The recent death of Professor Eric Hobsbawm triggered, for me, a reminder that men (and women) like him, often deliberately blind themselves to reality with the 'vision' of their ideological dream. As the Telegraph article says, Prof. Hobsbawm simply refused to see or acknowledge the evils of the Communist system and remained, to his death, an advocate of a 'soviet' style system of government. The writer of the Telegraph article, Michael Burleigh, himself a historian of note, identifies this as a particular failing of the 'left.' True, it is my observation, that the most ardent supporters of communism are often those of great intellect blessed with either a great deal of inherited wealth or a secure and well paid position in academia. At the other end of the scale are the 'foot soldiers' - those so inured in envy of the success and apparent 'wealth' of others, they firmly believe that they have a right to 'share' the rewards earned by the better off.
Listening to the News, an item repeated from an interview with Ed Milliband struck me as confirming both these points. Milliband first of all announced that a new Labour government would roll back the current austerity and raise taxes to spend more on 'public services.' That is exactly what got the country into the mess its in under the last Labour government. He then went on to say all the usual socialist mantras about 'capitalist greed' and 'the rich must pay more tax.' As ever he is demonstrating that he and his party are totally blind to the negative impact their ideology has on a nations economy. The last Labour government inherited a strong economy and low unemployment and left office with the country teetering on the verge of bankruptcy - but here they are still arguing that they are right and everyone else is 'selfish.'
Prof Hobsbawm has been quite influential, his ideas are trotted out as 'truth' and support for the arguments for socialist totalitarianist Utopia. What the good professor and his supporters overlook is that they, and their disciples are unlikely to retain control of this 'benevolent' socialist state. History - and human behavioural studies - show that in any totalitarian situation, the intellectuals are pretty quickly marginalised, kept as 'window dressing' to be displayed as the 'friendly face' - but the real power is in the hands of the most ruthless and often the least intellectual cadre of the party. Example, 'Uncle' Joe Stalin who ran rings round Attlee and his fellow socialists, pandering to their vanity and ruthlessly exploiting their naivete. Or Mao Tse Tung.
What I think the author of the Telegraph article missed is that the 'Left' tends to be blinded intellectually by the 'brilliance' of the ideology, but the 'Right' often suffers from a similar blindness. On the 'Right' however, I'm not sure the 'blindness' is of the same order. Often it is a refusal to address or acknowledge that certain things are unfair, but there is also a blindness caused by manipulation of information, and this is something both sides share. You can fool a lot of people for a very long time by managing the information they are permitted to access. Some would argue that the internet makes this less likely, but I would suggest that there is so much 'disinformation' and misinformation on the web many folk are reluctant to accept things which directly contradict a source they consider more reliable.
Having lived under a regime which, with the lens of hindsight, was 'totalitarian' I can attest to just how effective the management of information can be. It begins at school, children are taught that only the 'government' tells the truth. As Ignatius Loyolla once remarked, "Give me a child to the age of seven ..." and the lesson is not lost on politicians of all stamps. Much of the west, at present, has a situation in which the 'socialist ideologues' bred in the turmoil of the 1960s are the present crop of teachers, lecturers and professors in our schools, colleges and universities - particularly in the 'Arts' fields. That means their ideas and ideologies are being promoted in the classrooms and lecture halls to the exclusion of any other ideas. Who do we trust to tell the 'truth?' My late father-in-law made this precise point once when speaking about what it was like to grow up under the Hitler regime and I have a similar experience from my youth under the Nationalist regime in South Africa. Now, I don't trust any single source of information. Especially if it comes from one particular point on the political spectrum.
I do despair of the mindset that refuses to acknowledge the realities of life, political and personal. The world of human experience is not fair, it is not equal and it certainly isn't simple. You may regulate actions, you may impose discipline, but at some point some will start to demand a greater voice, or a greater share. Living next to what was the 'Socialist Paradise' of the GDR, it is fascinating to see how great is the deception that was perpetrated there. The ruling elite enjoyed the life of luxury while pretending they were no better off than the people they ruled - but the truth certainly leaked. Only problem, the leakers tended to get long jail terms somewhere unpleasant. They needed a really nasty police force, every bit as evil as the Gestapo it was supposed to be 'guarding against' and the longest and most heavily guarded frontier in the world to keep the unhappy people in.
