All Hallows

With Halloween or All Hallow's Eve almost upon us again, I note with resignation that yet again we have trolls on almost all the social media trying to claim that Christianity is/has "stolen" Samhain. I have today even seen something written by someone claiming it is an "ancient Wiccan" festival. Obviously she is unaware that the whole "Wicca" thing was an invention of Alistair Crowley and the "Golden Dawn" Order of the late 19th and early 20th Century. Actually, even they would be surprised by the claims now accruing to the movement which was actually formed in the 1930s and further developed in the 1950s by an unlikely gentleman who would, today, probably be involved in the investigation currently underway in the UK.

I read some of this with a yawn, simply because it isn't new, it's been known for centuries. Christianity even acknowledges that their calendar was organised to make use of existing celebrations and feasts, just giving them a "Christian" spin and purpose. After all, if people are already marking a season as special, why introduce a whole new calendar? It doesn't make sense to do so and will only alienate (which is what these neo-pagans seem to be trying to do) everyone. It isn't something unique to Christianity either. The Egyptians did it, adopting new gods and feasts each time they were conquered or conquered someone else. So did the Babylonians, the Greeks, Persians and the Romans. So what? If you want to hold a feast of Saturnalia at Christmas time, fine. Go ahead, but don't complain that Christmas is "ruining" your marking of the Saturnalia or demand that everyone send you a 'Happy Saturnalia' card.

Samhain was, in Celtic lore (and can we please stop thinking the only "Celts" are the Welsh, Scots, Cornish and Irish? Just about every people west of a line from Gdansk on the Baltic to the Adriatic are Celtic in origin. The name was wrongly applied by someone in the 18th Century to the Scots, Welsh and Irish. The Irish are actually Gael, and the Western Scots and Northern Irish, Pict), a time to commemorate the dead. It was believed that the realms of the dead and the living met at this season as the winter began in earnest. This has echoes in other cultures and faiths as well. It made sense to the early Christians to keep it as a memorial celebration of all the "Saints" and the day following, all those who 'wait in death for the coming of the Lord.' Like Samhain, it is a two day feast, All Saints on the 1st and All Souls on the 2nd. Somehow the fact that the feast starts at Sunset on the 31st (The monastic church "day" follows the Jewish - it starts at sunset and finishes at the following sunset) and ends on the 2nd November.

To claim it is "exactly" Samhain is also misleading since the Gregorian (and the preceding Julian) calendars differ slightly from the lunar calendar used by the non-Roman world.

I will be keeping the feast in the Christian manner. Remembering the lives of all the Saints who kept the faith alive through persecution, political manipulation and social upheaval. I will also be keeping the second part of the feast with a quiet remembrance of all those who have gone before me into rest, but who made me who and what I have become.

The Alarming Cost of 'Green'

The news yesterday that the UK's Prime Minister and his government are considering reducing the tax on energy generators and suppliers because of the impact these have had on energy prices, is welcome, but it will not be popular among the terminally ideological 'global warming' promoters and their supporters. The problem is that all this effort to 'control' the climate is a waste of time, and worse, it is an expensive vanity project. One that is pouring taxpayers and energy users money into the coffers of certain "green" orgainisations. I recently learned that Greenpeace is the owner of a number of wind farms and has major share holding in several 'green energy' suppliers - all of whom are in receipt of major subsidies from various governments.

But energy is just the tip of a very large mountain these organisations are constructing for us. One which is already causing some severe damage to economies in the west.

Yesterday I got tired of hearing the likes of Al Gore, various Australian "Greens" and a Greenpeace 'spokesperson' spouting total garbage about the latest series of disastrous bush fires in New South Wales being definitely the result of Climate Change/Global Warming. My ire was really raised when that journal from which I have long derived so much pleasure and information, the National Geographic, prints an article of truly alarmist garbage which included the statement that we are 'on course for an average global temperature of 50 degrees', completely ignoring the fact that to achieve this  would require a uniform temperature distribution and probably an atmospheric concentration of Carbon Dioxide that would wipe out animal life.

