Trump Returns?

I had an interesting email the other day praising the Accomplishments of Donald Trump while he was President.  

So, in fairness, I started to check.

Obamacare

Trump didn't repeal Obamacare — he accidentally bolstered it.  (not much of an achievement from his supporters point of view.)

Defence Spending

The move: The 2018 strategy rewired the Defense Department’s vast bureaucracy away from a focus on fighting insurgents and terrorists in the Middle East toward a long-term strategic competition with China and Russia. As a result, the military is changing how it trains personnel, which technologies it buys, and the geographic areas of the world where it prioritizes its forces.

The impact: Already it has led to a reordering of the Pentagon budget and new investments supported by a bipartisan majority in Congress, including billions of dollars to beef up the U.S. military presence in the Asia-Pacific.

The upshot: Despite differences in tone and rhetoric, this is a refocusing of the United States’ military posture that is expected to continue in the Biden administration.  (looks like a plus for Trump)

Coronavirus

Trump failed to provide workplace guidance, making safety harder for workers. (we all know what a tangle Trump got into over the virus, need we go further?)

Religion in schools

Trump boosted religious organizations in education. (may please some of his core supporters, most folks won’t even notice)

Oversight

Trump's Interior Department set a new standard for ignoring Congress.  A dangerous precedent

Cannabis

Legal marijuana spreads across most of the country.  (I suspect the country is split on this one, but who knows?  Next step - legalise heroin, thus depriving the Taliban of most of their income?)

Loan forgiveness

Trump curbed relief for defrauded students.  ????

Shell companies

Trump made it easier to prosecute financial crimes like money laundering.  A plus!

Poverty

Trump shrank the food safety net — a lot.  Can’t see how this is a plus?

Overtime pay

Millions of workers lost access to extra pay for long hours. ( Popular with whom?)

Drones

Trump imposed a near-ban on government use of Chinese drones  (Clear win for Trump, but does the public care?)

Taxes

Trump goosed the economy with tax cuts that didn't pay political dividends (open to question at the moment)

Robotcalls

Trump cracked down — mostly successfully — on unwanted calls and texts ( a good policy and clearly a win for Trump)

Climate science

Trump exiled climate scientists from Washington—literally.  The Agriculture Department went to great lengths to quietly quash scientific research conducted by its employees or funded by government dollars, in particular research about how the agriculture industry could play a critical role in combating climate change. Secretary Sonny Perdue was aggressive in reshaping USDA, most overtly by relocating many of the department’s research scientists out of Washington to the Midwest.  The Agriculture Department went to great lengths to quietly quash scientific research conducted by its employees or funded by government dollars, in particular research about how the agriculture industry could play a critical role in combating climate change. Secretary Sonny Perdue was aggressive in reshaping USDA, most overtly by relocating many of the department’s research scientists out of Washington to the Midwest.

The move: Officials refused to publicize dozens of studies that carry warnings about the effects of climate change on the agriculture sector. The department even stopped the release of a plan on how to respond to the climate change crisis.

Foreign Workers

The administration, however, said U.S. employers are abusing the work visa because they want to replace American workers with cheaper foreign labor. The administration’s most recent rules sought to limit the types of jobs foreign workers can apply for, while also requiring employers to pay them more.

The impact: Some changes — including those that narrow the definition of a "specialty occupation" and that require employers to pay foreign workers more — were expected to reduce the number of approved H-1B visa petitions by one-third. Those efforts have since been halted in court. Businesses seeking these non-immigrant worker visas also saw an increase in requests to provide more evidence in their applications and a higher rate of visa denials.

Toxic chemicals

Trump impeded regulation — even though Republicans wanted it.

Trump took a big swing at finally fixing health-care technology

Sexual harassment

Trump rescinded rules protecting workers at federal contractors

On the eve of the #MeToo era, Trump and the GOP-controlled Congress repealed transparency safeguards designed to protect hundreds of thousands of people working for companies bidding for federal contracts from sexual harassment. Business groups vehemently opposed the requirements, which they dubbed the “Blacklist Rule,” arguing that the regulation was so broadly worded that potential contractors could be barred from doing work with the government based on allegations alone.

Immigration

A big crackdown on legal immigrants

While it was no surprise to anyone who followed his 2016 presidential campaign that Trump wanted to crack down on illegal immigration at the southern border, his administration also imposed tighter restrictions on legal immigration, even of the high-skilled workers he claimed to want in the country.

The move: The Department of Homeland Security has pushed through restrictions and changes to the H-1B visa program that allows U.S. businesses to hire high-skilled foreign workers for “specialty“ jobs. Businesses rely on these workers to fill jobs they say they can’t fill with home-grown workers

Farm aid

Trump doled out billions in aid to farmers  (popular in Missouri!)

Banking

Trump rolled back rules on banks designed to prevent another financial crisis

Trump fulfilled a major GOP priority in 2018 by signing the first big bank deregulation bill since the landmark Dodd-Frank Act was enacted in 2010. It was a victory for the nation's lenders, which spent years fighting to roll back rules enacted in the wake of the 2008 Wall Street meltdown. Republicans and moderate Democrats had been working on some of the proposals well before the 2016 election, but the Trump administration played a key role in making it possible.

Housing segregation

Trump rolled back rules on racially segregated housing

Trade rules

Trump made trade a top priority, but had only mixed results

Trump prioritized trade concerns far more than any other president in recent history, pursuing a hyperactive agenda that flummoxed allies and adversaries alike. In particular, Trump shifted the United States toward a more nationalist trade policy characterized by an aggressive use of tariffs and sharp criticism of China, the European Union and the World Trade Organization.

The move: Trump abandoned the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement supported by most other Republicans and ran roughshod over the rules-based trading system to pursue his political objective of boosting U.S. industry. He imposed tariffs on more than $350 billion worth of Chinese goods and on billions of dollars’ worth of steel and aluminum imports. He struck a trade deal with China that eliminates many agricultural trade barriers but left many other serious trade issues unaddressed. He also used the threat of withdrawing from the North American Free Trade Agreement to strike a more protectionist version of the agreement with Canada and Mexico.

The impact: Trump elevated concerns about China’s trade practices and acquisition of American technology to a new level and helped usher in what many now are calling a cold war between the world’s two largest economies. He also weakened the World Trade Organization through his willingness to hamstring the group’s dispute settlement system and to unilaterally impose tariffs to punish trading partners and protect domestic industries.

The upshot: Trump leaves office with a mixed record on trade. The new U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement has groundbreaking provisions on labor enforcement and costly new rules for North American automakers. Trump fell far short on his promise to negotiate bilateral trade deals to make up for his decision to pull out of the TPP, although he did negotiate a number of partial trade deals with the EU, Japan and Brazil and borrowed heavily from the TPP in his NAFTA update.

Overall this is a mixed bag.  The idea that Donald Trump did nothing whilst in office is clearly wrong.  But, any good must be balanced with his clear mistakes.

The Bad and some downright Ugly, we have to balance the books

The beginning of the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump included statements that would have ended the campaign of any other politician. Has an announcement speech ever looked so much like a flashily produced political suicide? Did he really just call a key part of the electorate criminals and rapists?

Ever since his blunt, racially divisive debut in Trump Tower in June 2015, Trump has proven that gaffes do not singe his hide like they do the fragile and fretful politicians who tiptoe through the typical campaign for public office. Time and again, Trump poured gasoline on himself and lit a match. Time and again, pundits predicted fatal self-immolation. Instead, Trump often rode the ensuing firestorm like an Atlas rocket. His poll numbers actually went up after he insulted John McCain’s war record. What mainstream politician has ever said something like that, much less received a boost out of it? The only thing more stunning than Trump’s dismantling of campaign norms has been how consistently he has flirted with disaster.

He has insulted brown people, black people, Muslim people, Jewish people. He has insulted women. He has insulted the grieving parents of a dead soldier. He has mocked a disabled person and expressed admiration for dictators. He has ham-handedly pandered to a politically critical portion of the population by posting to social media a picture of gringo Tex-Mex captioning it, “I love hispanics!” He has suggested he could shoot somebody and not lose votes. He has openly talked about the possibility of the assassination of his opponent. Twice. And these are just the insults, not the demonstrable falsehoods.

Some examples:

1. “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” June 16, 2015, announcement speech.

It helped him dispatch 16 challengers in the extended primaries of a party of which he has been an off-and-on member, and it has taken him to Monday night, to the first of three debates against Hillary Clinton—his best chance yet to get an edge in the race to become the 45th president of the United States. Amid the pre-debate speculation that he could say something at the debate that would cost him the election, it’s difficult to imagine what he could say that would do what so many other statements of his were unable to and end his campaign.

Here are 37 of his gaffes that could have been fatal—but somehow weren’t.

1. “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” June 16, 2015, announcement speech.

2. “He’s not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.” July 17, 2015, Family Leadership Summit in Iowa. Trump was referring to Senator John McCain, a former Navy pilot who was tortured during his five-and-a-half years as a POW during the Vietnam war.

3. “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.” August 7, 2015, CNN interview about Megyn Kelly, one of Fox News’ moderators in the first Republican debate.

4. “Well I really watch the shows. You really see a lot of great, you know, when you watch your show and all of the other shows, and you have the generals and you have certain people that you like.” August 16, 2015, interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” trying to name his foreign policy advisors.

5. “Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?!” September 9, 2015, in Rolling Stone, talking about GOP candidate Carly Fiorina.

6. “It has not been easy for me ... My father gave me a small loan of a million dollars.” October 26, 2015, on NBC’s “TODAY” show.

7. “@mygreenhippo #BenCarson is now leading in the #polls in #Iowa. Too much #Monsanto in the #corn creates issues in the brain? #Trump #GOP.” October 22, 2015, retweet by @realDonaldTrump.

8. “I want to know who are the soldiers carrying suitcases with $50 million? How stupid are we? I wouldn’t be surprised if those soldiers, if the cash didn’t get there.” October 1, 2015, speech in Keene, New Hampshire, suggesting U.S. soldiers embezzled cash intended for disbursement to officials in Iraq and Afghanistan.

9. “Now the poor guy, you ought to see this guy. ‘Ah, I don’t know what I said! I don’t remember!’” November 24, 2015, physically mocks New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski, who has a congenital condition called arthrogryposis that affects his joints.

16. “If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS’s ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been President because this would not have happened. … For a religious leader to question a person’s faith is disgraceful. I am proud to be a Christian and as President I will not allow Christianity to be consistently attacked and weakened, unlike what is happening now, with our current President. No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man’s religion or faith.” February 18, 2016. Press release from the Trump campaign.

17. “Well, just so you understand, I don't know anything about David Duke, okay? I don't know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don't know.” February 28, 2016 on CNN, asked if he’ll disavow the endorsement of former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.

The judge was appointed by Barack Obama, a federal judge. Frankly, he should recuse himself because he’s given us ruling after ruling after ruling, negative, negative, negative. What happens is the judge, who happens to be, we believe, Mexican, which is great. I think that’s fine.” May 27, 2016, rally in San Diego, in which he criticizes Indiana-born Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who, on the basis of his Mexican ancestry, Trump alleges cannot judge fairly in a lawsuit related to Trump University.

It’s against two NFL games. I got a letter from the NFL saying ‘This is ridiculous.’” July 30, 2016, in an interview with ABC about the presidential debate schedule. The NFL categorically denied sending such a letter.

You’re living in poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs, 58 percent of your youth is unemployed. What the hell do you have to lose?" August 19, 2016, at a rally in Dimondale, Michigan, explaining why African Americans should vote for him.

So we have to ask how did he overcome these seemingly fatal mistakes?  Let’s add to the list his dysfunctional personal life.  It seems almost impossible for him to win and to rermain a viable Republican candidatefor the next election.

Conclusion:  the general perception of Donald Trump is just about spot on.  He should get credit for overcoming so may obstacles to become President - most of them of his own making.  he remains a deeply unattractive character who will not be missed on the political scene.

Brexit (again)

 

BOJO Bulldust

The illiterati remain obsessed with chanting “Brexit is done, get over it and move on!”  Unfortunately this is a classic case of, “can you smell that stuff you shovelling”!

Brexit is not done and is unlikely to ever be done. Current rows about the status of Northern Ireland serve only to underline the point. The choice of the majority who voted for Brexit must be respected, yet in the country in particular politicians are placed in  an almost insurmountable position. Everybody knows that Boris is a chancer, after all it's part of his charm. But when cornered, his true colours often glimmer through the mist. Don't forget :he left David Cameron thinking that he might support the Brexit deal and campaign accordingly only to overnight become a committed leaver. Bottom line, Boris is a shuttlecock floating towards the end line and hoping to land in and not out. Or, should it be the other way around? Who knows with Boris?

The current spat with the French is as unedifying as it was predictable. Moron Macron sees votes in a bit of roastbeeefs bashing and Boris would love to wear the Henry V mantle and give the froggies six of the best - trousers down. . "Monge too" as Del boy would say. All good clean fun you may say. On the day a delay to unlocking is now delayed for four weeks, and Boris has so annoyed the speaker that he might have to take six of the best in the Commons :it's not surprising that the Boris balls up of Ireland has slipped down the list of things to deal with. Let's just kick it down the road again. 

As attractive as this might seem it's, in reality, a fantasy. 

For, the Irish question has been kicked down the road so often, surely the ball is flatter than a witch's chest. But, is there any chance Boris actually has a plan and knows more than we do? Not likely. 

If he does it's probably a dose of electoral reality. Successive Unionist led governments at Stormont have known that the day is coming when their electoral majority will disappear. Boris knows this as well. He knows as leader of the Conservative and Unionist party, he could never openly betray the Unionists. But, the present Northern Ireland deal provides for a plebiscite of the people of Northern Ireland if they wish to have a United Ireland. Maybe the arch chancer is happy to just waffle and bluster and wait for demographics to come to his rescue. 

Or, he has found that the EU, for all its blustering, can do little practically to annoy him.

Dealing with Dominic Cummings may actually cause him more problems than Brexit and NI combined, but that’s a story for another day.

News today is that the NI executive will be reconstituted as Sinn Fein agree to power sharing with the new ultra-right-wing Ulster Unionists.  As unrest grows on the street prior to the onset of the traditional marching season, Boris just ignores it.  After all, that’s what he did with NI to get a deal with the EU, so why not try it again? Then, next day Mr Poots , newly installed dup leader, resigns over a deal he did with sinn feinn to promote the Irish language. (a day is a long time in Irish politics) 

Boris reaction : spout more platitudes.

I watched a very interesting documentary about the founding of the Irish Free State. I suspect that few people know that the partition of Ireland was agreed by the British government to be a temporary situation. At that time even the NI unionists were on board with guarantees from the UK that they would be protected within a united Ireland. As we know, this did not happen and in the end the Irish were unwilling to be part of the commonwealth with the British monarch as Head of state. 

Now we see again that the unionists will not supinely countenance any kind of a united Ireland. And, as we approach the marching season, things are likely to get worse before they get better. 

Whose responsibility? 

Surely, it’s got to be Bonking Boris. 

Hakf asleep dreaming

 

I'm half asleep or maybe half dreaming

A fragment, sometimes a little more

Of a remarkable poem hoves into view 

But, before I can rouse myself 

It disappears into a misty reverie 

And the moment is lost

Only the poignant memory remains. 

In that moment all things 

Become possible or perhaps not quite so ridiculous 

We swirl towards the black hole at the center of our universe 

Enmeshed in ancient memories of 

Bandy legs and coarser whiskers 

About the fire, eyes moist and gleaming 

While the little ones drool expectantly 

And the rat fat sizzles in the fire 

Wreaths of smoke spiral to the zenith 

Low growls from a wolf-like companion 

Help to congeal the clan and all things become possible

As another day dawns

I remember - Poem

 

I remember you so very clearly now

Even I see you through a diaphanous haze

I remember you, ever smiling thou

Forever love that time cannot faze

Reach for the book and open up the page

Mark it: a rose that can not ever fade

Time lines appear, coloured a creamy beige

Yet, love remains when all debts have been paid

Age shall not weary nor the years distort

The love – shining now as a beacon

The chronicles will make just one report

We kept the faith and gave each like for like

Keep you safe, happy and content with a silly rhyme

As I produce, again, the glorious descent towards the sublime

Naked Apes

 

Sexy Apes

I’ve decided to go on the record before I begin my analysis. This may seem cowardly, and it is. Lest I be accused of all sorts, I’d like to say that I fully support a woman’s right to be safe and feel safe in every environment: I abhor violence against women (or indeed against anyone for that matter): I believe we should all treat women as if they are our Mother, sister, niece, auntie, daughter or best friend. I support a woman’s right to be heard if they think they are not being given proper treatment under the law and I support laws to help women to achieve equal treatment.

Now, having said that the world we live in has changed beyond all recognition. There is no doubt that things are changing. Most notably our view of the relationship between men and women. Add in the Me Too movement and the emasculation of normal relationships and you have created a real toxic environment for our children to negotiate.

Megan Markle complains of racism in the Royal family. Many people think racism is the scourge of our society. Black Lives matters gleans not just headlines, but also action. In the UK, the Sarah Everhard case has galvanized women to take to the streets in protest at what they see has institutionalized sexism and misogyny.

Vocal women assault the senses with strident denunciations of sexism blighting not just the work environment, but also our most intimate personal relationships.

The world turns, but we question whether we are turning with it.

Before I launched into the debate proper, I decided to go back and do a little research. Firstly, I renewed my acquaintance with The Naked Ape, by Desmond Morris. This 60's masterpiece should be required reading for all those whose normal modus operandi consists of half clocked and half baked platitudes about the human condition without any real understanding. If you are in that tribe, you may, profitably stop reading now.

Secondly, I had another look at the modern equivalent: Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari. Separated by quite some time nevertheless these books both have a lot to say about the subject at hand and contain some very cogent insights.

The key feature of both books is to remind us that at our core we are creatures that can't escape our genes: our heritage will find us out every time.

Part of that heritage concerns the relationship between the sexes. It is easy to forget that for 99.99 % of the history of the “carbon units” currently infesting this planet we were only moderately successful hunter gatherers. Each sex had relatively stable and well defined roles in society. Men were hunters and tool makers, women were caregivers, child care operatives and food gatherers. We did this for thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of years.

Now we are expected to adjust to a completely different expectation about our roles in society without time (biological time) to adjust. It’s asking a lot. And, the evidence is that it is not working very well either.

Some personal experience. When I used to teach PHSE (Personal Health and Social Education) as an adjunct to my primary duties as Head of English. I typically had a mixed group (gender-wise) of 25 15 year olds to explain not just human relationships but also the thorny topic of sex. You think this might be easy? Go on, I dare you, give it a try!

My technique was simple, if somewhat unusual. Before class, I would write “SEX” in very large letters in the middle of the white board. In the bottom left hand corner, in very small letters I would write “reproduction”. As the pupils arrived, they would look at the board and the boys would all snigger and some, not all, of the girls might look uncomfortable or amused. To start the lesson I would point to the large letters and say SEX, then I would point out the small letters and say reproduction. I would explain that SEX is what you think you are doing, but mother nature has a different plan, for reproduction is actually what you are doing. My example was a crocodile infested river which I would draw (very crudely) on the board (under the SEX ) and I would ask a simple question of all the boys. “If on the other side of the river was your favourite Page 3 Pin Up (picture a scantily clad lady with no breast covering at all) calling for you to come over - would you jump in the river?

Almost to a man they would shout “Yea, man everyday and twice on Tuesday!” Or, something very similar. The testosterone levels were so close to hitting the roof: they would not mind that their female classmates were in the room. They were showing off! That’s generally what 15 year old boys do. After calming them down a bit, I could usually get them to agree that maybe they would be better off trying to build a boat or raft and then try to cross. Useful lesson number one. First rule of being a Homo Sapiens: self-preservation. Second rule: procreate the species. How about removing the crocs? Would you then make a bee-line for the other shore? Agreed? All male hands were immediately in the air. Many girls genuinely found this shocking. My claim to fame? At that point I would go for the jugular. "Now, boys imagine she was not a supermodel but one of your classmates?" Much consternation from the boys. To say they would only paddle across for a super model would be to crush their chances of sex with any of their erstwhile and much more Ilocal, and therefore more available, girl friends. Looks like a Harry met Sally moment. Testosterone levels plummeted and a more conciliatory and responsible look sheepishly came over the collective visage. Repeat Rule One and Two. Jobs a good-un!

Another classroom example: I always assessed the demeanour of the young ladies in my class as they trooped towards the door. If more than one was crying, I knew I was in for a long lesson. One day, to my surprise a tall, gangly girl ( I will not name names) came to the door more upset that crying and said, “Sir, Joe (not his real name) just hit me!” Quick as a flash I retorted, “you know what that means? He fancies you!” Worked like a charm!

Were it that simple, but this does illustrate some of the pitfalls of trying to pile modern society on top of our ancestry. This is not to say, of course that we are prisoners of our genes and must continue to countenance men’s assaults on women or make light of them. But, modern culture actively encourages a more male-centric view of not just society, but also a woman’s place in it.

Some modern examples you may be familiar with:

When Harry Met Sally (Rom-Com which in the end proves exactly what the characters have been trying to avoid - men and women cannot be friends without sex butting in)

Spartacus (whoa! What's he doing here? Remember how the gladiators were introduced to the various slave sex partners they were alloted?)

Tom and Mrs Tom Brady (You think it’s odd to see a Brazilian supermodel as an example of how the sexes operate now? I think not. How many successful, handsome men partner up with what are generally accepted to be beautiful women? How many grains of sand are there on a beach?)

The Donald and Melania Trump (ditto for the Bradys, just substitute the handsome for lots and lots of money!)

Watership Down (Rabbits, are you kidding me! Yep, the story is all about how the boy rabbits, after many adventures find that they have no does and risk life and limb to get some) The list is almost endless.

An American Werewolf in London (this was on TV recently and I didn't watch it, but I did see a scene where the girl, played by Jenny Agutter, invites the werewolf guy home and after explaining that she doesn't really do this sort of thing, she shows him that there is only one bed and he is going to be in it with her. I suspect you can see where this is going.

Just flicking through the TV channels I see an episode of King of Queens advertised where one of the characters has a chance to sleep with a beautiful woman but his mate tries to sabotage the sex.

The point is almost 100 %of popular culture involves some aspect of boy /girl sexual encounters and the subsequent consequences. The real problem is that males have a erroneous idea of how the relationship between the sexes actually works. Males think they choose women – therefore they engage in inappropriate behaviour in the mistaken belief that this is how you get a mate. Wrong! Women do the choosing and always have done.

Meanwhile let's get back to my chosen sources : The Naked Ape and Sapiens. Both agree that for most of our evolutionary history we were a rather unimportant, somewhat fragile species living in Africa. We shared our habitat with a number of species of Homo. Only in the last 40 000 years have we been the lone hominid species on earth. The key feature of Sapiens: the feature which separates us from our closest relatives among the apes is our family relationships. We don't rely on a dominant male to protect the group. Uniquely among primates, we share the females among the group of hunters. Lacking the physical tools to dominate other hunters, say lions, we evolved to work together to get food which would otherwise be unavailable. To do this we work together and sharing females is not just desirable - it is imperative.

Swapping the roles and perspectives to the female side, the need to have a hunter to provide for her and her offspring means that she will readily trade sex for security. The most attractive and successful hunter may be desirable to females, but her first choice is mitigated by the fact that while he will certainly welcome the chance to father her child, he most likely will not be around to provide for her and the child during the ten years it takes to bring it to maturity. And, most importantly, he will not be able to get the other hunters to co-operate if he simply steals all the girls. For that you need a father who may not be the most attractive, but who will be around to provide for you and the children.

Therefore it is clear: women have been trading sex for security for at least 70 000 years, and we ignore this basic fact at our peril.

From The Naked Ape:

“There are one hundred and ninety-three living species of

monkeys and apes. One hundred and ninety-two of them are

covered with hair. The exception is a naked ape self-named

Homo sapiens. This unusual and highly successful species spends

a great deal of time examining his higher motives and an equal

amount of time studiously ignoring his fundamental ones. He

is proud that he has the biggest brain of all the primates, but

attempts to conceal the fact that he also has the biggest penis,

preferring to accord this honour falsely to the mighty gorilla.

Essentially this was a hunting-group of males. The females

were too busy rearing the young to be able to play a major

role in chasing and catching prey. As the complexity of the

hunt increased and the forays became more prolonged, it

became essential for the hunting ape to abandon the meander-

ing, nomadic ways of its ancestors. A home base was necessary,

a place to come back to with the spoils, where the females and

the young would be waiting and could share the food. This step,

as we shall see in later chapters, has had profound effects on

many aspects of the behaviour of even the most sophisticated

naked apes of today. So the hunting ape became a territorial ape.

His wholesexual, parental and social patterns began to be affected.

His old wandering, fruit-plucking way of life was fading rapidly.

He had now really left his forest of Eden. He was an ape with

responsibilities. He began to worry about the prehistoric

equivalent of washing machines and refrigerators. He began

to develop the home comforts—fire, food storage, artificial

shelters. But this is where we must stop for the moment, for

we are moving out of the realms of biology and into the

realms of culture. The biological basis of these advanced steps

lies in the development of a brain large and complex enough

to enable the hunting ape to take them, but the exact form

they assume is no longer a matter of specific genetic control.

The forest ape that became a ground ape that became a hunt-

ing ape that became a territorial ape has become a cultural ape

And we must call a temporary halt.

His whole body, his way of life, was geared

to a forest existence, and then suddenly (suddenly in evolu-

tionary terms) he was jettisoned into a world where he could

survive only if he began to live like a brainy, weapon-toting

wolf. We must examine now exactly how this affected not

only his body, but especially his behaviour, and in what form

we experience the influence of this legacy at the present day.

The co-operative spirit that is present in such pack-hunters

as wolves are largely absent from the world of the primate.

Competitiveness and dominance is the order of his day. Com-

petition in the social hierarchy is, of course, present in both

groups, but it is less tempered by co-operative action in the

case of monkeys and apes. Complicated, co-ordinated

manoeuvres are also unnecessary: sequences of feeding action

do not need to be strung together in such a complex way. The

primate can live much more from minute to minute, from

hand to mouth. Because the primate's food supply is all around it for the

taking, there is little need to cover great distances. Groups of

wild gorillas, the largest of the living primates, have been

carefully studied and their movements traced, so that we now

know that they travel on the average about a third of a mile

a day. Sometimes they move only a few hundred feet

The answer was the development of a pair-bond. Male and

female hunting apes had to fall in love and remain faithful to

one another. This is a common tendency in many other

groups of animals, but is rare amongst primates. It solved three

problems in one stroke. It meant that the females remained

bonded to their individual males and faithful to them while

they were away on the hunt. It meant that serious sexual

rivalries between the males were reduced. This aided their

developing co-operativeness. If they were to hunt together

successfully, the weaker males as well as the stronger ones had

to play their part. They had to play a central role and could

not be thrust to the periphery of society, as happens in so many

primate species. What is more, with his newly developed and

deadly artificial weapons, the hunting ape male was under

strong pressure to reduce any source of disharmony within

the tribe. Thirdly, the development of a one-male-one-female

breeding units meant that the offspring also benefited. The

heavy task of rearing and training the slowly developing

young demanded a cohesive family unit. In other groups of

animals, whether they are fishes, birds or mammals, when

there is too big a burden for one parent to bear alone, we see

the development of a powerful pair-bond, tying the male and

female parents together throughout the breeding season. This,

too, is what occurred in the case of the hunting ape.

In this way, the females were sure of their males' support

and were able to devote themselves to their maternal duties.

The males were sure of their females' loyalty, were prepared

to leave them for hunting, and avoided fighting over them.

And the offspring were provided with the maximum of care

and attention. This certainly sounds like an ideal solution, but

it involved a major change in primate socio-sexual behaviour

and, as we shall see later, the process was never really perfected.

Sexually, the naked ape finds himself today in a somewhat

confusing situation. As a primate he is pulled one way, as a

carnivore by adoption he is pulled another, and as a member

of an elaborate civilized community he is pulled yet another.

To start with, he owes all his basic sexual qualities to his

fruit-picking, forest-ape ancestors. These characteristics were

then drastically modified to fit in with his open-country,

hunting way of life. This was difficult enough, but then they,

in turn, had to be adapted to match the rapid development of

an increasingly complex and culturally determined social

structure.

Sexually the naked ape finds himself today in a somewhat

confusing situation. As a primate he is pulled one way, as a

carnivore by adoption he is pulled another, and as a member

of an elaborate civilized community he is pulled yet another.

The first of these changes, from a sexual fruit-picker to a

sexual hunter, was achieved over a comparatively long period

of time and with reasonable success. The second change has

been less successful. It has happened too quickly and has been

forced to depend upon intelligence and the application of

learned restraint rather than on biological modifications based

on natural selection. It could be said that the advance of

civilization has not so much moulded modern sexual be-

haviour, as that sexual behaviour has moulded the shape of Civilization.”

We find that we are extremely unprepared for modern life. Our Naked Ape behaviours are too often at odds with our biological needs. In essence, we should be called The Sexy Ape instead of the naked one. Sex is at the core of what we do and how we do it. We are not “programmed” to ignore our sexual preferences and become some sort of modern version of a celibate saint. We are much more likely to be a version of Donald Trump or Bill Clinton.

From Sapiens:

“Genus Homo’s position in the food chain was, until quite recently, solidly in the middle. For millions of years, humans hunted smaller creatures and gathered what they could, all the while being hunted by larger predators. It was only 400 000 years ago that several species of man began to hunt large game on a regular basis, and only in the last 100 000 years - with the rise of Homo sapiens - that man jumped to the top of the food chain. Other animals at the top of the pyramid like lions and sharks evolved very gradually over millions of years. In contrast, humankind ascended to the top so quickly that the ecosystem was not given time to adjust. Moreover, humans themselves failed to adjust. Most of the top predators of the planet are majestic creatures. Millions of years of domination have filled them with self-confidence. Sapiens, by contrast, is more like a banana-republic dictator. Having so recently been one of the underdogs of the savannah, we are full of fears and anxieties over our position - which makes us doubly cruel and dangerous. Many historical calamities, from deadly wars to ecological catastrophes have resulted from this over-hasty jump.

Our eating habits, our conflicts and our sexuality are all the result of the way our hunter-gatherer minds interact with our current post-industrial environment, with its mega-cities, aeroplanes, telephones and computers.”

Returning to the present debate, I put forward some well-known historical incidents of rape.

Analysis of the human genome reveals that some 2-6% of modern human DNA is either Neanderthal or other closely related Homo species. Now, some of this could well be the result of consensual sex, but most scientists agree that it is more likely that our ancient ancestors (on both sides of the divide) were the result of conquest or rape.

In literature: The Rape of the Sabine Women https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_the_Sabine_Women is among the earliest references. Other references in literature are myriad and well-known.

“Historically, in war the instances of rape are innumerable and it is not hard to imagine why. Take as an example, the Soviet occupation of Berlin at the end of WWII:

As Allied troops entered and occupied German territory during the later stages of World War II, mass rapes of women took place both in connection with combat operations and during the subsequent occupation of Germany. Scholars agree that the majority of the rapes were committed by Soviet occupation troops. The wartime rapes had been surrounded by decades of silence. According to historian Antony Beevor, whose books were banned in 2015 from some Russian schools and colleges, NKVD (Soviet secret police) files have revealed that the leadership knew what was happening, but did little to stop it. It was often rear echelon units who committed the rape According to professor Oleg Rzheshevsky, "4,148 Red Army officers and many privates were punished for committing atrocities". The exact number of German women and girls raped by Soviet troops during the war and occupation is uncertain, but historians estimate their numbers are likely in the hundreds of thousands, and possibly as many as two million.”

It is not difficult to see how or why this happened. The atrocities of the German Army in Russia are well-known and well-documented, so when the Red Army conquered Germany it was “pay-back” time. But, on a biological level it is even more easily understood. Imagine you have fought your way from the Elbe to Berlin and suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties in reaching Berlin and your prospects of living are poor. Remember Rule One and Rule Two? You may be dead tomorrow so it’s Rule Two today, and if that includes rape, then so be it.

The fact is that in most wars rape is a constant feature.

How does this shed light on today? Firstly, we no longer live in small groups of hunter-gatherers, so we have lost that vital link to our fellow men. Too often we see women as objects and not as members of our tribes.

Example: I recently learned of a group of militant misogynists and their impact on modern culture - especially young men. I choose not to share either their beliefs or their contact details, for whatever we think it’s all too easy to find them on the internet. What did strike me was the assertion at the end of the report that the majority of the men were simply frustrated by their inability to attract or keep a mate. They could not access sex, so they hated all women.

We have lost our biological, social ability to co-operate in both society and in sex.

For that we have already and will pay an increasingly high price.

Where do we go from her? I wish I knew. Unless men can begin to see a woman as someone’s mother, sister, etc. and somehow this triggers the appropriate response; it is likely that there is no real answer. We will continue to battle the downsides of modern culture with only a few small successes along the way, and considerable pain for the majority of the population – women who outnumber men.

ID Cards v Social Security

Solving two problems with one plan?

ID cards for Britain are in the news as Boris contemplates getting out of the Covid emergency and hitting the sunny uplands of freedom.  So, what’s all the fuss about?  On the surface it seems a no-brainer.  You get your Covid vaccine, you apply for a card (with photo ID - maybe just like a driving license), you go to the pub or cinema and show your card, you get in.  Painless? Were it only so simple? 

The British aversion to anything that even smells like, let alone looks like a government required ID card has a long history. Oddly up until 2011 there were cards, first introduced during World War II. The legislation requiring them was allowed to lapse. However, if you ask John Q Public they will persuade you that ID cards are a EU invention and, as we know, anything that smacks of Europe is simply toxic. So, when Boris semi-suggested that ID cards might be useful in the post Covid world you might have thought that he suggested incest as a recreational activity or a penchant for sodomy as a prerequisite to register to vote. 

What has always struck me as odd is the public’s lack of understanding of how ID cards affect illegal immigration.  The British, chiefly the English, are obsessed with the idea that illegal immigrants are flooding the country and stretching an already over-stretched public service, milking the tax payer in the process. This single issue was the most telling in the Brexit debate, particularly for the over 50’s who did most of the voting.  The English have always had an ambivalent relationship with “Johnny Foreigner” or Wogs as they used to be known.  Most “oldies” still subscribe to the theory that Wogs begin at Dover, the French are dirty and duplicitous, the Germans bombed our chippy, the Spanish and Italians are just lazy Dagos and the Greeks are - well they are subject to all the ills known to mankind.  Best just get rid of them and keep England for the English.  Lest you think I’m joking, I’m not.  Most polls will show that my summation is just about right.  So, you might well think, the first folks who would be all in for ID cards would be the Brexit supporting numpties who voted to get out of the EU in the first place.

Error.

This is the amazing bit.  ID cards would go a long way towards eliminating fraud for benefits.  No ID card, no benefits and also no access to the NHS.  Solves a lot of problems without much pain.  Why not just do it?

Boris succinctly puts the view forward that it’s just not the done thing.  It’s too much like the state interfering in the rights of the people to be assh****. (That’s Tory policy in case you were in any doubt.)  Despite the fact that it makes a lot of sense and is relatively easy to do, Boris is very sceptical and for all the wrong reasons.

Contrast this with the Social Security system in the US. It is almost impossible to work legally in the US without a social security number. (That is not to say, of course, that the black economy of cash in hand payments to low paid, low skilled (perhaps illegal) immigrants is not known or not a problem.)  But, The Social Security system goes a long way towards bringing everyone into the known economy.

Latest news has Boris and the Tories warming to the idea of some kind of ID system once we exit from the Covid nightmare.  Let’s hope the reports are close to the mark: I for one would welcome a system which not only help people access their local pub, but also helps to mitigate the worst excess of an illegal immigration.