Sir,
It is a known fact the excessive speed is one of the major causes of road traffic accidents. However, as any driver will be aware, particularly on motorways and trunk roads, it has become practically impossible to drive within the law. In fact those motorists who elect to drive within the speed limits are very often subjected to abuse from other drivers, a shame as for many having a driving license means having a livelihood.
The vast majority of people in Britain are of good character and would like to be law abiding. The problem is that, just like sticking to the speed limits, doing so has become incredibly difficult.
Most of us will be aware of the many stories of how some gentle pensioner has, due to growing up in a different age, fallen foul of “hate crime” laws after simply speaking their minds. Or how a youth leader has become entangled in trivial aspects of health and safety legislation.
A civilised society does indeed need laws. But what is known, is that the more rules, and more complicated rules any game has, the harder becomes to achieve fair play. To all intents and purposes, making everything illegal and making everything legal are no different at all, the end result is anarchy.
A large proportion of politicians, if not the majority, come from a legal background. This is not true of the general public. So, whilst they are very happy, with the support of the media, to talk about “tightening the law” on this, and “clamping down” on that, they tend to forget that there is only so many police officers, magistrates and judges, probation facilities and jails. To make matters far worse, government targets for those enforcing the law encourage officials to go for “easy” cases, rather than those who really shouldn't be allowed to continue their behaviour in the community. Burglars or pot smokers? Rapists or users of prostitutes? Billionaire tax evaders or those on unemployment benefit doing a seasonal cash job to pay for their children's Christmas presents? We need law that targets those who offend society, not those who offend petty social and economic etiquette.
Law and order are not the same thing. Just as communism failed to achieve true equality, a legalistic society does not produce a moral one.
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Saturday, 7 November 2009
Do We Live in the Matrix?
The closer one moves to this new physics, as in the future shaking hands with the past, the closer one comes to the idea that "life, the universe, and everything" are part of a vast living simulation: the ultimate computer game.
By Gary S. Bekkum
Source: Starstream Research (the blog owner does not hold the copyright for this work, of which the author is unrelated to this project)
Does the future reach backwards to determine the past?
The reasonable answer is no, at least not in the material universe around us.
For conscious sentient intelligent beings, the answer isn't so simple. The CIA STAR GATE documents prove that the U.S. Government would like to know more about the day after tomorrow.
Now we may know why.
Many years ago I was thinking about the best way to explain weird metaphysical phenomenology and the psychology beneath our experience of the future, and concluded that a coherent explanation must involve a model of the physics of information. It also happened that around the same time period, a mini revolution was taking place in physics and information in the form of quantum information theory.
Traditional systems of applied metaphysics typically involve highly developed and complex landscapes of characters, forms, and emotions interacting under strictly controlled protocols. This is sometimes reduced in description to the word "ritual" with attendant meanings open to interpretation.
Information theorist Seth Lloyd, an MIT expert in quantum computing, in a recent discussion at www.edge.org , stated that, "Many of the systems we regard as processing information, particularly sophisticated ones, have a notion of correspondence of a message with something else ... I regard those as emergent features that we can only ascribe to objects like living things, or perhaps to life itself. Those emergent features are very important. However, it is possible for a system to register information without that information having some kind of semantic meaning."
Seth Lloyd has been exploring the ultimate limits of computation. Lloyd's explorations are extremely important for our understanding of the fundamental role of information and quantum mechanics in the operation of the universe, where everything that exists can be viewed as performing a computation, including atoms and their constituent particles. Such an approach fails to address the celebrated author Douglas Adams' famous "ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything."
Over the last several years the information revolution has been complemented by an increase in data about the construction of the universe. As a result there is now a general consensus that what was traditionally called the universe is only a member of an infinite set of all possible worlds collectively known as the multiverse. Recently physicist and string theorist Leonard Susskind added the word megaverse to refer to those worlds in the multiverse which are actualized.
Given this enormous set of worlds as fertile ground for the imagination of mankind, the metaphysical and the physical once again have embraced, at least briefly, and have perhaps made a temporary truce. The ground of being is no longer terra firma, it shifts and sways to the beatnik strains of the meta-mega-physicalist.
Dr. George Ryazanov is a Russian physicist with a strong interest in unifying a vision of physics and metaphysics in a grand synthesis he calls the syncretic science of the future. Ryazanov's ideas are rooted in the concept of the opposition of coincident objects, in particular the symmetry of two signs of time. Two signs of time refer to advanced information processing from the future, and retarded information processing from the past. Many years ago Ryazanov experienced a metaphysical visitation and was inspired to recreate an old idea originally attributed to the renowned physicist Richard Feynman, but with a twist.
In Ryazanov's version, two worlds, one reaching backwards in time from the future, and the other reaching forwards from the past, shake hands together and co-evolve the present moment. Welcome to your future self. The past is no longer fixed, but mutable.
For Seth Lloyd, the physical universe is the ultimate computer, performing at the limit of all possible computations.
In Lloyd's worldview, the quantum universe works like an enormously powerful computer. We live in a quantum universe, under absolute quantum rule. There is a small problem, one that Lloyd is still considering in the new light of his information revolution. Einstein's legacy, of space and time bending and curving, of black holes and wormholes cutting through vastly separated regions and times, has yet to fully yield to the quantum kingdom. There appears to be room, at the end of the universe, for a menu that derives ultimate meaning from the final thought of our future self.
The problem that Einstein struggled with in the last years of his life, has been known to give modern superstring theorists headaches: What connects the ultimate shape and motion of the largest and smallest things in the universe? Lloyd expects that this difficult problem may ultimately yield to the power of quantum information theory.
When we consider the whole shebang; when we ask the ultimate question of "life, the universe, and everything," the answer is not likely to be 42 (the answer supplied by Adam's fictional 'deep thought' computer).
As soon as we move beyond the merely computational realms of matter and energy, we find our existence to be strongly affected by what are called emergent properties. Emergent properties evolve into semantics, and semantics form the basis of the metaphysical language of which magical properties are most fond. There is a semantic barrier that determining the demarcation line between physics built upon ideas of matter and energy, and the next level of a more powerful and exotic physics of the mind.
The closer one moves to this new physics, as in the future shaking hands with the past, the closer one comes to the idea that "life, the universe, and everything" are part of a vast living simulation: the ultimate computer game.
