You can always set the book down

Subject: You can always set the book down.

The Jane Austen Book Club is one of those schmaltzy films about five attractive women and one young attractive (rich) young man who are drawn together into a book club to discuss their individual conclusions after reading each of Austen's books.
The film draws parallels with the actual lives of the women and the implications of Austen's characters with the subtle interplay which men evoke on the lives of the women in comparison to the modern complexities of their own lives.
The persuasive argument that relationships are nothing without shared interests, the intellectual spike when, as the metaphor goes "both people are on the same page".
Books are but manifestations of someone else's story but a story which you can identify with and travel the same road. Sometimes it's a story which is so well written that the language takes hold of you and you elevate the substance to mean even more than the author intended. This is no bad thing since, like my previous blog it's about stimulants which boost our perception. A good book, either fiction or non fiction can transport us from the mundane and ordinary to another level because we feel commonality with 'someone else'. It's this commonality which releases us from the enormity of doing the journey on ones own.
Music, books, cinema, are all substitutes for the real thing but if the real thing is not available it's better than nothing and at least you have the option of putting the book down, at least you are in control.

Abuse or simply testing the water

 Abuse or simply testing the water.

 

It's difficult not to become sceptical as the race is on to blame men for inappropriate behaviour. As our papers line up to condemn the rich and famous in terms of abuse towards women there is a feeding frenzy of claim and counter claim with the interesting entry this morning of Donald Trumps comment that "human lives are being destroyed by mere allegations".

Of course abuse of anyone, towards any animal, is wrong and should be challenged but the term abuse has such wide ranging connotation.
Does a spat between husband and wife or between son and daughter fall into the bracket of abuse. Does a flirtatious evening where signals were received and then withdrawn but the change in the sexual weather front not picked up and what is described as inappropriate behaviour, even years later, is now the cause of allegation and lives ruined.

The unique attraction between a man and a woman is the Darwinian process that makes the animal kingdom flourish. Without the attraction which is substantially sexual our species would die out. If as is rapidly happening, the male seeks to protect himself from unfounded accusation, he had better stay at home. Of course it's not in the home where so many of these claims of abuse flow and more and more the office environment is the killing field for misunderstood innuendo. 

The claim is that 'power' which one individual has over another is the tinderbox and that the 'casting couch' in Hollywood has been the focus of ire for many female starlets. 

This public outing of so many famous household names is spreading.   First it was the political arena and now the whole process of male/female interaction is under the spot light.

The world at large is unmoved. Religious distinctions  continue to mark out what is good and what is bad.  The "oldest profession" still thrives across the world and these matters are largely the concern of the Western liberal fringe who feel most affronted. 

Abuse comes in many shapes and sizes. The tongue is one of the sharpest instruments of daily abuse and yet it is not classed in the same league as a hand on the knee. Why is this. Is it because men, who are often at the sharp end of verbal abuse just shrug their shoulders and accept it, much as a lass from a working class environment would know how to deal with an inappropriate hand. If it were just evidence of "correctness" gone mad then one would simple put it down to the times we are living in but as Trump says, "lives are being ruined" and who knows the reasons behind the claims, often made decades later.

Can you envisage returning to a Bronte era where the courtship was conducted in such a way no one could discovered the true character of the person you were marrying until it was too late - and then the real abuse could begin.

Is Britain racist

Is Britain racist.

 It's a question we can ask, irrespective of our colour since the society is now such a hotchpotch of race and culture that the claim to ownership within this country has long ceased to have any meaning.
The question of being white in the society is now questioned since we are told that being white is a state of mind, bound up as it is in colonialism, slavery and an assumption of being superior.  An assumption of being "better than those 'gollywogs', to use 1950s language" who inhabit the countries from which the parents of many of the people in the audience in Oxford had left in the late 1940s. 

