Thriving on Angst?

I have observed before this, that our current society seems to thrive on feeding the angst of individuals. Those individuals form groups and those groups share their angst, some going so far as to adopt an almost religious fervour about it. Yesterday the news was that "food anxiety" is making some people over eat. OK, so someone obviously did some research to arrive at that conclusion. Today's news in our local newspapers is that "a majority of children in Germany fear falling into poverty." This, of course, has been seized upon by political opponents of the reforms currently being implemented on "child welfare" payments. The more I look about me, the more hysterical responses I see to just about everything. What on earth has gone wrong with us?

I do believe that a lot of this has its roots in the slaughter of the trench war in 1914 - 18. The survivors emerged from that to breed a generation who would have preferred to let Hitler, Stalin and others run rampant across the world. "Peace in our time!" and "never again" were the watchwords that let Hitler gain the control he did, small step by small step. It was this thinking - coupled with the very influential writing of "thinkers" like Russell and Huxley, that produced a tongue clucking, do nothing approach as Stalin clamped down on "dissidents" and "enemies of the Revolution" and murdered millions. Finally, when a war against the evil of Nazi-ism became unavoidable, the Left was quite happy to get into bed with Uncle Joe when Hitler made the mistake of opening a war on the Russian Front. Churchill had his reservations, but was prepared to get into bed with Satan himself, to defeat Hitler.

Once the A-Bomb was dropped and the "World" conflict ended, we began a series of "Little Wars" starting with the Communist invasions of Korea. As the Cold War developed, so more and more of these "little" wars opened up with each side arming, training and supporting rival groups - so now we have the Taliban, once the allies of the US, in Afghanistan. We have Mugabe in Zimbabwe, we have Marxist Regimes in Mozambique and Angola, and various "terror" groups, including Al Qaeda all active around the world and all supported now by the proceeds of organised crime, drug trafficking or by various "secret services" still engaged ion what the British used to call "The Great Game." While Europe didn't have any more "major" conflicts, many of us in the former "colonial territories" fought and died in these "Little Wars" on behalf of the great powers.

It is in the legacy of the Second World War that we find the origins of today's angst ridden society. Drug trafficking really took off in the 1955 - 75 period as a means of undermining "the other sides" youth and for funding these "enterprises." So did the psychological campaigns. The KGB funded and supported the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) feeding the pacifist leaders with all manor of information and disinformation as well as funding. Creating the idea in everyone's mind that a nuclear strike was the first option in any future conflict fostered the belief in many minds that humanity was doomed. This has been transferred into the anti-nuclear power generation movement, where, frankly, when one actually listens to what they have been taught to believe about nuclear reactors and the waste, you do wonder why these otherwise intelligent people don't check their facts. Look at the literature of the period 1950 - 1980, it is full of "doomsday" visions - and some persist even now. The Hollywood movie "The Road" being a good example.

Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, World Wildlife Fund and other "Green" Groups thrive on creating fear in our society. Look at their constant bombardment of "information" in the media, it is full of "doomsday" scenarios, many of them unsubstantiated, unsubstantiatable and for the most part, unchallenged and unchecked by the mass media and the readers of it. By creating angst about the changes in our climate, the fate of polar bears or whales, they generate revenue for their campaigns and recruit hordes of young people to take part in their mass demonstrations or to man the ships they send out to disrupt operations they disapprove of.

All of us have some "angst" in our psyche, what I don't believe is healthy is the current rampant exploitation of it for political ends. Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, CND and all the rest are not "impartial" purveyors of information. They have a vested interest in making people believe we should throw money at their causes, join their campaigns and change our society to their vision of Utopia. Greenpeace alone receives a very large handout from the US government and from the UK, so do others. Keeping us "afraid" protects that income. The same applies to many UN "Agencies" and to the "Climate Change/The Sky is Falling" Industry.

What they don't acknowledge is that they loathe our current society and are actually about returning to some Utopian vision of the past, rather on the lines of Wordsworth and Shelley who loathed the industrialisation of Britain. From their privileged and wealthy background, they wanted a world that continued in what they perceived to be ideal. A world of Cottage industries, agricultural labourers living in poverty on the generosity of the landowner and the "huddled masses" knowing their place. Read their manifestos and you see words and phrases straight out of Marx and Lenin - "redistribution of wealth," "egalitarian society" and "communal resources."