People like Professor Hobsbawm delude themselves when they preach that they can or would create a different regime where everyone would be equal and everyone happy. Only they would be 'equal and happy' because they would simply shut their eyes to the unhappiness, decay and corruption around them. Even now, the former Communist Party of the GDR, now 'rebranded' as "The Left" refuse to acknowledge or admit how deeply unfair and oppressive their system was. As Michael Burleigh puts it -
Hobsbawm’s implacable refusal to recant his views when faced with their grotesque consequences tells us something about the belligerent mindset of the wider British Left. But the eminence that he and his fellow travellers have enjoyed also speaks to the bovine complacency with which, since Mrs Thatcher, the Conservatives have allowed such dubious figures licence to dominate the soft culture of the BBC and our universities.
As I said, the blindness is not exclusive to the Left, it is a symptom of all extreme ideology. Perhaps that is something we need to convey to the next generations.
Thursday, 4 October 2012
Wednesday, 3 October 2012
German Unification Day
Today is a holiday in Germany, to celebrate the reunification that followed the collapse of the Socialist Paradise of the German Democratic Republic, known in the west as "East Germany." I find it interesting that today's 'unified' Germany is territorially around 20% smaller than it was in 1939 and probably around 40% smaller than it was in 1914. The reason is that it's eastern provinces have been reclaimed or incorporated into Poland. One, East Prussia, has become a Russian enclave on the Baltic. Kaliningrad was formerly the East Prussian city and Hansastadt of Koenigsberg.
Until Bismarck's 'reunification' in 1848 - 71, "Germany" was more a concept than a reality (some idea of the 'lost' territory can be gained from the map on the Wikipedia entry). It was essentially a hegemony of some 300 independent states, principalities and mini-states, some no larger than the 'ruling' lord's personal estate. Equally the language diversity was pretty wide with a lot of 'local' variation which made unification tricky. Bismarck's solution was to impose 'Hoch Deutsch' - the modern 'pure' German language of literature and commerce. The 'local' variations still exist and to an extent thrive, but now, at least, everyone can understand (more or less) what everyone else is saying.
That reborn national spirit contributed to the two world wars of the 20th Century as the new "German Nation" tried to assert its status in the world. Geographically it suffered then (and now) by being sandwiched between France in the west and Russia in the East. Both traditionally see a strong Germany as a threat to their ambitions territorially and commercially. The orginal fragmentation of the German state in the late Middle Ages was in large part due to French and Russian interference and aggression. From the reign of Louis XIV onward the French attempted to gain complete control of all the territory along the Rhine and in the East Austria and Russia seesawed back and forth grabbing bits of Prussia, Silesia, Pomerania and other states along that front. Frederick the Great brought a level of security with his miltary campaigns against Austria and Russia, but Napoleon's invasions almost undid everything. It took the Prussians to lead the establishment of a stable state and the creation of a strong power in Europe.
Today the Germans celebrate the political reunion which followed the exposure of the charade of socialist Utopianism. There is still a huge difference between "East" and "West" in Germany. The cost of living is higher in the west than it is in the east, but unemployment is still higher in the east. Everyone in the west is still paying a tax surcharge for 'reconstruction' of the eastern infrastructure and lack of maintenance of everything the east suffered under communist rule lasting 42 years. Some of the damage is still visible. It will be interesting to see where the 'unified' Germany is in another 20 years.
Until Bismarck's 'reunification' in 1848 - 71, "Germany" was more a concept than a reality (some idea of the 'lost' territory can be gained from the map on the Wikipedia entry). It was essentially a hegemony of some 300 independent states, principalities and mini-states, some no larger than the 'ruling' lord's personal estate. Equally the language diversity was pretty wide with a lot of 'local' variation which made unification tricky. Bismarck's solution was to impose 'Hoch Deutsch' - the modern 'pure' German language of literature and commerce. The 'local' variations still exist and to an extent thrive, but now, at least, everyone can understand (more or less) what everyone else is saying.
That reborn national spirit contributed to the two world wars of the 20th Century as the new "German Nation" tried to assert its status in the world. Geographically it suffered then (and now) by being sandwiched between France in the west and Russia in the East. Both traditionally see a strong Germany as a threat to their ambitions territorially and commercially. The orginal fragmentation of the German state in the late Middle Ages was in large part due to French and Russian interference and aggression. From the reign of Louis XIV onward the French attempted to gain complete control of all the territory along the Rhine and in the East Austria and Russia seesawed back and forth grabbing bits of Prussia, Silesia, Pomerania and other states along that front. Frederick the Great brought a level of security with his miltary campaigns against Austria and Russia, but Napoleon's invasions almost undid everything. It took the Prussians to lead the establishment of a stable state and the creation of a strong power in Europe.
