Ponderings

Tag: politics

  • Tower of Ivory, House of Gold

    Human imagination is vast, and grandiose in its scope. Human capability and ingenuity seems almost infinite. It is apparent in the variety of the architecture around us, from the most ornate castles and palaces and beyond. The most magnificent examples of these are preserved in posterity, but others have been lost to attrition, war or natural disaster.

    It is a testament to our strengths and abilities as a creative, ambitious and inventive species that many of our oldest buildings remain. It is impressive, considering that these were made with basic materials that derive from nature, and fashioned with human hands. In spite of their humble and ordinary origins, there is still an otherworldly quality attached to certain buildings, like cathedrals. Christian civilisation traditionally looked upwards for inspiration, and sought both meaning and succour in the higher realm. The design symbolises the human desire for spiritual ascendance, and transcendence beyond physical reality.

    Sacred spaces do not necessarily play as much of a central role in our lives, in comparison to our ancestors. However they still have a sentimental value. We remain emotionally attached to these buildings because they represent something profound. The spiritual significance has dwindled in importance in our increasingly cynical and sceptical age, but we still acknowledge the historical importance. Our past treasures are always worth preserving, but often this realisation comes to us far too late. We realised this during the first few decades of the twentieth century when a preponderance of modernists and futurists brought new ideas that captured the popular imagination. Unwittingly this fashionable scorn for heritage and tradition allowed crudely atheistic, secular and mechanistic political ideologies to foment as well.

    The inevitable consequence of this was the Second World War, and all of the precious conventions and convictions that we once held dear were turned upside down. Civilisation itself was on the brink of annihilation. Barbarism was supplanting civility. When Coventry Cathedral was bombed in the Luftwaffe raids, this was perceived as a grievous insult to the English people and a grave assault upon the very soul of England. The Cathedral was a priceless and irreparable relic of Medieval England, instantly condemned to the ashes of history.

    This was a devious tactic of war. It has been employed by every invading force since the beginning of warfare. The Nazis were no different to the barbarians of ancient times, they were just more sophisticated in their actions. The attack on the Cathedral was calculated and deliberate. They knew that this one action could demoralise the entire nation. A demoralised people are much easier to subdue, the first stage of conquest in every war.

    The Nazis followed a familiar pattern in history. The Babylonians were convinced that they could quell the Israelites when King Solomon’s Temple was destroyed by King Nebuchadnezzer’s army. However, the Israelites kept their resolve and dignity in spite of the desecration, and similarly the British kept theirs, and evil was ultimately defeated.

    However the task of rebuilding a shattered society was much harder to achieve. Houses, offices and factories could be rebuilt but it was virtually impossible to repair morale. Life in post-war Britain was austere, spare and fraught. We may have won the war, but it was at a considerable cost to our emotional well-being.

    The entire nation was traumatised by the experience. The remnants of war were evident in the rubble and detritus, but also in the broken people. The governments that were elected after the war took a decidedly paternalistic approach to politics. The state managed the practicalities of housing, health and public infrastructure.

    However societal rehabilitation was not easy, as bureaucrats were not equipped to do this, the inner resilience of the British people was the only attribute that could be depended upon. We have been an indefatigable people throughout history. We are less inclined to succumb to apathy and despair, even in the aftermath of the English Civil Wars there was a sense of a common purpose and a strong desire to rebuild society.

    The post-war governments were praised for their efficiency and their dedication to the restoration of the economy. However this is a kind of folk memory, rather than literal history that prevails, an illusion of a strong, stable, secure and unified nation. On the surface, this may have been true, but underneath there were troubling insecurities.

    Fascism was defeated, but communism remained a threat to democracy, and the nation state. The young were particularly vulnerable to the allure of it, with its false promises and simplistic answers to the struggles of life. Idealists always look for something tangible as a solution, and believe in the rhetoric of charismatic political leaders.

    It is tragic to consider that the young and the gullible lack the experience and the wisdom to understand that perfection in society is impossible. They are easy prey for political charlatans who use sophistry to lure them into their web of deceit. Similarly, naivety can inspire the most reckless behaviour, all in a vain bid to solve the eternal mystery of mankind’s suffering. In William Golding’s visionary novel “The Spire”, Dean Jocelin receives a message from God, telling him that he has a divine mission to build a hundred foot spire.

