General

World War One’s Great Buried Conclusion – World Multilateral Disarmament

Leave a comment

lloydgeorgeWW1end

In November this year – the centenary of the end of the Great War – much of the world’s population will be wondering why WW1 was not the “War to end all Wars”. They will probably not hear an answer. Many will be cynical of the very idea. Actually, the policy understood in 1918 by most of the people and world’s statesmen has been pushed off the road of human history, trashed and buried without trace in the national consciousness. It was Multilateral Disarmament and built into the Treaty of Versailles. Germany immediately, but then all nations, were to disarm to secure the end of war and worldwide peace.

Hear some of the world’s leaders on the problem. Here is Lord Grey of Fallodon, British Foreign Secretary for the decade leading into the War, and at the centre of all that was going on. ”The moral is obvious; it is that great armaments lead inevitably to war. There are armaments on one side, there must be armaments on other sides…” He carries on, “But although all this be true, it is not in my opinion the real and final account of the origin of the Great War. The enormous growth in armaments in Europe, the sense of insecurity and fear caused by them – it was these that made war inevitable. This, it seems to me, is the truest reading of history, and the lesson that the present should be learning from the past in the interests of future peace, the waring to be handed on to those who come after us.” Lloyd George came to a similar conclusion.

Even the leading military staff saw the problem and the answer. Field Marshall Sir William Robertson, or Wully to his friends… “I prefer to believe that the majority of people in the world in these days think that war hurts everybody, benefits nobody – except the profiteers – and settles nothing…. As one who has passed pretty well half a century in the study and practice of war, I suggest to you that you should give your support to Disarmament and so do your best to ensure the promotion of peace.” Admiral Lord Wymess: “The evil is intensified by the existence of international armaments rings, the members of which notoriously play into each others’ hands. So long as this subterranean conspiracy against peace is allowed to continue the possibility of any serious concerted reduction of armaments will be remote.” Lord Trenchard, Chief of Air Staff 1919-29 while in post, talking about Multilateral Disarmament: “if I had the casting vote, I would say abolish the Air. I feel that it is an infinitely more harmful weapon of war than any other.” These military men obviously saw World Disarmament as the necessary way ahead.

There were others who had already seen the tragedy that the Great War would bring. With almost prophetic insight, Gladstone saw the way British naval aggrandisement would lead to a great European War. Keir Hardie led the Labour Party with a keen sense of how militarism was pushing Europe to the edge and over it. He desperately trying to prevent the War. Pope Benedict clearly signalled in 1914 the catastrophe the War would bring. Leo Tolstoy railed at the stupidity of spending millions on fighting, as if mass murder was more justified than a single murder. Then those who fought saw war as it was, and poets, artists or ordinary injured soldiers vowed that war should end and those who made the instruments of war should be put out of work and profits.

The American President, Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points Speech was made early in 1918. (and largely ignored in the media in January). After the War, it was built into the Treaty of Versailles. It spoke against secret treaties, indeed the need for any treaties, and armed alliances. It was based on reducing arms to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety, effectively to a policing level. Lenin hoped for this outcome in the war-torn USSR. The people, from king to paupers, looked for Disarmament as the end to War.

They were not proved wrong, but the militarists and war people slipped this policy off the agenda. In the States vast profits had been made out of arms, and the Du Ponts and others made sure that the ailing Wilson’s policy of disarmament would not be tried and quit the League of Nations. Military distrust and hanging on to weapons defeated the disarmament move, not by argument, but by burying the issue in vagueness until 1932 when it was defeated, again through private cabals and, as Noel-Baker who witnessed it argues, the arms companies’ agents. Multilateral Disarmament has been buried, because it is too dangerous for the military-industrial establishments in charge from the late 19th century until now. It brings world peace but the horrific possibility that the merchants of death will sell nothing. It is time now to try swords into ploughshares properly, without the military in charge.

General

Another Corbyn anti-Semetism charge, but look at the context.

Leave a comment

corbyn

There is a concerted campaign to smear Corbyn with anti-Semitism. here are some source materials to 2014 and the Commons Debate on recognising both the State of Israel and the State of Palestine.

Jack Straw
A moment’s thought will allow us to appreciate just how ill-founded the Government of Israel’s assertion is. Israel has been occupying Palestinian land for nearly 50 years. It fails to meet its clear international legal obligations as an occupying power. In the last 20 years, as we have heard, it has compounded that failure by a deliberate decision to annex Palestinian land and to build Israeli settlements on that land. There are now 600,000 such Israeli settlers in East Jerusalem and the west bank. The Israelis are seeking to strangle East Jerusalem by expropriating land all around it, and two months ago, they announced the illegal annexation of a further nearly 1,000 acres of land near Bethlehem. The Israeli Government will go on doing this as long as they pay no price for their obduracy. Their illegal occupation of land is condemned by this Government in strong terms, but no action follows. The Israelis sell produce from these illegal settlements in Palestine as if they were made or grown in Israel, but no action follows.

