https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2022/09/cool-observation-of-mass-hysteria/
17 Saturday Sep 2022
Posted in Uncategorized
≈ Comments Off on https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2022/09/cool-observation-of-mass-hysteria/
17 Saturday Sep 2022
Posted in Uncategorized
≈ Comments Off on https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2022/09/cool-observation-of-mass-hysteria/
16 Friday Sep 2022
Posted in Uncategorized
≈ Comments Off on The UK May Still Be In Mourning, But These Countries Want Their Jewels Back – Now – HuffPost UK
15 Thursday Sep 2022
Posted 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.
( 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?
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.
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
15 Thursday Sep 2022
Posted in Uncategorized
≈ Comments Off on How Rich Is King Charles III? Inside The New Monarch’s Outrageous Fortune – Forbes
13 Tuesday Sep 2022
Posted in #whatif.com
≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. HOW DOES BRITIAN EXPLAIN THE MESS IT IS IN TO ITSELF?
( 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
11 Sunday Sep 2022
Posted in #whatif.com, 2022: The year we need to change.
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.
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?

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.
——————–
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
09 Friday Sep 2022
Posted 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.
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.
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:
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
07 Wednesday Sep 2022
Posted in Uncategorized
≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S; WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT RUSSIA?
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.
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.
05 Monday Sep 2022
Posted 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 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:
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.
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
04 Sunday Sep 2022
Posted in #whatif.com, 2022: The year we need to change., British Culture., Climate Change., England in five years., England's future., England., English General Election., European Union., EU_UK relations for the foreseeable future., How to do it., Human values., Life., Modern day life., Modern day Slavery, Money in Politics., Our Common Values., Political Trust, Politics., Privatization, Profiteering., Robot citizenship., Russia / Ukraine ., Stimulus package., The common good., The Obvious., The pursuit of profit., The UK Class system., Universal values., We can leave a legacy worthwhile., WHAT IS TRUTH
≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. WHO OWNS ENGLAND AND IS IT GOING DOWN THE PAN?
Tags
Capitalism vs. the Climate., Climate change, Distribution of wealth, England., Visions of the future.
( Ten minute read)
This is a country that sold is nations assets to private enterprises – energy, water, rail, etc, (In the ideology of Maggie Thatcher, shop till you drop), believing that the free market would give its citizens the best deal.
The massive privatisations of public assets undertaken by Mrs Thatcher and subsequent Tory governments since the 1980s now with the help of multilabel other world problems have come home to roost.
Below are a few examples of this.
[ARM Holdings, one the key British companies for research and innovation in electronics, was sold off in 2017 for £24bn to the Japanese company Softbank.
Amazon, a US corporation, now dominates retail in the UK.
Apple has shifted its tax liability in the UK to Ireland.
The key national airports in the UK – Heathrow and Gatwick – are both in foreign ownership.
Liverpool, Glasgow and Great Yarmouth ports are owned by Deutsche Bank. Felixstowe, is owned by one of Asia’s richest men and incorporated in the Cayman Islands.
Even Associated British Ports, which manages many UK ports, is owned by the Singapore foreign reserve fund and Kuwait’s sovereign wealth fund and registered offshore in Jersey.
Waterstones, the only surviving national book chain in UK, is also Russian owned.
Facebook and Twitter are now the main source of news for most British people despite its biases and its inadequate constraints on the dissemination of fake news. Both of these companies are effectively unregulated despite their critical social media roles, and both make enormous sums of money from advertising that goes untaxed.
The NHS, which is thought of as the great British innovation, is also increasingly being infiltrated by American health providers. Social care Southern Cross purchased by Blackstone, a US company.
Boots, which has 2,500 shops in the UK acquired by private equity in 2007, asset stripped and saw its HQ moved to Switzerland to avoid UK taxes. It is now wholly owned by the giant US pharmacy chain Walgreens.]
What are the common elements in the above?
With London becoming the global centre of such transactions because of weak regulatory systems, especially in respect of privatised utilities, it has been price gouging at the expense of consumers in the UK.
It is now clear that some at least of the purchasers of domestic assets have used the opportunity to launder illegally acquired money. Russian millionaires had a field day.
We are now looking at a country that recently spent nearly $8 billion building two new large, conventionally-fuelled aircraft carriers, spending between £72.1bn and £80.4bn, on a high-speed rail HS2 to save thirty minutes traveling time, while its people can’t afford their energy bills, to feed themselves, to house themselves, or afford the cost of a rail ticket.