    However his plan is completely impractical, and technically impossible, yet he pursues this project like a man possessed. Eventually his delusions of grandeur lead to his untimely demise. The Spire itself is a metaphor for the folly of man, a creature imbued with an innate sense of his own superiority, but in reality as fragile as a leaf in the wind. No creation supersedes nature, we must remember this.

  • Black October

    On October 7th, 2023 Israel suffered one of the worst atrocities in its modern history. Hamas planned this with meticulous accuracy to create maximum harm and distress, timing it to coincide with the Jewish holiday of Simchat Torah, and took advantage of the low security presence on the Gazan border. It was a deliberate and intentional repeat of the devastating events that triggered the Yom Kippur war fifty years previously.

    This twenty-first century version of war was filmed on mobile phones and then uploaded on to the Internet. However this was not an impulsive act of self-defence, it was a carefully co-ordinated attack. A series of rockets were fired into Israel, then armed terrorists proceeded to storm through civilian areas, including a kibbutz and, in a sick twist of irony, a “peace” festival.

    On that dreadful and unforgettable day over a thousand people were murdered, including 38 children. Hamas also took 250 people hostage. An embattled Israel immediately launched an offensive in an attempt to neutralise the enemy and free the captives.

    The battle against Hamas has been a war of attrition, but Hamas are showing no signs of giving in, even as the humanitarian situation with the Palestinian people continues to worsen. Obscenely, they even use the scenes of starvation and death as emotional blackmail in their propaganda campaigns against the west, and their implicit support for Israel.

    However the support for Israel in the west has waned over recent decades, as there has been a decline in religious belief and young people in particular lack the necessary historical knowledge to understand or appreciate why it is so important. In the absence of religious morality, the October 7th attacks are perceived as justifiable for spurious reasons.

    Israel fighting to defend itself from certain annihilation has been called “genocide”. This doublespeak is yet another feature of the west turning its back on its moral foundations. Also the meaning of Zionism has been corrupted by the nihilists on the left, instead of its actual definition as the self-determination of the Jews to live in their ancestral homeland, it is claimed that it is racist imperialism. This reveals a shocking ignorance, as it is actually Hamas who are the racists and the imperialists, as their entire modus operandi is to occupy Israel and conquer it, just as their Islamist ancestors did several centuries ago.

    The consequences of ignoring the plight of the Israelis are extremely dire, and coupled with the prejudices, black propaganda and the lies the future is grave. It is at least comforting to know that there is a growing coterie of people who can see through all of this, they know that is obvious that those who pull on the heart strings are themselves heartless, those who bleat continuously about humanity are actually inhumane and the same people who plead others to show empathy are in fact incapable of it. Amidst this despair there is a small shred of hope.

  • The Wretched Of The Earth

    Twenty-four years ago, on an unseasonably warm September morning, two hijacked planes ploughed into the Twin Towers. The worst terrorist attack upon Americans since Pearl Harbour unfolded in front of the world’s eyes. The entire world looked on in horror as two archetypal and triumphant symbols of capitalist modernity crumbled into dust. Thousands of people died in the wreckage. None of us have forgotten that tragic day as 9/11 is seared forever on our memories.

    It is often remarked that this was when the 21st century truly began. This horrific episode was broadcast in real time all over the world and almost simultaneously amateur footage captured by the survivors was preserved and then reproduced on the Internet. The Internet was a novelty back then, but many unscrupulous individuals soon realised that these gruesome scenes could be exploited and monetised. It was the postmodern equivalent of rubbernecking.

    In the aftermath of the attacks a series of unpalatable elements coincided. Globalisation accelerated, displacing and even removing the conventions that we once cherished and took for granted. History itself was disparaged, during the twentieth century and before it was appreciated and even revered. It was regarded as a noble and prestigious pursuit of learning and a necessary exercise in understanding the present. However the Millennial interpretation was completely different. A new and perplexing idea entered the discourse, history, according to these self-appointed prophets, was merely a tool of deception and manipulation.

    However the counter narrative was replete with contradictions. Ostensibly the terrorists chose their target to wreak revenge upon America, and their supposedly imperialist foreign policy. Vocal critics of America in the UK, seemingly divested themselves of any empathy, tact or sensitivity and excused the terrorists for this very reason.

    It was shocking that these pious individuals displayed more sympathy for the terrorists and insinuated that they were the victims of American aggression, even suggesting that they agreed with their actions. These were the same people who also condemned in similarly vociferous terms the deaths of innocent people in foreign conflicts. Adding insult to injury, they even had the temerity to advise the American government that retaliation for this heinous act was inappropriate.