Israel itself was established and recognised by unilateral act. The Palestinians had no say whatever over the recognition of the state of Israel, still less a veto. I support the state of Israel. I would have supported it at the end of the 1940s. But it cannot lie in the mouth of the Israeli Government, of all Governments, to say that they should have a veto over a state of Palestine, when for absolutely certain the Palestinians had no say whatever over the establishment of the state of Israel.

Today’s debate will, I hope, send a strong signal that the British Parliament stands full square behind the two-state solution set out in the road map. The current impasse can be broken, in my view, only by actions, not simply by words, and the recognition of Palestine by the international community would further, not hinder, these aims.

Sir Gerard Kaufmann
There are 6 million Israeli Jews. There are 1,600,000 Palestinians in Israel, 2,700,000 on the west bank and 1,800,000 in Gaza. The Palestinians now outnumber the Israeli Jews, and that is without taking into account the 5 million Palestinians in refugee camps and in the diaspora. The big difference, of course, is that the Israelis have a secure state and the Palestinians live under oppression day after day.

The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) wove a fantasy that the Jews were reunited when the state of Israel was created and that the Palestinians were split, and we have just heard again about the wickedness of Hamas—I do not condone what Hamas does, and I realise that it is a useful tool for those who wish to portray the Palestinians as divided and unreliable. His fantasy was that all was harmonious when Israel was created, but the Israelis were divided into three warring factions at that time: the Haganah, representing the official Jewish agency; the terrorist organisation Irgun Zvai Leumi; and the terrorist Stern gang. Israel nearly broke out into civil war immediately after it was founded because Irgun insisted on having its own army in an independent state, so the idea that Israel was somehow born in a moment of paradise and that all that surrounds the Palestinians is stress and damage is a fantasy.

Where are we now? The situation was not ideal for Israel then, and it is not ideal for the Palestinians now, but divided Israel survived and survives even though it is still divided. Look at the amazing divisions in the Israeli Government, with the extraordinary extremism of the Yisrael Beiteinu party, which makes the UK Independence party look like cosy internationalists, yet it is part of the Government.

The Israelis are harming the Palestinians day after day. Last week the US State Department denounced a settlement expansion of 2,600 that the Israelis are planning. Last week the new president of the New Israel Fund, Talia Sasson—Jewish and pro-Israel—denounced the expansion of settlements again in the west bank. The Israelis, with the checkpoints, the illegal wall and the settlements, are making a coherent Palestinian state impossible.

It is essential to pass this motion, because it would be a game changer. The recognition of Palestine by the British House of Commons would affect the international situation. This House can create a historic new situation. I call on right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to give the Palestinians their rights and show the Israelis that they cannot suppress another people all the time. It is not Jewish for the Israelis to do that. They are harming the image of Judaism, and terrible outbreaks of anti-Semitism are taking place. I want to see an end to anti-Semitism, and I want to see a Palestinian state.​

Jeremy Corbyn

I thank the Minister for what he has said so far. During his discussions, was there at any point a serious debate about the problem of the lives faced by many Palestinian refugees in camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and other places? They too must surely be part of a long-term peace equation. They have spent more than 60 years in those camps, and it cannot go on for ever like that.

This is how the House of Commons voted:

Resolved: 274 in favour and 12 against
That this House believes that the Government should recognise the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel, as a contribution to securing a negotiated two state solution.

The Palestinian representative to the UK, Manuel Hassassian was heartened by the debate and result, and was criticised by Zionists. Corbyn’s response to them was”One is they don’t want to study history, and secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don’t understand English irony either.” To make this into an accusation of anti-Semitism is malignant, and part of a potent distraction from the wrongs committed by the Israelis against the Palestinians as described in the debate. (Sir Gerard Kaufman was a Jew)

Later the PM was asked
Q7. The Palestinian ambassador, Mr Hassassian, has described Monday’s vote on the recognition of the Palestinian state as “a momentous vote”. Indeed it was. He has also said:“Now is the time for the UK government to listen to its democratically elected parliament and to take decisive political action by recognising the State of Palestine and upholding its historical, moral and legal responsibility towards Palestine”.Does the Prime Minister agree? [905381]

The Prime Minister, David Cameron

“Of course, I look forward to the day when Britain will recognise the state of Palestine, but it should be part of the negotiations that bring about a two-state solution. That is what we all want to see—a state of Israel living happily and peacefully alongside a state of Palestine—and that is when we should do the recognition.”

Cameron thus ducked the vote, and avoided recognition of the Palestinian State.

Corbyn as a supporter of recognising both the states of Israel and Palestine is being attacked by those who want the issue of oppression to Palestinian oppression to disappear. This is why the accusations of anti-Semitism against Corbyn appear like the drip of a leaky tap.

