Better the Devil you know than the Devil you Dont

We hear that Greek PM Tsipras is visiting Moscow for talks with Russian President Putin. The talks will be regarding alternative financing for Greece's huge National Debt. The question to ask is why would Mr Tsipras do this? He is well aware of how Greece's EU and NATO partners would view the prospects of Russia having financial interests in Greece, the potential to call the shots and pull the strings.

While aggravating tensions over Greeces East - West allegiances, at the same time Mr Tsipras is determined to annoy the EUs largest contributor, Germany, with a demand for War Damages. Earlier Greece had a better chance with its demand for the return of €10.3Bn funds seconded from Greek banks during War occupation. But Germany had even denied responsibility for this. German budget spokesman Eckhardt Rehberg, stated that "the reparations issue is for us closed, politically and legally - the same applies to the so-called forced loan". Now comes the demand for €278.7Bn.

The German position remains unchanged, that the matter of War damages was settled internationally decades ago, and German finds itself under no further legal nor moral obligations on the subject. Mr Tsipras would know that ploy is leading nowhere, so why has he done it? This lies together with his Finance Minister Varufakis, policy of game theory tactics. Taken together the moves of talking to Russia while aggravating the Germans over War damages is only designed to try to increase Greece's bargaining position.

But such childish tactics won't work with seasoned senoir politicians, who also know that Mr Tspras knows that Greece is better off with the Devil they know!

Eurozone Deflation

We hear that the Eurozone has fallen further into deflation in January 2015 to the tune of -0.6%, a further slide from -0.2% the month before. Deflation is perceived as an evil, since once people recognise its effect in the economy, they are reluctant to purchase at present in anticipation of cheaper prices in the future. Meaning business comes to a standstill, with resultant economic collapse. Deflation is seen as something like cancer, it has to be stamped out early, before it takes a death grip on the economy.

This appears to be true, but its counterpart inflation, when allowed to run unchecked, leads to increased wage demands to maintain a standard of living, which in turn fuels inflation. The social cost is to those who cannot wage bargain, and whose living standard inevitably deteriorates. Therefore modern economic theory has tended toward moderate inflation as the optimal way to manage an economy, this was reckoned to be the best way to achieve economic growth without overtly damaging inflation. Somehow I remember economic history lessons from my childhood describing how inflation since the Roman times was the scourge of society. What we need as humans is a stable platform on which to plan for the future, without the rug being pulled from under us. One thing that recent history teaches us is that economic growth surges in cycles. We rejoice in the boon times and relent in the recessions. Just perhaps if we aimed for zero inflation with moderate economic growth we might avoid the damaging downturns of the cycles that have afflicted us so far.

See no, hear no...

A friend of mine brought up a an interesting topic recently regarding the National bias in news reporting. I had sent him some transcripts of BBC World Service articles, and he commented that they appeared surprisingly neutral in comparison to home based news, UK. Surprisingly, people seem to think that just because they live in a democracy, and freedom of speech is a cornerstone of that, that therefore everything they hear in the media reported news in like gospel, or as others might say like Tablets of Stone. We say that there is no censorship of the news in Western Democracies, look at Charlie Hebdo. Russian citizens are currently being fed dollops of state orchestrated propaganda to justify Putin's actions. The result, is that this all they hear, nothing else. They are brain washed into believing the West is evil, and is out to ruin Russia by subversive means. Confront the average Russian in the street and he will likely regurgitate the state line, he cant do anything else, he doesn't know anything else, their media is not reporting anything else. Explain the situation to him, that he has been brain washed by spoon fed state propaganda, and he will retort how do we in the West know that the converse is not true, and that our media is not manipulating our thoughts. Its a hard argument to counter, and you will probably try by stating that our press is free, and also reports issues that are critical to our governments. He will persist that this is subtle manoeuvring to make plausible that greater lies that our media projects. In your stomach you feel that this is wrong, but it is difficult to counter without getting into a protracted debate for which you don't have the stomach. Mentioning stomachs there is a small gnawing feeling in yours that western media, although not state censored displays considerable bias in what 'they think' the public should hear.

