WHY DID MACRON VISIT LULA IN BRAZIL

30 March 2024

https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/03/29/brazil-france-lula-macron-amazon-global-south/

FRAMEWORK ANSWER

Consider an answer in the light of the contributions of France's philosophers on liberty, equality and fraternity to forms of government and Constitutions across the world. This would be the pomp and ceremony and ego-puffing setting. Then consider the reality of France's contributions, in terms of its policies towards the third world in pursuit of its own interests. This would be the controversial reality of its activities in N abd W Africa, Indochina and elsewhere. And thirdly, that is the philo and historic legacy background to Macron's attempting to strengthen France's (and his) place in the world today, so let's look at what this visit achieved for Franco-Brazilian fraternity and trade and world survival through these mad times.

1. Enlightenment values. Firstly, note that France sees itself as having, unique among European countries, a special relationship with the Global South, in particular its former colonies in Africa, Asia and S. America.

The best perspective on this "beacon of hope" role is from its Enlightenment philosophers and the policies of its post WW2 presidents.

2. Foreign Policies. Then, if this is the ideas and idealism background, what about the realities, ie pragmatically, how did France deal with its colonies (we have talked in yesterday's blog post about Assimilation and how it isn't Multiculturism), later with decolonisation,  during the Cold War, in the context of Globalisation (updating colonisation), the unipolar moment with America, and now with its position in a multipolar world of BRICS countries, with regional leaderships emerging from Brazil, Russia and China. The issues at the present would incl Geopolitics and alliances, Trade and economic union, Global Responses to war and climate change.

3. This visit - new relationship, trade deals, theme is Save The Planet. And finally to the bundles of Agreements that are always signed in the course of visits by Heads of State. What important CEOs did Macron take with him to sign deals in sectors where France leads -  Luxury Goods and Fashion, Aerospace and Defense incl submarines, Nuclear Energy, Wine and Spirits, Tourism, Cosmetics and Beauty, even Finance (standard breakdown by Industry and Sector of France's more successful commercial interests in resources, outsourcing and customer markets).

SUMMARY OF THE ARTICLE

 1. Introduction to a Historic Visit

French President Emmanuel Macron's recent visit to Brazil, marked by a highly publicised trip through the Amazon alongside Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, signifies a robust effort to strengthen ties between France and Brazil. This encounter, characterised by shared ambitions for environmental conservation and sustainable development, underscores a mutual recognition of the challenges and opportunities that lie in the relationship between the developed and developing ("The Global South") worlds.

 2. A Symbolic Gesture of Unity

The imagery of Macron and Lula, navigating the Amazon and traversing the rainforest together, has been a powerful symbol of their commitment to environmental stewardship and bi-lateral cooperation. This visit not only highlights a personal rapport between the two leaders, but also serves as a testament to their countries' aligned interests, especially in terms of environmental protection and sustainable development in the Amazon region.

 3. Strategic Investments in the Amazon

Central to Macron's visit was the announcement of a bilateral investment plan, committing $1.1 billion over four years to conservation and sustainable agriculture initiatives in the Amazon. This investment, involving both Brazil and French Guiana, a French overseas territory, represents a significant effort to address environmental concerns while fostering economic cooperation outside the traditional framework of the troubled Mercosur-European Union trade agreement.

 4. Broader Implications for Global South Relations

The France-Brazil partnership extends beyond environmental initiatives, touching on broader geopolitical and economic issues that resonate with the Global South. France's support for reforms in the international climate finance system and a global minimum tax on billionaires reflects a sensitivity to the priorities of developing countries. This stance, as highlighted by Macron's visit, suggests a strategic alignment with Brazil and other nations of the Global South, potentially reshaping international economic and environmental policies.

 5. Addressing Global Challenges

The visit also touched upon critical global issues, including the war in Ukraine and the political crisis in Venezuela, showcasing the broader diplomatic dialogue between France and Brazil. Macron's efforts to position France as a leader in a turbulent global landscape are complemented by Brazil's role as a pivotal player in the Global South, making their cooperation particularly significant in the face of uncertainties such as the potential return of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency.

 6. Conclusion: A Partnership of Mutual Interest

The deepening relationship between France and Brazil, exemplified by Macron's visit and the subsequent agreements, illustrates a shared commitment to addressing global challenges. This partnership, balancing environmental sustainability with economic and geopolitical considerations, represents a hopeful vision for co-operation between developed and developing nations.

 Links Section

- think tank websites like Plataforma CIPÓ.

COMMENTRY

1. Philosophical Foundations

The philosophical underpinnings of France's relationship with the Global Majority can be traced back to the Enlightenment era, with its ideals of "liberty, equality, fraternity" (with the latter sadly missing today, but this visit could be seen as promoting fraternity).

Philosophers like Montesquieu, Rousseau, and Voltaire, despite their complex and sometimes contradictory views on colonisation and "the other," laid the groundwork for modern human rights and the concept of universalism. This intellectual heritage has influenced France's self-perception as a bearer of universal values, shaping its diplomatic and cultural policies.

Montesquieu's critique of despotism and advocacy for the separation of powers have been instrumental in shaping political governance models promoted by France in its foreign relations. 

Rousseau's ideas on the social contract and general will can be seen in France's emphasis on democratic principles and human rights in its international engagements. 

Voltaire's defense of religious tolerance and freedom of expression also resonates with France's advocacy for these values globally. 

However, the application of these principles has often been marred by accusations of cultural imperialism and economic exploitation, reflecting the tension between idealism and communication (what is said) as opposed to pragmatism and action (what is done) in France's global interactions.

2. Post-WWII Presidential Policies

Post-WWII presidents of France have each made their contributions to shaping the country's relationship with the Global Majority, navigating the decolonisation process, Cold War politics, globalization and now a multipolar world.

- Charles de Gaulle (1959-1969): De Gaulle's presidency was marked by the process of decolonization, most notably in Algeria. His acceptance of Algerian independence in 1962 was a pragmatic move that reflected the changing global attitudes towards colonialism. De Gaulle's vision of "France's grandeur" was not limited to Europe but extended globally, seeking to position France as a leader in the Global Majority through the establishment of the Francophonie, thus promoting French language and culture worldwide.

- François Mitterrand (1981-1995): Mitterrand's tenure saw a significant focus on the Global South, particularly Africa, where he sought to maintain France's influence through a policy known as Françafrique. This policy often involved direct French intervention in African politics, under the guise of supporting stability and French interests. While Mitterrand advocated for human rights, his administration faced criticism for supporting authoritarian regimes in Africa.

- Jacques Chirac (1995-2007): Chirac was known for his outspoken opposition to the Iraq War, reflecting a broader Gaullien policy of independence from American geopolitical strategies. He emphasised multilateralism and sought to strengthen France's ties with the Global Majority through cultural exchange and development aid, promoting a multipolar world where France could act as a mediator and leader among nations.

- Nicolas Sarkozy (2007-2012) and François Hollande (2012-2017): Both leaders continued France's engagement with the Global Majority but faced new challenges such as the Arab Spring (2011), the rise of China, and global terrorism. Their policies reflected a balance between economic interests, such as securing resources, supply chains and markets, and promoting democratic values and human rights.

3. Conclusion: A Legacy of Engagement and Controversy

France's philosophical legacy and the policies of its post-WWII presidents towards the Global Majority are characterised by a complex mix of idealism, pragmatism, and sometimes controversy. The Enlightenment ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity have provided a philosophical framework for France's global engagement, even as the country has navigated the practical realities of decolonisation, global geopolitics, economic interests and climate change. France's unique historical, cultural, and intellectual connections with the Global Majority continue to shape its foreign policy, reflecting both its aspirations and the challenges of living up to its universalist ideals.

ARTICLE - HERE IS THE ARTICLE ITSELF FROM FOREIGNPOLICY.COM

Macron and Lula Deepen Ties With Trip to Amazon

On a whirlwind tour through Brazil, the French president showed that he seeks fraternité with the global south.

‘A Franco-Brazilian Moment’

It was the head-of-state photo session seen round the internet. On Tuesday, the official social media accounts for Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and French President Emmanuel Macron shared images of the two leaders together on a trip through the Amazon. In one photo, Lula and Macron grasped hands, smiling and peering out over the bow of a ship; in another, they bounded through the sun-dappled rainforest.

The subtext was clear: The trade agreement between South American customs union Mercosur and the European Union may be on life support, but Brazil and France are still doing big things together. That day, the two leaders announced a bilateral plan to invest $1.1 billion over four years in conservation and sustainable agriculture in the Amazon rainforest in Brazil and French Guiana, the latter a French overseas territory.

Macron’s visit to Brazil lasted until Thursday, when the French leader and Lula held an official meeting at Brazil’s presidential palace and signed a series of cooperation agreements.

“We are living in a Franco-Brazilian moment,” Macron’s office said. His delegation included officials from some of France’s biggest companies, including Carrefour and Airbus. Their meetings in Brazil intended to back up Macron’s assertion that the two countries can still grow their bilateral business in the absence of a new trade deal.

Whether they will be successful remains to be seen. Regardless, business is not the only reason Macron and Lula have sought closer ties. “Today, France is one of the developed countries that is most open and sensitive to certain demands of the global south,” said Maiara Folly, the executive director of Plataforma CIPÓ, a Brazilian think tank.

France has supported proposals from countries such as Barbados to reform the international climate finance system, as well as suggestions from countries such as Brazil to seek a global minimum tax on billionaires. These topics are among Brazil’s priorities for its G-20 presidency this year.

It was noteworthy that the $1.1 billion announced for the Amazon is due to be financed partially by the French and Brazilian governments, Folly told Foreign Policy. Wealthy countries often favor climate finance schemes that assume significant contributions from the private sector, but “developing countries generally worry that this emphasis on the private sector is a way to downplay the rich countries’ responsibility,” she said.

The France-Brazil Amazon investment initiative appeared to respond to those concerns. The plan includes a pledge to carry out technology transfers. On Wednesday, Lula and Macron unveiled a submarine that was built by an existing bilateral technology transfer program. France is renowned for its submarine production capabilities, which were the basis for a joint initiative with Australia that was canceled in 2021.

The possibility of a second Trump presidency in the United States looms large in Europe, and the continent is on the hunt for other dependable allies. Macron has tried to assert himself as a global leader in this unstable environment. The French president acknowledged that he and Lula had discussed Russia’s war in Ukraine and Venezuela’s political crisis.

In Brazil, Macron gains a key interlocutor in the global south. A friendly Brazil could help bring other developing countries into France’s fold. “Among traditional powers, none is closer to Brazil than France,” Lula said at his press conference with Macron on Thursday.

Read More

HUXLEY, ORWELL, GOLDING ON HUMAN NATURE AND SOCIETY

30 March 2024

Huxley, Orwell & Golding delivering keynote speeches at an LSE Conference on Climate Change, 19 August 2023

Brave New World, Nineteen-Eighty-Four, Lord of the Flies, Animal Farm

1.   Summary of Huxley's Brave New World

"Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley is a dystopian novel set in a future world state where society is meticulously engineered by the government to ensure universal happiness and social stability. The story unfolds in London, in the year A.F. 632 (After Ford), where advancements in reproductive technology, sleep-learning, psychological manipulation, and a caste system centred on intelligence and labour define human existence.

