To be a Franco

Subject: To be a Franco.

News has gained a reputation for being anything than just that. Fake news has gathered a following where people, for a whole range of reasons deliberately create so called fake news which in fact is nothing more than, propaganda to deceive.
This of course is nothing new Joseph Gobbles was a well known fake news expert in Germany and no doubt Churchill was not above the twisting of facts to suite his need. Of course before all the Churchill acolytes tell me there is all the difference in the world between a ministry of propaganda and a politicians penchant to tell pokies, I would agree but deceit is deceit non the less.

The latest instance is in the announcement that in Catalonia the people who voted to leave Spain and set up their own independent state were only 40% of the Catalan population. This salient fact excludes what we saw with our very eyes  leaving out the violence of the bully boy Spanish police preventing the voters from voting. Even those who had voted had their ballot boxes ripped from the voting station and the contents presumably destroyed. 40% seems to me to be an astoundingly high vote given the atrocious conditions the people were confronted with and yet our media make no mention of this in their reports when discussing the vote share. The bulk of the Catalans were baulked in their legitimate right to vote. 

The news is coiffured news, its news which is sanitised and made palatable by cheery presenters, usually a man and a woman sitting on a couch chatting as if they were guests in your living room. Their demeanour is happy with flip comments thrown around like confetti at a wedding. The news is part of a show, its main ingredient is the personality of the presenter, highly aid actors who we have become used to in our constant attempt to keep up with events outside our home. 

By the time the editorial staff have chosen what we shall know and the presenters have removed the sting, all we have left is bromide which for the uninitiated was the stuff they used to put in the tea of the soldiers to keep their minds on killing and not the Mrs at home (although the both could be comparable).
Fake news, propaganda, mind washing it's all the same, as our political masters feel the need for us to know what they wish us to know. Of course swilling around in all this is the news we get from the ubiquitous mobile phone camera which is uncensored, unabridged and maybe unreliable but at least it places us where the action is. We  see the Spanish police dragging women by the hair and kicking old men whilst they lie on the ground in a fever to respond to their political masters in Madrid hatred of this upstart state. 

Of course Spain has a history of heavy handed state intervention. The Inquisition and the Spanish Civil War were two events when authoritarian vigour got out of hand and destroyed for a time a sense of fair play. Perhaps there lies, close beneath the surface of every Spanish Prime Minister a Fascist yearning to be Franco.
But getting down to news and who presents it. Think of the day perhaps sooner than we think when these highly paid robots, the news team, will be replaced with proper robots. When the chance is missed to question what news the reader is being asked to read out to a gullible public. To raise our hand and say "please sir that is simply not true".

A New Zealand coalition

Subject: A New Zealand coalition

Events in New Zealand, the result of an inconclusive result in the general election has meant that a combination of political objectives now have to coalesce into a shared agenda. Some people particularly in this country seem to think that this brings inefficient government as if efficient governance was the only format to aim for.
The argument that the economic mantra of, 'ever more efficiency' means greater profit to someone. This 'someone' is never really identified since to reveal that you, the ordinary voter would not be the beneficiary might make you behave, not like the hapless person you have become but rather value the wider spectrum of political opinion that a coalition of political views brings.
No one party has the gift of covering all the bases which the ordinary voter has in their political mindset.  Firstly he/she the ordinary voter has no specific agenda, no particular financial gain to make by choosing one party over another. Unlike a small influential minority who gain to benefit economically from one parties success over another, much of what we end up voting for is ideological, sometimes tribal.
On the periphery of the Main Street, parties, the single interest groups like the Greens have a very important voice and a simple agenda, to "save our planet". This aim is no mean task and should be in all our interests to take common sense precautions, just in case and if it wasn't for those 'other interests' those who have the power and the money to buy conflict and maintain the status quo. The Donald Trump "climate change" deniers
the "global warming" refuseniks, the sceptics have the resources to paint the Greens as some sort of sandal footed hippy who grizzle about anything which has the opportunity to make a buck or two. For years  solar power alternatives to fossil fuel pollution was deemed crazy until Elon Musk the South African born visionary began to define a motor vehicle industry away from the petrochemical industry with its multi billion dollar  investment capital, into a fast accelerating battery driven electric car industry.
The Greens were the ideological force and Elon Musk was the creative, entrepreneurial spark which give it the dollar stamp of "I must have".
From capitalism to socialism and everything in between, there are supporters, even messianic individuals who's voice we turn a deaf ear to at our peril. The collective voice is  always more inclusive, always concerned for the other person, the person and it may be you who is always in danger of being ignored.
Democracy, one man one vote, was designed to bring everyone into the tent and a hung parliament where consensus has to be sort, even the irritating voice and concerns of the Greens has to be considered and debated. There is nothing more frightening than an ideologically driven bully boy and too often in our politics here in the UK that's just what you get.

