THE DEVIL AND THE DEEP BLACK SEA

Drone MoscowBefore the name became synonymous with an earnest rock band whose ideological offspring have emasculated the genre beyond saving, U2 equated with a US spy plane of the original Cold War era. U2 went from being a mundane military term to a global buzzword in 1960 when the aircraft flown by American pilot Gary Powers was shot down in Soviet airspace during a clandestine surveillance mission. The plane was downed by a surface-to-air missile and the American authorities initially insisted the plane wasn’t a plane but was actually a weather research aircraft – perhaps a bit like those Chinese balloons spotted over the US a month or so ago. However, in one of the great propaganda coups of the period, the Russians paraded Powers (who had parachuted to safety) before the cameras and produced the aerial photographs of military bases the pilot had been dispatched to snap. An embarrassed America was forced to come clean just weeks before President Eisenhower was scheduled to meet Soviet Premier Khrushchev (a summit meeting which was cancelled as a consequence), despite rightly pointing out their tactics were hardly unique at the time – and indeed proved priceless when it came to Cuba a couple of years later; Powers was tried, found guilty of espionage and received a characteristically harsh seven-year sentence before returning home via a prisoner exchange in 1962.

Over half-a-century later, manned missions are no longer necessary for that kind of work, but even their automated successors can run into trouble. Aided by the conflict in Ukraine, relations between the US and Russia are arguably at their lowest level since the days when Gary Powers took his ill-fated flight, and yesterday an American MQ-9 Reaper drone – a small surveillance aircraft – had a too-close encounter with a Russian fighter jet and was last seen plunging into the Black Sea. As is traditional, both sides offer different explanations for the incident and both see the collision as an act of provocation by the other party. A statement from the Pentagon said ‘Our MQ-9 aircraft was conducting routine operations in international airspace when it was intercepted and hit by a Russian aircraft, resulting in a crash and a complete loss of the MQ-9’, before adding the alleged Russian actions could lead to ‘miscalculation and unintended escalation’. Well, that’s something else to help you sleep better at night innit.

The Black Sea itself has been what one might call ‘a hot spot’ since the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea, but the invasion of Ukraine last year has seen an increase in surveillance jaunts over the area; whilst US and UK aircraft hovering around the region have officially remained in international airspace, there’s always the understandable suspicion the odd plane sneaks ‘behind enemy lines’. Russian aircraft are hardly noted for scrupulously observing the rules when it comes to the airspace of a sovereign nation, so it wouldn’t be a great stretch of the imagination to envisage Western aircraft doing likewise. The incident that occurred yesterday was clearly viewed by Washington as deliberate rather than an accident, which implies that if the drone remained in international airspace at the time of the collision, this was indeed the Russians overstepping the mark. This perspective certainly holds sway in the US, resulting in the Russian Ambassador Anatoly Antonov being summoned to provide an explanation; back home in Moscow, however, the state media regarded the presence of the drone as ‘a provocation’. Tit for tat, then.

The Pentagon claims the ‘unsafe, unprofessional’ actions on the part of the Russian aircraft consisted of dumping fuel in the flight path of the drone in a ‘reckless, environmentally unsound and unprofessional manner’, followed by a collision with it that eventually caused it to fall to earth. According to the National Security Council, this incident wasn’t exactly groundbreaking, but it was the most significant to date in terms of damage done. The US didn’t reveal the precise location where the drone landed or if the Russian Navy had embarked on a search for it, but the notion of such sensitive equipment falling into enemy hands is naturally undesirable; it would seem the US used remote pilots to ensure the drone splashed down somewhere in the Black Sea following the collision, which was probably the safest option given the delicate situation, though that doesn’t necessarily mean its secrets are secure on the sea bed. The support being given to Ukraine by the West isn’t limited to providing military hardware, but military intelligence; Kyiv has become dependent on the findings of Western surveillance drones revealing everything from the launching of missiles to the movement of Russian vessels in the Black Sea. It goes without saying that this information going astray wouldn’t help the Ukrainian cause.

Russia, on its part, has demanded the US cease what it refers to as ‘hostile flights’ into Russian airspace; the same Ambassador who was called to provide an explanation for his nation’s actions yesterday, Anatoly Antonov, was prompted to say, ‘We presume the United States will refrain from further speculation in the media space and will stop flying near Russian borders’. There have certainly been some fairly unambiguous indications via Russian state media that the remains of the drone are being actively sought by Russian authorities, though the White House’s spokesman John Kirby has insisted the likelihood of it being recovered – by either side – seems fairly slim. ‘I’m not sure that we’re going to be able to recover it,’ he said. ‘Where it fell into the Black Sea – very, very deep water; so we’re still assessing whether there can be any kind of recovery effort. There may not be.’ Mr Kirby then did his best to affirm that any information the drone contained wouldn’t be much use to Moscow anyway – ‘We did the best we could to minimise any intelligence value that might come from somebody else getting their hands on that drone,’ he added. Two lines from the old Megadeth song, ‘Hanger 18’ now spring to mind – ‘Military intelligence/two words combined that don’t make sense’; Thrash Metal, not known for its profound observations, occasionally delivers the goods.

This incident is clearly not on the same propaganda level as the U2 affair of 1960; for one thing, there is no all-American boy to present as evidence and (as yet) no drone to produce as the next best thing. But it does perhaps highlight yet again the tensions along an international fault-line between East and West that appears as wobbly today as it was 60 years ago. Events in Ukraine and Putin’s persecution complex have combined to create a climate of suspicion and mutual mistrust that has a distinctly chilly whiff of Cold War air about it, with the Kremlin declaring that relations with the US are in a ‘lamentable state’ on the same day that RAF and German fighter jets intercepted a Russian aircraft drifting into Estonian airspace on behalf of NATO. Indeed, sometimes it feels like the Berlin Wall never fell after all.

I suppose a key difference re the West on our rebooted Cold War front is the notable lack of pro-Russian sympathies on this side of the divide. First time round, there were strong Soviet leanings on the Left that ran all the way from university campuses to the grubby backrooms of Trades Union branches; the same attitudes that had turned a blind eye to Stalin’s purges in the 1930s and were strengthened by our alliance with the USSR against Nazi Germany during WWII held firm that Communism was the only alternative to capitalism’s iniquities; even events in Hungary and Czechoslovakia couldn’t shake that conviction. Today, the sole Russians the West courts are exiled oligarchs whilst Putin’s regime is viewed as akin to Hitler’s by all but a few scattered apologists; the popular cause is Ukraine, and Russia is regarded very much as the evil aggressor. A superior state of affairs to those in the past, perhaps; but still very black and white, still very Us and Them – which rarely bodes well for future international relations.

© The Editor

Website: https://www.johnnymonroe.co.uk/

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?fan_landing=true&u=56665294

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/807270946

A TALE OF TWO AUNTIES

BBC SingersFor those not in the know, the BBC Singers are the UK’s sole professional chamber choir; perhaps lack of competition has enabled this ensemble to remain a revered fixture of the country’s Classical furniture for the best part of a century, but it also means people take notice when such unique BBC employees feel the brunt of their employer’s diminishing commitment to the highbrow. A couple of years ago, it was announced that the BBC Concert Orchestra would be dispatched to the wilds of the provinces as yet another token gesture in the ongoing (and increasingly tedious) operation to make the Beeb less ‘London-centric’; but this week an even more dispiriting sign of these BBC times came with the announcement that the BBC Singers are to be disbanded before the start of this year’s Proms, just a year before reaching their landmark 100th birthday; another penny-pinching body blow to the declining morale of these unsung old retainers was the announcement that salaries for members of the English BBC orchestras will be slashed by 20%.

Axing the BBC Singers was described in one newspaper article as an ‘act of vandalism’; BBC DG Tim Davie was the recipient of a joint letter penned by several Classical luminaries, declaring the intended cuts to be ‘irreversible and catastrophically damaging plans’; the BBC’s response reads: ‘Since 1922 we’ve been an integral part of the Classical music ecology in this country, and in order for us to continue to be a leading force in the industry, we need to modernise, make some necessary and difficult changes to the way we operate to ensure we are responding to audience needs and provide the best possible music to the widest possible audience.’ That statement just stops short of masking its meaning in Birt-speak buzzwords, but bearing in mind the self-destructive path the BBC seems determined to stick to, one wonders if their remaining ensembles will be restructured so that they will henceforth hire not on musical merit, but on box-ticking diversity/inclusivity grounds; perhaps ‘The BBC Rainbow Orchestra’ will eventually emerge from the ashes.

Naturally, the ominous spectre of the licence fee looms over every bumbling move the BBC makes these days as it struggles to justify its existence, and in the process has a habit of forgetting what made it special in the first place. The BBC’s nine musical ensembles may be a legacy of the old Reithian principles that regarded broadcasting as a moral mission to raise the artistic appreciation of the nation, and are viewed by some (especially within the BBC itself) as an anachronistic luxury; yet their continued presence in the face of the relentless dumbing-down that has characterised the Corporation in recent years has been something of a minor victory, particularly when compared to the fate of BBC4, a channel that for a good decade or more was the last remaining bastion of the Beeb’s once-peerless television output.

Now, rather than playing the long game of starving them out, the BBC has instead decided to disband its Singers in the same week as its somewhat kneejerk decision to hand a P45 to a grossly-overpaid star following the latest in a lengthy litany of gormless missives on social media. The fact the Beeb would have happily carried on paying Gary Lineker’s astronomical wages had his current comments on illegal immigrants not landed the Corporation in one more row with the Government that it could desperately do without says as much about its priorities as cutting the salaries of the BBC orchestras. Okay, so BBC TV’s football coverage commands far higher ratings than the listening figures for Radio 3; but we’re not talking about ITV or Channel 5, are we? Isn’t the BBC supposed to amount to more than merely chasing ratings?

Gary Lineker has been a bit of a repeat offender for quite some time; remembering I once wrote a post on here about his Twitter activities, I was surprised to learn when I tracked it down that it had been written as far back as December 2016; in a way, that shows just how long the BBC has tolerated his off-air utterances. As with Jeremy Clarkson before him, it seems the Beeb will allow the front-men of their most profitable franchises to get away with stretching the Corporation’s supposed ‘impartiality’ to breaking point for years until one incident too many provokes enough outraged headlines for a favourite son to be shown the door. I suppose the main difference between Lineker and Clarkson’s positions is that the latter was popular with that section of the viewing public the BBC disdains, whereas the former is a darling of all that the BBC bigwigs hold dear; one suspects they’d been keen to get rid of an embarrassment like Clarkson for years but didn’t dare, whilst losing Lineker was the last thing they wanted. However, unlike ‘Top Gear’ – which has failed to thrive since Clarkson’s departure – ‘Match of the Day’ will survive Gary Linker just as it survived David Coleman, Jimmy Hill and Des Lynam; viewers don’t tune in for the presenter or the pundits; they tune in to watch the games.

From all accounts, the entire commentary team of ‘Match of the Day’ have walked out in solidarity with Lineker; moreover, this Saturday’s edition will have neither presenter nor pundits as it seems Lineker’s sofa mafia have also downed tools and refused to work – although most of them, like Lineker himself, are essentially freelance anyway and routinely turn up on other broadcasters to cover matches the BBC hasn’t got the rights to anymore. Personally, I quite like the idea of ‘Match of the Day’ taking a ‘TOTP 2’ approach to coverage, with no host and no waffling ex-pros endlessly analysing what we’ve just seen. Who knows – it might work as a formula and we’ll be spared the inevitable Alex Scott inheriting the hot-seat. Anyway, as things stand, this move is not being officially regarded as permanent, though it’s hard to see a way back for Lineker with the BBC so terrified of offending a government that wants to take its own shears to the Beeb’s myriad tentacles.

The reactions to the comments that ultimately left the BBC with no choice but to give Gary Lineker the push mirror the polarisation of our times and highlight the dividing lines between those who applaud the compulsion of celebrities to virtue signal and those who deplore them doing so. One side praises Lineker and accuses the BBC of being spineless Tory lapdogs whilst the other claims the freedom the ex-footballer has had to make a mockery of BBC impartiality is symptomatic of the metropolitan Woke elite that forces its arrogant agenda down the throat of a viewing audience sick of being lectured to. Ironically, Piers Morgan, of all people, supported Lineker’s right to express his opinion (even if he disagreed with it) and argued it wasn’t a sackable offence, what with Lineker not being the host of a news programme. The culture wars do indeed occasionally throw up unlikely bedfellows.

It’s interesting that suspending a high-profile presenter of a popular programme provokes an across-the-board ‘everybody out’ attitude not just amongst BBC staff but at the equally PC Premier League, and provides further ammunition for social media soapboxes; it gives the impression that the BBC has been reduced to an ineffective supply teacher unable to exercise any authority over its unruly pupils. On the other hand, when it comes to a corner of the Corporation with a lower profile (albeit one with a far more distinguished history), the BBC can wield the axe unchallenged and protests are limited to the small albeit passionate circle of musicians directly affected. Perhaps these particular BBC employees don’t fit the profile the Beeb is keen to cultivate and consequently aren’t viewed as important – even if their gradual obliteration will do far more long-term damage to the Corporation’s dwindling reputation than the loss of Lineker ever will.

© The Editor

Website: https://www.johnnymonroe.co.uk/

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?fan_landing=true&u=56665294

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/797932964

WHATSAPP, DOC?

vlcsnap-2023-03-07-16h53m33s534In a way, it would’ve been a breath of fresh air to have been proven wrong, to have had all suspicions and scepticism exposed as ill-founded and to realise our elected leaders were acting out of genuine concern for the people after all. Alas, so engrained now is mistrust of the political class – and not without good reason, lest we forget – that it seems we were destined to have our worst fears confirmed once the private exchanges between those who implemented pandemic policies began seeping out into a mainstream media that slavishly toed the party line at the time. Two or three years later, the MSM has changed direction with the wind and is belatedly engaged in a sequence of double-takes, as though any of these so-called revelations are remotely surprising. In a way, it’s an amusing measure of just how remarkably dim Matt Hancock really is that he entrusted his WhatsApp messages to a Fleet Street snake like Isabel Oakeshott when she was co-authoring his pandemic diaries; true to her nature, Ms Oakeshott proceeded to pass them on to the Daily Telegraph, and now the former Health Secretary’s true thoughts during the period in which he and the Government adopted an approach to civil liberties that Oliver Cromwell would have regarded as a bit extreme are laid bare for all to see. And what an unedifying example of the contempt in which Hancock and his cohorts hold the proles they truly are. And we all thought they cared, didn’t we.

‘Hilarious! I just want to see some of the faces of people coming out of first-class and into a premier inn shoe box.’ That was the reaction of Whitehall mandarin Simon Case to Matt Hancock when the sudden branding of certain countries as ‘red list’ meant any Brit returning from them would have to be quarantined in hotels at the princely sum of £1,750 per person; the notion that these would all be jet-setters returning from skiing holidays is a crude generalisation that distorts the fact that not-so affluent individuals often have to travel abroad to visit family and may well have saved for years to do so. Hilarious indeed. Just how detached Ministers are from the economic realities the vast majority are governed by was further demonstrated in Boris Johnson’s reaction to the news that police crackdowns on ‘lockdown breakers’ had resulted in one specific case of £10,000 fines for two people; Hancock sent the PM the good news, to which Boris replied ‘Superb!’ The fines Boris & Co eventually received for their own spot of lockdown breaking reminded me of similar punishments dished out to Premier League footballers who bring the game into disrepute in that they were hardly likely to plunge those fined into poverty; what of the unfortunate plebs forced to fork out £10,000, though?

As for the instigation of Project Fear itself, whilst TV ad breaks and billboards were flooded with images of masked patients in hospital beds and shops were rationing customers as every available space was plastered with orders posing as advice, Hancock was busily reviewing the success of the campaign on WhatsApp, reminding his media adviser that ‘(We need) to frighten the pants off everyone with the new strain’ before asking ‘When do we deploy the new variant?’ Cabinet Secretary Simon Case evidently knew what worked, stressing ‘the fear/guilt factor (is) vital’. Needless to say, scaring the population into submission wasn’t entirely unprecedented; Project Fear tapped into the global catastrophe narrative in which the end of the world is always nigh; everything from Remainer predictions on the ramifications of Brexit to the elevation of an obnoxious schoolgirl into a secular prophet for the most nihilistic crusade of the age had helped generate widespread insecurities primed to play straight into Government hands. Indeed, one could argue the only competence Boris’s administration showed was in enlisting the obedient compliance of the populace, for in this particular instance the end of the world could be averted if you did as you were told.

Those who expressed grave doubts as to what was being done were criticised at best, demonised at worst, and some were effectively no-platformed, their dissenting voices dismissed as Covid-denying, anti-vax, right-wing extremism; even the respected academics who were the prime signatories to the Great Barrington Declaration – which offered a more humane approach to dealing with Covid that made ring-fencing care homes a top priority – had their reputations blackened and besmirched. The MSM and social media, as well as their Big Tech paymasters, clamped down on any deviancy from the official narrative to the point where few were prepared to air their concerns; and the few that dared to were rapidly silenced, anyway. YouTube and Twitter were censoring freedom of speech like cyberspace Covid Marshals, goose-stepping across hard-fought civil rights that had been one of the achievements of Western civilisation for centuries and grinding them to dust.

Meanwhile, out in the real world the STASI-like encouragement to grass-up one’s neighbours was complemented by drones tracking dog-walkers, and coppers threatening to fine householders sat in their own front gardens if they didn’t go back inside. The employment of virtual curfews, the cavalier destruction of industry and the economy, ruthless pharmaceutical gambling with the lives of the perfectly healthy, the interruption of education and the polluting of infant minds, the outlawing of religious services, the house arrest and solitary confinement of the elderly and mentally ill, the suspension of travelling, the closing-down of sports, hospitality and entertainment venues, and the untold psychological effects of informing people that every step outdoors would kill another granny – all played their part in a period so unnervingly nightmarish that it’s almost hard to believe it actually happened now. But it did, and those that enforced it with their edicts were pissing themselves at the rest of us as they and their pals made a fast buck out of the crisis, snogged their aides, and stopped-off at the off-licence en route to Downing Street.

It’s no wonder so many entombed indoors concluded this was the ultimate conspiracy theory, the culmination of every Great Reset rumour that had been gathering pace for years. One friend of mine bought heavily into the conspiracy theory angle during lockdown and was severely impacted by the concurrent insecurity about where it would lead us; most who know him are convinced it contributed to his subsequent breakdown and radical change of personality. But the irony is, as much as it’s strangely reassuring to believe events beyond our control are being orchestrated by a malevolent global coterie of governments, corporations and so on, the Matt Hancock WhatsApp leaks simply confirm the fact that those pulling the pandemic strings were mainly making it up as they went along; yes, most of them were callous, avaricious individuals who were utterly indifferent when it came to the damage they were doing to the lives of the masses, but they weren’t agents of some SMERSH-like syndicate; they were merely mediocrities who had suddenly been handed the kind of powers they’d never dreamt would ever fall into their hands – not unlike the underachieving nonentities the SS often made commandants of concentration camps; few powers corrupt quite like those given to little men and women who would otherwise amount to nothing.

We also shouldn’t neglect to remember – as we edge towards an inevitable change of government – that opposition parties were even more rabid lockdown fanatics than the heartless implementers of policies whose private personas have finally been made public. Rather than offer a counterbalance to the increasingly draconian legislation the Tories were rushing through Parliament as they became thoroughly sozzled on unlimited power, Labour and the Lib Dems instead offered an alternative that was even more draconian, even more extreme, even more undemocratic, and even more doom-mongering. I suppose they were simply building on the example set before them on the other side of the House. After all, as Matt Hancock said on WhatsApp, fear was ‘vital’.

© The Editor

Website: https://www.johnnymonroe.co.uk/

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?fan_landing=true&u=56665294

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/797932964

HOMEWARD BOUND

BegumAlthough a phrase that has become more commonplace in recent years where desperate Z-list celebrities and even the living rooms of plebs on the telly are concerned, ‘makeover’ has nonetheless been a routine PR tool in showbiz circles ever since the dawn of mass media. Hollywood effectively wrote the manual, formulating a familiar device to extend careers as Tinsel Town’s leading ladies received makeovers via the magic of the lighting men on set, keeping the ageing process at bay before excessive cosmetic surgery found a way to do it for them. In the 21st century, most post-Madonna female pop stars seem to ‘get sexy’ when seeking to re-launch their fading stock, and squeaky-clean members of clean-cut boy-bands usually embark on solo careers by forgetting to shave whilst suddenly acquiring a Maori-like range of tattoos, supposedly to signify ‘street cred’ – all examples of the makeover in action. Turd-polishers have never had it so good these days, though I would imagine even the most experienced would have faced an unusually tough challenge when entrusted with transforming a Jihadi bride into a sexy R&B siren.

Okay, so the team behind Shamima Begum’s makeover didn’t exactly team her up with Jay-Z and persuade her to filter her vocals through the tiresome Auto-tune machinery; but there was no mistaking the look Ms Begum’s posse were aiming for when she resurfaced shorn of her regulation burqa, dressed in the style most girls her age would have seamlessly slipped into had they not had their adolescence disrupted by signing-up to an Islamic death cult. Sure, Shamima had followed a not-uncommon path by becoming a teenage mother, even if the grotesque circumstances and tragic outcome of her brief parenthood singled her out from her contemporaries. But a large part of the campaign to regain her British citizenship was a cleverly-orchestrated effort aimed at portraying Shamima Begum as ‘just’ an ordinary girl via her dress sense, not to mention rebranding her as that most profitable personality in the current celebrity firmament, the Victim.

As befitting someone seeking rehabilitation in the eyes of the general public following such widespread and extreme demonisation, Shamima Begum has been embraced by the left-leaning quarters of the MSM, with the usual suspects queuing-up to declare their support; the BBC even gave her a platform to state her case with a podcast. Their argument is that, as an impressionable 15-year-old at the time of her conversion to ISIS and her flight to Syria, Shamima Begum was essentially ‘trafficked’ and didn’t know what she was letting herself in for; by the time it belatedly dawned on her what her role in the Jihadi hierarchy amounted to, it was too late. Of course, teenage girls going astray and running away from home is hardly a scenario unique to this day and age, though the majority of young ladies who do so tend to be either in search of the bright lights or have fallen under the spell of a bad boy from the wrong side of the tracks. Joining an organisation whose…erm…negative elements had been heavily publicised at the time of Shamima Begum’s conversion, leaving her comfortable Western home to relocate to a war-zone, doesn’t really adhere to the standard pattern.

I recall penning a post on this subject four or five years back and the arguments haven’t really changed in the wake of the latest legal ruling that has ruled out Shamima Begum returning to the UK. As I said back then, ISIS were well-known as barbaric mass-murderers when they encroached upon Shamima Begum’s radar, so it’s not as though she could claim absolute ignorance of their aims and intentions, even if her tender years perhaps lacked the nous to see through the romantic Islamic imagery they no doubt employed to entice new recruits. And even if she was still a schoolgirl, Shamima Begum nevertheless managed to organise and successfully undertake an escape to Turkey, which suggests she possessed the kind of intelligence and skills in excess of most 15-year-olds, many of whom find keeping their bedrooms tidy a Herculean task way beyond their abilities. Shamima Begum demonstrated she was exceptionally talented in organisational terms, and this is where the ‘grooming’ narrative favoured by her supporters doesn’t necessarily hold up. Certainly, she was seduced by the Dark Web propaganda of ISIS in the same way the perpetrators of US high-school massacres are tipped over the edge by far-right websites; but one could argue the environment in which Shamima Begum was raised had primed her to respond in the way she did to this propaganda as much as troubled teens surrounded by a normalised gun culture respond to white supremacist dogma in America. Shamima Begum had grown up in a ‘multicultural’ society that had repeatedly left immigrant communities to their own devices for fear of racism accusations, a situation of separatist faith schools and in-house policing that led to the turning of blind eyes to grooming gangs on one hand and the easy radicalisation of vulnerable adolescents by unscrupulous hate-preachers on the other.

If one looks at the Shamima Begum saga from this angle, then it’s hard not to conclude she is indeed a victim; but does that excuse her actions or warrant what effectively amounts to a pardon? The newest setback to her rehabilitation has come via a court ruling upholding the decision of then-Home Secretary Sajid Javid to strip Shamima Begum of her UK citizenship in 2019. That decision was made on the grounds that Ms Begum posed a threat to British security should she be allowed to return from the Syrian refugee camp she’s been detained in for the past five years. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission essentially came to the same findings as last time round in 2020; Mr Justice Jay announced the Commission’s position with an acknowledgement that the circumstances of Shamima Begum are far from being the straightforward issue both her supporters and detractors are keen to paint it as being.

‘This commission concluded there was a credible suspicion that Ms Begum had been trafficked to Syria,’ said Justice Jay. ‘The motive for bringing her to Syria was sexual exploitation to which, as a child, she could not give her valid consent. The commission also concluded that there were arguable breaches of duty on the part of various state bodies in permitting Ms Begum to leave the country as she did and eventually cross the border from Turkey into Syria.’ The Judge went on to state that Sajid Javid’s decision to strip Shamima Begum of her British nationality remained founded in genuine security concerns that even the trafficking aspect of the story didn’t render redundant. ‘There is some merit in the argument that those advising the secretary of state see this as a black and white issue,’ he added, ‘when many would say that there are shades of grey…if asked to evaluate all the circumstances of Ms Begum’s case, reasonable people with knowledge of all the relevant evidence will differ, in particular in relation to the issue of the extent to which her travel to Syria was voluntary and the weight to be given to that factor in the context of all others.’

It goes without saying that Shamima Begum’s legal team intend to fight on. They still stand by their belief that the decision of the Home Secretary in 2019 had left their client ‘de facto stateless’, with the counterargument by the British Government being that, as she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship, they weren’t legally required to retain her rights as a UK citizen anyway. The case for Shamima Begum to be recognised as a child exploitation victim is one that the likes of Amnesty International is also in favour of, and I’ve no doubt this sorry story is far from over. The current makeover of Shamima Begum appears to have faltered, but there are undoubtedly several makeovers yet to come; and as Ms Begum herself remains indefinitely detained in Syria, the question of how responsible the 23-year-old is for the actions of her 15-year-old self is still a potent one. We all have our teenage skeletons in our adult closets, but most are merely embarrassing fashion statements; if that were all Shamima Begum’s closet contained, she’d have been back home a long time ago.

© The Editor

Website: https://www.johnnymonroe.co.uk/

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?fan_landing=true&u=56665294

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/797932964

END OF THE (HIGH) ROAD

SturgeonWhere Scots are concerned, it seems that for every Bannockburn, there’s a Darien Venture; or a Culloden; or Scotland Vs Peru 1978; or Scotland Vs Iran 1978; or Scotland Vs Costa Rica 1990; or the Gender Recognition Bill 2023. Continuous electoral success that was only momentarily derailed by the brief Tory resurgence spearheaded by Ruth Davidson in 2017 suggested Nicola Sturgeon’s lengthy tenure as SNP leader and First Minister of Scotland was destined to climax with her being crowned queen of an independent Scotland come the next ‘once in a generation’ referendum. And now it’s all over. Wee Nicola has announced she will be bringing the curtain down on her stellar political career without having seen through the fanatical obsession of every committed Scottish Nationalist to its ultimate conclusion, one that appears to take precedence over every other issue that elected leaders of countries are supposed to devote their time and energy to.

Nicola Sturgeon may have cited ‘personal reasons’ as the explanation for her sudden resignation, but the suicidal decision to promote a bill that has been received with such vociferous opposition beyond minority Woke circles has seen her poll ratings plummet and the ramifications of her tunnel vision on the Trans issue severely dent her credibility. The case of convicted double rapist Adam Graham underlined how spineless capitulation to the Trans lobby can result in the unsurprising, cynical exploitation of naive, ill-thought-out proposals by opportunistic criminals eager to save their own grubby skins rather than striking a blow for Identity Politics. Restyling himself as ‘Isla Bryson’ and dressing in drag to symbolise his overnight embrace of his feminine side saw this reprehensible individual rewarded with a safe passage to a women’s prison; here be the dark flipside of instant self-identification being legitimised without the need for the kind of surgical procedures that sort out the genuine article from the dilettante.

Such was the outrage that rightly greeted the Adam/Isla fiasco that it rebounded on Sturgeon and her bill, especially when it emerged that the SNP had rejected an amendment that would have prevented accused sex offenders from acquiring a ‘gender recognition certificate’ when waiting for their trial; a violent male rapist being dispatched to a women’s prison simply because he conveniently decides he was born in the wrong body before being sentenced is a situation that would only go forth and multiply were the proposals put forward in Scotland’s gender recognition bill to be enshrined in law; and the farcical outcome of the Adam Graham sentencing was hardly likely to endear one of the chief advocates of the bill to the general public. Nicola Sturgeon’s popularity north of the border undoubtedly suffered as a result of this calamitous misfire, and it’s difficult not to conclude that her unexpected decision to step down has come about via a realisation that taking a nihilistic detour from her long-standing ‘mission’ has cost her dearly.

Not that this has been the first such misfire on Sturgeon’s part, however. Along with the similarly left-leaning administration governing Wales, the SNP revealed its true authoritarian colours during the pandemic, imposing severe restrictions on the public that even exceeded the admittedly draconian measures imposed south of the border. Coupled with the party’s shabby record on a variety of outstanding issues that remain something of a stain on Scotland’s supposedly ‘progressive’ status in comparison to England, the SNP’s pandemic performance highlighted the error in handing power to a party that cloaks its intolerant, illiberal intentions in the guise of tolerance and liberalism. From the party’s abysmal handling of Scotland’s drug problem to its persistent curbs on personal choice – including alcohol, sugary foodstuffs, cigarettes and free speech – the SNP, and Sturgeon in particular, has routinely exposed itself as being one of the most regressive ruling parties in British political history – since Cromwell’s ‘reign’, anyway.

But it is the question of independence that has overridden every other concern since the SNP wrestled power from Labour in Scotland, when under the stewardship of Alex Salmond. Relations between the two SNP leaders appears to have soured considerably since Nicola Sturgeon’s telling silence and apparent lack of support during her predecessor’s courtroom challenge to those who accused him of inappropriate behaviour when in office, and one imagines there will be few tears shed for Sturgeon in the Salmond household now that she has chosen to fall on her sword. Independence is the SNP’s raison d’être, the sole reason it exists; and whilst frantically extolling the virtues of such an obsession on the fringes is a commonplace sight in politics, few – other than perhaps Sinn Féin in Ulster – have been presented with such a prestigious platform from which to broadcast their message; the SNP’s inability to devote adequate time and effort to everyday issues beyond the prime concern – and its absolute incompetence in dealing with them – has only laid bare the lack of flexibility and basic political nous at the heart of nationalist movements. Yes, Sturgeon came across as an impressive orator when lined-up next to a piss-poor parade of production-line careerists like Cameron, Clegg and Miliband during the televised party debates of 2015; but – as a female friend of mine once said – how can you trust someone who always wears the same bloody earrings? It takes a woman to notice these things.

RAQUEL WELCH (1940-2023)

Raquel WelchBack in the days when a man could get away with observations of a lady’s physical assets by uttering such statements as ‘You don’t get many of them to the pound’, the name of Raquel Welch routinely cropped-up as an example of a female public figure renowned for being…erm…well-endowed. Yes, Dolly Parton may have eventually superseded Ms Welch as the most prominent example, but for the latter half of the 1960s and the first half of the 1970s, Raquel Welch was celebrated as the prime copyright-holder of the attributes many men value in the opposite sex. I suppose her memorable appearance in Hammer’s ‘One Million Years B.C.’, the historically-inaccurate yet undeniably enjoyable 1966 outing for Ray Harryhausen’s stop-motion dinosaurs, sealed her reputation. The fur ‘bikini’ she wore for the duration of the movie as a prehistoric pin-up girl became one of the decade’s most iconic sartorial statements and a pop cultural snapshot that opened doors for the actress whilst simultaneously leading her down some fairly limiting and narrow alleyways.

For a period following ‘One Million Years B.C.’, Welch was a big enough name to have the luxury of choosing roles showing a side of her that transcended the sex symbol stereotype; like Marilyn Monroe before her, she exhibited a flair for comic acting that shone in films such as Peter Cook and Dudley Moore’s ‘Bedazzled’, the 1970 adaptation of Gore Vidal’s sex-change novel ‘Myra Breckinridge’, and Richard Lester’s light-hearted, swashbuckling version of ‘The Three Musketeers’; yes, she played upon her sex appeal even in comedy outings, but it was nice to see she didn’t take herself too seriously. On the other hand, many little boys of a certain age might recall her appearance in one of those serious sci-fi fantasy films that always seemed to be screened on TV in the 1970s, ‘Fantastic Voyage’, the one where a submarine crew are shrunk and injected into the brain of an injured scientist.

The death of Raquel Welch at the age of 82 – ‘following a short illness’ as press releases often say – feels like one more door closing on an innocent era that the over-politicised Hollywood of the here and now seems determined to prevent us from ever revisiting. Still, I’ve no doubt some channel somewhere will be showing ‘One Million Years B.C.’ even as you read this. Go watch it – again.

© The Editor

Website: https://www.johnnymonroe.co.uk/

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?fan_landing=true&u=56665294

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/797932964

UP, UP AND AWAY

80 DaysI’ve often noticed a list of around 20 incidents that may or may not form part of the life experience routinely appears on Twitter, whereby the user is encouraged to count the number of said incidents they themselves have encountered. They usually consist of things like ‘Have you ever been arrested/ridden in a stolen car/had a tattoo/had a one-night stand/taken illegal substances’ and so on. One item absent from this list is ‘Have you ever travelled in a hot-air balloon’, to which I would sadly answer in the negative, for I’ve always fancied it. I guess my fondness for this uniquely serene form of air travel was piqued by childhood exposure to a memorable episode of ‘Mr Benn’, whereby the gentlemanly hero’s latest adventure via the costume shop is to take part in a Victorian balloon race; naturally, one of his opponents is a moustache-twirling villain who cheats, though the bad guy obviously gets his comeuppance in order to prevent him from stealing the race – and Mr Benn ends up winning it. As was characteristic of this perennially charming series, the depictions of the balloon race itself are exquisitely sketched, and seductive enough to provoke a craving in the viewer to follow suit. Despite their somewhat archaic qualities – and lack of speed when compared to the flying machines that came after them – balloons retain an appeal that reflects the need for life to occasionally slow down a little, something that was brilliantly captured in the Jimmy Webb song that gives this post its title; this has not always been the case, however.

Amongst the many memorable images that stand as a visual legacy of the propaganda war against Napoleonic France, there’s a marvellously imaginative illustration depicting how the French would engineer an invasion of Britain. Along with the expected sailing fleet, the picture shows an embryonic Channel Tunnel through which enemy troops charge, tapping into time-honoured fears that such an enterprise would find Britannia’s borders repeatedly breached by the Continent’s undesirables. Also adding to the paranoia, the skies are littered with balloons. A relatively new and novel method of transport that was still associated with adventurous aristocrats attempting to outdo each other in setting records and staging audacious bets, the balloon’s potential as a weapon of war was nevertheless rapidly recognised. Considering the first cross-Channel balloon journey was staged in 1785 (by Jean-Pierre Blanchard and Dr John Jeffries), it’s no wonder this groundbreaking invention was viewed as a possible addition to naval and military advantage in the gruelling global conflict between Britain and France that spanned the first 15 years of the 19th century.

After a short spell as novelty playthings for the rich and reckless, balloons soon comprised the first tentative steps in the evolution of aerial warfare, a development that would gradually reduce the need for traditional and extensive human cannon fodder. Whilst the superior speed of the modern jet fighter and cruise missile may have eventually superseded the more sedate pace of the balloon, the original airborne vehicle had long since proven it had other uses – primarily as an ideal tool for intelligence-gathering. The French had observed the movements of the Austrian Army from the air as far back as 1794, and though the aircraft into which such balloons evolved – the airship – had an extremely brief period as the military’s prime weapon for aerial bombing, the balloon itself had largely been utilised as a means of spying on the enemy during conflict, such as in the American Civil War and the Franco-Prussian War in the second half of the 19th century.

Now that the hi-tech 21st century is well into its third decade, one imagines the well-established use of drones and spy satellites would have long since rendered the humble balloon as little more than a museum piece when it comes to eavesdropping on the opposition. However, North America suddenly appears to be receiving several unwelcome visitors in the skies; and it seems rather fitting that China, with its pioneering role in the ancient origins of ballooning, should be named and shamed as the suspected culprit behind this unexpected resurgence of balloon espionage. In the past ten days, US fighter jets have shot down three unmanned high-altitude balloons sailing over American airspace – in South Carolina, Alaska and Michigan – as well as one in Canada. Such is the mystery surrounding these flying objects that, along with the accusatory finger aimed at China, there has also been speculation of ‘extraterrestrial’ involvement; the Pentagon initially didn’t rule it out, though the White House was quick to quash this fanciful element of the story. ‘There is no indication of aliens or extraterrestrial activity with these recent takedowns’, said White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. ‘I wanted to be sure the American people knew that and it is important for us to say that from here.’

John Kirby, a spokesman for the White House’s National Security Council, claimed the object downed on 4 February was a spy balloon, though the three subsequent balloons only posed a threat to aircraft rather than anything (or anyone) on terra-firma, and were shot down for that reason alone. Despite the claims of Mr Kirby, the possibility the other three balloons may have been conducting surveillance has not been officially ruled out. The sketchy descriptions of all four suggest objects far removed from the familiar pleasure cruisers most of us still associate balloons with being, as well as differing from standard weather balloons employed as a means of monitoring the climate. The first certainly appeared to fit the accepted criteria of a spy balloon, described as a solar-powered craft 200 ft tall and possessing surveillance equipment and antennas. The second sounds more mysterious, though – said to be the size of a small car; the third was apparently cylindrical, and the fourth was described as an octagonal structure. No wonder the UFO rumours are taking their time to die down. Moreover, the search for debris that could provide experts with a clearer picture of what they’re dealing with is being hampered by the fact most fell from the skies over remote terrain, but it is at least contributing towards heated speculation.

In comparison to the aircraft that superseded the balloon as a military weapon, the slower speed of the balloon gives it an advantage in hovering over the area of interest for a more sustained period; as well as being a far cheaper and dispensable flying object, balloons used for surveillance can also fly at an altitude way above the average heights routinely used by both military and civilian aircraft – a fact which somewhat contradicts the reasons given for shooting down three of the four balloons to have visited the US this past week or so. Commercial airliners typically fly at around 40,000 ft, whilst fighter planes tend to operate in the region of 65,000 ft. High-altitude balloons on the other hand can fly as high as between 80,000 and 120,000 ft. Up, up and away indeed.

In an age that has seen the advancement of technology for surveillance purposes grow increasingly ingenious in hiding its presence from those being spied upon, it seems somewhat strange for China – if indeed China is responsible – to launch something as visible as balloons into American airspace. However, one of the theories doing the rounds is that whoever is responsible for the presence of the balloons over North America sent them on their way as a means of highlighting the shortcomings of US security in the air. The US Government hasn’t responded to this ‘test’ (if indeed it was) by acknowledging its failings; instead, by pointing the finger at China, relations between the two superpowers have hit a bit of a rocky patch, with an American diplomat cancelling a planned visit to Beijing next week; in response, China has issued claims that the US has sent at least 10 similar balloons into Chinese airspace in recent months. Whoever turns out to be responsible for this surprising incursion, it’s all a long way from Mr Benn’s balloon race, and a reminder that even the most seemingly benign form of air travel still has the potential to be weaponised, however ‘beautiful’ the balloon might be.

© The Editor

Website: https://www.johnnymonroe.co.uk/

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?fan_landing=true&u=56665294

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/797932964

DISHONOURABLE MEMBER

JaredI guess one overlooked consequence of 13 years of Tory misrule is that being exposed to such a rich barrel of rotten apples means all corruption in public office is inevitably painted blue. How easy it is to forget the Labour MPs that have fallen foul of the law, not least those who were named and shamed (and, in one or two cases, imprisoned) following the expenses’ scandal. So, considering the supposedly ‘nobler’ alternative to the Tories could well end up in government a year or two from now, it’s rather timely to be reminded that some of their own are just as capable of crookedness as those on the other side of the House. Take Jared O’Mara – you remember him, of course; he’s the one-time ginger geezer who caused one of the biggest upsets of the 2017 General Election by ousting Nick Clegg. Well, yesterday he was found guilty of fraud and sentenced to four years in the clink. Convicted on six counts that the judge described as ‘cynical, deliberate and dishonest’, the former MP for Sheffield Hallam had stooped to play the mental health card as a defence for his actions, but it didn’t wash. Said Judge Tom Bayliss in his summing-up: ‘I have concluded that, although Jared O’Mara was without doubt suffering from autism at the time of the offences, that does not reduce culpability.’

Even before the cocaine habit that he bent the rules to fund became public knowledge, Jared O’Mara’s political career had ground to a premature halt in a matter of months following the surfacing of archaic tweets of a sexist nature along with allegations of sexual harassment. After a period of suspension, he stepped down at the 2019 General Election. Whereas his predecessor in the constituency was rejected due to the sacrifice of pre-Election Lib Dem promises on the altar of coalition, it rapidly emerged his successor was one of those Honourable Members who has little time for his constituents, his attitude towards them being described as one of ‘vile, inexcusable contempt’ by a former aide. In O’Mara’s case, revelations at his trial suggested it was no wonder he didn’t bother, considering he devoted most days to a steady ‘rock ‘n’ roll’ diet of five grams of cocaine and a bottle of vodka. The ex-nightclub manager evidently didn’t alter his lifestyle to fit his new responsibilities and carried on regardless. But it was the deception he employed to screw cash from the public purse that elevated his actions above mere hedonistic hubris.

O’Mara’s defence lawyer attributed his client’s behaviour to being ill-equipped when it came to ‘the stresses and strains of public life’, which is a fair enough explanation for an individual to turn to a chemical crutch; but O’Mara didn’t simply sink into substance abuse, something which many might have expressed sympathy towards had he received treatment and then emerged rehabilitated. For someone allegedly suffering from autism on top of an expensive drug habit, O’Mara displayed a clear and calculated business head when attempting to claim taxpayers’ money in the region of £24,000 for a nonexistent charity called Confident About Autism South Yorkshire; this fake organisation was a front for a friend of his he’d falsely named as his constituency support officer, though said friend appeared to have had his name taken in vain, as the jury cleared him of any part in the fraud. Another acquaintance on behalf of whom O’Mara had attempted to extract cash totalling £4,650 from Ipsa in relation to PR work that was never actually undertaken was less fortunate, found guilty of three counts of fraud and receiving a 15-month suspended sentence.

Understandably desperate to blame his actions on his ‘condition’, Jared O’Mara’s barrister Mark Kelly KC said, ‘When he felt he was being hounded by the media…he felt under pressure for certain circumstances that had come to light; he resorted to taking drugs and alcohol, distancing himself in many respects from those around him. These circumstances were very difficult circumstances for him to cope with, with his particular disabilities.’ This approach, however, failed to convince either judge or jury; the mental health card was not an adequate excuse, something Tom Bayliss KC emphasised in his conclusions. ‘You, Jared O’Mara,’ said the judge, ‘are a highly intelligent man. You were, I am quite sure, able to exercise appropriate judgement, to make rational choices, and to understand the nature and consequences of your actions. You may have occasionally behaved bizarrely or demonstrated disordered thought, but whether that was caused by your disorder or by your consumption of drugs – or both – is neither here nor there so far as this fraud is concerned. You knew perfectly well what you were doing with this fraud, you were behaving rationally, if dishonestly, and you were using your autism diagnosis to extract money from Ipsa to fund your cocaine and alcohol-driven lifestyle. It was deliberate, it was cynical and it was dishonest.’

The judge’s summing-up seems a fairly succinct summary of Jared O’Mara’s character and yet another sober warning when it comes to endemic Labour Party policy of selecting a candidate not on the grounds of merit but on box-ticking. In O’Mara’s case, his playing of the mental health card satisfied the criteria of the Momentum-dominated National Executive Committee, who went over the heads of the local constituency party to select him for the seat; his surprise success in winning it eased concerns, but his unsuitability was quickly exposed. One suspects a party so immersed in the ideology of Identity Politics probably won’t learn from its mistake.

BURT BACHARACH (1928-2023)

BurtThe emergence of the self-contained pop music artist in the early 60s undeniably dealt a body blow to the dominance of Tin Pan Alley; but the best of the professional songwriters were a resilient bunch and found there were still outlets for their talents. Not all of the bands at the forefront of the Beat boom and British Invasion contained in-house hit machines, and there were also what used to be called ‘girl singers’ in abundance – young, spunky sirens for whom the elegant standards of the 50s were old hat; the likes of Dusty Springfield, Lulu, Cilla Black, Sandie Shaw, Petula Clark and others were in need of their own standards, ones that reflected the changing mood of the 60s; and few songwriters delivered what was required better than Burt Bacharach, whose death at the grand old age of 94 was announced yesterday.

It would be easy to pay tribute to Bacharach by simply listing the staggering roll-call of hits that flowed from his genius melodic mind; although the 60s saw the end of the era in which standards were shared between all the great song stylists so that no performer could claim theirs was the definitive interpretation, Burt Bacharach’s songs – the most well-known being collaborations with lyricist Hal David – would still find themselves in the set-lists of most solo singers, whether or not they’d had the hit version. And sometimes the original recording would inspire a cover that would then be regarded as the definitive article; this occurred when The Carpenters had their breakthrough with ‘Close to You’, which was first recorded by the woman who served as Bacharach’s muse for several years, Dionne Warwick. Bacharach managed to achieve an almost symbiotic relationship with the women he wrote for; prior to his partnership with Warwick, his day-job had been arranger and bandleader for Marlene Dietrich when the Teutonic chanteuse was still touring the world’s concert halls; it was a steady income for Bacharach, but he knew he needed to devote his full-time to what he was best at – penning instant classics.

Bacharach was pivotal to what became known as ‘easy listening’ as the 60s progressed, which was basically the old pre-rock ‘n’ roll grownup pop coolly restyled for the new decade; his songs often seem tailor-made for a very 60s ‘Lounge-core’ vision of suave 30-something men in bachelor pads, handing a Martini to a languid lady in false eyelashes as a prelude to laying her clean as a whistle. His winning streak may have waned by the 70s, but his phenomenal output prior to that left behind a breathtaking legacy that will remain the gold standard of pop songs while ever there are people still around to listen to them.

© The Editor

Website: https://www.johnnymonroe.co.uk/

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?fan_landing=true&u=56665294

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/793847208

WHO’S THE DADDY NOW?

ArchieA TV interview Paul McCartney gave to Russell Harty in the early 80s contains an anecdote from Macca that underlines how the parent/teacher relationship has often been a strained one. In it, he recalled how the young George Harrison had been caned at school in a manner that appeared extreme to his father once he saw the wound, even in an era wherein most dads regarded corporal punishment as not only a necessity but a good thing. Apparently, Mr Harrison turned up at school the following day, entered the classroom, asked the teacher if he was the man who’d scarred his son, requested the teacher step outside for a quiet word, and then laid him out with a single punch. As McCartney remembered, little George’s old man was unsurprisingly an instant hero to the kids who were witness to this incident, and I’ve a feeling no police or lawyers were dragged onto the scene thereafter; this was simply how men resolved disagreements back then. Mr Harrison had made his point and that was the end of the matter. In theory, parents and teachers work in consort to ensure a child receives the best education and is eased back onto the right path should they stray; in practice, the two parties can sometimes vary in their beliefs as to how much influence the other should exert over the child, and as Paul McCartney’s colourful recollection proves, this is no new development.

Having been lumbered with home schooling during lockdown and simultaneously observed the lingering negative effects on their child’s education due to the unnecessarily lengthy disruption of it, I do wonder how sympathetic parents really are to teachers adding their names to the endless round of strike action. Of late, the balance of power over the child has been gradually tilting in favour of the teacher, with some parents consciously feeling their natural and traditional rights slipping out of their hands. The negative perception of the family unit widely held within what one might call ‘Woke’ circles preys upon their paranoia when they suspect many of their child’s teachers subscribe to this ideology, and could well be enthusiastic salesmen for it. Under-fire parents are increasingly mistrusted as guardians and protectors, liable to steer their child away from the current consensus promoted by the teaching profession, as it is by all other institutions in thrall to it; the parent is coming to be viewed as an obstacle to indoctrination.

The gender zealots represent a serious assault on parenting, when parents are criticised for denying their kids the right to opt for new pronouns at best and surgery at worst if they suddenly decide they’ve been born in the wrong body; the so-called ‘transgender child’ is a sinister fabrication that appears to be one more concerted effort to wrestle authority away from the parent, and the fact some schools and/or individual teachers seemingly endorse this pernicious development gives cause for further concern on the part of parents. Numerous reports have claimed some schools have allowed pupils to change gender in the school environment without their parents even being notified; in several cases, parents have been prevented from finding out what lessons their children have been taught on ‘gender identity’ in sex education classes. There is the understandable worry of involuntary indoctrination when it comes to this particular issue, with the teacher acting as substitute parent and filling the child’s head with the fantasy reality of the Trans activist.

Were I a parent myself, I’d no doubt be concerned if confronted by this scenario, and I sympathise with every parent who is. At the same time, however, I’m pretty sure there are plenty of parents out there who see nothing wrong with this dubious trend and are more than happy that the curriculum now mirrors their own belief system – and any parent who disagrees with it is naturally a right-wing, transphobic bigot. It certainly sounds like a manipulative exploitation of the pliable infant mind with a specific dogma that such an undeveloped mind really shouldn’t be exposed to, and one that simply didn’t exist when the majority of us were enduring ‘the happiest days of our lives’. On the other hand, hasn’t involuntary indoctrination always been crucial to the school experience? Haven’t those who attend, say, Catholic schools always had the Good Book drilled into them against their will? And whilst the Bible admittedly contains many a memorable story, there’s no more proof any of those tales are rooted in truth than the most fanciful Trans twisting of biological fact is. One could almost argue nothing has really changed in the classroom bar the nature of the ideology.

The different dogma drilled into me as a school-kid was enforced with the same degree of inflexible, authoritarian vigour as is employed for today’s dogma. For all the talk of indoctrination children are now being exposed to, I’d argue indoctrination was just as pivotal to education back then; what are schools anyway but training camps to breed obedient little citizens? Back then, it was obey and submit to any adult in a suit or uniform; don’t answer them back, bow down before their authority – whether teacher or parent or policeman or priest – and never, under any circumstances, question their right to issue commands; they don’t need to earn your respect, for they engender it in you through fear and intimidation. That’s the same sadistic educational model that stirred enough long-term resentment in someone like Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters to eventually come out in a damning indictment of the schooling system such as ‘Another Brick in the Wall’. The fact the song sat atop the UK singles chart for five weeks over the Christmas period of 1979 suggests its observations still rang true with school-kids 20 years on from Waters’ own school-days – and, as one of them at the time, I can confirm they most definitely did.

The enforcement of the ideology that parent and teacher largely shared in my own childhood was done so with absolute conviction on their part; there was never a doubt in their minds that they were right and anyone who opposed their philosophy was wrong. In this sense, their unswerving conviction was identical to the immovable righteousness that runs through the upside down, opposite ideology of today, the one that reverses the players and replaces the parent at the pinnacle of the moral pyramid with the child – aided and abetted by the teacher. Even when the products of campus rebellion against the old order eventually entered the teaching profession in the shape of the bearded ‘hippie generation’ of teachers that began to appear as the 1970s progressed, once absorbed into the system they were just as quick to wield the cane as their older colleagues, which suggested the power invested in the teacher corrupted even those who professed to detest it.

Despite the shared beliefs of that era, there were still differences between parent and teacher that divided them. My own old man always mistrusted well-spoken, well-educated types he encountered on parent evenings, dismissing them as ‘clever’ and perhaps reacting in a manner that reflected his self-confessed grudge against his social ‘betters’ as well as his longstanding difficulty with authority, something that had hampered his own schooldays. He never punched a teacher on my behalf like George Harrison’s dad, but his opinion of some teachers he met at my school was often no better than mine. Still, I had to accept their authority and abide by it – and the use of corporal punishment was deemed a more effective deterrent than the naughty step. Of course, some kids emerged from this system scarred but unscathed in their opposition to it, whereas others who had never questioned it fulfilled the contract and did indeed become obedient little citizens. I should imagine there are a fair few being schooled right now who are resistant and will be released no more convinced or converted than they were when in the thick of it. For the majority, however, we won’t know for another few years yet just how damaging the current model will prove to be.

© The Editor

Website: https://www.johnnymonroe.co.uk/

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?fan_landing=true&u=56665294

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/793847208

HOBSON’S CHOICE

ElectionThe MSM response to the so-called ‘Twitter Files’ that were unveiled during the final few months of 2022 exemplified the way in which new and old news outlets reside in parallel universes that rarely crossover. The BBC and Fleet Street focus on each (admittedly plentiful) example of Elon Musk’s somewhat eccentric behaviour ever since taking over the single biggest influence on public discourse over the past decade, upholding the accepted narrative portraying the bonkers billionaire as a right-wing threat to all we cherish rather than highlighting his stated intent to make Twitter an open forum for opinions of all persuasion by both restoring dubiously-deleted accounts and uncovering the truth of the site’s previous moderators in keeping a lid on storylines potentially damaging to those on ‘the right side of history’. The fact that the FBI and Big Tech conspired to suppress the Hunter Biden story and sought to discredit the lone New York Post from reporting it during the run-up to the 2020 Presidential Election in order that it wouldn’t damage Sleepy Joe’s campaign is a revelation arguably on a par with Watergate, yet the pitiful coverage it received in the MSM is testament to how our fat controllers filter the output we are delivered on a daily basis and decide which particular viewpoint will best preserve their hegemony.

I guess we shouldn’t really be surprised; indeed, it’s difficult not to be cynical when reporting on anything of this nature now. The default response to any such revelation is to shrug one’s shoulders and expect nothing less from the powers-that-be; so, those who vigorously monitor the feed we receive online have been complicit in a cover-up – what else do we expect from society’s string-pullers? Don’t they all share a communal urinal? It matters not what one’s personal belief is of The Donald and the fruitcakes he has a habit of attracting; the fact that his opponents stooped even lower to ensure he didn’t secure a second term in office by convincing the public that a story which could threaten Biden’s chances of sleepwalking into the White House was nothing more than an irrelevant slice of hysterical hype on the part of the opposition – or an example of ‘Russian interference’ – is outrageous. But the masses buy it, just as they queue-up at the crack of dawn to buy the self-pitying, petty memoir of a privileged ginger whinger. The public have been sufficiently indoctrinated and respond accordingly when called upon.

But I suppose this is a trend to which most are now accustomed; after all, so much of what constitutes our instant exposure to world events is fashioned by those who have a particular perspective, and this is the one that provides us with our limited choice of opinions. The excessive MSM coverage afforded issues that had largely been resolved before being revived by the far-left of political persuasion on both sides of the pond neglects to mention that their recent resurgence is due to the left’s need to be engaged in a permanent state of war. Without a battle to define it, the left suddenly becomes redundant and no longer has any purpose; and when all the great civil rights struggles of the past were won by the most discriminated-against minorities with the largest numbers, the left found itself relegated to the fringes, let down by the proles who refused to do as they were told and reduced to recycling the kind of nostalgic warfare characteristic of the Corbyn cult. The left was effectively unemployable when someone like David Cameron could embrace a cause such as gay marriage, so it required a revival of the old struggles to render it relevant again.

The left seems to require constant conflict to justify its existence as an alternative to the supposedly-staid ‘other side’, which allegedly upholds old-school traditions (despite legitimising causes the left once had exclusive copyright on), so what better way to reclaim the opposition front by reviving racial tensions, regardless of whether its approach seems more geared towards reinstating segregation than being true to the doctrines of Martin Luther King and his belief that the content of a person’s character matters more than the colour of their skin? Class has been noticeably sidelined as an issue of division, perhaps because so many of the loudest voices waving placards emanate from elite academies and look down their noses at the uneducated plebs who remain mysteriously resistant to ‘the message’ – much easier to hone in on race and sexuality. Graduation is followed by the implementation of the campus dogma in office and boardroom in order to impose it on the masses more effectively. And then there’s a career in politics. After all, the Labour Party is attuned; it doesn’t want those at the bottom to rise above their lowly position, needing them to stay put so it can pat them on the head and rush to their assistance; ‘Don’t worry; we went to university and write columns for the Guardian – we’re cleverer than you, what with you being retarded yahoos.’

The left has its favourite causes – Palestine being the perennial, of course; but a one-time vital issue such as women’s rights has been severely usurped by misogynistic trans-activists, and with the latter being minority ‘victims’, the former has been abandoned by its previously-dependable foot-soldiers, left to its own devices and risking demonisation as it challenges the left’s favouritism. The pet projects of the left – whether Islam or Trans – threaten a serious reversal of the progress made by women’s rights in the past, and whenever that progress is placed in peril by proposed legislation favouring ‘gender identification’ – as in Soviet Scotland – natural-born women belatedly realise how much they’ve been shafted by their former allies. But the left can’t budge on this issue; it has committed itself. After all, women’s rights campaigners today show one of the left’s favourite causes in a bad light, and that light reflects badly on the left itself – and on its biology-denying leaders.

As was succinctly pointed out in a recent ‘Triggernometry’ interview with women’s campaigner and author Helen Joyce, many men posing as ‘legal’ women under new laws tend to go a little overboard with the cosmetics, thus emphasising their approach to femininity is a fetish of the kind that used to kept behind closed doors; as a rule, regular cross-dressers – and whatever happened to that word? – don’t pretend they’re genuine women at all and adopt a look low on the over-sexualised parody of the female sex that those demanding to be recognised as women often favour; ditto those who actually go through the full gender reassignment surgery and show a commitment above and beyond a mere fashion statement. A celebrity cross-dresser or ‘transvestite’ such as Eddie Izzard used to apply that label to himself at one time, whereas now he likes to masquerade as a woman whenever the fancy takes him, reducing the female identity to a series of stereotypical accessories that can be adopted or discarded at will. Yet, it’s not so easy to dismiss a dilettante like Izzard as a delusional fantasist when his fetish threatens to be enshrined in law.

I do wonder, though, if the SNP’s seemingly nihilistic embrace of this particular cause – which risks alienating vast swathes of potential voters – is merely another cynical addition to their independence agenda; the expected legal challenges of the UK Government to the bill gives them further ammunition to portray Westminster as English oppressors interfering in Scottish affairs. Perhaps it’s not so far-fetched to think such a thought when one is all-too aware that moral scruples are not part of the political armoury; but at a time when extremists of both left and right appear to have filled the voids left behind by politicians pandering to the few instead of serving the many, the abandonment of the majority in the middle is a serious failing that only adds to the general world-weary air of despair with our elected representatives and their ideological paymasters. Come the next General Election, the overwhelming desire to evict the current shower from office will certainly be tempered by the sobering realisation that doing so simply passes the parcel to a different kind of awful.

© The Editor

Website: https://www.johnnymonroe.co.uk/

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?fan_landing=true&u=56665294

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/789776048

HUMANE RIGHTS

Logan's RunAlthough forming part of the Dystopian future narrative so commonplace in pre-‘Star Wars’ sci-fi films of the 1970s, ‘Logan’s Run’, the 1976 movie starring Michael York and Jenny Agutter, contains an element in its storyline that is both telling of the era in which it was produced and prescient to where we are now. The citizens of the sealed society housed within a self-contained dome to keep them safe from the polluted air outdoors receive an implant in the palm of their left hands as babies; this implant changes colour as they age and when it begins to blink as they approach 30, they are forced to undergo voluntary euthanasia in an elaborate ceremony attended by crowds in a manner recalling a sporting occasion. At the time the film was made, 30 was viewed as a key cut-off point in a pop culture still trading on the Bright Young Things of the 60s, all of whom were remarkably creative individuals whilst in their 20s – and many of whom died before they made it to 30; 30 being the age at which citizens are deemed over-the-hill and therefore need to be ‘renewed’ seems logical for the era.

However, it is not only the presence of a dubious inorganic implant that sits uneasily in a present day that often speaks in all seriousness about the alleged ‘benefits’ of such implants; the euthanasia aspect of the movie – and the normalisation of the subject – is another element that is a little closer to home today than it was in the mid-70s. Switzerland has been promoting its controversial Dignitas clinic and its assisted suicide programme for the last 25 years, though it has strict criteria for potential patients, requiring sound judgement and the ability to take one’s own life – and it has to be said the majority of those who fork-out for a one-way ticket to Zurich are usually suffering from terminal illnesses that would otherwise result in a long, slow and painful death few would deny them release from. Since its formation in 1998, over 3,000 people have chosen the Dignitas method, capitalising on the fact that Switzerland is – along with Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands – one of the few countries in Europe to legalise voluntary euthanasia. A small handful of other countries in the world have also introduced a ‘right-to-die’ system, including Canada, which is now officially the world leader in assisted suicide, accounting for 3.3% of the country’s deaths.

Dignitas does accept sufferers of severe mental illness who wish to end their own lives, though such cases tend to be in the minority, and – depending on the severity of the patient’s condition – can present a more problematic scenario in determining whether the volunteer is sufficiently of sound mind to make such a judgement alone. The issue of mental illness has also recently surfaced in the proposed extensions to Canada’s own euthanasia programme, with many feeling the assisted suicide legislation is moving a little too fast for its own good as it is repeatedly sold as yet another ‘progressive’ policy of a kind that the administration of Monsieur Trudeau is seemingly obsessed with inflicting on its people. And, let’s be honest, the thought of a government legislating for those with a psychological sickness to be ‘put to sleep’ is a little too, shall we say, Nazi Germany for most to stomach.

Unlike the Nazi euthanasia industry, which selected physically and mentally disabled inmates of institutions for the treatment mainly because they were viewed as a blot on the Third Reich’s ideal of Aryan perfection and had no say in the matter, Canada’s right-to-die business plan emphasises choice is paramount and nobody would ever be put to sleep against their will as part of some mass social cleansing scheme. The motivations for the programme are sold as a compassionate and humane way of ending unnecessary suffering, though it has to be noted that many of those responsible for Nazi Germany’s programme made similar claims when forced to answer for their crimes against humanity at Nuremberg. Naturally, nobody is making a case for Canada’s assisted suicide system as being a reincarnation of the Nazi blueprint, but it does seem to be widening the net of qualification a tad too wide for some.

In Canada, there is already a worrying trend for state-sponsored suicide to come across as a virtual ‘lifestyle choice’ for those who are confronted by poverty and economic hardship, with euthanasia viewed by some as an option when life doesn’t appear to offer anything worth living for. Stories of volunteers for MAID (Medical Assistance in Dying) who are struggling on the breadline, often afflicted by conditions that aren’t life-threatening but aren’t deemed serious enough to warrant sympathetic help from the state, have increased in recent months. Many doctors and psychiatrists in Canada are concerned that some patients experiencing a rough patch in their lives are being seduced by the idea of euthanasia as a panacea for their problems. With a poll last year reporting that a third of Canadians are facing mental health difficulties probably intensified by the country’s excessive Covid restrictions, perhaps it’s no surprise that euthanasia is increasingly regarded as an alternative; after all, one of the hallmarks of clinical depression, for instance, is that the sufferer has a job on perceiving any glimmer of light at the end of the dark tunnel. For those who can’t afford expensive psychiatric treatment from a decent therapist who can convince them the black clouds aren’t permanent, assisted suicide can appear attractive.

Of course, suicide can be viewed as the only way out of a crippling social situation such as loneliness or depression by many without the need for an official government programme to do the job on their behalf; but concerns over the proposed expansions of MAID even from doctors who actually work within the system and perform assisted suicides is growing. Dr Madeline Li, a Toronto-based psychiatrist, says ‘Making death too ready a solution disadvantages the most vulnerable people and actually lets society off the hook; I don’t think death should be society’s solution for its own failures’, whilst Marie-Claud Landry, Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, says ‘Leaving people to make the choice to die because the state is failing to fulfil their fundamental human rights is unacceptable’. Indeed, one Canadian newspaper has referred to the trend as ‘opt-in eugenics’.

In the case of the disabled and mentally ill, plans to expand the criteria for MAID have also met criticism from UN human rights experts, three of whom put their criticisms in writing to Canada’s federal government, suggesting the plans risked planting the idea in the heads of the disabled that death was a preferable substitute for disability. A story emerged last year that a Canadian war veteran and paralympian requested a wheelchair ramp be installed in her home, only to be offered the choice of assisted suicide as an alternative by a Veteran’s Affairs case worker – the fourth such disabled veteran the case worker suggested this to. All of these factors have raised public awareness of the planned extension of the voluntary euthanasia laws and have led to a pause in progress in order to allow further consultation with the medical profession; but the pause may only be temporary as abandoning the plans could be regarded as legally unconstitutional. That’s the problem when such a questionable human right is enshrined in law.

Revelations of the financial benefits for the Canadian healthcare system also cast a somewhat sinister shadow across the issue; a 2020 report by the Canadian government found $13,000 per euthanized patient had been saved under the original criteria for MAID qualification – i.e. sufferers of a terminal illness; the report estimated the plans to extend the criteria to include those not suffering from a terminal condition (far higher in number) could increase individual savings to as much as $50,000. Voluntary euthanasia will always inevitably be a contentious area with the ever-ready potential for abuse, and needs to be approached with caution; but in the rush to gratify every clamour for human rights that comes with the domino effect of appeasing each separate group in turn, Canada risks taking a ‘progressive’ step too far.

© The Editor

Website: https://www.johnnymonroe.co.uk/

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?fan_landing=true&u=56665294

Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/786315380