What is true freedom? Discuss...

Freedom. Liberty. Two words thrown about as a weapon by the right against perceived state intervention and by the left against a corporate takeover of civil society. But who is right? Both? Neither? I can tell you my version of freedom, because I have recently given much thought to it. I am sure some others have already thought up the same, so I apologise for reinventing the wheel, but I wanted to cast an eye on it at this current time when politics in the Western world are in an ultra-rapid state of flux.

I was sitting in various places in my garden and on my terrace one late-spring weekend last year, looking at the newly-planted apple trees and watching a family of blue tits flitting from branch to ground to wall and back to branch. It is one of my greatest pleasures to watch the wildlife enjoying the product of several summers' worth of planting and landscaping, experimenting and seeking advice over attracting all manner of living things with wings, hooves, antlers or tails to grace my garden and the meadow just beyond it.

I rarely play music in the garden; the songbirds make its theme tune. It has been visited by deer, foxes, kites, hawks, song thrush, squirrels, wild boar, even a trio of stray cows that had broken out of their meadow on the hills above our land and fancied a nibble of our grass. Sitting out there is better than anything else. Apart from the exhilarating and highly amusing company of my children, of course.

And that's when it hit me.

This was freedom: the absence of worry. Here I was, sitting in the garden I had conceived, smoking a cheap cigar, listening to the sounds of nature, contemplating life's knottiest questions.

But why?

When I sit outside, the only things that bother me are if I see some weeds have grown back where I  or my gardener had recently removed them, or when a neighbour decides to light a fire. Pretty petty stuff, really, in the general scheme of things. Freedom, to me, is the absence of worry, and the cleanness of the conscience. Let me explain.

Absence of worry includes not having to think where your next meal is going to come from. Or not having to decide whether to default on the electric bill to pay school lunches. Or having utility bills low enough to not notice the payments leaving your account. Freedom is being able to walk down any street knowing you're nearly totally safe from accidents, fights, shootings, natural disasters and reckless driving, unless you do something reckless yourself; leaving a hospital after treatment without a huge life-changing bill hanging over you; the ability to jump in the car and drive across three international borders on a short road trip; not needing to worry about your children's safety in school as the only drills they practise are fire drills; and being able to sit in my garden typing my own opinions on anything I feel like.

What about the cleanliness of the conscience? I don't mean piety or sinless behaviour, as I get the feeling most religious types are never free of their torment. I mean feeling not guilty for the actions and decisions you take. No regrets, in other words. I am a firm believer that not every crime is immoral and neither is every lawful action moral. I give you the example of activists, whether protesting the climate emergency, LGBTQ rights, the destruction of public land, or just supporting the opposition. In other words, those who believe in their causes to the extent that they get put into prison, not just in countries like Russia, China or Equatorial Guinea, but in Poland, Hungary, the UK and the US too.

I also mean the compromising of morality for the sake of profit, for example Western countries that turn a blind eye to the horrors of Chinese brutality against Uighurs, Tibetans or Hongkongers to keep trade going, or the selling of weapons to inhumane regimes such as Saudi Arabia. Where does one sit with Israel? I deplore antisemitism, or indeed any -ism against fellow sentient beings, but I am very comfortable in saying that I am passionately, even fervently, anti-Netanyahu and everything he stands for. Peace must come, but it cannot come while anyone who believes in the right to statehood and self-determination for Palestinians is accused of being anti-Jewish. This is an overreaction designed to silence anyone who questions them and their unlawful behaviour.

As I sit here typing this out on a Chinese laptop, with a Logitech keyboard made in China, I realise I am also contributing to the suffering of others, but consumption guilt at this level is only avoidable with extreme pickiness and a lot of hours spent questioning sales staff in computer shops as to the provenance of their wares. Instead, we need to make it clear to suppliers that their pursuit of profit is what is driving this enriching and rewarding of nasty regimes, and that we are willing to pay more for these products if their production is moved to a place in an enlightened and democratic nation where jobs are needed. We need to pay more for our products; bring them in-house, so to say, and create more jobs in our backyards. This means we need to communicate this loud and clear to companies who switch production to places with cheap workers to save more money.

Also, cleanliness of the conscience goes for how we treat others on a personal basis. I have done things to others that I look back on with regret. I am not alone here at all. I cannot change the past and go back to rectify it, but I can show sincere remorse and make up for it by never doing it again. There are other things I have done which others would find immoral but which I have thoroughly enjoyed. I did not harm others or even come into contact with others while doing them, or even make anyone feel uncomfortable or embarrassed. There are people who would consider them immoral, nonetheless. I really don't care what they think, as the only thing that was harmed was their squeaky-clean and vacuous imagination.

I used to be very conservative in my views on life. I used to be quite sanctimonious and I took life very, very seriously, to the point where I had no fun at all, which was mainly due to nurture, not nature, sadly. I also expected those around me to do the same, believe the same, and act the same, so as you can imagine, I had very few friends. But slowly, as I met people who loved life, tried everything out that does not kill or harm, accepted failure and celebrated success, I realised my view of the world was silly, fuddy-duddy, old-fashioned, and was not a way to keep friends. I rejected the moralistic, moralising, morale-reducing harbinger of self-righteousness that I had become, and opted for the flexibility and open-mindedness that I had learned from various people I met on the way to being me. It was a long and tortuous journey, but it led me to finding contentment and spiritual peace.

Why am I saying this? Because in the manifestation of my former self, I was not free. Freedom is in the head more than anywhere else. And it starts with how you act towards yourself, then other individuals, then society in general, in that order. Acting honestly towards yourself is where freedom begins. It means thinking those thoughts that you used to suppress, it means switching off your own internal censor and investing in your own happiness, not brushing it to the fringes of your mind.

Freedom is a concept, not only a legal item, and we need to exercise it without encroaching on others' sensitivities or causing fear, misery, discomfort or anger in them. This is why, when I read stories about Americans and their attachment to guns, I cringe. If Second Amendment zealots really want to have their weapons, they should also balance that up with the sensitivities of other individuals and general society, especially around those who have victims of gun violence in their circle, of which there are many. So compromise needs to be found. Think of it like this: I like to play golf, but I don't play it in the town centre park; I go to a golf course, a place specifically dedicated to this activity. Likewise, people with guns should balance their wishes with those who prefer to have the freedom to walk the streets or send their children to schools without worrying if they'll come back.

Likewise, religious people can have whatever views they like, but they have no right to impose them on other individuals, or society in general. If they don't agree with women's rights over their bodies, equality of the sexes, alcohol consumption, polyamory, soft drugs, euthanasia for the terminally ill, or anything else for that matter, they can believe and practise that amongst themselves, but they should leave the rest of us well alone and not impose their narrow views on the rest. This is why, in true democracies, religion and the state are kept far, far apart. Let's face it, the teachings of most religions evoke the same basic rules: look after your fellow human being, do nobody harm, live to the full, don't judge. But it is precisely that fourth one that has made its way from religion into politics. And we should slam it straight back into its box.

For this is what true freedom is - practising what you believe is right for you as a conscientious and mature citizen, and keeping your nose out of others' business, unless you can see clearly that it is having a detrimental effect on them or those around them. This is by no means an issue of keeping the state out of our affairs; this is in fact a personal and societal one, and the sooner these matters become mainstream, like public smoking did, the more effectively we can deal with those who still seek to impose their views on us all.

I find it horrific that the very same people who complain about the encroachment of the state on their daily lives also want to use the state and the law to limit people's rights in areas they have problems with. For them, it's okay to let the state take a back seat over healthcare, guns, education, corporate responsibility, youth issues and social security, but they clamour vigorously for state "intervention" in matters as diverse as abortion, bailing out failed banks and even freedom of expression when it questions their own beliefs.

To recap: freedom is not about the ability to carry weapons in public or impose your views, religious or not, on the rest of society: it is the absence of these things, and most importantly, the absence of worry. Now before you think, "well yes, but that requires earning money to a certain level". No, it doesn't. It means that, whatever your salary (or not), you should not need to worry where your next meal is coming from. Let us take social democratic countries where it is more difficult to die of hunger than not, what do they do right? They maintain the idea that we're all in it together. Part of your taxes goes directly to providing for the most vulnerable in society, and making sure they can integrate as much as possible into normal life.

In rampant capitalist countries, it is claimed that low taxes and trickle-down economics will sort out the poverty by allowing companies to invest what they would have paid in taxes to hiring more workers. But this is a fallacy, as not only do companies cream off their profits for their shareholders first and foremost, it also encourages individualism and selfishness in the fact that people start to covet their own wealth and treat colleagues, neighbours and even family members as competitors rather than team players. Another side effect is, although you can become fabulously wealthy, you can also die destitute and hungry, or rejected by your health insurance.

We need to balance the right to live in peace with the duty we have to provide for those less fortunate than us. And that means doing what is right by our fellow humans - let us give everyone the right to live without worry: let us use our taxes to support those who need it most, whether it is by providing everyone with proper medical care, adequate and affordable housing, essential supplies, or opportunities to feel useful in society. For freedom is the right to live your life without worry, and that means money needs to be much less important. Societies need to extricate themselves from their reliance on budgets and markets.

I remember in the past when I was working for a pittance and still had to pay the bills, rent and living costs. In the UK, I dared not rock the boat even one little bit for fear of losing everything. I was not permitted to have any self-pride.

In order to deliver a society free from this in the 21st century, we need to move away from our addiction to news outlets and newspapers run by media moguls, our exaggerated commercial activities, and our feelings of inadequacy brought about by comparing our lives to our peers on social media. We need to reconnect with the society we live in, be true to ourselves, and stand by our principles. But most of all, we need to drastically change the way we live: this starts with taking steps to ensure all of us fit into the society where we live and work; be less cynical about helping others; entreat our leaders to enforce the rule of law; pay more for products and commodities to ensure their ethical cleanness, and be prepared to give up outdated privileges that encroach on the well-being of others.

Finally, we need to wean ourselves off those things that destroy or harm our planet, our only home. Cars are a necessary evil, but we can do a lot more to avoid using them too much. It was once said that to gauge the level of advancement and collective wealth of a civilised society, we should not count the number of fast cars on its streets, but the number of rich people who take public transport.

In these testing times, we all need to take mental stock of what we have and what we are going to lose if we continue to let society slide further into the abyss. We should not be reacting glumly whilst watching it happen; we should be proactively stopping the cynical takeover of our cherished freedoms by those who seek to reduce or remove our rights to freedom of conscience and make us worried about everything around us.

Why I refuse to buy anything from China

I am an animal lover. I am also a meat lover.

I get great pleasure from tucking into a freshly-roasted joint of pork. I've also had some remarkable encounters with pigs, who are incredibly intelligent, contemplative and playful. I remember going to a Christmas market in the nearby town of Sierck-Les-Bains, just over the border in France, and seeing a wild boar on an open spit fire. This was the closest I ever came to becoming a vegetarian. I never will, of course, because I am also a part of this Darwinist set-up, and I firmly believe in the circle of life.

However, I believe in killing as part of the circle of life only as a necessity, for example as food, or to avoid infestations. So as you can imagine, I am a firm supporter of the least harmful ways of going about this. Speed of death being one. We are humans, after all. In the animal world, when I see a cat throwing a bird into the air so that it crashes onto a hard surface, I know that cat is softening up the meat. And although it is awful to see a bird being devoured by a cat, this is the circle of life. And death. Many creatures, when they know they are going to be eaten, go into shutdown mode, and curl up ready for their last second.

Cats, who are notoriously fickle creatures, and may actually abandon the prey before eating it, or even leave it still alive but completely destroyed, have the air of harmless little things in front of their owners, yet carry the reputation of scourge of the garden amongst the rodent and bird populations. But they are cats. And they have little or no real understanding of the world around them, other than this strange instinct that they need to behave similarly to their ancestors back in Africa and Asia, although they don't know why. I hate seeing a dead bird abandoned or half-eaten on my doormat or in the garden, because I know, especially at this time of year, that poor creature had a family somewhere that relied on it to bring food, and the callous cat didn't even have the decency to finish it off. The circle of life. And what a circle it is. A majestic balance of nature that maintains the order of hierarchy among us living things.

And we are at the top.

This means we have a duty to tend to our planet, to act as custodians of the Earth, and to maintain the laws of nature. But we do not. We allow dastardly organisations to defile our food chain by wiping out the bees; we allow nefarious multinationals to stick out their sharp elbows and run farms into the ground in the name of their equally barbarous customers, the supermarkets; and we allow the killing of animals for the sake of vanity. And this I find to be the greatest tragedy to befall us in the 21st century. That the silent majority goes on buying utter rubbish in the supermarkets, feeding their families on stuff that comes out of plastic packets and paper boxes.

This has to stop. We are ruining our world by not doing anything about it. By buying the stuff that these multinationals fabricate to allegedly make our lives easier or better, we are also making others' lives much more miserable or of a much lower quality. Not just humans, but also mammals and fish, trees and plants. And this, just to save a few cents on an evening meal.

Why aren't more of us angry? How are we learning to live with and accept this? I'll tell you.

We are slowly learning to edit our lives. It's an unconscious thing, but it is happening. We are airbrushing out the cruelty that is going on in our world, from the unfathomable barbarism that humans are capable of, right down to Facebook's ridiculous policy of censoring some body parts, even in factual posts. They are being wiped out by politically correct zealots who complain that "this sort of thing is not suitable for people to see", by social media admins who control what you show to the world very rigorously and by yourselves, when you question whether you should show or introduce something to a wider audience. It also has to stop - we need to see some things in order to stop them. That's what warnings are for.

That is why I am posting this video from PETA (this contains appalling scenes of animal cruelty):

http://bcove.me/xr0y5f9m

It is the most extremely shocking thing I think I have ever seen. It is barbaric beyond all comprehension, that people - PEOPLE - in the 21st century can still care so little for another living creature which, however far down the food chain it may be, still has complex feelings. But it is also beyond belief that PC nutters are also likely to point their pious fingers in the direction of those who expose this cruelty and tell them to remove it for fear of scaring those of a delicate constitution.

Well they can go to hell along with the monsters who kill innocent creatures for fur in the first place, for they are both supporting each other in helping to maintain the status quo. Next time someone wants something removed because it's upsetting, remind them that they too are helping the perpetrators by not passing on the gravity of the acts, all because they don't want to get too upset. Poor dears.

This is how I rationalise my world, and how I see the role of humans in it. Hunting in Africa, especially rhino and elephants, the fur trade, and dangerously cheap goods - the paper trail leads back to one country - China. There are other countries in the world doing this too, and I am sure the Chinese propaganda experts are, as you read this, finding ways to show me that other nations are a lot worse than the Chinese. I am sure they will try to disprove this or denounce me, but WMYTIGAF? I really don't. The more vociferous the denials, the truer the scandal they are trying to cover up. The more they try to expose their critics, the smellier the shit they are hiding. To be attacked by that lot I would regard as a badge of honour.

And so this leads me to the final thought on this matter: what should we do about it?

Well, just stop buying anything from China. Anything at all. You won't do much to their economy by boycotting just this awful animal trophy trade. Most do already. You need to make a principled and conscious effort to shun, ignore and denounce anything at all from there. I know it's hard, especially with computer equipment, but in other areas like toys, clothes, furniture and the like, there are richer pickings, and the more trade China loses due to its moral standing, the more embarrassed their leaders might become. Initially, probably not, but if it hurts their economy, they may sit up and take note that, despite the corrupt and nepotistic nature of worldwide politics these days, at least the ordinary people are doing something.

It is said that the behaviour of a nation's people towards their animals shows how advanced their civilisation is. I will let you draw your own conclusions.

What is democracy?

The world over, there are different ways of viewing, for want of a better expression, "people power". In some countries, this takes the form of a revolution every ten or so years, installing another dictator. In others, it is the complete opposite, where governments cannot so much as change the VAT rate without a referendum. Extremes in the crazy systems governing this planet. What is clear though is that, with a couple of seriously wacky exceptions, in all countries of the world, the system is bigger than any individual.

What, though, is the most bizarre thing, is the sheer number of organisations, corporations, state-owned bodies and self-governing regions that bypass any form of public scrutiny. There's the Bilderberg group, the City of London Corporation, OPEC, any number of multi-billion-dollar company, media outlet or bank to name but a few. These organisations generally accept the widely-held opinion that politicians in democracies (at least those who make it) are malleable, popularity-hungry, attention-seeking, shallow petty criminals, loan sharks and dangerously crooked property owners in need of a place to legitimise, consolidate and widen their shady dealings through networking and rubbing shoulders with other like-minded individuals. A kind of LinkedIn for criminals who want to do everything officially.

These organisations also know that there are those who genuinely come into politics wishing to change the world. Visionaries, fresh-minded academics, talented individuals with imagination and a steely eye on the goals they wish to achieve. Of course, when they come up against the might of the machine, they also find their dreams dashed, their hopes halved and their ambitions annulled, either through being told that the thought is a valiant one but totally impractical, or by being ridiculed, scandalised or hounded out of office by the more sinister factions of politics, and their media buddies. This of course depends on how close to the bone the visionary entrant comes when airing his or her new ideas.

So the large firms single out the right politicians for their dirty work: they give them special deals, assure them of seats on their boards of directors and pushing their candidacies for posts where they can be of use to them after their political careers are over. This is why nothing truly pleasing to the people ever gets done; because it's not in anyone's interest. It's not in the politicians' interests, because they would be putting themselves out of use; it's not in the corporations' interests because they'd not have anyone to represent their shady interests at international level, and it's not in the people's interests because it would make us all jumpy, to think that everything was going so swimmingly well. We'd think there was a catch and start petty paranoid skirmishes with traditional foes.

Leaders in the democratic world these days are so uninspirational, so faceless, so full of themselves, that we cannot really blame the Chinese for viewing democracy with suspicion, when they see how the Greeks behaved. How can you respect a politician who, in order to secure another term in power, promises to reduce taxes, or the retirement age by a year, or unemployment by hiring another few thousand people to do meaningless tasks that could be handled by half a dozen job students? How can you respect a politician who fakes his own country's economic situation in order to join a currency union his country has no hope of keeping up with?
I'll tell you how.

Let's take each country as being a person, and the Eurozone a little like marriage. So before the Eurozone was set up, when each country was in the singles market, so to say, they put on their best outfits for summits and kept the smiles going long into the evening, a little like singles have done for decades. Once they get married, of course, the partners start noticing little niggling habits that irritate them, like too many referenda (Ireland, Denmark) or inability to save money (Ireland gain, Italy, Greece). In the end, what happens to most married people? They let themselves go. They get unfit, lazy, start putting on weight and neglecting their personal hygiene. The same has happened in the euro marriage. Now they're tied together in an eternal bond of "till death us do part" those newlyweds feel that they'll be saved by the others if things go wrong. And then the mid-life crisis sets in, where the man decides to get a Porsche convertible and go trekking in the Arctic. The woman (Germany in this case) stays at home, horrified. No wonder she (Merkel) wants to limit the manoeuvrability of the Greek economy.

Now, returning to the original question - what is democracy? For me, you can' t let the people decide everything, because we'd reintroduce hanging and expel anyone with an accent. That's unfortunately how it goes, because those with opinions, principles or views are usually a lot louder than those who just get on with their lives worry-free, and are more likely to bother to vote in any referendum, which is why David Cameron refuses to give the UK a referendum of staying in the EU. On the other hand, you can't let politicians carry on governing forever, or they get too big for their boots. They get to know the system too well. So well, in fact, they do things like rein in the national media (Italy, Hungary), reduce freedom of speech (UK, France) or change the constitution to make it harder to remove them, or to indict them for any wrogdoing during or after their terms of service (Italy again). This was not planned when democracy was conceived. It was not the main idea.

So, how has this shrinking of democratic values occurred in historically democratic countries where politicians are traditionally accept their fates every four or five years at the ballot box? In Europe, this has happened because the EU has made it necessary. On one hand, the European Council of Ministers has replaced many of the features of national government because a great deal of decisions take place at European level, and are implemented nationally under the pretext that they were actually decided by the national politicians. And on the other, because of the turbulence they knew they were about to unleash on everyone. Don't tell me that five years ago, or even ten, those politicians had no idea of the storm they were kicking up when they introduced the euro, allowing Greece, Portugal and other such ClubMed nations into the club. I cannot believe for one moment that after so many errors of judgement on the way, so many wrong moves, so many contrived agreements and forced referendum decisions in the last decade, that there is no alternative agenda. You cannot tell people "you will have democracy, but only if you vote our way". Democracy has to mean something, and it has to be binding.

On the other hand, what is it like living in a country without democracy? In a country like the People's Republic of Korea, it's probably a living nightmare. I would not wish to spend 24 hours in that country. I think the same about Myanmar and Zimbabwe. But in Belarus or pre-election Azerbaijan or Bhutan, I could imagine living, despite not having much in the way of freedom of speech. It poses the questions, "is democracy over-rated?" and "is democracy something for everyone?" When you look at China or Russia, two vast countries, are either of them capable of further democratising without keeping a firm grip on the people for fear of independence movements springing up everywhere? Would the Chinese people really know what to with full voting rights? Do they really need it? I think they are doing very well with their systems as they are now.

Let us look at something simple: if a little village in, say, Nigeria applies to the EU for funding of a bridge over a dangerous river, the European Commission will firstly send it to a committee, who will then decide whether it is viable or not. Within months, they will dispatch a surveyor, an engineer and a budget analyst to the location to draw up plans and make an offer to the Nigerians. Once this has been approved, it will go back to Brussels for ratification, and within the next budgetary outlay, funds will be made available. Months later, the bridge will be built using ethically sourced materials and properly paid skilled workers, but the whole process will take about 2 to 3 years. Then there's the Chinese. They'll just turn up in the village, ask where they'd like the bridge and get to work. The material for the bridge might not be so stable or Kosher, and the builders might be less capable, but the whole thing would take 3 months, maximum. That is the difference between an ethical democratic process and a one-party state: the bridge might take a lot shorter to build, and the shorter waiting time will mean fewer will be killed whilst the Europeans are still discussing the proposal, and there will be

So, could the slow eradication of democracy in Europe be a necessity, clandestinely being introduced to be able to compete with China and Russia in the long term? Could the lack of transparency at European level be something to do with politicians' need to hide something far more worrying from us? I doubt it. But there's still a little thought cloud in my head which does not rule it out entirely. What I think is most likely, is that the current crop of politicians is grasping at any way at all to distance themselves from the mess they made of the last 10 years.

To finish, when asking what democracy is, we cannot put a finger on it because everywhere is different. In the politically disengaged countries of western Europe, democracy has been compromised. It has shifted from parliament to talent shows, from local government to online polls and customer satisfaction surveys. Panem et Circenses is the motto of our civilisation. With the coming of the Occupy movement and the sudden unpopularity of the European Union and what it stands for, I think the day is coming where people power, in whatever form is most suited to each country, will take back control. But in the end, it's the power-hungry that corrupt the system causing an endless cycle of bad governance. That makes no difference if in Asia, Africa or Europe, dictatorships or democracies: the sharpest elbows win.

The world in 2050 - part III, the scenarios

So, with the observations of the previous two articles in mind, how can the world look in 40 years?

If you're in the Western hemisphere, I think you have a good chance of finding the place quite different, possibly for the worse. The various scenarios are either chilling or hopeful, with little in the middle.


Scenario 1: China rises and rises

With this in mind, to see 2050, it would be wise to consider the world we live in today, as I said at the beginning. People are becoming less able to concentrate for long periods of time; the effects of the Internet, TV and computer games mean that most people do not really spend long thinking, really contemplating. Politics has become a bit of a soap opera in many democracies, and businesses are more powerful than at any time in history, some being classified in GDP listings alongside nations. China has had a part to play in this temporary, throw-away world we have permitted to come into being. For this reason, China may use this to its advantage, slowly infiltrating people's lives without them knowing, slowly affording itself the purchase of the odd bank here, the odd mining company there, an oil giant or two, plus some car companies, and gradually the world takes on a reddish hue.

Once various strategic firms have been purchased, the only way is up. The world will be a Chinese one. This is not an anomaly. The last three millennia have mostly been Chinese-dominated, with the exception of the 17th to 20th centuries, where the British, Americans and to some extent the Europeans have been in the ascendancy. Now things are going back the other way, and although most forecast this for the year 2050, I think it could be much, much sooner than that. If not already.

The Chinese could quite easily take advantage of the weak economies now at the mercy of the IMF, and choose to invest heavily in them. Imagine: the Chinese bail almost everyone out of the current mess, then start imposing their own policies and ideologies on everyone. I mean, there is no way the West would be able to further criticise China's dismal democratic record if they are the ones who put us back on track again. Furthermore, there would be reason to believe that businessmen and women favoured by the Chinese government would be sent to take control of those companies and banks bought or saved by them, and what then? If you dare criticise, insinuate, even look incredulously at their business policy or political stance, not only will you go out, but you may even be blackballed for various other positions elsewhere after.

Once this slow erosion of our rights has been noticed, only the people pigeonholed as conspiracy theorists, or those classed as slightly deluded will voice their opinions more strongly, but once it is too late, the rest may have understood.

Scenario II: China rises and falls

This is also a possibility, but could only happen if China makes some rash errors or gets too big for its own good. But how big can that be when you are a behemoth already, and have not even begun to execute your masterplan for world domination?

If China is to fail, then it will be a collective effort of everywhere else. And it will have to be done behind their backs - this may be impossible in the world as it is now, but once the Chinese have bought nearly everything that matters, own a sizeable chunk of the banks and have uncalculable mineral reserves to hand, then what would stop them? Only when the governments of the West have paid back their debts to China can they even think about tackling the re-establishment of democracy.

The Internet is currently politically neutral, but for how much longer? It may be a golden period for us, with free access to nearly everything, but with newspapers beginning to charge, with other outlets considering a priority list, it could go the way of US TV, which is full of advertising and only the good stuff is on pay-per-view. There is also nothing stopping China from influencing the future's media and broadcasting; allowing itself a self-congratulatory headline each day.

But there is an alternative.

An alternative so radical, it may not even work, but would be worth it just to keep us democratic: the governments of the Western world should consider having no truck whatsoever with China, keeping their hands free of debt to Asia and keeping it in the family, so to say. There could be an agreement where debt to each other is delayed so that debt to China can be the first repaid. Once that is out of the way, we can squabble amongst ourselves, but at least then we do not have the extra worry of having to do China's bidding.

A further way is that China could be the victim of its own success. Once, we dreamed that countries like Ireland and Spain were the Monaco and Switzerland of the future, but how wrong we were. Although I do not believe for one moment that China will be so complacent, I can see it taking some wrong decisions. Mainly, having too much going on at the same time. Empires always collapse in the end. The Chinese have learned from the Europeans that colonisation does not work as it causes rising anger in the places you colonised. The Chinese have also learned from the Americans and Russians that invasion wins you few friends and causes your expeditory departure from that place far more quickly. So they know now that the best way to conquer is to buy everything. In the corporate sector, where there are no political entities, no land borders, and where business pervades borders like tobacco smoke which does not remain solely in the smokers' area, the Chinese can make their mark where the Western powers failed.

We should not let this happen. However, considering the spineless leaders we have, I am sure they would sell their own grandmothers to make some money.

The world in 2050 - part II, the EU vs the USA vs China

When comparing Europe with the USA, the most obvious place to start would be with the military roles each side of the Atlantic plays in the world. The USA has had a long tradition of military intervention, and the EU has a great amount of nation-building expertise due to its colonialist past. You would think, therefore, that they were perfect for each other. No. Despite that, the USA has not really admitted that had Europe been given a greater say in its endeavours to establish nation states in the Middle East and central Asia, it might not be in the current situation of fighting on at least two fronts almost a decade on from "that" event. The USA has always deemed itself more capable than others in its military prowess, more prestigious in its powers to negotiate and more respected - or feared - in battle situations. This is far from the truth. As it happens, there is a chasm separating the ideals, purposes, abilities and capabilities of the military in Europe from that in the USA, and one of the basic differences is in intelligence. Both senses of the word.

In Europe, most military personnel is trained in warfare as well as peacetime skills, but those who sign up are also given an opportunity to gain a degree or qualification for after they have completed their service or if their careers are prematurely cut short (disability, illness, injury, etc.). In the USA, the majority of new members of the basic army are found at recruitment drives at supermarkets on week days. These are people who are already unemployed, sometimes long-term, often because they do not have any basic qualifications. They may have been deemed unemployable. In other words, I am not sure this is the sort of person you would give a gun to. Not all, of course. Many are career soldiers, naval officers and pilots, but a lot are going to give you a hard time in areas concerning discipline and approachability. I met some US Army personnel a while back and they seemed quite personable, if a little incapable of pulling a different face other than what I might call "haunted".

And in the other intelligence area, namely that of information gathering and execution, the USA has always been stubborn in accepting others' tip-offs and alarm-raising. But vice-versa seems to be working well, namely recently when a cargo plane from the Arabian Peninsula was found to have a package containing highly explosive material. The USA suffers from a superiority complex and in military affairs, its days as the world's only superpower are numbered. This is also due to its budget and operating costs. It is spending far too much time and money in two conflict zones in Asia and if a third theatre of action were to open, it would probably be incapable of coping.

For this reason, Europe needs to assert itself more on the military front. Its proposals to begin a proto-European military through British and French members is a start. But its intelligence and investigative skills could also benefit from a boost, especially considering it has the added bonus of being seen as a lot less aggressive than China and a lot less opinionated than the USA. Militarily, Europe could easily cut its field operations budget by joining forces, and at the same time developing its intelligence services. It can also show its credentials in nation-building and spreading democracy simply by listing what it has done to keep the EU's 21st-century member states from the wolves of dictatorship. Only 20 years ago, eleven of its new member states (the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania and the eastern part of Germany) were shaking off five decades of communist dictatorship. Prior to that, Spain, Portugal and Greece had lived under Franco, Salazar and the Colonels respectively in various autocratic fascist or military régimes. It is only thirteen countries, less than half its current membership, which have been free of dictators (the UK, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Italy, France, Austria, Malta, and to some extent Cyprus).

The EU is setting itself up as a benign semi-superpower, able to help in a crisis, but less willing to spend great wads of cash on US-style intervention. The US, however, is a superpower on the wane, and within the next ten years, will find itself in the position the UK was in when Margaret Thatcher swept to power: it will need to downsize and sell of a lot of its own assets to keep afloat. It will also need to take a step back and look at itself because unlike the British at the end of the Empire, the Americans will be a lot less keen on relinquishing their title as military masters of all they survey. China is waiting to take over a large amount of American property and business, having saved up enormous amounts of cash, and soon India will enter the race. A new competition is about to begin, where those two battle it out for supremacy. My money is on a democratic India siding with the EU, other large Commonwealth countries, Japan and to some extent the USA, and China with its own sphere of influence, probably including its own backyard (Vietnam, Myanmar, North Korea, the 'Stans) and parts of Africa, its newly-extended backyard.

I can see China and the USA going head-to-head in some areas where they most want to exert influence, and cancelling each other out. This is where the EU can step in. It needs to focus on its own game, and not be too much influenced by others' squabbles. The EU can save money by keeping out of the buying game China is playing, vacuuming up all the gold, silver and diamonds it can, as well as all the banks, service enterprises and factories. The USA will try to match it, but they should not either. Eventually China will get too fat and explode. What we have to do in Europe is keep playing our own game, try to remain neutral, indifferent even, and attempt to extricate ourselves from some of the more worrying political and business deals we made with outside entities to reduce our debt.

The EU needs to keep to its own agenda, needs to shine a light of hope in dark times, and be a guide for democracy-loving people everywhere. What it should not be doing is competing, trying to be top dog. It does not need to do this because it is above all that. And all the armies in the world do not mean you are the best. You are the best if your streets are safe, if your nature is well-tended and preserved, if your hospitals are efficient, if your people do not have the worry of poverty if they cannot find work, if your politicians are held accountable to the forces of justice and can be easily removed, if your industrial base is well-regulated and has a good reputation and finally if you can say what you please, go where you want and learn the truth from an actively inquisitive press and get a free education in schools which do not force you to believe in an ideological right or wrong. It mostly does well here, with some countries being exceptions proving the rule.

This is where Europe excels and where it needs to stay. Leave the posturing to the Americans, Chinese and other would-be dominators and Europe can get on with the serious business of liberty and equality.

The world in 2050 - part I, the EU vs China

What will the world be like in 40 years' time? Most historians agree with the Churchillian view, that to look at the future you need to look at the past. By then though, all of that future will have been the past. But maybe we can look ten to twenty years ahead, which might give us clues.

We live, undoubtedly, in the freest and most enlightened society on Earth. And I hope this remains so in the future. But our greatest problem is the rise of the Far East and especially China, with its ability to manoeuvre in the world without asking 27 sovereign countries for permission. China is ahead in Europe's former colonial backyard simply because it can. Democracy is being defeated, even embarrassingly, by China's decisive nature and guilt-free ability to do what is best for China.

If the EU is asked to help in the building of a bridge across a predator-infested river in Africa so children can get to the school on the other side, it will firstly send an EU delegation to assess the impact to nature, the human inhabitants and the economy. It will take its findings back to Brussels, where committees in the European Parliament will sit and discuss matters before this project finally appears on the to-do list, maybe a year, maybe three years later. It is then transferred to the respective European Commission Directorate General for planning and execution. By this time, China will have sent its own delegate, who simply shows up in the village, says "where do you want it?" and calls up some builders to get the job done. In return neither for money, nor for nothing, but for the minerals in the ground around the village.

China is, without regard for ethics or morals, simply acting like the world's rich uncle in order to gain a certain kudos in parts of the world where, when the time comes, their United Nations vote could be crucial. On top of this, it is acting like a drug pusher, in that it makes promises to return with more fixes for the locals. But fixes are just that. Temporary. And no amount of posturing will hide the simple fact that its infrastructure is crumbling because of the temporariness of the structures China builds, and the shoddy workmanship it turns blind eyes to will mean that when the Europeans come back to that village in Africa, they should take a good look at the Chinese bridge, check for subsidance and crumbling, pull it down and build its own.

China is developing a "quick fix" economy for all. You're in a foreign city for a week and you packed one too few shirts? Pop down to the local department store and pick a Chinese one up for about 7€. You won't use it much more after, because the Chinese produce shirts that are too short, where the lowest button is about your navel area and it barely fits into your trousers. There was an article in a UK paper a few years ago about Christmas coming in on a mile-long freight ship from China, that we were now all subject to buying things Chinese. How much of it remains after two years is anyone's guess, but the simple matter is that China will never outdo the status of "Workshop of the World" simply because it relies on you to throw their stuff away and buy another one from the same maker. Workshop of the World implies that your material is so trustworthy you would not buy from anyone else, even if theirs was cheaper. That is why "Made in Germany" or "Made in England" will always have an extra advantage. It is the difference between an antique table of solid oak and a plastic-surfaced, metal-legged screw-down table with a loose fitting. The former you find in a top European restaurant, the latter in a Chinese takeaway.

What does the future hold, therefore, for China? I think it has learned from the Gorbachev break-up of the Soviet Union and does not want this to happen to it. The Chinese are busy promoting real estate in outer-lying cities in China to attract Han Chinese there, further cementing China's grip on its recent acquisitions, especially Tibet, Yunnan, Qinghai and Xinjiang. It is rapidly consolidating its status as polluter-in-chief, and will soon overtake the USA as largest in everything. But the one thing it does not have on its side is affection in the hearts of other countries in the world and this cannot change while China is still seen as a sinister and work-obsessed political entity.

All Europe has to do to gain the momentum is stay the same, because soon its fusty, clunking administrative machinery with its protracted overseas development projects will be seen as a breath of fresh air in comparison to the soulless efficiency, false smiles and black business suits accompanying the Chinese wherever they go.
______________________________________________________
The simple answer to the question, "where will China be in 2050?" is that it could go one of two ways.
Either:
It could sink in a treacherous sea of dissatisfaction in its inability to produce proper material and act in an ethical and trustworthy manner, causing buyers, investors and bankers to pull out, and a nasty rise in nationalistic indignation at feeling rejected by the rest of the world. This could have the knock-on effect of galvanising the Chinese against the rest of the world or causing the split-up of its various autonomous regions, over which it has extended its wide-reaching tentacles, from the main body. By the time 2050 comes, China could be half the size in territory, and a quarter of the size in stature.
Or:
It could start the slow process towards allowing human emotion and dignity to be given space alongside work and dump its cosying up to other mean-spirited dictatorships (Zimbabwe, Myanmar) around the world. It could admit to its mistakes of allowing mass profiteering and racketeering to take a leading role in its colonisation of Africa, and start clearing up its own mess, instead of leaving that to the EU and the USA and their allies. It could stop stealing ideas from the EU and the USA and adapting them for its own purposes. It could clean up its fuel burning, whether associated with its addiction to coal or its petrol-guzzling cars. It would take its place as a model reformed nation, a shining beacon to all those nasty little dictatorships in central Asia and Africa.

But, unfortunately, neither is likely to happen. China is likely to get more and more competitive, causing other area of the world to realise the secret to winning this particularly nasty war is to become just as flexible and decisive as China. All I can see is a slow erosion of workers' rights in the EU and USA and a rise in the amount of Chinese-led initiatives. And whilst the EU and the USA are busy spending literally billions keeping terrorists at bay in central Asia and eastern Africa, China's approach is rather than to put sanctions on those countries, or even invade them, costing a lot of money and even more in lives, China just hangs a few diamond-encrusted carrots and wait until they bite.

Should the EU and USA start doing this? It is hard to say, but for all the ethical politics the EU and USA spread is being quite simply negated, even cancelled out, by China's simple interventions. It is the equivalent of a drug pusher looking for a few gophers. Find the bad boys in the school playground ready to earn a bit of cash for some thrills, and he has an inexhaustible supply of mercenaries. I think, for all the good it has been doing in recent years, the EU is currently losing the battle to keep itself afloat, even asking China for assistance in some cases.

I personally think the EU will slowly turn away from social democracy and become big in government edicts, bigger in industrial labour, smaller in intellectual workpower, smaller in military intervention. It needs to, in order to stay in the game. But it will have to go through several enormous periods of civil unrest to achieve it. China, on the other hand, is the one who can afford to stay the same.

What is the greatest nation in the world?

What is the best country in the world?

Surveys are made by newspapers and magazines on the subject. TV documentaries are broadcast showing people's opinions. Newsweek even put out a thirty-page spread about it. But these types of surveys don't talk about the real question: what is the greatest country in the world?

Firstly we need some criteria. So we must look at the country's history - what is the point of a greatest country without a full story behind it? Then we should look at its people, who will of course have a collective memory, a rough stereotypical peculiarity and a thriving culture, all shaped by its history. Finally, we should look at its present. How is it now? Is it a successful nation or just plodding along? Are there many things to ascribe greatness to it in the present day?

So, let's look at the candidates:


1. France

History - Solid beginnings, lost their way when dealing with the monarchy. Replaced kings (beheaded) with the same kind of thing but not (always) born in a palace (see here). Got ever so tetchy about being only the second or third largest empire in the 19th century and was doubly upset by being invaded in the mid-20th and having to be rescued by their old rivals. Twice.

People stereotype - food, strikes, attitude and hygiene issues. Mainly socialist in public and conservative in private. Good films, bad TV. Most of it summed up by this man here.

How now? - see here.

Chances of winning accolade: - I won't be hanging out the Tricolor any time soon...



2. The USA

History - Completely missed out on the Renaissance due to not yet existing. Once established, went around charging other countries extortionate fees for rescuing them from Nazism and Communism before electing a series of baboons as leaders and invading a host of independent nations if they had differing views to those held by their chief monkey. The whole country is held together by glossy magazine celebrities.

People stereotype - Gullible, trigger-happy religious fanatics with a penchant for only seeing the world in black or white. Four legs good, two legs bad, size also matters here.

How now? - Most have no idea of the difference between what's right and what saves a few bucksworth of tax per year.

Chances of winning accolade - No chance, unless they ban oil drilling and propping up despotic régimes, renounce their addiction to money and put out a decent cricketing team.

3. China

History - Despite inventing a whole load of clever technical stuff whilst we Europeans were still swinging about in trees, lost the plot fairly early on through obsession with self-image and pageant, getting by with a vague change in the standard of civilisation each century until the mid-20th century, when after overthrowing four thousand years of Empire, the country was set back yet another thousand years by misguided ideologists who liked to take whole crowds for long walks. Only in the 21st century have they reached the point where they have to share the status of biggest economy in the world, but in the leagues of spreading human indignity and suffering, lack of care for the environment and lack of morals will always remain first. And considering this planet contains such barbaric places as Zimbabwe, Burma and North Korea, that takes some beating. Came of age at their Olympic Games in 2008, which were big on impressive technicalities and tiny on heart.

People stereotype - Don't ask - you'll get the same answer: "we're all happy and we love our country. And weren't the Olympics fantastic?" Mmmyesss.... Although if you turned the corner in Beijing, you wouldn't have known they were taking place.

How now? - Busy buying up minerals to sell to us when we run out, cosying up to dictators who can provide the elite classes with wealth beyond even Westerners' dreams, and destroying whole swathes of their own countryside with grand architectural projects to "civilise" their rural population.
Chances - About as slim as my chances of becoming next Pope. Will maybe be the biggest in everything one day not so far in the future, but never, ever the best. Ever.

4. Germany

History - Feuding princes and lords set about expansion in Europe quite early, developing a penchant for it. Did it every few decades or so. Country oddly disunited until the 19th century when someone had the brilliant idea of putting it together politically. A certain indiscretion in the middle of the 20th century sent this country's candidature to the back of the queue (except China) but its modern-day image is very good and continually rising.

People stereotype - Either über-efficient, über-capable and always blasting opponents off the football pitch, or sausage-munching, beer-swilling Lederhosen-wearing yodelers who drive at excessive speeds on Autobahns in their still German-owned cars.

How now? - A country at ease with itself these days, although still having trouble with foreigners (mainly French politicians and Austrian or Dutch maverick speakers), but still capable of impressing us with its stable economy and smaller but still thriving industrial base. "Made in Germany" still means something.

Chances - Would have been real contenders but for a slight misunderstanding of the territorial rules of the game of football in the mid-20th century, namely the game is supposed to remain on the same pitch.

5. The UK

History - Got invaded once by some angry Norman guy and didn't really enjoy the experience. Spent the next thousand years atoning for it by going off elsewhere so when invasion almost happened again, traded in their status of largest empire to keep their independence, only to immediately trade it in again for an equal share in a huge political pie with the very people they had only recently tried to fight off. Very dodgy infrastructure due to being the oldest industrialised nation. Has a language everyone speaks badly, and a reputation for the exportation of awful reality TV.

People stereotype - Badly dressed, or over-dressed, tea-drinking, umbrella-obsessed, aridly sober or gutter-crawlingly drunk, seagoing individuals who invent amazing stuff in sheds and queue up for the chance to get on overcrowded trains.

How now? - Refreshingly different to everyone else, although this may be its problem. The country was in the process of reinventing itself through the power of taking away from the people its centuries-old faithfulness to civil liberties, replacing the friendly policeman with a camera on every building. That was, until the 2010 election, whose outcome fortunately may have caused the reversal of this disturbing trend. Still the benchmark when it comes to innovation and invention (if the Chinese don't steal it and patent it).

Chances - Strongest contender so far, and not because I'm one of them.



But..........



I'd like to consider a dark horse in this contest, a country which if it were human you'd probably not notice, sitting there in its quiet corner being busily occupied with the continent's plumbing and electricity. This contender is entrant number
6. Poland

History - After driving out the Hungarians, the Germans, the Austrians, the Russians, the French, the Prussians and even the mighty Swedes over centuries and centuries of invasion from north, south, east and west, this prized strategic area of land had a powerful influence on early democracy. It was the object of the desires of the leader of our candidate number 4 in the middle of the 20th century. After suffering from the most abysmal atrocities it was saved by a neighbouring country which then occupied it for the next 45 years, subjecting it to humiliating acts of subservience from time to time. This did not stop the people from rising up against them in brave acts of defiance. Was quickly accepted into the EU after the fall of its occupiers, now one of the most respected members of its new family of nations, contributing a compatriot to be European Parliament President. Due to its people's practical skills, is well on the way to being the most needed nationality in Europe.

People stereotype - People speak a fairytale language full of tricky fricatives and nasal vowels, but "you have a leaky tap? No problem, my cousin Wojciech will fix it for you for a reasonable price and a happy smile on his face." For a nation that has endured so much, the fact they have such a happy attitude and a proper sense of community still, signifies something much deeper than what lies on the surface.

How now? - Although still has some catching up to do, the fact it has survived its centuries of invasion and reinvasion, occupation and destruction, it is a country at peace with itself. Despite not having many motorways, has some of the best driving roads in the world and gives ordinary visitors the kind of welcome reserved for princes elsewhere.

Chances - Maybe, just maybe...

I can't think of any other decent contenders.