What all of these commentators refuse to acknowledge on every issue, is that their refusal, in Australia, to allow regular and managed control of the highly inflammable vegetation the continent is infested by, guarantees that every ten years or so, there will be exactly these sorts of mega-fires. Coupled with the ever increasing exposure of property and people to these hazards, guarantees that there will be massive property losses and life risks. But, of course, it isn't the fault of not allowing sensible bush management. No. Not at all. In their minds, its all because of Anthropomorphic Climate Change.

In these people's speeches one never hears of the role the oceans play in the climate. Oceanographers, and a small number of climatologists know that the major engine driving the climate is the massive expanse of ocean covering the planet. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the matching Atlantic bodies move and their position determines who gets hot weather, where the rain and snow fall and so on. Similar engines in the Great Southern Ocean determine where the rain hits - either Australia or South America in the Pacific basin, or Southern Africa and the eastern side of South America in the Atlantic. Another similar circulation in the Indian Ocean decides who gets hammered by the monsoon rains.Talk to an oceanographer, not to a Greenpeace mouthpiece or Al Gore. Get the facts, look at all the evidence, don't just assume that because some 'expert' says it, its true - he or she may be vying for a nice research grant handout and will say whatever will secure it.

I get tired of hearing that the damage along the US East Coast as a result of Sandy, the super storm (it had ceased to be a 'Hurricane' by the time it came ashore) was 'proof' that sea levels are rising. If you build on the seaward face of a dune field, and there's a storm, expect damage. As for the sea levels 'rising' in New York, there is a geographic explanation. The surface load of buildings, people and traffic on Manhattan is actually causing the island to 'sink' slightly. The Tide Gauge used to detect the rise is over a 100 years old and has never been recalibrated. This is often pointed out by geologists, but always brushed aside by the climatists who prefer their version and whose intractably anti-human attitudes are costing western society its economies, jobs, technological development and the ability to move forward.

At every turn, if we examine the costs of "green" policies, actions and restrictions we find that the cost far exceeds any supposed benefit. Indeed, the actions are frequently making the problems worse, so what exactly is the point?

Frankly, I begin to think that the majority of those who support the 'green' cause are responding to emotive and selected propaganda, not to a balanced image of the facts. They often don't know that CO2 is a 'trace' gas and fall for Gore's hyped numbers which are at best misleading. They don't understand that more CO2 means more plant growth, thus addressing one of the 'concerns' they espouse of 'global famine'. They don't know that their favourite NGOs and protest organisations involving them in 'direct action' are multi-million pound enterprises, managed and directed by ideologues who draw down massive salaries and perks - frequently also radical anti-society campaigners with anti-capitalist credentials.

Why is Greenpeace so opposed to the cleanest energy available - nuclear? It wouldn't have anything to do with their top directors all having CND credentials now would it? Why no mention of the ecological damage and cost of building wind farms, barrages or solar panels? It wouldn't have anything to do with the millions they and Greenpeace et al make from their investments in these industries now would it? Perish the thought.

It is time to call a halt to this self indulgent campaigning by the ill-informed and misguided, manipulated by some very shady ideological figures who have taken control of some well-intentioned movements. There are vast amounts of money to be made - for them - and the rest of us are being fleeced by their scam. Mr Cameron wants to remove the tax on the energy companies, but instead of removing it entirely, he plans to shift it to the 'general' tax base.

Yes, the Directors of Greenpeace and all the other 'Green' organisations are laughing all the way to the bank. They have a Goose laying Golden Eggs for them, it's names are Climate Change and Anthropomorphic Global Warming, and, until those who believe their propaganda and rally to demand 'something must be done' at every turn wise up and start checking the facts - we're all going to pay to make a small group rich, and destroy our own economic position into the bargain.

An Earthquake in Rome?

