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.