    The most obstinate and intransigent critics of imperialism are ignorant that their society is a precious gift from the imperial civilisations of Ancient Greece and Rome. These Empires provided democracy, law and liberty but the self-righteous are unaware that these are not universal concepts, because they have such a binary view of the world.

    It was inevitable that such a vivid, visual and extreme atrocity aroused suspicion and rumour, and eventually the rise of internet conspiracy theorists. It is not an understatement to say that the world changed irrevocably from that day. This murderous and dastardly act was enacted with clinical efficiency.

    9/11 marked the beginning of what we now know as the technocracy. The Millennial age is Aldous Huxley’s nightmare dystopia made flesh. However we are all so deeply embedded within this Brave New World that we have forgotten how abnormal this is, normality has been forgotten. The generation of adults who were born in the Millennial age do not know anything else, for them this is how the world has always been.

    This is an era where physical reality has foundered, and a virtual one has sprung up in its place. An entirely artificial world has rendered a world of unreality where borders are immaterial, the past has no meaning and the human individual has been diminished as a mechanical part in a vast world system. No human appears to have any agency, and the fate of that human has been mapped out for them. Algorithms have rewritten the stories of humanity, as libraries dedicated to the art of learning have shut and machines have replaced them.

    Computers are a substitute for information but they cannot replicate human intelligence and imagination. They are an insidious imperial force. Unique cultures have been destroyed in their wake, and people have had no choice but to totally surrender their identity.

    Sadly, there is no clamour for “decolonisation” in the age of the machine. There are no movements to liberate us from technological enslavement. In an age characterised by apathy, dislocation, deracination, atomisation and alienation, our future as a dynamic species is doomed.

  • Psychopathic Gods

    On the 1st September, 1939 Nazi Germany invaded Poland, an egregious act of aggression which spurred Britain and France to declare War. German imperial expansion was rooted within the nineteenth century ambitions of the Kaisers. However the twentieth century incarnation was darker, sinister and murderous, demonstrating an arrogance on a psychopathic scale.

    Germany was humiliated and bankrupted after losing the First World War, a painful consequence of the punishing reparations. A broken populace was easily manipulated, and convinced by falsely charismatic politicians. Adolf Hitler offered fake promises, presenting himself as the nation’s saviour, but instead of a hopeful message of peace and reconciliation he set himself and his followers on a warpath of revenge.

    It is astonishing to reflect upon the fact that Germany, a country that was renowned all over the world for its culture, intellect and civilisation could have descended into such primitive barbarism. However devious individuals have always known how to harness the tools of psychological manipulation, and can even convince the most intelligent and rational people to suspend their reasoning and their morals.

    Chillingly, Hitler justified his pathological hatred of the “other” with allusions to scientific theory, a clear misrepresentation and distortion of biology, claiming,

    “Apes massacre all fringe elements as alien to their community. What is valid for monkeys must be all the more valid for humans”. This perverse reinterpretation of Darwinism ultimately divests kindness from human society, and simply renders it a cruel and stark struggle for survival.

    In his disturbing world view the weaker elements in society have to be sacrificed for the good of the clan, tribe or troop. Now, this sounds bleak, dehumanising and reductive. However during that time vulnerable and demoralised people were susceptible and the message must have resonated, albeit in a somewhat pessimistic, and fatalistic way.

    Tragically the good people of Germany had momentarily lost their faith in the heavenly saviour of mankind, and instead sought succour in this ungodly and sadistic version who did not help the weak, but scorned and eventually condemned them. In addition to this, Hitler had a future “purified” vision of Germany and Germans. He claimed that “all who are not of good race in this world are chaff”. This shocking belief in a supposed “master race” then inspired his genocidal rampage across Europe.

    The twentieth century spawned psychopathic gods. It was a century of cynicism, a period of history in which once cherished beliefs waned. People were less inclined to worship old gods. They sanctified their fellow mortals instead. Worshipping false idols was an unwitting disaster for the world. Totalitarianism filled the void in the absence of religion, and it was a phenomenon that ran across the political spectrum, from the far left to the far right.

    The priest and writer Richard Neuhaus reflected that if religion carves itself out of the public square then the square will “be filled by the agent left in control of the public square, the state. In this manner, a perverse notion of the disestablishment of religion leads to the establishment of the state as church”. In post-revolutionary Russia there were no qualms about destroying religion. Bishops were shot, crucified or condemned to a slow death in a prison camp. In 1926 monasteries were converted into labour camps, and monks were condemned to spend their remaining days on Earth toiling there.