Welcome home, you live in "The Matrix."
Are we living in a simulated world? MIT Professor Set Lloyd argues that there is no difference between a simulated world in a quantum computer, and the real thing, given enough computational resources. This is simple enough to understand at the basic level given that bits are bits (or qu-bits, in their quantum version) and that a universal computer (such as the universe, or multiverse of universes) can perfectly recreate any computation possible in any other computer (or universe!)
Somewhere, it is thought, there must be an interface between these very different levels of the world. How do we reconcile the fundamental computational power of the universe, based as it is on the interaction of matter and energy in motion, with the power of emergent phenomena: emotion, thought, and the semantics of life as the language of being?
There are suggestions, at different ends of the theoretical world, purely speculative but worthy of exploration.
One is born of the language of superstring theory; the world is swept out in various dimensions, and writes in what physicists call membranes, or just branes. These branes form brane worlds, and they may be floating in a higher dimensional space, side by side, as parallel universes.
Another is born of the language of biology; there are structures in the brain, called microtubules, and that these form tiny living quantum computing circuits that are coupled to the shape-structure of space and time.
For the physicist, the parallel sheets of the theoretical world-branes are layers of realities, and should exist independently of one another, apart from gravitons, particles of gravity, that escape into the higher dimensional bulk in which the brane-worlds are thought to be embedded. One may construct a plausible theory of inter-brane communication (presumably via gravity waves passing through the brane layers) in order to predict strange interactions between conscious observers.
Even Dr. Brian Greene, the highly visible physics theorist featured a few years ago in a PBS series on superstring theory, was willing to speculate on the idea of inter-brane 'telephone' communications with other intelligent entities. These extra-dimensional denizens might exist invisible to our world, living within some of the other branes.
Gravity has long been imagined to be related to the emergence of consciousness. One of the most recent appeals to a gravitational influence in conscious thought was championed by Sir Roger Penrose, the famous mathematical physicist, in collaboration with Dr. Stuart Hameroff, an anesthesiologist interested in brain function. The combination of a gravitational selection principle, guiding the protein conformations (the shape of these structures) in the brain's microtubules, together with the world-brane sheet construction, paints a picture of brains in other brane-worlds yielding the power to influence human thought.
Is this not the requirement for a theory of strong 'telepathic' influence, like the weird mind-bending effects reported by scientists studying phenomenology at Utah's Skinwalker Ranch?
I wrote to Dr. Hameroff an inquired if he knew of anyone exploring these possibilities. He replied, "... it is my impression that Penrose believes branes derive from more fundamental spacetime geometry which he is dealing with ... maybe a topic for Quantum Mind 3 in 2007."
If our universe is a brane to brain sandwich, then what are the ultimate implications? Consider the brane world layer. From existing experiments we know that each brane world must be less than one tenth of a millimeter from the next brane as they float in the higher dimensions. Gravity propagates at the speed of light. If the brane-world picture is correct, near the space of our planet a vast section of brane worlds exist.
Somewhere amongst the vast brane-world set, it is likely that a vast, planetary scale super-computing network exists.
As Nick Bostrom, a world-class philosopher at Oxford has pointed out, "Even a single planetary-sized computer, constructed with advanced molecular nanotechnology, could simulate the entire mental history of humankind by using less than one millionth of its computing power for one second; and this presupposes only already known computational mechanisms and engineering principles." This means that the universe might be expected to be populated by countless simulations of reality.
Information about our world travels into the bulk of the brane-worlds in the form of extremely weak gravity waves. However in the Penrose process that was invoked for consciousness selection, the conformation of the brain microtubules is determined by quantum superposition of different spacetime geometries. One would expect that nature makes a choice, and perhaps nature may be biased by brane-worlds coupled to the human brain matter that produces the emergent conscious thought of a living sentient being.
If this were true, then living systems would no longer be limited to the confines of a single universe, along with the computational limits calculated by Seth Lloyd. The ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything may be a lot bigger than was ever thought possible.
Welcome to the 21st century gone wild:
An imaginary but also very real world that exists inside a matrix; a vast living simulated existence, coupled directly into a semantic control network -- a layered net of multiple parallel universes simulating individual perceptions.
And we would not be alone for the ride. The control network is layered, and hierarchical. A certain ultra-terrestrial 'MAJIC' pervades this universe, one of interacting subsystems and emergent self-reflecting features.
There are several different ways of looking at this fundamental scenario.
Although they differ in essential details, they have the same basic simulation argument in common. The primary message that emerges from this line of reasoning is that the human species is not the ultimate arbiter of what happens to planet Earth, or even of human thought. There are other forces moving through the planet determining the fate of our race. They appear to be of such intelligence and act with such powerful anticipatory foresight as to simulate the appearance of working outside of space and time.
In fact, they appear for all practical purposes to be shaking hands with us from our future.
In exploring the many 'human-centric' simulation options, we find:
Those of a religious basis, forming an hierarchy of heavenly beings, of a non-material nature.
Psychological paraphysical options, with subconscious mental undercurrents clashing amongst various populations and their non-compatible belief systems.
The problem of interference from an advanced civilization, or multiple civilizations with vastly superior mental abilities.
The sub-anthropic idea of Gato-Rivera, that we are a protected species and Earth is a planet owned by a more advanced civilization.
Interference between parallel universes, alternative realities that for some reason have interacted with each other and continue to do so, if intermittently.
Conspiratorial models involving human beings and higher intelligence agents working hand in alien hand to direct human events for unearthly agendas.
So we must ask ourselves once again: Are we living in a simulated world?
Nick Bostrom says a single planetary-sized computer could simulate the entire mental history of humankind by using less than one millionth of its computing power for one second.
MIT Professor Set Lloyd argues that there is no difference between a simulated world in a quantum computer, and the real thing.
Gary S. Bekkum is an independent 'occasional' rogue journalist & web author, and researcher of material that blurs the distinction between fiction and reality. In 2004 Bekkum initiated Starstream Research, as an informal survey of exotic physics and consciousness concepts related to the survival or otherwise of the human race.
__._,_.___
Reply to sender | Reply to group
By Gary S. Bekkum
Source: Starstream Research (the blog owner does not hold the copyright for this work, of which the author is unrelated to this project)
Does the future reach backwards to determine the past?
