Friday, March 18, 2022
FRIDAY MUSIC: Chelters and Irish festivity
Wednesday, March 16, 2022
Ukraine: a completely avoidable tragedy, by Sackerson
Other members of our family headed for the Baltic states and
were caught behind the Iron Curtain; we have no idea of their names and
addresses. Axel, the cousin our mother loved, was killed on the Eastern Front.
The farm, annually buried in winter so deep in snow that the family were locked
in and lived off stored provisions, warmed by the high tiled oven (a coffee cup
went missing for months because a tall relative had left it on the top), furnished
with art and fine furniture including an amber-topped table: who knows if it
still stands, or who lives in it.
Mother got to Hamburg, where displaced people were surviving
by stealing from the ships in harbour; her sack of swag turned out to be tobacco,
so she bought a pipe – she had used to half-smoke cigars for a fat old uncle to
concentrate the tar and nicotine in the other half for him. An American GI tried
to strangle her in revenge for the death of his buddy; mother broke his hold, climbed
over a wall and came to see his CO the next day so no-one else would be killed.
Then she met a British soldier.
Her parents made it to Holstein, where father, pushing
sixty, worked with his hands for the first time in his life; we still have a
painting by her mother of haystacks. Then Wiesbaden and a flat paid for out of
government compensation, where Opa helped refugees reunite; we have an oak
plaque from his former neighbours, with the motto ‘Die Treue is das Mark der
Ehre’ (fidelity is the mark of honour.) A big man, squashed down from 600 acres
with dozens of farmworkers, to four rooms in an apartment block.
Survival; but a permanent shattering of community and shared
history.
This is what has been wished on the Ukrainians, and not just
by the Russians. A word inserted by PM Johnson (among others) early into the
narrative of the invasion is ‘unprovoked’, presumably with an eye to dragging
President Putin to a war crimes tribunal. I can hardly wait for that day, so
that the other third parties whose meddling has caused this tragedy can be exposed.
Provocation does not exonerate violence, but can mitigate the punishment; who
would be coming to the court with clean hands?
Not the EU, gobbling one ex-Warsaw Pact country after another
like a Labrador with no appetite off-switch, even though nations it has already
digested have reason to regret their membership; so letting them into NATO, which
has played ‘What’s the time, Mister Wolf?’ for thirty years after the Soviet
Union’s collapse, bringing military threat ever closer to Russia’s borders
despite promises that it wouldn’t. Not the offshore-billionaire Zelenskyy,
almost a prisoner of his ultranationalists, trying to draw the wider West into
a conflict that raises the ghost of 1962 and surprised when, like the Syrian
Armenians, his supposed friends have left him high and dry. Not the countries
that have stood off but poured in money and weapons (what a bonanza for the arms
manufacturers who spend so much on lobbying) to ‘help’ Ukraine, so prolonging
and intensifying the conflict.
Now, months after Putin’s demand that Ukraine remain out of
NATO https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/17/russia-issues-list-demands-tensions-europe-ukraine-nato
was rejected out of hand, Zelenskyy has agreed, saying (he is his own
spin-doctor) that Russia is becoming more reasonable in negotiations; perhaps
the hawkish commentators detecting imminent Russian military collapse are mistaken.
Will we get back to Minsky II, but only after a reported three million refugees
and the vast, heart-breaking wreckage of the nation’s property and
infrastructure?
On the road again, the ordinary people played with by war
planners and geopolitical strategists.
Saturday, March 12, 2022
WEEKENDER: Has Nigel Overreached? by Wiggia
One of the so so green energy by products. |
The rebuff from Dale Vince, carefully groomed to look every inch the eco warrior, about smart grids is a nod to the fact that green energy alone cannot supply energy in a way that could ever be acceptable to the population or industry. Talk of breaks in supply and getting up in the middle of the night to use your energy ‘allowance’ is a step back in to pre industrial revolution times; why should anyone accept that and pay through the nose for it?