A country that turned its back on the biggest market on its door step the EU with £25bn left to pay by 2057.
A country that in the first year of the pandemic, from April 2020 to 2021, borrowed £299bn, the highest figure since records began in 1946, to save it economy more than its people with, the cost of Government measures announced so far range from about £310 to £410 billion.
Most of this extra money was spent on public services (such as the NHS), and support for businesses.
In the space of 15 months, from March 2020, the three main Covid loan schemes – bounce back, CBILS and a scheme for larger loans, CLBILS – handed out nearly £80bn to businesses with fraud losses estimated at £4.9bn at the end of March, money the government is unlikely to ever recover.
The UK government wasted hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on poor quality and unusable personal protective equipment (PPE) while leaving frontline workers insufficiently protected from covid-19. The decision to prioritise hospitals meant that social care providers were left exposed by the lack of PPE contributing significantly to deaths in care homes in the first wave.
Among the government deals was a contract with a jeweller worth £70.5m (€80.5m; $97.6m) to buy sterile gowns. It also signed contracts for millions of face masks, which were not usable in the NHS because they had the wrong type of fixing.
The question of whether greater investments in health care in non-crisis times may have reduced the level of emergency funding needed to respond effectively to the pandemic warrants important reflection.

Now with more money going out and less coming in, the English government has only one option – to borrow.
When a government spends more than it collects, it runs an annual budget deficit. The level of the national debt in the UK equates to 108% of national output (GDP) and the average amount of debt owed per person in the UK to day is ten thousand pounds.
This is a country that sold it soul to consumerism, which is still spending millions on football with millions of lotto funds spent to win medals, with a homicide rate was 11.7 per million population, while small businesses and charities are going bust.
Like most of Europe it is in a downward spiral economically, with inflation and energy cost mounting ( due in part to the Russian invasion of the Ukraine,) and will have to borrow another £200bn by the end of the year.
Its’ no wonders it is going down the Pan.
————————
In the back ground there are other reason for its troubles– its class system, its colonial history, its antiquated education system, its benefits system, its first past the post election system, to mention a few.
Its colonial past making it a very ethnically diverse nation,( People born outside of the UK account for 10% of the UK’s population.)
It has lost its once dominance as an empirical power in the world.
Once a rich country the crimes of your past are catching-up with you.
Britain was the world’s largest market for transportation of human lives, bowing to the new citadel whose tentacles reached out into great swathes of colonial wealth – and steadily drank it dry until the slave trade was finally banned by an act of parliament. The arrogance and greed of your masters could not go unnoticed – could not pass-by unatoned for. Nor could the pacifistic stance taken by the greater populous when confronted with such frequent acts of national and international vandalism.
Like most of us it has now become enslaved to the smart phone.
Now a country of digitalized citizens, with short term ambitions, in desperate need of a written constitution.
Why?
Despite considerable social change, and strong policy intervention, it still have some way to go to address equality of opportunity and racism.
—————————-
In the next few days the Conservative party will elect a new leader to take control of the country, without a general election.
He or she is facing social, unrest, as the UK economy is now too weak for sharp spending cuts due to the recent financial crisis, and Covid pandemic, it is now currently facing serious issues in terms of cutting its unemployment rate and reducing its national debt.
Not to mention other current issues such as immigration, internal ethnic relationship, internal security, economic recovery, and Britain’s relationship with the EU all acting as major blocks to the progress of the British society.
Whatever the next British government may be, these are the issues that party has to address and solve.
Modern British society has to find ways to deal with these crucial issues in order to move towards a brighter future.
So who owns the country?

Behind this simple question lies England’s oldest and best-kept secret. It’s a secret that goes back to the Domesday Book – and an issue that goes to the heart of many of the biggest problems the country face to day.
Central government owns more than 16 million square metres of property and land across the UK – six times the area of the City of London. There are over 97,000 properties owned by foreign firms in England and Wales.
Collectively, the Royal family owns 180,550 acres of land, or roughly 282 square miles with an elite of less than 1% of the population owning half of England with a few thousand dukes, baronets and City bankers now owning far more land than all of Middle England put together.
As Mark Twain once said, “buy land: they’re not making it anymore” – and in England, its scarcity has made it so sought-after that land values have increased fivefold since 1995.
Just over 400 hectares (1,000 acres) of central London’s super-prime real estate belongs to the Crown, the Church, and four wealthy aristocratic estates.
Over 200,000 hectares (500,000 acres) of the English uplands are tied up in huge grouse-moor estates owned by around 150 people. The Duke of Northumberland, whose family lineage stretches back to Domesday, owns 40,468 hectares (100,000 acres) – a tenth of his home county.
Corporations own around 18% of England and Wales.
The Crown Estate owns London’s Regent Street, including the freehold for Apple’s flagship UK store, from which the Crown collects more rent than from all its agricultural land.
The National Trust owns around a fifth of the Lake District National Park in Cumbria.
The Duchy of Cornwall owns London’s Oval Cricket Ground, Maiden Castle in Dorset (above) and Ham Hill in Somerset.
Paternoster Square in the City of London, home of the London Stock Exchange, is owned by the Church Commissioners.
The Crown still owns the freehold OF the Houses of Parliament.
The housing crisis hasn’t been caused by a sudden rise in the price of bricks and mortar, but rather in the value of the land on which homes are built.
The vast gap in living standards between the precariat and the executive class are all to some extent the result of increased foreign ownership of almost everything that continue to call ‘British’.
There is hope, however to be fair few countries will escape the fever that’s upon this world – Climate change.
A fever for which the only cure is the unconditional metamorphosis of man himself, washed through and through, cleansed of that reckless hubris which has brought us to this tipping point of all of us having to live without the all gentle arts that nature had so diligently taught us.
The tide is turning upon mankind. Now it is our turn to be on the receiving end.
In the coming years Climate Change will make the cost of living we see to day ingenuous, compared to what is in store.
No man or woman can turn his or hers back for long upon her simmering powers.
When it comes to climate no man can lay claim to having pacified and sold her soul – because passivity was not on her agenda, and her soul was never for sale. And those who sought to profit from her bounty will soon leave empty handed; for that time, prophesied of old, has finally come. And yes, nature it is that once again rises up in defiance of all attempts to bring her under the control of those who would use and abuse her for their private wealth and make of her a platform for staging their profit driven foreign wars.
Not even the vicious technologically engineered destruction of our climate can suppress the rising winds of change that are upon this scarred and battered jewel called Earth. It can only increase their velocity.
The result is only too obvious with unstable work, often poorly paid, and increasingly inadequate to support a family. It is unsurprising therefore that there has been a sharp increase in poverty much of it in families in full-time work.
Prepare yourselves for the deluge – a great cleansing is upon the island; a cleansing that will jolt befuddled minds into memories of great stories of other eras, when lands were not swallowed by mighty acts of nature.
You were so proud to turn away from nature and forge your industrial steel into the wheels of the brave new world of mass consumerism you new face a heavy price for its blinkered, stubborn occupants, who for so long turned a blind eye on deeper truths and refused to look upon the blood encrusted pages of your colonial history.
Oh England, my England, so where is your soul today?
————————
At this point you may well be asking what if anything can be done?
The master Conservative plan is levelling up. The big idea for post – Brexit Britain.
It identifies six capitals: physical capital (i.e. infrastructure and housing), human capital (skills and health), intangible capital (ideas and innovations), financial capital (business finance), social capital (community and public trust), and institutional capital (local leadership).
The plan comes at a defining moment but it will fail to devolve enough power and money.
Why?
Because the places that have an abundance are now in a virtuous circle, where the different capitals reinforce one another.
Because is not matched by the scale of investment or the proposed solutions. Missing are a clear set of mechanisms that break the vicious cycles in places that are lacking in the six capitals.
Because this work has to be done at the local level because places face different challenges and have different growth potential.
Because if there is going to any levelling up is going to happen centrally from Whitehall.
Because the existing system for distributing money is highly complex inequality will be aggravated and come to the forefront in the next general election.
Levelling up is a scatter gun approach for votes and it is on this feeling that the Government’s future electoral hopes hang.
IN THE END HERE IS THE BEADY EYE’S ADVICE TO WHO EVER GETS INTO POWER.
APART FROM A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION, MAKE EDUCATION FREE AND BRING BACK A YEAR OF NATIONAL SERVICE TO TEACH THE VALUES THAT ARE NECESSARY AND FUNDEMENTAL TO THE FONDATIONS OF ANY NATION. PUT THE PEOPLE FIRST NOT THE GDP.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin..
Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com
.
WITH MIGO
The only thing worse than being 'blind' is having a Sight but no Vision
The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.
Sharing vegetarian and vegan recipes and food ideas
PPJ Gazette copyright ©
You must be logged in to post a comment.