Hence your noticing that the BBC World service is taking a different slant on the news than possibly that portrayed to homeland UK. But we already know from decades ago that media vassals are bias, this was why I had mentioned that the contrast in left politically motivated National news to conservative orientated ones. They may direct the reader to a different conclusion than the same story reported elsewhere. There is noticeable National biases in News reporting. I view much American CNN TV news reporting, simply because the BBC World TV news seems to be directed into a sedative effect upon its audience. But I do switch between the two, for comparisons, and well enough German to catch their news broadcasts, and also these days I read news from Greece in English. The differences in National perspectives can be quite startling, forget news is news, fact is fact, its not only the spin that's put on the news but the silent censorship by omission. It is difficult to get an unbiased view of the world when one only has access to a single media source. I remember as a tot, my father saying to me the wisest words anyone has ever said to me 'never believe anything you read in the newspapers', in todays language media. The next thing an enquiring mind asks is 'if you can't believe the media, what can you believe?' But that's a whole other philosophical debate!

The Death of Nostalgia

What is nostalgia?

I like to think of this as fond memories of the past. Where for some people their recollections of some past events are not wholesome, then this is not what nostalgia is about.

However once nostalgia's warm beginnings wain, then the once started train may lead not where one originally envisioned.

Such are my adolescent recollections.

I suspect that many peoples school day memories evoke mixed emotions. These were a hotchpotch mixture of good and sad experiences, perhaps regretfully some of our own deeds best forgotten, yet, yet again dredged up among the collection of minds net.

But our experiences and memories thereof are what make us what we are today, for better or worse. We cannot escape our past, it is always there to remind us.

Regarding myself, two phases stick out as prominent among the reefs negotiated by my younger self on his was to maturity.

One is the combined infant/junior school from age 5 to age 10. I have many fond, and some not so fond, memories of my experiences during my stay there.

But whatever the value to these memories, they are torn from the page because that building was burning down in 2008, and replaced by a modern anonymous impersonal flat roof construction.

For example, resisting the compulsory afternoon nap because I was just not tired, climbing the ropes in the infants gym, in the juniors learning to slide on two feet down an icy slope in the winter. If you think about it for an eight year old this was a formative experience, for the first time voluntarily putting yourself in jeopardy for the thrill of sliding at high speed.

Why was the school burned down? Curiously there was spate of school burnings in the Rhondda dating from the mid 1970s. initially it was claimed this was due to disgruntled pupils, and that in subsequent years in became a fashion or trend with the youth. Another idea is that over three decades the aging Victorian schools were just accidents waiting to happen. Just here's a conjecture, those aging fire hazard schools could not have been replaced until they had been involuntarily demolished, even though many in authority perceived the nee to replace them.

I attended my old Porth Grammar Technical School from age eleven to age nineteen, I entered full of trepidation and awe, nervous of the hundreds of years of tradition into which I was suddenly initiated. I left world wise, head high looking around for what the world had to offer. I had many happy and tragic times during these formative years. In any case many memories. Sadly those memories are now a housing estate. The old grammar school was pulled down, and with it many memories that still play in my dreams to this day, happy, sad, and somewhere in between.

This is my school photo from 1977, in all my time the only school photo ever made. I was in the lower sixth form at the time, so none of my comrades' from forms one to five are captured, their memories fade, no school photo was made during that time. I'm easy to spot, I'm the one looking slightly our of place, as though I descended from Mars the day before and still don't know quite what to make of the World. This is just far left picture of four pictures in total.

Nostalgia is a thing we cherish in memory, even though it may not be historically accurate, and may be a past we can never revisit, even if we could go back physically to those places concerned.

Happy memories. D

Mohandas Gandhi - Gandhism

Born October 1869 in what we refer to today as British India until his assassination in India in January 1948, aged 78. At that time British India encompassed much of present day Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Burma. The name ‘Mahatma’, meaning venerable, was giving to him in 1914 during in time in South Africa.

An ethical ideological, moral, and political leader of India, contrary to popular belief Gandhi was never in charge of the country. Following independence from Britain the first elected Prime Minister was Nehru, from August 1947 until May 1964.