The challenge which the articulate black people in the audience wished to put across was that our whiteness and the attitude that goes with it is based on a false premise - that we are superior.
The vigour with which these young people decried the society of which they are now a part and the hurdles this society purportedly puts in front of them, even though they had obtained university degrees at our universities in order to articulate their disgruntlement,  is somehow symptomatic of the unreality of living here.  We are damned if we do and damned if we don't. If you don't believe their cant, you are a racist.
Of course in any society there are racist, people who hold vicious views against people of colour, but wait a minute, weren't these people in the audience also racist for holding the same sort of antagonistic judgement towards white people.
Of course history gives them a platform to protest since, it is argued, the white community, where ever they went conquered, exploited and when settled, closed ranks  barely integrating with anyone except their own, least of all with the local indigenous population
White men and women are of course not alone in determining their allegiance to what they believe they stand for and what reflects their image.
The Indian nation, the second largest nation on earth has a multi tiered system of defining people, straight jacketing and pigeon holing whole swathes of their community,  with little or no opportunity to be accepted outside the designated caste.
African tribal hierarchy is equally firm in its discrimination within its patriarchal  mix but of course, this hierarchal structure is for some reason more acceptable than plain racial bias, a discrimination according to skin colour.
To listen to the audience 'bias and prejudice' has no basis when applied from a black person towards a white person, since the black person, who came over in the late 40s was actually brought over as an act of exploitation, exploitation  of the black person by the authorities in this country designed to hold down wages in this country to support the nation in its attempt to compete world wide with the low wages paid in other countries.
Of course no allowance has ever been made toward the white population who paid host to these immigrants, arriving  in their thousands, settling where they were most needed in the industrial towns of the North. No one informed the white working class of the changes to their lives, including their ability to hold onto a job. No one smoothed the way  least of all the politicians in Westminster.
Is it any wonder there is resentment, which continues to this day, within pockets of a disgruntled, jobless white population, particularly in those  very towns in the North who were hit hardest.
No matter how often we apologise for our forefathers who were simply following the practices of the day this audience in Oxford will be forever emotionally at odds with the people who, abet reluctantly, gave them a home and an opportunity to prosper in a way their kith and kin  "back home" have never experienced.
The question of being black or white, which has been toned down over the years (forgive the pun) through the natural tolerance in people who see the practicality of getting on and discovering that the colour of the skin has little to do with the underlaying character of the person and bolstered by significantly successful Intermarriage, the sheer preponderance of 'other nations' on our high street has meant we have become more and more colour blind.
It's not irrelevant to say that if the views heard in Oxford had been espoused in a BNP meeting it would have made the news as "overt racialism" but because it is a view point from a so called 'minority group' it is apparently important we hear it if only to hear and understand "their" frustration. But what about "our" frustration.
What about the frustration of being lied to and misrepresented over the years about the highly profitable business of whole scale immigration, it's good and it's bad side and not simply ignored as a pliant, easily manipulated, politically illiterate mass of so called indigenous Brits.

Being colour blind

Subject: Being colour blind.

I am Black, you are White, she is Yellow, he is Brown what is the significance.
Of course it's an indication of where I come from, although in this world of easy and convenient migration it bares less and less relevance, especially in the western world where economic migration is most common but colour is still used as a cultural marker.
The cultures of Africa and Asia are assumed to be an integral part of the person who comes from that part of the world and the colour of a persons skin and the evolutionary facial differences which have developed, signify a difference which we are often likely to be prejudiced against.

Culture can be fascinating and whilst helping to identify a person in the likely way they will respond to questions of faith, food, the importance of education, perhaps the work ethic, we would seriously misjudge a persons character purely on ethnicity.

And yet we do. We do judge people on the colour of their skin and in this way it can be claimed that racism is bad or at least a poor indicator of that other human trait, compassion and tolerance.
Compassion and tolerance, the ability to feel good will towards another human being irrespective of your intimate knowledge of him, is a mark of a civilised society.
There is also the matter of not being conversant with another persons culture and of how important his cultures norms are to him or her. My agnosticism does not trump his belief system, in fact the disregard for other people's likes and dislikes is at the root of much of the disharmony in the world regardless of colour. Colour only accentuates the presumption that we will differ in our belief system due to these variances in the way we were brought up and the values we gain throughout our childhood.
Difference leads us into asking questions which are unnecessary when there is a sense of conformity and oneness, questions which in the very asking indicate a presumption of "them and us".

