• About
  • THE BEADY EYE SAY’S : THE EUROPEAN UNION SHOULD THANK ENGLAND FOR ITS IN OR OUT REFERENDUM.

bobdillon33blog

~ Free Thinker.

bobdillon33blog

Monthly Archives: April 2022

THE BEADY ASKS; HOW DO WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE A SOUL?

28 Thursday Apr 2022

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in #whatif.com, The Soul.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY ASKS; HOW DO WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE A SOUL?

Tags

Soul., The Soul., Your Soul.

 

(Five-minute read) 

In this post, it is not my intention to argue the merits and demerits of a soul it is to ask the question – What is a soul?

Here are theories from philosophy, religion, and science, and in many religious, philosophical, and mythological traditions there is a belief in a soul as the incorporeal essence of a living being. 

The word was first attested in the 8th-century poem Beowulf.

Sometimes said to mean originally “coming from or belonging to the sea,” because that was supposed to be the stopping place of the soul before birth or after death [Barnhart]

Depending on the philosophical system, a soul can either be mortal or immortal. Meaning “spirit of a deceased person.”

There is no scientific evidence that shows that living beings have souls or that a soul has weight. We can safely say that the soul has no weight since the soul does not fit into any coordinates of our world’s time, space, and motion.

Our self-esteem is a picture of the well-being of our soul, and our emotions will let us know what kind of shape we are in. They give voice to the exchange of everything that is taking place in our pure and real experience. We feel moved by them, we feel touched. Something has reached into us and touched us at the very deepest level of our being.

If our eyes are the windows of our soul, then our emotions are the voice of our soul. They connect us to the very core of how we feel about ourselves, about others, and about life itself.

Our emotions give us the navigational information that we need in order to make decisions. They are always live and online.

So is the Soul just our emotions?

Is the soul the source of consciousness and all emotions, the originator of all emotions but it is always the chooser of how to act on emotions?

The Soul speaks to us through our emotions.

That there is no evidence of a ‘soul’ That there is no real mechanism to support the ‘soul’. So there is no rational or scientific explanation for explaining a nonsense idea that doesn’t exist.

Deepak Chopra:  ” The soul is the core of your being. It is eternal. It doesn’t exist in space/time. It’s a field of infinite possibilities, infinite creativity. It’s your internal reference point with which you should always be in touch.”

A good answer that leaves us with a lot of questions. 

What is the Soul made of or what is the nature of the Soul?

Did Christ have a human soul, and if so where is it now?  

Is the soul a life force that animates all living organisms, and which is one with the body?

Is it something immortal that could outlive the body, and which inhabits the body until death?

Has it got a weight?  Souls are not found during an autopsy. No magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has spotted a soul or the aura energy of a soul. 

Are the soul and the body distinct from each other?

Does a fetus have no soul?  

Does every living thing have a soul? 

According to the scientific definition of life, bacteria, and

individual cells are “alive.” so do bacteria, phytoplankton, ants,

and worms have souls?

                                     —————

Without Soul, there is neither existence nor life!

It has no form but has infinite energy and cannot be divided.  It is entirely whole and it cannot come and go. It is shapeless and does not exist prior to conception.

The idea that the soul is a non-material entity stuck in the material body still has a big influence on Christian thought. The soul departs the body, bound either for another life or for the afterlife.

The concept of soul is one of the many things that people use to convince themselves that humans are divine creatures unlike everything else (don’t tell them we share 99% DNA with chimps).

What is a soul to you?

Do you have your own definition?

Perhaps the soul could be best described as thought from our standpoint which includes all life.

On death, the Maori believe that the spirit travels to the Pohutukawa tree, which sits on the very tip of Cape Reinga, at the top of the North Island – as far as man may go in New Zealand. The spirit then slides down a root of the Pohutukawa, to the sea below. The spirit emerges onto Ohaua, which is the highest tip of the Three Kings Islands, for a final farewell before rejoining the ancestors. 

The Maori believe all living things have a type of soul – the wairua.

Robots are soulless, so they can never experience emotions.

                                     _______________

Finally, many bodily functions can keep going for weeks and months after they’re considered medically and legally dead.

If we are kept alive artificially or we are in a coma a “vegetative state” How long of a wait is sufficient for the soul to depart?  

For me Death is death.

Without an emotional language, our relationship with ourselves is fraught with difficulty. And yet most of us have never learned to listen to ourselves and rarely even think about our emotional health as an absolute priority….. until something goes wrong.

Can we say that, in addition to our body, there is something else that is not physical?

In the end, you cannot feel the soul present inside your being so ‘Be thyself.’

If you do so the soul will look after itself as there is nothing beyond the body which affects it.

That is the secret of Christ.

Let me know if there is something in the comments. 

Advertisement

Share this:

  • Tumblr
  • Email
  • Pocket
  • LinkedIn
  • WhatsApp
  • Telegram
  • Skype
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Reddit

Like this:

Like Loading...

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S . WE NOW HAVE TO MANY GOALS TO ACHIVE IN THE WORLD.

24 Sunday Apr 2022

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in #whatif.com, 2022: The year we need to change., Civilization., Climate Change., Earth, Environment, Green Bonds., How to do it., Human Collective Stupidity., Imagination., Money in Politics., Natural World Disasters, Our Common Values., State of the world, Sustaniability, The Obvious., The state of the World., The world to day., THE WORLD YOU LIVE IN., THIS IS THE STATE OF THE WORLD.  , We can leave a legacy worthwhile., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S . WE NOW HAVE TO MANY GOALS TO ACHIVE IN THE WORLD.

Tags

Capitalism vs. the Climate., Climate change, Distribution of wealth, The Future of Mankind, United Nations, Visions of the future.

 

(Eighteen-minute read) THE LOGOTYPE

The Global Goals are a set of universal Goals, which set out a plan to tackle the issues that affect us all, no matter where we are in the world, from climate change to health, from gender equality to peace and justice.  

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) set in 2000 are. 

Goal 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere.

Goal 2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.

Goal 3: Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.

Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.

Goal 5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.

Goal 6: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.

Goal 7: Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all.

Goal 8: Promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all.

Goal 9: Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation.

Goal 10: Reduce inequality within and among countries.

Goal 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.

Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.