Today the Germans celebrate the political reunion which followed the exposure of the charade of socialist Utopianism. There is still a huge difference between "East" and "West" in Germany. The cost of living is higher in the west than it is in the east, but unemployment is still higher in the east. Everyone in the west is still paying a tax surcharge for 'reconstruction' of the eastern infrastructure and lack of maintenance of everything the east suffered under communist rule lasting 42 years. Some of the damage is still visible. It will be interesting to see where the 'unified' Germany is in another 20 years.
Tuesday, 2 October 2012
Anniversary ...
Today the Monk marks a significant anniversary. It is now six years since he clocked up his sixth decade, and he's still wondering how he managed to survive this long. His career has seen a lot of excitement in one form or another, with a few 'near misses' and a lot of very interesting opportunities, some good times and some tragedies.
Along the way he's made some terrific friends, met some fascinating people and visited some interesting places. He's looking forward to another few years and plenty more fun and laughter which he hopes to share with his friends and family.
Along the way he's made some terrific friends, met some fascinating people and visited some interesting places. He's looking forward to another few years and plenty more fun and laughter which he hopes to share with his friends and family.
Monday, 1 October 2012
It's those Pensioners again ...
An article in today's selection of 'Yahoo News' articles, implies that pensioners are ruining the British economy. Pensioners are, of course, a soft target. If you were to say the same thing about the people who have gone straight from school onto the dole, or have taken advantage of the idiocy of 'adopting' the 'unplanned' offspring of their teenage daughters in order to secure bigger, better housing and more and more income support, child benefit and so on, the media and the politicians would come under immediate fire from the Islington Set, not to mention the Fabian Society and probably the BBC. But pensioners? Who needs them - a drain on resources, cluttering up the health care system, blocking beds in hospitals, costing an arm and a leg in "care" homes ...
The solution, according to the 'bright young thing' who wrote this latest piece of tosh, is more immigration. Yes, import more third world migrants who send their earnings home and, when they retire, will be paid for by the state. Now there's a solution for you.
What this Ms and her political friends overlook is that most of us Pensioners have paid toward these pensions throughout our working lives. Whitehall, however, didn't invest a single penny of it. It vanished into the general 'tax' pot for the denizens of Westminster to spend on every pet project and cockamamy ideology they could dream of. My friends in the Fire Service have gone through this several times. "Their pensions are too generous" is the cry on every politician and civil servant's lips - overlooking the fact that the fire fighters have paid, over a working life of 30 years, 11% of the salaries toward it. The Local Authorities who took the cash, spent it, on 'social housing,' 'nursery schools,' 'minority affairs' and much, much more, including their own very generous 'retirement' handouts and 'pensions.' No, the problem is, of course, that the fire fighters failed to die in service - and now, when they, and all the other people who have paid into these funds, want to draw them, we are told we are causing a problem.
I want to use a very rude expression here, but will refrain. Yes, I'm angry. I've contributed all my working career. One pension fund has been stripped and stolen, now I rely on a small State pension and a slightly more generous 'private' one. I'm not the problem. I am only drawing back what I have paid for - sometimes at the cost of something I actually needed back then!
Brown destroyed the pensions of those who had been savvy enough (and earned enough after the punitive taxation imposed by that Party of wastrels) to invest privately for retirement. Previous governments squandered the public pension 'insurance' that is supposed to come from 'National Insurance' and now its our fault for living too long and wanting to enjoy the fruits of our enforced payments. The State Pension is small enough - much less than someone on unemployment benefit gets - and we pay tax on anything and everything else we might have 'put by.' I for one constantly get demands from the morons at HMRC for 'advance payment' against 'potential earnings.' I know I'm not the only person they keep hounding. My error was in telling them, when I retired six years ago, that I intended to try and work for myself. Now, despite voluminous correspondence with them, they still refuse to accept that I am fully and finally retired.
The problem is that the W*nk*rs in Whitehall and Westminster thought the population would continue to grow along a predictable curve. They'd also worked out in the Treasury, that life expectancy of the average industrial worker, miner or labourer (like fire fighters) was about 65. Bingo, cash for old rope, tell them they're paying into a 'fund,' spend the money freely and pay anyone lucky enough to reach retirement out of the 'income' from the idiots still working and paying. Only one problem, with industry vanishing faster than the famous Oujah Bird Frankie Howerd loved, the number of people in employment and contributing has shrunk. Second problem, a large slice of the populace has found it to be more lucrative to be "on benefit" than to take the low paid jobs the Whitehall Department responsible keeps telling us they can't fill and must therefore rely on immigrants for. Third, the cost of Westminster and Whitehall continues to escalate - and they have to find the money somewhere.