"Them and us" leads to a judgement call, am I right or are they wrong, a foolish question since there is no plausible answer. 

The culture we grew up in is the product of centuries of assimilation.  It is not a binary process but a multifaceted experiential process still in progress. Worn like a stone in a fast flowing river to a shape and form made smooth by the passage of time so our culture defines us. Importing another dissimilar culture has the effect of disrupting the flow of the river producing eddies and turbulence with unforeseen consequences far downstream.
The accelerated rise in multiculturalism means we are rapidly approaching a crossroad, there will be no turning back, the forces which made us what we are. Dissipating under the force of a more determinant cultures than libertarian Christianity which has no answer to a harsher, more dominant religious servitude. The Muslim faith and it's hands on approach to the individuals daily life within its community cements is a powerful foe. 

"Love thy brother as thyself" assumed a homogeneity in which thy brother was a recognisable neighbour. Being an island the nations ability to assimilate was not difficult and generally there was common understanding as to the acceptable norms within the society. Now we are stricken to silence and hold our voice when we see the flourishing growth of different norms built on patriarchal views which for decades had withered in an attempt to find a more equitable society. Whilst the feminists fight the unwanted hand on the knee, a hand on the throats of all they fought for is close at hand, closer than they think and yet being the good multiculturalists they are it's impossible to voice opinions against any culture other than ones own.

 

Oxfam and their dark secret

Subject: Oxfam and their dark secret.

How puritan we have become or is it the herd mentality ignited by the media and the luvies who set its agenda, which draws us in and we become so sensorial.

Oxfam one of the oldest of the many charity organisations which have grown their business to represent the aid benefit of millions of pounds donated by both the general public and government grants, (which we must remind ourselves is again our money), money distributed in times of disaster to the impoverished and stricken of this world. Perhaps it's the only case of "trickle down" actually working.

I and many others like me have become sceptical of the business model on which these business's are built with too much being skimmed  off on management overheads. 

Fat cats sitting in large offices in this country controlling the organisation for very substantial salaries. 

The men and women on the ground in the crisis zone, much like foreign correspondents are a breed of very individualistic  people, people who give up the 'nine till five' and settle amongst the turmoil of an earthquake region or a famine disaster seeing things we on the 'nine till five' would rather not see close up and smelly.

Like the travelling salesman or the seaman away from home the trespass of 'home comforts' is all around with the exploitative function of sex and prostitution never far away. It's always a two way street the woman who sells sex does so because there is, relatively speaking much more money to be made than in the local economy and of course in some countries the attitude to sex in general is far more healthy than in our own Presbyterian souls.

Men have fallen foul to the wiles of women since time began and in some South American countries or in parts of Asia the "oldest trade in the world" flourishes without censorship.

So we have a story of men who have fallen into the trap of needing solace through purchasing sex and suddenly, they are the devil incarnate. The press and our politicians mainly women are in a frenzy of indignation threatening to cut off (the surgical option is still denied them but watch this space) all funds which Oxfam distribute. 

Never mind the good they did, never mind the the misery they alleviate now being amplified by one of the largest players being ruled offside.  Only the scorn of the 'female sisterhood', which knows no bounds, is now on display and we all had better listen - otherwise.

.