Muddying the picture

Subject: Muddying the picture.

In an article in this months Prospect Magazine  by Peter Tatchell, the long  standing Gay activist draws a picture of a divided world with regard to LGBT rights. A world which could be described as a divide based on religious grounds, in which the Muslim world is hostile to LGBT because of its interpretation of a religious proclamation and the non Muslim world who are less and less convinced in the scriptural relevance of God. 

And so we have this strange dichotomy. A world which is drawing back from the teaching of religion but which includes and places great emphasis on "loving one another", putting its pocket where it's mouth is and accepting that the clinical definition of gender becomes, in some cases, blurred through no fault of their own, and these human beings demand our love. 

In the strict religious interpretation of a Muslim there can be no blurring only the surety of god's will that men and women are put on earth to procreate and only in a non blurred sense can this happen. 

Of course the physical turmoil inflicted on some people, especially the young even the new born brings up the question of god's will. How can a god of 'love and compassion' bring into the world so much pain and unhappiness. If our lives are to be lived in such a way as to promote god's teaching, how can a person who  is deformed from birth play this game on a very un-level  playing field.
Setting aside interpretation of god's word as defined through the different religions perhaps it's the way the West has evolved "interpretation" to cover almost everything we do these days. From sexual mores, to interpreting when life becomes life so we can kill it. The ridiculous trauma the very ill have to go through to find peace in death and the abandon we conform to on the abortion of potential life is mind boggling. A society which has so much compassion towards the LGBT society, literally harvests death on other parts of a potential society. 

The Muslim sees it in more black and white terms. They have little time for interpretation   The word is clear and unambiguous, the religious zealots see their role of administrating the word of Allah as fundamental. Of course homosexuality and polygamy, plus the freedom to have sex outside the Muslim community with an under age Kafir, only muddies an already confused picture.

Silent by the voice of one.

Subject: Silent by the voice of one.

One of the most difficult problems in life is coordinating your feelings, your likes, your interests, your passions when the people around are either not interested, not on the same wavelength, or simply see no reason to follow any example you might wish to promote since, through the passage of time there has been not only a diminution of the previously accepted modus  operandi but also of the personal respect you are held in and your own strength to keep reminding people who you are and why you believe in what you believe in.
It's said that these are your twilight years and the assumption is that whilst your light doesn't burn as bright, the glow still defines your presence.
The question of 'presence' is usually one of reciprocation and respect. It's a two way street, in which words are used to illuminate an idea but if the 'presence' carries the baggage of old age, and weakness becomes clearly evident in many ways, physical, and mental, and it becomes too easy to 'discount' the presence of the old.

But the fires which still burn deep and strong also demand a hearing in this clash of the old and the new. On the one side, the resentment of the old for not relinquishing, and on the other, of the new, for not understanding, which often brings out the most hostile conflict. 

The surety of youth and its new found 'experiential nirvana' often has the conviction of a 'religious revelation' and easily trounces the slightly tired observational basis which we all fall back on when we get older. The chasm is wide between 'dated experiences' and this new found surety and we do well to avoid mentioning it.
But if life is one of observation and reflection it's difficult to remain silent, in fact there is a responsibility, much as in a Remembrance Celebration, to remember  the old convictions which were the the tethering post for much of what we did.
If in the pursuit of peace and quiet you forget that these were hard won opinions and ways of dealing with the events in life and above all confirm the argument that usually an argument doesn't resolve the differences one iota. Rather draw back a little, into your shell, and dream of the day when all the issues you so willingly promote will eventually become silent, by the voice of one !

The heathens in Britain

Subject: The heathens in Britain.

As I have mentioned in previous blogs I have enjoyed reading the books of Paul Scott and his description of India in the early 40s. They are books about the twilight days of the Raj and the people who had settled within the colonialism of white dominance, and all the blandishments of a self congratulatory assumption, which in today's 21st century seems to us crass. But is it, and do our forefathers deserve the odium and blame that is heaped upon them. Is the prism of hindsight not distorted by current norms which themselves are bound to be called into question in the future.

From the endemic racism and snobbery of imperial life, on the one hand,  to the Bengal Famine and the sectarian violence brought on by Partition, the Kashmir problem and the endemic poverty of Bangladesh, all are laid at the door of a handful of officials employed by the precursor to the Commonwealth office and East India Company.

