Another major (presumably terrorist) incident. Now in Manchester.

[Marco]

Consequently I find it strange that people born and brought up in the exceptional stability and safety of this country should be so aggressively anti the very 'establishment' that provides that stability and security, regarding it as an enemy that needs to be torn down because it is not moral enough, or not idealistic enough.

That fact doesn't stop the unselfish and intelligent amongst us from seeing the bigger picture, outside of our own cosy environs, identifying establishment corruption and propaganda, being appalled by it (together with man's horrific greed for wealth and power), and recognising that ultimately we're all simply expendable fodder for the elite - nor does it stop us from abhorring every last bit of it.

Not all of us, Martin, are satisfied simply with protecting our own little world, and ensuring that 'I'm all right, Jack'. I'd gladly trade some so-called stability and safety [but think realistically how true that is now within our current culture and the threat that currently exists to public safety], for a fairer society with greater equality and division of wealth.

Marco.

[farflungstar]

I'd like to point something out - I'm not Republican I'm a royalist. I own an English school and every day I expound British culture, it's society, it's history and it's values. There are 5 portraits of the queen and 30 (yes 30) union jacks in total in the classrooms and adorning the front of the school. Over the top? Maybe - but I've always been proud to be British/English - however that doesn't blinker me.

[walpurgis]

Anarchy and chaos - ahhhh yes - exactly what we gave to the middle East - poor poor people.

I don't think so. No doubt westerners have not helped, but the middle east has always been a murderous, unstable place.

[LC1979]

It is the idealists who are the problem. The people who want to change the world have caused more death and suffering in history than everyone else combined.

You've lost me here. I don't really understand, but suspect you're probably wrong

[Marco]

I'm a royalist. I own an English school and every day I expound British culture, it's society, it's history and it's values. There are 5 portraits of the queen and 30 (yes 30) union jacks in total in the classrooms and adorning the front of the school. Over the top? Maybe - but I've always been proud to be British/English - however that doesn't blinker me.

Oh dear, and there was me thinking that we were largely singing from the same hymn sheet...!

Please don't fall out of me when I say this, Adrian, but in terms of the 'blinkered' bit, have you ever considered that some of the royal family are as big a part of the problem you've outlined, in terms of establishment corruption, paedophilia, murders and serious wrong-doings in our society, as any of our governments?

As examples of the above, I give you Princess Diana's 'unfortunate accident' in Paris, or Jill Dando...

Marco.

[LC1979]

I don't think so. No doubt westerners have not helped, but the middle east has always been a murderous, unstable place.

We capitalised on that to our best advantage, carved up lands in arbitrary ways ensuring a good mix of warring people in each new nation state, as in Africa and elsewhere.

Were we interested in helping the ME resolve its problems? Feck no! Don't be daft! We played at geopolitics, divide and rule, prolong the wars, back both sides if necessary, keep them squabbling while we secure the resources.

And it worked, largely. But you can't then put the genie back in the bottle. No other choice but to continue to infiltrate and recruit within these extremist factions: my enemy's enemy is my friend etc etc. Play both sides, blackmail bribe and coerce with threats of punishment.

We've perfected these black arts over centuries. I really doubt how much control or knowledge the government (whether blue or red) really has over these kinds of activities. It's a legacy of Imperial times, and back then private interests were more powerful than states (think East India Company with its own private armies etc) and I suspect that remains to this day.

[Marco]

Excellent post, Luke [and oh so true]...

Marco.

[Arkless Electronics]

We capitalised on that to our best advantage, carved up lands in arbitrary ways ensuring a good mix of warring people in each new nation state, as in Africa and elsewhere.

Were we interested in helping the ME resolve its problems? Feck no! Don't be daft! We played at geopolitics, divide and rule, prolong the wars, back both sides if necessary, keep them squabbling while we secure the resources.

And it worked, largely. But you can't then put the genie back in the bottle. No other choice but to continue to infiltrate and recruit within these extremist factions: my enemy's enemy is my friend etc etc. Play both sides, blackmail bribe and coerce with threats of punishment.

We've perfected these black arts over centuries. I really doubt how much control or knowledge the government (whether blue or red) really has over these kinds of activities. It's a legacy of Imperial times, and back then private interests were more powerful than states (think East India Company with its own private armies etc) and I suspect that remains to this day.

All very true.

[Macca]

You've lost me here. I don't really understand, but suspect you're probably wrong

Lenin, Hitler, Pol Pott, Mau, and that's just the 20th century. Go back a bit further you've got Mohammed and Jesus. All tried to change the world for the better (or what they thought was better) net result was far more death and suffering than if they had just left it alone. The law of Unintended Consequences.

Now if they had just limited themselves to helping out others in their immediate vicinity, there would have been no problem. Indeed it could be argued if we all made efforts to enhance the quality of life just in our immediate environment, things would soon improve globally.

But that is not enough for the idealist, he must take power and then try to bend and shape everyone else to his will. Result is always a complete disaster for the ordinary man. The idealist is driven by what he grandly calls his 'emotions', his anger at the injustice he perceives, his absolute conviction that he has the solutions, his ability to convince himself that the end justifies the means. End result: he makes things immeasurably worse for the very people he set out to help.

[Marco]

But that is not enough for the idealist, he must take power and then try to bend and shape everyone else to his will. Result is always a complete disaster for the ordinary man.

Sounds exactly like the behaviour of the establishment, with the same net result. Simply replace "idealist" with 'elitist' (as in member of the elite).

Marco.