Goal 13: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts*

Goal 14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources for sustainable development.

Goal 15: Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss.

Goal 16: Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

Goal 17: Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development.

They are intended to be universal in the sense of embodying a universally shared common global vision of progress towards a safe, just, and sustainable space for all human beings to thrive on the planet.

The different goals and targets however represent different degrees of challenge and ambition for different countries depending on their present state of development and other national circumstances. The balance between the social, economic, and political efforts needed to deliver the different objectives is also likely to be different in different countries.

There are all verbal Goals with no legal binding, interconnected to each other and so far we have failed to provide the support to turn any of the desired goals into reality.

The U.N. can’t compel any country to do any of the things required.

The rationale for any goal must increase everyone’s stake in the goals so that when they come into effect, countries will swiftly incorporate them into national policy decisions — in other words, take them off the page and into practice.

There’s a real danger they will end up sitting on a bookshelf, gathering dust as there’s still no clear consensus on where exactly the money will come from to achieve any of them.

In the end, we are one people living in one world and all Goals require financing.

So the goals are a waste of time and money and won’t matter unless we as individual and national governments take them seriously. 

                                ———————

The only way to combat the changes we are now witnessing in our plant is if we all start financing the changes required. 

One of the first things you would hear in economics class is that there is no free lunch, meaning that nothing in life is free. Everything exists in a limited supply. That means that everything has value.

 We also know that governments and countries can’t tackle anything that requires a long-term commitment.    

The bead eye has been promoting the following solution to creating a worldwide value that would afford an opportunity for all of us to invest in a just future. 

A perpetual funded Fund of trillions, totally transparent, with rewards to all investors that would transfer the UN verbal into positive actions. 

Here is the idea again.

Can you improve or find fault with it? (Comments below) 

It would give all of us an opportunity to invest in the sustainability of the plant.

It would give the United Nations clout not just worthless resolutions. 

The Solution:  

The United Nations-backed by world governments issues Non-tradable Green PRIZE Bonds,

These Bonds would pay interest dividends that move in line with inflation rates, guaranteeing a percentage yearly return depending on the value of the bond.

The interest is guaranteed by all world governments. 

Bought online like lotto tickets each bond carries an identification number that is entered into a weekly prize draw, and a yearly prize draws equivalent to 0.005% of the funds raised. 

Draws are fully funded by the players, through revenue made from ticket sales. 

Most of the biggest and most popular lotteries on the Lotter have some form of prize guarantee.

Take EuroMillions, for example. The EuroMillions jackpot starts at €17 million, which means that there is a €17 million guaranteed jackpot.

The pan-European EuroJackpot is similar, with a guaranteed minimum jackpot of €10 million.

The UN green Prize bond would be a  progressive jackpot one in which if the jackpot is not won, it will carry over and grow for the next drawing.

The distribution of the funds raised by the Bonds must also be transparent and distributed as non-repayable grants.

This would be undertaken by an executive non-departmental public body not attached to the UN to avoid any vetoing.  

It would vet all applications for funds to verify that they meet the values set by the UN, peace, dignity, and equality on a healthy planet.

Once accepted all projects would enter a draw for funding which would ensure that no lobbying and corruption with money going to community groups and health, education, and environmental projects. 

There is considerable work to be done to create a realistic, coherent approach to improving our divorce from reality.

You only have to look at what has happened to the climate change goals.

Just as leaders around the world were starting to think seriously about tackling global warming it is now derailed for a decade by the Ukrainian/Russia conflict.  

We’ll have to wait and see if that will really happen.

  

What if every child was aware of the key global challenges of our time?

 

Share this:

  • Tumblr
  • Email
  • Pocket
  • LinkedIn
  • WhatsApp
  • Telegram
  • Skype
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Reddit

Like this:

Like Loading...

THE BEADY EYE SAYS : THE SOVEREIGHTY OF NATIONS ARE NO LONGER ABSOLUTE.

21 Thursday Apr 2022

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in 2022: The year we need to change., Climate Change., Human Collective Stupidity., Humanity., Purchasing Power., Purpose of life., State of the world, Survival., Sustaniability, Technology v Humanity, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Obvious., The state of the World., The world to day., THE WORLD YOU LIVE IN., THIS IS THE STATE OF THE WORLD.  , Ukraine/ Russia., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Leaders, World View.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS : THE SOVEREIGHTY OF NATIONS ARE NO LONGER ABSOLUTE.

(Eighteen-minute read) 

As the current Ukrainian/Russian conflict demonstrates.  

There is no formal definition of sovereignty or a sovereign nation defined in international law or contained in a single treaty.

We are now supposed to be physically, politically, and economically one world with nations so interdependent that absolute national sovereignty of nations is no longer possible.

What is Sovereignty? - Definition & Meaning - Video ...

Which came first, the nation or the nation-state?

While some European nation-states emerged throughout the 19th century, the end of World War I meant the end of empires on the continent. They all broke down into a number of smaller states.

However, not until the tragedy of World War II and the post-war shifts of borders and population resettlement did many European states become more ethnically and culturally homogeneous and thus closer to the ideal nation-state.

                           ———————–

The concept of a nation-state is notoriously difficult to define and there is no better example of this than England.

Once called England it became Great Britain when Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales joined, then the whole nation became known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Now after Brexit, it is referred to by the media as the Four Nations. 

Theoretically, Sovereignty means the “absolute and indivisible” authority and power of the State and its government. Through Sovereignty, the government has complete control over what is going on within its territorial boundaries and internationally, it indicates certain equality between nations.

Sovereignty has for a really long time been considered the fundamental pillar of the international system. Of course, this no longer holds true as right now the problem with sovereign nations is that each time a country joins an international organization or signs a Treaty, it restricts its freedom of action and thus gives up a part of its sovereignty or independence, even if only a small part.

So the concept of sovereignty does not work out perfectly in real life, it is outmoded and a rather ambiguous conception in the present-day civilization.

Does this hold true?

This, of course, does not imply that a state can exert dominance over other states or its subjects but many states find themselves being under the economic, ideological, and cultural control of developed countries which poses a major challenge to the sovereignty of the states.

                               —————–

It is first important to understand what sovereignty actually is.

For me, there are two degrees of sovereignty; individual sovereignty & absolute sovereignty. 

Individual sovereignty is the right and the ability to govern one’s actions independently.

Absolute sovereignty is a state of being where all illusions have fallen away; where fear no longer exists…Absolute sovereignty cannot be taught, it can only be realized.

While National sovereignty which used to mean national independence has to be viewed against the background of modern states in a world governed more and more by Technology.

Boutros Ghali, the former Secretary-General of the United Nations very rightly remarked that: “The time of absolute sovereignty and exclusive sovereignty…has passed; its theory was never matched by reality”

So due to the emergence of globalized technology, the notion that the state’s decisions and laws can be sacrosanct has lost relevance in today’s world.

External, as well as Internal Sovereignty, cannot be viewed as final, since international law and sovereignty imply each other. However, sovereign nation-states will be with us for the foreseeable future, even if their influence over some areas of policy will be much less than in the past.

                       ———————-

Is national sovereignty an obligation as well as an entitlement?

A government that will not perform the role of a government forfeits the rights of a government. 

Unfortunately, this is the position of the Ukrainians in the Russian conflict.

Ukraine became an independent country in 1991 after the fall of the USSR. Independence was gained through a series of referendums with conflicting results.

On 17 March 1991, the Soviet Union held a referendum in all of the republics asking the people whether they were interested in remaining a part of the Soviet Union or gaining independence.

More than thirty-one million people or around 83.5 percent of the electorate in Ukraine participated in the referendum with ninety percent of voters supporting the preservation of the USSR.

Just nine months after the March referendum, another was held on 1 December 1991.

The question posed to the Ukrainian people was: “Do you support the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine?” Around 84.2 percent of the country participated with ninety-three percent voting in favor of Ukrainian independence from the USSR; in direct contradiction to what was decided earlier in the year.

Support for this measure was lowest in Crimea which in 2014 was re-taken by Russia, followed by Lugansk, and Donetsk which are the regions that President Putin has recognized as independent states this week.

However, the divides between citizens who have greater loyalty to Russia and Europe continue to cause conflict.

Ukraine is a multi-ethnic state, which provides some context to the ongoing issues being seen in the country. The majority, seventy-seven percent, of those who live in Ukraine identify as ethnically Ukrainian while seventeen percent identify as Russian.

So Ukraine’s government has been on a pendulum essentially since it gained its independence.

The people will elect a president closer to Russia, then one closer to Europe, and in between corruption in the government goes unchecked. The situation Ukraine currently finds itself seems to suggest that these issues will continue and could lead to greater internal violence as factions become increasingly polarized and armed by the West. 

Providing the war remains non-nuclear we may see another civil war taking place at the end of this war. This will be the long-term result of the Russian/ Ukraine war. 

Because we have designed a world around pay as you go for all aspects of life including our own funerals countries will best protect and further their interests by not hesitating to exercise some of their sovereignty collectively to achieve their aims. 

                            ————

In the meantime, the real war is being ignored. 

Humanity survived the cold war because no one pushed the button and it will survive the Russian Invasion of Ukraine but it will not survive Climate Change, the button has been pushed again and again.

With refugees arriving, governments are spending billions on emergency-level funding and infrastructure to meet what they view as a crisis of national security. But in the case of climate change, there’s no equivalent sense of immediacy, no sense of priority commensurate with the dangers it poses to our future ability to feed ourselves, defend our largely coastal settlements, insure our homes, and maintain national security and keep our children safe from harm.

Those who lead us and have power over our shared destiny are now ignoring global warming to the point of criminal negligence.

As a culture and a polity, when it comes to climate change, have we arrived at a point where we are now expected – even trained – to abandon hope and submit to the inevitable?

The need to fight issues such as environmental protection, security of human rights, eradicating terrorism, war, poverty, and hunger, are once more on the back burner. 

We’re making a pig’s breakfast of responding to what is now a crisis of clean energy. Reopening oil exploration, moving to new nuclear power stations, etc while the heat at both ends of the planet this week has scientists straining for adjectives. 40°C above normal in Antarctica, 30°C hotter than usual in the Arctic.

The prospect of inexorable loss, unstoppable chaos, certain doom is robbing people of hope, white-anting the promise of change.

Business as usual is not just delinquent, it’s unforgivable.

                         —————–

The Beady Eye voice is just a little twitter in a world of governments and corporations ensnared in a feedback loop of “common sense” and mutual self-preservation that is little more than a bespoke form of nihilism.

Ideology, prestige, assets, and territory are now tacitly understood to be worth more than all life, human or otherwise. And the four great capacities of humanity to solve a crisis – ingenuity, discipline, courage, and sacrifice – seem to be reserved for more important enterprises.

The future, by all accounts, can wait. Because there’s something bigger at stake here than culture, wars, and the mediocrity of so-called common sense.

It’s the soil under our feet, the water we drink, the air we breathe. 

( Nine out of ten people worldwide already breathe polluted air — according to data from the World Health Organization (WHO). Besides, the WHO attributes around seven million deaths a year to global environmental pollution.)

The time for action is limited: Because if the end of the world really is threatening us, there is still enough time to panic before we bomb ourselves back into a Stone Age climate.

So what can be done?

The smartphone has done more for poor countries than all the foreign aid packets.  Real power now resides with the people, the citizens of the state as is the theory of ‘Popular Sovereignty.

Let’s give our grief and fury some shape and purpose and reclaim our future together.

Enough cowardice. Enough bullshit. Time for action. 

Consumer sovereignty must take back the Monopoly Markets.

( One could argue that new innovations were not driven by consumer sovereignty because consumers cannot demand something that they do not know they want.)

If producers market a new product that does not catch on, then the consumer has exercised their influence by not purchasing. Equally, a new product or service with long market longevity is the result of consumer demand.

Our buying power is the last weapon left to demand change, to the sovereignty of unified world action. 

The problem is that the English word sovereignty does not mean control. 

The collapse of the world can only be prevented if nations like the USA and China stop devouring global resources before the quality of life drops to zero.


Crazy HD Photo.

Where is your data?   It is certainly not Sovereign.  

Its time to use your phones as weapons to effect change. 

Al human comments are appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin. 

 

Share this:

  • Tumblr
  • Email
  • Pocket
  • LinkedIn
  • WhatsApp
  • Telegram
  • Skype
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Reddit

Like this:

Like Loading...

THE BEADY EYE ASKS. WHERE HAVE ALL THE STATEMEN GONE?

17 Sunday Apr 2022

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in 2022: The year we need to change., Climate Change., Fake News., Human Collective Stupidity., Human values., Humanity., Modern day life., Mr Putin., Our Common Values., Political lying., Political Trust, Politics., Russia / Ukraine ., RUSSIA/ UKRAINE/ US/ NATO/ EU, Technology v Humanity, The essence of our humanity., The Obvious., The state of the World., The Ukraine., The world to day., THE WORLD YOU LIVE IN., THIS IS THE STATE OF THE WORLD.  , We can leave a legacy worthwhile., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS. WHERE HAVE ALL THE STATEMEN GONE?

Tags

Capitalism vs. the Climate., Climate change, Global warming, Real statesmen., State of the world, The Future of Mankind, THIS IS THE STATE OF THE WORLD.  

(Twenty-minute read ) 

  • Faith in the future is justified when investments succeed in improving the future. 

Every country is a work in progress but there are gaping holes where the leadership should be.

Politicians are hanging on to power instead of working for the construction of a better world. We are getting “selfish politicians and cynicism” instead of the statesmen needed to challenge the current crisis all over the world.

We now have a US President who does not know what the word genocide means and a Uk Prime Minister that lies to his Parlement and a Putin that has lost the plot.

The idea that the Prime Minister or president “runs a country” is just nonsense.

The lack of thought invested in the future is a real and pressing problem.

Today’s politicians play on our inherent, false phobia of the word fear; they milk it for every vote it’s worth.

This creates a natural void between the average citizen and the ruling class. 

The only difference perhaps is that nowadays we put a camera on them 24/7, and we expect them to give an answer to a problem mere minutes after some event occurred.

In the past, politicians probably had more time to think, and far less time to speak (or at least, fewer things they said were being recorded). As a result, modern politicians seem to make more mistakes.

I fear it will take a terrifying depth of crisis before there comes a point when this isn’t enough anymore and they will have to face their people with the big picture – which is to ask how much do we want to survive?

                                  ————————– 

Statesmanship is fleeting, and we don’t really appreciate it until it’s gone.

We desperately need a statesman—but, sadly, all I can hear are politicians.

If the world ever needed a Stateman it is now. 

Real statesmen rise above the tawdry political arguments of the day to the much higher realm of political strategy, what is right for the nation, right for everyone, and betters the human condition.

The statesman shuns media campaigns, opting for the power of the written and spoken word. He is an accomplished public speaker that looks over the horizon for future requirements.

Statesmanship and ethics are inseparable. We need a lot of both. We’ve already got a lot of politicians. We need a lot more statesmen. Making no private promises, granted no special favors, and received no personal gifts which would compromise his official integrity.

                                   _________________

What are the differences between a Statesman and a Politician? Winston Churchill, Franklin D Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin at the Yalta Conference, February 1945.

Not all politicians are statesmen. 

Statesmen spend the money, borrowing what’s necessary, to grow the country, restore confidence in the government and the future, and prevent devastating wars—even if the benefits of their actions are not immediate and measurable, but spread instead over many generations. 

Politicians, by contrast, “save money now” to “enhance today’s surplus” or “decrease today’s deficit”—even if “saving money” means leaving embassies unprotected from terrorist bombs, and our intelligence establishment less capable and integrated than it could have been.  

Statesmen see far into the future and know that good investments pay for themselves over and over again, for generations.  

Politicians tend to be penny wise and pound foolish—or perhaps more accurately, present-wise and future-foolish. They are in a “bubble” shuffling portfolios amongst themselves. They have no real-world experience. They go straight from education into politics via internships. They have no choice but to find a way to get people’s attention, in preparation for the next election and fear is one of the best attention-getters of all.

                                           —————

In this age of media coverage, the problem we have is twofold what to believe and what not to believe. 

The Underworld of the huge overarching media presence means that politics is not in control because no system is in control or in a position to lead society.

Take the war in Ukraine for example.

Can The West Stop Russia by Strangling its Economy?   No 

They only reflect liberal frustration over the West’s limited power to

prevent Russia’s war in Ukraine. 

Why?

Because in 2001, the incident of 9/11 changed the whole scenario of the world. US started its War against Terror and announced that it will target anyone, anywhere, who threats the US security and its citizens. Under this US invaded Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya and attacked Daesh in Syria without facing any opposition from other countries at United Nation Security Council (UNSC).

After 30 years, of peace now Russia led by President Putin has challenged the new world order in Eastern Europe, by accepting two eastern regions of Ukraine (Donetsk and Lugansk) as independent regions and allowing its forces to invade Ukraine on Feb 24, 2022.

It’s clear that Russia is not dependent on the west as the west is dependent on Russia. So there is something amiss with a  black-and-white view of the situation in Ukraine.

Since the end of the Cold War, the West has refused to make any concessions to Russia’s security concerns. Neither NATO nor the Western powers, in general, have been willing or able ‘to empathize with the Russian perspective on this crisis’.

Moscow is repeating that it will withdraw its troops from Ukraine only if Ukraine recognizes Crimea as a part of Russia and two eastern regions, Donetsk and Lugansk as independent states, moreover Ukraine makes the constitutional amendment that it will not join NATO.

The truth is that after fighting alone and not getting ground or air support from the West ( because of the fear of a nuclear war) Ukraine has only one option left to compromise and accept the Russian demands for the sake of their and our survival.

Ukraine must learn from Afghanistan’s lessons, and not allow big powers to play a proxy war in its country.  

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine will lead to a new world order with an era of grinding compromise. The “new world order” is going to be dominated by Russia and China. Mr. Putin and Mr. Xi are writing their own rules.

The real danger is that the global balance of power is not just being recast, but gradually unraveling. History shows that changes to the balance of power rarely occur without serious conflict.

We must do what we can to contain Vladimir Putin’s aggression in Ukraine. But we also need to be clear-eyed about it and face the costs.

Economics can’t be separated from politics, and neither can be separated from history.Illustration on a new world order where Russia and China dominate by Alexander Hunter/The Washington Times

One lasting story of this war could be the way that Europe uses it to launch its next stage of integration.

                                        ————-

 We cannot continue to fight each other in useless wars.

Take Climate Change.

The UN secretary-general, António Guterres, called the recent IPCC report on the climate crisis a “code red” for humanity. “We are on the verge of the abyss,” he said.

You might think those words would sound some kind of alarm in our society.

Since no one treats the crisis like a crisis, the existential warnings keep on drowning in a steady tide of greenwash and everyday media news flow.

The facts are crystal clear, but we just refuse to accept them. We refuse to acknowledge that we now have to choose between saving the living planet or saving our unsustainable way of life.

Because we want both. We demand both. But the undeniable truth is that we have left it too late for that.

And no matter how uncomfortable that reality may seem, this is exactly what our leaders have chosen for us with their decades of inaction. Their decades of blah, blah, blah. In short, we are totally failing to even reach targets that are completely insufficient in the first place.

Science doesn’t lie, nor does it tell us what to do.

But it does give us a picture of what needs to be done. We are of course free to ignore that picture and remain in denial. Or to go on hiding behind clever accounting, loopholes, and incomplete statistics. As if the atmosphere would care about our frameworks. As if we could argue with the laws of physics.

The climate and ecological emergency are, of course, only a symptom of a much larger sustainability crisis. A social crisis. A crisis of inequality that dates back to colonialism and beyond. A crisis is based on the idea that some people are worth more than others and, therefore have the right to exploit and steal other people’s land and resources.

It’s all interconnected.

It’s a sustainability crisis that everyone would benefit from tackling. But it’s naive to think that we could solve this crisis without confronting the roots of it.   Inequality. 

All it would really take is one – one world leader or one high-income nation or one major TV station or leading newspaper who decides, to be honest, to truly treat the climate crisis as the crisis that it is. One leader who counts all the numbers – and then takes brave action to reduce emissions at the pace and scale the science demands. Then everything could be set in motion towards action, hope, purpose, and meaning.

Who will that leader be?

Ask any hundred people to define a good leader and how many definitions do you think we’d hear?

The leaders of the free world just serve to reassure people that there is someone in charge, someone with a plan while high technology is creating the way we think and feel. 

We have to get used to living in a world without leaders.  

We must understand that global warming is a true threat.   

We have to become conscious of environmentally friendly measures of living.

                                       —————–

This is where we are at the moment.

I and you are going to see a lot of the long-term effects of what’s happening now with Climate change. 

Time will tell if great statemen will return to power and change the direction in which current politicians are leading the world.

Without leaders, there is little alignment and hardly any coordinated moving together towards common goals. Without leadership, there is hardly a chance for fair distribution of wealth nor for peace.

This doesn’t mean that leadership as such grants these values but without leadership, it’s probably impossible to enjoy them at all. 

Three-quarters of the world could not give a dame about the war in Ukraine, Syria, and Yemen, or any of the other wars. 

Only resistance from within Russia can shorten the conflict. 

Brussel is pretty much kowtowing to the gazillion of different demands of basically all European leaders and interest groups, resulting in policies that are confused, contradictory, and ultimately useless.

European leaders with the outbreak of war in Ukraine are reduced to the role of extras. 

Unfortunately, we lack business statesmanship in the advertising Industry promoting more and more consumption for short-term profits with the media whose role seems to be to stop the shaping of modern statesmen.

                                      ———————-

There is only one choice that is to declare war on Climate change. 

 

All human comments are appreciated. All lie clicks and abuse are chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Tumblr
  • Email
  • Pocket
  • LinkedIn
  • WhatsApp
  • Telegram
  • Skype
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Reddit

Like this:

Like Loading...

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IS THE UK A GOOD PLACE TO IMMIGRATE?

16 Saturday Apr 2022

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in 2022: The year we need to change., Human values., Humanity., Modern Day Slavery., Our Common Values., Profiteering., Refugees., Survival., Telling the truth., The essence of our humanity., Truthfulness., Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IS THE UK A GOOD PLACE TO IMMIGRATE?

Tags

Migrants/Refugees.

 

(Five-minute read) 

The UK was recently given the title of the most crowded country in Europe with a population of nearly 65,000,000 it is the 10th largest source of migrants to the rest of the world.

This is a country that made its wealth on the back of slavery and is now intending to provide those deemed to have arrived unlawfully with a one-way ticket to Rwanda.Map showing the distance from the UK to Rwanda.

SHAME ON YOU  Britain.  

In an effort to curtail human trafficking it is resorting to the same despicable trade of human trafficking it wants to stop.

Priti Patel the daughter of a Ugandan-Indian family should know that refugees are among the most vulnerable people in the world.

Your indifference is the engine of entropy that is shining a light on Britain’s apathy to the plight of refugees.

Anti-immigration sentiment existed in Britain long before the referendum.

On June 23, 2016, Britain held a referendum to determine the future of its relationship with the European Union. “Immigration” was the single strongest issue driving Brits to vote for Leave and fundamentally reshaping the language of “immigration.”

In reality, the UK’s membership in the EU would have very little effect on the country’s responsibilities concerning the refugee crisis, as the UK had already opted out of common EU asylum policies and instead was bound only by a distinct set of international conventions.

The relentless (negative) coverage of the refugee crisis in the media brought the topic of immigration to unprecedented national salience for the British public.

By blurring the boundaries between EU and non-EU, economic and humanitarian, and legal and illegal migration it has not isolated itself from the Leave campaign.  It not only stripped humanity from the crisis but also misled voters by implying that the forces guiding and controlling both the refugee crisis and internal EU migration were the same and could both be solved by leaving the EU.

Without using the terminology of “refugee,” the umbrella term “migrant” instead of “refugee” to refer to people fleeing war zones, has resulted in sending a strong message that Britain is not a country to migrate to. 

The UK’s referendum to leave the EU was an unequivocal demonstration of the anti-establishment sentiments, xenophobia, populism, and Euroscepticism.  

( There has always been an intersection between populist politics and media discourse, and there is strong evidence that fear-based messages appear during important political and electoral markers, like elections.)

We must hope that the Priti Patel deal with Rwanda falls on the sword of justice and that decency people in the UK make their voices heard.

Now more than ever UNHCR’s role in Britain must come to the fore. Promoting accession to, and implementation of, refugee conventions and laws. 

Ensuring that refugees are treated in accordance with internationally recognized legal standards;

Ensuring that refugees are granted asylum and are not forcibly returned to the countries from which they have fled;

Promoting appropriate procedures to determine whether or not a person is a refugee according to the 1951 Convention definition and/or to other definitions found in regional conventions;  

Seeking durable solutions for refugees.

The definition of a refugee is someone who:

“Owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”

It cost Australia more than £5 billion since 2013 to send 3,127 people to Papua New Guinea and Nauru as part of a similar policy.
 

The realities of conflict, violence, and persecution continue to cause displacement.

THERE GO I BUT FOR THE GRACE OF GOD. 

All human comments are appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Tumblr
  • Email
  • Pocket
  • LinkedIn
  • WhatsApp
  • Telegram
  • Skype
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Reddit

Like this:

Like Loading...

THE BEADY EYE SAYS. WE ALL KNOW THAT WAR IS ORGANIZED BARBARISM ON AN ENORMOUS SCALE.

12 Tuesday Apr 2022

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in 2022: The year we need to change., THE ISRAELI- PALESTINIAN PROBLEM., The Ukraine., THE WORLD YOU LIVE IN., THIS IS THE STATE OF THE WORLD.  , Truth, War Crimes., Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS. WE ALL KNOW THAT WAR IS ORGANIZED BARBARISM ON AN ENORMOUS SCALE.

Tags

RUSSIA/ UKRAINE/ US/ NATO/ EU., War Crimes., Wars

 

( Seven-minute read) 

No matter how much you know — or think you know — about any War, there are always more horrible things lurking in the shadows.Nazi military parade

Cast your eyes over any recent conflict, and you’ll see a litany of generals, politicians, and nations that have gotten away with stuff so horrific it defies comprehension.

This post is not an attempt to justify crimes of warfare. It is a feeble attempt to highlight the double standards went it comes to defining them.

                                      —————–

Our best hope of curbing humankind’s peculiar talent for superfluous
violence and extravagant self-destruction lies in the ideal of humanitarianism.

What is a war crime? 

War crimes are often associated with atrocities committed on a scale that defies credulity. I.E the number of victims did not pass some arbitrary threshold. At the most basic level, war crimes are [objectionable] acts committed by combatants, either against other combatants or against noncombatants—that is, civilians—during wartime.

Mass murder and genocide—crimes against humanity and atrocities committed on a large scale—have become the hallmarks of war crimes.

The question is who or what decides which acts are war crimes.

In an eerie echo of our own time, defining war crimes is not so much the issue anymore.

It’s prosecuting them actually, administering justice that is the primary obstacle.

The ICC is the product of a strand of idealistic thinking about justice between waring states stretching back at least to the first world war.

                                  —————-

In world war two was it a crime to kill 60,000 to 80,000 people in Hiroshima and another 75,000 in Nagasaki or 100,000 people in one night during the firebombing of Tokyo, an event barely talked about today.

In the American war in Vietnam, was it a crime to shower 45 million liters of the herbicide Agent Orange? In the process, it doomed up to 4.8 million Vietnamese residents.

Ask someone today to list war crimes of recent history and he or she may think of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia or genocide in Rwanda, the Afghan war, the Syrian War, the Yemeni War, the Iraq war, the list is endless.

The overall theme is hard to miss but there is a vast gulf separating our indifference to war crimes. 

A few months after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “9/11”), the Bush Administration decided that the Geneva Conventions did not protect members of Al Qaeda.

The president (George W. Bush) thinks the ICC is fundamentally flawed because it puts American servicemen and women at fundamental risk of being tried by an entity that is beyond America’s reach, beyond America’s laws, and can subject American civilians and military to arbitrary standards of justice.

Another example is that there are clear parallels between Russian and Israeli violations of international law, including the committing of war crimes by Israeli military actions in the occupied Palestinian territories.

There are no sanctions against Israel that have so far desisted from joining nations including the US, Europe, the UK, Australia, and Japan in the imposition of an “unprecedented” number of sanctions on Russia, Belarus, and the two breakaway Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Luhansk in the wake of the invasion. 

According to Israel’s controversial Law of Return, “Jews, their children, grandchildren and spouses” are all eligible to visit Israel and claim Israeli citizenship. 

However, millions of Palestinian refugees are unable to return to the homes they and their forebears were expelled from in Israel and the occupied West Bank in 1948 and 1967.

Israel has granted citizenship to Russian mining oligarch Mikhail Prokhorov, a figure linked to President Vladimir Putin and known to be one of the world’s richest men.

Last year, the two countries said the ICC should drop an investigation of Israel in part on the grounds that Palestine is not a sovereign country, although it is recognized as a state by the UN.

Netanyahu has accused the ICC of “pure anti-Semitism” for investigating attacks and has said Israel does not accept the ICC’s jurisdiction, however, it does not have to. 

Whatever the answer, it seems unlikely that President Bush or Benjamin Netanyahu, will ever be tried for war crimes but the question of whether they actually committed war crimes remains.

                                         ——————

Neither the US nor Russia nor China nor Ukraine are members of the ICC. 

If justice in general moves slowly, international justice barely moves at all.

Investigations at the ICC take many years. Only a handful of convictions have ever been won and by the time the Barbarian is locked up there is nationwide amnesia.

Court proceedings can be brought in one of two ways:
 
Either a national government or the UN Security Council can refer cases for investigation. Russia, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, has veto power over council actions.
 

In all likelihood, there will never be a trial for either President Bush or Putin not to mention Benjamin Netanyahu,. 

Why?

I think it has a lot to do just with the power, the authority, of well-heeled countries, powerful countries, to shield their political and military members from prosecution by bodies like the ICC. 

Even if we were able to bring War Criminals to trial we just don’t have a true international police force that would arrest the offenders. 

                                   —————————

War is a place where young people who don’t know each other and don’t hate each other, kill each other, by the decision of older rulers who know each other and hate each other, but don’t kill each other. 

It’s a world in which if you have the power you also have the power not to be held accountable for your power.

image003.jpg
Where are we with the Russian Ukraine war?
 
Could Russian leaders be brought to justice under international law?
 
Yes.  Because they fall under the overarching crime of aggression, all uses of armed force by Russia on Ukrainian territory can be viewed as illegal.
 
But that doesn’t mean the country pointing the finger has always been in the right itself.
 
Are countries supplying arms prolonging the war? Yes  
 
The national interest is for this war to end. If we wish to stop war crimes then we need to stop the war. Prolonging it will only see more of the same.
 
We should not be blackmailed and guilt-tripped into feeding more weapons into the meat grinder. How about, just for once, we put our own interests first?                                            
 
On the other hand, understanding the twin meanings of ‘humanity’ means something universal and immensely important”. Recognising its worth is “the least we owe the dead.
 
Meanwhile, NATO is just itching to get further involved in the war. 

We live in a world in which making the wrong comment on social media can lead to people losing their jobs but where politicians and public officials, whose actions affect the lives of millions and whose failure can lead to deaths in the most unimaginable circumstances, can simply walk away and into their next lucrative assignment.

While our own media doubles down on warmongering. They seem not to care if further escalation will plunge all of Europe into economic hardship or risk wider conflict. For some reason, it’s news to Western pundits that war isn’t very nice.

In the end, this war is shining a light on just how useless our United Nations is and dark skin automatically made you less than human.

There was a day that the UN could muster Blue helmets to intervene in conflicts. Now, all it can do is pass worthless resolutions.

                                    —————– 

When it comes to war crimes, Ukraine’s hands are also blooded.

What’s bizarre about this is that these countries that are supplying millions in arms are the same people courting Ukrainian membership of the EU, as though Ukraine was some kind of liberal democracy.

As with all wars, they end with denials of involvement in killing the innocent which are called collateral damage or a mistake of identification by a rogue drone, or ballistic rocket.     

The issue of reparations doubtless will be raised in negotiations to resolve the conflict and as an international condition for resuming any normal relationship with Russia. If the sanctions are eventually lifted in stages, it could prove effective to include conditions requiring the surrender of indicted fugitives.

Perhaps if the United Nations were to tell Mr. Putin that it is going to place a few thousand Blue Helmets between the present front lines Russia would think twice about any further advancement. 

( It is however due to the presence of Nato on the Russian borders too late. As they would be labeled Nato, not UN) 

All human comments are appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Tumblr
  • Email
  • Pocket
  • LinkedIn
  • WhatsApp
  • Telegram
  • Skype
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Reddit

Like this:

Like Loading...

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IS THERE ANYTHING THAT IS ACCEPTED UNIVERSALLY?

03 Sunday Apr 2022

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in #whatif.com, 2022: The year we need to change., Universal values.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IS THERE ANYTHING THAT IS ACCEPTED UNIVERSALLY?

Tags

The Future of Mankind, Universal values., Visions of the future.

(Twenty-minute read) 

YOU MIGHT THINK THAT IN OUR ONGOING EVOLUTION THAT THIS IS A VERY BASIC QUESTION.

Because value creation is the starting point for all businesses, successful or not, it’s a fundamental concept to understand. 

Value is created through an irreversible process that gives a resource’s ‘order’ greater usefulness to other humans.

Under this definition, almost any activity can be value-producing, and under our Capitalist system, all businesses must create value, and as a result, we have all become products.

But the commoditized of humans into products is not a pathway to success.

In the real world outside of economic theory, a value is considered universal when it goes beyond laws and beliefs; it is considered to have the same meaning for all people and does not vary according to society.

 I don’t think plunder of finite resources counts as value creation. 

UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE IS NO POINT TO LIFE IF WE ARE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND – THAT THERE CAN BE NO LIFE WITHOUT THE EARTH WE ALL LIVE ON.

This is universally true in all cultures at all times, but achieving this – REMAINS ELUSIVE.

This has led me to stop and ask myself, “What has happened to universal values?

Are there no issues, no beliefs, and no values that people everywhere can agree on?

Is there really no commonly shared right or wrong?”

Because we live in a world where every issue is multi-faceted, where every issue has advocates and detractors, where positive outcomes for some are viewed as negative outcomes for others.

                                               —————– 

Universal values ​​are believed to be the basis of human integrity, but their definition and existence remain concepts widely discussed in psychology, political science, and philosophy.

The idea of ‘human rights is not universal – it is essentially the product of 17th and 18th-century European thought.

Even the idea of ‘rights’ does not necessarily exist in every society or advanced civilization.

A human right is ‘natural’ in that everyone owns them, not because they are subject to any particular system of law or religious or political administration. They can be asserted against individuals, but they express the political objective: that governments must respect, protect and promote them. That so if answered by any of the above you would be hard-pressed to get a straight answer because values interact with each other.

The problem is that any universal values clash in their representation by the breadth of goals, wisdom, social justice, equality between humans, and a world of peace, harmony, and beauty.  All are open to wide interpretations.

The first is that a large number of human beings, under different living conditions and subjected to different beliefs, find a certain human characteristic as valuable. In that case, the characteristic in question would then be called a universal value.

This is the reason that there is no universal acceptance of universal values and this is reflected in the nonunity of nature, the protection of the environment, and the harmony of each person with himself.

Universal values cannot remain constant or change because they haven’t been defined.

                                          ———————–

Besides being alive, what are universally accepted human values that define ‘a good life’? 

The list includes  “Love”, “truth”, “justice”, “freedom”, “unity”, “tolerance”, “responsibility”, and “respect for life. ” 

According to the Oxford Dictionary values are something that deserves esteem for itself, which has intrinsic merit. 

There is no ultimate truth and all things are relative, so everything requires debate and decision.

If universally accepted values exist, do they remain constant or do they change over time?

There is no answer to the question. 

In fact, cultural relativism is a belief that opposes the existence of universal values; proposes that a value can not be universal because it is perceived differently in each culture. All the religions of the world attempt to give meaning and definition to life.

However, it is our conscience that convinces us there is something wrong with suffering, starvation, rape, pain, and evil, and it makes us aware that love, generosity, compassion, and peace are positive things for which we should strive.

In fact, the very laws of science are founded on the existence of absolute truth.

If there are no absolutes that define reality but all scientific study must by necessity be founded upon the belief that there are objective realities existing in the world and these realities can be discovered and proven. Without absolutes, what would there be to study? How could one know that the findings of science are real?

Based on cognitive function and life experience, human values dictate how individuals live, their preferences, priorities, principles, and behavior (Debbarma 2014; Hanel, Litzellachner, and Maio 2018).

So what are human values from the 20th century to date?

What is universal is the phrase ” What we need is ”  not  “what we want.”

There can be no douth with the use of smartphones/social media is changing values to  “situational ethics,” the belief that what is right or wrong is relative to the situation.

As cultures evolve and societies develop, people’s ways of thinking about good and evil are transforming and the nature of this transformation is a matter of speculation.

Human values themselves have transformed into social values that are shared and respected by society members, serve as guidance for individual expectations, and help to manage differences in harmony (for example cultural, political inclination, spiritual, and belief differences) in a peaceful way (Tsirogianni and Gaskell 2011).

Is repetition in mass media shaping our cultures into increasingly censorious-driven societies?

The way we tend to think about matters of right and wrong is different now from how we once did and, if the trends are to be believed, how we will in the future.

                                            ——————-

Today, our political order faces new threats, Changing patterns of language use over time may reveal alterations in how people have made sense of their world and themselves.

Take the modern consciousness of war in terms of our values suggesting ideas of moral virtue are becoming less culturally salient.

The notions of logical truth, a priori truth, and necessary truth are disappearing in the frequency of a set of virtue words such as “conscience”, “honesty” and “kindness” over the 20th century.

A necessary truth is what happens to be the case and could not fail to be the case.

A contingent truth is what happens to be the case but could fail to be the
case. An a priori truth is what is known, independently of any empirical input, to
be the case, while an a posteriori truth is what is known to be the case only given
some antecedent empirical knowledge

In deciding what to count as a truth of logic, another criterion that comes to
mind is that truths of logic should obey the rule of necessitation.

As it turns out, it is very hard to think of universally accepted ideas about what the generic properties of logical truths are or should be. 

Most of these words showed a significant decline in popularity so that many people forget

                               ___________________

In the end, ownership has a lot to do with value. 

Why do some of us take ownership of the state of the world and others don’t?

By creating a disparity between who takes action and who doesn’t, we’re creating a small subset of entitled people and a larger, more insensitive world

Because we are not connected, we don’t give and empathize naturally.

Creating this sense of ownership, connection, empathy, and compassion should not be left to chance, but should be bred into all of us through the education system and how we raise our children.

our attention on the wrong problems and drives us to the wrong answers, taking our politics down rabbit holes that do nothing to help us.

If all of us could feel connected to just one other person in the world, to our immediate environment, or to the food we eat, this domino effect has the power to transform everything.

How do we think about value that’s created, but never monetized?

We all must buy into what is left of the earth, to stop wars, climate change, and inequality. 

We need to open up our views on value so revenue is the measure of value creation — not profit.

In order to do achieve this, we create a perpetual World aid fund by placing a 0.005% commission on all economic activities that are profit for profit’s sake. (see previous Posts)

At the same time, we allow all of us to invest in our future with Green Bonds (see previous posts)

Software and related services dominate more and more of value creation but do not connect us to the planet we live on.  

If we feel connected to the earth big structural changes can and do happen if not rest assured we will be paying for the values of life.

In the meantime, a different approach to news reporting – one that emphasizes the ways people cooperate to solve problems – would have a tonic effect.

Value creation in the future will be based on economies of creativity which is Universal. 

All human comments are appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Tumblr
  • Email
  • Pocket
  • LinkedIn
  • WhatsApp
  • Telegram
  • Skype
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Reddit

Like this:

Like Loading...

All comments and contributions much appreciated

  • THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: THE UKRAINE WAR IS NOW A WAR WHERE THERE CAN BE NO WINNERS. HERE ARE SOME ENTRENCHED TRUTHS. January 26, 2023
  • THE BEADY EYE: HIGHLIGHTS ANOTHER KILLER OF THE PLANET – MOBILE PHONES. January 25, 2023
  • THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: SOONER RATHER THAN LATER THERE WLL BE NO REAL INDEPENDENT SELF LEFT. JUST A DOWN LOAD OF ONESELF. January 24, 2023
  • THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT FOR HUMANS TO ACCEPT THE TRUTH. IF WE DON’T THE TRUTH WILL BE CONSTRUCT BY ALGORITHMS AND DATA. January 21, 2023
  • THE BEADY EYE ASKS: SHOULD WE BE ABLE TO SELF IDENTIFY WHEN IT COMES TO GENDER. January 17, 2023

Archives

  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013

Talk to me.

bobdillon33@gmail.co… on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: WELCOME TO…
OG on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: WELCOME TO…
benmadigan on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. ONC…
Sidney Fritz on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: CAN…
Bill Blake on THE BEADY EYE SAYS. FOR GOD SA…

Blogroll

  • Discuss
  • Get Inspired
  • Get Polling
  • Get Support
  • Learn WordPress.com
  • Theme Showcase
  • WordPress Planet
  • WordPress.com News

7/7

Moulin de Labarde 46300
Gourdon Lot France
0565416842
Before 6pm.

My Blog; THE BEADY EYE.

My Blog; THE BEADY EYE.
bobdillon33@gmail.com

bobdillon33@gmail.com

Free Thinker.

View Full Profile →

Follow bobdillon33blog on WordPress.com

Blog Stats

  • 80,686 hits

Blogs I Follow

  • unnecessary news from earth
  • The Invictus Soul
  • WordPress.com News
  • WestDeltaGirl's Blog
  • The PPJ Gazette
Follow bobdillon33blog on WordPress.com
Follow bobdillon33blog on WordPress.com

The Beady Eye.

The Beady Eye.
Follow bobdillon33blog on WordPress.com

Blog at WordPress.com.

unnecessary news from earth

WITH MIGO

The Invictus Soul

The only thing worse than being 'blind' is having a Sight but no Vision

WordPress.com News

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.

WestDeltaGirl's Blog

Sharing vegetarian and vegan recipes and food ideas

The PPJ Gazette

PPJ Gazette copyright ©

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • bobdillon33blog
    • Join 198 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • bobdillon33blog
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
%d bloggers like this: