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

bobdillon33blog

~ Free Thinker.

bobdillon33blog

Monthly Archives: September 2022

THE BEADY EYE HAS A FEW QUESTIONS FOR YOU. OUR FINITE EARTH CANNOT FULFILL THE RESOURCES – PROFIGATE DREAMS OF SO MANY PEOPLE.

17 Saturday Sep 2022

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

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE HAS A FEW QUESTIONS FOR YOU. OUR FINITE EARTH CANNOT FULFILL THE RESOURCES – PROFIGATE DREAMS OF SO MANY PEOPLE.

Tags

Algorithms., Capitalism and Greed, Capitalism vs. the Climate., Climate change, The Future of Mankind, Visions of the future.

Ten minute read.

THE MAIN QUESTION IS WHERE WILL THE CURVE OF EARTHS TEMPERATURE INFLATIONS TAKE US FROM HERE?

Right now the scientific consensus is that the population of the world will reach a peak some time later this century. The world population is projected to reach 10.4 billion people sometime in the 2080s and remain there until 2100, according to the United Nations Population Division.A 3D illustration of a woman watching a climate change simulation of Earth.

How many people can the earth support?  What is it carrying capacity?

When it comes to carrying capacity, it’s a matter of mode of production, mode of consumption, who has access to what and how.

Not all human activities have to be environmentally costly but the future of the world population is driven by a mixture of survival and reproduction. As a result more and more countries, once they reach a certain stage of socioeconomic cultural development, tend to converge towards about two children [per couple] or fewer.

In 1679, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, a scientist and inventor of the microscope, predicted that Earth could support 13.4 billion people.

From 1930 to 1974, the Earth‘s population doubled again, in just 44 years.

Everybody knows that environmental changes, such as pollution or disease, and climate change can increase or decrease a habitat’s carrying capacity but there is little consensus in how many Homo sapiens our planet can support.

But is the human population expected to continue growing at this rate?

Is there an upper limit to how many humans our planet can support?

Before the twentieth century no one ever lived through a doubling of the entire human population and the enormity of this and our predicament is now prevenient in climate change.

For instance, natural constraints include food scarcity and inhospitable environments.

If the Earth System gets into the region of chaotic behaviour, we will lose all hope of somehow fixing the problem. The result will be the inflationary economic paradigm itself will be the long term disaster.

If we want to affect how many people planet Earth can support, we will need to decide how many people want Jaguars with four wheels and how many want jaguars with four legs.

————————-

Here is a broad sketch of what is in store and where we’re heading. if we don’t curtail climate change and our unchecked use of fossil fuels.

Where is Earth’s climate headed?

That depends significantly on exactly what our activity is over the next few decades.

For example, the human population can only grow so large and can only have so many carbon-emitting activities; and pollution will eventually degrade the environment. At some point in the future, carbon output will reach a maximum limit.

In the worst cases, the researchers found that Earth’s climate leads to chaos. True, mathematical chaos. In a chaotic system, there is no equilibrium and no repeatable patterns. A chaotic climate would have seasons that change wildly from decade to decade (or even year to year). Above a certain critical threshold temperature for Earth’s atmosphere, a feedback cycle can kick in where a chaotic result would become unavoidable. There are some signs that we may have already passed that tipping point, but it’s not too late to avert climate disaster.

We are now entering a new phase, one driven by human activity. As humans pump more carbon into the atmosphere, we are creating a new Anthropocene era, a period of human-influenced climate systems, something our planet has never experienced before.

We will see mass migration, with one war after another for resources.

Animals can keep giving birth, increasing their numbers, but they reach a limit when they consume all the food in their environment (or their predators get too hungry and consume them). Put another way, climate change impacts might not directly cause humans to go extinct, but it could lead to events that seriously endanger hundreds of millions, if not billions, of lives.

There’s no reason to exaggerate the climate threat. The truth is bad enough, and reason enough to take dramatic action because today, we live in a global, interconnected civilization, so there’s is every reason to believe our species will not survive its collapse.

Despite massive landscapes and endless blue, our planet is limited in its resources and capabilities to support its inhabitants. According to the Global Footprint Network, “Humanity uses the equivalent of 1.5 planets to provide the resources we use and absorb our waste.

It now takes the Earth one year and six months to regenerate what we use in a year.

All over the world we are witnessing the effects of using more resources than the Earth can provide in the form of diminishing forest cover, disappearing coral reefs, collapsing fisheries, biodiversity decline, increasing greenhouse gases, depleting fresh water systems, acidifying oceans, disease, famine, mass migrations, depleting arable land, resource conflicts and wars, just to name some of the more noticeable effects.

So we are left to cope with limited resources or pursue unconventional methods, which can create a disproportionate impact on the poor, and the ones that can are finding that even the furthest and deepest corners of the Earth are being exploited, leaving fewer and fewer resources for future generations.

A sustainable future cannot be achieved without conserving biological diversity – animal and plant species, their habitats and their genes – not only for nature itself, but also for all  people who depend on.

Our moral obligation is to support both ourselves and our planet. it.

Our old solutions – which address only environmental conservation or short-term human gains – are no longer enough.

We need innovative approaches to guide our civilization toward a sustainable future and the only way this can be done  this requires a substantial behavioural modification of the most impactful species on Earth—humans.

I think it is becoming increasingly important for us to be conscious of our consumption. If we can see through products on the shelves, and understand that human labour, sacrifice and resources have gone into anything and everything we consume, we can begin to empathize with and work for the well-being of populations around the world.

Technology is distancing our relationship from global issues, often perceived as too large to concern our own respective lives.

How can we begin this personalization in the midst of a global crisis of endless dimensions and stakeholders?