General

Notes on the Dollar: There could be trouble ahead

Leave a comment

dollar

US is involved in Tariff War with China and aggressive deals with others.
US has substantial long-term trade deficits, so that China and Japan have come to own a lot of US assets.There is an accumulated Current Account Deficit of $3 trillion in the last three decades.
If China loses US markets, if will market strongly in other parts of the world, usually with price advantages.
US Federal Budget is in deep deficit. If the Federal Government is to raise money domestically interest rates will have to rise.
There is long-term pressure on the $ to fall.
World-wide liquid funds can send currencies moving fast.
China has about $1 trillion in US Government Securities. If the $ falls, it loses, and loses trade advantages as well, but it has discretion in that market.
The $ is the main world reserve currency, which gives the US a seigniorage bonus, but it is declining in that role. The Euro and Chinese yuan are also widely used and there could be a more sudden move out of the $.
Trump is declaring trade War on Iran and others, using US market clout. Immediately it may work, but many will learn to do without the US. Iran will sell its oil.
Costs of global warming are increasing world wide.
The rich move their money fast when they will lose out through currency moves. They have holdings in tax havens of perhaps £20 trillion; this may stabilize or destabilize the $.
Disparities of wealth and income across the world make much of the population living precariously and predispose to recessions, because the rich spend less of their income.
The US has spent and will spend several $ trillion on wars and the military. Useless burden.
The 1917 fall in the $ did not help its trade position much immediately.

In the light of these the $ looks weak. A fall creates more problems than it solves for a couple of years – higher costs, difficult Federal Govt funding, etc. There could be trouble ahead.

Bible

Peace on God’s Terms: the Book of Isaiah

Leave a comment

Hearing Isaiah.
We can all read biblical texts many times without hearing them. Jesus warned, quoting God’s words to Isaiah about the message he was to carry, “You will be ever hearing, but not understanding, ever seeing, but never perceiving.” So I have been reading, and feeding on Isaiah for sixty or so years, absorbing many of its themes, living with it, but then comes the time when you hear it all. Of course, not that, but merely my own ear open a bit more. The central perception is of the whole book and its focus on peace – peace as a deep structural argument centred on Christ, and including national government, world empires, justice, war, the meaning of history and the nature of God’s blessing. Everyone knows that Isaiah talks about peace, so this is nothing new, but the denseness and intenseness of Isaiah’s poetry makes it difficult to stay with his meaning, even as he was wrestling with it before God, and that meaning throughout is the requirements of peace in national and international politics. This commentary may be a plonking catching up; there are many fine commentaries on Isaiah by those more qualified in most areas. It has one thing going for it. They probably haven’t studied militarism so fully and are less tuned to this blitzkrieg on the world’s faith in militarism. Of course, many people do not believe in peace, except as a rosy sunset, but perhaps Isaiah helps us understand what full political peace is. So this study is not claiming special insights, except the sense of having heard and understood, perhaps as God intends, this great deconstruction of world militarism.

Questions of single or multiple authorship are not touched or those of background scholarship, valuable though they be. There is a sense that the whole book is coherent in its themes and understanding and also that the passing of time, even centuries, can be understood in God’s purposes and relation to us.

The Structural Theme of Peace and its Architecture.
It is surprising how simplistic much of the thinking about peace is today. Most people and the media seem to think of peace in terms of the either/or, of peace or war. You hope you have peace, but sometimes you have war, and the important thing is to be prepared (like Churchill) so that you are not defeated when war happens. So most of the states of the world are armed so that they are “defended” and cannot be defeated in war, and being defended will not face war, because they cannot easily be attacked and defeated. In daily news we consider whether Syria, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, Nigeria, the United States, the UK, France and other countries are at war or not (peace). It is two dimensional, two sides of a gate and either side can open the gate. Peace is the safety of one’s own domain.
Isaiah is not so. Behind war and peace, blessing and judgement, lies God’s relationship with the state, rulers and groups in it, nations and empires, and more than this, with their structuration of human affairs. Peace is the possible outcome, the prophesized outcome, but it is the result of a number of crucial moves shaping nations and the whole world. When Jeremiah states, the prophets say, ‘Peace, peace, when there is no peace.” , he is similarly identifying false conceptions of what peace may be. We have no problem seeing what these may be when Chamberlain on 30th September, 1938 returned from Munich, saying “peace in our time” and waving a piece of paper which turned out to be useless. We therefore understand the structure of Isaiah which points to what leads to, and does not lead to peace.
Peace in some Christian traditions has been pushed out of politics into a blessed subjective state; this is partly because Christianity has allowed itself to be pushed out of politics in much of the west and elsewhere. Peace in Isaiah is political; it is God’s politics of peace. In every chapter that is so, and the book cannot be read apolitically. The Jewish political scene of Isaiah is fairly easy to describe. The Jewish state grew out of the return of the tribes under Moses c1400 BC. About 400 years later it became a coherent state under King David. Within a century it had divided into the Northern Kingdom (Israel) and the Southern Kingdom (Judah), centred on Jerusalem. Each had prophets who held the rulers and people to God’s laws and ways, often with persecution. Israel and Judah were surrounded by other quite powerful local states with the big powers in Egypt, Assyria and Babylon. Isaiah is prophesying around 740-680BC during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah in Judah. In the period 733-722BC Israel in the North, allied with Syria, fights against Tiglath-Pileser III the Assyrian ruler. They lose and Israelites are deported from Galilee and later Samaria, leaving Judah and Jerusalem isolated. Judah is not allied with Syria and remains independent for another century after Isaiah, and eventually falls in 586BC. Isaiah prophesies during this period of precarious independence.
It possibly helps to think of a European similarity. Switzerland and Hungary in the 20th century have been smaller states slightly precariously sitting among the bigger units of Russia, Germany, Italy and the Austrian empire and facing possible or actual control by these powers, especially the Nazis and the USSR. The issues of independence, colonial control and subjugation become key. Of course, normally the big boys write the history and smaller nations are mere pawns. Isaiah and the other Jewish prophets, though from small states, tell the mega-story of God’s perspective on the big and small guys. It is a history of the USSR and America coming out of Hungary or Switzerland. British-American history, full of its own self-importance, cannot easily see how we are challenged by this, especially in our views of peace and war.
The poetry of Isaiah is intricate, and themes are picked up and put down, perhaps so that their interrelationships cannot be ignored. Here we pick out those themes and locate the sections under headings, so that the power of the main arguments stands out. All the biblical text is in bold.