The reasonable answer is no, at least not in the material universe around us.
For conscious sentient intelligent beings, the answer isn't so simple. The CIA STAR GATE documents prove that the U.S. Government would like to know more about the day after tomorrow.
Now we may know why.
Many years ago I was thinking about the best way to explain weird metaphysical phenomenology and the psychology beneath our experience of the future, and concluded that a coherent explanation must involve a model of the physics of information. It also happened that around the same time period, a mini revolution was taking place in physics and information in the form of quantum information theory.
Traditional systems of applied metaphysics typically involve highly developed and complex landscapes of characters, forms, and emotions interacting under strictly controlled protocols. This is sometimes reduced in description to the word "ritual" with attendant meanings open to interpretation.
Information theorist Seth Lloyd, an MIT expert in quantum computing, in a recent discussion at www.edge.org , stated that, "Many of the systems we regard as processing information, particularly sophisticated ones, have a notion of correspondence of a message with something else ... I regard those as emergent features that we can only ascribe to objects like living things, or perhaps to life itself. Those emergent features are very important. However, it is possible for a system to register information without that information having some kind of semantic meaning."
Seth Lloyd has been exploring the ultimate limits of computation. Lloyd's explorations are extremely important for our understanding of the fundamental role of information and quantum mechanics in the operation of the universe, where everything that exists can be viewed as performing a computation, including atoms and their constituent particles. Such an approach fails to address the celebrated author Douglas Adams' famous "ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything."
Over the last several years the information revolution has been complemented by an increase in data about the construction of the universe. As a result there is now a general consensus that what was traditionally called the universe is only a member of an infinite set of all possible worlds collectively known as the multiverse. Recently physicist and string theorist Leonard Susskind added the word megaverse to refer to those worlds in the multiverse which are actualized.
Given this enormous set of worlds as fertile ground for the imagination of mankind, the metaphysical and the physical once again have embraced, at least briefly, and have perhaps made a temporary truce. The ground of being is no longer terra firma, it shifts and sways to the beatnik strains of the meta-mega-physicalist.
Dr. George Ryazanov is a Russian physicist with a strong interest in unifying a vision of physics and metaphysics in a grand synthesis he calls the syncretic science of the future. Ryazanov's ideas are rooted in the concept of the opposition of coincident objects, in particular the symmetry of two signs of time. Two signs of time refer to advanced information processing from the future, and retarded information processing from the past. Many years ago Ryazanov experienced a metaphysical visitation and was inspired to recreate an old idea originally attributed to the renowned physicist Richard Feynman, but with a twist.
In Ryazanov's version, two worlds, one reaching backwards in time from the future, and the other reaching forwards from the past, shake hands together and co-evolve the present moment. Welcome to your future self. The past is no longer fixed, but mutable.
For Seth Lloyd, the physical universe is the ultimate computer, performing at the limit of all possible computations.
In Lloyd's worldview, the quantum universe works like an enormously powerful computer. We live in a quantum universe, under absolute quantum rule. There is a small problem, one that Lloyd is still considering in the new light of his information revolution. Einstein's legacy, of space and time bending and curving, of black holes and wormholes cutting through vastly separated regions and times, has yet to fully yield to the quantum kingdom. There appears to be room, at the end of the universe, for a menu that derives ultimate meaning from the final thought of our future self.
The problem that Einstein struggled with in the last years of his life, has been known to give modern superstring theorists headaches: What connects the ultimate shape and motion of the largest and smallest things in the universe? Lloyd expects that this difficult problem may ultimately yield to the power of quantum information theory.
When we consider the whole shebang; when we ask the ultimate question of "life, the universe, and everything," the answer is not likely to be 42 (the answer supplied by Adam's fictional 'deep thought' computer).
As soon as we move beyond the merely computational realms of matter and energy, we find our existence to be strongly affected by what are called emergent properties. Emergent properties evolve into semantics, and semantics form the basis of the metaphysical language of which magical properties are most fond. There is a semantic barrier that determining the demarcation line between physics built upon ideas of matter and energy, and the next level of a more powerful and exotic physics of the mind.
The closer one moves to this new physics, as in the future shaking hands with the past, the closer one comes to the idea that "life, the universe, and everything" are part of a vast living simulation: the ultimate computer game.
Welcome home, you live in "The Matrix."
Are we living in a simulated world? MIT Professor Set Lloyd argues that there is no difference between a simulated world in a quantum computer, and the real thing, given enough computational resources. This is simple enough to understand at the basic level given that bits are bits (or qu-bits, in their quantum version) and that a universal computer (such as the universe, or multiverse of universes) can perfectly recreate any computation possible in any other computer (or universe!)
Somewhere, it is thought, there must be an interface between these very different levels of the world. How do we reconcile the fundamental computational power of the universe, based as it is on the interaction of matter and energy in motion, with the power of emergent phenomena: emotion, thought, and the semantics of life as the language of being?
There are suggestions, at different ends of the theoretical world, purely speculative but worthy of exploration.
One is born of the language of superstring theory; the world is swept out in various dimensions, and writes in what physicists call membranes, or just branes. These branes form brane worlds, and they may be floating in a higher dimensional space, side by side, as parallel universes.
Another is born of the language of biology; there are structures in the brain, called microtubules, and that these form tiny living quantum computing circuits that are coupled to the shape-structure of space and time.
For the physicist, the parallel sheets of the theoretical world-branes are layers of realities, and should exist independently of one another, apart from gravitons, particles of gravity, that escape into the higher dimensional bulk in which the brane-worlds are thought to be embedded. One may construct a plausible theory of inter-brane communication (presumably via gravity waves passing through the brane layers) in order to predict strange interactions between conscious observers.
Even Dr. Brian Greene, the highly visible physics theorist featured a few years ago in a PBS series on superstring theory, was willing to speculate on the idea of inter-brane 'telephone' communications with other intelligent entities. These extra-dimensional denizens might exist invisible to our world, living within some of the other branes.
Gravity has long been imagined to be related to the emergence of consciousness. One of the most recent appeals to a gravitational influence in conscious thought was championed by Sir Roger Penrose, the famous mathematical physicist, in collaboration with Dr. Stuart Hameroff, an anesthesiologist interested in brain function. The combination of a gravitational selection principle, guiding the protein conformations (the shape of these structures) in the brain's microtubules, together with the world-brane sheet construction, paints a picture of brains in other brane-worlds yielding the power to influence human thought.
Is this not the requirement for a theory of strong 'telepathic' influence, like the weird mind-bending effects reported by scientists studying phenomenology at Utah's Skinwalker Ranch?
I wrote to Dr. Hameroff an inquired if he knew of anyone exploring these possibilities. He replied, "... it is my impression that Penrose believes branes derive from more fundamental spacetime geometry which he is dealing with ... maybe a topic for Quantum Mind 3 in 2007."
If our universe is a brane to brain sandwich, then what are the ultimate implications? Consider the brane world layer. From existing experiments we know that each brane world must be less than one tenth of a millimeter from the next brane as they float in the higher dimensions. Gravity propagates at the speed of light. If the brane-world picture is correct, near the space of our planet a vast section of brane worlds exist.
Somewhere amongst the vast brane-world set, it is likely that a vast, planetary scale super-computing network exists.
As Nick Bostrom, a world-class philosopher at Oxford has pointed out, "Even a single planetary-sized computer, constructed with advanced molecular nanotechnology, could simulate the entire mental history of humankind by using less than one millionth of its computing power for one second; and this presupposes only already known computational mechanisms and engineering principles." This means that the universe might be expected to be populated by countless simulations of reality.
Information about our world travels into the bulk of the brane-worlds in the form of extremely weak gravity waves. However in the Penrose process that was invoked for consciousness selection, the conformation of the brain microtubules is determined by quantum superposition of different spacetime geometries. One would expect that nature makes a choice, and perhaps nature may be biased by brane-worlds coupled to the human brain matter that produces the emergent conscious thought of a living sentient being.
If this were true, then living systems would no longer be limited to the confines of a single universe, along with the computational limits calculated by Seth Lloyd. The ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything may be a lot bigger than was ever thought possible.
Welcome to the 21st century gone wild:
An imaginary but also very real world that exists inside a matrix; a vast living simulated existence, coupled directly into a semantic control network -- a layered net of multiple parallel universes simulating individual perceptions.
And we would not be alone for the ride. The control network is layered, and hierarchical. A certain ultra-terrestrial 'MAJIC' pervades this universe, one of interacting subsystems and emergent self-reflecting features.
There are several different ways of looking at this fundamental scenario.
Although they differ in essential details, they have the same basic simulation argument in common. The primary message that emerges from this line of reasoning is that the human species is not the ultimate arbiter of what happens to planet Earth, or even of human thought. There are other forces moving through the planet determining the fate of our race. They appear to be of such intelligence and act with such powerful anticipatory foresight as to simulate the appearance of working outside of space and time.
In fact, they appear for all practical purposes to be shaking hands with us from our future.
In exploring the many 'human-centric' simulation options, we find:
Those of a religious basis, forming an hierarchy of heavenly beings, of a non-material nature.
Psychological paraphysical options, with subconscious mental undercurrents clashing amongst various populations and their non-compatible belief systems.
The problem of interference from an advanced civilization, or multiple civilizations with vastly superior mental abilities.
The sub-anthropic idea of Gato-Rivera, that we are a protected species and Earth is a planet owned by a more advanced civilization.
Interference between parallel universes, alternative realities that for some reason have interacted with each other and continue to do so, if intermittently.
Conspiratorial models involving human beings and higher intelligence agents working hand in alien hand to direct human events for unearthly agendas.
So we must ask ourselves once again: Are we living in a simulated world?
Nick Bostrom says a single planetary-sized computer could simulate the entire mental history of humankind by using less than one millionth of its computing power for one second.
MIT Professor Set Lloyd argues that there is no difference between a simulated world in a quantum computer, and the real thing.
Gary S. Bekkum is an independent 'occasional' rogue journalist & web author, and researcher of material that blurs the distinction between fiction and reality. In 2004 Bekkum initiated Starstream Research, as an informal survey of exotic physics and consciousness concepts related to the survival or otherwise of the human race.
__._,_.___
Reply to sender | Reply to group
Wednesday, 21 October 2009
Should anti-fascists be thankful for Nick Griffin for at least being honestly and unashameably Nazi , thus bringing those who secretly share his views
Politically speaking , Griffin and his followers don't really add anything constructive to the debate- in fact on some issues such as immigration the likes of him actually stifle free speech by linking perfectly legitimate concerns with jealousy and hatred.
If he actually DID speak up for poor white people , whose very real problems are often overlooked in this rather too PC world , I'd have considerable sympathy for him, but let's face it he's more concerned with those who feel that "coloured" neighbours devalue their houses. Whatever their skintone , poor whites are simply not "white" enough for the BNP - the words "white trash" , "chav" and "wigger" spring to mind. For those in real poverty and need , people can't afford to be choosy about what their friends and neighbours LOOK like , even what they call God, the fact that they are kind people willing to lend a hand is good enough. Working class and lower middle class people will all have ethnic minority friends, most will have relations , including blood relatives , from a different race or religion too.
The ocean liner and jet plane have affected the genetics of the local people - not an issue concerning politics but technology. It's interesting to know that Western science is based heavily upon the Arabic mathmatical system and their mediterreanian neighbours, the Greeks.
What Griffin does represent is those with ugly attitudes- the proverb that "Jealousy Is The Root Of All Evil" is a very true one. The BNP represent the jealous, it's as simple as that. Basically, "we are more deserving than them".
The chances of a BNP-led government are practically zilch , and even as a minor coalition partner would be very unlikely. Strip away the slogans , the fear and the hate and there's few policies which would be practical or even legal by generally accepted standards of international law.
Whilst a lot of people dislike the organisation for stirring up community tensions and blighting the lives of the ordinary people (damage to local amenities and jobs etc) , rather like the Irish sectarian groups , few regard such a fringe outfit as a real threat. What is a threat to the lives and livelyhoods of ordinary Brits are those who, whilst not members or supporters , share the Nazis' ideals and DO hold positions of power via nonelected yet "executive" posts.
In Roman times , it was quite common for senior Empire figures to employ children for the purposes of sexual gratification. Whilst today's population would look on this with horror, it wasn't considered immoral at the time. The practise of "Sodomy" mentioned and condemmed in the Bible and other religious texts concerned this type of behavour as opposed to consensual forms of homosexuality.
Linked in to the racism of modern day European far-right sympathisers is a barely disguised fear , distrust and contempt for women. Women are different to men, and that scares some of them. They see wives as either property or harlots trying to take property from them. It's back to the jealousy - we're talking about the materialistic people who regard wealth, social status and physical beauty as more important than friendship and family. Traditionally, and partly due to the biogical differences between the sexes, the men have been the "breadwinners". Men have excelled, for example in fields such as technology, whereas women have generally proved themselves better at managing inter-personal relationships. The best way I could describe this is "Men can read maps, Women can ask for directions". Of course no human is biologically all male or all female, Both sexes have faults - the main one with women is bitchyness , with men it's violence. One of my favourite "creation myths" is that God made man and woman so that only in union and harmony together could they rise to the level of godlyness.
Whether a society is matriarchal or patriarchal doesn't make that much difference- what does is that society is sexually balanced with neither sex dominating. From a business and economic point of view there are problems with either male OR female domination , because the input of both sexes are equally important for the holy grail of sustainable enterprise. The problem with the male domination of the Victorian era has been the lack of sustainability in economic growth- that is economic advancement with no environmental or human cost.
The major issue concerning far-right politics essentially concerns women's emancipation and the sexist male's wounded ego- the refusal to let the ladies take the wheel however bad the gentleman is driving. The more mature people know that some situations need the competitive spirit , technical know how and brute strength of the male, whilst others require the negotiating ability , compassion and spitituality of the female. On the latter, many men are scared of the spiritual abilities of the opposite sex, which was very much demonstrated by the Puritan persecution of "witches". It's not confined to Christianity either- sadly some supposedly Muslim countries continue that tradition. A male dominated society doesn't benefit men, just the few rich and powerful ones who are good at amassing wealth and weaponary but little else. The biggest losers from sexism are men.
One of the problems with this Victorian technology based society has been the issue of the theory of evolution. Whilst the works of Darwin have benefitted many areas of science , especially medicine, to me it's a case of a little knowledge is dangerous. What happened in the Germany of the 1930s , and the Russian communist society of the same era , was the "Darwinian" values being applied without the full picture being considered. Essentially, by breaking down human existance into purely materialistic terms of survival, morality is written out of the equasion. A lot of "credible" scientists make the mistake of ignoring the spirit and love - if these elephants in the living room are written out of the story , the evolutionary system is perverted and rather than evolving into more complex life forms, we become essentially viruses rather than sentient beings. A purely individualistic "survival of the fittest" model would , taken to the extreme , actually lead to lifeforms evolving into the highly robust but not particularly interesting single-celled organisms. There is no difference whatsoever between the intellect of a solitary human being and an ape - what differentiates us is our superior ability to work as a team. That being said, other forms of ape are a lot more in touch with nature than humans are. This again shows the danger of mankinds obsession with the masculine world of technology.
The jealousy aside, what the BNP also represent is nostalgia for this Victorian age of discovery and innovation. The problem is that in victorian times this worldview was new- it might not have been 100% correct- but was an improvement of what went before it.
There's no small c conservative martyrs. Whilst those with a conservative outlook can offer the human race much, sometimes helping us remember that modern is not always best and some timeless values are better than fashion fads, conservatism isn't anything worth dying for. King Canute, despite his protests couldn't stop the tide- nailing yourself to the values of the past results in death. The true survivors are those able to adapt to the ever changing world.
Sadly for Britain , our economic and cultural process is being hindered by members of the white male establishment who are stubbenly refusing to let go of the era when the white man was king of the world. I've nothing against white men whatsoever, being male and more caucasian than any other "racial" grouping. What I am not is arrogant about the achievements of white men, even Christian men. Just because large parts of the developing world are economically poorer than the EU or North America, certainly doesn't mean we should discount them. It is a hard lesson from history that pride really does come before a fall. Nor should we be hostile to all aspects of foreign religions such as Islam or Buddhism - certainly it is right to oppose barbaric and oppresive phony religious leaders, but it is to be remembered that "Christians" led the Spanish Inquesition and the witch hunts.
The bottom line is, that whilst I can't agree with the attitudes or policies of the likes of Nick Griffin and the BNP, I do feel that he represents an outlet for all the septic puss that has for many years festered under the surface of British politics. Political correctness has in many ways silenced these voices, but has been counter productive as it has driven those voices underground rather than defeated them.
There is no place for fascism or fascist style goverment in the modern world. The follow-the-leader approach only uses a tiny percentage of the available human brainpower, thus limiting cultural, scientific and economic advancement. Also, such a model is inherently unstable as the force needed to uphold order in such a society will inevitably exceed the force the authorities are able to supply in terms of police and militia. Perhaps the greatest challenge for the democratic world at present is to ensure that the transition from dictatorship to democracy in China is as bloodless as possible. Though the Chinese live on the other side of the world, the size of the population and economy in todays "global villiage" would mean a truly global catastrophe would result from any violent political fallout.
On the positive side, the human race stands temptingly close to a golden age of long lasting peace and progress. We know that the horrors of the two world wars DID result in a vast improvement for the ordinary citizens of western Europe. But in the same way as it could be argued that WW2 didn't finish until the Berlin wall fell, the job of ridding Europe- and the wider world - of oppression was never conclusively finished. Due to the imperfection of human nature, maybe the job will never be 100% complete, but there's still one hell of a lot of room for improvement. This can only come from looking FORWARD to a "new age" rather than backwards to a supposed paradise that never actually existed.
If he actually DID speak up for poor white people , whose very real problems are often overlooked in this rather too PC world , I'd have considerable sympathy for him, but let's face it he's more concerned with those who feel that "coloured" neighbours devalue their houses. Whatever their skintone , poor whites are simply not "white" enough for the BNP - the words "white trash" , "chav" and "wigger" spring to mind. For those in real poverty and need , people can't afford to be choosy about what their friends and neighbours LOOK like , even what they call God, the fact that they are kind people willing to lend a hand is good enough. Working class and lower middle class people will all have ethnic minority friends, most will have relations , including blood relatives , from a different race or religion too.
The ocean liner and jet plane have affected the genetics of the local people - not an issue concerning politics but technology. It's interesting to know that Western science is based heavily upon the Arabic mathmatical system and their mediterreanian neighbours, the Greeks.
What Griffin does represent is those with ugly attitudes- the proverb that "Jealousy Is The Root Of All Evil" is a very true one. The BNP represent the jealous, it's as simple as that. Basically, "we are more deserving than them".
The chances of a BNP-led government are practically zilch , and even as a minor coalition partner would be very unlikely. Strip away the slogans , the fear and the hate and there's few policies which would be practical or even legal by generally accepted standards of international law.
Whilst a lot of people dislike the organisation for stirring up community tensions and blighting the lives of the ordinary people (damage to local amenities and jobs etc) , rather like the Irish sectarian groups , few regard such a fringe outfit as a real threat. What is a threat to the lives and livelyhoods of ordinary Brits are those who, whilst not members or supporters , share the Nazis' ideals and DO hold positions of power via nonelected yet "executive" posts.
In Roman times , it was quite common for senior Empire figures to employ children for the purposes of sexual gratification. Whilst today's population would look on this with horror, it wasn't considered immoral at the time. The practise of "Sodomy" mentioned and condemmed in the Bible and other religious texts concerned this type of behavour as opposed to consensual forms of homosexuality.
Linked in to the racism of modern day European far-right sympathisers is a barely disguised fear , distrust and contempt for women. Women are different to men, and that scares some of them. They see wives as either property or harlots trying to take property from them. It's back to the jealousy - we're talking about the materialistic people who regard wealth, social status and physical beauty as more important than friendship and family. Traditionally, and partly due to the biogical differences between the sexes, the men have been the "breadwinners". Men have excelled, for example in fields such as technology, whereas women have generally proved themselves better at managing inter-personal relationships. The best way I could describe this is "Men can read maps, Women can ask for directions". Of course no human is biologically all male or all female, Both sexes have faults - the main one with women is bitchyness , with men it's violence. One of my favourite "creation myths" is that God made man and woman so that only in union and harmony together could they rise to the level of godlyness.
Whether a society is matriarchal or patriarchal doesn't make that much difference- what does is that society is sexually balanced with neither sex dominating. From a business and economic point of view there are problems with either male OR female domination , because the input of both sexes are equally important for the holy grail of sustainable enterprise. The problem with the male domination of the Victorian era has been the lack of sustainability in economic growth- that is economic advancement with no environmental or human cost.
The major issue concerning far-right politics essentially concerns women's emancipation and the sexist male's wounded ego- the refusal to let the ladies take the wheel however bad the gentleman is driving. The more mature people know that some situations need the competitive spirit , technical know how and brute strength of the male, whilst others require the negotiating ability , compassion and spitituality of the female. On the latter, many men are scared of the spiritual abilities of the opposite sex, which was very much demonstrated by the Puritan persecution of "witches". It's not confined to Christianity either- sadly some supposedly Muslim countries continue that tradition. A male dominated society doesn't benefit men, just the few rich and powerful ones who are good at amassing wealth and weaponary but little else. The biggest losers from sexism are men.
One of the problems with this Victorian technology based society has been the issue of the theory of evolution. Whilst the works of Darwin have benefitted many areas of science , especially medicine, to me it's a case of a little knowledge is dangerous. What happened in the Germany of the 1930s , and the Russian communist society of the same era , was the "Darwinian" values being applied without the full picture being considered. Essentially, by breaking down human existance into purely materialistic terms of survival, morality is written out of the equasion. A lot of "credible" scientists make the mistake of ignoring the spirit and love - if these elephants in the living room are written out of the story , the evolutionary system is perverted and rather than evolving into more complex life forms, we become essentially viruses rather than sentient beings. A purely individualistic "survival of the fittest" model would , taken to the extreme , actually lead to lifeforms evolving into the highly robust but not particularly interesting single-celled organisms. There is no difference whatsoever between the intellect of a solitary human being and an ape - what differentiates us is our superior ability to work as a team. That being said, other forms of ape are a lot more in touch with nature than humans are. This again shows the danger of mankinds obsession with the masculine world of technology.
The jealousy aside, what the BNP also represent is nostalgia for this Victorian age of discovery and innovation. The problem is that in victorian times this worldview was new- it might not have been 100% correct- but was an improvement of what went before it.
There's no small c conservative martyrs. Whilst those with a conservative outlook can offer the human race much, sometimes helping us remember that modern is not always best and some timeless values are better than fashion fads, conservatism isn't anything worth dying for. King Canute, despite his protests couldn't stop the tide- nailing yourself to the values of the past results in death. The true survivors are those able to adapt to the ever changing world.
Sadly for Britain , our economic and cultural process is being hindered by members of the white male establishment who are stubbenly refusing to let go of the era when the white man was king of the world. I've nothing against white men whatsoever, being male and more caucasian than any other "racial" grouping. What I am not is arrogant about the achievements of white men, even Christian men. Just because large parts of the developing world are economically poorer than the EU or North America, certainly doesn't mean we should discount them. It is a hard lesson from history that pride really does come before a fall. Nor should we be hostile to all aspects of foreign religions such as Islam or Buddhism - certainly it is right to oppose barbaric and oppresive phony religious leaders, but it is to be remembered that "Christians" led the Spanish Inquesition and the witch hunts.
The bottom line is, that whilst I can't agree with the attitudes or policies of the likes of Nick Griffin and the BNP, I do feel that he represents an outlet for all the septic puss that has for many years festered under the surface of British politics. Political correctness has in many ways silenced these voices, but has been counter productive as it has driven those voices underground rather than defeated them.
There is no place for fascism or fascist style goverment in the modern world. The follow-the-leader approach only uses a tiny percentage of the available human brainpower, thus limiting cultural, scientific and economic advancement. Also, such a model is inherently unstable as the force needed to uphold order in such a society will inevitably exceed the force the authorities are able to supply in terms of police and militia. Perhaps the greatest challenge for the democratic world at present is to ensure that the transition from dictatorship to democracy in China is as bloodless as possible. Though the Chinese live on the other side of the world, the size of the population and economy in todays "global villiage" would mean a truly global catastrophe would result from any violent political fallout.
On the positive side, the human race stands temptingly close to a golden age of long lasting peace and progress. We know that the horrors of the two world wars DID result in a vast improvement for the ordinary citizens of western Europe. But in the same way as it could be argued that WW2 didn't finish until the Berlin wall fell, the job of ridding Europe- and the wider world - of oppression was never conclusively finished. Due to the imperfection of human nature, maybe the job will never be 100% complete, but there's still one hell of a lot of room for improvement. This can only come from looking FORWARD to a "new age" rather than backwards to a supposed paradise that never actually existed.
Monday, 12 October 2009
Letter to press: Disabled people have once again found themselves as second class citizens - let's end this!
Sir,
As has happened many times before, the major parties have promised to "get tough" on those claiming sickness and disability benefits. Sadly, just like before , no-one has bothered to ask those on such benefits what they themselves would like to help them become more self sufficent. In fact whilst they're very happy to listen to what the tabloid editors have to say on this issue, the ministers at the DWP do not feel that either those affected or their advocates are important enought to merit a personal reply.
The issue of welfare dependency comes from two social pressures. One is the demand for individual personal economic responsibility. Disabled people are able to achieve as much as any member of society but not on their own- their success depends on a team effort, with other team members compensating for the "holes" in their abilities. A great example of this is the family- however to some politicians "family" only means a middle-class suburban couple with 2.4 children. The small business is another such of these- again governments have been too happy to let these be choked by large corporates which due to their size lack the crucial flexibility for full disabled employment.
The other social pressure is pressure to conform and be normal- take a look though the average supermarket magazine section and you'd be forgiven for thinking that only a handful of people lived in Britain, all with perfect bodies and minds. Disabled people can achieve both happiness and success, but many will never be anything approaching "normal" - it is very sad that today's world would rather see the disabled person as a "second class" normal than a "first class" individual.
As a child, one of my favourite pop singers was Stevie Wonder, who overcame a serious handicap to become a household name. Something that Stevie had was "soul" - the ability to speak or sing from the heart. A lot of supposedly "perfect" people, caged by their public image , lack this.
As has happened many times before, the major parties have promised to "get tough" on those claiming sickness and disability benefits. Sadly, just like before , no-one has bothered to ask those on such benefits what they themselves would like to help them become more self sufficent. In fact whilst they're very happy to listen to what the tabloid editors have to say on this issue, the ministers at the DWP do not feel that either those affected or their advocates are important enought to merit a personal reply.
The issue of welfare dependency comes from two social pressures. One is the demand for individual personal economic responsibility. Disabled people are able to achieve as much as any member of society but not on their own- their success depends on a team effort, with other team members compensating for the "holes" in their abilities. A great example of this is the family- however to some politicians "family" only means a middle-class suburban couple with 2.4 children. The small business is another such of these- again governments have been too happy to let these be choked by large corporates which due to their size lack the crucial flexibility for full disabled employment.
The other social pressure is pressure to conform and be normal- take a look though the average supermarket magazine section and you'd be forgiven for thinking that only a handful of people lived in Britain, all with perfect bodies and minds. Disabled people can achieve both happiness and success, but many will never be anything approaching "normal" - it is very sad that today's world would rather see the disabled person as a "second class" normal than a "first class" individual.
As a child, one of my favourite pop singers was Stevie Wonder, who overcame a serious handicap to become a household name. Something that Stevie had was "soul" - the ability to speak or sing from the heart. A lot of supposedly "perfect" people, caged by their public image , lack this.
Thursday, 8 October 2009
Victorian Values? Some burning issues concening England, America , China , Capitalism and Democracy
Can't help thinking that we in the West have not shown the best example to our Chinese cousins. A regime based on a "free market" economy can take two forms, the first being Christian Democracy, the second Fascism. Both the UK and USA have been known to favour regimes with more pro-Western big business economies over those which have promoted first and foremost the rule of law and human rights. From a purely business point of view the fascistic model will produce the largest amount of produce at the cheapest price, whereas the democratic model tends to produce higher quality and more genuinely useful products and services. Democracy is essential for high standards of trade due to the better workplace i.e. "trade pride" and market-friendly as opposed to cartel-friendly legal system.
If you are teaching a new player a sport, is it not best to demonstrate how the game can be both enjoyed and won by fair play, creativity and effort rather than by cheating and bullying. Maybe, in our rush to show the Chinese how to play the capitalist game, what we have shown this great nation is how to cheat!
From female inferiority to white supremacy to incredible sexual repression and hypocracy, some people really do believe that we're still in the 19th century.
Sure, many great thinks happened to Britain in Victorian times. But in those days such ideas were new and radical, now they are hopelessly outdated - our ancestors were THEN forward thinking , whilst those who share their outlook in modern times are BACKWARDS thinking.
Many love to slate the socialism and liberalism of the "postwar" society- the word to look at is "post". Due to the many flaws in our predecessors' theories concerning of sociology, economy and even biology the planet ended up trashed and millions of people, along with irreplaceable works of science and art, killed. Put simply , the reasons humanity gave up on pre-war values was because they lead to war, simple as that. Nostalgia is great fun, but it largely belongs in a museum. Keep the timeless values of humanity, yes, the academic fashion fads of yesteryear, no! Britain should remember that!
If you are teaching a new player a sport, is it not best to demonstrate how the game can be both enjoyed and won by fair play, creativity and effort rather than by cheating and bullying. Maybe, in our rush to show the Chinese how to play the capitalist game, what we have shown this great nation is how to cheat!
From female inferiority to white supremacy to incredible sexual repression and hypocracy, some people really do believe that we're still in the 19th century.
Sure, many great thinks happened to Britain in Victorian times. But in those days such ideas were new and radical, now they are hopelessly outdated - our ancestors were THEN forward thinking , whilst those who share their outlook in modern times are BACKWARDS thinking.
Many love to slate the socialism and liberalism of the "postwar" society- the word to look at is "post". Due to the many flaws in our predecessors' theories concerning of sociology, economy and even biology the planet ended up trashed and millions of people, along with irreplaceable works of science and art, killed. Put simply , the reasons humanity gave up on pre-war values was because they lead to war, simple as that. Nostalgia is great fun, but it largely belongs in a museum. Keep the timeless values of humanity, yes, the academic fashion fads of yesteryear, no! Britain should remember that!
Wednesday, 16 September 2009
A permanent end to Boom And Bust?
Sir,
Whilst there are promising signs that there may be light at the end of the economic tunnel, Labour have sadly failed on their promise to end "boom and bust". Actually government economic policy has improved considerably since the seventies. The problem is one of outdated management, and if this is not resolved, any recovery will be short lived.
Governments that try to run businesses usually make a hash of it. However there’s two major policy reforms that could strengthen good, sustainable, business practise.
Red tape is the bane of start-up and smaller businesses. Those involved don’t have the legal and accountancy facilities of the major players, which puts them at a severe disadvantage in the marketplace.
In 1995, software giant Microsoft launched Windows 95, a product which catapulted it to the top of its league. One feature introduced, and widely copied, was the “Wizard”. This provided a simple route for novice users getting to work with the software – by limiting the choices available to common options, many people could achieve instant but usable results with almost no training.
Imagine if the government provided “business wizards” in the form of government advisors who took care of all the burocracy for the smaller enterprise, providing a free audit of issues such as health and safety , tax ,trading standards, equal opportunities and insurance requirements. Unless the issues were dangerously critical, a period of grace could be offered where the firm would be have time to address the issues without additional penalty. Feedback from these advisors would help County Hall, Westminster and Brussels pass simplified, more business-friendly legislation.
Secondly, would it not be a good idea to change the voting system of public limited company meetings from a one share per vote to an “electoral college” system consisting of one vote per share and one vote per shareholder. This would shift the balance of power in favour of long term investors such as company staff and those with an interest in the running of business. After all, the involvement of more minds is always going to mean more brainpower.
Whilst there are promising signs that there may be light at the end of the economic tunnel, Labour have sadly failed on their promise to end "boom and bust". Actually government economic policy has improved considerably since the seventies. The problem is one of outdated management, and if this is not resolved, any recovery will be short lived.
Governments that try to run businesses usually make a hash of it. However there’s two major policy reforms that could strengthen good, sustainable, business practise.
Red tape is the bane of start-up and smaller businesses. Those involved don’t have the legal and accountancy facilities of the major players, which puts them at a severe disadvantage in the marketplace.
In 1995, software giant Microsoft launched Windows 95, a product which catapulted it to the top of its league. One feature introduced, and widely copied, was the “Wizard”. This provided a simple route for novice users getting to work with the software – by limiting the choices available to common options, many people could achieve instant but usable results with almost no training.
Imagine if the government provided “business wizards” in the form of government advisors who took care of all the burocracy for the smaller enterprise, providing a free audit of issues such as health and safety , tax ,trading standards, equal opportunities and insurance requirements. Unless the issues were dangerously critical, a period of grace could be offered where the firm would be have time to address the issues without additional penalty. Feedback from these advisors would help County Hall, Westminster and Brussels pass simplified, more business-friendly legislation.
Secondly, would it not be a good idea to change the voting system of public limited company meetings from a one share per vote to an “electoral college” system consisting of one vote per share and one vote per shareholder. This would shift the balance of power in favour of long term investors such as company staff and those with an interest in the running of business. After all, the involvement of more minds is always going to mean more brainpower.
Sunday, 13 September 2009
Religious conflict and football
Consider football. A pub dominated by violent hooligan supporters of your own team, versus a pub dominated by friendly supporters of your rival team. Which would you take you wife and kids to?
I think this sums up the Christian/Jew/Muslim conflict rather well. Those who hate each other- are they really supporters of any religion - or just followers of those who like starting trouble because it gives them status they wouldn't otherwise have?
I was raised a Christian though with Jewish roots- I don't see a conflict. There's many ways that you can achieve spiritual growth, including faiths that are yet undiscovered or generally unknown. Many different fairy stories (and shakespearean plays) have different characters but the same timeless moral to them..
The more that I have read about other faiths the more I acept the teachings of my own - because those other faiths reinforce my own beliefs..
Religious works such as the Bible and Koran DO have violent passages when taken in isolation, but not in the context of the whole picture. Some like to relive these violent parts but they're not following any God - just massaging the ego of someone who wishes to gain power - i.e. men stealers.
Men stealers seek power , wealth and domination, whereas those who believe in God seek spirtitual relief or non-existance - the opposite of dominance.
A lot of those who criticise Islam talk about Jihad - it's actually very much a concept of Christianity - to fight and be prepared die for your belief. Listen to the popular Hymn onward Christian soldiers -But for YOUR belief , not the belief of some rich and powerful leader.who likes giving orders to massage his ego and line his pocket. Belief in God , or the greter good , might make you unfashionable and even hated amongst your peers- and thus a battle for snaity might ensue
The "holy war" is not against other religions or even athiests but against those who are opposed to the Kingdom of Heaven - those who put material possession above spiritual enlightenment. And as they say, the pen is mightier than the sword!
I think this sums up the Christian/Jew/Muslim conflict rather well. Those who hate each other- are they really supporters of any religion - or just followers of those who like starting trouble because it gives them status they wouldn't otherwise have?
I was raised a Christian though with Jewish roots- I don't see a conflict. There's many ways that you can achieve spiritual growth, including faiths that are yet undiscovered or generally unknown. Many different fairy stories (and shakespearean plays) have different characters but the same timeless moral to them..
The more that I have read about other faiths the more I acept the teachings of my own - because those other faiths reinforce my own beliefs..
Religious works such as the Bible and Koran DO have violent passages when taken in isolation, but not in the context of the whole picture. Some like to relive these violent parts but they're not following any God - just massaging the ego of someone who wishes to gain power - i.e. men stealers.
Men stealers seek power , wealth and domination, whereas those who believe in God seek spirtitual relief or non-existance - the opposite of dominance.
A lot of those who criticise Islam talk about Jihad - it's actually very much a concept of Christianity - to fight and be prepared die for your belief. Listen to the popular Hymn onward Christian soldiers -But for YOUR belief , not the belief of some rich and powerful leader.who likes giving orders to massage his ego and line his pocket. Belief in God , or the greter good , might make you unfashionable and even hated amongst your peers- and thus a battle for snaity might ensue
The "holy war" is not against other religions or even athiests but against those who are opposed to the Kingdom of Heaven - those who put material possession above spiritual enlightenment. And as they say, the pen is mightier than the sword!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
