was very clear about preventing any one branch of acting without the oversight and agreement of the other. In particular the purse strings were to be controlled by the most representative and largest of the  branches, the Congress. This was to prevent any possible skulduggery by the smaller executive over public funds, and to maintain a specifically impartial and independent judiciary, through whom any grievances between the citizens and public institutions could be decided. 

It is clear that the so called founding fathers, when creating the Constitution in September of 1789, did not contemplate that the rule of law thereby established would ever be violated, given how so many had given their lives and fortunes to actually produce such a document. Given the general character, education and willingness to compromise of the members of the Continental Congresses that produced it, and, despite their prejudices (including racism, bigotry and misogyny) they did not fully foresee the possible dangers down the line. They were so caught up with notions of freedom, liberty, the rights of man and pursuit of happiness (nothing to do with left and right) that it never occurred to them that the compromise would or could fail. Indeed, the subsequent Civil War four score and seven years later, appeared to settle once and for all that government of the people, by the people and for the people would not perish from the earth. Yet many more people gave up their lives and fortunes for that principle and the rule of law under the Constitution of the United States. 

Sadly, that document has now become so frayed and tattered by the festering prejudices (including racism, bigotry and misogyny) that seem to have infected the three branches of government. The impartiality of the judiciary has seriously eroded into partisanship. The legislative branch has lost any integrity through weak and pusillanimous sycophancy towards a venal and corrupt narcissist and his cohorts. It is he who now runs the executive without any care or concern of any kind for the people of the world, let alone of his own citizens.

The mental putrified chaos the seeps out of his brain and those of his squad of goons has caused calamity across the world. His braggadocio during his campaign, post election and after inauguration for his second term in office revealed a fantasist’s grasp on reality. He thinks just by saying something he might have dreamed in his demented brain, it will magically happen. This allows anyone with a keen sense of strategic flattery to get him to do anything they want. Putin plies   him with a false narrative about Ukraine and he swallows it whole. Netanyahu pulls him round by the nose.  There is clear evidence of this. One hears the analysis from Rubio and a completely different version of decision making from Trump. Rubio at least knows that if Netanyahu sets out a plan of attack, Trump will be drawn in. So, he phrases things to make it seem perfectly  reasonable to suggest that if Israel attacks Iran, the Iranian Government will blame the United States anyway; therefore, it is only right to steam in with a preemptive strike. In self defence of course. In the meantime back at the ranch, Trump talks about dead American service people and his golden curtains and ballroom in the same breath. There is something decidedly off about the man. Trump's other Secretary of War/Defence brags about killing and people being toast. It is a TV episode of Bonanza and the High Chaparral mixed together, with everyone trying to play all the parts at the same time. What is wrong with these people? La La Land, is no longer just Hollywood, it is the entire country.

Americans still have a vote coming up. If those able to vote do not take up their civic duty, then all will be lost. The effect on the world is disastrous enough. I would argue for all European nations, whether a member of the European Union or not, to dissociate themselves from any thing to do with the United States, such as it currently is. Total separation and imposition of sanctions until such time as that country comes to its senses and returns to the rule of law under the Constitution it so proudly hailed not so long ago. Freeze or seize US assets along with those of Russia, gangsters one and all. They only seem to value money, gold curtains and turning people to toast. Trump talks of shit hole countries. Look in the mirror Donald.

CALLING CRIMINALS TO ACCOUNT

We are at war. Indeed we have been at war for a considerable period of time. Not one decade has gone by without some sort of lethal catastrophic event taking place somewhere in the world.

 

Throughout the ages, the matter of war, or international conflict, was in the purview of the leader or sovereign of a nation. There have been a number of attempts over the years to deal with hostilities between nations; The Hague Convention of 1899, the United Nations Charter in 1949 and a number of national constitutions created in the 20^th century. In the United Kingdom it is, in theory, a matter within the power of the Crown. It is in fact a constitutional convention regarding parliamentary approval for military action, direct control of the armed forces being divided between the government (Prime minster and cabinet) and the Defence Council, which was formed in 1964 by the “Defence (Transfer of Functions) Act 1964”

 

What is of note is that whilst setting up the Constitution of the United States the founding fathers dealt specifically with the question of war and conflict under Article 1, when establishing the powers of the Congress as long ago as 1776. Section 8 of that document deals specifically with the Powers of Congress which states, inter alia:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

Being a democratically elected representative body, it was a specifically thought out decision as to who held the power to send people into harm’s way. It would be the people’s decision, not the executives. At present, it is clear that the executive branch of the United States has usurped congressional power which should, under the rule of law, be returned to Congress.

 

What we have now is a narcissistic convicted felon, Trump, being conned by a flattering fugitive from justice, Netanyahu, into an escalation of conflict never contemplated by the majority of American citizens, whose wishes, because of the failure of the majority party in Congress, are no longer being represented.

 

It is clear that the world is being run by gangsters of the worst kind – Trump, Netanyahu and Putin - whose playbook is straight out of the Godfather. It is vital that those Politicians within the Western European Community stand up to theses miscreants and make forceful condemnation of them. Indeed, just as Mr Trump lifted Nicolas Maduro from Venezuela, so too should a combined strategic European force extract Netanyahu, from wherever he may be, and bring him, under arrest, before the International Criminal Court or would that be an act of war? It’s only a matter of law enforcement arresting an indicted felon, isn’t it?

 

There are two videos from YouTube which illustrate the various points. There are people in the United States who `are aware of what is going on. I wish them luck.