Oh! I know Chancellor - blame the pensioners. The rotters are living far too long!
The solution, according to the 'bright young thing' who wrote this latest piece of tosh, is more immigration. Yes, import more third world migrants who send their earnings home and, when they retire, will be paid for by the state. Now there's a solution for you.
What this Ms and her political friends overlook is that most of us Pensioners have paid toward these pensions throughout our working lives. Whitehall, however, didn't invest a single penny of it. It vanished into the general 'tax' pot for the denizens of Westminster to spend on every pet project and cockamamy ideology they could dream of. My friends in the Fire Service have gone through this several times. "Their pensions are too generous" is the cry on every politician and civil servant's lips - overlooking the fact that the fire fighters have paid, over a working life of 30 years, 11% of the salaries toward it. The Local Authorities who took the cash, spent it, on 'social housing,' 'nursery schools,' 'minority affairs' and much, much more, including their own very generous 'retirement' handouts and 'pensions.' No, the problem is, of course, that the fire fighters failed to die in service - and now, when they, and all the other people who have paid into these funds, want to draw them, we are told we are causing a problem.
I want to use a very rude expression here, but will refrain. Yes, I'm angry. I've contributed all my working career. One pension fund has been stripped and stolen, now I rely on a small State pension and a slightly more generous 'private' one. I'm not the problem. I am only drawing back what I have paid for - sometimes at the cost of something I actually needed back then!
Brown destroyed the pensions of those who had been savvy enough (and earned enough after the punitive taxation imposed by that Party of wastrels) to invest privately for retirement. Previous governments squandered the public pension 'insurance' that is supposed to come from 'National Insurance' and now its our fault for living too long and wanting to enjoy the fruits of our enforced payments. The State Pension is small enough - much less than someone on unemployment benefit gets - and we pay tax on anything and everything else we might have 'put by.' I for one constantly get demands from the morons at HMRC for 'advance payment' against 'potential earnings.' I know I'm not the only person they keep hounding. My error was in telling them, when I retired six years ago, that I intended to try and work for myself. Now, despite voluminous correspondence with them, they still refuse to accept that I am fully and finally retired.
The problem is that the W*nk*rs in Whitehall and Westminster thought the population would continue to grow along a predictable curve. They'd also worked out in the Treasury, that life expectancy of the average industrial worker, miner or labourer (like fire fighters) was about 65. Bingo, cash for old rope, tell them they're paying into a 'fund,' spend the money freely and pay anyone lucky enough to reach retirement out of the 'income' from the idiots still working and paying. Only one problem, with industry vanishing faster than the famous Oujah Bird Frankie Howerd loved, the number of people in employment and contributing has shrunk. Second problem, a large slice of the populace has found it to be more lucrative to be "on benefit" than to take the low paid jobs the Whitehall Department responsible keeps telling us they can't fill and must therefore rely on immigrants for. Third, the cost of Westminster and Whitehall continues to escalate - and they have to find the money somewhere.
Oh! I know Chancellor - blame the pensioners. The rotters are living far too long!
Sunday, 30 September 2012
Church ...
This weekend saw the end of the Old Catholic Church of Germany Synod. In German, "Die Alt-Katholische Kirche," also presented as "Alternative Katholische." In a sense, the German equivalent of the Anglican churches. We have a single Bishop for the whole of Germany, +Matthias Ring, and his 'seat' is in Bonn, in a church recently 'given up' by the Roman Catholic diocese.
The "Old Catholics" do not acknowledge the 'authority' of the Popes, but, like the Anglicans, they acknowledge his seniority as a Bishop. So it is interesting that the Archbishop of Mainz, Cardinal Lehmann, allows them to use the Augustinian Monastic church, now the home of the Mainz Theological College, for their Synod and for the final Eucharist of the Synod. The Cardinal is, it seems, more inclined to ecumenical activity than Rome is. Long may it continue so.