The angst is not just confined to the "Green" and "Anti-Nuclear" lobbies either, it spills across religion, politics and into areas such as child care, health care, safety and much, much more. Reading the leaflets put out by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) and others, one could be excused for thinking that every father is a potential rapist of his sons and daughters, every mother a potential child killer and heaven forbid we should let the grandparents childmind! That is not to say there isn't child abuse, just that it is neither as widespread nor as prevalent as the propagandists make out. When one sees them resort, on television, to such tactics as saying "Ah, yes, the statistics show only 2% of children in the UK are abused," then quickly adding, "but our 'evidence' suggests that the figure is far higher, and every child ..." without producing any 'evidence', you should immediately have alarm bells ringing. This is how so called "experts" are able to stand up in courts and make outrageous charges and statements without anyone daring to challenge them.

Our society seems to thrive on this bombardment of anti-social propaganda. The trouble is, even if it is, as I believe, only a fraction of the population who do suffer from this, they are the ones who get into the news. They are often the ones the news media are playing to, so it becomes a self perpetuating cycle.

What we do need to recognise is that it is, ultimately, self destructive. All the "Green" campaigns cost jobs and drive up taxes. The "jobs" "Green" initiatives create tend to be non-productive and paid for out of tax or subsidies paid by tax ... All the "anti" campaigns also cost jobs and cost lost production, so the taxes go up, but the steady erosion of the tax base also means less to collect. Fear of child abuse has produced a generation who believe the world is to be treated with suspicion, that all adults are only after one thing and we wonder why our kids carry knives to school or to the Mall. We've raised a generation of kids afraid of going without the latest "trainers," toys, iPhone or Playstation. They're afraid of strangers, afraid of being poor, afraid of living and afraid of dying. How do we expect them to cope?

Frankly, if we are to survive as a society and as a civilisation we need to rid ourselves of quite a bit of this "angst" and put things back into proper perspective. But my "angst" is that we probably won't ...

Changing Climate ...

Today's Frankfurter Algemeine - a serious daily newspaper - carries a lengthy article today by someone in the Greenpeace/Green Party camp, essentially attempting to rubbish some recent research papers published in the UK, Scandinavia and elsewhere. These argue that the "Global Warming" is affected by solar output and a host of other things. Disappointingly, the Algemeine, an otherwise excellent newspaper, simply resorts to references from the now discredited IPCC 4 report of 2007 and ignores a host of other observed and measurable indicators which all point to the IPCC/Greenpeace claims being hype.

The solar variability is simply dismissed, so is the evidence of false readings from weather stations situated in heat islands and the gap between what satellites are measuring and what is being used in the infamous "models." They rely on the IPCC 2007 report to support their statements and beliefs that the solar output is "fixed" and non-variable. In this they ignore the plethora of evidence that shows the lie in that and in several other supposedly "fixed" measurements.

This article has appeared just as the protests against more "windräder" begins to gather momentum. It has to be said that those who want more of these infernal machines to cover every available bit of open ground, don't have to live with them. Those that do, want them torn down, chopped up and removed from the face of the earth. They claim to be generating around 30% of Germany's electrical needs, but when this claim is examined more closely the weasel words "on average" appear in the text. Interestingly, in the UK, during the coldest period in decades, the wind farms supplied just 0.01% of the power in the national grid. Why? Well, the wind speeds where either to high or to low for them to work.

The article also appears to be an attempt to deflect people, currently suffering sub-zero temperatures for a prolonged period now, from asking the all important question - why, if the planet is warming, are we suffering in this cold? Why are we expected to believe that the latests series of solar flares which produced some spectacular Northern Lights displays, have had no impact on the weather at all? Why should we believe the people who, ten and fifteen years ago, where telling us that icy winters, snow and frozen rivers were a thing of the past?