1. The Internationalist Perspective.
This is a book for all peoples, God’s perspective for the big and little peoples. Hear, O Heavens! Listen, O earth! For the Lord has spoken. (1:2) This internationalist perspective rings out from the first verse, strange from a small lost city state.
1A. Though Judah is a mere smudge on the map, Isaiah addresses the big picture in God’s Name. “Man will be brought low and mankind humbled…The arrogance of man will be brought low and the pride of men will be humbled.” (ch2: 9, 17) The universal message is that all the idolatries and self-promotions of humankind will be brought low before God. We are to “Stop trusting in man, who has but breath in his nostrils. Of what account is he?” (2: 22) All nations are under God’s creation splendour. Immediately we see how different this understanding is from the tribal and nationalist idolatry of these times. This is not Athena, Dagon, Osis and Osiris, the gods of ethnic success and victory, but God who is both able to judge and discipline Israel and Judah, and also to hold in contempt the deities of the empires. Here is the impartiality of judgement which is lacking down to the present, where each nation worships its own self-created idols, is incapable of self-judgement and loses a sense of accountability, but the Lord will shake the earth….

2. The State of Judah, Law and Injustice.
This theme is the injustices in the state of Judah and the centrality of repentance before God in the health of the nation. Centrally, you cannot fight against God. Later it emerges as: It is no good seeking external alliances for “peace” when the problems are internal sin and evil.

2A. “Chapter One: “I reared children and brought them up, but they have rebelled against me. The ox knows its master, the donkey his owner’s manger, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand Ah, sinful nation, a people loaded with guilt, a brood of evildoers, children given to corruption. They have forsaken the Lord; they have spurned the Holy One of Israel.” (v2-5)
This probably refers to both Israel and Judah; the example of Israel is also brought home to Judah with its own failings. As a result of this, the argument goes, there is no soundness, only wounds, desolation and waste. You think the cause of your ills may be external, but they are internal and involve judgement, like Sodom and Gomorrah. The solution is not sacrifices so that you might win battles, but justice.
Then the chapter brings in the heart of the injustice issue: “Your hands are full of blood; wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight. Stop doing wrong, learn to do right. Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the cause of the widow….” (v15-17) Bloodshed is at the heart of the issue, the most serious injustice.
This is pushed further. Repentance can follow. “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow.” (v18) but the text moves back to the injustice – bribes, dishonesty, stealing – and then in verse 24 is an astonishing section which is often ignored. “Therefore the Lord, the Lord Almighty, the mighty one of Israel, declares: ‘Ah, I will get relief from my foes and avenge myself on my enemies. I will turn my hand against YOU; I will thoroughly purge away your dross and remove all your impurities. I will restore your judges….” God is “fighting” against his own people to get the justice back. That is the central reality, the need for internal reform.
2B. After the great vision of Chapter Two, the theme goes back to the failures of the House of Jacob, but with a slightly different emphasis. One focus is on the way Israel and Judah copy the superstitions of those around them. Three things are singled out. First the quest for gold and treasure. Second, the militarism – Their land is full of horses; there is no end to their chariots.” (ch2: v7) Third, they are idolators bowing down to the work of their own hands. This emphasis on man-made idols both addresses the practice of constructing idols to be worshipped, which later Isaiah will ridiculeThen follows a tirade against the arrogance of this worldview.
2C. The beginning of Chapter Three returns to the focus on Jerusalem and Judah. It is a strange chapter, because the process of judgement seems to be a generation of inadequates and posers who come to rule the nation. “I will make boys their officials; mere children will govern them. People will oppress each other…The young will rise up against the old, the base against the honourable.” (Ch3: 4-5) As this theme develops, it focuses on women, and looks at how they will change as their vanity and emptiness is revealed. What they have committed themselves to will become a stench and rottenness. It is an amazingly powerful section, not least because it echoes the catwalks and fashion industry of today.
16 The LORD says, “The women of Zion are haughty, walking along with outstretched necks, flirting with their eyes, strutting along with swaying hips,
with ornaments jingling on their ankles.” Therefore, the Lord will bring sores on the heads of the women of Zion; the LORD will make their scalps bald. In that day the Lord will snatch away their finery: the bangles and headbands and crescent necklaces, the earrings and bracelets and veils, the headdresses and anklets and sashes, the perfume bottles and charms, the signet rings and nose rings, the fine robes and the capes and cloaks, the purses and mirrors, and the linen garments and tiaras and shawls.
Instead of fragrance there will be a stench; instead of a sash, a rope; instead of well-dressed hair, baldness; instead of fine clothing, sackcloth; instead of beauty, branding. Your men will fall by the sword, your warriors in battle. The gates of Zion will lament and mourn; destitute, she will sit on the ground. (Ch3: 16-26)
This passage is amazing. It is not about women per se, but women as the decoration and sexual reward of rich, powerful men. Its apogee is the faith in militarism. “Your men will fall by the sword, your warriors in battle.” It is a diatribe against trophy women, those who display the wealth of their owners and strut their own power. It is a sociology of Judah at this stage in its pattern of decay, and as Bob Dylan would say, “there’s a slow train acoming round the bend.” But also there is hope; there will be a remnant who will be different.