    Man-made laws can be altered, but divine law is fixed and eternal. It is a supreme act of blasphemy to attach godlike attributes to flawed and fallible humans. The last world war was a vivid reminder of the evil that unfolded when people divested themselves of religion.

  • Who Killed Cock Robin?

    On the 26th August, 1676 the renowned British statesman Sir Robert Walpole was born. In 1721 he became the first Prime Minister of Great Britain. He was the longest serving Premier in our history. He established the Whig ascendancy in this country, reducing Tory dominance and influence for decades. He left an important legacy, and altered the course of British politics. He ultimately defined the role of Prime Minister, and was a model for those who succeeded him in office.

    His impressive reign was known colloquially as the “Robinocracy”. Walpole himself epitomised the era of excess, materialism and global ambition. His imposing appearance and personality symbolised the culture of this period. He was both literally and metaphorically larger than life. He had a gargantuan appetite for food, drink, sex, work, money and power.

    His prominence in public life began auspiciously. He quickly grasped the dark arts of politics and was an expert with all of the tricks and tools of manipulation. Politics was, and still is a game, and he could play other people to acquire the things that he wanted. He could be charming, but devious as well. Walpole’s rise to power could have only been achieved after the seismic events of the “Glorious Revolution”. This changed the fundamental character, and conduct of the nation.

    The Revolution helped to create modern public finance, and new concepts and innovations like the stock market, speculation, boom and conversely, bust. The most notorious example of this new phenomena was the controversy which became known as the “South Sea Bubble”. The South Sea Company was a joint stock company trading in overseas colonies. It was granted a monopoly to provide African slaves to Spanish America. These were considered assets, but to encourage investment profits were exaggerated.

    Spain and Britain were bitter rivals, and profits accrued in this trade were actually minimal. However the enmity between two major European trading powers did not curb the personal ambitions of the investors, who were convinced that this could be an easy path to riches. When the inevitable crash happened, eminent figures lost entire fortunes. This included the King, who was appointed governor of the company. At the peak of the crisis, one Parliamentarian died of a heart attack, another took his own life and one poor unfortunate was sent to the Tower.

    Walpole successfully navigated the country out of the crisis, he removed the company directors, seized 82% of their wealth and the money was returned to their victims. The stock of the South Sea Company was then divided between the Bank of England and the East India Company. His adept handling of this left a great impression upon the King, who was relieved that a major crisis had been averted. A lesser person could have led the country to ruin.

    Walpole in turn flattered the Court, as he knew that friends in high places could be used for his own gain. In the summer of 1727, King George I died, and his son George II ascended to the throne. Walpole was politically adroit and cultivated a set of distinct strategies in order to win trust, and to avoid critical challenges from his enemies.

    He enacted a spectacular coup within the Commons. He inveigled the MPs to agree to vote in favour of a bigger Civil List, which gave the new KIng more of a personal income than his father. In a cynical move, he also ingratiated himself with Queen Caroline in a bid to influence her husband and to look upon him, and his policies more favourably.

    He commented on this tactic in a typically boorish fashion. He had developed a manner of blunt speaking which reflected the crudity of his character. He said to his supporters, “I have the right sow by the ear”. The Queen agreed to meet with Walpole in secret to discuss government policy. When the King arrived for his official meeting with the Prime Minister, his familiar reticence was sufficiently mellowed. He became much more congenial, and eager to accept government proposals.

    Walpole believed that had a special kind of insight into feminine wiles and boasted that the Queen “can make him propose the very thing as his own opinion which a week before he had rejected as mine”. His powers of cunning and subterfuge were enviable, and the key to his prowess as a politician.

    However many of his fellow Whigs regarded him as a traitor and a man who wilfully sacrificed the democratic and anti-monarchical principles of his party solely to maintain power, and the favour of the King and his court. They believed that he had effectively sold out and become a Tory. Walpole was in fact exploiting the emotional weaknesses of the King, and attempting to appeal to his good nature. He used false flattery as a bribe, and the King in turn was extorted to bestow honours on to Walpole’s ministers. It was obvious that the Whigs owed an immense debt to the King’s generosity, as it consolidated Whig supremacy in Parliament.

    Domestically, Walpole’s position was assured but the French were threatening to wage war again. The Whigs were originally established to counter French dominance and aggression, but Walpole and the King sought peace. The odds were stacked against him. There was a perception that Walpole had put personal ambition before political conviction, and sacrificed the nation, its status and reputation just to maintain his dubious alliance with the King and his court.

    In 1742 the party took a vote of confidence, 253 voted in his favour, 250 against. However this was not a ringing endorsement, and three weeks later he resigned. Three years later, adrift in a political wilderness, he died. His impact upon British politics, culture and the way this country continues to conduct its economic affairs is incalculable. However the methods he utilised to secure his place in our history can also be read as a salutary tale of power, greed and corruption. In the realm of politics this is a tale which is all too familiar, and predictable.

  • Bonfire Hearts

    The 11th of July is a vital and integral part of Ulster Protestant culture, a day in which Unionist communities in Northern Ireland anticipate the “Glorious Twelfth” with the construction of bonfires. It is a tradition, which takes place every year to mark Protestant victory over Catholic forces.

    However it has had a controversial history, and the celebrations have been overshadowed by episodes of sectarian violence, and the threat of Loyalist terrorism. As a consequence, recent attempts have been made to restore the peaceful nature of the festivities, and to emphasise its real meaning. It is a pity that the historical significance has almost vanished in the wake of such malevolence, and the mischief of bad actors with political grievances. This year, contemporary political events have infiltrated the occasion, and almost sabotaged the proceedings.

    However, fifteen years ago, in Belfast concerted efforts were made to depoliticise the event. Bonfire committees were established, in order to maintain peace and to eliminate the divisive nature of some of the eleventh gatherings. They all agreed that burning the Irish tricolour flag was, in a literal sense, far too incendiary, and the display of Loyalist symbols and flags actually spoiled the commemorations.

    Belfast council later acknowledged that it was important for the community to gather together to celebrate their heritage and culture, but not at the expense of others, especially Catholics who do not share the same beliefs.

    The precarious state of Northern Ireland, and the ambiguity that prevails with its relationship to its Southern neighbour, and indeed with its tenuous relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom has been a source of contention since its inception a hundred years ago.

    A sense of mistrust has ebbed and flowed over intervening years. It is a tremendously emotive subject, as religious and cultural ties are not so easily severed. People will always remain attached to their beliefs and religious feelings. There is a strong sense of affection and loyalty, so loosening the knot is unthinkable.

    These deeply held sentiments are profound, even though outsiders will inevitably observe the situation differently. The people of Northern Ireland are in a double bind. Superficial reports paint them in an unfair light, as religious bigots, or warring tribes with no hope of reconciliation. It only suits the politicians to diminish people in this reductive way, but does not help the future of the union in the long term, or indeed its future in relation to the rest of Europe.

    However, the delicate and fragile peace that has been maintained for some decades is not a given, it has evolved and it was a huge sacrifice, both literally and metaphorically. This is not a new situation. This is a union that has been forged over 600 years. It is the foundation of our constitution, and it is the reason why the United Kingdom is unique as a sovereign entity. It is also the reason why the UK as a state distinguishes itself as separate from Europe, both politically and culturally. Unlike the volatile continent, the UK sought to conciliate, rather than antagonise. This has not been easy or smooth, uniting four distinct nations under one sovereignty has over the centuries been an almost impossible task.

    This was evident during the English Civil War. Basically, this was a conflict between two autocrats, both of whom professed that their religious and political authority was correct. Rebellion in Ireland ensued. This was vicious and bloody, leaflets from that time opined that “we have waded too far in that crimson stream (already) of innocent and Christian blood”. Unfortunately the bitter legacy of that time is still fresh in the memory of Irish people today, and many of them are too aggrieved to forgive and forget.

    Cromwell was eventually victorious, but his short-lived experiment as Lord Protector of the Commonwealth merely replaced the tyranny of the King with a new kind of despotism. The Monarchy was restored in 1660, but the Kingdom was a pale shadow of its former glory. The power of Parliament, in the face of absolutism had also waned. There were fears that enmity would rise again against the Crown.

    The last four years of King Charles II reign were autocratic, as he ruled without the interventions of Parliament. He was fortunate enough to receive the financial support of his cousin, the French King Louis XIV. Throughout these years the United Kingdom remained passive in the face of French ambition. After Charles’ death, his brother James ascended the throne. James’ Catholicism was more overt than his predecessor, and there were hints that he wanted to emulate King Louis’ absolutist style of rule.

    James’ illegitimate son, the Duke of Monmouth was living in political exile at the time of his father’s accession. Ensconced in the safe company of his allies in Holland he hatched a plot to dethrone the King and proclaim himself the rightful heir. His comrades and fellow conspirators were political refugees from the Whig party who fled when their previous plan to prevent Charles’ accession failed. They severely underestimated the might of their adversaries in the Tory party and were banished.

    Monmouth led a fleet of three ships containing eighty-three men to the shores of Lyme Regis in Dorset. This was the seat of English Republicanism and was renowned as a stronghold of dissenting Protestantism. He pledged that he would release the Kingdom from the “Absolute Tyranny” that was put in place by his uncle. Three thousand men from Lyme Regis joined him in his crusade against the forces of Catholicism.

    However these men were no match for the King’s Army. 500 were killed and 1,500 were imprisoned. The Duke managed to escape by disguising himself as a shepherd. Two days later he was discovered in a ditch, and he was summoned to London to face the King. He was charged with treason and executed at the Tower. The Duke became a martyr for the cause. The urgency of the cause became more pressing after King Louis reversed the Edict of Nantes, a law designed to prevent the persecution of French Protestants.

    The diarist John Evelyn recounted the effects of this reversal, stating,

    “The French persecution of the Protestants raging with utmost barbarity…The French tyrant abolishing the Edict of Nantes…and without any cause on the sudden, demolishing all their churches, banishing, imprisoning, sending to the galleys all the ministers, plundering the common people and exposing them to all sorts of barbarous usage by soldiers sent to ruin and prey upon them”.

    Parliament was recalled, as a new constitutional crisis appeared on the horizon.

    It soon became clear that James did seek absolute power, and to undermine the Protestant cause to re-establish the Catholic Church as the official religion of the country. It was fortuitous that James’ daughter was married to the Dutch King, William of Orange. William had more persuasive powers than Monmouth, and he was alarmed by the antics of Louis. He was afraid that the whole of Europe would fall under his absolute rule, and the freedom of religious conscience would be sacrificed.

    William’s English supporters sent him an invitation to enter the Kingdom. His arrival, in Brixham on the 5th November 1688, set in motion a chain of events known as “The Glorious Revolution”, when James was forced to relinquish his position and accept that William was the legitimate King of a free and democratic Kingdom. However this was not acceptable to the Catholic subjects in Ireland, who were loyal to James. They were known as Jacobites, and they resisted his authority. It led to an all out war, but the Orange cause was victorious in spite of the money that was lavished on the Jacobite Army by the French King.

    Today “Orangemen” continue to pay tribute to the man who helped to liberate them from religious tyranny. It is a continuing cause of celebration in Northern Ireland, but it is regarded with ambivalence in the Republic of Ireland. The Irish Republic was supposed to be a democratic, secular state, nominally Roman Catholic, but still hospitable to the minority Protestant population.

    However the fate of the Republic did not turn out in the way it was envisaged, the Catholic Church actually dominated society. The years of religious tyranny appeared to be returning with a vengeance. The veteran Irish writer John Banville opined,

    “The war of independence and the civil war were disastrous for us. The bad people took over. The partition took away that Protestant dissenter tradition and the 26 counties were left to the priests”.

    This was noticed by large swathes of the population. However the Republic of Ireland has evolved into a more secular state. Consequently attitudes towards their Northern neighbours have softened.

    There is a faint possibility that the historical achievements and contributions of Protestants will finally be acknowledged, not just in Ireland but in Great Britain as well. I hope that a proportionate and balanced view of history will prevail.

  • The Plastic Population

    The 4th of July is a date of immense significance in the United States of America. It is an annual celebration of American independence, traditionally marked with patriotic displays, fireworks and family gatherings. This year, the national festivities have an element of piquancy, in the wake of the Biden/Harris defeat which was widely perceived to be a universal rejection of globalist and “woke” politics.

    However this situation is not new. The USA has always struggled to define its cultural identity. Competing and often contradictory political ideologies are a perennial feature preventing the nation from fully realising itself. Americans themselves will have different ideas about what it actually means to be American, especially in the modern age.

    The defining picture for those of us who are not American, is totally different. The portrait we are shown of Americans is often unflattering. It is quite apt that this was the nation that popularised animation, as the depiction of the average American is cartoonish. It is sad that this caricature of Americans as coarse, obese, loud and over familiar perpetuates. It is, however, a goldmine for writers, who have rich material to play with these stereotypes. Many of them have a field day.

    The stereotype originates from the post-war period, a time of increased prosperity. Many Americans enjoyed the benefits of material comforts and luxuries, but there was a paucity of spiritual meaning in their lives. Their increased wealth meant that they became detached from their ancestors, who endured many hardships in their quest to build a new nation. Their sense of a shared history did not seem to matter to them anymore, as they looked forward to the promises of the future instead.

    In 1952, Kurt Vonnegut published his debut and prophetic novel “Player Piano” which predicted the emergence of what we now define as the globalist technocracy. It is an America dominated by machines, and Americans are the servants, rather than the masters of them.

    It is a desolate, alien landscape, haunted with ghosts from the ancient past, as he notes,

    “Here in the basin of the river bend, the Mohawks had overpowered the Algonquins, the Dutch the Mohawks, the British the Dutch, the Americans the British. Now, over bones and rotting palings and cannonballs and arrow heads, there lay a triangle of steel and masonry buildings…Where man had once howled and hawked at one another, and fought nip-and-tuck with nature as well, the machines hummed and clicked…the fruits of peace”.

    Vonnegut recognised that the American sensibility was characterised by conflict. Violence was at the core of its creation, it seemed embedded within the psyche.

    American society was admired across the world. Many people left their home countries, driven by the alluring promise of success and wealth to find a new life on this vast new frontier. However cultural and spiritual values were frequently set aside in this quest. It did not seem quite so important to acknowledge the principles of the Founding Fathers, those honourable men who built the foundations of the nation on virtue, civility and divine providence. Maintaining a strong and dynamic economy is not enough, a nation can only survive with a shared vision.

    Consequently, the hope that once inspired people dwindled into despair and cynicism. Cultural misunderstandings spiralled into malevolent sectarianism, and the rise of gangs. Civil society was under threat, but in reality this was always tenuous. The majority were afraid of minorities. Prejudice and discrimination seemed inevitable, and this tribal mentality was reactivated once more. In 1971, E.L Doctorow published “The Book of Daniel”, a work of fiction loosely based on the trial and execution of the Rosenbergs.

    Doctorow alludes to the subtle, and not so subtle undercurrents of antisemitism that coincided with the real fears that the USA could be torn asunder by the “Reds”. The fifties were a decade of real paranoia as Americans had only just defeated another foreign threat. Doctorow reflects,

    “Many historians have noted an interesting phenomenon in American life in the years immediately after a war. In the councils of government fierce partisanship replaces the necessary political conditions of wartime…It is attributed to the continuance beyond the end of the war of the war hysteria. Unfortunately, the necessary emotional fever for fighting a war cannot be turned off like a water faucet..like a fiery furnace at white heat, it takes a considerable time to cool”.

    Now, contemporary chroniclers have noted that President Trump has revived a new kind of fiery rhetoric in an attempt to unify Americans.

    However American civic society has been hanging by a delicate thread, it has been riven with cultural divisions for decades. The so-called culture war was a battle driven by the forces of modernity at the expense of tradition. The intransigence stems from those who remain wedded to the belief that progress is both inevitable and unstoppable.

    Vonnegut’s prescient novel predicted the ennui of twenty-first century America, as one of his protagonists laments,

    “People are finding that, because of the way the machines are changing the world, more and more of their old values don’t apply any more. People have no choice but to become second rate machines themselves, or wards of machines”.

    This brilliantly encapsulates the technocracy, and the consequent withering away of American cultural life.

    Americans have been accused of being the chief instigators of artificiality and fake sentimentality. This accusation was levelled against the main creator of such a hollow world, Walt Disney. Doctorow recognised this, in the closing chapter of the novel he observes,

    “The ideal Disneyland patron may be said to be one who responds to a process of symbolic manipulation that offers him his culminating and quintessential sentiment at the moment of purchase”.

    Obviously, the USA is not Disneyland. However individuals like Disney have been guilty of perpetuating an entirely false portrayal of America and its people. It is time now, that the true picture of the country must emerge.

  • The Ghosts of Empire

    On the 18th June, 2010 the exiled Portuguese author Jose Saramago died. He was 87 years old, and had been suffering from leukaemia. He spent his final years on the Spanish island of Lanzarote. This was an important refuge for him, allowing him the space and the freedom to write without the fear of censure.

    Saramago had long been the bugbear of the Portuguese establishment. His work was a great affront to those in power. He wrote from a place of profound conviction, determinedly opposed to authoritarianism in its numerous guises. It did not matter the source, whether it derived from the Catholic Church, the Government or the associated agencies engaged in imperialism or militarism overseas. Enforced conformity had the same effect, whoever enacted it.

    Portugal had an intensely turbulent history, marked by revolution, counter revolution and dictatorship. Saramago’s personal experience of living through this history both informed and inspired him. It provoked an instant and visceral dislike of any regime or institution that attempted to control the population. His approach, however, was characteristically oblique. He preferred to employ allegory and metaphor to draw out uncomfortable truths.

    His novels are part of a tradition of metafiction, an obvious homage to his compatriot Fernando Pessoa who cultivated elaborate literary personas, or heteronyms to reveal alternate realities. These characters are created to provide a mirror of society. It is pertinent to note that every authoritarian regime in history has deliberately manipulated the population to maintain their control. It is psychological gaslighting on a grand scale.

    The 1997 novel, “Blindness” illustrates this, in graphic detail. An entire nation has been cursed with the affliction of blindness, and is left wholly dependent upon the authorities. A helpless population is easy to control, and is easily manipulated. The state of blindness is a metaphor, an allusion to historical regimes which utilised indoctrination to keep people unenlightened to the truth. In the book, people are literally living in darkness.

    However Saramago’s most controversial work was the novel published six years earlier, “The Gospel According to Jesus Christ”. This was regarded as objectionable and offended a deeply pious Portuguese elite. Saramago was reimagining the Gospel in his own inimitable way, and attempting to expose both religious hypocrisy and the abuse of a divine office like the Catholic Church.

    Saramago was a staunch defender of the powerless, and he devoted his life and work to express his distaste of the exploitation and abuse of the powerful. Throughout history, those invested with power and influence have used their might to crush dissent. It is a strange paradox that Saramago is regarded as essentially Portuguese, and still bound up with the culture and the history that shaped him, but also the fiercest critic of Portugal as a political entity. He learned to live with the ghosts of his previous existence, and his legacy remains with a body of work that champions the courage of the individual amidst oppression.

  • In Praise Of Heresy

    We are living in extraordinary times. Modern existence is relatively comfortable, peaceful and harmonious compared to our difficult, violent and fractious past. We rarely pause and reflect upon our good fortune, instead complacency lingers. This is dangerous, because complacency is the breeding ground for ignorance and cynicism. Without challenge or adversity, our civilization will certainly die.

    People have forgotten that there were truly dark ages, it is almost a given that the majority of the population are literate and educated, and capable of independent thought. However this is not actually a given, as we live in the internet age. These machines have the potential to do all of our thinking for us. Curiosity will soon disappear, along with self-reliance.

    In the future, if this trajectory is perpetuated, all of our intellectual achievements will simply founder and turn to dust. Our intellectual capacities and abilities to innovate and inspire future generations will vanish. We must remember that the greatest scientific, philosophical, artistic and technological discoveries derived from original thinkers, who challenged the prevailing orthodoxy.

    It must not be underestimated how dangerous it was to dare to deviate from the mainstream. Strong and brave individuals were not afraid of ridicule or contempt. They fought lonely battles against authority with immense dignity. They often encountered hostility but to them this was merely proof that they were right. The most powerful authority figures fear any challenge to their dominance.

    It seems especially acute when there is a heightened sensitivity to supposed “misinformation” and “disinformation”. In reality, there is an approved narrative, and a few dissenting voices. Dissenters face opprobrium on a daily basis. It is relentless, some are accused of being “dangerous”, when more often than not this is just hysteria.

    There are controversial opinions, but this does not mean that they are inherently harmful. Some subjects are sensitive, but avoiding these subjects simply exacerbates the problems associated with them. It is unacceptable to shut down a conversation just because it is painful or difficult to discuss it publicly.

    The medical and scientific establishments are particularly tyrannical. They operate like medieval clergy, condemning those who challenge their dogma. Their arrogant disdain has in fact caused more harm than good. They are imbued with entitlement and superiority, and rather perversely this makes them appear ignorant. It is as if they have forgotten about alleviating suffering, and more concerned with consolidating their power over us.

    This situation is unacceptable, and more people are finding the courage to question things like vaccines and medications. Many people are realising the health benefits of healthy lifestyles, including sparing time for meditation or prayer. They are acknowledging the harms posed by certain medications, and realising that big pharmaceutical corporations are more focused on maximising profits rather than prioritising our wellbeing. This is a debate that is more urgent and pressing, and we need more heretics.