Friday, March 11, 2022
FRIDAY MUSIC: Tina Turner, by JD
Thursday, March 10, 2022
Tiddles: a counterblast, by Sackerson
Embarrassingly, Tiddles completed his D.Phil. at my old
college in Oxford in 2002 and I am sorry to say that for an intellectual his
thinking on religion and transhumanism appears jejune and he does not seem to realise
its implications. On the whole I prefer the anarchic yobs and Welsh drunks of
Jesus in the late Sixties and Seventies, whose Junior Common Room once elected
a goldfish as President on the grounds that like other leaders it went round in
circles opening and closing its mouth (an interpreter was appointed to convey
its rulings.) Bawling fools tend not to do much harm; it is the theoretical systematisers
and world-reformers that led to the killing of countless millions in the last
century.
Consider Tiddles’ facile remarks on religion in his 2017
Guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/08/virtual-reality-religion-robots-sapiens-book
‘What is a religion if not a big
virtual reality game played by millions of people together? Religions such as
Islam and Christianity invent imaginary laws, such as “don’t eat pork”, “repeat
the same prayers a set number of times each day”, “don’t have sex with somebody
from your own gender” and so forth. These laws exist only in the human
imagination.’
The Abrahamic religions postulate a God who both made the
world out of nothing and set the rules for our behaviour: the Creator and
Law-Giver; but according to Nick Spencer https://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-problem-with-yuval-noah-harari/12451764
, Tiddles’ position is that ‘There are no gods, no money, no human rights, and
no laws beyond the “common imagination of human beings.”’
if we accept that moral laws have no basis, then consider
what this implies for a thoroughly consistent rationalist: a world entirely without
moral laws that are binding independently of our wishes and opinions. David
Hume said in effect that one cannot reason from an ‘is’ to an ‘ought’; you can describe
what people think is right and wrong, and even why they may think so, but there
is no reason why you should privately adopt their view. In fact, it is
convenient if you don’t: I should like everyone else to believe in queuing for
the bus, so that I can jump the queue; this helps to explain why psychopaths
are over-represented in positions of power. All that matters (if you have any
care for yourself, and there is of course no reason why you should) is to work
out how to minimise the negative consequences for yourself of society’s
disapprobation of your actions.
This nihilism being so, it is difficult to explain why Tiddles
is in Schwab’s caressing embrace. Schwab may have a grand vision for future
society, but as nothing matters, there is no reason to help him bring it about.
Tiddles has expressed concern https://www.cbsnews.com/news/yuval-harari-sapiens-60-minutes-2021-10-29/
that in an AI data-gathering world humans are ‘hackable’, can be manipulated
more comprehensively than ever before. Is this not the WEF’s plan, to design an
environment full of blandly contented Stepford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stepford_Wives
people? Isn’t this what the Chinese are
up to with their ‘social credit’ system https://www.businessinsider.com/china-social-credit-system-punishments-and-rewards-explained-2018-4?r=US&IR=T
, intended to nudge their citizens relentlessly towards absolute conformity with
the CCP’s commandments? What is the point of creating a perfect world, but not
for us as we have previously and in differing ways understood ourselves?
The resistance to this nightmare heaven may have to come
from the irrational, the superstitious, the emotional, the capricious, violent,
stupid, human-hearted humans.
Dig your claws in, Tiddles, and leap off Schwab’s lap.