We can begin by making profit seeking algorithms be transparent. By removing all media advertising that prompts consumption. By focused efforts and productivity within our own communities. By fostering the rights and access to medical care universally.

Finally. Government should enable individuals to see their own capabilities in organizing and protecting the environment, instead of simply reporting on the problems. Media coverage, literature, and written discussion in any capacity should lean towards a definitive—within scientific bounds—attribution of our existing catastrophes to our own actions. We must try to stray from merely stating that a given problem exists, and rather begin our discussions and postulations with the probable causes of that problem.

By getting communities, urban or rural, to visualize and feel the influence of their actions on water, soil, and air would be to enliven a group solely based on protecting and preserving life itself. We must work to re-associate with the resources of the environment that have long been exploited, and communicate across a global spectrum regarding how we have and will succeed in creating a sustainable future existence.

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

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com

A photo of a male Neanderthal replicate at the​ Natural​ History​ Museum, London.

Advertisement

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2022/09/cool-observation-of-mass-hysteria/

17 Saturday Sep 2022

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2022/09/cool-observation-of-mass-hysteria/

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

The UK May Still Be In Mourning, But These Countries Want Their Jewels Back – Now – HuffPost UK

16 Friday Sep 2022

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on The UK May Still Be In Mourning, But These Countries Want Their Jewels Back – Now – HuffPost UK

https://apple.news/Ax2Zh4KvvQJGEvzpswkjD0A

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S; WITH THE DEATH OF QUEEN ELIZIBETH II DEATH IS IN THE AIR FOR ALL OF US .THE LONG SHORT AND THE TALL.

15 Thursday Sep 2022

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in #whatif.com, Death, Denial of Death.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S; WITH THE DEATH OF QUEEN ELIZIBETH II DEATH IS IN THE AIR FOR ALL OF US .THE LONG SHORT AND THE TALL.

Tags

Conquer Death, Denial of Death.

( Seven minute read)

The mystery of death is so profound that, despite the millennia of religious doctrine, mythology, scientific research, and the many theories and explanations that exist on the subject, people today are more confused than ever about it.

On the other hand, death is also a topic that few of us like to talk about. We may, on a subconscious level, understand that we are mortal. But, we continue to live our lives as if we will be here forever.

Saying that dying matters, seems so obvious that it’s not worth mentioning. After all, what could be more important than our mortality? We are here on this amazing planet for such a short period of time. Death is the ultimate destination that, in many ways, gives our lives meaning.

We have medicalized every aspect of the dying process. Is it a disease that will be cured in the future?

  • No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don’t want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be because Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life’s change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Steve Jobs
  • Once quantum computers become mainstream, the cost to sequence an individual genome could be cheaper than flushing the toilet! This could lead to mass customized medicines, further decreasing human mortality rate. The introduction of CRISPr allows scientists to cut out and replace living DNA; effectively eradicating almost all diseases and rewriting the genetic code that governs life expectancy.
  • AI to determine genetic diffusions, R&D into reversing aging, 3D printing organs, or human augmentation to the point of ‘the singularity’.

In fact, one of the reasons there are so many opinions about death is the diverse array of religious doctrines on the subject. So how do we know which text, if any, will guide our search correctly?

The concept of death is a key to humans understanding the phenomenon of all life its nearly as old as life itself.  An irreversible cessation of all biological functions that sustain an organism. From Wikipedia.

Death is inevitable to whatever is born. Wherever there is birth there is death.

What is God’s vision about death? Why did God permit Satan to live when the rest of us must die.

In God’s vision, no one ever dies. If God were to give you this vision, some day, then no number of deaths would affect you in this world. This is because of this right vision (Gnan)

Throughout history, different mythologies and theologies have explained the nature of death in countless ways, ranging from total annihilation to immediate life after death in the presence of God … or in torment.

Regardless of a person’s particular belief system, however, the fact remains that death is the end of life … or at least life as we know it. Human beings are totally powerless to prevent or overcome death.

Any study of the nature of death begs an important foundational question:

Why must things die in the first place?

To |make way for others. Like the Cambrian explosion which made way for major changes in the dominant sorts of living creatures, like us to flourish. But death is an unnatural part of life on a cellular level, because it does not automatically include a self-destruct mechanism for death.

So the question of the nature of death also brings profound implications about the nature of God.

Maybe, some reason, God is not as powerful as He says, since the problem of death remains.

Those who do not believe in reincarnation, Moslems, Christians believe that it does not return.

The rest of Indians, the Hindus, it does return. This is the result of the grace of your God that you believe in reincarnation. The moment you die, the Soul immediately enters another womb.

In reality, there is only one collection of texts in existence that makes the bold claim to contain direct communications from God: the collection we call the Bible. Over and over again, it records God speaking directly to mankind;

In my opinion, becoming an organ donor is one of the best decisions that you can ever make. Most people aren’t against being an organ donor.

Some people seemed to find the right moment to die,  to hold off dying until some particular event of importance to them had come to pass. Links between mind and body are little understood.

What if Queen Elizabeth 11 was an organ donor.  Don’t worry the chances of inheriting the crown is at the moment around 8 billion to one and in 31 years from now 2050 is estimated is expected to rise to 37.9 billion to one.

Since time immemorial, humans have tried to find out ways to achieve immortality.

As the search continues to date but how far are we willing to go to achieve it.

Bezos has invested in a company called Altos Labs which is trying to find a way to make humans immortal. The company aims to do this through ‘cellular reprogramming’ which means reprogramming human cells to make them new again. A human body is made up of 724 trillion cells.The Immortalists - can science defeat death? © Getty Images

This dream of making humans immortal is not just based on cell reprogramming.

A certain kind of nanorobots will be invented which can be released in the human body along with the bloodstream. These nanorobots would be able to eliminate viruses, bacteria, clean the blood, prevent clotting, and even kill tumours in the body, and repair your cells if needed.

Some scientists want to upload the feelings and thoughts present in the human brain to a computer so that even after the death of the person, their feelings and thoughts can be kept alive.

The Israeli writer, Yuval Noah Harari, wrote in his famous book Homo Deus that for religious people, death may be a decision made by God. But for scientists, death is merely a technical glitch in the body. He says that scientists can correct this technical glitch in labs and death can be avoided.

At this point, it is hard to predict if and when science will conquer death. But if one really wants to be immortal, they can make their life so memorable that even after they are gone, the things and memories related to them will endure.

Demographers estimate that before our generation roughly 100 billion people lived and died, and not one of them has returned to confirm the existence of an afterlife, at least not to the high evidentiary standards of science.

I’m sceptical that death will ever be conquered or understood as it is abstract a conceptual metaphor in the term of something else that determines the expansiveness of our reality.

As humanity confronts the present global challenges this reality is that we have evolved into a killing species, detached from the very thing that gives us life the Earth.  Our limits are self-imposed – ignorance, inertia –  greed – fear – fanaticism and fatalism.

Up to now the natural world has always been humanity’s main source of metaphors, but with science our natural world now includes the nuclear bomb, the black hole of profit seeking learning algorithms.

If we not wiped out by climate change we have ever change of being wiped out by an Asteroid – a burst of Gama rays or a Nuclear explosion, a Pandemic, if not, we have 6 odd billion years to go before the sun fry us all.

Advances in technology will definitely drive the upward age of longevity toward the 200 mark. However, there are a number of considerations – both moral and social – that we have not begun to think about, as a species. Ultimately, the question is no longer if death (like taxes) is inevitable, but rather: even if we can conquer death – should we?

Even if I could live thousands of years, I would want a better world than this one. So, is there any hope?

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

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

How Rich Is King Charles III? Inside The New Monarch’s Outrageous Fortune – Forbes

15 Thursday Sep 2022

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on How Rich Is King Charles III? Inside The New Monarch’s Outrageous Fortune – Forbes

https://apple.news/A3VMTGG6eQqiyf4Up9baX7Q

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. HOW DOES BRITIAN EXPLAIN THE MESS IT IS IN TO ITSELF?

13 Tuesday Sep 2022

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in #whatif.com

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. HOW DOES BRITIAN EXPLAIN THE MESS IT IS IN TO ITSELF?

Tags

Capitalism and Greed

( Six minute read)

Of course as with any country there is a clatter of explanations.

The tragedy truth lies in England’s history.  Vanity and greed are, as ever, the roots of self-deceit, that become hubris, which meets nemesis, that has now developed into a class system that for all intended purposes owns the country.

The British title and its order of precedence is the most baffling, yet simple concept on the planet.

Children of nobility and those who wished to become a part of it had the following concepts drilled into their heads from birth , with the death of Queen Elizabeth II people are not only just paying their respect to her life of duty but acknowledging the fact that the system is still in power with Charles the III becoming King.

A system  of Knights, Lords, Viscounts, Dukes, Marquess, Earls, Duchess, Barons, (Life Peerages created by the Queen) dates back to the 11th Century and the Anglo-Saxons.

Of course the following nine days of symbolism, pomp and media verbal (in a modern world) could be look at as the height of Hippocratic power.

Anyone who is neither a peer nor the monarch is a commoner serf.

The office of King’s Champion.  The Dymoke family of Scrivelsby, Lincolnshire have continued to hold the office up to the present day. But I doubt that we will see him excising his duty of riding into Westminster, on a white charger, fully clad in armour, into Westminster Hall during the first coronation banquet.

The bitter, brutal reality of England is Brexit.  It’s making Britain a third world country.

The problem is that Brexit is made of lies, and everyone, more or less, backed them.

By the way, as someone from one, I use the words “third world country” mildly ironically.

Nobody likes to be called a “third world country,” of course the difference is, those poor nations didn’t do it to themselves.

Brexit is now being memory-holed:

” These aren’t the consequences of Brexit, it’s a good thing, a windfall which will surely land in our pockets any day now, and make us all rich.”

Brexit did something amazing, spectacular, remarkable — something we have genuinely not seen as a world since the days of the Weimar Republic. It pushed a society into sudden, rapid, endemic poverty. What is it called when every household in a society can’t get essentials and basics?  Poverty.

Economists marvel at Brexit because there are almost no other examples of such rapid, sudden social collapses that exist at all.

It’s all playing out exactly like it was always going to, like anyone sane predicted.

Now with the demise of the Queen Elizabeth II there’s almost no discussion on the truth of the matter.

It is totally forbidden in modern-day Britain to connect the following dots:

Britain broke up unilaterally with its largest trading partner and oldest and biggest friend, it did so in a hard way, choosing a path that would lead to sure ruin, in order to spite Europe, not out of any degree of wisdom, and the consequences of all that — nationalism, spite, selfishness — would be absolutely and utterly ruinous.

So why do Brits believe this lie?

Let’s back up a step. Why are they even being told this lie?

The problem as I have said is that Brexit is made of lies, and everyone, more or less, backed them. And now those in power — papers, pundits, even erstwhile “opposition” figures — have no real choice but to go on repeating the lies. Into oblivion. It’s either that, or eat crow.

Brexit, an idea so colossally stupid it ranks up there with climate change denial.

A society is now engaging in doublespeak, which most of the whole world finds ridiculous:

Imperial granger representing an empire that has long gone.

As Orwell warned us, this is a perfect way to control a society, to lull it into submission.

And that is what is happening in Britain.