Of course catalysts are at work for bad and good but it stretches the imagination that many of the ills in India at this time and in today's India were not also home grown.
India, a vast teaming country has many fissures in it social structure ready to exploit their power. The Caste system of preordaining from birth the relevance of a person makes harmony across the nation problematical to say the least. The endemic poverty  which this Caste system encourages is not the fault of the Raj, in fact, if anything the Raj didn't do enough to try to challenge this Hindu obsession with hierarchical distinction, defining everyone into sects from which there  little chance to escape.
The job of a foreign power is not to baptise everyone in a new faith but to work with what you have whilst at the same time ensuring the benefits, such as contract and common law justice, democracy, transport and an ordered responsible administration for  individual freedom to flourish was no mean feat.
We tarnish the memory of colonialism at our peril. We see today the freedom won by many citizens from the so called yoke of colonialism, freedom which has dissolved into factionalism and corruption on a massive national scale in virtually every country that won their nationalism back from the heathens in Britain.

A world you were conversant with

Subject: A world you were conversant with.

"Ignorance is bliss" so the old adage goes. Do we in this digital age, know too much.
Does this extra knowledge further our desires to have what others have or lead us to become dissatisfied when we learn of our position in the league table of goods and assets.
Information is handed out by bureaucrats and politicians on a need to know basis. Listening to a sitting in the Scottish Parliament this morning, two eminent professors from two Scottish universities were being questioned about the effect of Brexit on Scotland.  It was interesting but then suddenly the session was brought to a close with the statement "that the open session was coming to a close and a closed session was about to begin". I wondered, since this was not a meeting where "state security" was being debated, why would they invoked a reason for secrecy, why were the general public excluded. Was it just an ego trip by people who clearly think themselves important and more important than the people who voted for them, gave them their jobs and in fact pay them out of general taxation.
Anyway back to the thesis that we have too much knowledge.
Our worlds are bordered by relatively insignificant things, of which, the cost of a loaf of bread is one of them but which little else rarely matters. Most world affairs are outside our pay grade as they say, even the crimes against humanity are pursued by people who have no influence over. The tragedies which have happened or are happening, there is little we can do but feel sorry for those effected.
The problem is that feeling sorry has a cumulative effect on our psych. We begin to feel uneasy at our own luck to be unaffected and wonder will it happen to us in the future if and when we are effected. For instance the list of diseases seems to grow each year and their causes with them. Our diet and lack of exercise is deemed a killer more dangerous than an attack by ISIS (no doubt is). The fall in our ability to have the money to spend on things we didn't know we needed, until some marketing executive got to work on our addled brains and convinced us of its necessity.
I come from a time when we were inclined to think for ourselves and form our own judgement. Before television streamed its views into our home, before people began to walk around with a smart phone to tell them where to turn.
In this pre television world your needs were governed by your own independent consideration, the ability to consider what actually matters to you, was gathered from a small personal compass, from the actual world around you, the one you knew and you were conversant with.

A world you were conversant with.

Subject: A world you were conversant with.

"Ignorance is bliss" so the old adage goes. Do we in this digital age, know too much.
Does this extra knowledge further our desires to have what others have or lead us to become dissatisfied when we learn of our position in the league table of goods and assets.
Information is handed out by bureaucrats and politicians on a need to know basis. Listening to a sitting in the Scottish Parliament this morning, two eminent professors from two Scottish universities were being questioned about the effect of Brexit on Scotland.  It was interesting but then suddenly the session was brought to a close with the statement "that the open session was coming to a close and a closed session was about to begin". I wondered, since this was not a meeting where "state security" was being debated, why would they invoked a reason for secrecy, why were the general public excluded. Was it just an ego trip by people who clearly think themselves important and more important than the people who voted for them, gave them their jobs and in fact pay them out of general taxation.
Anyway back to the thesis that we have too much knowledge.
Our worlds are bordered by relatively insignificant things, of which, the cost of a loaf of bread is one of them but which little else rarely matters. Most world affairs are outside our pay grade as they say, even the crimes against humanity are pursued by people who have no influence over. The tragedies which have happened or are happening, there is little we can do but feel sorry for those effected.
The problem is that feeling sorry has a cumulative effect on our psych. We begin to feel uneasy at our own luck to be unaffected and wonder will it happen to us in the future if and when we are effected. For instance the list of diseases seems to grow each year and their causes with them. Our diet and lack of exercise is deemed a killer more dangerous than an attack by ISIS (no doubt is). The fall in our ability to have the money to spend on things we didn't know we needed, until some marketing executive got to work on our addled brains and convinced us of its necessity.

I come from a time when we were inclined to think for ourselves and form our own judgement. Before television streamed its views into our home, before people began to walk around with a smart phone to tell them where to turn.

In this pre television world your needs were governed by your own independent consideration, the ability to consider what actually matters to you, was gathered from a small personal compass, from the actual world around you, the one you knew and you were conversant with.