The plot centres around Bernard Marx, an Alpha caste member who feels outcast due to his physical stature, and Lenina Crowne, a woman who, despite following societal norms, is intrigued by Bernard's uniqueness. 

They visit a Savage Reservation, where they meet John, the "Savage," who was born outside of the World State's control and represents the connection to a bygone way of life that valued individuality, family, and uncontrolled emotions.

John's introduction to the World State society brings him into conflict with its values, particularly the concepts of free love and the absence of personal connections. His struggle to find a place in this new world, coupled with his attraction to Lenina and his disillusionment with the superficial happiness of society, drives him to a tragic end.

The novel explores themes of technology's role in society, the loss of individuality, the commodification of human beings, and the use of drugs ("soma") to maintain and control, social order and personal contentment. 

Huxley's vision is a cautionary tale about the dangers of losing human connection and freedom in the pursuit of technological progress and manufactured happiness.

1.1.                   Chapter by chapter summary

"Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley unfolds over 18 chapters, detailing a society where human beings are mass-produced and pre-destined for roles in a caste system. Here’s a concise chapter-by-chapter summary:

1. Introduction to the World State: The novel opens in the Central London Hatchery and Conditioning Centre, where humans are artificially produced and conditioned for their place in society.
2. The Conditioning Process: It explains the process of conditioning children to fit into their societal roles, highlighting the use of sleep-teaching, or hypnopaedia.
3. A Tour of the Hatchery: The Director of Hatchery continues the tour, introducing the concept of Bokanovsky's Process and conditioning, with Lenina Crowne and Bernard Marx introduced among the characters.
4. Introduction to Bernard Marx: Bernard shows signs of discontent with society. He and Lenina plan a visit to a Savage Reservation, highlighting Bernard's alienation.
5. Bernard's Uniqueness: Bernard is revealed to be unique in his feelings and doubts about society's values, contrasting with Lenina's contentment.
6. Visit to the Reservation: Bernard learns that he must report to the Director upon his return, hinting at his impending exile. He and Lenina visit the Savage Reservation.
7. The Savage Reservation: Lenina and Bernard meet Linda, a woman from the World State who lives on the Reservation, and her son John (the Savage).
8. John’s Background: John tells Bernard and Lenina about his life on the Reservation, his mother Linda's past, and his desire to see the "Other Place" – the World State.
9. Bernard's Plan: Bernard decides to bring John and Linda back to London as a way to undermine the Director, who had threatened him with exile.
10. John's Arrival in London: John and Linda are brought to London, causing a sensation; the Director's hypocrisy is exposed, and he resigns in shame.
11. John’s Disillusionment: John becomes a media sensation but is increasingly disillusioned with the superficiality and moral emptiness of World State society.
12. John's Refusal to Attend a Party: John refuses to attend a party, causing embarrassment for Bernard, who begins to lose his newfound status.
13. Helmholtz Watson: The friendship between Bernard, Helmholtz Watson (a discontented Alpha), and John deepens, with discussions about freedom and literature.
14. John’s Rebellion: John reacts violently to the distribution of soma to Delta workers, leading to his arrest along with Bernard and Helmholtz.
15. Before Mustapha Mond: Bernard, Helmholtz, and John are brought before Mustapha Mond, the World Controller, who debates them on the virtues of the World State.
16. Mustapha Mond’s Explanations: Mustapha Mond explains the foundations of World State society and why certain things like literature and religion are banned.
17. The Isolation of the Rebels: Bernard is exiled to an island; Helmholtz chooses to go to the Falkland Islands; John is allowed to live alone outside London.
18. The Tragedy of John the Savage: John tries to live in isolation but is hounded by the media and tourists. Unable to reconcile his beliefs with the world around him, John takes his own life.

Each chapter of "Brave New World" builds upon Huxley’s vision of a dystopian future where human freedom is sacrificed for societal stability and happiness, exploring the consequences of such a world on the individual spirit.

2.   Summary of Orwell's 1984

"1984" by George Orwell is a dystopian novel set in Airstrip One (formerly known as Great Britain), a province of the superstate Oceania in a world of perpetual war, omnipresent government surveillance, and public manipulation. The story is centered around Winston Smith, a low-ranking member of the ruling Party in London, who works at the Ministry of Truth, where he alters historical records to fit the Party's propaganda.

The Party, led by Big Brother, employs the Thought Police to persecute individualism and independent thinking, known as "thoughtcrimes." The Party's three slogans are: "War is Peace," "Freedom is Slavery," and "Ignorance is Strength." Society is organised into three classes: the Inner Party (the elite ruling minority), the Outer Party (Winston's class), and the Proles (the vast majority of the population).

Winston feels frustrated by the oppressive control of the Party and begins to secretly rebel against Big Brother, expressing his dissent through a diary. He also enters into a forbidden romantic relationship with Julia, a fellow Party member who shares his disdain for the Party's rigid controls.

Their rebellion leads them to O'Brien, a member of the Inner Party, whom they believe is secretly opposing the Party. However, O'Brien turns out to be a loyal servant of Big Brother and betrays them. Winston and Julia are captured by the Thought Police and taken to the Ministry of Love, where prisoners are tortured and brainwashed.

Winston is subjected to intense interrogation and torture by O'Brien, aimed at reforming him and eradicating his rebellious thoughts. The climax of Winston's torture occurs in Room 101, where he is confronted with his worst fear, leading him to betray Julia by begging for her to suffer in his place.

Ultimately, Winston is broken and reforms. He is released back into society after he genuinely professes his love for Big Brother, having lost all critical thought and individuality. The novel ends with Winston sitting alone in a café, tears streaming down his face, overwhelmed with love for Big Brother, as he awaits a reported victory in the ongoing war.

"1984" explores themes of totalitarianism, surveillance, censorship, and individualism, warning against the dangers of oppressive government control and the erasure of personal freedoms. It remains a powerful commentary on the potential for tyranny that can arise from the pursuit of absolute power and the subjugation of individual will.

LN

2.1.                   Chapter by chapter 1984

"1984" by George Orwell is divided into three parts, with a detailed and intense exploration of themes such as surveillance, truth manipulation, and the psychology of totalitarianism. Here's a brief chapter-by-chapter summary:

Part One: Introduction to Winston’s World

1. Introduction to Winston Smith: Winston returns to his dilapidated apartment building, Victory Mansions, and begins to write a diary, an act of rebellion against the Party.
2. The Two Minutes Hate: Winston participates in the daily Two Minutes Hate, expressing the Party's directed fury towards enemies. He notices O'Brien, a Party elite, and feels a strange connection.
3. Winston’s Job at the Ministry of Truth: Describes Winston's job at the Ministry of Truth, where he falsifies historical records to match the Party's changing narratives.
4. Winston Remembers His Family: Winston recalls his family and the disappearance of his parents during the purges of the 1950s.
5. The Party’s Control Over Reality: Further exploration of the Party’s control, including the concept of "doublethink" and the erasure of individuals from history.
6. Winston’s Discontent Grows: Winston reflects on his rebellion and writes "DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER" in his diary.
7. An Encounter with the Dark-Haired Girl: Winston has a brief encounter with Julia, a co-worker, causing him to suspect her of being a spy and to fantasise about killing her.
8. The Proles: Winston wanders into a prole district, hoping to find some connection to the past before the Party's dominance.

Part Two: Winston and Julia’s Rebellion

1. Secret Messages: Julia secretly passes Winston a note saying she loves him, leading to their covert relationship.
2. Their Secret Relationship: Winston and Julia begin their affair in a rented room above Mr. Charrington’s shop, which appears safe from surveillance.
3. O'Brien Makes Contact: Winston and Julia are contacted by O'Brien, who suggests he is part of the rebellion.
4. The Book: O'Brien provides Winston with a book by Goldstein, the supposed leader of the resistance, which explains the structure of society and the nature of war.
5. Caught: Winston and Julia are caught by the Thought Police in their rented room, which had hidden telescreens. Mr. Charrington is revealed to be a member of the Thought Police.

Part Three: Winston’s Imprisonment and Re-education

1. In the Ministry of Love: Winston is detained in the Ministry of Love, where he encounters other prisoners and realises the extent of the Party’s control over reality.
2. Torture by O'Brien: O'Brien tortures Winston, forcing him to accept the Party’s version of reality and to betray his innermost beliefs.
3. Room 101: Winston faces his worst fear in Room 101 - rats. Faced with this terror, he betrays Julia by begging for her to be tortured instead.
4. Release: Re-educated, Winston is released. He meets Julia one last time; both admit to betraying the other and feel nothing.
5. Acceptance: Winston accepts the Party completely, loving Big Brother as he hears of a victory in war.

"1984" serves as a grim warning of the dangers of totalitarianism, exploring the profound impact of oppression on the human spirit and the extremes to which a government might go to maintain control and power.

3.   Summary of Golding's Lord of the Flies

"Lord of the Flies" by William Golding is a novel that explores the dark aspects of human nature through the experiences of a group of British boys stranded on an uninhabited island. The book begins with the boys' plane crashing on a remote island during a wartime evacuation. With no adults surviving, the boys are left to govern themselves.

Ralph, one of the older boys, is initially elected as the leader, and he emphasises the need for order, rules, and the maintenance of a signal fire to attract rescuers. He is assisted by Piggy, an intelligent but socially awkward boy who wears glasses, which become crucial for starting fires.

Jack, another boy, becomes the leader of the hunters and gradually represents the appeal of savagery and the power of fear over civil and moral order. As the novel progresses, the struggle for power between Ralph and Jack becomes more intense and violent.

The boys develop a belief in a mythical beast that stalks the island, which serves as a symbol of the fear and savagery that increasingly dominate their existence. Simon, a sensitive boy, discovers that the "beast" is actually a dead pilot with a parachute, but he is killed by the other boys in a frenzied ritual before he can communicate this to them.

Jack's hunters eventually become completely savage, adorning themselves with war paint and engaging in rituals. They break away from Ralph's authority and form their own tribe, which is dedicated to hunting and hedonistic indulgence.

The conflict escalates to the point where Piggy is killed during a confrontation for his glasses, and Ralph is hunted like an animal by Jack's tribe. The novel culminates in Ralph's desperate flight from the hunters, leading him to the beach where he collapses in front of a naval officer, who has arrived to rescue the boys after spotting the island's smoke.

The presence of the officer suddenly brings the boys back to reality, and they are confronted with the realisation of their own savagery. The novel ends with the boys weeping for the loss of their innocence and the darkness they've discovered within themselves and humanity as a whole.

"Lord of the Flies" is a profound, allegorical novel that uses the microcosm of the stranded boys to explore themes of civilization vs. savagery, the loss of innocence, and the inherent evil within mankind.

3.1.                   Chapter by chapter Lord of the Flies

"Lord of the Flies" by William Golding is structured around the descent into savagery of a group of boys stranded on an uninhabited island. Here's a brief chapter-by-chapter overview:

Chapter 1: The Sound of the Shell

• The boys, Ralph and Piggy, meet and find a conch shell, which they use to summon the other survivors. Ralph is elected leader.

Chapter 2: Fire on the Mountain

• Ralph proposes making a signal fire to attract rescue. The boys' first attempt at making a fire is chaotic and the fire spreads uncontrollably.

Chapter 3: Huts on the Beach

• Tensions arise between Jack, who becomes obsessed with hunting, and Ralph, who prioritises shelter and rescue signals.

Chapter 4: Painted Faces and Long Hair

• Jack's hunting group paints their faces for camouflage. They kill a pig, but in their delirious obsession, they let the signal fire go out, missing a rescue opportunity.

Chapter 5: Beast from Water

• During a meeting to discuss order, the boys express their fears of a beast. Ralph struggles to maintain authority, and the idea of the beast becomes more real to them.

Chapter 6: Beast from Air

• A dead parachutist lands on the island, and the boys believe it to be the beast. Jack and Ralph lead an expedition to hunt it.

Chapter 7: Shadows and Tall Trees

• The boys' expedition to find the beast heightens their fear. Ralph experiences a crisis of leadership and identity.

Chapter 8: Gift for the Darkness

• After a confrontation with Ralph, Jack leaves to form his own tribe, focused on hunting and savagery. Simon encounters the Lord of the Flies.

Chapter 9: A View to a Death

• Simon discovers the "beast" is actually a dead parachutist. He tries to tell the others but is killed by them in a frenzied dance, mistaken for the beast.

Chapter 10: The Shell and the Glasses

• Jack's tribe steals Piggy's glasses to make fire. Ralph's dwindling group is powerless to act.

Chapter 11: Castle Rock

• Ralph and Piggy confront Jack's tribe to get the glasses back. Piggy is killed, and the conch is destroyed in the confrontation.

Chapter 12: Cry of the Hunters

• Ralph is hunted by Jack's tribe. He stumbles onto a naval officer who has come to rescue them after seeing the island's fire. The boys are suddenly faced with the reality of their actions and break down in tears.

Throughout "Lord of the Flies," Golding explores themes of civilization versus savagery, the loss of innocence, and the inherent evil of mankind, with the island serving as a microcosm for broader human society.

4.   Compare and contrast the themes in these three books

The novels "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley, "1984" by George Orwell, and "Lord of the Flies" by William Golding, while distinct in setting and plot, explore overlapping themes related to control, the nature of society, and the human condition. Here’s a comparison and contrast of the themes in these three books:

Control and Authority

• Brave New World depicts control through pleasure and conditioning, presenting a society where people are genetically engineered and indoctrinated to be content with their predetermined roles. The authority is maintained not by surveillance and fear but through the manipulation of culture, history, science, and happiness.
• 1984, in contrast, represents control through surveillance, fear, and the suppression of free thought. Authority is maintained by constant observation, the threat of violence, and the manipulation of truth, creating a state of perpetual anxiety and conformity.
• Lord of the Flies explores control in the microcosm of a group of boys stranded on an island. Initially, attempts at democratic leadership and order are made, but the situation quickly devolves into a struggle for power, marked by fear and savagery.

Human Nature and Society

• Brave New World suggests that human nature can be completely moulded by society to fit into a peaceful but superficially happy world devoid of deep emotions, meaningful relationships, or personal freedom.
• 1984 offers a grim view of human nature under totalitarian rule, where trust and love are eroded by the omnipresent fear of betrayal and punishment, showing how oppressive regimes can crush the human spirit.
• Lord of the Flies presents a more primal take on human nature, suggesting that societal norms are thin veneers that can easily be stripped away to reveal underlying savagery and the instinct for power and dominance.

Individuality vs. Society

• Brave New World portrays individuality as nearly non-existent, sacrificed for the sake of societal stability and happiness. Personal identity is submerged in the collective good and individual desires are seen as threats to societal harmony.
• 1984 dramatically highlights the conflict between individuality and authoritarian control, showing a society where personal freedom and truth are subjugated to the whims of the ruling Party. The protagonist’s struggle for individual thought and love is brutally crushed.
• Lord of the Flies examines how societal structures influence individual behavior and how quickly individuals can revert to savagery when those structures collapse. The boys' descent into violence and chaos reflects the fragility of civilised behaviour in the absence of societal norms.

4.1.                   Conclusion

While "Brave New World" explores the consequences of a society that controls through pleasure and the illusion of happiness, "1984" portrays a world where control is maintained through fear and suppression. "Lord of the Flies" strips away the layers of civilisation to examine the inherent savagery within humans when societal structures disappear. 

Each novel, in its way, grapples with the tension between the individual and society, offering insights into the potential paths humanity could take under different forms of governance and in different states of nature.

5.                   Summary of Animal Farm by George Orwell

5.1. Overview

- Animal Farm is a novella by George Orwell, first published in 1945. It is a political allegory that satirizes the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the subsequent rise of the Soviet Union under Stalin. The story uses farm animals to represent the key figures and events of this period.

5.2. Plot Summary

- The Rebellion: The story begins on Manor Farm, where the animals are mistreated by their human owner, Mr. Jones. Inspired by Old Major, an elderly pig who envisions a farm free from human oppression, the animals stage a rebellion, overthrow Mr. Jones, and take over the farm. They rename it "Animal Farm" and establish their own rules under the leadership of the pigs.

- The Rise of the Pigs: Initially, the farm operates on the principle that "All animals are equal." The pigs, particularly Napoleon and Snowball, assume leadership roles due to their intelligence. Snowball is an idealist who wants to spread the revolution, while Napoleon is more power-hungry.

- Power Struggles: A power struggle ensues between Napoleon and Snowball, culminating in Napoleon using his trained dogs to chase Snowball off the farm. Napoleon takes control, gradually altering the farm's original principles to consolidate his power.

- Corruption and Betrayal: As Napoleon’s power grows, the pigs start to resemble the human oppressors they overthrew. They live in luxury, manipulate the other animals, and engage in trade with humans. The original commandments are gradually altered to justify the pigs’ actions, eventually leaving only one: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

- The Collapse: The farm becomes indistinguishable from the human-run farms. The pigs become indistinguishable from humans, and the other animals realize they have been betrayed. The story ends with the animals peering through a window, unable to tell the difference between the pigs and the humans.

5.3. Themes

- Power and Corruption: The novella explores how those in power can become corrupt, betraying the ideals they once stood for.

  

- Class Struggle: Orwell highlights the exploitation of the working class (represented by the animals) by those in power (the pigs).

- The Betrayal of Ideals: Animal Farm shows how revolutionary ideals can be distorted and betrayed by those who seek power for themselves.

- Propaganda and Control: The story illustrates how propaganda (through the pig Squealer) and fear are used to control and manipulate the population.

5.4. Allegorical Representation

- Old Major: Represents Karl Marx or Vladimir Lenin, whose ideas inspire the revolution.

- Napoleon: Represents Joseph Stalin, who consolidates power and becomes a tyrant.

- Snowball: Represents Leon Trotsky, who is exiled by Stalin.

- Squealer: Represents the Soviet propaganda machine.

- The Pigs: Represent the broader Soviet leadership and bureaucrats who supported Stalin and benefited from the system while the common animals (the working class) continued to suffer. They start out as "comrades" but gradually become indistinguishable from the oppressive humans they replaced.The pigs, as a group, symbolize how revolutionary leaders can become as corrupt and tyrannical as the rulers they overthrew, betraying the ideals of the revolution in the process.

- The Other Animals: Represent the exploited working class.

5.5. Conclusion

- Animal Farm is a powerful critique of totalitarianism, illustrating how power can corrupt and how ideals can be twisted to serve the interests of a few. Orwell’s novella remains a relevant and cautionary tale about the dangers of unchecked authority and the importance of vigilance in protecting democratic principles.

Read More

BUT WHAT DOES "MULTICULTURISM" MEAN

29 March 2024

LINK

 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/28/dame-sara-khan-radicalisation-post-october-7-hizb-ut-tahrir/

Is this realistic?

SUMMARY OF THE ARTICLE

1. Government Preparedness and Radicalisation

Dame Sara Khan, in her role as the UK's adviser for social cohesion, critiqued the government's delayed response to radicalisation following the October 7 events. Her report draws connections between the Israel-Gaza conflict and a rise in extremism within the UK, exacerbated by societal tensions and misinformation.

2. Approach to Protests and Dialogue

Khan advocates for a nuanced approach to handling protests, challenging simplifications of pro-Palestinian demonstrations as hate-driven. She underscores the importance of dialogue and leadership in fostering unity.

3. Personal Experience and Commitment

Reflecting on her personal journey combating extremism, Khan emphasizes the critical need for government action to address societal fractures and safeguard democracy.

4. Evidence-based Arguments

Khan's report and observations are based on her extensive work and personal experiences  Her arguments favour a proactive and inclusive government strategy.

COMMENT

SEMITE

An issue with the article is that the journalist throws around "anti-semitic" as the main cause of the UK being a divided society now, divided against itself, but doesn't define the term. Many terms are bandied about, but we can't discuss the piece without first reaching agreement on a "glossary of terms".

No-one is anti-semitic, there is no such problem. Semite has a meaning and it isn't a synonym for Jew.

A Semite is an individual belonging to any of the various ancient and modern peoples originating from the Middle East, migrating to North Africa, including those who speak Semitic languages such as Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Amharic. 

"Anti-semitic" can only mean against people from MENA (Middle-East and North Africa) or WANA if you prefer (West Asia and North Africa).

Rather than "anti-Semitic, don't most people really mean "anti-Zionist", possibly "anti-Israeli", but there are many Arab-Israelis. Try "anti the government of Israel's policies".

IDEOLOGY

We are talking an ideology. An ideology is a comprehensive set of beliefs, values, and ideas that outlines how society should work and offers some political and cultural blueprint for a certain social order. It's a system of thought that explains and justifies certain social arrangements, guiding political, economic, and social actions. Ideologies can be broad, encompassing theories about the world and the society we live in, or they can be more focused, dealing with specific issues like environmentalism or feminism.

MULTICULTURISM

Then, there is the failure of "multiculturism". Again, it's missing a definition, so how can there be any discussion? ... Sure enough, there's only misunderstanding, confusion and hate.

Multiculturalism means the co-existence of different cultures. 

CULTURE

Culture is a way of thinking and communicating about self and other - it leads to "identity politics", which is "the politics of hate". In this context, culture is beliefs, values, what you might call  "ritualistic" or customary behaviours, shared within a group and the group itself is largely defined as racial or religious (but includes converts, sympathisers...marchers?).

So this well educated and well-intentioned person Mrs Khan is trying to make multiculturalism work, while others say it is an idea that has failed.

FEAR AND GREED

There are alternatives to multiculturalism. Maybe first of all we should understand why it might have failed and the reason is not to do with the politics of hate, which is just a manifestation of its failure, it is really about the politics of fear and greed, the wellspring of all mammalian instinctive emotions, deep below the civilisation line, seemingly beyond the reach of reason.

GROUP

One group feels threatened by another and this sense of threat or predation is often justifiably and demonstrably true.

ALTERNATIVE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN GROUPS

There are alternatives to multiculturism and the relationship between groups varies in each definition, in terms of how much they emphasise cultural assimilation, integration, segregation, expulsion or genocide. Somewhere in those alternatives are colonisation and apartheid.

POWER STRUCTURES

Equality or dominance? Together or apart?

A SIMPLE PERSPECTIVE

To rehash the above.

For Europe. France is 9% muslim, the UK half that. The least is Spain, maybe 2%, the most Russia, 10%.

Multiculturism is the coexistence of different religious or ethic cultures within one country.

A culture is a set of beliefs, values and behaviours.

The idea of multiculturism is peaceful co-existence within the same country or nation-state. Nationalism.

I don't have any KPIs to measure any of the above !!!

But what is noticeable, according to me, is how well multi-culturism works. It is very successful. There is very little trouble, though what there is fills the broadsheets and some incidents are grave. 

Just like multi-classism works.

It all works, up till now, in spite of everything you read.

Most people only notice the disruptors, the small minorities with big claims. The Islamists. The Dues. The  Extreme Marxists. The Extreme Fascists. The ideologues.

Small minorities making a lot of trouble for Great Silent Majorities.

The alternatives to Multiculturists (multicultural peaceful co-existence is the rainbow nation) are Separatists (apartheid), Deportists (ship them to Rwanda, send back the Illegals), Cleansers (murder them), Melting Pottists ( (Intergrationists, plasticinists).

è

The status quo is Multiculturism.

The response to troublemakers is to beat them.

Listening is too tiresome.

Which is best?

THE ARTICLE

‘We knew radicalisation was going to happen after October 7 – the Government was behind the curve’

Dame Sara Khan, the UK’s adviser for social cohesion, explains how the extremism she witnessed as a child has gone mainstream

Lizzie Dearden

28 March 2024 • 7:13pm

Dame Sara Khan was appointed as the government's Independent Adviser for Social Cohesion and Resilience in 2021

The hatred, extremism and division coursing through the UK as a result of the Israel-Gaza conflict did not come as a shock to Dame Sara Khan, the Government’s independent adviser for social cohesion. She saw the consequences coming as soon as Hamas launched its bloody rampage on October 7, and thinks ministers should have too.

“It was pretty obvious that it would have a radicalising effect, that it would feed hate crime and growing levels of extremism in our society,” she says. “And when it did there was no infrastructure in place to deal with it.”

I meet Khan in a small, glass-walled meeting room inside the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, where, in a wine-coloured trouser suit and pink blouse, she is by far the most colourful person in sight.

It is just days after the release of her official report – Threats to Social Cohesion and Democratic Resilience – the 150-page culmination of three years of work, and she says her “brain is mush”.

But Khan is clear and unflinching in her assessment of the toxic soup of issues causing what she fears is the “internal fragmentation” of democracy, not just in Britain but around the world. She found the dangerous climate of threats and intimidation towards MPs to be part of a wider picture of harassment affecting local councils, academics, journalists and even artists.

The Israel-Gaza conflict is assessed to be just one contributing factor, alongside anger over the cost-of-living crisis, polarisation on social media, disinformation, conspiracy theories and the “mainstreaming of extremism”.

This is not the first time conflict between Israelis and Palestinians has reverberated on Britain’s streets. Weeks after Khan took up her role as social cohesion adviser in early 2021, tasked with examining extremism across the UK and drawing up plans to combat it, violence broke out in Jerusalem and spiralled into a war between Israel and Hamas.

In under two weeks, monitoring groups had recorded a 500 per cent increase in anti-Semitic incidents and a 430 per cent rise in reports of anti-Muslim hatred in Britain.

The UK has seen a significant spike in anti-Semitic incidents, such as these defaced flyers of Israeli hostages in Waterloo

The UK has seen a significant spike in anti-Semitic incidents, such as these defaced flyers of Israeli hostages in Waterloo CREDIT: Richard Baker

When Khan spoke to Jewish and Muslim groups at that time, she recalls that “everyone was saying that it was inevitable”. They had seen it before time and time again, with every outbreak of conflict in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories directly causing waves of hate crime and spiking tensions in the UK.

The current war is longer, bloodier and more destructive than ever before, making the international consequences more severe and threatening to become what counter-terror police call a “generational radicalising moment”.

Khan says the Government should have learned from the fallout of these previous conflicts, and is now battling to put “sticking plasters” on worsening hatred and radicalisation as a result.

“We knew these tensions were there, we knew something like this was going to happen and the Government was behind the curve,” she says.

“They should have got ahead of this, thinking: ‘What can we do now to ensure that we can mitigate against a potential conflict that is going to cause serious disruption on our own streets?’ There is no adequate infrastructure to really deal with this issue.”

While ministers have called for police to crack down on pro-Palestinian protests which have seen small numbers of participants accused of hate crimes and terror offences, Khan says they should instead be looking “upstream” and trying to bring different sides together.

Khan defends the pro-Palestinian regular demonstrations as 'largely peaceful'

Khan defends the pro-Palestinian regular demonstrations as 'largely peaceful' 

She rejects former home secretary Suella Braverman’s labelling of regular demonstrations demanding a ceasefire as “hate marches”, saying the characterisation “flies in the face of the evidence”.

“It’s just not true,” says Khan. “Overwhelmingly, these are largely peaceful marches that are being attended by a whole range of different people from different backgrounds, different faiths, and for all kinds of different reasons.”

While Khan agrees that “of course the police should step in” where there is anti-Semitic chanting, incitement of hatred or other criminal offences being committed, she believes it is “simplistic” to tar thousands of demonstrators with the same brush.

“There’s got to be a space where we can allow people to come together and find a constructive way of coming to some kind of common ground,” she says. “That requires leadership from all sides, and I think we need to see more of that.”

But the issue currently giving her sleepless nights is the worsening “serious disillusionment with democracy amongst the British people”, with polling showing trust in the Government and core institutions plummeting, as fewer people participate in elections and wider politics.

'We're a diverse democracy, there are going to be tensions across all backgrounds'

Khan: 'We're a diverse democracy, there are going to be tensions across all backgrounds' 

Research shows that such trends make people “more likely to turn to authoritarian or anti-democratic worldviews”, Khan says. “It means that extremists are able to infiltrate the mainstream a lot more, and we could lose precious democratic rights and freedoms.

“That’s something that I really worry about, especially when I see that there isn’t a strategic approach to deal with it. It just seems like we can see it all happening – we can see the car crash, but we’re not putting our foot down on the brake and doing something about it.”

Khan has been trying to put the brakes on hatred and division within British society for a long time. As a young Muslim, growing up in Bradford, she was shocked by the way the recently-banned Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir tried to radicalise girls and boys as young as 13.

“My father used to come back with leaflets from the mosque from Hizb ut-Tahrir, saying ‘This is a really toxic organisation – they’re completely the opposite of everything I’ve taught you about being patriotic and contributing positively to this country’,” she recalls.

Hizb ut-Tahir organised a protest outside the Egyptian Embassy in London calling on Muslim armies to defend Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem

Hizb ut-Tahir protested outside the Egyptian Embassy in London, November 2023, calling on Muslim armies to defend Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem 

Khan’s father had emigrated to the UK from Pakistan in the 1960s, initially working in a grocery shop before moving into insurance, and instilled in his four children “a real opposition to Islamist extremism and the dangers that it posed”. 

When Khan was growing up, she saw teenage girls in her community being forced into marriage. “That just does something to you,” she says.

Together with her sister and two brothers, she attended a private secondary school and she went on to complete a pharmacy degree at the University of Manchester, before gaining a master’s in human rights from the Institute of Commonwealth Studies.

She was working as a hospital pharmacist when London was bombed by al-Qaeda-inspired terrorists on July 7 2005. That attack – the deadliest Jihadist assault in British history – was a “defining moment” and she pledged, from that moment, to dedicate herself to countering Islamist extremism.

“The idea of young British Muslims carrying out a domestic attack and murdering fellow citizens was just absolutely horrific,” she says. “My professional life in this type of work started from that point.”

Now 44, she has been fighting extremism for almost two decades, having co-founded the women-led charity Inspire in 2008. Its mission, to combat Islamist radicalisation and gender inequality, appeared uncontroversial but drew hostility from extremists. 

“We got an incredible amount of abuse,” she recalls. “I was living with daily threats and it was predominantly coming from Islamist extremists in this country, and people who are sympathetic to those narratives.”

Khan faced continual threats from extremist groups who tried to 'cancel' her 

Khan faced continual threats from extremist groups who tried to 'cancel' her for her anti-radicalisation activism 

Khan, who had two young children at the time, was advised by police on security measures including changing her routes to work and school and coming off social media.

“There were Islamist extremist groups portraying me as a traitor to Islam,” she says. “People would spread crazy, ridiculous conspiracy theories just to try and damage my reputation and smear me to such an extent that nobody would listen to anything I said.”

The abuse hit a peak when the Islamic State was at its zenith a decade ago, drawing hundreds of Brits to its self-declared caliphate in Syria and Iraq. Few would return.

Khan says it felt “totally insane” to receive threats for trying to stop young people being brainwashed by a terrorist group, but that extremists continued trying to “cancel” her.

Asked if she considered stopping her work, she says the “Yorkshire stubborn lass part of me” would not let her, adding: “I just thought ‘No one is going to tell me what to do. I’m not going to have anyone dictate to me. I’m not going to let those guys try and stop me from playing my part for our country’.”

With the support of her husband, who is a lawyer, she kept going, being appointed as the government’s new Commissioner for Countering Extremism in 2018 and awarded a damehood for her services in the 2022 New Year Honours list.

Over her three-year tenure, the commission released a wave of reports examining different threats and calling for structural and legal changes to stop extremists of all kinds “operating with impunity”. The Government did not respond to any of those reports, including a core 2019 review that formulated a new definition of “hateful extremism”, and Khan is frustrated that she has never been given an explanation for the silence.

She accuses the Government of having a “wider cultural problem”, where it repeatedly commissions independent reviews but then “leaves them to just gather dust on a shelf”. 

“I don’t think that’s acceptable at all,” Khan says. “That’s not treating the British public with the respect that they deserve, where the Government is paying independent figures to deliver a piece of work and then ignoring all their recommendations.”

The controversial definition of extremism unveiled by Communities Secretary Michael Gove this month was markedly different to Khan’s recommendations, and she claims that she has not been consulted on the wider work the Communities Secretary promised would “marginalise extremist groups and to support and strengthen the communities where extremists are most active and spreading division”.

Speaking to the Telegraph, Gove said he fears that some people with extremist outlooks have used links to state institutions 'both to gain legitimacy, but also to influence the way in which we operate'

As a general election approaches and political tensions rise, Khan is pleading for MPs not to do extremists’ work for them by engaging in “culture wars” and using inflammatory and divisive language.

“Politicians have the power to bring people together, but they also have the power to inflame and divide people,” she warns. “I think we’ve got to be very careful that certain extremist narratives and ideologies don’t infiltrate the mainstream. We’ve got to be better than that.”

Khan strongly disagrees with the former home secretary’s claim that multiculturalism has failed, after Braverman used a speech in the US in September to label migration as “too much, too quick, with too little thought given to integration and the impact on social cohesion”.

She dismisses multiculturalism as a dated concept and argues that the divisions currently dominating British society are “not because of migrants”. “We’re a diverse democracy, there are going to be tensions across all backgrounds,” Khan says. “There are tensions between people of different political opinions, there are people who have different opinions on a class basis. There are so many fault lines now.”

What we don’t need, she says, is politicians stirring things up for their own ends. 

“They’re looking at it in terms of gaining power in the short term, but it has long term consequences in the rest of society,” she warns. “This is not just about the election and who wins power. It has long term ramifications on the rest of society.”

Read More