The climate is changing, it has been changing for millennia. It goes through cycles. We know the Roman period was warmer than we are at present - they cultivated vines for wine in Cumbria! We know that Greenland has been warmer - they could keep cows there in 800 - 1000 AD, but can't now. Five hundred years ago, the Medieval Warm Period came to an end and we had a Little Ice Age. Since the late 1890s its been getting warmer - but let's be honest, the 1930s were drier, and in some places warmer than at present. The IPCC "its getting hotter and we're all gonna die ..." is a scam. The manner in which they determine the "temperature trend" is a scam. If you want to know the "average for something you need to median between the highest and the lowest, not, as someone from the Met Office in the UK admitted, take an average of the "Highs" only.

We've had very little snow this year, it's been too cold and too dry. But south of us, the Alps and the Mediterranean copped the lot. So did the UK and last night we even got some very fine powdery stuff here.

Picking up on the comments made by Josephus the other day about pollution I would add that we do have to clean up our act. We do have to reduce the particulates we pump out, and we certainly have to reduce our reliance on oil, but to place all our reliance on "windräder" is stupid. It is as stupid as doing nothing. In all seriousness we need a balance and we need to stop and think and critically examine what we are fed from the newspapers. All too often it is nothing more than someone's latest bid for tax funds for their "research" and may not be either the truth or even a part of the truth. It is certainly never, the whole truth.

Carnival Time ...

It's Carnival time in Germany. The "Fastnacht" season is a tradition that goes back to the French invasions and occupations of the Rhineland and quite a bit East of it at various times since Louis XIV sat on the French throne and cherished ambitions of being an "Emperor" of all Europe. The tradition grew up of celebrating a season leading up to Lent, in which carnival parades, parties and poking fun at politicians is the order of the day.

There are societies that spend all year planning their "Fastnacht" activities and the costumes are fabulous. This is not "Mardi Gras" or the Notting Hill Carnival, this is a long standing part of German culture and everyone shares in the fun. It's televised, people turn up in their thousands for the parades and no politician would dare refuse an invitation to the dinners and shows - you may be very sure they would be lampooned mercilessly and never allowed to forget it.

Anyone who thinks the German's have no sense of humour needs to visit during Fastnacht.

The "Arab Spring" ...

So hailed and welcomed by liberal factions in the West seems to have bogged down in some theaters and taken a decidedly "unliberal" turn in others. As the Monk feared some months ago when the media was full of talking heads from the Liberal/Left burbling happily about "popular uprisings" spelling "a new wave of freedom and the spread of human rights" in North Africa and other Arab nations, not many seem to have elected or created "liberal" regimes. There may be new "freedom" and "democracy" but the elections in Tunisia clearly showed that the theocratic conservatives are far better organised and far more efficient at mobilising their vote.

In Egypt the protests continue, the military don't intend to give up their power easily, that much is clear. The army in Egypt owns a large proportion of the tourist resorts and operations. They are certainly not going to surrender their grip on the wealth creating organs that sustain them, nor on the ability it gives them to control the economy.  Who would replace them anyway, there are competing factions for the popular vote and all of them must win at least some support from the military if they have any hope of being allowed to continue. Again, the Fundamentalist Muslim movements are far better organised and prepared to mobilise their "ballot fodder" than anyone else. In Syria, Russia and China have a lot to lose if the Assad regime is overthrown, so the civil war continues, though, as far as I can see, the media seem to continue to play it down and present it as "rioting" and "demonstrations." Once again, it is the fundamentalists who seem to be in control.

There are those who blame Israel for this swing to the extreme, but I don't think this is the whole picture. It is, as ever, a very complex problem and there are certainly indications that Iran's current leadership may have a hand in some of it. There are enormous tensions across the Muslim world, tensions which can easily explode. On the one hand you have those who, with education, travel in the rest of the world and a certain level of luxury in their lives, want to see a more relaxed and liberated lifestyle in their homelands. Then there are the others, sadly supported by the majority who have been raised on a diet of fear of allowing any deviation from the strict application of the Sharia, who wish to impose even more draconian rule in the name of God.

Caught in the middle are the vast majority who want nothing more than a safe place for their children to grow up, good schooling, health care, decent homes, a small car and the ability to buy the few small luxuries they can afford. As in the west, there are the mega-rich, those who are doing very nicely, those who would like a bit more and a majority have very little, would like a bit more of, and are reasonably content with their lifestyles. It would be easy to blame the religion, but again, it isn't that simple. Think of what life must have been like under Cromwell and his Puritans and Presbyters. Now you have some idea of what it is like to be an ordinary person in one of the lands currently swinging between autocratic rule and theocratic rule ...

Sadly, I suspect that this situation has a long way to go before it is finally settled. For one thing, it is the people standing behind the ruler you have to watch. Often the "Ruler" is little more than a figurehead for the wealthy and powerful people in the shadow of the "throne." That is almost certainly the case with Assad and with Ahmedinejad. When they are no longer useful to the wealthy class who have their hands on the real instruments of power and wealth - they will go. Who will replace them remains to be seen, but, as with the story of the man who had a demon cast out by Christ, the vacuum was refilled by worse.

That, sadly, is what I expect to see when Assad finally goes. As for Iran; I don't really know. The Ayatollahs are well entrenched and the Revolutionary Guard answers directly to them, so do the "Secret" Religious Police. The supreme irony there is that Ayatollah Khomeni himself warned against the religious leaders being involved in government. Sadly, as with any power structure, the allure of power was and remains, too great.

Global Climate ...

Is obviously up to something, but probably not what the Durban IPCC/Greenpeace bunfight attendees  think. I found this interesting blog post from some scientists which give a very interesting temperature curve picture - not showing warming, but the reverse. The satellite temperature recordings show a different pattern to the surface stations, most of which are in the middle of major urban areas, with a strong downward trend.

What it does show, as we in Germany shiver into a new week of Arctic temperatures, extremely dry air and no snow, Britain shivers and is buried in the stuff and Queensland contemplates yet more flooding, is that the global climate is far more complex than a few computer models can hope, with current technology, to capture. Add to this data indicators from other branches of science such as archaeology, solar studies, agricultural research and geology, and a rather interesting picture begins to emerge of changes in climmate on a cyclic basis over millenia. Yes, whole civilisations have vanished in the past as a result of climatic variability, but one of the more interesting bits of information coming from the wider research is the fact that CO2 actually stimulates plant growth and so do warmer temperatures. The keye element is, of course, water, and warmer temperatures actually increase rainfall by increasing evaporation. But then you have to throw in the recent paper from a group of scientists which suggests we're heading for a "Little Ice Age."

From where I sit, it would seem to me to be a good idea to learn to adapt. The current drive to reduce or technological dependence on hydro-carbons, coal and nuclear and rely on windmills - which are badly affected by ice and extreme weather - is an expensive diversion. We do need to find alternatives to our dependence on oil, if only because, at present, the West can be destroyed simply by cutting off our supplies from the Middle East. It would take time to arrange an alternative supply and, in the meantime, there would be enormous damage to economies and not a little hardship.

The more I read and study the science available about this latest "Doomsday" hysteria, the more I realise that it is actually masking quite a few much larger and perhaps as intractable problems which our politicians don't want to face.  One of them is population expansion. Why do natural events - which have been happening regularly since the dawn of time - now claim so many lives. The answer is, of course, that there are far, far more people now living in flood plains, coastal strips and other "at risk" areas than ever before. More paving means local heat islands, and it also means less absorption of rainfall and more run-off. More strip building along coastal plains, means more people at risk from a tsunami.

As the aristocratic Eastern European Meerkat says - "Simples."

I have a feeling the planet has its own agenda and we had better learn to adapt. Or at least remember how our forefathers coped because we can't stop the climate changing anymore than we can stop continental drift ...

Speaking freely ...

Freedom of speech is probably one of our most treasured "rights" but, increasingly, I have noticed a tendency, particularly on the left, to wish to restrict what anyone some may disagree with, may say. An example is the fuss over the Archbishop of York's statement on "marriage." The Minster is now besieged by aggrieved Gay and Lesbian protesters demanding he retract his statement "revise" his beliefs and a whole lot more. The Church is roundly condemned by this powerful and vociferous lobby for opposing "Gay Marriage" and for its doctrine on the practice of Gay sex. It is now cast as "homophobic" and demands are being made for it to be made illegal to express these and other opinions seen as something "-ist" by these protesters and others.

Freedom of speech, unfortunately, cuts both ways. If I espouse the right of an individual to express his or her views, I must also uphold their right to hold and express views with which I utterly disagree and may even find offensive. There are a lot of examples I could give, one being the current use of the word "holocaust" in relation to the Jewish struggle to achieve security in Israel.

Sadly, this debate is often highjacked by extremists on both ends of the spectrum. On the one hand the "Politically Correct" are constantly looking for offense in everything said by people they wish to marginalise or destroy and remove from any public forum. Look at how they behaved over the speech by Enoch Powell - albeit before the term "PC" meant what it does today. Taking a look at what the Archbishop said, one has to ask; why the fuss? He is merely stating what Christians are expected to believe. OK, we happen to live in a country and a society which accepts Gay lifestyles, but the vast majority of people in this world don't and many non-Christian societies have really draconian laws about "same sex" relationships. The real problem for the Archbishop is that, by calling these partnerships a "marriage" Mr Cameron is essentially forcing Church of England vicars to perform them in Church, a situation fraught with difficulty for the majority of church goers.

It also opens up a further conflict - what if two members of the Muslim community demand a ceremony in their Mosque? I know what difficulty the Imam will face!

But on the other extreme there is a new threat to "Freedom of Speech" brought about by the electronic communication many now enjoy. The Monk doesn't have "Twitter" but a lot of people do. And here we find some really offensive statements and material being circulated, sometimes with deliberate intent. On example which came my way recently is a post on Sharongooners Blog. She posts about a "twitter" message she received from some idiot who thought it was amusing to send out a "tweet" saying "if there were no police he'd rape all the pretty girls." No doubt he thought that funny. Well, for rape victims, it's not. What was not excusable, when he was pulled up on it, was his statement "it's just a joke" and his friends leaping in, some escalating the offensiveness, to defend his "right" to make such a joke.

I have long felt that there would be a backlash against Political Correctness, but there has to be a balance. It cannot swing all the way out to it becoming right for anyone to utter anything regardless of how hurtful or offensive it is.

Personally I believe we have the wrong word in use when we say someone has a "right." We should say, we are all "privileged to do ..." By inference, I may exercise a privilege as long as I respect your right to object and to exercise the same privileges I hold. That is something both the Left and the Politically Correct must learn to accept. What it does not, under any circumstances confer upon anyone is the right to make the sort of statement contained in Ms Gooner's post. That is abuse, the Archbishop of York's statement is not.   

Pondering nationality ...

For someone brought up believing himself to be "British" with a distinctly "English" set of roots, getting to grips with the actuality was quite an eye-opener once I moved to live in the UK. One very quickly became aware of the very clear lines and divisions of "class," though these are sometimes blurred, there are some very distinct "rules" one has to figure out. There are a lot of further sub-classes as well, one may belong to a "professional" group, yet be an outsider because you don't share the right school or perhaps the right social background with the power broker group who form the inner circle of such organisations. That is difficult enough to cope with, but then come the regional and local differences.

Outsiders tend to think of "England" as the whole of "mainland" Britain, which is the real name for the Island shared by the three nations, English, Welsh and Scottish. Not unnaturally, that rather annoys the Scots and the Welsh, particularly when "national" politicians do it from their ivory tower in Westminster. In the same way, living in London provides a microcosm of the larger problem - ask someone where they live in "London" and they will usually name the Borough, Hamlet, town or city they live in within the "Greater London" area. "London" is in fact the rather small "City" bound by the Tower of London, the Barbican and Blackfriars, an ancient and autonomous City whose wealth is founded in Trusts, Foundations and other archaic investments stretching back to the Saxon Kings. The "Greater London" area is made up of some 33 cities, boroughs, towns and hamlets. Then there is a further division - those who live "North of the River" and those who live "South of the Thames." It is, almost, a case of two totally separate cities.

Moving outside of London, again you find divisions and differences, initially, not so marked as the "Home Counties" tend to be dormitories for the Greater London conurbation, but was one moves further out, you do start to see different behaviours, architecture and attitudes. For the outsider, the most striking thing, is that in these thirteen counties (I include Middlesex, one of the most ancient but which has now vanished in all but name, swallowed by the beast that is Greater London) that one is most likely to hear someone describe themselves as "Englishmen." The further you go outside of this area the more likely you are to hear the assertion that someone is a "Brummigen" or a "Manchurian" or a Yorkshireman, a Geordie or any one of the many County or regional names. Even within these there are divisions. For instance, living in Gloucestershire (One of the smallest counties) those from South were very clear about it and those from the North the same. Quite where the distinction lay, I'm not sure, you can drive from north to south in under an hour. One thing to be clear on though, both north Gloucestershiremen and their southern brothers would get very annoyed if you suggested they were "Foresters." THough it is part of Gloucestershire (Sandwiched between Herefordshire and Wales) the Forest of Dean is considered to be a breed apart by everyone else!

As an ex-Minister once remarked, to the fury of the cognoscenti and other politicians, "What is an Englishman?" To be sure, I am no longer sure I know either. The definition I was taught was that it was someone born within the borders that separate England from Scotland and England from Wales or whose parentage came from within those borders. That is certainly how a Scotsman or a Welshman defines his "nationality," but not, apparently, the English. And perhaps this is the current problem the "English" face.

Politicians have, for years, encouraged these divisions. The population has never been a particularly mobile one - in the early years I lived on the "Sceptered Isle," I encountered people who had never been more than 10 miles from their birthplace and would no more contemplate moving to a new town or city in search of work, than they would consider moving to a different country or venturing to the moon. Though that has changed a little, it is still a very static population and that is both a strength and a weakness. It is a strength because they have a very powerful sense of 'place' but it is a weakness because it means that as industries have changed, closed or moved, the 'workers' have been left stranded - drawing benefits at everyone else's expense. Throw in a vast number of immigrants from an entirely different cultural background and the "English" culture is very quickly lost, submerged or pushed to the margins.

The discussions about Scottish Independence have provoked me into looking at what the differences are between North and South of Britain and it does seem to come down to the concept of "nationality." The Scots are almost as divided between "Lowland" and "Highland" (and a few others) as the English, yet they have a very clear sense of being "Scottish" no matter where they come from. The English seem to have lost this almost entirely. Certainly for years I was taught to think of myself as "British" which probably accurately describes my genetic make-up, but it doesn't really describe my nationality. I am a citizen of the "United Kingdom" but that isn't a nation, it's a political unit. My father's family roots are in Gloucestershire, Worcestershire and Oxfordshire, we have little connection with anyone north of that until you find some Scottish links about 300 years back. Even with my maternal grandfather's family being Irish, all this really does is prove that we are a typically "British" family.

Though we think of ourselves as being "English" we are in fact clearly a mixture of all four "nations" and I think this is one reason why so many "English" people prefer to think of being "British." The sad thing is that this "mix" applies to the Welsh and Scottish as much as it does to the English, yet don't suggest either call themselves "British" or ask them to be proud of it.

To a very large extent this is the fault of generations of politicians. Those based in Westminster/Whitehall/Home Counties have never regarded anything outside of their interests and that small area as being of any importance. It was long my complaint that Whitehall in particular never looked outside of London when trying to address a "national" issue. "What does 'London' need? OK, that's what everyone gets." Not unnaturally, that has annoyed everyone outside Greater London and has led to enormous problems in some instances. It has also isolated communities and fostered a prejudice toward anything from 'London' or the 'Home Counties' in may people's eyes.

Funnily enough, the parallel between this fragmentation of the "English" and their forefathers, the Romano-British folk who were held together by the Roman Legions, is rather striking. As Rome's grip on reality weakened, the British Tribal Chiefs reasserted themselves and as soon as Rome withdrew, the civilisation Rome had imposed was rather quickly brushed aside by immigrants (the Angles and the Saxons) while the tribes squabbled ...

Sadly, unless someone can convince the "English" that there is (a) such a thing as an "English Nation" (And I don't mean the BNP vision!) and (b) that it is worth standing up for ... There is unlikely to be one in the not too distant future. Not a recognisably "English" one anyway.