In striving for a united independent India something he perpetually had to contend with was the religious divide within British India. Counter to his wishes the larger Indian State was divided up into the countries of Pakistan in the West for Muslims, India (mostly Hindi dominated), Bangladesh (Muslim) to the east, and Burma (Buddhist) further east. As a Hindi it was his support for fair-play and equal treatment for Pakistan that led to his assassination by the Hindu nationalist Nathuram Godse.

Background

Gandhi was born of the ‘merchant caste’ and his parents arranged a marriage for him at age 13, his first child was born when he was 15, surviving only some days, afterwards the couple had four sons.

He was admitted to study Law at University College London, UCL, in 1888, qualifying as a barrister in 1891, and immediately returned to India. In 1893 he accepted a twelve month job seconded to South Africa, part of the British Empire, to work as a legal representative for the Muslim Indian Traders. He subsequently spent 21 years there, where his political, ethical and political views developed, that ‘Indianness’ transcended religion or caste. As a Hindi he witnessed Muslim discrimination against his own religious group, and counter to his experience in London he also faced white discrimination directed against all coloured people.

Gandhi returned to India in 1915, taking with him an international reputation as a leading Indian nationalist, theorist and activist. There he met, was influenced by, and subsequently influenced Indian politics, by Gokhale a key leader of the Congress Party, best known for his British style Whiggish restraint and moderation, and his insistence on working within the system for change and reform. Gandhi took Gokhale's traditional liberal approach and transformed it into something appearing completely Indian.

Gandhi appears to have adopted different postures at different times, to reconcile this it is necessary to consider this as partly due to his pragmatism and partly that over several decades his ideas were still evolving. During the 1900 Boer War he formed an ambulance corps of Indians to prove they were capable of ‘manly’ work. In 1906 he organised stretcher bearers during the Zulu War, to help legitimise their claims for full citizenship. In June 1918 he supported active recruitment within India for the British army. To this end National Defence presupposes individual pacifism, he did state that he “personally will not kill or injure anybody, friend or foe,” pragmatically progressing toward his ultimate aim. It was during 1918 that his ideas of nonviolence and non-cooperation crystallised, culminating in 1919 with in a speech advocating his principle that all violence was evil and could not be justified.

From 1919 onward Gandhi made steps to incorporate Muslims into his practices and policies.

Gandhism

Gandhi developed the practise of nonviolence and truth in all situations, advocating that others do likewise, including Satyagraha (devotion to the truth), mutual tolerance among people of different creeds; and ‘syadvad’, the idea that all views of truth are partial, a doctrine laying at the heart of Satyagraha. From Hinduism he gained the central concepts of man as the battleground for forces of virtue and sin, and of the potential of love as a moving force. From Jainism, Gandhi took the idea of applying nonviolence to human situations and the theory that Absolute Reality may only be comprehended relatively in human affairs; which another way of appreciating the subjectivity of each person’s viewpoint.

Gandhi also adopted Christian-Islamic ideas of equality, brotherhood of man, and of turning the other cheek. He stated that the most important battle to fight was overcoming one’s own demons, fears, and insecurities. He wrote: “There must be no impatience, no barbarity, no insolence, and no undue pressure. If we want to cultivate a true spirit of democracy, we cannot afford to be intolerant. Intolerance betrays want of faith in one's cause.”

Toleration is a cornerstone of his ‘religious pluralism’ ideology, regarding respectful co-existence of diverse religious belief systems in society. But religious pluralism goes beyond toleration it includes acceptance that one's own religion is not the sole and exclusive source of truth, and thus the acknowledgement that at least some truths and true values exist in other religions, and the concept that two or more religions with mutually exclusive truth claims can be equally valid. This was not difficult for Gandhi as pluralism is a natural part of Hinduism.

Gandhi’s behaviour was often noted for humility, which is also basic to the Hindi faith, where the word ‘Amanitvam’ is a fusion of pridelessness and the virtue of humility. Gandhi interprets the concept of humility broadly as an essential virtue that must exist in a person for other virtues to emerge. To him Humility cannot be cultivated, it has to be one of the starting points, and “humility cannot be an observance by itself. For it does not lend itself to being practiced. It is however an indispensable test of ahimsa (non-violence).” Humility is how one feels inside, a state of mind. A humble person is not himself conscious of his humility, Gandhi stated.

Regarding the Indian standard of living Gandhi said, “Poverty is the worst form of violence.” And on morality and humility, “The marks of a man are who wants to realise Truth which is God. “He must reduce himself to zero and have perfect control over all his senses.”

Most significantly Gandhi once said of himself “there is no such thing as ‘Gandhism’, and I do not want to leave any sect after me.”

Once a Greek always a Greek

Yesterday Mr Tsipras accepted an invitation from Angela Merkel to join her in Berlin to talk with each other rather than about each other.

Mrs Merkel wanted to hear details of the Greek Governments plans for economic reform. As a condition for the last round of the rolling bailout plan the Greeks were required to outline their plans. The next rolling instalment is due mid-April and the Germans are saying that the money will not be released without seeing details. The total level of Greek debt does not change, every seven weeks or so a mini-instalment is due for repayment, for which embarrassingly Greece needs a loan to cover. Previously transparent, but now a painful process.

At the news conference following the meeting both parties expressed their mutual concern for the plight of the average Greek people, reducing unemployment, youth unemployment, and poverty. Noticeably what was not said was the differences in either sides ways of achieving those aims. What we also did not hear were the previously missing details.

Interestingly what we did indeed hear from Mr Tsipras was the first public statement of Greeces concern for the return of funds misappropriated from Greek banks during their WWII occupation. Note, this is not a regurgitated claim for war damages (reparation, or compensation - as has been erroneously reported elsewhere). Greece along with the rest of the World signed off on that decades ago, otherwise a war torn German economy would never be able to repay its debts. On this note a substantial response from Mrs Merkel was also absent.

Germany’s reticence to discuss repaying the stolen funds is understandable from the perspective that the War ended 70 years ago and many feel disconnected from it in the sense that it had nothing to do with them. Further the current German leader’s East German roots should not be forgotten. The Easterners were taught that the former Fascist German regime had nothing to do with their modern Communist system.

Unfortunately for Germany no-one is re-writing the history books, and the country remains responsible for the Second World War.

All is Fair in Love and War

13 February 1945 saw the large scale bombing of Dresden close to the end of World War II by 1249 combined RAF and USAAF bombers.

60 years later these German ladies chose a topless protest in Dresden in support of "Bomber Harris" the British Air Marshall who orchestrated the campaign.

This was a dark day for Dresden, destroying over 1600 acres of City center and killing an estimated 25,000 civilians, but could have exceeded 100,000, many of them refugees trying to escape the advancing Russian army. Locals have been appalled by the protest, Kai Schulz the City spokesperson said "Nice breasts but a really stupid message."

But these days we are more used to protests against Bomber Harris. The Queen Mother was surprised by jeers during the unveiling of a statue of Harries in London's Strand in 1992. Subsequently the statue was guarded 24 hours per day for three months.

Harris received high decorations from British, Russian, and American authorities at the end of the War in regard of his efforts having substantially shortened the War and therefore the suffering for many millions of people. Others see him as a blood thirsty War Criminal. The mass 'area-bombing' attacks indiscriminately included civilians in the targeted areas, as 'casualties of war.' This was distasteful to Churchill, but reluctantly he condoned it as part of the policy of 'Total War.' There is some evidence that not avoiding civilian casualties during strategic bombing was started as an accident by lost German bombers, and German command having realised that the gloves were off continued with it deliberately, and that Allied bombing of German civilian targets was just tit-for-tat. I am not sure how much of that is true, the idea of 'area-bombing' was conceived by Churchill's scientific advisor Professor Frederick Lindemann in 1942, and approved by the British war Cabinet. However the German 'Blitz' over London started in September 1940, where subsequent fatalities were also high.

The bombing of Dresden can be likened to that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but without the nuclear weapons: intended to demoralise the fighting populating into accepting an inevitable defeat, and thus speeding the end of the war. It was known that German atomic research was ahead of the allies at the start of the war, so the sooner it was ended without atomic bombs on European soil the better for all.