The biggest lie of Brexit was the one underlying all these.  The Conserve Boris lie. 

That Brexit was going to “level up” Britain. To what, some asked? To where? There was never any answer given. It was just some spin, PR, hype, a lie. “Levelling up” just meant being number one, on top, supreme — it carried echoes of empire. Britannia Uber Alles.

You would have thought that the World Wars should have taught Britain that we really are all better off together, than as nations red in tooth and claw, set against one another.

Because the truth is too hard to face.

The truth that all this was a stupid, stupid mistake. Who can own up to that? Who can face it? Nobody. And so the only road left is down, down, into the abyss — even as it’s painted as a glorious ascent up into the sunlight.

That’s exactly — exactly — what Brexit is now.

It is the ritualised telling of a lie, even as Britain becomes a literal third world country.

Tomorrow, it’s going to be energy, medicine, the heating going off in winter, hospitals and factories shut down. The day after that, it’s going to be an epic depression, which will last, well, forever, because that is what getting permanently poorer means.

Brexit did this to us.

It made us a third world country. Look at us. We haven’t “levelled up.” We’ve levelled down. Way, way down. To third world country levels. Where people can’t get basics. We couldn’t ever have levelled up, really — because we were already at the top. How foolish not to see it. How greedy and selfish.

—————————-

There is however also a second reason why people to day cant see the long-term consequences and it is this reason that lies a the foot of all our troubles. 

Humans in the cosmology of the universe have no particular significance.

This reinforces our collective irresponsibility, because if we are of no significance, how much of a problem can our actions really be?

Some of us embrace time- myopia for religious reasons, because they think ” the end” is coming soon. Some do it for financial reasons, because the bottom line is their standard. Some do it in pursuit of power, because nothing matter beyond the next election.

But most people simply don’t know yet how to think any other way.

We try as cultures to ground ourselves in each other, rather than in the earth and the Universe.

We might as well try to stand still in a riptide.

We need to ground ourselves in something real that is greater than we are.

If we want to survive we must factor such truths into our politics, plans, and actions.

We know that Charles III has taken oaths that as king not to upset the apple tart, but the reality of Climate change and the direction of the world requires his and every voice to be heard now not tomorrow.

So if he wants not to be silent he has at his disposal one item that is presently in dry dock – HMS Brittana.

It’s resurrection as a sea worthy vessel would allow a modern King (that believes in the earth, its beauty, its lifegiving resources, its fragility ecosystem , its place in the universe)  like Charles III

spread the word of his concerns and action, much better and at a far lower cost than Mrs Trust. 

It could be as it was in his mother time a platform of peace and trade.

Britannia rules the waves. 

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

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com  

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. ONCE AGAIN WITH THREE PROCLEMATIONS ENGLAND REMAINS IN THE SHADOWS OF THE PAST.

11 Sunday Sep 2022

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

The future of the commonwealth, The Future of the Royals, The Future of the UK.

I suppose the first thing to understand about these proclamations is that if you want to be King, whether you believe or not in what you are swearing, by otter their words the government is in a fact placing a gagging orders on any personal political or controversial views being expressed during a reign.

Since mediaeval times, the terms of the coronation oaths have reflected the conflict for ascendancy between sovereign and subjects.

Taking the authorised form of the oaths is a condition on which the crown is held by any individual.

The starting point here is to note that taking the oath is neither a prerequisite to the accession to the Crown nor to provision of the royal assent. They lack statutory authority. Given the unlawfulness of the oath taken, there is a political and constitutional imperative in establishing that deficiencies in the oath do not fatally taint the reign which follows.

The monarch kisses the Bible having declared ‘The things which I have here before promised I will perform and Keepe Soe help me God.’

The significance of this lies in the king’s consent to be bound by new laws as well as the established laws and customs of the realm and, further, his acknowledgment that he must share the law-making power with the assembly of the people. An oath that does not comply with the 1688 form, as amended, not only violates primary statute law but fails to give due precedence to this central principle.

The fact that they have no direct constitutional effect is manifested in the absence of any penalty if they are not sworn. The weight of the oaths lies overwhelmingly in their symbolic significance and,
moreover, in making that symbolism intelligible, acceptable and inspiring to a modern
population.Image

With the death of Queen Elizabeth II it is unusual having a coronation, which is soaked in  past history  now involves Charles II taking a accession oaths that date originally from 1688-1707, when Catholic Europe was seen as an existential threat.

These oaths are.

The Scottish oath, to uphold the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

The Accession Declaration oath, to be a true and faithful Protestant.

The Coronation oath, which includes promising to uphold the rights and privileges of the Church of England.

They could be described as declarations that are both personal and political statements, but in a more secular and pluralist society, the oaths need to be revised and updated; or dropped altogether.

So let’s ask two questions.

Do they have any value?

How might they best be understood in modern times?

Why?

Because to my mind the obligations of these days are understood as a limited, rather than a maximal duty on the sovereign personally.

It follows that the meaning of the 1688 language has down the centuries become reversed and is now in needs of further revision to reflected real responsibility. If not they are silently interpreted as an acknowledgment that the sovereign has in fact no personal political power, though obliged to speak on behalf of the real executive power – his government – as if he has.

This is because they do not create law but declare it.

The Scottish oath discharges a treaty obligation in the then new state of Great Britain to recognise previous Scottish ecclesiastical legislation.

The Accession Declaration oath confirms requirements laid down elsewhere that the sovereign must be a Protestant.

The Coronation oath does not make the heir into the sovereign: that is achieved automatically under the common law. Rather, the oath requires the sovereign to declare and identify with the effect of the law at a public moment of great solemnity and prepares the way for the conferment of divine blessing on the new sovereign.

So we are left with the three statutory oaths date from a narrow period of British history during 1688-1707.

To understand these out of date oaths lets look at each in turn in the light of constitutional and legal status of accession.

The first two arose from the turmoil at the end of the reign of James II who had sought to
expand the authority of the crown and favour Roman Catholics.

In 1688, the latter formulae the Accession could be understood as requiring the monarch – still then head of the executive – actively to use real existing powers to achieve the desired ends.

Although the formula’s constituent parts are traditional, the language is not prescribed and there
is no statutory restraint on what the new sovereign should say at what is a most solemn public
moment. In both the Accession Declaration Act oath and the coronation oath, the sovereign’s
obligation to uphold the force of the oath is expressed in the former by the formula ‘to the best
of my powers according to law’ and in the latter by the formulae ‘to the utmost of your power’
and ‘to your power’.

Although the constituent parts are traditional – regret at a death, request for the nation’s support in office, affirmation of support for the constitution – the texts are varied to reflect the individual sovereign’s concerns:

If there is not the political will to legislate, the government should consider preparing a
statement to give to Parliament on accession explaining the historical reasons for the oaths, and
how they are to be understood in modern times; with accompanying briefing for the media.

In a radical reformulation, the Scottish oath could become an oath about the Union; the Accession Declaration, traditionally made before Parliament, could become an oath to uphold the constitution and laws; and the coronation oath, in a ceremony watched by millions, could be an oath made to the people not the Government. 

Regal activism of this kind could only be expected of modern constitutional monarchs, not a king in the straight jacket of history long passed.

If not, the only way to keep the Royal Family relevant is to consigned it to cultural history, replacing it with a written constitution.

What if anything can King Charles III do?

Prince Charles

He will be known as King Charles III – the first Charles to sit on the throne since 1685 has a mind of his own.

His opinions which carried weight on the Climate/ Agricultural/ Conservation etc are now consigned to silence because these oaths are enshrined in statute.  It would require amending legislation to revise and update them. It is obvious that this may not be easy, to reach consensus, with the churches, other faith groups and all sections of society; ultimately the government has to decide.

He will now have his opinions expressed by his Son William.

———————

The declaration made at the inaugural Privy Council clearly has a different status from
the three statutory oaths . In essence, it comprises all the elements and more of what is actually
required of other European sovereigns by their constitutions.

Unlike any other European monarchy, the UK monarchy is an international monarchy
because the sovereign is head of state also in fifteen other independent Commonwealth
countries. All Commonwealth countries will be sensitive to how the general relationship with the UK crown is expressed.

Charles III has now has a more than difficult act to follow ass it will not take long for the run of forthcoming referendums on staying part or attached to the UK (that will pose new subtle threats to parliamentary sovereignty of England in those countries now part of the Commonwealth) to start.

In 871 AD Alfred the only king of England to be called great defeated the Vikings.

Forty years ago man stood on the Moon.

Thirty years from now Charles III will most likely not be with us, nor will most of us, if we don’t tackle Climate change.

So long live Charles III who understand this. Long may his Voice be heard.

To achieve this here is my advice.        Buy back the HMS Britannia.

Edimburgo: il fascino discreto e misterioso della Scozia

——————–

Amidst the cluster-crisis now engulfing the lives of millions of British people, The UK has a new prime minister. Selected by a small group of right-wing ideologues, known as the Conservative Party, Liz Truss will govern without either a democratic or popular mandate until she sees fit to call an election, no later than January 2025

It should be expected in a country in thrall to the wildest and most deluded of fantasies about its national identity that the new cosplaying prime minister should continue to promote the fable of trickle-down economics. Her predecessor used Brexit as a means to hide the failure of that project beneath a xenophobic, populist rhetoric that evoked another myth: the envisioning a future built on former, imperial greatness.

All the pomp, pageantry, oaths taking,  will not hide the UK desperate need for a written constitution.

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

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHAT ARE THE ORIGINS OF QUEENS AND KINGS?

09 Friday Sep 2022

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in 2022: The year we need to change., Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHAT ARE THE ORIGINS OF QUEENS AND KINGS?

 

( Four minute read) 

 

The idea of Kings and Queens generally falls under the idea of a Leader.

Emperors, Empress, Pharaohs, Czars, Presidents, Dictators,  Boss, Chiefs, Maharajah, Nawab. Roman Emperors, Sultans, Monarchs.The mystery of the first king in the world is one that has been troubling historians for ages now.

Throughout history, royal dynasties have dominated countries and empires around the world.  Kings, queens, — whatever title they ruled by, monarchs have shaped institutions, rituals, and cultures in every time period and every corner of the globe.

The concept of monarchy originated in prehistoric times and evolved over centuries right up to the present. Efforts to overthrow monarchies or evade their rule — such as the American, French, Chinese, and Russian revolutions — are considered turning points in world history.

The mystery of the first king in the world is one that has been troubling historians for ages now. To put it simply, there is still no definite claim on who the first king on our planet was. The largest obstacle to finding out the answer to this question is the fact that there are no records in existence that speak of kings that lived 5,000 years ago. The first recorded instance of an English king was in the year 871 AD when King Alfred the Great successfully repelled a Viking invasion.

A Monarch, then, is a picture of any elected government we have today.

There is no civilization living today which did not originate in the work and effort of Monarchy.

How many people all over the world can trace their lineage back to kings and emperors. There were thousands of monarchs throughout history and the number of their descendants may run into millions. But most people are unaware of their royal ancestry.This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image.png

Initially there rise to power was based on who’s the best or who’s the strongest. Eventually you end up with Kings and Queens as in pre-Christian Ireland (and everywhere else) where each little town had its own king and queen.

Yesterday we witnessed the demise of Queen Elizabeth II.

A monarch who has no equal in British history, whose life will now be analysed by the Media from the first nappy to her last smile.

It wasn’t until 2013 that the UK Parliament passed legislation that removed all gender-based restrictions on succession to the throne. The act meant that, for the first time in British history, a female heir could inherit the throne in her own right.

When Queen Elizabeth II ascended to the throne in 1952, her husband, Prince Philip, was not given the title of king.

The rules governing the line of succession to the British throne have changed several times over the centuries. The current system is based on gender and descent. Under this system, a person inherits the throne if they are:

  • A descendant of King George II (born 1683)
  • The eldest child of the heir apparent
  • A male heir

The rules were last updated in 2013, when Parliament passed the Succession to the Crown Act. This act amended the previous rules in two key ways. First, it removed the preference for male heirs over female heirs. Second, it removed restrictions on who could marry someone in line for the throne. Before this act was passed, people in line for the throne could only marry someone who was Protestant.

It would therefore seems that poor Queen Elizabeth II was on the throne for most of her life without Parliament approval.

Rightly we all, whether we believe in a ruling class, recognize the passing of rare individual that contributed not to just England but to the world itself, for over seventy years, of non political contributions to peace and tolerance. May she rest in Peace.

—————————-

The modern monarchy in England dates back to 1837 when Queen Victoria came to the throne. Since then, there have been six more monarchs – Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI, Elizabeth II, and now Charles III.

Upon the death of the British monarch, the heir apparent immediately becomes the next sovereign. This happens instantly, wherever the heir is, and even regardless of whether the new monarch even knows of the death of his or her predecessor. In the case of the death of George VI, his eldest daughter Elizabeth was in Kenya, sleeping in a treehouse, utterly unaware that she had become Queen.

The Question is.

In the world as it is to day, should there be people through an accident of birth be entitled to be the head of a country without election by its people. An unelected head of state is hardly an obvious figurehead for an association that espouses the virtues of democracy’. 

To most people, kings, queens, princes, and princesses belong in the world of fairy-tales where the divine right of kings stated that a king’s authority had been given to him by God, and he thus was justified in ruling completely and totally, without concern for the will of the people or any representative body.

There are still many countries which have kings and queens even today. 

Presently 44 countries across the globe have a monarch as their head of state.

For most they are purely ceremonial and are considered as only figureheads. Belgium – Brunei – Swaziland – Lesotho – Japan – Malaysia – Saudi Arabia – Vatican – Bhutan – Monaco – Sweden – United Arab Emirates – Thailand –  Spain – Cambodia. (Are all a few examples. Some Mixed some Constitution, some Absolute )

In the end in the eyes of death we are all equal whether you are divine, king queen or a serf.

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

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com  

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S; WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT RUSSIA?

07 Wednesday Sep 2022

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S; WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT RUSSIA?

Tags

Russia, RUSSIA/ UKRAINE/ US/ NATO/ EU., Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

What do we really know about the Russian.

The history of the name of Russia is just as convoluted as the history of Russia itself:

It like all countries involves conquest, power struggles, dissolution, and reunification, all are integral part of the way we perceive the world that we rarely ponder their origins.

Modern Russia derives its name from the Kevian Rus’, the ancestors of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus.

The name Rus’ comes from an Old Norse word for ‘the men who row.’‘ and the men who rowed’ were Vikings who arrived from the territory of modern-day Sweden and became dominant in the region for at least a few centuries.

The Vikings rowed from Sweden to the now-Russian territories and down the rivers all the way to Ukraine. The earliest sources mentioning the Rus’ come from the beginning and middle of the ninth century from Byzantium, Persia, and France.

The Soviet Union Collapses On December 25, 1991 replaced by 15 independent countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.

Russia’s name truly is a mirror in which Russia itself is reflected with a tendency to swing from one extreme to the other has been very noticeable during the past quarter of a century.

We must remember that before 1914 Russia was predominantly a backward agricultural country.  Until modern times Russia’s geographic “remoteness” from the rest of the world and her inaccessibility except by land or air routes have had afar-reaching influence on her history.

If one thinks about Russia today it conjures up many names associated with its existence.

In no particular or historical order here are a few.

Peter the Great, Karl Marx, Josef Stalin, Lenin, Bolshevik Revolution,  Khrushchev, Leon Trotsky, Moscow Red Square, St Petersburg, Yuri Gagarin, Vodka, KGB, Trans-Siberian Railway. Stalingrad,  Volga River,  Doctor Zhivago, Mikhail Gorbachev,  Boris Yeltsin, Roman Abramovich, Oligarchs, Alexey Navalny, Communism. Chernobyl, Putin.

In fact what we are talking about is a enormous country with a surface area of 17.13 million square kilometres, with 643 billion trees –holding around 20% of the world’s freshwater, providing  27% of the EU’s crude oil imports, 41% of its natural gas, and 47% of its solid fuel (such as coal) with a population of 146,069,910, speaking at least 270 languages and dialects, a nuclear superpower, separated from the USA by just 4km of water. 

No country is entirely self-sufficient but it possesses some of the richest natural resources of any country in the world.

Indeed, as the world’s third-largest oil producer Russia has yet to make renewable energy an absolute priority.

For Russia’s domestic audience there is no doubt about the “greatness” of the country, which makes it an indispensable player in international politics and deserves recognition by other major powers.

This means that Moscow is driven primarily by security concerns; viewed from such a perspective, the actions against Georgia and Ukraine could be aimed at preventing NATO expansion.

The annexation of Crimea in 2013 and now its involvement into conflict with Ukraine have led to the country being perceived as a revisionist power and breaker of international norms.

——————–

Russia’s communist system is a form of socialism—a higher and more advanced form, according to its advocates. A political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society.

Although the term communism did not come into use until the 1840s—it is derived from the Latin communis, meaning “shared” or “common”— You might not believe it but for much of the 20th century, in fact, about one-third of the world’s population lived under communist regimes.

It was neither a religious upheaval nor a civil war but a technological and economic revolution—the Industrial Revolution of the late 18th and early 19th centuries—that provided the impetus and inspiration for modern communism.

Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

To understand Russia’s foreign policy we must bear in mind that, by and large, the Stalin regime has acted in world affairs not on the basis of Marxist doctrine, but on the basis of Russia’s national interests.

Stalin’s principal objectives have been to make Russia independent of the rest of the world in a military and economic sense and to protect the security of the Soviet Union against external attack during the period of “building socialism in one country.”

What is really puzzling about Russian foreign policy (and very much deserves further exploration) now is the positioning of Russia in various scales: regional, macro-regional (Eurasian), and global, and their compatibility and (in) consistency, as well as (and at the same time) Russian positioning with regards to its main neighbours, China and the European Union.

“The question we ought to be asking ourselves is why did NATO even exist after 1990?

If NATO was to stop Communism, why is it now expanding to Russia?”

It is important to note that not everyone in the world subscribes to the western ideas of democracy, or even to democracy itself. Not being a democracy is nothing illegal — it may sound regressive in today’s world but it is not illegal.

To try to intimidate and arm-twist a nuclear superpower in the name of democracy unfortunately now has terrible consequences for the Ukrainians and will never work.Global view of Russia and former Soviet satellite countries labeled.

Whether the war in Ukraine lasts weeks, months, or years, depends on individual actions that run the gamut from those of world leaders, to ordinary citizens and soldiers. Soldiers are most likely to disobey orders when they recognize that a war will not achieve its objectives, or that they are fighting for their leaders’ survival and against their own interests.

In order to end a war, a leader’s chances of political and physical survival must be taken into calculation.

An outright defeat of Russia in Ukraine may actually translate into a death sentence for Russian President Vladimir Putin. One would expect Russia therefore to lower its demands but we’ve seen very little evidence of that so far—only the demand of denazification seems to have been dropped.

In a regime like Russia—which is clearly not a democracy, but also not quite a dictatorship—if you win a war, you’re the great hero; if you lose a war, you have shown your incompetence and you’ll be removed

In a recent speech, Putin called the borders drawn after World Wars I and II illegitimate. He said the borders that were drawn by Lenin and by Stalin, partially as a result of the First and Second World War, are illegitimate and have to go. And if those borders have to go, well, then there is no obvious stopping point:

The question is, which empire does he think needs reconstituting? Is it the Soviet Union? Or is it Tsarist Russia? And if it’s the latter—and there are some indications in his speeches that he does mean the latter—then Poland and other countries are going to be justifiably worried.

Putin, now seems to be committing himself to total victory. If he can’t get it, he’ll be responsible and that makes a coup against him more likely.

Putin must come home with some kind of victory because otherwise he’s literally dead.

Are Russians really going to bomb Kyiv, a so-called “hero city of the Soviet Union,” into rubble like they did with Chechnya’s capital Grosny?  Are they willing to kill tens of thousands of people?

No one knows.

He wants to prevent more of these revolutions and prevent a democratic encirclement of countries around him, which could provide a safe haven for Russian dissidents who’d be dangerous to Putin’s political survival. Both of these goals overlap in the sense that he is seeking regime change, which is a dangerous game.

There’s also an interlocking commitment problem here:

Ukraine cannot promise not to join NATO in the long term, which Russia sees as a threat to its borders. At the same time, Russia can’t promise credibly not to ask for more if Ukraine made some concessions now, whether it be territorial concessions, regime change, or a promise not to join NATO.

So the question is.

If there’s a coup against Putin, what would the new Russian government insist on? They’re not necessarily all going to say, “Okay, sorry Ukraine, we made a mistake. Please excuse us.” And Ukrainians would not necessarily accept that anyway. Most likely, Ukraine would strengthen its demands and want Crimea back, resulting in ongoing bloodshed, pulverizing of Ukrainian cities, coupled with insurgencies.

Russia will never have full control of Ukraine. The West—that is Western Democracies—cannot, in my opinion, accept a victorious Putin.

We should not forget those people who are fighting and the costs they are willing to shoulder. Many of them will die because of Putin’s folly.

We’re in a situation where either success or failure both present horrible, dangerous situations, we’d better be very careful and think very, very carefully about what we can do, and perhaps what we cannot do, and prepare accordingly. You don’t want to corner Putin with sanctions to the extent that he feels that he must gamble—all or nothing.

We now at the point that Putin is afraid domestic enemies might overthrow and kill him, and there’s little the West can do to address those fears. The only avenue worth exploring in peace negotiations might be true plebiscites, overseen by international observers.

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

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com.

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT INFLATION

05 Monday Sep 2022

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Inflation., Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT INFLATION

Tags

Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Capitalism vs. the Climate., Climate change, Inflation, The Future of Mankind

What is inflation?

One can look or think of it in various ways, as it comes in many forms.

The fact is that inflation is a far more complex phenomenon than one might initially assume.

The Big Bang for instance was it caused by inflation?

Did it happen at the begging or the end of something inflating externally or internally.

If it was external it could only have happened on a quantum bases – which means that there was something there before the Big bang that existed other than eternal inflation.

Whether it did or not, during inflation space is repelling space, so there is more space and more repulsion. Pass events cause present events are ever changing is a quantum fluctuation.

The defining characteristic of inflation is its exponential rate of growth.

All inflation whether its space, money, planetary resource use, or the human population, doubles in every fixed interval of time.

It starts slowly, almost flat and then goes up and up till vertical, hitting a material limit.

This is not so in space where it can go on endlessly, according to Einstein theory of relativity.

Indeed it is faster then light, but with the help of gravity it is slowed down as it passes through different density of the universe.

However this is not true in the Quantum world of particles and antimatter which can burst out of nothing, coming back together and disappearing in a flash.

This will be the reason that the James Webb telescope will not discover God.

Unfortunate due to inflation it is looking into the past with the future always over the horizon. Beyond that we have no way now or ever finding data.  Here we reach the limits of language and are faced with the choice of mathematics or myth. 

Thank God. 

—————–

There are zillions of particles popping out of the vacuum of space and disappearing.

Indeed they don’t even come into existence unless they are observed.

However the real question is how does energy turn into particles. What is the actual process of inflation doing. I dont think we know.

Where did it come from in the first place, converting its expansion into Entropy – disorder.

All ordinary matter is however, everything made of atoms including the protons and neutrons that make up an atom. So it stands to reason that inflation after the Big Bang was caused by atoms that were there before inflation existed, in a dormant state.

This then leaves us with no way to explain why individual quantum events happen – they have no cause, but they do happen is standard physics, creating an eternal inflation of creativity.

We can only rely on predictions because probability obeys deterministic laws.

In the end there is no deeper source of meaning for us than to experience our own lives as reflecting the nature and origin of our universe.

For those who demand the Ultimate truth there is no way to take even a single step beyond what other people have already thought.

Lets return to earth.

At its most basic level, inflation is a general increase in prices across the economy and is well-known to all of us. This can lead to fears of possible hyperinflation, a devastating scenario in which inflation rises rapidly out of control or Stagflation (a time of economic stagnation combined with inflation) which also wreak havoc.

Although numerous theories exist, arguably the two most influential schools of thought on inflation are those of Keynesian and Monetarist economics.

Keynesian economists argue inflation results from economic pressures such as the increased cost of production and look to government intervention as a solution; monetarist economists believe inflation stems from the expansion of the money supply and that central banks should maintain stable growth for the money supply in line with GDP

The Keynesian school believes inflation results from economic pressures such as rising costs of production or increases in aggregate demand. Specifically, they distinguish between two broad types of inflation: cost-push inflation and demand-pull inflation.

The Monetarist view is perfectly encapsulated by Friedman’s remark that “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” According to this view, the principal factor underlying inflation has little to do with things like labour, materials costs, or consumer demand. Instead, it is all about the supply of money.

According to the quantity theory of money, if the amount of money in an economy doubles, all else equal, price levels will also double.

This means that the consumer will pay twice as much for the same amount of goods and services. This increase in price levels will eventually result in a rising inflation level.

Then you have negative inflation when prices drop for various reasons.

What are the Causes of Inflation. 

What causes inflation is significantly complex.

An increase in the supply of money is the root of inflation, though this can play out through different mechanisms in the economy. A country’s money supply can be increased by the monetary authorities by:

  • Printing and giving away more money to citizens.
  • Legally devaluing (reducing the value of) the legal tender currency.
  • Loaning new money into existence as reserve account credits through the banking system by purchasing government bonds from banks on the secondary market (the most common method)

Now I am no quantum expert or scientist but to my mind the world economy is now dependent on electronic products, all subject to the Quantum theory.

Smart phones, laptops, computers, and algorithms all fuelling inflation of knowledge and falsehoods.  The world of computing is full of buzzwords: AI, supercomputers, machine learning, the cloud, quantum computing and more.

One word in particular is used throughout computing – algorithm.

Computers string algorithms together in complex fashions to produce more algorithms. So, an algorithm is the process a computer uses to transform input data into output data. Every piece of technology that you touch involves many algorithms.

They are black boxes—neither the company using them nor the people making them take responsibility for how they can wreck lives and reinforce stereotypes.

There is no knowledge of what they are even being judged on.

The people making the algorithms don’t take responsibility for users of their code and the people using algorithms place responsibility on the creators.

Algorithms are aimed at optimizing everything including inflation.  

They, that is profit seeking algorithms have put too much control in the hands of corporations and governments, perpetuate bias, create filter bubbles, cut choices, creativity and serendipity, and could result in greater unemployment and are no doubt at this very moment manipulating inflation.

The question now is are we living in two realities because they coexist with all advances in technology. In fact, everything people see and do on the web is a product of algorithms.

The use of algorithms is spreading as massive amounts of data are being created, captured and analysed by businesses and governments. Some are calling this the Age of Algorithms and predicting that the future of algorithms is tied to machine learning and deep learning that will get better and better at an ever-faster pace.

They will create new ways to misrepresent reality and perpetuate falsehoods.

Can anything be done to stop them plundering the world for short term profit?

Yes but it has to done now.

The adoption of data-driven technology affects every aspect of our society and its use is creating opportunities as well as new ethical challenges that are coming with climate change.

In the world before AI there were many different concepts of fairness. Once we introduce complex algorithms to decision-making systems, that range of definitions multiplies rapidly.

Inequality and unfairness have complex causes but society may reasonably conclude that justice requires decision-making processes to be designed so that human judgement can intervene where needed to achieve fair and reasonable outcomes for each person, informed by individual evidence.

The risk is growing as algorithms, and the datasets that feed them, become increasingly complex.

All algorithms programs should be vetted for ownership, transparency, bias, before being allowed to operate in a sustainable way.

Don’t worry you will always be around because each of us is an atomic pastiche an atom of you will always be around.

We are made of material created and ejected into the Galaxy by stars.

Try inflating that!

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

Contact: bobdillio33@gmail.com

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...
← Older posts

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

  • 80,687 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
 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.

    %d bloggers like this: