Tuesday, 29 March 2011

Global Revolution

These are not just uprisings or regime changes in the Middle East. These are not just economic downturns or recessions in the West. The internet is not simply a faster, bigger, better medium. Humanity is now evolving to a higher consciousness. The interconnectivity availed by the internet is confirming and enabling people's inner beliefs that justice, equality, respect, cooperation, love, compassion and truth are real and achievable. Read more on the Global Revolution.

Sunday, 27 March 2011

Teachers can confiscate phones.

STOP PRESS: Job vacancy for Mrs Colonel Muamuamamamama Gaddafi in UK Education.

The proposed Education Bill for England will give teachers the legal right to search pupils, confiscate their phones and to look at and delete anything they deem warrants it.

I am at my wits end with the utter nonsense that is perpetually spewed out by the authoritarian mind set.

Teachers already have the right to confiscate things from children. But this proposal goes a little further than that. This proposal wants to establish the precedent in writing that if a person is a teacher (a foot soldier of the state; a sycophantic conformist who's job and personal esteem reside in their compliance with the authoritarian regime) then they "should" randomly transgress children's rights to assert and inculcate their subordination and vulnerability to the hierarchy by humiliating them and subjecting them to irreverent and offensive search procedures. The bit about the phone is irrelevant but serves as the object of the purpose to distract from the real intent. Following that is the idea that the authority can then pry into the child's personal life (via the content of the phone) and deface, vandalise and destroy their very inner secrets.

This is so utterly self contradictory and perverse that it beggars belief.

To keep this simple the only way to "teach" children is by example. It is offensive and a crime to tell children to respect other people when you have no respect for them. I know it is the way of our culture and it has to change. If teachers had respect for their pupils they would never need to confiscate stuff. If children find something else more interesting than the education they are being given then it is up to the teacher to be a little more engaging (see: Educating Children). The trick is not to force children to listen to boring garbage. In British culture even the police are not allowed to stop and search anyone with no reason. It is a mechanism of a dictatorial and controlling hierarchy and our culture asserts that it disagrees with that. It is a heinous crime to pick on the most vulnerable in our society to exercise such appalling behaviour. It is more disgusting that the children are already in an enforced imprisonment of the school.

If you think I am being unreasonable consider whether a child would chose to desert a nurturing, supportive, caring family environment. If the society is genuinely embracing children with respect and support for them and providing a fruitful education why would any child wish to leave that safe and supportive environment to expose themselves to the barren wastelands outside of society? The answer is they wouldn't. The conditions that would lead a child to running away have to be seriously self evidently destructive and cruel. That is the culture of our schools today. If the authorities are afraid that children today are less interested in school then they must look to the service being provided and not continue to pursue this Dickensian and draconian oppression of children to make them fit the authority's prejudicial view of what they want children to be.

It really isn't difficult (if you are genuine and respectful and honest) to assert that mobile phone use in the classroom is not a good idea. If someone continues to use their phone in the classroom it is not difficult to ask them to stop and in an extreme case to deal with that particular case. But a new law allowing teachers to search children with no reason (other than that they are a child and could have a mobile phone or a bomb hidden about their person) is a disgusting degradation of our already decaying culture.

I suggest the authorities grow up and learn that respect is something they should be giving to other people and especially children. I suggest that the authorities should stop acting like their own fictional, paranoid and demonic picture of children. It is the authority which is treating children in a way that they are suggesting children behave. It is the authority that is afraid of the children and so they want to turn the tables and make the children afraid of them. According to their logic we should offer Colonel Gaddafi an exit strategy from Libya in the form of a highly paid salary as advisor to the Education Authority in Britain.

I can't honestly say that this new legislation shocks me or that it is the worst thing that our government is doing. Overall it is predictable and pretty mild next to the majority of stuff they do. But I can say that not one inch of oppression is acceptable and that we all owe it to humanity to stand against oppression whenever we encounter it. So this is my stand: Sod off you irresponsible, intimidatory, control freaks and stop buggering up humanity just because you got buggered when you were little.

P.S.  Thank you to Anorak for the delightful picture of McDaffi Duck!

Saturday, 19 March 2011

Gaddafi is such a joke.

Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi is really such a pantomime figure. In fact he looks a bit like a Muppet when he is waving his fist and shouting zenga zenga in this brilliant video:

Another really cute little snip is the alternative translation provided in this video:

Oh... And if in doubt just check out http://www.isgaddafistillpresident.com/

Thursday, 17 March 2011

Authoritarian Paradigm Collapse

6000 years ago the climate changed and cause population movements which resulted in conflict. Authoritarianism was a consequence as was Newtonian Science eventually. Newtonian Science has moved on and now the emergent behaviour of the complex system that is the human cultural network is evolving too. Humans are self organising and the cascading collapse of the hierarchical authoritarian system has begun. I have written a little more detailed analysis and explanation of this on the "Authoritarian Paradigm Collapse" page. Do voice your comments and let me know what you think. We are, after all, self organising via the complex network!

Wednesday, 16 March 2011

I have seen the light!

I was looking into Sharia Law the other day and on discovering that they don't follow some dusty old book religiously but rather employ rational argument and consensus I thought I might convert to Islam.  But then I came across this remarkable video of a beautiful Christian virgin (well I assume she is saving herself for the Lord) celebrating the power of prayer.

Now I see the light.  God is good.  Jesus is the only one.  Where's that Christian church so I can convert quickly.  I just want to fall in love with this benign and peace loving all powerful God.  I'm overwhelmed by the obvious simplicity of it all.  God is good and if you want him to blast away thousands of people he'll do it for you.  Wow!  I want to be on his side (He is male isn't he?)

Bahrain has made a profound mistake.

The 16 March crackdown on the Bahrain people (see: Curfew follows deadly Bahrain crackdown) is another unacceptable episode by a bunch of rich thugs intimidating and abusing a population.  There is almost no discussion possible on this subject.  It is clear to the world that the authoritarian rulers are no less than bullies and thugs.  They promise talks and then renege on them.  They call in foreign armies to help them brutally crackdown on legitimate demonstrators.  They kill civilians, they smash up their cars, they go into hospitals and beat up the doctors and steal the injured patients away to secret locations.

On the left is an image of an x-ray of a demonstrator's abdomen.  The injured person has been shot with buckshot at close range and the chances of survival are low.  Doctors have had their arms broken to prevent them helping the injured.  This is clearly unacceptable behaviour.

Why would the US and the UK support such brutal thugs?  Well of course we know the US has a military naval fleet based there and many countries including the UK have serious interests in the oil the country has.  But they have a profound problem.  They supported the people of Tunisia and they supported the people of Egypt.  Their support was based on the horror of the overtly cruel treatment of legitimate protestors.  The idea being that we collectively do not approve of, and will not accept, brutal and cruel actions towards other human beings who are peacefully expressing their views in an attempt to overpower and control them.

So we are in a position where the consensus is clear.  Cruel oppression of other people is unacceptable.  Brutally bashing people about, killing them, imprisoning and torturing them is not something any legitimate government can accept.  This view is expressed almost unanimously around the globe.  Even brutal dictators pay lip service to this sentiment.

So the Bahraini King, Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa, has made the profound mistake of trying to hang on to power by deception and brutality.  It really doesn't matter if he succeeds in the short term now because the population are destined to continue to object.  One day they will overthrow the Al Khalifa family and it will be as clear as day that the US and the UK were supporting his regime.  This will lead to very bad relations between the countries and eventually to a strangle hold on the vital oil supplies from the Middle East in general.  Will the US and Britain and the European countries respect the "rights" of the Arab people to charge a reasonable premium amount of dosh for the oil.  Not on your Nellie.

The British people and the Americans should voice their unwavering support for the legitimate rights of the Bahraini people.  They might suffer in the short term but would be viewed well in the long term.  But no.  They are still short sighted because of their fear of the general unrest in the Middle East and their loss of control over the economic wealth of the region.

Tuesday, 15 March 2011

Well said Mr Crowley!

Philip J Crowley was the American Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs from 26 May 2009 until 13 May 2011.  His resignation was precipitated by his remark on Thursday 10 March when he said that the Pentagon's treatment of Bradley Manning was "ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid."

He took complete responsibility for the remarks saying they were his personal views and not those of the US but pointedly did not apologise for them or retract them.  He added that his comments "were intended to highlight the broader, even strategic impact of discreet actions undertaken by national security agencies every day and their impact on our global standing and leadership."

Obama, who was somewhat forced to comment on P J Crowley's comment, said "I have actually asked the Pentagon whether or not the procedures that have been taken in terms of his confinement are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards.  They assure me that they are."  That response by Obama is ridiculous in the extreme.  To turn to the people who are accused of acting illegally and to ask them if they are doing things right and to use their answer to  abdicate his responsibility is party to any illegal activity.  In fact it is arguably a crime in itself.  Imagine telling the police that Joe stole your antique clock.  The police ask Joe if he stole it and he says no.  So the police then use that to prevent you doing anything more to get your clock back.  What Obama should have done was to initiate an independent investigation into the affair.  Simples!

What Crowley is referring to is, of course, the blatant contradiction in the public political stance of supporting humanitarian values and legitimate legal due process and the actual practice of the American government.  Whilst all the unrest is growing in the Middle East the US is constantly promoting "civilised" values by condemning the practices of dictatorial regimes arresting dissenters without charge, torturing them and generally pursuing a policy of strong arm tactics to intimidate those who threaten the powerbase of the rulers.  Admittedly the US have now moved Bradley Manning to a military base in Virginia and actually charged him with some crimes but it was an unacceptable time coming.  Now they are holding him in solitary confinement and are essentially grinding him down by inhumane treatment.  The irony is that the only purpose of this illegitimate and cruel treatment is as a threat to anyone else who thinks they might be tempted to reveal the underhand, deceitful and immoral behaviour of the US.  The only way that has any effect is to let it be known that they are treating him this way.  By letting it be known they are advertising their contradictory stance on human values.  This is why Crowley says it is "ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid."  It is obviously so.

P J Crowley's statement in fact says more than most people realise.  Take the two extreme scenarios: (1) that the US are a nice bunch of folk and (2) that they are an illegitimate tyrannical bunch of thugs.  In the first scenario where they are a nice bunch then if they are treating Bradley Manning illegitimately by keeping him in solitary confinement and effectively psychologically torturing him with regimes like forcing him to sleep naked (under the pretence of concerns for his own safety) then their behaviour is not ridiculous it is erroneous.  It is not counterproductive it is illegal.  It is perhaps stupid but really it is contradictory.  If, however, the US are a bunch of thugs trying to maintain power by silencing people then their stance is ridiculous because it counters their claims of being against such behaviour in the Middle East.  It is counterproductive because the intent is to silence people and all the evidence is that it will attract attention to the illegitimate behaviour of the US and cause a rise in the commitment by people to expose the US's duplicity and deception.  It is remarkably stupid that a thug keeps himself in power by stating his commitment to human rights and then publically (with intent) lets it be known that he uses these kinds of tactics to suppress dissent.  In summary P J Crowley's remarks actually have the underlying unspoken assumption that the US are the bad guys.  Crowley himself said that Manning should be in custody.  Whether or not you agree with that he is at least claiming that there could be a legitimate case against him and that due legal process should be carried out.  Crowley himself agrees with the arguments against Manning but what he realises (perhaps even without realising it) is that the fools are evidencing their own illegitimacy by publically treating Manning in this way.  Crowley is a bit of a Judas figure in this respect because he still thinks the US government's intentions are good.  One day he might realise they are treating Manning this way deliberately.  It is their policy.  It is their mode of operation.  It is not a mistake.

One of the perennial problems facing any person or institution in a position of power is that they will eventually be held to account for their own projected values.  If the US or the UK or any number of the supposedly democratic countries around the world were really democratic they would not have to resort to heavy handed control methods to secure their power.  By so doing they are admitting that they do not really believe in the values they propound.  It is contradictory to suggest that you are representative of the populations views if you have to punitively control their views.  There is nothing wrong with Bradley Manning being charged with a crime and being duly tried and if found guilty sentenced according to the law.  If the population disagree with that law or the penalty then they will make their views known and the situation can change.  But the US administrations knows that they are not running a democracy but rather a facade in order to pacify the rather large population they are trying to control.  The threat that their deception is revealed to a wider public has to be handled rigorously or they will simply not maintain their control.  So their handling of the Bradley Manning case is overtly dictatorial and intimidatory because, in their view, they have no other choice.  The alternative would be to act according to the democratic opinion and that would inevitably have them out of power.

In summary P J Crowley has inadvertently admitted that the US administration is way out of order.  Well said Mr Crowley!