This Probably Notes A Transition Into A New Age
Dear Reader,
Some people in the UK seem to think that we're now on the path to getting 'back to normal'. But what is 'normal'? History shows that life morphs from one reality to another. The passing of the Duke of Edinburgh and his attitude towards duty and service may be an actual indication of that very situation taking place; the movement into a new 'normal'. But just what will it be like?
One month ago, much of the English-speaking world was agog about the 'Harry and Markle Show', with quite a number of people quite blatantly accepting everything that was said on the Oprah interview as being 'fact', even though it was clear there were so many inconsistencies in the statements of the pair. The reactions to this interview thereby prove the prejudiced capability of anyone, no matter what side of the fence they are on. A black person can be just as prejudiced as a white person.
Then there was the downright and undue criticism that Harry voiced against his own family, which was bad enough as it stood, but in the light of the Duke of Edinburgh's health condition at the time of the interview, Harry's statements seemed to be even more disturbing to those who had any feelings about the Queen and the Duke at their time of life.
Of course, there are republicans who could not be more pleased about Harry's stand, and, yes, the Royal Family (as an institution) does seem to be an anachronism in this day and age, but when you actually examine the lives of the Queen and her now late husband, they set a personal standard that was greatly sought after as an example following World War Two as the UK entered the painful post-war years.
Some looked upon them as a fairy-tale couple, but those with open eyes saw them as setting a wonderful standard of duty towards the nation that has never wavered. They knew full well that they were privileged to be in the position they were in, but they did not abuse that privilege. Instead, they looked to fulfil a human role in setting a standard for the betterment of the UK and the Commonwealth.
Anyone born since 1980 would feel little connection with what happened 30 or 40 years earlier unless their parents had inculcated an awareness of that fact in their children. The 1960s, however, introduced a certain cynicism towards what is regarded as 'the establishment', often regardless of whether the cynicism was valid. However, a substantial loyalty to the Crown does still exist.
Importantly, though, the Crown exists as part of our country's Constitution; it is beyond politics and does useful and cohesive things, as demonstrated by the Queen, the Duke and various members of their family. Do (temporary) presidents of republican countries do a better job of unification? The unbiased Crown provides pure oil to the cogs of the UK and Commonwealth machine.
Significantly, the Duke's passing has certainly thrown up his life's work for comparison against that of Harry and Meghan, and the realisation concerning his self-effacing attitude and devotion to duty, let alone his actual contributions to life itself, have shown a marked contrast with the 'poor me, poor me' attitude of the couple on the Oprah show.
There is no good identifiable reason for cynicism about the Duke's life, apart from the issue that he did not have to earn a living - at least not in the way that normal people do. Anyhow, any room for cynicism against him must surely have evaporated when, in an interview he gave ca 2017, he expressed his good fortune, having been a refugee prince of no fixed abode before his marriage.
The revelations about the Duke's life have been great, in my view, as it surely reminds us all that the 'old' self-less attitudes exhibited by the Duke (and the Queen) - combined with humour - are so important, still, for current and future generations to follow. Selflessness is a fundamental aspect of true Christianity that is eternal in its teaching and practise, and hasn't that attitude been so necessary during the recent COVID epidemic?
Furthermore, if people were to examine the true followers of Judaism, Islam, Sikhism and Hinduism, all now well-established in the UK, selflessness is a central aspect of their traditions as well, and many of those communities have exhibited that in their roles in the NHS and in much other fabric of UK society.
Sincere members of all religions aspire, first and foremost, to serve others first and put themselves last. As it is said in Christianity:
J-O-Y means: ‘J’ is Jesus first, ‘O’ is Others next, ‘Y’ is Yourself last.
Moving away from that thought, what is an astonishing fact is that Piers Morgan has become a hero to some for his stand against Meghan on the GMB TV show, losing his job in the process as he refused to apologise. Even though I rarely took interest in anything he said on GMB before (and rarely watched the programme anyway), his stand this time made complete sense to me, as does that of a certain Alan Jones on Australian Sky (please check out Youtube). Both men have articulated a good, common, sense which stands in sharp contrast to the emotionally-driven chat-show celebrities and their followers. Compassion is one thing, but pure emotion can lead to misunderstanding and is something people need to study. We will come back to that later in this essay.
When listening to anyone we should surely first ask just who is the person that is talking and in what way are they qualified to speak. Is self-interest involved? However, though there are those that would argue that Piers has no more right than Meghan, we are - surely - equipped with enough discriminatory ability to determine which argument is more likely to hold water. Unless, that is, we are obsessed with the personality cult, a factor (stimulated by some chatshow hosts) that is ephemeral, and, therefore, unreal.
The world is rocking right now - not to a kind of music, but because of loose foundations. In fact, loose foundations have long existed but hitherto they've been held together by various forms of control. The sense of near revolution that is in the air right now in certain quarters is a reflection of people becoming aware of their identity after a long time of being kept in their place, but not without an element of ego.
The danger now is that the reaction that has been on display about racism and other matters could develop into chaos. The 1917 Russian Revolution was a demonstration of how a revolution can harmfully get carried away with itself and, indeed, lose its purpose, and bring about another tyranny, with much harm being perpetrated along the way.
While everyone in the UK suddenly has a feel-good emotion now that full lockdown has at least been substantially lifted, the epidemic state in other countries in the world (e.g. Brazil) is extremely sad and equally worrying. Boris Johnson and his team are going around boasting about their new trade agreements signed, or in the process of being signed, and also boasting of a new Britain, yet the people of countries like Brazil - and Myanmar, Yemen, Somalia, Mozambique etc etc - that need real help (for different reasons) are largely left to their own devices apart from charitable aid. Add Syria and Iraq to that list, the people of both being long-term victims to misguided Western intervention, as was Iran.
Furthermore, even in the wealthiest nations, we are witnessing a dramatic rise in levels of hunger, deprivation, social exclusion and economic inequality due to the COVID pandemic. The Share The World's Resources organisation has raised a petition that you might consider signing.
Without wishing to be considered an alarmist, a further reality is that the icebergs are melting quickly and sea levels are rising. In certain places, saltwater is contaminating the growth of foodstuffs. Crops in various parts of the world are affected by extreme weather conditions. Volcanic eruptions seem to be increasing even more. And yet Boris and the old guard is so bullish about the UK's trading future and implying that business as usual is still applicable in the scenario just described.
That reminds me of a further well-known name that has returned to my attention of late: Nigel Farage. He also has joined in the tirade against Harry and Meghan, and, like Piers and Alan Jones, has similar things to say on that score. He also has a distaste for the kind of 'PC' thinking that goes over the top. Somewhat unfortunately, however, Nigel also has emotionally motivated things to say about the defacement of Britain's heritage in the form of Winston Churchill's statue and refers to Churchill as though he was a total saviour to the world, let alone the UK.
The reality is, however, that although his leadership of our country was vital in a time of war, and that he was virtually the only fit man for the job at hand at that time, Churchill was also an imperialist without much sympathy for the native citizens of the colonies. In 1939, Britain was still head of a great empire, and Churchill was among those that were trying to hang onto it by their fingernails. The fact that Britain impoverished Mother India is lost, still, on many of the British. India was self-supporting and a rich country when the East India Company set foot on India's soil, but within 200 years India was reduced to impoverishment and might have stayed that way but for Gandhi.
British treatment of Indian nationals was at times barbaric, and yet we called ourselves civilised. About a country steeped in a history of a great civilisation, Churchill himself referred to the Indian people as "a beastly people with a beastly religion", without him knowing anything about their 'religion', which is not a religion anyway, in the conventional sense of the word! Furthermore, charges of racism (and belief in the superiority of one race) could easily be levelled at Churchill.
In 1937, he told the Palestine Royal Commission (my italics): "I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly-wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."
Worse, in 1943, India experienced a disastrous famine in the northeastern region of Bengal - sparked by the Japanese occupation of Burma the year before. At least three million people are believed to have died - and Churchill's actions, or lack thereof, have been the subject of criticism.
Madhusree Mukerjee, author of Churchill's Secret War, has said that despite refusing to meet India's need for wheat, he continued to insist that the region had to export rice for the European war effort:
[The War Cabinet] ordered the build-up of a stockpile of wheat for feeding European civilians after they had been liberated. So 170,000 tons of Australian wheat bypassed starving India - destined not for consumption but for storage.Churchill was even defamatory of the Indian people, claiming they "breed like rabbits". He had earlier spoken of his ilk being 'worldly-wise', and this is certainly proof of that; compassion was utterly lacking. Churchill was again prime minister at the time of the Mau Mau issue in Kenya in the early 1950s, a matter which history has shown Britain not to be seen in a good light. But thanks to the Queen's leadership, the Commonwealth has held together and understanding between its member races has improved, though still not ideal.
Since the George Floyd killing took place in America last year, the Black Matters movement has gathered apace. Although the problem is mainly an American issue (though I am by no means saying the UK is perfect in this regard), various statues in the UK have been targeted for attack, including the Cecil Rhodes statue in Oxford.
My opinion is that his statue's defacement was actually a valid target, and it could be said there's a case (in the light of the foregoing) for Churchill's statue defacement. In any case, if the people of Britain could vote Churchill as the greatest man of this country above the likes of Shakespeare (er, really Francis Bacon, as I've said before), then we must have very odd values and be poorly educated. Or just unbelievably insular and selfish. He was great - as a war leader, purely and simply.
Anyhow, the Black Matters movement, the matter of Harry and Meghan, and Farage's comments about Churchill etc. etc., have shown that strong polarities of opinion exist in the UK at different levels. Add the two-prong effort in Scotland to achieve independence and various other issues that have slipped my mind, it would seem that it would not take much more upset for cohesion to be eroded in this country.
Johnson really has to be more careful about his proposed Policing Bill - if it is passed in its current form then he may lose much-needed support from the country.
Rather than enforcing unpopular and stringent laws, we surely have to talk and determine just what universal set of human values to peaceably live by. Continually implementing new laws does not necessarily improve relationships between the government and the governed - sometimes far from it. They say it's better to talk.
The purpose of a conversation would be to bring about unity of purpose, and not treat life as just a passing phase to be enjoyed to the utmost for personal benefit, though perhaps people are too attached to their pubs and time on the beach.
It's a conversation just waiting and it's very much on the table, waiting for a leader to pick it up. I feel that a young Duke of Edinburgh would have done, or demonstrated some method of how it could be achieved by personal, non-political, example.
Another commentator that has come back to the fore is Tony Blair's old right-hand man, Alastair Campbell, who, even as a seasoned spin-doctor, is appalled at the lack of responsibility these days taken at the government level, and the apparent relaxation of standards in government. He is also not happy about today's Labour Party, which these days seems to demonstrate an orientation to populist thinking, not wisdom.
Yes, the underprivileged are not properly understood by this government, but if Labour is ever to provide a good alternative government again it cannot just react to leftist pressure groups to govern the country properly, which is what it often seems to be doing as I see it. But the flip-side of the coin is the jobs-for-mates and superior attitude of the right-wingers.
It seems to me that politics and society in the UK are at the cusp of considerable change, in conformity to the general feeling that a new era is evolving. Evolution into a kinder world when anyone, or anything, that is downtrodden will be lifted back into the whole of humanity; not just one species, group or race.
I pray that people will see the light as to what is the Truth - the purpose of life - and what needs to work, and it's all to do with a combination of compassion and reason: perhaps we need to re-educate ourselves and see that the future will be based on usage of an informed and purposeful heart leading the head. The intellectually-based society that we have known - with its frequent tendency towards corruption - is heading for the dustbin. The head can only be relied upon as a computer, not as the source of Truth.
Understanding comes from the reaction of many parts of the body though only through the spiritual heart can we truly understand others and achieve a common direction, because it is through that heart that we have a common understanding. However, we need to properly understand what the 'heart' is in relation to feeling and emotion.
Until now, most of us use the terms 'feeling' and 'emotion' interchangeably as if they are synonyms. They are not. For more on this very deep topic, please read this illuminating essay by a Christian, but written from a whole perspective, not a narrow one.
Everyone, inwardly, can understand what love is, yet we skilfully choose to follow other kinds of life - generally superficial - that regularly deaden our sense of depth. And man, through his reliance on urban life, has mostly lost his connection with nature. Life in the inner cities often becomes brutish. Yet aboriginal tribes, who know how to co-exist in balance and harmony with the Earth's resources, were long treated as inferior people. But nature has its charm, and when inner-city children are introduced to nature, they generally come alive.
If I am not being well understood, how is it that on various occasions, a mother has been able to revive her apparently dead newborn baby, as described in this article. Though the article goes to great lengths to provide scientific reasons, is not the real reason, ultimately, to do with the power of universal love? Though women are more in tune with this phenomenon, imagine if we were all able to feel a depth of love in everyday life, transcending whatever other experience we may be having. What a wonderful transformation could take place in the world.
The teaching of universal love is there - Jesus and the Buddha were just two of many great teachers of divine love - and the means to its attainment are this day available to all if we would unlock ourselves to that possibility by delving into essential spiritual teachings and the purpose of life.
It is a matter that we will all need to address at some point for the successful future of mankind, though we may not realise it just yet. Sadly, it may take another disaster or two before we come to our senses.
Meanwhile, this morning I pray that the Queen is able to live out her remaining days in the contentment that she and her dear husband, the late Duke, have done their best to foster good relationships in this world, to the best of their ability.
"The Times They Are A'changin'." (Bob Dylan)
Thank you for reading this.
This British writer has for decades been involved in community work and in the study of history and practical philosophy, as well as being fortunate to have gained insightful knowledge of world religions and their essential similarities.
Comments
Post a Comment