The photos show the interior of the Augustinian Church, a somewhat subdued Baroque style the pictures hardly do credit to. The accoustics here are fabulous, especially for the unaccomapnied voice, so a "Licht Vesper" for evening worship of Friday was stunningly set to music by Rachmaninov and sung by some really good vocalists. Today's Eucharist had a packed congregation with our Bishop presiding and a good organist who put the restored Baroque instrument through its paces with a vengeance.
The final hymn was Elgar's "Land of Hope and Glory" in German - which several members of the congregation laughlingly declared one of the best things Britain has produced. All in all, a wonderful experience.
The "Old Catholics" do not acknowledge the 'authority' of the Popes, but, like the Anglicans, they acknowledge his seniority as a Bishop. So it is interesting that the Archbishop of Mainz, Cardinal Lehmann, allows them to use the Augustinian Monastic church, now the home of the Mainz Theological College, for their Synod and for the final Eucharist of the Synod. The Cardinal is, it seems, more inclined to ecumenical activity than Rome is. Long may it continue so.
The photos show the interior of the Augustinian Church, a somewhat subdued Baroque style the pictures hardly do credit to. The accoustics here are fabulous, especially for the unaccomapnied voice, so a "Licht Vesper" for evening worship of Friday was stunningly set to music by Rachmaninov and sung by some really good vocalists. Today's Eucharist had a packed congregation with our Bishop presiding and a good organist who put the restored Baroque instrument through its paces with a vengeance.
The final hymn was Elgar's "Land of Hope and Glory" in German - which several members of the congregation laughlingly declared one of the best things Britain has produced. All in all, a wonderful experience.
Saturday, 29 September 2012
Israel versus Palestine
Recently there has been a bit of a storm over a CofE 'Evangelical' vicar who posted a link to a blatantly anti-semitic website on his blog. Taken with the General Synods disgraceful decision to endorse a campaign to boycott Israel and 'force the Jewish State to abandon its oppression of the "Palestinians,"' I think the incoming Arcbishop of Canterbury is going to need to be prepared to deal with a rising tide of politcal activism against Israel.
What strikes me most forceably in these discussions is the constantly repeated "Israel has no historic right of existence" and it is usually backed by the further statement that "there were no Jews in Israel before the early 20th Century." Both are patently false, though we have to admit that the Maccabean Kingdom was destroyed by the Romans in 77 AD and it noble families enslaved, exiled or deported. As with the Babylonian exile, however, the peasantry remained in situ and formed the kernal of the revival when once the Ottoman Turkish government was ousted by the British in 1916-17. To simply assume that there was no "jewish presence" at all in the intervening years is patently false. We also misapply the Roman title of "Palestine" to Israel or any parts of it. The Roman "Province" of Palestine included Lebanon, a large chunk of Syria and all of Jordan and part of the Sinai. The modern boundaries are the result of European "Power Politics" at the end of WW1 and do not reflect history either.
For one thing there are Christian records from Byzantium which record efforts to suppress or convert the Jews. They failed. So did the Islamic attempts - and for all the modern propaganda that Islam "tolerated" the presence of Jews and Christians, they were not above enforced conversion and blatant coercion. Non-muslims could practice their faith privately, but could not discuss it publicly and they paid a punitive "tax" for the privilege. The tax was - and still is in many Muslim countries - distributed to mosques. Further restrictions included laws which forbid the holding of any office which places a "k'fir" over a Muslim. This is not the case in Israel, the only state in the Middle East which has Christians, Muslims and Jews sitting in its Parliament. Yes, the Christians and Muslims are minorities, but they are there. I know of no other state in that region where a Christian or a Jew would be allowed to stand for election, much less allowed to take his seat if elected.
Balfour proposed a "Two State" solution for the Jewish question and British ambivalence and "deals" made with various religious and political leaders among the Arab peoples bedevilled its practical application. At various times the Mufti of Istanbul (incidently an ardent Nazi who worked tirelessly to raise an SS Division for Hitler) and the equally rabidly anti-Jewish Mufti of Mecca were promised that "Jerusalem would remain Muslim" - a promise made in direct contradiction of promises made to the Jewish people. We should not be surprised then, that some factions among the Jews in Palestine began to smell a sell out and took action to force a solution. They merely anticipated Nelson Mandela, Jomo Kenyatta, Robert Mugabe and others to secure their own independence and the security of a country for their people. I find it ironic that the British now lionise Mandela, Mugabe (or they did initially) and Kenyatta among others - but the Jewish leaders remain "terrorists" and "criminals" to be ousted and overthrown. One could be excused for thinking there is (a) a racial or religious bias here, or (b) that the politics of "big oil" override all considerations of history or truth.