2D. Chapter Four suggests that remnant, the Branch of the Lord, who will remain in Jerusalem and assemble on Mount Zion. One reference might be missed. It talks about a cloud of smoke by day and a glow of flaming fire by night, an obvious reference to Moses and the Exodus. But notice what the smoke and flame were. They were God’s protection against military attack and annihilation by the pursuing Egyptians. They evoke trusting in God and not in the attack/defence processes of militarism.

2E. Chapter Five is in two parts. The First is the parable of the Vineyard. The owner looked for good grapes, but it yielded only bad. Judge, you men of Israel and Judah, will the Vineyard not be destroyed? “But the vineyard is the House of Israel and the men of Judah are God’s garden of delight.” (ch5: 7) Then comes the hinge, before a vast torrent of woes arising from various forms of wickedness. The rest of Isaiah 5: 7 says, And he looked for justice, but saw bloodshed; for righteousness, but heard cries of distress.”Again, “bloodshed”, the business of war is at the centre of the critique of the internal evil of Judah. But the analysis is much fuller.It attacks accumulation, hedonism as

3. The Model Jerusalem.
Throughout Isaiah Jerusalem is presented as a world model. This is strange, given that it is portrayed as sinful and wicked, but Jerusalem is the place of God’s visiting, the locus of peace.
Isaiah 1 26 switches focus to Jerusalem. It will be the City of Righteousness, the faithful city. It will be redeemed and all the old points of reference will end. Key is the cult of militarism, as the narrative of peace builds. “The mighty man will become tinder and his work a spark: both will burn together with no-one to quench them” (v31) The warrior and what the warrior does will burn up, disappear. This precedes the great prophecy about Judah and Jerusalem in Isaiah 2.
“In the last days.. the mountain of the Lord’s Temple will be … raised ..and all nations will stream to it. Many peoples will come and say, ‘Come let us go up… He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths. The law will go out from Zion, and word of the Lord from Jerusalem. (v2-3) This is probably the root text for the idea of the rule of international law in world affairs – not imposed by a colonial power, but accepted by those who freely accept it. It is an awesome transition from the ruling military capital idea to the principle of lawful living, with roots back to Moses and with signposts to the League of Nations and the United Nations.
But then comes the great vision of international peace. “God will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war any more. Come, O house of Jacob, let us walk in the light of the Lord.” (Ch2: 4-5) We can marvel at this understanding of the unnecessary nature of conflict set out in, say, 741BC and the possibility of peaceful normality based on submission to law. Swords into ploughshares is the metword of peace movements, quite rightly, for it shows the replacement of the destructive and murderous with the fruitful and useful, but the full structure of the argument – submission to God and God’s impartial laws of justice and the end of conflict – needs to stand. This is not wishful thinking, but the required structure of peace for all peoples.
The text, however, does not stop, but hurries back to the ways in which the House of Jacob has adopted the practices of the pagans and is under judgement. See 2B

4. History in Isaiah.
The understanding of history in Isaiah is one of the most complex in any writing anywhere. It has a deep understanding of causality, but not autonomous causality, for it is all in relation to God and subject to God’s law. Crucial is which way nations are travelling – towards God and God’s law with some humility, and therefore towards some blessing, or away from it and therefore towards judgement and war. War is consequence, formed over decades, and the structure of formation needs to be understood. Similarly, peace is vision, implemented in steady humility in national and world history, and that needs to be seen and lived by. In an era when we live in supposed instant peace or war choice, this long-term understanding is crucial and radical.