THURSDAY BACKTRACK: Music and news from 60 years ago - week ending 10 March 1962
1 |
Rock-A-Hula Baby / Can't Help Falling In Love |
Elvis Presley |
RCA |
2 |
Wonderful Land |
The Shadows |
Columbia |
3 |
The Young Ones |
Cliff Richard and The Shadows |
Columbia |
4 |
Let's Twist Again |
Chubby Checker |
Columbia |
5 |
March Of The Siamese Children |
Kenny Ball and his Jazzmen |
Pye |
6 |
Tell Me What He Said |
Helen Shapiro |
Columbia |
7 |
Wimoweh |
Karl Denver |
Decca |
8 |
Forget Me Not |
Eden Kane |
Decca |
9 |
Crying In The Rain |
The Everly Brothers |
Warner Brothers |
10 |
The Wanderer |
Dion |
HMV |
11 |
Stranger On The Shore |
Acker Bilk |
Columbia |
12 |
Walk On By |
Leroy Vandyke |
Mercury |
13 |
Softly As I Leave You |
Matt Monro |
Parlophone |
14 |
Little Bitty Tear |
Burl Ives |
Brunswick |
15 |
Hole In The Ground |
Bernard Cribbins |
Parlophone |
16 |
Lesson No 1 |
Russ Conway |
Columbia |
17 |
Don't Stop, Twist |
Frankie Vaughan |
Philips |
18 |
Theme From Z Cars |
Johnny Keating Orchestra |
Piccadilly |
19 |
I'll See You In My Dreams |
Pat Boone |
London |
20 |
Frankie And Johnny |
Acker Bilk |
Columbia |
Monday, March 07, 2022
Are we a liberal democracy? by Sackerson
In the New Yorker interview https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine referenced last week by our editor https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/who-is-really-to-blame-for-the-war-in-ukraine/ , political scientist John Mearsheimer spoke of the ‘disastrous policies’ pursued by America as it tried to impose the ‘Bush Doctrine’ of liberal democracy on Middle Eastern countries.
That raises the question of whether the UK itself is a ‘liberal
democracy.’ How do we define the term? The relevant Wiki article looks back at
a 1971 book by Robert Dahl and lists ‘eight necessary rights’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy#Rights_and_freedoms
shared by all varieties of such forms of government:
1. Freedom to form and
join organisations.
2. Freedom of
expression.
3. Right to vote.
4. Right to run for
public office.
5. Right of political
leaders to compete for support and votes.
6. Freedom of
alternative sources of information
7. Free and fair
elections.
8. Right to control
government policy through votes and other expressions of preference.
‘Freedom of expression’: we are familiar with the
ill-defined constraints on ‘hate speech’ but also on dissident speech on
subjects such as policy to deal with Covid and the efficacy and dangers of the
new medicines to combat it. Yes, the new media giants are also acting as
censors, but there is no sign that our government pushes back.
‘Freedom of alternative sources of information’: we have
just cancelled RT online so that we cannot consider inconveniently different opinions
and claims of facts from that source. Never mind ‘alternative’: who does not
see gross propaganda in our mainstream press coverage of Ukraine? How are
voters in a democracy enabled to make judgements in such a distorted
information environment?
‘Free and fair elections’: the current system for General
Elections means that many people like myself are in a ‘safe’ constituency where
their vote has virtually no effect, other than in some rare convulsion such as
the collapse of the ‘Red Wall’. We had a referendum on the Alternative Vote in
2011, but my recollection is that both the Labour and Conservative parties ‘bust
a gut’ to rubbish the idea. By contrast, I was astonished that the referendum
on Brexit was covered so fairly in the media, yet since then the Establishment
has obviously been busting another gut to neuter the result. Also, the party
system itself is a major problem – see how hard it is for independents to gain
a seat in Parliament, and how even a veteran like Frank Field can be ousted
when he fails to toe the Party line.
‘Right to control government policy etc.’ In a way it
surprises me that the government is responsive at all, given a guaranteed
five-year period before having to face the electorate again (unless they themselves
choose to go to the country early), and the ability to abrogate civil rights by
Privy Council rulings and passing laws such as the Coronavirus Act with its
‘carte blanche’ powers – which the Opposition allowed to renew without even a
division in the House. The current proposals for a ‘UK Bill of Rights’ look
like a further dangerous enabling for authoritarians https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/is-this-the-reform-of-our-human-rights-that-we-really-need%ef%bf%bc/
plus enshrining the principle that our rights are to be determined by
government and so can be amended or cancelled at a later date. Goodbye the
implications and traditions of Magna Carta and the Common Law.
If the UK were to sit a GCSE examination in ‘being a liberal democracy’ it might just about scrape a pass with 4/8, but hardly anything more.