Yes, the modern state of Israel is taking draconian action to protect its borders, but they have ample evidence to support the belief that none of their neighbours can be trusted to restrain the daily attacks on its citizens. History supports them on this - we are fed a daily diet of reports on Israeli "attrocities" against "Palestinians" but there is seldom any mention of the daily rocket and missile attacks on Israeli civilians from Gaza and Southern Lebanon. Nor do we hear the oft declared article of faith among the "Palestinians" that their intent is control of a single state - all of Israel. There is much talk now of the "two state" solution, but what those now talking about it overlook is that there are already two states occupying the territory Balfour originally wrote his proposals for. The Kingdom of Jordan and Israel. There is a "Palestinian" nation, it's called Jordan.
The Jews, in my view rightly, smelled a large rat in 1945 - 47 when the British began their planned withdrawal from Israel. First they handed control of all the local government functions, armouries, police and military to the Hashemite King of Jordan (created 'king' by the British in 1919) and even put senior British military personell under his command. The desperate refugees from the Concentration Camps were rounded up, intercepted and shipped back to Germany (even the military in charge of this pointed out to Attlee that putting the refugees back into "internment camps" that had only a short while before been Death Camps for the final solution was stupid. He ignored them) or to Cyprus and vowed they would not be allowed to settle in "Palestine." Once again, the British had traded the interests of a desperate and homeless people for their own (one or two of my relatives were involved in some of this and resigned in disgust as soon as they were free to do so. One was extremely vociferous about it until his death). Britain's 'solution' was to create a single state in the hope that the Jordanians would honour the "protected status" of the Jewish people of Palestine.
Yeah, history shows just how long that would have lasted. In fact, before the British had even begun to withdraw, the mullahs. Muftis and Arab nationalists were declaring the intention to "drive the Jews into the sea." One statement included the declaration that the land would be "refreshed by the blood of the Jew spilled in righteous cleansing." Funny that all of this is ignored by those who witter on about how the Jews "seized" the property of "Palestinians" who "fled for their lives" from the "Jewish onslaught." Again, the truth gets a bit lost here. The Jordanian Army ordered the withdrawal stating that anyone who remained would be "treated as an enemy and shot." The Jews took the view that if you weren't prepared to stand with them, you weren't to be trusted.
Modern accounts make it sound as if the Jews were supported by a huge army, were well supplied, equipped and organised. In fact they were all volunteers, poorly equipped and armed and had to rely on what they could capture for food, equipment and ammunition. The difference between them and the Arab Armies they faced, was that they were fighting for their lives and the lives of their families. I can think of no other similar situation in which "guerilla" troops have had such an incentive. They drove their enemies out of the whole state of Israel west of the Jordan River and the present situation with the enclave of Gaza and the so-called "West Bank" are the result of a sneak attack by Jordan and Egypt in 1948 - after the UN had recognised these areas as being a part of "Israel."
I'm afraid my sympathies lie firmly with Israel and the Jewish people. This is their ancient homeland and, like it or not, they have as much right to a homeland as anyone else. I deplore the Church of England's vacillation and its support of anti-Israel causes and organisations and I hope the new Archbishop will have the courage to acknowledge the fallacy of many who preach otherwise.
What strikes me most forceably in these discussions is the constantly repeated "Israel has no historic right of existence" and it is usually backed by the further statement that "there were no Jews in Israel before the early 20th Century." Both are patently false, though we have to admit that the Maccabean Kingdom was destroyed by the Romans in 77 AD and it noble families enslaved, exiled or deported. As with the Babylonian exile, however, the peasantry remained in situ and formed the kernal of the revival when once the Ottoman Turkish government was ousted by the British in 1916-17. To simply assume that there was no "jewish presence" at all in the intervening years is patently false. We also misapply the Roman title of "Palestine" to Israel or any parts of it. The Roman "Province" of Palestine included Lebanon, a large chunk of Syria and all of Jordan and part of the Sinai. The modern boundaries are the result of European "Power Politics" at the end of WW1 and do not reflect history either.