5. The Prophet and Prophecy.
The prophet Isaiah inhabits this book as an actor stands in the wings of a Shakespearian play. He is onlooker, participant, interpreter, but on the whole he is given the lines by the Great Playwright. He comes on and goes off. He is commissioned by God, is unworthy, needs to stick with his task through decades of events, and will not be heard. In Chapter Six

6. The State, God and the Nations.

7. The Empires and their Fallenness.
Empires write history from within. They focus on Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, the scope of the British Empire and the glory of Paris, Rome, Vienna, St Petersberg, London and Washington. Their symbol is L’Arc de Triomphe, the act of victory over the defeated powers. They validate slavery, loot, murder, impoverishing taxes and using people groups for war and labour in the name of their greatness. This dominant pattern, full of arrogance, is trashed by Isaiah. This is history from below, from one of the little powers, suffering this arrogance, but it is really God’s history, looking down on the pretentions of the supposed great. Isaiah addresses empire after empire and the way they are judged. Especially they are judged in their trust in weapons and their own might as military powers. Using Jesus’ later words, “Those who take the sword will perish by the sword.” This section looks at this long imperial failure and at God’s judgement of the world powers of the age.

8. The deconstruction of Militarism.

9. War and Punishment.

10. The Character of Peace.

11. Coming to awareness.

12. The Prince and Servant of Peace.

13. Worldwide Peace.

May/Boris

Another letter

Leave a comment

boris

My Dear Theresa,

Thank you for your letter, which, I think, will not go down to posterity. No, I will not apologize. I understand that you and your cronies need to black me out before the upcoming leadership election, but I will not so easily be silenced. Indeed, I will give the common people what they want – a bit of spice in their lives.

For under your leadership Britain has become a bit dreary. The Brexit campaign was fun – buses and slogans – but you have made it into the most interminably long bore in human history, and it will do for you. The ordinary people do not want to discuss regulations, but fish and chips. They need to have a pee whenever they want, not dictated from Brussels. They do not want to be strong and stable, but have a drink and a good stagger home.

You do not understand the basis of Conservatism. It is to get the common people to discuss trivia. The Coliseum ran Rome. The hoi polloi worried about whether some poor christian bugger was eaten by a lion and not about running the empire. Even that short trousered bastard Gove sees the point. He can get people worried about wood burning stoves when the planet is going down the tubes. Conservatism is about making trivia important and not saying, but presuming, “Trust us”. We must look right and the Whitehall wallahs will do the work.

That is why I brought up letterboxes. The masses like letterboxes. Everybody is an equal authority on letterboxes and we can all talk about whether some burka manufacturers are offended. Everyone’s posting letters. And we need to see our women, properly or improperly, as the case may be.

Of course, clothes are important and how you wear them. Merely wearing trousers does not replace thousands of years of male culture – Omdurman, Polo and a wallet in the back pocket. With a hitch of my trousers I can say to the common people I do not give a toss for diets, perms, female make-up, fashion and cummerbunds, and I am one of them. Of course, I am not, as Caesar and Churchill were not, because I have set out on the course of leadership, but the people can see I am one of them because I have not combed my hair as I get into the limousine.

The masses need Once more unto the beach, dear friends, once more, as my friend Churchill said, especially this summer. We will meet you on the beaches and you WILL speak our language, not some foreign lingo.

Being Foreign Secretary was hell. They were all talking in some God-forsaken language and I needed Perkins of the FO to tell me what they were saying and where they lived, so it is great to be out and after the top job. After all, with Dave and George gone I am the only member of the Bullingdon Club fit to rule. So, in a little while, Theresa, you will be pitching weak and unstable on a Brexit roundabout and the Money will know that only I can hold off Clem Attlee and the dreaded redistribution. Without the Money you are dead. Definitely not May the best horse win.

Boris.

From War to Peace

Your Brilliant New Fighter Concept Plane Thing.

Leave a comment

tempest

The Vision of the Secretary of State for Defence, Gavin Williamson.

Perhaps you missed the announcement about Britain’s new fighter. You, just a single little person, do not really need to understand these things, because we are the experts. You do not want Britain to be invaded, like nearly happened in 1940 at the Battle of Britain, and we will defend you. This article will explain this new project to you simply, so that you can support our Minister of Defence in all that he is doing. His name is Gavin Williamson and he may well be your next Prime Minister.

Britain needs a new fighter so that we can defend ourselves. The Fighter is going to be called “Tempest”, which follows “Typhoon” , not in the alphabet, but as our present national British Fighter. As the present Prime Minister has said we need to defend ourselves against North Korea and other countries, like, er, Guatemala or even Belgium if they invade. To defend yourself you need to attack; to attack you need a fighter. Anything can happen. Aliens may attack us from the air. Therefore, we need a new Fighter.

Combat Air Strategy explained.

Britain leads in Combat Air Strategy, ever since the Spitfire. Combat Air Strategy is where fighter planes in the air fight against other fighter planes in the air, so that the best fighter planes can knock out the other fighter planes, which then need to be produced again by our superb fighter planes manufacturers including BAe Systems. New fighter planes include advanced technologies. We will recall that we have stealth bombers and fighters. To you these planes are very noisy, but they can deceive the radar of other planes and nearly disappear; radar does not hear very well. So we embrace stealth technology. Fighter planes fighting keeps you safe. Most of the time they do not fight, but fly around practising fighting to keep you safe. You may like nice peaceful sunsets, but we have to fill the sky with advanced fighter planes to keep you safe, and our best scientists are employed in making these mean killing machines for the common good. So now you understand Combat Air Strategy.