For quite a while now there has been a problem in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Limburg. A project to renovate several historic buildings and provide a new flat and administrative centre for the Bishop lay at the heart of what was in the media, but now it has emerged as only the tip of a very large iceberg which has finally forced Rome to take action. On the face of it, the project seems entirely reasonable. The buildings needed restoration, and the old Bishop's residence and office were no longer either fit for purpose or really habitable. So far, so good, but now enter a new Bishop in 2007, an academic with aristocratic ambitions and an authoritarian attitude, and things go downhill fast.

It needs to be explained to non-German residents, that the RCC bishops enjoy quite a degree of autonomy. How they use that depends on how 'traditionalist' they are, or how 'liberal'. The 'new' Limburg bishop belongs in the ultra-traditionalist camp, and, according to some of his disaffected congregation, sees himself as a medieval 'Fuerstbischoff' - a Prince Bishop in English - whose authority was not to be questioned and who 'ruled' his See without deference to anyone. That he also has, as do most of the RCC bishops, a 'private' Trust set up in the 19th Century which he may use 'for the enrichment and furtherance of the Church' means he is more or less independent of the opinions of anyone else as well. That is where the problem really starts. The Roman 'rules' for the expenditure of money on building projects require that Rome be consulted on any project over €5 million. The bishop went to considerable effort to make sure the way the project was 'costed out' kept each part of it just under that ceiling - so no one except his immediate 'team' had any idea of how much was being spent. In fact one senior member of his advisory Board, when questioned on National television, responded with the irritated exclamation: "Hallo? We're all good Catholics. We didn't expect our Bishop to deceive us, so we didn't question what he told us."

A pity really, because now it is revealed that the costs have soared to over €30 million, and likely to rise still to over €40 million when all the damages caused to adjoining properties are taken into account. How did this arise? Well, despite the impression created in the media, it isn't all going on the Bishop's flat. There are in fact ten major projects, the flat, chapel and administrative centre being among them. They do, however, form the lion's share of it, partly because the Bishop has a taste for luxury and partly to meet his artistic ideas (like exposing some of the 'natural rock formation' beneath his residence to the view of visitors - with a little 'improvement' of course) and to display some of the church treasures so visitors can enjoy them.

More important is the fact that the laity eventually smelled a rat and have demanded answers. One, an avowed member of the RCC actually fixed Luther's 95 Theses to the Bishop's gates. Another managed to gain access to the cathedral clock tower and reset the bells to strike 13 times at midday (the Angelus is rung by twelve strokes of the bell at Midday) which reflects a folk saying that the bell striking thirteen is an end. The loss of trust is enormous, and it is slowly emerging, itself an earth shattering event, that the bishop has more or less alienated all his senior clergy, most prominently the Dean of Frankfurt, and now even the Dean of Limburg cathedral itself has broken his silence and admitted he and the bishop were not at the same table.

The earthquake in Rome is that the Pope has now relieved the bishop of his duties, sending him 'on leave' to 'recover' while a commission looks into the whole affair and reports. That it has sent a shock wave through Rome is now exposed, this must be the first time in a long, long while, that Rome has responded to public external pressure in this way. While the bishop isn't yet removed from his post, it is clear he cannot expect to return to Limburg, itself a major departure from normal Roman practise.

What it exposes, of course, is summed up in the statement of that adviser - it is not done, by 'good' Catholics, to question their bishops. Rome has long enjoyed that 'status' for its bishops and other clergy. 'Ordinary' people cannot, must not, dare not, question their authority. This has led to massive abuses down the centuries. It was one of the reasons the Reformers fought to break away from Rome in the 16th Century. It was a major cause of the formation of the Church of England, and it was a major factor in the misery (and ongoing problems) in Ireland for much of the 20th Century with abuse of power in politics, in social issues and in the treatment of women and children in the 'refuges' managed by the RCC for the Irish State. In Germany as well, abuses are emerging (alongside those of the former DDR 'orphanages' for children removed from 'unsuitable' parents) and the repercussions are yet to be fully appreciated in some quarters. Rome is right to be taking definite action, but this is just one issue it needs to address urgently.

The Limburg affair has sent a shock wave through the Church and through Germany, but, as I said at the outset, they are addressing, at present, only the tip of a much larger iceberg. They will need to act very swiftly to deal with all the other problems before this loss of credibility damages them fatally. There is no place today for "Prince" bishops ruling autocratically, nor is there really a place for unquestioning obedience in matters of faith. Limburg will get a new Bishop, one it is to be hoped, with a more pastoral understanding of his role. He will not have an easy task, but neither does Pope Francis as he grapples with a Curia determined to resist any attempt to open some of the discussions Rome knows it must have if it is to retain or regain any shred of credibility.

The Minimum Wage Conundrum

The negotiations in Germany between the two largest Parties in the Bundestag (and to an extent between the main players in the various Landestags) is sticking on a couple of issues. One is the vexed question of "tax" which the smaller party wants to raise so it can pay for some of its policy wish list, the other is a 'minimum' wage level. I'll confess to having mixed feelings on both issues.

Tax is necessary to pay for a wide range of services provided by central government, but I also believe it should be kept low. No organisation in the world is as profligate and wasteful as a bunch of politicians and their cronies in the various bureaucracies that support them. The more we give them, the more they waste. The second issue is much more contentious, because there is a strong argument for giving workers a wage commensurate with their effort and with their need to feed and clothe themselves - and keep a roof over their heads, of course. However, the problem with setting a minimum wage level is that it has an enormous impact right across the employment spectrum.

Invariably it will benefit those who are on wages below the minimum as soon as it is imposed, but therein lies the first problem. Some jobs immediately become uneconomical, so employers drop them and either stop doing them, or find other ways to perform the function or task. A good example is fruit picking. The introduction of a minimum wage in the UK has meant that many small scale fruit farmers can no longer employ people to harvest their crop - so most of it goes to waste while the farmer moves into a direct market of "PYO" where the customer picks the fruit, packs it and pays the farmer. Alternatively, the farmer simply cuts down the fruit trees and moves into another crop if possible. It hits folk who used to employ the local teenager to cut the grass, mow the hedge or clear roof gutters - because they can no longer afford the minimum pay now required by law.

In removing the employer/employee negotiation for a 'fair' wage for such piece work, the legislators also remove a wide range of economic activity from the grasp of casual workers who are looking for such work. It impacts every wage and salary earner as well. Raising the floor limit of the wages doesn't automatically benefit everyone. Often it simply raises the lowest paid to the same level is someone who may be better skilled and more productive. One of the more interesting effects is that it often puts someone on a 'minimum' hourly wage in a position of earning more than someone on a full salary. I once calculated what my salary came to in terms of an hourly rate, and it was, on paper, below that of an hourly paid worker. I suspect there will be many people who will discover the same thing if they convert their salaries into hourly units of money.

Plus, when a government then raises the minimum - it puts pressure on every employer to raise all pay packets, which is, of course, compelling employers to award raises where they may be unaffordable or not merited.

A study by German research centre has identified that where there is a 'minimum wage' in force, unemployment tends to be higher than where there is no such limit. Economic growth and activity also tends to be slower or less robust when there is a minimum pay requirement. So that leaves us with a major conundrum. There is a natural desire to ensure that no one struggles to earn enough to keep a place to live, food to eat and clothing to wear, but, but the same token, setting minimum wages drives away jobs, pushes prices up and increases inflationary pressures. Not setting a minimum wage risks leaving vulnerable workers at risk of exploitation. So what is the answer?

Drive out low paid jobs? Reduce the choice of workers and restrict employers ability to set wage levels within their cost brackets? Or let the 'market' set the price? One of the options the Germans are considering would allow some work to be 'free' of the Minimum Wage and allow worker and employer to negotiate a 'fair' deal for it. That seems like a bit of sense to me, and certainly meets some of the problems identified by the research.

I'd suggest there is a third way. Don't set a minimum wage, but give a graduated reduction in 'support' benefits and a 'ladder' table for the payment of tax. At present, if you're employed, you pay tax, and so does the employer. By introducing a graduated scale at the lower end the low paid could be cushioned and eased into full independence gently. That would give greater freedom of choice on all sides and greater incentive to make the effort. The same system could be run with the various 'benefits' we currently provide to everyone out of work. Instead of withdrawing them all in one hit, they could be progressively reduced as the worker's ability to meet their own support costs rises. As I see it, that would be a win-win.

However, I won't hold my breath for such a common sense approach. Whitehall would find a way to screw it up and make it so complicated no one understood it, and politicians wouldn't like it because they couldn't argue that they were 'doing something for the poor'. Oh well, it remains to be seen whether the Germans will fall for the economic suicide route and kill off all casual work, or take a more sensible approach. They are, by and large pragmatists, so there is yet hope ... 

A Tricky Legal Question ...

There must be an irony in the situation of the Greenpeace 'activists' facing long jail terms in Russia at present. The organisation is always very quick to exploit "International Law" when it suits their cause, often causing major disruptions and expense for those who can least afford it, but now they are suffering from the effects of a much older "International" law. Maritime Law has long defined "piracy" in pretty clear terms. It is the attempt to seize a vessel at sea upon lawful occasion, and deprive its owners of the ship or its cargo. By extension, this applies to offshore platforms and drill ships. Thus, attempting to board one in order to prevent its use in the lawful pursuit of exploration of natural resources - especially within the territorial waters of the nation whose "flag" it would carry if it were a ship, is piracy.

I was stirred into a bit of research on this by the current bombardment of emails and Facebook postings asking me (and everyone else) to sign an e-petition demanding the release of Greenpeace's crew and ship following their stupid attempt to board a Russian oil exploration platform. The Russians don't mess about, their Spetznaz unit was on hand, and the Greenpeace ship was arrested, their boarders captured and now they are in jail while the Russians decide what they're going to do to send the message they will not be blackmailed by a protest group which sees itself as some sort of global super government agency able to take whatever action it deems necessary to impose its ideological and political vision. The former Communist totalitarianism may be gone, but the Russians aren't the kind of people to take orders from a bunch of western bleeding hearts.

While I have some sympathy with many of Greenpeace's ideals, namely the protection of rain forests, sensitive reef systems, declining species and so on, I do not subscribe to their 'direct action' tactics or to their propaganda campaigns based on the premise of 'apocalypse now'. The problem, as I see it, is that a well meant voluntary movement has become a multi-billion pound Non-Governmental Organisation run and managed by political ideologues who enjoy six figure incomes from the proceeds of the fund raising and campaigning, while exploiting young volunteer idealists and adventurers to further their vision of global government. Their planned reduction of the use of 'carbon' producing fuels is not producing the results they claim to want, but the kickbacks from the producers of wind farms, solar panels and so on is certainly filling their pockets and coffers. Their proposals are largely anti-industrial, anti-capital and, by extension, anti-humanity. Why? Largely because it is only by industrialisation that we can sustain and feed the current population of the globe.

Thus, if we drive 'capital' out of the west - one of their declared objectives - and impose a 'redistributive' economy (another declared objective), we can expect to see a rapid decline in living standards for a majority, and a rise in dependence on handouts among those trapped in the lower end of the economy. Of course, the Greenpeace ideologues don't like to admit it, but the real purpose is to achieve a reduction in numbers and an end to 'consumption' economies. Some probably do believe that a forced return to subsistence and self-supporting 'village' community life will bring about a sort of idyllic Utopia, and their followers certainly seem to think that the electricity erratically generated by a few windmills will enable them to continue to enjoy the benefits of their electronic lifestyles, but, frankly, that is where ideology and reality are at opposite ends of the galaxy.

It amused me in this past week, to hear a Greenpeace spokesperson stating that their boarding team were 'peaceful and offered no threat' in their attempt to board the rig, before going on the claim that the defenders used 'disproportionate force' to prevent it. The point missed by this earnest buffoon is that the boarding attempt was, in itself, a form of 'threat' irrespective of whether they attempted to use violence to seize the platform. The operations on these rigs is extremely dangerous, and having some untrained idiot activist running loose on one attempting to tamper with valves, tie banners or anything else to it endangers everyone on the rig. That is a threat that cannot be ignored or tolerated.

No, I will not be signing the Greenpeace petitions. They have committed piracy, and it is time they were brought to heel. No, I will not be giving them any donations to help 'defend' their actions either. Piracy is piracy, just as any form of terror tactics is an attempt to bully people into accepting the minority view as the only option. 'Direct action' is just that, an attempt to use the threat of being deprived of access to your employment, your income, the heating of your home or the use of your car, by a small and often obnoxious minority to impose their minority view on a majority. Sometimes it borders on terrorism, and terrorism is unacceptable in any society.

New Blog

Today I am pleased to declare that I have installed a new Blog on my blogroll. It is the Blog set up by the Diocese of Gloucester and, though I don't agree with some of the articles posted, that is also acceptable. In a society like ours it is important that ALL views are expressed and considered. I have always believed that one should never read, listen to, or follow only one side of any discussion, no matter how strongly one feels on the subject. A balanced opinion can only be obtained if one considers all the information available on any given subject.

It will, I hope, not surprise many of my readers to realise that I do agree with far more on the Diocesan Blog than I take leave to differ on. That is probably also as it should be. I hope that readers here will go to the Gloucester blog and find a great deal to think about, perhaps discuss and even argue over. It is a new venture by the Diocese, and I hope it finds a wide audience, both within and without the church. Give it a try, I'm sure you'll be pleasantly surprised by some of the posts and topics. I have no doubt there will be articles you disagree with, but the 'other perspective' is an essential part of being informed.

Leave of Absence ...

The Monk has been in Belgrade for the last several days. The purpose of the visit was to deliver a paper at a conference held by the Serbian Fire Protection organisation DITUR. It has proved to be an interesting and rewarding experience. The Monk freely admits that he has been very fortunate to be able to travel to many countries as a 'guest' of his professional colleagues and has always been very well looked after. He has also had, as a result, the opportunity to see and experience at first hand aspects of the host country and society that he would not have if he were to go there as a 'tourist'.

Westerners often have a view of a country or nation largely coloured by what they have read in newspapers (almost invariably negative) or seen on television. We tend to form our opinions from limited sources and often negative reporting on some event in any given country. Quite often the experience of the traveller is distinctly at odds with the 'information sources' consulted. So it is with the Serbs. Theirs is an ancient culture, but it is one that suffers from having been sandwiched between many different empires down the ages. The Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Magyars, Turks and eventually Austro-Hungarians and the Russians have all had a go at dominating and absorbing them. In recent years NATO had a go and the scars are still present, yet the welcome couldn't be warmer, the desire to be accepted as a part of Europe, and perhaps above all, to be recognised as having some legitimate concerns regarding the annexation of land they settled long before the Byzantines and their successors imposed their rule, to provide expansion for some of their more recently arrived neighbours.

There is a rich cultural mix in Serbia. It is now re-emerging in the post communist nation, and they are rebuilding their culture, their lifestyle and their country. There can't be many republics that welcome back the descendant of their former Royal House, and give him an official residence!

It has been a very interesting visit, the Monk's second to this fascinating city, and once again he has found the people welcoming, the atmosphere relaxed, friendly and hopeful. His contact with shopkeepers, hotel staff and the delegates was marked by their warmth, friendliness and by their willingness to help at every level. Should any reader have the opportunity to visit this country and the city of Belgrade - don't hesitate. The experience will be rewarding.