Orwell Rolls In His Grave

Thoughts on the US 2020 election

2020-11-08T11:30:00.001-08:00

Clearly Trump and his administration must be removed from office for their incompetence on covid19, nepotism, the appointments of an army of fanatics and libertines to executive and judicial offices, abuses of power, corruption, the massive transfer of wealth from ordinary people to the obscenely rich under the Cares Act, the emboldening Neo-Nazis and white supremacists, the persecution of Muslims, the failure to address murder and brutality being committed by the police, belligerent threats of annihilation against other nations, the failure to address student debt, pulling out of the Iran nuclear treaty, weakening of regulation on destruction of the environment, withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate, to name a few reasons.

That being said, unlike the last umpteen administrations, both Republican and Democrat, Trump did not start any new wars and was in fact against more war hence his fall-out with John Bolton. We can fully expect a resumption of US imperialism under the Democrats which will of course be enthusiastically supported by Republicans, in congress at least. There will be no universal healthcare system despite the country being ravaged by covid19. There will be more deregulation of corporate activities from finance to pollution, leading to another and possibly terminal financial crisis and another 8 years of failure to address the burgeoning climate crisis which threatens to end civilisation as we know it. We can also expect the continual ratcheting up of authoritarianism as the US population rebels more and more against their appalling economic malaise at the hands of the corporate elite

Americans seem to like to think in terms of hope, but the reality is that hope is a luxury they can no longer afford. If they do not overthrow the corporate state and radically address the inequalities in healthcare, education, living conditions, working conditions, wealth, political influence, then they are doomed to a societal death spiral accelerated by evermore frequent appointments of fanatics and psychopaths to the Whitehouse, leaders who will make us long for Trump again, the way we longed for Bush again under Trump. These ruthless demagogues will have at their disposal not only the police and military forces of state but an ever-growing movement of angry racist hyper-masculine militias eager to express their discontent with LGTBQs, ethnic minorities, liberals and a laundry list of groups of people they hate, through barrels of their Glocks and AR-15s. Let's not forget of course the increasingly violent counter-movement from the left namely Antifa, who will do nothing to protect American society, but only to contribute to the misery, further enrage the already disenfranchised and grease the slide into anomie and civil collapse.

We in the UK are not merely distant observers, we already suffer many of the symptoms of the corporate-capitalist domination we see writ large in the US, and we too, much like Canada, will follow the US down the same drain hole. Furthermore, the collapse of the US could see nuclear weapons come under the control of some of the most frightening and deluded fanatics, both religious and non-religious, in the world.

There is little to celebrate from this election but the temporary removal of one of America's worst. The descent into destruction nonetheless proceeds unobstructed.

5G vs health

2020-04-26T06:54:00.000-07:00

Anyone who has been on Facebook of late will have encountered conspiracy theory memes around coronavirus and 5G. Having got caught up in some madness about global economy and the threat of international war a number of years ago I have come to require good sources of information, and to try to understand them well before getting on board with alarming claims. I have no desire to participate in perpetuating the foaming-at-the-mouth conspiracy theory mentality adopted by many concerning 5G and covid19. That said, I do believe that where there is credible information regarding an issue, that it should be brought to the attention of those who are concerned about that issue, and those who aren't concerned when perhaps they should be, even if just a little.

With this in mind I would like to say that I have found credible research regarding the impact on health of man-made EMFs which will include, but is not limited to: Bluetooth, Wifi, 3G mobile tech, 4G and yes 5G. For this post let's start with a paper published in the journal Pathophysiology titled "Disturbance of the immune system by electromagnetic fields-A potentially underlying cause for cellular damage and tissue repair reduction which could lead to disease and impairment."[1] whose abstract concludes with:

"...it must be concluded that the existing public safety limits are inadequate to protect public health, and that new public safety limits, as well as limits on further deployment of untested technologies, are warranted."

I am currently unable to access the journal that it is published in since https://pathophysiologyjournal.com is currently overwhelmed with visitors, so I can't list the proper citation here, but the link to the pubmed listing is at the end of this article.

Already 5G and covid19 conspiracy theorists are touting this paper as proof of their beliefs, but I would urge caution in jumping to such conclusions.

The first thing to note is that, and according to [2]: "The reference values for RF radiation 10 MHz to 300 GHz were recommended in 1998 by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) to 2–10 W/m2 depending on frequency (26). This reference value protects against injuries caused by a heating effect over 1°C after an exposure of 30 min, and with a safety factor of 50."

Lennart Hardell raised the alarm that in places in Stockholm he was able to measure as much as 69 millwatts per square metre RF power, which was much higher than the ICNIRP reference values. This however needs to be put into context with the 140 Watts per square metre, on average (sometimes much higher), of non-ionizing radiation that the Sun irradiates the people of Stockholm with [3]. That is to say just walking down the street in Stockholm you are exposed to 2029 times as much heat generating radiation from the Sun as you are from the worst RF 'hotspots' in Stockholm that Hardnell et al recorded.

One thing that is fair to say is that RF exposure is increasing year on year as wireless technologies are being adopted for more and more applications, and not just mobile phones. Given that the reference values for RF radiation 10 MHz to 300 GHz were recommended in 1998 by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), it is clear that the safety reference levels are very much overdue for revision.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19398310
[2] "Measurements of Radiofrequency Radiation with a Body-Borne Exposimeter in Swedish Schools with Wi-Fi", Lena K. Hedendahl1*, Michael Carlberg, Tarmo Koppeland, Lennart Hardell, Oncology Letters 2017 (pubmed link)
[3] Global Solar Atlas (website) + Stockholm 59°20'40", 18°05'01"

A key Blair motivation for 2003 Iraq invasion?

2014-08-10T06:58:00.003-07:00

Did Blair express here a key motivation for the Iraq invasion? From the declassified record on the 2003 Iraq invasion published as part of the Chilcot Inquiry.

"we must galvanise British businesses to take up opportunities in Iraq" [1].

This was just a few of months into the invasion, about 6 months after MOD policy director Simon Webb floated the idea that:

"Various ideas for replacements [for Saddam Hussein] have been aired over the years and none so far look convincing. But another Ba'athist or military dictator from the Sunni/Tikriti minority might be found with whom we could do business" - Simon Webb, UK MOD Policy Director 2001-2004 [2]

[1] Chilcot Enquiry, declassified document, Cannon to McDonald minute “Iraq: Prime Minister’s meeting, 3 June” 3 June 2003 [PDF Document], http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/50757/Cannon-to-McDonald-3June2003-letter.pdf

[2] Letter/Memorandum : "Bush and the War on Terrorism"; 12/04/2002, MOD reference : D/Policy Dir/6/2/2 (171/02); Obtained from URL : http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/52573/webb-ps-sofs-bush-war-on-terrorism-2002-04-12.pdf

Humour, democracy and the successes of anonymous groups

2013-12-04T05:31:00.000-08:00

I, like many of you, am extremely unhappy with the direction that our nation and perhaps the world is heading right now, and am frustrated by what feels like far too slowly growing people's movements. People are joining us all of the time, and movements like #occupy and #ukuncut are encouraging, but then they run out of steam and we start to feel helpless again, doomed even.

The uneven distribution of wealth and power is the cause of our greatest political problems in my opinion, and I'm sure it is a widely held view amongst ordinary people. Much of the power inequality is only possible through the lack of participation by the mass of ordinary people. The ruling class have done a great job of isolating the population into ever smaller groups to prevent unity through creating apathy, in a deliberate social engineering process often referred to as atomisation. However within these 'atoms' there are millions of people literally just waiting to connect with social movements and do something good for the world, whether they know it or not. We know this, because we have all been those people.

The advent of social networking has played a tremendous part in unifying and mobilising ordinary people in push backs against ruling class policies and propaganda, but I don't think we are exploiting those tools intelligently or effectively enough.

The volume of ordinary people using sites like Facebook and Twitter is enormous, albeit largely wallowing in the meaningless junk culture of celebrity, consumerism and so forth. This is the human resource that we need to be tapping into more effectively than we are, and we need to start thinking about and coming up with ideas for achieving that.

Grasping the reality of the world we live in is often an unappealing prospect. I recall many a day, getting ready for work, and flipping channels to get away from the 'news' because it seemed so depressing. I now subscribe to many Facebook networks, and find my time line flooded each day with deeply depressing and often horrendous stories and images, as fellow activists try to raise awareness of various issues. Nonetheless, I sign as many petitions as I can, and continue to participate in discussions on these issues, but I can see why so many simply ignore the posts I share from these various groups on my time line.

So the question is how do we engage people, or at least utilise them to reach others within their networks?

One thing I have noticed is that people like sharing amusing images and comments. When we share these things, the source group is generally shown in the time line with the image/comment. So I suspect one mechanism for recruiting people to our groups is to share more amusing images comments to our groups. When others share those items to their own time lines, the groups themselves are also propagated to their Facebook friends via their time line. Anonymous groups have been enormously successful for the simple fact that they propagate lots of humour. Whether this is conscious tactics on the part of anons I don't know, but it sure works. If the image above at all influenced your decision to click and read this article in anyway then you're probably already on board with the point.

This is just one way in which we can do better, and we need to try think about other ways and perhaps learn from movements of the past. I will be glad to hear your ideas, so please, as always comment away.

Letter to Karen Lumley (MP for Redditch) on energy prices

2013-11-30T04:08:00.000-08:00

Dear Karen,

I just wanted to give my thoughts on the energy debate you currently having re:

"Energy and Climate Change: Energy Costs (28 Nov 2013)http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2013-11-28a.394.0&s=speaker%3A24856#g394.3
Karen Lumley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what the people of Redditch want are fair and firm energy policies, in the realization that no Government can fix international oil and gas prices, despite what they are being told locally by the Opposition?"

It may be the case that the government can't fix oil and gas prices from OPEC for instance, but it certainly has influence that it can use to keep them down. It should also be noted that the energy stock sources are not the only costs to the consumer. The quasi-monopolistic providers like EDF, NPower and others also add considerable cost to the consumer by way of their ever increasing profits, and these can be challenged if we have a government with the ethics and backbone to try. Given that for many people this is literally a life and death issue, particularly for pensioners, it is absolutely the right thing to do to force corporations to sacrifice profits to the rich.

Most affordable housing has been built with dependency on the gas/electric grids, so most people are trapped into being consumers of these products. They are relying on people like you to deliver the possibility of their survival since they have no other choice. My own home for example is built with a gas flue. I cant afford to replace it with a chimney so that I might use carbon neutral energy as an alternative to being an involuntary gas monopolies consumer. Many other people in flats and other accommodation for instance don't even have the possibility of replacing their flue for alternative heating. This is the case for gas but analogous issues arise with electricity too.

I hope you remain on the right side of ordinary people's struggles for their lives versus the efforts of the rich to exploit them for profit.

Yours Sincerely,

Ian Kirwan

Letter to Boris (on IQ versus wealth)

2013-11-29T04:25:00.001-08:00

Dear Boris,

I don't know how true the claims are in a recent article in The Mirror regarding comments on IQ and wealth attributed to yourself, but I wanted to give a few comments of my own on the matter for your consideration. I hope that is not too presumptuous of me.

I don't know whether IQ is a particularly good predictor of wealth, but I can see why such an assumption might be made. IQ is certainly not a great predictor of ethical behaviour or humanity, and I think you would find much better predictors of wealth and power in metrics of greed, ruthlessness and selfishness should they ever be adequately measured and calculated. Also it doesn't take exhaustive research to realise that the most voluminous and monstrous crimes against humanity and the planet are orchestrated by the most wealthy and powerful, not the least, and always have been.

Claims about IQ distribution to support the existing rich/poor disparity strike me as alarmingly eugenicist rhetoric. I hope that such notions are not a genuine participants in your own philosophy.

I would be glad to hear your thoughts on the matter by reply.

Yours Sincerely,

Ian Kirwan

----------------------
Posted to Boris Johnson (mayor@london.gov.uk) 29th November 2013
----------------------
Update: Email received from the Mayor's office; "Thank you for your interest in the work of the Mayor and the Greater London Authority, we are keen to answer your query as quickly and fully as possible. As you will appreciate, the Mayor receives a very large amount of correspondence but he is committed to responding to your query within 20 working days."

What, if not capitalism?

2013-11-13T04:53:00.000-08:00

I, like a rapidly growing portion of the population, am more than unimpressed by capitalism. Before tackling the headline question I'd like to express some of the problems, both ethical and practical, that I see with capitalism as a socio-economic system.

Profit is the the prime motivating factor in capitalism. This ought to immediately raise concern, as it places profit above all other human aspirations. If profit is not your principle objective in a capitalist system then you are going to fail, unless you are very lucky, because capitalism sets everyone in the world in competition with each other, competing for profit. So any egalitarian principles such as equality, fairness, environmental concern, caring and so forth have to be at best subservient to the principle of profit. If you are not profiting then at best you are breaking even, which to maintain is akin to balancing a plate on the end of a pencil, or you are heading into bankruptcy and failure. We also should note that in a fair and equitable exchange of goods or services, there is no profit, just mutual benefit. Profit only arises when people or the environment, but not the profiteer of course, are being exploited. This is more than apparent in almost any business you can point to. Businesses are owned privately. The workforce and consumers of the business's output are exploited for the profit of the owners. This system therefore inherently favours profiteers at the cost of all else, namely humanity and the planet. We ought then to be considering what kind of society and future we are creating by rewarding greed and ruthlessness above all else.

Private ownership is another core principle of capitalism. This is another element of capitalism that deserves our attention. In a pure capitalist system everything must be privately owned, from the means of production to the planet itself. Given that profit guarantees an unfair distribution of wealth, based on ones' propensity to exploit and therefore profit, it follows that there will be an unfair distribution of ownership of the planet, which of course is already the case, and has been since long before we were born. I often liken this to joining a game of Monopoly long after it has already been won, which is the position that the vast majority of us find ourselves born into. We should also note that given the competitive nature of capitalism we are all set up in perpetual conflict, struggling for control of portions of the planet, no matter how big or small. There is no inherent levelling factor here, merely an arms race of one sort or another. An interesting departure from the game of Monopoly in capitalism should also be considered here. The game has a fixed set of rules, which players generally adhere to. However, in the real world, the more capital you have the more power you have, and given that the principle is profit, all else be damned, the most effective profiteers, selected by capitalism for their lack of ethical principle, will use their power to change the rules in their favour, and that is precisely what we see happening.

Many proponents of capitalism frequently argue that we do not live in a capitalist system, citing government regulation as the principle reason for this, as it distorts the idealised 'free market'. Capitalists argue also that the 'free market' (in quotes because it is fictional, an ideal not a reality), is the levelling factor I previously claimed not to exist. This levelling factor is often referred to as the 'invisible hand', which has rather religious implications as I'm sure you can see. Thus critics of capitalism often talk about the religion of the 'free market'. There are many reasons to dispute the possibility of such a levelling factor, some of which I have already expressed in this article. The idea that the principle of greed in the dedicated capitalist is countered by the ethical intuitions of the consumer, making choices about which of the greedy should profit most by buying their products or services is absolutely absurd. The greedy win, every time. There is no choice. Furthermore the uneven distribution of wealth also infers an uneven distribution of marketing, a naturally self distorting effect of free market ideology, thus the most greedy command the most favourable attention in the consumer population. So it is not a negative feedback system naturally controlling itself, it is a positive feedback system spiralling out of control. Some capitalists even advocate something they call anarcho-capitalism, which to me is nothing more than an oxymoron, just as anarcho-fascism or anarcho-totalitarianism are.

So what, if not capitalism? What kind of system should we be trying to operate? Many anti-capitalists call for socialism, communism or even anarcho-syndicalism. Whilst I am not, in principle, against any of these alternatives I would just like folks to think about some of the problems that conspire to poison any system. We live in a world of a hugely uneven distribution of power, legal or otherwise, and those that have such power will fight to defend if not expand that power. Generally speaking we call this group the ruling class, the establishment or the elite. They will always seek to take the levers of power in any system and control society to serve their ideologies and aspirations. This was very much the case in soviet Russia and led in no small part to the collapse of the Russian socialist revolution, aided and abetted of course by capitalist powers in the rich West, as Chomsky explains so lucidly here:

Chomsky on Lenin, Trotsky, Socialism & the Soviet Union

So for me, what is far more important than picking some idealised system is to struggle and to build movements to counter and dismantle concentrations of power. This, aside from decentralised democracy, is a core component of anarchism (please be sceptical about the description of anarchism in the link. It is but one description of anarchism, but at least presents some anarchist ideas. It may be better pursue descriptions presented by anarchist communities such as those at libcom.org). To my thinking we must apply such anarchist principles to whatever system we have and aspire to have. Capitalism inherently favours concentrations of power, not democracy, not fairness or anything else, and thus is possibly the worst of all systems because of where it inevitably leads, and anarchism is to me the only antidote, lest we all become slaves to those that accumulate the most. If anarchism is the only antidote then surely it applies equally if not more effectively to systems other than capitalism.

I would very much like to hear your views on capitalism and any alternatives, and how you see them being maintained. As always please comment below.

To mask or not to mask, that is the question

2013-11-08T12:08:00.003-08:00

I was pretty insensed when I read Martha Gill's blog article, "Anonymous have been exposed as hypocrites. Watch them try to wriggle out of it", via The Telegraph website today. It was a dreadful attempt to pick any little hole possible with the movement by arguing that anons buying Fawksian masks to attend protests somehow contributes to misery in the 3rd world. I immediately responded in the comments section below her article:

"Slimey establishment spin from the Teleguff. What a surprise. Interestingly boycotting these factories would make these people considerably worse off. The right thing to do is to support their fight for better conditions. Furthermore it is establishment corporations in the West keeping these third world workers so oppressed. Establishment corporations that the Telegraph supports and receives advertising revenues from and whom pay Martha for her 'journalism'. But you wont read that in the Telegraph. Wriggle out of that Martha! Frankly you disgust me"

Martha could have done a little investigation into how Western corporations lobbying politicians put in place the kinds of international trade agreements that perpetuate and exploit the poverty and hardships of people living in the third world, for profit. She could have gone further to point out how these same corporations are driving down working conditions and dismantling the welfare state in the UK to create worker insecurity thus enabling corporations to stagnate workers wages against a back drop of inflation, effectively meaning wage cuts. All the while corporate executives and shareholders are getting fatter and richer. She could have talked about how Western corporations are using 3rd world workers as wage 'competition' against UK workers, putting many workers out of work or pushing them into zero hour contracts. But no, she didn't do this. She managed to spin anonymous, perhaps many unwittingly, keeping third world workers in work, into some kind of story about anonymous perpetuating their hardships. That takes at least one of two things; an unacceptable degree of ignorance for a journalist and a calculated cynical establishment hit on a people's movement.

Such smears will be little surprise to anons of course, having watched the media go to town on the likes of Bradley Manning and Julian Assange in recent years. Her article does however illustrate establishment ideology at work beautifully. They will try to find any little thing they can to bring down people's movements for justice. No matter how flawed their argument is, it doesn't matter. They're the establishment media. They decide what people should believe.

Martha very likely considers herself an independent minded journalist. What she almost certainly doesn't consider is that she has grown up in the downpour of establishment propaganda, as did her parents, 'educated' in the establishment run/controlled education/indoctrination system, selected by an editor because of her views, who himself/herself was selected for their views by the establishment owners/executives. This is how the hierarchy conspires to narrow the range of views presented to the public. This is totalitarianism in action. Martha will be completely unable to see it or herself for what is/she is. Nonetheless she is a tool of corporate/fascist totalitarianism.

One thing this whole issue does however do is make the waters of boycotting unethical businesses a little muddy. There are times when boycotting is the right thing to do, but this would not be one of them. Boycotting Israeli products for instance is a good idea as this puts economic pressure on Israel to end it's vile and murderous oppression of Palestinians. So what is the defining criteria for ethical boycotting? Well Israel is a prosperous state, and no small part due to its occupation of other people's territories, so a boycott is unlikely to put Israeli workers into the kind of abject poverty being inflicted upon Palestinians, whereas profits will be hurt. So we have to think about who we are helping and who we are hurting, and evaluate each case on its merits. I wish I could be more cut and dry, but this is the best I can come up with for now. I will be interested to hear your views on the matter, so please comment below.

So what of the mask? Is it a good idea to where the mask? Author and former war correspondent Chris Hedges argues that it isn't [1]. I agree mostly with Chris's point that hiding behind a mask of some kind is a gift to the establishment. The reason being that the sleeping masses will see this veil as the mark of criminality rather than legitimacy. If you are not a criminal then why are you hiding your identity? I know, I know, it's a horribly flawed rationale, but that is where they are at, and if we want to win them over we ought to avoid alienating them. That aside I do think that the Fawkesian mask carries with it tremendously important symbolism and of course a novel visual tool for drawing attention to the movement. I can't and don't want to tell others how to protest or dress but I can tell you what I will do and why I will do it and hope that others see what I perceive as the wisdom of it. I don't want to hide. I am happy for people to see my face when protesting. Why shouldn't I show my face? I'm proud to be standing for a cause. I will however continue to carry the mask and wear it for brief periods because of its symbolism and power to draw attention. But I will lift the mask from now on to talk to passers by who express an interest. This is just the same as taking off your sun glasses when talking to someone. Standing in front of someone with a mask covering your identity whilst talking to them suggests that you do not trust them, whether true or not, and that is not a smart way to go about bringing them on board. I want to meet them face to face. I want to smile at them and win them over with my humanity and my argument, and the mask can be a tremendous barrier to that. So if I had any advice to give on the matter I would say use the mask wisely and thoughtfully. Don't let it be your down fall.

References/Citations
[1] Chris Hedges and Occupy Debate "Black Bloc" tactics, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SoXWuQPrrI

Article short URL: http://tinyurl.com/phcmms6

Remember, Remember, the 5th of November, Birmingham UK 2013

2013-11-05T12:39:00.002-08:00

Finally, the afternoon/evening of the 5th of November had arrived. The #MillionMaskMarch was on. Images from across the world were already starting to appear on Facebook of Anonymous protests and protesters, from the cities of Australia to the US. The excitement was growing.

I arrived at the Bull by the Bull Ring a little before 5pm, almost 2 hours late. Sorry guys. Life had already conspired to delay me. Already anonymous folks had convened, prepared banners, and were successfully attracting the attention of Birmingham shoppers and workers. The Fawkesian masks, being entirely appropriate for the 5th of course, certainly raised the interests of passing folks, young and old, different ethnicities and creeds. It soon struck me, the significance of the mask that is. Guy Fawkes had plotted against the rulers of the day in the onslaught of ruling class tyranny, and here we were 400 years later still struggling against a ruthless ruling class. The mask carries with it an important piece of history; the ever present struggle by the ordinary people against the monsters who dominate our lives. That idea is somehow carried implicitly in the mask itself. Folks without realising it, see the mask and receive an important message. The struggle is still going on. It's here and now. It is the rich and powerful against you, against us.

Anonymous protesters did themselves proud. Making friends with passers by. Answering questions calmly and thoughtfully. No aggravation. No trouble. Just spreading the message in a friendly, visual and effective way. The banter was fun and people wanted to know more not less. I am struggling to find words to express what I want to say but alas I should just say that I was proud to be part of this event, because of the people involved and their commitment to peace and positive engagement with the public.

It was my first demo and, truth be told, I was disappointed that there weren't more people involved, but I suspect I'm not alone in that sentiment. The issues being raised (see the banners in the images) were all of tremendous importance to the lives of ordinary people and perhaps even the survival of our species, and so long as they remain issues we are going to want more people participating in these events. We need the people to realise that they are in a war, a class war, and that they are us, we are them. The movement must grow, and it will. It will so long as there is oppression and tyranny, and we have an indelible symbol to unite behind. The movement is a symbol, a symbol of discontent, a symbol of defiance, a symbol of unity of the people regardless of the issues being raised.

Just a few metres away another protest had gathered, under the banner "Bonfire of Austerity", put together by The People's Assembly against Austerity and the Midlands Socialist Resistance. They had quickly realised that we were fighting for many of the same issues that they were and invited us to join them in demonstrating at pay day loan shops. The police arrived quickly to do what they were instituted for, to protect the interests of the rich against the ordinary people. Thankfully no one was arrested and no trouble occurred. The protest did succeed in penetrating the shops themselves and making a point inside the building to the workers of Cash Loans and the Money Shop. Please take a minute to understand the issues of pay day loans and why they are a cynical and deplorable exploitation, by the rich, of the poorest workers, often trapping them into a spiral of debt with extraordinary and obscene interests rates.

After the loan shark protests, anonymous and The People's Assembly reconvened at the Socialist Resistance stall where people were invited to speak. We heard some great speeches about the voluntary complicity of local councils in the most cynical of Tory policies, free speech and other issues. I even got up to the microphone myself and rambled on a bit about democracy, law and order, sadly failing to get across the most important things I wanted to say e.g. how picking between factions of the rich every few years is not democracy, and how the principle function of the police is to maintain order, the social order, rich to poor, by protecting property over people. Those with property being the rich, those without being the poor, as it has always been. Many thanks to the Socialist Resistance for allowing us to speak. This was a great show of solidarity between different protest groups.

One of the points that I did make, regarding the establishment media and it's explicit function of serving the establishment rather than the people, came to mind again this morning as I replied to comments on Facebook about the appalling media coverage of protests. This is precisely why we have to get out on the streets and make our points. On the street there is no establishment media standing between you and your audience. No intercept. No 'interpretation'. Just you speaking to other people. We should also never forget the power of these face to face interactions. They are real. They make a lasting impression. They are free from the abstract and artificial experience of the media or internet.

Anonymous is an idea, not a group or organisation, and we must remember that and convey it. I think that idea was expressed well and we should all continue to develop our messages and our capability of delivering them. We have to encourage our fellow citizens out of apathy and into participation. This is after all about all of us. It's about how we are treated as livestock to be exploited by the rich for greater riches and power. It's about how if only we stand up and speak up our message will be loud and clear. It's about letting ordinary people know that they are not alone and that they do have tremendous power if only they choose to use it. We exist in far greater numbers than our oppressors and exploiters, and their power to oppress and exploit relies explicitly on our apathy and participation in their machinations. All we have to do is say 'No More' and refuse to play their games. But we have to do it together, and we can. Keep going people. There is hope. So long as there is a breath in your body there is hope. Movements grow by ordinary people simply acting and spreading the message. All big things start small, and those who have the gumption to start small, in hope, deserve a great deal of credit and recognition. It is a pleasure to be with you guys. Peace.

"We Are The 99%"

"Join Us"

"Together We Stand. We Are Legion"

"Too Poor To Learn". Reminding us of how the the education system is become an explicit privilege of the haves under the ruthless and greed driven ideologies of capitalism.

"United as one, Divided by zero"

"Together We Can; End poverty, Eliminate pollution, Feed the world. Unite. Let Peace Grow."

"If you're not angry, you ain't paying attention"

"Say no to; Badger cull, austerity, fracking, bedroom tax, NHS cuts"

Russell Brand: Man of the People

2013-10-25T03:26:00.000-07:00

I used to think that Russell Brand was a complete twonk. Another icon of establishment decadence swaggering across the screen at our expense with a typical celebrity class ignorance and indifference to the injustices lavished upon the majority for the power, prestige and riches of the sociopathic minority we call the elite, the establishment, the ruling class. Whether that sentiment was justified at the time I'm unsure, but it is one I no longer hold. I became aware that Russell had sympathy for us, the 'unwashed masses', when I came across an article he produced for The Guardian in which he scorned the extreme hypocrisy of the establishment in their treatment of rioters whilst continuing to lay a carpet of rose petals for our war criminals, terrorists and ultra-thieves we call investment bankers and traders [1]. However I nearly fell off my sofa the other evening when I saw him being interviewed by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight [2]. Russell was on fire! He was fierce, filled with the pain of the people and the planet, a freight train of disgust plowing into Paxman's agenda riddled questions, carriage after carriage of articulate decimation of the political paradigm that prevails ubiquitously in the establishment media. I'm surprised that the interview was even aired. For that Mr. Paxman and Co. do deserve some credit, but it is Mr. Brand who should be appreciated here, not merely for his spirited lambasting of the vogons that rule over us and control the the wealth of the nation, but for the circumstantial fact that he can awaken and invigorate a lost generation of disenfranchised and disengaged young people like few others can. I can only hope that other celebrities of Brand's generation hear the groans of the people and pick up the torch, to help ordinary people, particularly the younger generation, fight back, not just for justice and equality but very likely for the survival of the species.

Russell brings to the fight some long over due humour. A kind of humour that us ordinary folks can relate to. It has the incredibly important characteristic of raising awareness of the seriousness of the situation we're in but without sending us into a coma. He is able to stitch back together our attention spans, that have been shattered by the mind and ethics disintegrating triviality and chaotic dross we call the mainstream or establishment media. It should be well noted also that this arrangement is far from undesigned as Chomsky and others prolifically reveal [3][4][5]. The establishment do not want ordinary people participating in politics. They never did. They never will. If ordinary people enter the arena en mass then the political system will no longer be heavily tipped in favour of the rich. Check out Russell's piercing but also funny recent article in the New Statesman [6].

Russell is absolutely right that voting is a waste of time. As I sometimes say "if this is democracy then giving a slave the day off once every few years should be called liberty". Picking between factions of the elite once every few years is not choice. It is not participation. It is very definitely not democracy. It is the scam we are told to believe is democracy, rather like being given the choice between a kick in the teeth or a punch in the mouth. Furthermore there are very good reasons why genuine prominent alternatives do not exist, or at least are not made known to us. They are numerous, but perhaps most significant is the fact that the establishment own and control the mainstream media. Are they likely to allow alternatives and views that challenge their exponentially disproportionate wealth and dominance over us? It's a no brainer. The only participation in politics ordinary people have is in the streets, demonstrating, protesting, striking, refusing to comply with the ideologies forced upon us. But we do have power. Enormous power. Our power lies in our numbers. The elite are terrified of us, which is why they go to such great lengths to divide us, disengage us and make us apathetic and hopeless. But hope is here, it's growing, and you need a piece of it. Growing and evolving movements around the world are linking up, sympathising, educating, sharing and galvanising. Occupy, the 99%, Anonymous, the Arab Spring, human rights groups, animal rights groups, unions, celebrities, academics, political dissidents, whistleblowers ad nauseam are all fighting back, not just for themselves, but also for each other and for you. You just need to pay attention. Visit their websites and their YouTube videos. Join the Facebook pages and Twitter discussions. Feel the power of the people. Connect with others who are as outraged as you. Join a protest and make new friends, real friends with a passion for humanity, for the planet, for our future, for you. You'll thank me I promise.

Russell is a good man doing a darned good thing, and good people deserve our appreciation and reciprocation. The only thing I can do to reciprocate here is to make you aware that it is very typical of the establishment to go after outspoken public figures and try to bring them down before their message really reaches the masses. Don't be surprised if Russell Brand becomes 'embroiled in scandal' of some sort in the not too distant future. He is certainly at best sacrificing career opportunities for our benefit. Stand by him as he stands by you!

As always please let me know what you think.

References

[1] Big Brother isn't watching you, http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/aug/11/london-riots-davidcameron
[2] Newsnight: Jeremy Paxman and Russell Brand, 23/10.2013, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri0R9wCZz-o
[3] Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AnB8MuQ6DU
[4] Orwell Rolls In His grave (including an extended interview with media expert Professor Robert McChesney, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_lYGyIaK80
[5] Psywar, the battle for your mind, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXX0vujix-o
[6] New Statesman article, Russell Brand on revolution: “We no longer have the luxury of tradition”, http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/russell-brand-on-revolution

Representative Democracy: An oxymoron?

2013-10-24T06:39:00.000-07:00

I've often given thought to the idea of the representation of interests but have never 'put pen to paper', so I thought I might share with you where I have gotten to and see what you think about the matter.

Who is the best arbiter of your best interests? As a babies we lack any capacity to reason and therefore it is down to our parents to do their best to ensure our survival and our futures. Our genes predetermine this parental behaviour, which is what is meant by maternal or paternal instincts. As our capacity to reason develops we begin our struggle for independence. Often an unhappy time for both child and parents as their instinct to best serve our interests starts to conflict with our own developing sense of self interest. At some point we take control of our much our own interests, which is typically upon leaving the nest. Outside of this normative pattern the capacity of others to best serve our interests diminishes with diminishing kinship. That is to say; the less connected we are as family or friends the more we are likely to be serving our own interests rather than each others'.

How then is a representative democracy possible? Is it merely an oxymoron? Can a politician really have your interests at heart? Personally I don't think so. They are by nature representing their own interests, even if they earnestly believe they are trying to serve ours. Even if we manage to communicate to them our needs and desires we run into numerous problems.

The representative is going to have to balance our needs and desires against the needs of desires of others they are representing.
They have their own political ideologies, needs and desires that may and in my opinion almost without exception does conflicts with our interests.
Party affiliations often demand that representatives follow the party line even if the representative is not in favour of the party line.
The fact that one person is supposedly representing the interests of many makes them a target of powerful third party interests who are seeking to ensure that your interests are not represented. This can take the form of bribery, propaganda and even threats.

It is also important to note that the rich and powerful conspire to ensure that democracy is so configured. An examination of the notes of James Madison, perhaps the leading framer of the US constitution, provides us with an important insight into the thinking of the elite. The US founding fathers certain had England as a working model around which to construct their own system, and notes from their secret meetings show just that:

"In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They [branches of government] ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." [1]

Particular attention should be paid to the notion of protecting the interests of the minority of the opulent against the majority. Here James Madison is explicitly stating that the interests of the rich and powerful must trump those of the masses, fearful that democracy would lead to equality. Despite these horrific statements we should bare in mind that the founders were actually attempting to construct a comparatively more fair system for all than that of England at the time. They were however in fact elite, wealthy land owners and slave owners, and of course serving their own interests. This is the US 'representative democracy' in construction, but what they were in fact constructing was a tyranny over the masses with democracy for the rich. That system persists to this day, with our own British system now mimicking it almost entirely.

These points certainly demonstrate how wealthy people impose a class system upon us in which the further down the social order we are, the less participation in democracy we are afforded, for the explicit purpose of serving their interests, even if they believe they are serving ours.

For me, I don't think that there is any such thing as a representative democracy, because representatives do not and cannot represent us. I do think the term is at best an oxymoron if not an outright term of propaganda.

What do you think?

References
[1] Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787, Taken by the Late Hon Robert Yates, Chief Justice of the State of New York, and One of the Delegates from That State to the Said Convention, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp

Modern life: What is wrong with it all?

2013-10-03T06:54:00.002-07:00

A few years back a couple of friends and me decided to cycle a well known UK route called the C2C. As the name suggests it goes from sea to sea. In this case, from Whitehaven to Sunderland. We packed up our bikes with tents, food and other essentials and set off on the 4 day trip across the land, camping by night. It is possible to do the trip in one day if you are very fit, but we were not, and the additional weight of carrying what we needed to camp etc., slows you down, hence the 4 days. It was relative hardship compared to ordinary daily life, peddling our way across the Cambrian mountains, through sunshine, rain, fog and hail. The aches and pains of leaning on the handle bars, the bruising and soreness on your backside, revealing themselves more assertively each morning as you start the next leg of the journey, make for discomfort that us pansy-ass townies are really not at home with. Additionally, the late night sounds of your mates snoring and what I can only describe as half-goat-half-pig-half-goose mating grunts at 3 am in the morning, eminating from perhaps 20 feet away, amongst other strange noises, leaves you tired if not exhausted each morning. But still, we got on our bikes and peddled. On the upside, you see the country from a completely different perspective. You start to enjoy the rolling hills and peaks, at least when you're coming down them. You encounter people in a new context too. Folk are helpful, friendly and sympathetic to your quest, perhaps to some degree wishing it was them. By the end of the trip we were truly exhausted, though simultaneously elated at our small achievement, and enriched by the experiences along the way. But, something else had happened to us. We didnt want to stop. We didn't want to go home. We wanted more. What and why?

There was a comradery that developed, despite sleep loss and fatigue induced grumpy exchanges, that I have not experienced in daily town life. Something about the shared hardships and joys that creates unspoken bonds that we don't experience in modern life, save perhaps within the family home, but even then there is something different about this. There was more than just the bonds that made the experience so memorable and precious.

If we step back and look our lives and peer down from a larger perspective there are hints at why. We are constrained by having to pay for our homes and life in them, which forces us to take paying jobs, with our homes creating physical barriers to all outside the four walls. So for the most part of our lives we are either in our homes or in the place of work doing work, where the opportunities for the kind of experiences and comradery I'm talking about do not really exist. Furthermore we are bombarded constantly by marketing, everywhere, it is even piped directly into our homes courtesy of the box in the corner of the room. It teases us, manipulating our desires and emotions, making us addicted consumers of products, somehow dulling our brains to the fact that we are forced to pay all of our lives to live on a tiny patch of our own planet. The bricks and mortar having been paid for just a few years into our mortgages, and the rest just pampering the rich who hold our planet hostage. In this sense we are slaves to the rich. We are forced to live within their laws and ideologies, and skillfully manipulated and coerced into accepting this way of life.

Out on the road, we discovered something about freedom and friendship that is difficult to find or experience within the highly structured system of modern life that is imposed on us. Perhaps the fact that being on bikes, relatively unconstrained by road laws, allowing us to go just about anywhere also had something to do with it. I can't even adequately describe the meaning and joy of what we discovered. It is only something that can be appreciated by embarking on such adventures I think. But it changed me. It continues to change me. Every time I do something outside of the norms of the system now I feel that freedom and joy, and it's addictive. More and more I reject modern life; it's fakery, the celebrities, the rules, the slavery. And I feel good about it.

We can't continue our existing way of life. We already know it. The exhaustion of resources, the damage to our ecology, the wars that will probably ensue, the biological hazards, the nuclear hazards. If the constraints of wage slavery and these mentioned threats are not enough to compel you to change your existence, your existence will change anyway. The question is, do you want it to be on your own terms or are you going to let the terms of others, specifically the rich and powerful, be imposed on you?

My experiences have taught me that there is a much more fulfilling existence for us, waiting for us, beyond the walls of this fake life imposed on us by the rich. It will involve work too, but not this meaningless 'existance' as servants. We have to fight for our rights and freedoms, and that takes comradery and solidarity that doesn't come from ordinary modern life. You can experience it on an adventure, in protests and demonstrations, through participating in life with fellow ordinary folk. It creates meaning for your life that you wont find on your TV, in the supermarket or at work, but you have to seek it out to understand it. As the famous anarchist Rosa Luxembourg once said "those who do not move do not feel their chains", and that is something we cannot truly grasp whilst continuing to go through the motions of the life that has been designed for us by the rich for the rich.

Do something you have never done. Do something beyond normality. Understand what the word liberty means, and how we give it up by continuing with modern life. Become addicted to freedom and learn how to fight for it.

"Profits and tax cuts are not dirty words" according to David Cameron

2013-10-02T08:41:00.000-07:00

This is the headline of a lead article from The Guardian today. It is in fact interesting to see such statements make it into headlines, as it suggests that there is a debate afoot as to the reality of the statement. If profits and tax cuts are not dirty words, why say anything? The very fact that the PM felt the need to say it is evidence of a fight back against public opinion by the ruling class. So I'd like to explore these words here for your consideration.

Let's be clear, when David Cameron states that 'tax cuts' are not dirty words in an act of defence against an opposing public position, we know he is not talking about tax cuts across the board but merely tax cuts for the rich. One of the Cameron government's first taxation acts was to cut the 50p rate on inheritance tax, which is a tax that only affects the rich. Why tax cuts for the rich? It's not as though they are facing any financial hardship is it? It is however the corporations of the rich that are lobbying our ministers and MPs on a daily basis, with campaign donations and offers of post-parliament 'consultancy' roles for MPs carefully tucked up their sleeves.

We should all take time to consider the meaning of the word profit. What is profit? What does it mean to profit? If I grow fruit on my land and exchange some for vegetables grown by my neighbour there is no profit. It is a mutually beneficial exchange for the purposes of our survival. It gets a little more complicated when we venture into the world of money, but the principle remains; in a fair and equitable exchange of goods or services there is no profit. Profit only arises when one party is exploiting one or more other parties, and on this 'principle' the ruling class has worked very hard to convince us all that it is fair and good, Cameron's own words being an explicit example. So who are the exploiters and the exploited? Well clearly ordinary folk are exploited by the rich, otherwise they wouldn't be rich! This isn't to say that the rich do no work. In fact they work very hard, exploiting us, because it is so profitable, but then should we really be calling this work? A con artist might have to go door to door for weeks before finding a suitably gullible enough victim with sufficient money to make his efforts worthwhile, but we don't call it 'work', nor should we of the activities of the rich. Furthermore the rewards to the rich are astonishingly disproportionate to their efforts.

The status quo is maintained of course by the fact that the wealth of rich gives them power, doorways into the process of government, and furthermore their domination of the media allows them to persuade the unsuspecting masses in their favour whilst keeping the truth as far from us as possible. If only folks had the time to look into the public record properly. The parliamentary record. The declassified record. Interestingly if we were all working to the principles of making a living rather than a profit, especially the rich, then there would be far greater financial equality. Perhaps more to the point though is that if we did away with the profit system and ditched all of the pointless junk produced in its name, we might all only have to work a 2 or 3 day week. Then there would be time on our hands to look into what the ruling class actually do. Catch 22. That's how they keep us intellectually and financially chained.

Thankfully ordinary folk exist in vastly greater numbers than their ruling classes, such that the mere act of talking about these things and propagating these ideas amongst ourselves leads to powerful people's movements that force the rich to act in our favour lest they risk revolution. Monsieur Guillotine's famous invention, used prolifically for shortening members of the French ruling class in the French revolution, really does play on their minds when we take to the streets.

National Service legislation for 18-25 year olds in progress

2013-09-08T07:33:00.001-07:00

A legislative bill to force national service on 18 to 25 year olds is currently making its way along the legislative conveyor belt in UK Parliament. The bill, titled 'National Service Bill 2013-14'[1], making it an offence to have reached the age of 26 without having performed national service, currently at the committee stage, will force young people to serve the armed forces or one of a number of other activities. Whether these alternate activities could be chosen from by young people in service is not defined suggesting that young people might be able to specify a preference but with government ultimately deciding the nature of their service for them. This leaves open the possibility of unofficial allocation of service by social class, school history or other capricious allocations.

The bill, sponsored by Conservative MP Philip Hollobone (Kettering), contains provisions for the following service content:

forced re-education for young people who have not attained qualification in mathematics or English reading/writing
a forced physical fitness regime, personal appearance and discipline
life skills (cooking and so forth) and time keeping

This is not the complete list. The provisions also include what are likely to be regarded as socially beneficial elements.

The duration of service proposed is for one year for which young people on the program will be paid at the national minimum wage rate. Young people with severe physical or mental disabilities will be exempt from the program.

No official rationale for the bill is presented but it is not hard to see what it is trying to achieve. Governments have regularly created schemes for reducing unemployment figures without creating new employment. However it has been a long time since national service was in force suggesting that other motives may also be at work. The economic situation has certainly not improved for the majority of people in the country, with young people being worst affected, the government's unwillingness to tackle the big banks on activities that led to the 2008 crash, the shenanigans that have left the majority with increased work loads and pressure for the same pay, the economy is set to continue having problems and perhaps crash again. The bankers and corporate CEOs will not have missed the uprisings in Greece, Spain and elsewhere, and will be keen to see rebellion against their policies contained or stamped out. A national service program would indeed reduce the number of people with time on their hands who might be prepared to protest whilst simultaneously creating extra forces for controlling outrage and dissent by those worst hit.

If you have concerns about this bill then please express your concerns to your MP, whose contact details and email address can be found at the 'find your MP' page on the Parliament website. Additionally you may wish to share this article with friends and family in order to spread awareness since the establishment media are not so far covering this bill.

References

[1] National Service Bill 2013-14, http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/nationalservice.html

--------------------------------
Edit (13/09/2013): I should have noted that this is a private members' bill, and as such has a lower likelihood of becoming law than a bill introduced by a minister.

Syria and the myths of power

2013-09-07T08:10:00.000-07:00

Today I encountered two points of view that caught my attention. The first was an article posted in The Guardian by Niall Ferguson criticising left wing views on US intervention in Syria, which immediately had me thinking about propaganda and the establishment's self justifying mythology. By accident I stumbled upon an interesting talk called 'The Myth of Capitalism" by the historian Michael Parenti who from the outset began laying out what I was already thinking about regarding the Ferguson article, which was both a delight, for having my own view supported, and also a bit of a bummer since he was saying more or less what I wanted to say now, leaving me feeling like anything I write here now will be superfluous at best. Nonetheless I am compelled to write and so here I am.

Thankfully Parenti's talk is about capitalism whereas I wanted to talk about the situation in Syria, the 'humanitarian intervention' being pushed for by the West and the reality of Western power. Ferguson's article, I believe, is more or less a reflection of his beliefs on the matter in hand rather than some deceitful propaganda he dreamed up with hope of fooling readership. Ferguson argues for three points in his article, which I feel must be addressed:

"I have made three arguments that the left cannot abide. The first is that American military power is the best available means of preventing crimes against humanity. The second is that, unfortunately, the US is a reluctant "liberal empire" because of three deficits: of manpower, money and attention. And the third is that, when it retreats from global hegemony, we shall see more not less violence."

That US military might is the "best available means of preventing crimes against humanity" is to me predicated on basis of illusion and delusion. First off we would have to ignore all of the crimes against humanity carried out by the US both directly and indirectly. Western establishment media of course does this almost uniformly, notwithstanding the occasional article in The Guardian buried deep amongst the non-headline articles and thus never actually penetrating the public mind. Furthermore the establishment has always gone to extreme lengths to silence sources, of significance, that expose their criminality. So right now Bradley Manning is languishing in prison for having leaked evidence of US war crimes and the central journalist of this revelation, Julian Assange is being persecuted under the dubious pretext of being a fugitive of justice for rape, the details of which leave few in doubt as to the real agenda in play. Perhaps we should just remind ourselves of what the US did in Iraq that was leaked:

This is just one instance, just in Iraq, and we are 'lucky' to have such explicit video evidence, thanks to the bravery of Bradley Manning. It is difficult to convey how this represents a mere drop in the ocean of crimes of US imperialism, most of which the Western public is kept ignorant of by the Western establishment media, but for the curious amongst you, you may wish to look into US operations in Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Cambodia, Cuba and Haiti to name a few. This ignores all of the proxy wars, terrorism and oppression carried out on behalf of the US or with its consent in places like Chile, Nicaragua, Columbia, East Timor, Palestine ad nauseam. Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti and others write and talk extensively about many of these 'ventures', which you can find on YouTube or in print.

The second argument made by Ferguson is that the US is a reluctant actor in the world with respect to its use of military force. This is an extraordinary claim that really has me wondering about Ferguson's honesty on the matter. In what sense might we call the US reluctant to use military force? It might prefer to delegate acts of mass violence to its client states for appearance purposes, but that is really about it. The US doesn't spend as much of the rest of the world combined on it's means of violence for no reason. It's 900 military bases stationed around the world might also be telling us something too. However its list of military engagements, against countries that were certainly not attacking the US, since WWII, must surely be the concrete post in the coffin of the argument for reluctance.

For me, the most interesting argument Ferguson makes in favour of US military engagement is that the world would be more violent without it. This is the template myth upon which all establishment power is instituted and maintained. The point was made beautifully in the film 'V for Vendetta' when Chancellor Sutler bellows to his staff; "I want everyone to remember why they need us". It is certainly common place for the police to believe that without the police the world would descend into perpetual violence, thus justifying their own violence, which is almost without exception discussed under the aegis of 'justice' within the establishment media, thus disguising police violence that is mentioned and completely ignoring implicitly the violence carried out by the police that isn't mentioned. The reality is that the majority of and the most extreme violence in the world is carried out by authorities, not ordinary people. They rely upon the myth that without their violence there would be greater violence. So we have to fear a world that doesn't exist in order to accept the world of violence that does exist. In fact the entire world order is constructed on the basis of violence or at least the threat of their violence. That is what is meant by the term 'force' as in 'police force', 'air force' and so forth. It is their capacity to use violence to achieve what is favourable to them. Really we should be asking ourselves, 'are my neighbours really going to march around here and start threatening me with violence if there is no police force?'. Very few people are going to answer an honest 'yes' to this question. In reality you are more likely to get the most rapid and effective help from your neighbours in the case of being attacked than you are from the police, if only your neighbours are called.upon. The real justification for authoritarian power was articulated eloquently by US founding father James Madison. In discussion of the founding of the United States he wrote:

"In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They [branches of government] ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."[1]

"Protect the minority of the opulent against the majority". That's right, it is all about protecting the rich, and their wealth, from the masses from whom they exploited it, often using violence.

With respect to Syria, the idea that the US has any humanitarian concerns is absurd. Groups that are attacking the Syrian regime are comprised of militant groups largely supported by if not controlled out right by US client regimes, most notably Saudi Arabia. The US as always is seeking hegemonic control in the region, not least for the region's oil resources, and Syria is a pillar of support to Iran, perhaps the most prized of oil producers not under US control.

Is Niall Ferguson a ruthless liar for Western power or merely indoctrinated with the myths of Western power? I think I shall give him the benefit of the doubt and go with the latter.

[1] Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787, Taken by the Late Hon Robert Yates, Chief Justice of the State of New York, and One of the Delegates from That State to the Said Convention, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp

Understanding Governments and The Establishment for Dummies

2012-04-25T03:35:00.002-07:00

OK, many folks will be totally turned off by the post title here having already been turned off from politics by the shinanigens of politicians and the apparent complexity of politics. Obviously you havent quite reached that point otherwise you wouldn't be reading this. The good news is that politics is far simpler than most folks realize, though you wouldnt naturally pick that up from the white noise that is the mainstream media. The not so good news is that politics is far more sinister than most folks realise, but don't despair, I have some great remedies for that enraging sense of powerlessness. I'm not going to bog you down with confusing political jargon, rather I intend to cut through the crap and give you the big picture by reminding you about things that you probably already know, but have faded in the glare of the information barrage coming from your TV/Internet/newspapers etc.

The first thing to remember is that you live in a class structured society. The structure of modern society has not changed much since the dawn of human civilization and it is teered or stratified, broadly speaking, as lower, middle and upper. There are variations on these terms which maybe more or less familiar too; the establishment, the 1%, the ruling class, the wealth of the nation. These are all variations of the upper class. Management and political class are variations on the middle class. Working class, proletariate and steerage are variations of the lower class.

The distribution of political power amongst the classes is roughly speaking inversly proportional to the numbers of people in each class, during in 'peace time' at least, and is illustrated:

Class population distribution and order

These figures are taken from an article published on the BBC website for Britain called 'What is working class?'. The accuracy of the figures isn't terribly important for the point of this article. The magnitude of distribution is enough to make the relevant points. Power, wealth and attitudes maybe further stratified and compartmentalised within each class, but that is not terribly important for this article either, we just need the class oriented overview.

The first thing we should notice about the above figure is the order i.e. upper, middle and lower. What do these actually mean. Well, the most common way of viewing this order is in terms of wealth and power, with the upper having the most of both and the lower having the least. However, what I want to bring to your attention is the distribution of attitudes, particularly with regard to how these classes view each other. A typically held view by each class is that of 'we are the good guys'. Empathy of the upper towards the lower is low as is the lower towards the upper, the latter being commonly referred to as 'inverted snobbery'. Interestingly the middle class has a higher degree of empathy for the upper and lower classes than those classes have for each other. The middle class broadly speaking aspire to the wealth and style of the upper class but also sympathise to some extent with the lower class's hardships. Of course you will find plenty of exceptions to the these views within each class. I am speaking here in terms of general attitudes. Another aspect of attitude we might want to think about is the sense of superiority. Self superiority is nowhere near as abundant in the lower class, whereas it is dominant in the upper class.

'Order' is a word that you will come across frequently in politics, as in 'law and order' or as spoken in courts and parliament as a command 'Order!'. What does it mean. Well, look at the illustration and it should become obvious. The term means 'deference' or 'defer' i.e. the expectation that one should defer to their 'superiors'. It's not a term I am fond of, as like most I do not think of myself as being inferior to anyone. Of course we maybe inferior on specific skills and so forth e.g. I'm no carpenter, so a professional carpenter is obviously superior to me in wood working skills, but as a person I am much more egalitarian of thought. That is to say that I believe that all people are equal even if different. This is not a view widely held in the upper class I'm sorry to say.

There are many sources, particularly auto-biographies of national leaders, from which we can find candid revelations of supremacist attitudes amongst the upper class. I have picked one, which I have shamelessly lifted from Noam Chomsky in a talk he gave in Belfast 1993 titled 'Creating a New World Order', that should give some sense of attitudes amongst the ruling class:

The actual reality was expressed a bit more accurately by Winston Churchill, with his customary lucidity, when he was describing the new world order of the day, in 1945, and he wrote as follows; "The government of the world must be entrusted to the satisfied nations, who wish nothing more for themselves than what they have. Not to the hungry nations who only cause trouble. The government of the world must be entrusted to rich men dwelling at peace within their habitations. Our power placed us above the rest and it is our right to rule."

These kinds of utterances are generally kept out of the mainstream media, so for the casual observer it is quite hard today to pick up the degree of supremacist thinking amongst the ruling class, in fact many of the real power wielding ruling class do not appear in the mainstream media whatsoever. For example you might want want to browse the website 'Who Owns Britain' and see how many of the major land owners' names you recognise.

So what causes these social groups to become distinguished in their attitudes? We only need look at the evolution of species of plant or animal to find the answer. Geographically isolated groups of the same species will diverge into different species given time. Likewise, intellectually or geographically isolated groups of people will evolve different cultures over time. Just think about the evolution of Islam versus that of Christianity. Once an administrative group is formed to govern a people, and even though that administrative group is of those people, they immediately have a common interest; governing people. Government will always face resistance from some sections of the population on each issue, and so become desensitised to the concerns of such sub-groups believing that their own actions are for the 'greater good'. Given enough time the administrative group will be concerned with governing only and care nothing for the concerns of the people it governs, which is pretty much what we see today. A class of governors has evolved who serve the interests of governors only, relenting in its course only when discontent amongst the governed starts to frighten them. Even then they will use forceful means to try to stay their course, until of course it becomes untenable. The result is that at least 2 classes will evolve who exist in varying states of opposition to each other, the governors making laws to suit their ideals and the governed breaking those laws to suit their ideals. So now we have upper and lower classes.

So where does the middle class come from? Well, the upper class is a minority, and given that it's largely self-serving policies will benefit it most, it is naturally a minority of the privileged. So, based on the ratio of governors to the governed, many of its policies will be concerned with its own security. At the very least it requires a police force between it and the governed. If the police were to share the same views of the governed then the police force would be of no use to the governors, in fact a capable police force would be a threat to the governors. As a result the police force are given preferential treatment over the lower class, in the way of pay at the very least. Today the treatment of police goes much further, including indoctrination of the police against the lower class. The lower class must be treated with suspicion at all times. These are just 2 of the ways in which the police are set apart from the lower class. There are many others. This is quite probably one of the roots of the middle class, though we can go back to the Romans or further to see other middle class groups such as slave traders and so forth. Each middle class group serving the interests of the upper class whilst benefiting from exploitation of the lower class, or even other members of the middle class.

This stratification of the people has been around for a long time. The earliest civilisation I know of that doesn't appear to have had a middle class is that of the people of Caral in Peru. This was very likely a civilisation transitioning from a flat society to a structured society in which no middle class had yet developed.

There are many more aspects to this topic to be discussed, including the extremes that the ruling class regard as norms, which I shall do in future posts, but in short, countries are ruled by the ruling class for the ruling class, not by the people for the people.

Examining Climate Change Data for Yourself

2012-04-22T04:14:00.002-07:00

Like a lot of people I have felt like I haven't really seen for myself what the facts are concerning the claim of human made climate change (ACC or anthropogenic climate change), only what others want me to see. Within the context of the corporate controlled media system, those points of view are heavily biased by pro-ACC and anti-ACC business influences. There is a lot of money being spent by oil companies such as Koch Oil Industries and their owners on persuading the public that ACC is a liberal hoax, and likewise 'green' businesses do very nicely out of public fear of ACC. I figure the only way to make in-roads to the truth of the matter is to look at available data for myself.

Now, I'm no scientist, though I am fairly scientifically literate, so sifting through research papers and trying to figure out the reality from studies of bacteria in cloud formations complete with complex calculus was too time consuming for me as a start point, so I thought I would look for the kind of data from which the reality ought to climb out of the screen waving a reality flag at me. Given the central proposition that humanity is causing global temperature rises I thought I would compare global population data with global temperature data, and yes I am aware of the phenomenon of 'heat islands' i.e. the distribution of temperature sensors being biased towards more densely populated areas, though I understand that studies have been done that exclude these 'heat islands' and that the average data is much the same. In fairness to critics, I haven't yet looked at that data for myself, but I thought the exercise I did which is laid out below was valid nonetheless, not withstanding discovering that the 'exclusion' studies are in fact being lied about.

A few years back I discovered an cool online tool called Wolfram-Alpha (free) which is a sort of information systems/science project to make easy use of avail science data. With the tool you can do all sorts of cool English based calcs like 'Norway GDP compared to UK GDP'. The following vid gives you a good idea of what I'm talking about:

I called up global temperature data using the terms 'Global Temperatures since 1850' since it covers most of the human population growth through the industrial revolution. The results include the following science datasets:

Study	Description	Date
HadCRUT3vGL	Instrumental HadCRUT3v data from the Hadley Center and the Climate Research Unit	2006
Mann2003a	Historical records, ice cores, lake sediments, shells, tree rings; global mean surface reconstruction based on multi-proxy data	2003
Mann2008f	Corals, historical records, ice cores, lake sediments, speleothem, tree rings; 2000 year hemispheric and global surface temperature reconstructions	2008
NCDCGL	Instrumental global surface temperature anomalies from the Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Climatic Data Center	2006

Whether you regard these datasets as factual is down to you to determine, but I don't know of better sources of data so please write me if you do.

The combined graph looks like this:

As you can see the datasets roughly track each other so I picked the Mann2008f dataset as the temperature reconstruction from natural data implicitly smooths the data since those sources provide average temperatures, that had a smooth curve to simplify matters (though if you zoom in using Wolfram-Alpha you'll see it's not quite as smooth as it looks here). The advantage of the Mann data is that it doesn't suffer from the phenomenon of heat islands :

Interestingly you can see the 11 year solar cycle (I have drawn on the image for you to see) which we will just have to normalise (iron out) in our heads to see the trend without the solar influence.

In addition to this we need the global population data since 1850:

Overlaying the datasets (I had to stretch the population graph because of the different times scales) we get the following:

To me this paints a clear picture. Assuming the data is correct, this is not just correlation, as the correlation is too good. There is an obvious link between the two curves and it tracks the industrialisation of humanity extremely well.

If you have better data please let me know.

Examining Sam Harris's moral assertions

2012-04-19T04:46:00.003-07:00

Sam Harris has often referred us to a specific hypothetical moral dilema which forms what appears to be a cornerstone in his philosophy concerning the practice of religion, and in all likelihood one of the key foundations in what appears to be his tacit, if not explicit, endorsement of certain aggressive aspects of US foreign policy. The dilema proposes a scenario in which a runaway train cart is on course to wipe out a group of workers plying their trade on the track. According to the rules of the dilema only one of 2 possible courses of action may be taken. One is to do nothing whilst the other is to kill an otherwise uninvolved individual, the result of which will be that the cart does not go on to kill the group of rail workers. Sam comes down in favour of killing the innocent bystander on the basis of the lower resultant body count. This Sam does without equivocation, as though it were an obvious a conclusion to reach, just as choosing not to open fire on a crowd of shoppers simply because you have a gun. Sam does not explore the ethics of the other option in our raiload dilema, and that is to take no action, though he gently urges us to except his conclusion on the basis that truths may in fact be less than obvious to us, citing the Double Jeapardy 3 door dilema as another such case. In fairness to Sam he does explore the alternative in a different scenario, in which we consider the possibility of sacrificing a hospital patient suffering say only a minor injury in order to save the lives of several other patients who are in need of critical organs which our patient happens to have. In this scenario Sam comes down on the side of not sacrificing the individual for the sake of the body count. Is Sam suffering from a case of what Orwell called double think? I.e the ability of the human mind to simultaneously accept two mutually incompatible statements or beliefs. In fairness to Sam I should say that I don't know what Sam's reasoning is though he does seem to expect us to find it obvious, and it maybe the case that Sam pictures different conditions to that which he appears to me to present. That said, I would like to go back to the railway scenario and examine the option of taking no action.

The principle view point in the philosophy of ethics, to me at least, is of the actors or catalysts in a given scenario. That is to say that what the rest world is doing is irrelevant, what matters is the action or inaction of the actor. This, on the face of it, might appear to lend favour to Sam's argument in the case of the runaway train cart. However if we start to adjust some of the criteria of the scenario we may unveil a broader picture that is not obvious from simply taking the train cart scenario in isolation. For example let's suppose that the innocent bystander is Sam's own child, assuming Sam has a child for the sake of the argument. Sam doesn't know any of the track workers in peril, but according to Sam's moral reasoning we should assume that he would be at least in favour of killing his child to save the track workers, whomever they may be. I think it would be hard for anyone to believe that Sam would actually support the notion of killing his child and thus hold any respect for statements by Sam to the effect that he would kill his child if presented with the scenario for real. Could you support the notion of killing your own child in this scenario? Your answer to that question is what we would call a moral value. So what has changed? We have substituted his child for an anonymous individual, but the moral dilemma itself has not changed. Now, I don't want to be seen to be putting words into Sam's mouth so I shall just remind you that Sam, as far as I know has not made his position in our altered scenario known, and for all I know he may not have even thought about it. We do however appear to have a conflict of morality here to resolve, as I suspect most people fall strongly in favour of not killing their children, which I believe to be a good thing, and that is also a moral value. So, what is at the heart of the conflict? Well, it would seem to me to be down to the question of action or inaction, physically at least.

On the matter of action versus inaction I believe it to be valuable to explore the ethics of inaction as the complexity of real life may reveal more about the reality of outcomes versus hypothetical scenarios in which other considerations are excluded for the purpose of building an ethical argument. First off, in our railway crisis, we are urged to ignore external actors, be they natural or intelligent. So we are encouraged not to consider that we do not know that everything will turn out as we are led to believe. For example, let's suppose our group of rail workers are in fact Nazi sympathisers trying to dislodge a rail so as to kill the Jewish occupants of a later train. This fact we add to the scenario, but we do not allow the principle actor and would be saviour to know this information. If we sacrifice our innocent bystander, the Nazi plot remains uncovered by virtue of them having been saved from a grisly meeting with a fast moving and very heavy machine. The Nazi conspirators are then free to go on and successfully derail and kill a train load of people. OK, it's a fairly unlikely real world scenario today if we are thinking of the context of Nazis, however it may not be such an unlikely scenario if we change the actors and props to a more contemporary context.

Let's now consider another alternative to the railway scenario. Supposing instead that the rail points between the train and the unaware workers are set to divert the train cart down a different line thus averting disaster. Again our saviour is unaware of this fact or worse still is of the belief that the points are set such that the workers will meet their destiny when in fact they are set such that the workers would be saved. In the latter case, our would-be saviour would be compelled to switch the points based on his belief, but in doing so would seal the fate of our rail workers. In the former case he may have in fact killed his son or an innocent bystander when in fact the workers are in no danger. Now we start to see that with every moral dilemma, in the real world at least, we can't know all of the factors that are critical to the outcomes. It is also reality that all too often intervention i.e. action, in fact turns out to be a moral travesty. The would-be saviour is not in control of everything in the scenario nor are they aware of everything and thus they cannot be held responsible for a situation not of their making, in my opinion. A passive observer has no impact upon a system thus the system remains the product of the histories of the actors in the system and thus if any responsibility maybe apportioned it must be to them. Does this make a case for not acting to intervene ever? I don't believe so. What I have done here is to show that complex situations that for which we cannot be fully aware of we should not simply jump aboard the action wagon but watch peacefully and passively and learn. In war and conflict actors following the action course are almost always the ones doing the killing or at least supporting it. These scenarios are vastly more complex than in our railroad scenarios yet the moral actors are always those with guns that choose not to use them, inaction. It is the same principle in peaceful non-cooperative protest. Protesters pursue their peaceful course of action and in doing so expose the immorality of their opponents who choose the course of physical intervention. Another example is the role of international obervers in conflict zones.

Many people try to persuade us that inaction is a form of complicity. I reject this notion on the grounds that I think it is willful ignorance of the factors of a situation that is tantamount to complicty and in order not to engage in such ignorance we must observe and learn.

It's time to plan for an end to war, WWIII is almost here

2012-03-13T04:09:00.000-07:00

The US is threatenning Iran if you hadn't noticed. Here is a sample public discussion, but you can find many on the web:

China and Russia do not appear to be prepared to let the US/UK/Israel unholy triumverate attack Iran without consequence as is implied in the following sample program discussion, though as before it is far from the only example, you can also hear Chinese and Russian military generals implying the same kinds of things:

It's almost surreal, as Noam Chomsky would say. We are now in the overtures of WWIII and everyone seems to be going about their business; business as usual.

Regardless of what you think of David Icke, this short collection of clips that include Icke wil give you a flavour of what is going on now:

The time for oppression to end is now. The biggest threat to everyone on the planet is their own government as governments are nothing more than a collection of the most crooked and murderous narcissistic fascists in every country.

The people of the world need to plan to march on their capital cities on the same date and spread the message. 12/12/12? the Mayan calendar date? Guy Fawkes eve, 5th November? The idea being that the news of the planned march will be a significant warning in itself, assuming enough people talk about it. If the threat of war draws nearer, no doubt the collective will revise its plans

If you want to copy and paste this post, be my guest.

You fund it so they do it

2012-03-10T04:45:00.003-08:00

People keep whining about their governments, yet you keep funding these war criminals and thugs. If you follow the teachings of Jesus, he said "let him who hath no sins cast the first stone", which means you are supposed to pay attention to your own crimes and deal with them. But you people just keep working for them and funding them with taxes. If you want to change things, if you want to stop terrorism, war, oppression then stop funding it, and stop participating in this corporate fascist nightmare.

U.S. Army prepares to invade U.S. NDAA

"You're wasting precious time"

2012-03-10T04:14:00.001-08:00

This is a pretty stark wake up call to the elite!

Sen. Alren Specter (Rep), Pennsylvania, and congress (Senate Terrorism Subcommittee, hear from Normal Olson, a militia commander from Alanson, MI.

Ordinary Americans are stirring

2012-03-09T10:54:00.001-08:00

Now here is a guy with some things he really seems to need to get of his chest. He is a small time radio host, but I'm wondering how many more like him there are Many?

The Young Turks are making similar noises though still talking in terms of power structures rather than freedom. That's 2 that I know of. If there are many, that would be a significant network of grass roots support for a revolution in the US.

Soldiers Speak Out

2012-03-08T16:27:00.001-08:00

Here is a 4 something minute trailer to what looks to me like an excellent documentary on what rulers send their proletariate to do:

"A powerful first-hand testament to the reality of the military experience, told in the words of Americaan veterans who have been to war and now oppose it. An important counterpoint to the "stay the course" rhetoric of the Bush administration."
http://empowermentproject.org/sso.html

Which Iraqis welcome UK troops?

2012-03-08T09:18:00.000-08:00

"William Patey and Stuart Innes, together with General Brims, have started that process have begun to focus Iraqi politicians' minds on what needs to be done. Moreover, our military are back on the ground visiting police stations - a fact welcomed by the majoraity of Iraqi Police Service Officers." [1]

Peter Hayes, Principal Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in London 2005 – 2007 [2]

Apparently Iraqi police were happy with the UK military back in town, but nowhere in this document does he express an interest or detail of what the Iraqi people thought about the matter. It is not surprising since the elite seem only to be able think in terms of control rather than freedom. "what needs to be done" seems also to be what the UK wants done rather than consulting Iraqis.

[1] 30 September 2005 – South East Iraq Impact of Security Incident in Basra, Document reference IRQ 0406 0122 833 1 B / Req 2 / Doc

[2] Sri Lankan IT BPO Industry Chamber http://www.slasscom.lk/node/92 where Peter 'serves' as British High Commissioner to the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka since March 2008.

The 'right path' for Iraqis?

2012-03-08T06:21:00.001-08:00

General Major J B Dutton CBE on restructuring Iraq:
"...they need our assistance to set themselves on the right path and our continued support to maintain progress along along it." [1]

General Major J B Dutton CBE, Multinational Division (South East), Operation TELIC, British Forces Post Office 641.

Who decides what this right path is? Iraqis? The UK? Is this serving the interests of Iraqis or of the UK ruling elite?

[1] Hauldown Report, June - December 2005, http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/47504/dutton-hauldown-report.pdf