The Concept Fighter and its spiffing Technology.

This new fighter, Tempest, is not yet a fighter, but a concept. The cost of the concept is £2 billion, a bargain for getting all these aerospace defence companies including BAe Systems together to discuss a new concept plane. After the concept they will start working on design and building, which might cost a bit more. We are not sure how much. One thing they will be discussing is whether to make it a drone, with advanced technology controls from home. Drone may sound boring to you, but to us it is exciting. That has the superb advantage that if our fighter is shot down the pilot will not die while if their fighter is shot down he will die. We can replace it by providing more work for our weapons manufacturers including BAe Systems and other companies. It will take a lot of technology to make pilotless planes. Our technology is software enabled in an increasingly complex electromagnetic environment and world-leading in next generation capability. We already have a reusable and open core mission system architecture and a suite of reusable, functional software components being developed by the UK for current and future systems, so it should be a doddle to build. Companies including BAe Systems will ensure delivery of an Initial Operating Capability by 2035 and it will work sometime thereafter. We, the UK Government, are investing in the concept. Of course, we already have missiles which are pilotless, but missiles cannot fight other fighter planes who might fight our fighter planes.

Some Money Talk.

You may feel that £2 billion is a lot to pay for a concept, but you need to see the full picture. The American F35 has cost over a trillion dollars, or $1,000,000,000,000 if you don’t know what a trillion is. That is a lot of money. When we had built our two aircraft carriers and started to think about what planes to put on them, we were persuaded by the Americans to use F35s, but they cost a lot of money. That is why we need our own planes and we will make them cheaper, although there may be cost overruns.

Commercial Sense.

Of course, part of the point of these new state of the art fighters is to sell them to other countries and make big profits for British industry like BAe Systems. The countries likely to buy them are states thinking about war who are rich, and when you sell to them, then you can also sell to the other side, especially if they are actually fighting a war. Of course, no-one likes war, but selling arms is a commercial priority. Usually, these wars happen somewhere else, and when it occurs the people who attack with our weapons can be attacked with our our weapons. So in Syria the United States, the United Kingdom and Russia are attacking the terrorists who stole our weapons and attacked us, an ideal outcome.

A Bit of Politics.

These announcements are always slightly political, and now we are leaving Europe, or rather the European Union. At present we have the Typhoon which did so well bombing the runways in Libya after their planes had been destroyed, but they are a joint European Project, and with Brexit this may come to an end. The Europeans are doing their own fighter, as the US always does, and Russia, and we want our own too. We are in the First Division; we punch above our weight, as we say in defence. So, we want our own fighter, and first our concept fighter, so that we, and our arms manufacturers like BAe Systems, can keep in the First Division. Without this the Queen would not be able to have tea with President Trump, which she so much enjoys, and our leader could not be strong and stable.

You are convinced.

You, little person, should be grateful that the concept Fighter is being bought for you. £2 billion is a bargain. Now you have had some of the key points explained to you, you will not have to think while the full expenditure is rolled out, and you will be able to remember what an awesome Defence Minister we had in 2018. Everyone can see that to defend you have to fight and sell arms to others, even if they might fight us. The Tempest will lead us to peace and to win the war against peace without pilots. It will help us to punch above our weight and you will be secure as the fighters fight above Britain while BAe Systems and other companies make even more planes to replace those which are shot down. You can let your little mind go to sleep thankful that your Government is defending you against the Belgians and other invaders who will not attack, at least after 2035-40, if we have not sold the new fighter to them first, and we have more fighters than they have made by BAe Systems and other companies.

[Could you add here that BAe Systems did not put any pressure on the Department of Defence for this initiative and it was a complete surprise to us.]

Teresa?Trump letters

Trump’s Final Briefing from May

Leave a comment

trump

My dear Donald, if I May,

So, at last you are coming. I am ecstatic. It is just what I need right now in the calm of the English summer. We politicians are just sitting about eating strawberries. Welcome to the United Kingdom. Of course, we are not a Kingdom but a Queendom. She is a woman in charge, like me. Shake hands with her first and then with the men in uniforms. Welcome to your Britain, metaphorically of course – the place of your primitive ancestors. It is wonderful that you are coming here to set our people on fire with togetherness and the spirit of capitalism. This note is to be read to you as you fly over to prepare you for the visit. You will need to sit down and get someone to read it to you slowly a couple of times..

First, you have already announced that “Britain is in turmoil”. It is good you are taking note of us, and I know what you mean, but I beg you not to say, “and I will sort it out”. Though you are wonderful at doing events and resignations, saying that here might upset a lot of people. If they decide to turn the sentence around and try to sort you out, it could be ugly, so please do not say those words or offer to make us another state of the Great USA, or GUSA, as we regularly say.

