Author

chidakasha.co.uk

Posts by chidakasha.co.uk

An Infrastructure of Resistance

An Infrastructure of Resistance

Comments 0 Comment

There are people in various forums who persist in their hope that Jeremy Corbyn will remain as Labour Party leader for a while longer. This is a forlorn hope and, though I understand it, one that I understand it should be dropped.

I heard a story about a place, I can’t remember the place, where they catch monkeys by putting fruit into bottles with narrow necks. The monkeys can reach into the bottles but when they grasp the fruit their hand forms a fist that they are unable to withdraw from the bottle. So they are trapped and captured because of their refusal to let go.

We have to let go of the illusion that the powers that conspired against JC will permit him to remain leader. Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party, and the Labour Party itself are means to an end and not ends in themselves. We must understand what our true ends are and work to achieve those ends by other means. When armies are defeated on the battlefields by vastly superior forces they never win by trying again to meet the ememy head on, they win by turning to guerrilla tactics; by building an infrastructure of resistance.

This is what we need to do if our fight is truly about principles rather than positions in a party and a political structure that are past their ‘use by’ date. We have to stop holding on to the past and start building an infrastructure of resistance and freedom.

Covid-19: A New Contract

Covid-19: A New Contract

Comments 0 Comment

Chinese journalist Zou Yue has a commendably mature message.

“Every nation needs a new contract, signed between its politicians, businesses and the public.”

This is correct. We need a more mature approach to governance, not just to handle the Coronavirus, but also to tackle the climate crisis and the ongoing humanitarian crises of poverty, wars and global inequality generated by our current structures of politics and thought.

Ultimately our problem as a species and as individuals is not Corvid-19, Climate Change or any particular challenge, however vast, it is our ability or inability to respond to the challenges in a way that is coherent, conscious and compassionate. It is a problem that has to do with our thinking.

Albert Einstein said “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”

Krishnamurti said “If we can really understand the problem, the answer will come out of it, because the answer is not separate from the problem.”

The problem is never simply about what is presented to us it is also about our ability to deal with what is presented to us. Corvid-19 is a global crisis that illuminates the structures of governance in different countries, the ethos that lies beneath those structures and the consequent ability of those structures to cope with crises.

The Telegraph asks ‘Why does Germany have such a low coronavirus death rate?’

We read

Germany has seen just 52 deaths from the virus so far despite recording 18,361 infections — more than anywhere except China, Italy, Iran and Spain.

That represents a fatality rate of just 0.3 per cent, compared to 7.9 per cent in Italy — raising hopes Germany might be doing something right that other countries can follow.

The disparity has even led to allegations of a German cover-up by the Italian far-Right. But experts have cautioned that Germany may simply be at an earlier stage of the pandemic, and that death rates here may soon catch up.

But also

“Intensive care beds can mean the difference between life and death for those who become seriously ill with the virus, and dire reports from northern Italy have told of doctors being forced to choose which patients get them.

Germany has 28,000 ICU beds. By contrast, the UK has just 4,000. And 25,000 of Germany’s already have the ventilators seriously ill patients need.

At the outbreak of the crisis, Germany had 29.2 intensive care beds per 100,000 people. Italy had 12.5. The UK had just 6.6.

In part, that is because of the different way healthcare is funded in Germany. Public health insurance is compulsory and collected at source alongside income tax — but it is passed directly to insurance funds and never enters government coffers, effectively firewalling health funding.”

The Telegraph

We have to ask why we are so much less well prepared than Germany, and apparently even Italy. We have to ask a number of questions about our government and the whole structure of governance.

Tony Benn proposed five questions to ask regarding the power of government. The central question is “In whose interests do you use it [power]”

In addition to issues of prudence there are issues of morality. An article in the Independent is headlined “What coronavirus revealed about national mindsets across the world — and how Cuba came out on top”

We read

In a sign of true global solidarity, Cuba today allowed MS Braemer, a British cruise ship, to dock on its shores despite having at least five confirmed coronavirus cases on board and another 52 passengers displaying symptoms. The ship, with over 600 mainly British passengers, had no Cuban nationals on board but had requested help from both Cuba and the US.

Cuba acted without self-interest. The ship had been anchored in the Caribbean over the last five days as it frantically searched for a place to dock. Diplomats from the British Foreign Office had urged US officials to allow the ship to dock on American soil but were met with obstacles. Cuban officials instead accepted the request, stating that there must be “a shared effort to confront and stop the spread of the pandemic”. After all, these are still humans suffering, regardless of the passport they hold.

Cuba itself has only had five confirmed cases of Covid-19, and the ship docking could threaten to increase that number exponentially.

The Independent

Why does the US, our ‘ally’, turn away a British Ship, while Cuba, a nation against which we follow the US in imposing economic sanctions aid that same ship?

Surely we need to question the values that inform our foreign policy, our relations with other nations, as well as our domestic policies?

“If we can really understand the problem, the answer will come out of it, because the answer is not separate from the problem.”

Krishnamurti

It is not about taking a particular political position, it’s about looking at the problem with sufficient intelligence. The answer lies in our understanding of the problem and our understanding depends on the depth to which we permit ourselves to look.

A Necessary Contagion

A Necessary Contagion

Comments 0 Comment

It should be clear to everyone by now that the Labour Party is, as an institution, much more concerned about position and power than with principle and people. This is not true of ordinary members or of all those who hold positions but there is an institutional logic that determines how people within the party behave, especially if they are seeking positions. There will be external and internal forces and various sectional interests pushing for particular policies and actions. The process is not at all guided by reason or morality. I am no longer a member of the Labour Party because I was expelled for sharing posts on Facebook that the bureaucracy considered to be antisemitic. For a little while under Corbyn the Labour Party looked like it might become a party of principle but it hasn’t. If there’s any hope left it will not be found in the leaders and structures of the party but in people in various groups, online and offline, who put principle above party and above any sectional interest. Someone wisely said that ‘the moment you start following anyone, you stop following truth’. The fact is, we have the power to act out of reason and compassion. As ordinary people, as the ‘proles’ that Orwell spoke of as the only hope, we can form our own associations and act on our own individual and associative intelligence. The leaders and structures are not helping us because they are not honest. Even those promising to empower the membership are not honest because they are not fighting for the most important thing which is our fundamental right to freedom of thought and discourse. But no one can give us this we have to assert and assume it ourselves. So let’s keep talking, building our associations, online and offline. We have the power, let’s recognise it and use it.

I have heard that people within the Labour Party have been warned off associating with me. I cannot confirm anything about this and will not name anyone. But I do understand that in truthful discourse may be contagious but I have no intention to self isolate. I hope that it is contagious; it is a necessary contagion.

We Need it Now

We Need it Now

Comments 0 Comment

Without wishing to comment on RLB’s leadership aspirations, this is a good video highlighting the urgency of the issue of climate change. Credit to her and the lP for putting it squarely on the UK political agenda. The Labour Green New Deal is certainly significant at least as a contribution to thinking about the way that we need to transform politics, the economy and society.

See: https://www.labourgnd.uk/

At the end of the video RLB says “incremental change is not enough, we need a radical Green Agenda and we need it now”.

“Now” is the point; but Labour is not in power and is unlikely to be in power during the next five years. When the danger is as profound as that posed by climate change and, more widely, environmental degradation, the timetables of our current political structures are inadequate.

At a talk by Anatol Lieven that I attended yesterday evening (2nd March) Lieven, publicising his new book, spoke of the need for what he called ‘progressive nationalism’ to meet the challenge; he argued that both the people activism of Greta Thunberg and international agreements such as the Paris Accord, while important, would be futile without action by nation states. Lieven called on the spirit of national purpose that kept Britain together through the Blitz. I didn’t buy his book and have some concerns about concomitants of nationalism, ‘progressive’ or not, but he is correct in asserting that there has to be an awakening of a national will to change and he is correct in saying that ultimately only nation states can transform economies.

Challenged by a questioner Lieven was not optimistic that our political systems would be cmotivated to initiate the changes we need without some catastropic events to catalyse this.

Lieven is correct that the transformative changes we need can only be carried out by the nation state through existing political structures but we cannot wait for, nor afford, a catalysing catastrophy to motivate the state to change and we cannot trust the state or any political structure with the moral direction of such change.

We as citizens, as individuals, and as members of communities must become the catalysing change that forces governments to act.
We must work within our political parties, within pressure groups like XR and also within our other communities including our faith groups. We must build and keep building communities of conscience and consciousness, communicating in the digitial and the actual so that it is conscience and consciousness themselves that become the catalyst.

This is not a party political project. Political structures and governmental responses are essential but what we can and must do now must be to a larger degree politically agnostic, separate from party politics, and focused on raising consciousness, invoking conscience and building community.

Veronia

Veronia

Comments 0 Comment

I’m sharing this post by a friend, Veronia, because it says so much that is important in a few words. A compliment is not flattery but truth and because genuine compliments are spontaneous they come from the universe; the person delivering the compliment has been afforded a moment of recognition and, in return, speaks on behalf of the universe.

I was out on a birthday dinner with Jacob and one of the waitresses came up to me and complimented me about how much she loved my skin complexion.

I think this was probably the second time (the first time was at Nordland) in my entire life a stranger has ever complimented my dark skin. All my life I have been bombarded with ‘tips’ from relatives on how to make my skin lighter. Two teaspoons of turmeric, a tablespoon of yoghurt and two tablespoons of powdered chickpeas was the suggestion – a recipe apparently passed down for generations. The turmeric burnt my skin, the chickpeas dried my skin and putting yoghurt on my face was just gross.

While it came across like they were being helpful, it lowered my confidence because ultimately it was them telling me the skin colour I inherited, a big part of who I am, wasn’t good enough and that I wasn’t beautiful enough. Then there’s social media…with every celebrity out there having their pictures photoshopped to look slimmer and lighter and we’re just constantly bombarded with them. I can’t compare, I’m not even on the same league. Heck, I’ve even gone to ‘make up artists’ who’d try and make me look like a frikkin Cheeto when I asked for a foundation to match my existing skin tone.

I’ve spent years hating everything about me, especially my skin tone because that pink lip gloss that every teenage girl wore didn’t suit me and my skin tone.

It was only a few years ago that I discovered that deep red lipsticks look damn good on me. I could totally rock a black lipstick too. Since then, it was only a matter of time until I felt more comfortable in my skin and stopped caring about what people had to say about me. I don’t need compliments from strangers to make myself feel better, but it sure does feel good to hear it.
Like the waitress said, us girls got to stick together, it’s a tough world and the 20s are the worst.

I’m not going to post a selfie with this post because I was too busy enjoying birthday dinner with my husband and friends to take one. Instead I’ve added the picture I took of a mural I saw in Milan (Minnesota) a few weeks ago. I finally have something to say about it: not only is this mural beautiful, the girl in the painting is absolutely gorgeous.

Thank you to the waitress at The Oaks at Eagle Creek for taking the time to do what you did. It took you less than 15 seconds but I’m still thinking about it an hour later.

Poor Baba?

Poor Baba?

Comments 0 Comment

I don’t know the ins and outs of this case but my instinct is to prefer this ‘Waterman’ Rajendra Singh.

He says:

“Rivers cannot be saved by people who have hunger for power and posts. They can only be saved by connecting people with the mission.”

He may as well say (and this is what I believe):

“Our planet cannot be saved by people who have hunger for power and posts. It can only be saved by connecting people with the mission.”

The reaction of the ‘Baba’s’ followers to Singh’s accusations of fraud is interesting:

“shocked and dismayed that someone who had, at one time, set out to do good work should have been reduced to this sort of low personal attack on a most revered being”

I have a certain prejudice against ‘revered beings’ I suppose. I generally assume that those setting themselves above and apart from other humans are likely to be bad sorts.

This is of course a general observation. Nothing in the article give me anything factual to go on with regard to the rights and wrongs in this case. It just reports opposing assertions.

Revive Discourse

Revive Discourse

Comments 0 Comment

The pictures are from the first time I spoke with Dean Armond on his Revive FM local radio show. This was at the end of October and I was invited back to speak again this morning on the early morning 7 am to 9.00 am slot. I said some things that some might think are controversial but that are really exceedingly obvious. I am not Socrates but just the little boy who points out that the Emperor has no clothes when it seems that no one else is willing to do so.

More

Measure for Measure

Measure for Measure

Comments 0 Comment

A tweet from Alastair Stewart’s Twitter account, which appears to compare a black man to an ‘ape’, has resurfaced. Alastair, 67, announced he has quit as presenter of ITV News after more than 40 years as a newsreader. ITN confirmed it was due to ‘errors of judgement in Alastair’s use of social media’ and ‘breached’ their editorial guidelines. They did not specify what exactly prompted him to step down.

In light of the news, Twitter users are now circulating a tweet which Alastair reportedly sent on 13 January 2020. It quotes Shakespeare and was sent to a Twitter user, who happens to be black. ‘“But man, proud man, Dress’d in a little brief authority, Most ignorant of what he’s most assur’d – His glassy essence – like an angry ape”,’ the tweet read.

https://metro.co.uk/2020/01/29/alastair-stewart-resurfaced-tweet-compares-black-man-ape-itv-news-presenter-quits-12148494/

For those who still don’t understand what I mean when I say that we face a crisis of antirationalism, please read the article and consider the following points:

A. Stewart does not compare this black guy to an ape. He quotes Shakespeare who compares man in general to an angry ape.

B. Even if Stewart had used the phrase ‘angry ape’ of a black person, in the context of criticising their behaviour, that is not by its very fact necessarily racist. Context is required. Nuance is required. If someone were to say to me, a black man, even without the Shakespeare quote, that I was behaving like an angry ape I would take no particular offence. If they were to call me an ugly ape I would consider that an offensive racist trope as I am neither ugly nor and ape and as insults to the person are different to insults with regard to behaviour. If a person, on the other hand, were to come up to me at a party with a banana and make monkey noises as a black woman has accused Boris Johnson of doing, I would punch them in the face.

C. To assert that a black man’s behaviour should never be even vaguely compared to that of an ape while a white man’s behaviour might, may itself be considered racist. It being, for example quite reasonable to say that the behaviour of the Brexit MEPs as they left the European Parliament was that of uncouth apes, it is not unreasonable to infer that those who consider the same thing offensive when said of black people in comparable situations are giving credence to a racist association of black people with apes.

D. The man who accused Stewart of this is a moral and intellectual pygmy erm dwarf erm person of restricted intellectual and moral development and so is every other person who believes that there is anything even remotely racist in what Stewart tweeted.

E. The only point over which I would remonstrate with Stewart is with regard his apology. He should never have apologised and should be ashamed of having done so.

F. Stewart’s feeling that he had to apologise and other people’s feeling that he had to apologise seems to be a perfect working out of the principle ennunciated by Labour’s Rebecca Long-Bailey:

“The only acceptable response to any accusation of racist prejudice is self-scrutiny, self-criticism and self-improvement.”

Rebecca Long Bailey 12 Jan 2020

G. ‘But man, proud man, Dress’d in a little brief authority, Most ignorant of what he’s most assur’d— His glassy essence—like an angry ape, Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven As makes the angels weep; who, with our spleens, Would all themselves laugh mortal.’

To misunderstand this .. To misunderstand this show how far from reason and culture and civility our discourse has fallen. I don’t know about angels but I read this nonsense and weep. I weep for us all especially those who still don’t know why I weep.

Interesting according to the Metro article:

Other tweets from Alastair’s now-deleted Twitter account, includes his opinion on Labour NEC’s Pete Willsman being suspended after allegedly branding antisemitism ‘total lies’.

Alastair tweeted: ‘At best it is anti-israeli and arguable anti-Zionist. Antisemitism is “hostility to, or prejudice against, jews. I’m not saying #PeteWillsman is or isn’t antisemitic, I am merely suggesting this doesn’t seem the strongest evidential case [sic].’<

Bt the measure that ye measure, by that measure shall ye be judged also.

When Another Makes You Suffer

When Another Makes You Suffer

Comments 0 Comment

This is true to a point, and that’s the point at which the other person has more power than you and is abusing that power and you. At that point your first job is to protect yourself and take away their power to hurt you. You can only punish from a place of power and heal from a place of safety. If you have power you should always choose healing over punishment but get to safety first.