For one thing there are Christian records from Byzantium which record efforts to suppress or convert the Jews. They failed. So did the Islamic attempts - and for all the modern propaganda that Islam "tolerated" the presence of Jews and Christians, they were not above enforced conversion and blatant coercion. Non-muslims could practice their faith privately, but could not discuss it publicly and they paid a punitive "tax" for the privilege. The tax was - and still is in many Muslim countries - distributed to mosques. Further restrictions included laws which forbid the holding of any office which places a "k'fir" over a Muslim. This is not the case in Israel, the only state in the Middle East which has Christians, Muslims and Jews sitting in its Parliament. Yes, the Christians and Muslims are minorities, but they are there. I know of no other state in that region where a Christian or a Jew would be allowed to stand for election, much less allowed to take his seat if elected.
Balfour proposed a "Two State" solution for the Jewish question and British ambivalence and "deals" made with various religious and political leaders among the Arab peoples bedevilled its practical application. At various times the Mufti of Istanbul (incidently an ardent Nazi who worked tirelessly to raise an SS Division for Hitler) and the equally rabidly anti-Jewish Mufti of Mecca were promised that "Jerusalem would remain Muslim" - a promise made in direct contradiction of promises made to the Jewish people. We should not be surprised then, that some factions among the Jews in Palestine began to smell a sell out and took action to force a solution. They merely anticipated Nelson Mandela, Jomo Kenyatta, Robert Mugabe and others to secure their own independence and the security of a country for their people. I find it ironic that the British now lionise Mandela, Mugabe (or they did initially) and Kenyatta among others - but the Jewish leaders remain "terrorists" and "criminals" to be ousted and overthrown. One could be excused for thinking there is (a) a racial or religious bias here, or (b) that the politics of "big oil" override all considerations of history or truth.
Yes, the modern state of Israel is taking draconian action to protect its borders, but they have ample evidence to support the belief that none of their neighbours can be trusted to restrain the daily attacks on its citizens. History supports them on this - we are fed a daily diet of reports on Israeli "attrocities" against "Palestinians" but there is seldom any mention of the daily rocket and missile attacks on Israeli civilians from Gaza and Southern Lebanon. Nor do we hear the oft declared article of faith among the "Palestinians" that their intent is control of a single state - all of Israel. There is much talk now of the "two state" solution, but what those now talking about it overlook is that there are already two states occupying the territory Balfour originally wrote his proposals for. The Kingdom of Jordan and Israel. There is a "Palestinian" nation, it's called Jordan.
The Jews, in my view rightly, smelled a large rat in 1945 - 47 when the British began their planned withdrawal from Israel. First they handed control of all the local government functions, armouries, police and military to the Hashemite King of Jordan (created 'king' by the British in 1919) and even put senior British military personell under his command. The desperate refugees from the Concentration Camps were rounded up, intercepted and shipped back to Germany (even the military in charge of this pointed out to Attlee that putting the refugees back into "internment camps" that had only a short while before been Death Camps for the final solution was stupid. He ignored them) or to Cyprus and vowed they would not be allowed to settle in "Palestine." Once again, the British had traded the interests of a desperate and homeless people for their own (one or two of my relatives were involved in some of this and resigned in disgust as soon as they were free to do so. One was extremely vociferous about it until his death). Britain's 'solution' was to create a single state in the hope that the Jordanians would honour the "protected status" of the Jewish people of Palestine.
Yeah, history shows just how long that would have lasted. In fact, before the British had even begun to withdraw, the mullahs. Muftis and Arab nationalists were declaring the intention to "drive the Jews into the sea." One statement included the declaration that the land would be "refreshed by the blood of the Jew spilled in righteous cleansing." Funny that all of this is ignored by those who witter on about how the Jews "seized" the property of "Palestinians" who "fled for their lives" from the "Jewish onslaught." Again, the truth gets a bit lost here. The Jordanian Army ordered the withdrawal stating that anyone who remained would be "treated as an enemy and shot." The Jews took the view that if you weren't prepared to stand with them, you weren't to be trusted.
Modern accounts make it sound as if the Jews were supported by a huge army, were well supplied, equipped and organised. In fact they were all volunteers, poorly equipped and armed and had to rely on what they could capture for food, equipment and ammunition. The difference between them and the Arab Armies they faced, was that they were fighting for their lives and the lives of their families. I can think of no other similar situation in which "guerilla" troops have had such an incentive. They drove their enemies out of the whole state of Israel west of the Jordan River and the present situation with the enclave of Gaza and the so-called "West Bank" are the result of a sneak attack by Jordan and Egypt in 1948 - after the UN had recognised these areas as being a part of "Israel."
I'm afraid my sympathies lie firmly with Israel and the Jewish people. This is their ancient homeland and, like it or not, they have as much right to a homeland as anyone else. I deplore the Church of England's vacillation and its support of anti-Israel causes and organisations and I hope the new Archbishop will have the courage to acknowledge the fallacy of many who preach otherwise.
Friday, 28 September 2012
Education again
Josephus yesterday made a couple of interesting points, the first being that the universities are today close to what was proposed in 1972 and the second being that while 'teaching' is a group activity, 'learning' is highly individual. In a sense, yes, I have to agree with that last point, we each learn at different rates and by different means. There is no 'one size fits all' when it comes to the way individuals learn. The best teachers know this and encourage the individuals in their classes to discover how they can best learn.
One thing which has struck me recently - it takes a while sometimes for this old dog to decipher the more heavy German articles he attempts to read - is that commerce and industry in Germany use the universities in what appears, to me, a very different way to their counterparts in the UK. If a German manufacturer wants something tested, explored or even designed, he (or she) approaches a university with an exact set of proposals for a research project and a budget. If the university accepts the project, they agree a support system and the research goes ahead. In this way many PhD students, some Post Doctoral and lots of undergraduates get to work on real world projects as they study. Industry benefits because they get the things they want, the university benefits because it gets to give its students a meaningful experience in research and development - which they then carry on into the workplace.
This may be why Germany currently occupies the Number 2 spot in the world when it comes to new patent registration. They rarely fund a 'Chair' in some esoteric subject, they go for projects and the projects are clearly specified. Interestingly, if the research does result in a viable product, the university benefits from that as well. Coupled with this there are 'Institutes' set up to do research on behalf of the government, commerce and industry. Institutes like the Max Planck and the Frauenhofer receive some funding from the Federal government and some from commerce and industry seeking specific research from projects.
This 'investment' in research obviously pays off well. Most of the current Mars 'rover' is systems and electronics designed, tested and made in Germany. Nor is this the only example. Current research being funded by Germany's motor industry (but probably not GM Opel) is going into more efficient and longer duration batteries. BMW will launch an all electric luxury car next year - its been designed, built, tried and tested exhaustively as a part of their ongoing search for 'clean' energy transport. Other manufacturers here are not far behind either.
So what has all this to do with 'education?'
Simply put, German universities are diverse, but they do seem to have a clear focus on turning out students who, even at them more esoteric and academic end of the scale, have at least some grounding in how what they are learning fits into the workplace environment. I'd need to do a lot of research to find out exactly what makes them so different in their teaching/learning environment, but perhaps someone in the UK really should take a closer look - after all they'd be better placed to spot the differences.
One thing which has struck me recently - it takes a while sometimes for this old dog to decipher the more heavy German articles he attempts to read - is that commerce and industry in Germany use the universities in what appears, to me, a very different way to their counterparts in the UK. If a German manufacturer wants something tested, explored or even designed, he (or she) approaches a university with an exact set of proposals for a research project and a budget. If the university accepts the project, they agree a support system and the research goes ahead. In this way many PhD students, some Post Doctoral and lots of undergraduates get to work on real world projects as they study. Industry benefits because they get the things they want, the university benefits because it gets to give its students a meaningful experience in research and development - which they then carry on into the workplace.
This may be why Germany currently occupies the Number 2 spot in the world when it comes to new patent registration. They rarely fund a 'Chair' in some esoteric subject, they go for projects and the projects are clearly specified. Interestingly, if the research does result in a viable product, the university benefits from that as well. Coupled with this there are 'Institutes' set up to do research on behalf of the government, commerce and industry. Institutes like the Max Planck and the Frauenhofer receive some funding from the Federal government and some from commerce and industry seeking specific research from projects.
This 'investment' in research obviously pays off well. Most of the current Mars 'rover' is systems and electronics designed, tested and made in Germany. Nor is this the only example. Current research being funded by Germany's motor industry (but probably not GM Opel) is going into more efficient and longer duration batteries. BMW will launch an all electric luxury car next year - its been designed, built, tried and tested exhaustively as a part of their ongoing search for 'clean' energy transport. Other manufacturers here are not far behind either.
So what has all this to do with 'education?'
Simply put, German universities are diverse, but they do seem to have a clear focus on turning out students who, even at them more esoteric and academic end of the scale, have at least some grounding in how what they are learning fits into the workplace environment. I'd need to do a lot of research to find out exactly what makes them so different in their teaching/learning environment, but perhaps someone in the UK really should take a closer look - after all they'd be better placed to spot the differences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