The intensity of the mood here is related to the World Cup and that soccer football game thingy event. Lots of our people wanted us to win, so that we can be World Champions, but not really World Champions because you are already, and we know that American football is the greatest game in the world after golf. But we lost to an upcoming world power called Coatia and the peasants are a bit miffed. They will be marching around chanting with banners and big balloons of their favourite stars, but a bit grumpy. You will sadly not have time to talk to them about football and things or look at their balloons.

On golf, your outstanding visit to the golf course is fully planned. As I told you in my last letter we have got photos of all the balls going down the holes and just await pictures of you resolute on the tees, the starting place, to line up with them. We also need a Card in your large handwriting showing a round in 18, signed by you. Yes, it has never happened before. I have already got the Cabinet to sign the Card. Sadly, we cannot sell any of the islands at the top left or the big one lower down which is not fully ours. Scotland will probably not want you to run it just now, even though you are linked to their Royal Family, and their music is bad. Sometimes the Scots are hostile to the English and to visitors who want to buy their country.

I hope you are still listening. We have tried to lay on the biggest State visit for anyone ever, bigger than for all other American Presidents. The centre of a State visit is the Queen, who is like our Donald Trump but smaller. When we sing, “God save the Queen” you do not have to do anything. When you meet the Queen could you remember she may have a bit of an infection and you must only touch her hands which will have gloves on to keep you safe. She has taken to muttering about independence and growing up, and is beginning to resent her welcoming job, so it is best to smile and talk about animals. She is not selling any of her Scottish castles. Prince Philip will look after your wife, but she will not be able to understand anything he says, especially about you. Your visit will also get mixed up with a big military exercise in case we are attacked by Iceland. It will involve rings of steel, lots of troops and may mean that millions of your admiring fans will have to be kept at a distance.

Could I also mention Boris. You said that you liked him, and I am grateful that your people taught him where countries are on the map, though he still thinks Venezuela is in Africa. He is taking a break and going to try to comb his hair like you. Like yourself he is keen on being Churchill and is a great fan of GUSA. Feel free on this visit to endorse him as a future Prime Minister and mention all his similarities to yourself. Your recommendation will go a long way with the British people, who hang on your every word.

So, could I say how proud we are to have you and your wife visit this humble country, with whom you have this special patronizing relationship. We will not be able to honour you enough and must keep your adoring fans at bay but look forward to holding hands and doing all kinds of exciting things. And could I apologize. We organised a massive flypast of military planes, but it happened a week early by mistake. Don’t mention Russia or Brexit, and we already know we were in the wrong in 1776. Remember, we start the day five hours earlier than you and I am supposed to be Prime Minister here. Thank you for listening. You might like to get an explanation of the long words we use over here in simple English. Gohomeyounutter means Welcome, and Goodriddance means It has been lovely to see you.

Your adoring fan, Theresa, (Prime Minister, UK)

Teresa?Trump letters

Donald – you and Kim Jong-un

Leave a comment

trumpmay

My Dear Donald,

I know you are busy talking to Kim Jong-un but I just had to drop you a line, and, as you know, I cannot Tweet. First of all the G7 Summit. It was good to see you there from a distance and I did tap your back a few times, and I understand why you are slapping tariffs on us all, but I am in the middle of delicate negotiations with the European Union people, and I could not at this stage side with you against them. It would make the Brexit exit too fast for us. I hope you understand that, really, I was with you and that our special relationship will continue and that we can become your special trading partner when we lose our European markets. I understand that you can charge tariffs to us and we cannot charge tariffs to you, because you are tough on trade, and that we must welcome your multinationals with open arms and find you another golf course, but that is a small price to pay for a close relationship with the Great United States of America and you, Mr President Donald.

We are especially honoured by your coming visit in July and are trying out a new form of welcome. They are large soundproof painted screens with people on which will move around with you to make you feel at home. And we are already taking pictures of the golf balls going straight down the holes from a long distance on your Golf Course. Sadly, Prince Philip, will not meet you because of his advanced age and a mouth problem, but the Queen will be welcoming you with a full State visit. She has agreed to you trying on the Crown and wants you to discuss corgies. I will apologize for the way you were treated in 1776 and remit all tea tariffs for ever as an act of goodwill. I would dearly like a picture of you looking into the distance for the Number 10 stairway.

Although this is slightly sensitive could I remind you about the North Korea thing this week. You could easily negotiate Kim Jong-un into anything, but if you make friends with North Korea and even more with Russia, we will have few of the enemies left on which our great military forces rely. You are trying to make a good enemy of Iran, but it could co-operate, and that leaves us with few threats to be afraid of, even though I did enjoy our brief chat about aliens. So, it might be a good idea to keep North Korea as an enemy. I use it frequently in my speeches.

So, we look forward to your great visit to us. We are making red carpets to cover all your routes and will get the “fuzzy-wuzzie soldiers” out, as you call them, and I am eating Hamburgers so that I do not come over too stuffy or schoolmistressy.

Your ever loyal ally and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (Britain)

Theresa May