A United Ireland

Subject: A United Ireland 

Sometimes one reaches an impasse without quite knowing how we got there. Looking back it's a bit like Groundhog Day where the groundhog retreats into it burrow if the conditions are not quite right.
The complexity of Brexit each day reveals the bureaucratic nature of this world where governance in virtually all its form is covered by a multiple interlocking agreements. It seems a far cry from the 'handshake' which formed the basis of agreeing to a contract between two principle interests and resting on mutual trust.
Listening to the former WTA head who was taking questions from a committee of parliamentarians trade negotiations are all a matter of leverage. The 'common cause' has been supplanted by "how can I screw the most out of an opponent" and of course size and power determine the outcome. The major blocks, the US, China, the EU are the main players and the crumbs which fall from their table are the scraps which small nations, such as the British struggle with.
As a nation made up actually of four nations, England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland we are more susceptible to disharmony than most and this historically was at its most raw with the Irish and the war for their independence. Northern Ireland was like the runt child, a political necessity to quieten the powerful land owning segment within the English parliament, a mismatch of Protestant land owning interests set against a Catholic society who's faith was passed down from the early forays of St Patrick and his Gaelic Catholicism. "The Troubles", the most recent manifestation of the discord between the Irish Nationalists and the representatives of the 6 counties of Ulster and the link to England. Much blood and money was lavished in the cause but in many ways, the imperative of keeping a foothold on the island of Ireland from Westminsters point of view although historically important at the time now seems much less relevant.

Brexit has spotlighted the anomaly of the boarder between north and south, between the need to seek independence from Brussels and all that Brussels represents in the EU and its entrenched hold over the main body of Ireland in the south.

How is the boarder between the two parts to operate without greatly increasing the cost of shipping. How will the tariffs be accounted for if, as seem more and more likely the divorce between the UK and the EU becomes more acrimonious. Perhaps it is time for Northern Ireland to amalgamate with the Oireachtas, to unite as a whole on what is relatively a small island and stop the constant, seemingly petty discord.
Once upon a time, (settle back children and I will tell you a story) boarders and customs were common and part of the background story representing the nation state. The wait to display your passport and the lorries to have their papers stamped was a fact of life and we managed without to much inconvenience. The early manifestation of the EU was the ECSC (the European Coal and Steel Community) signed by 6 nations, its aim was closer industrial cooperation to prevent war on the continent, a forerunner to the EEC and its present format the EU. (The continual thrust towards Federalisation is what frightens the Brits the most).
Boarder and tariffs are an anathema to the global masters interfering with trade and profit but before we were cajoled into believing that a globalised economy was good for us we managed to trade independently with one another paying due cognisance to each other as independent nation states. If we wish to value ourselves as a community with individualistic foibles and not become some sort of economic profundity without form or face, then the delay at a border is a small price to pay.

The 'peoples bank' is going bankrupt

Subject: The 'people bank' is going bankrupt.

As we become hysterical  about the weather outside, as the train companies take their services off line (no pun intended) as the schools close and the authorities swing into action with their coloured flags to tell us whether it's 'safe' to go out, it all reminds me of a country which has become institutionalised and brain dead.
Of course their are people who have become stuck in traffic queues spending hours in a freezing cold car is certainly no fun but I would suggest that that is the worst which can befall you other than suffering hyperthermia as an old person unable to afford to switch on the heating.
In countries who are used to heavy snow fall and sub zero temperature life goes on as normal because for them it is normal but in this country we have a swath of 'experts' waiting to give their prognosis and not wanting to be caught out like the famous weather forecaster John Kettle who in 1988 said an approaching storm would be something and nothing but which turned out to be the biggest most damaging blow of the century they prophesy the worst.  Not wishing to enter the Parthenon of getting it wrong, everyone these days strays into the red of calamity, "stay at home" is the call.
I was listening to a long list of well known high street names who have recently gone into receivership. It makes chilling (the other kind) listening. Established companies, house hold names, going to the wall in the face of 'on line shopping'. Amazon's boss Jeff Bizos has become the richest man in the world as he continues to expand and exploit our willingness to shop from the arm chair. Goods of all kinds, things which you would have thought necessary to evaluate in some sort of way we now seem to prefer to chance our arm and order from a catalog of specification and a host of online recommendation.

The only people venturing out are the delivery people who will struggle through the snow, come what may to put a crust on their table.
Amazons quest to make their warehousing and dispatching automated and robotised, with driverless vehicles just over the horizon to deliver to our door makes one wonder who will be employable to afford the goods which Amazon displays.
A Brave New World is unfurling where the untrained unemployed will become evermore superfluous, a burden on the books, and the nations who hold many of them will go bankrupt.