, , , ,



(Five-minute read)


Here we go again.

The right person to lead the country is being selected without any democratic scrutiny by the people of England.

It is no wonder that Brexit is tearing the country apart when so many are denied a voice.

Millions of voters go without a say in crucial national decisions – excluded not only from government but from holding the government to account.

In 3 of the last 4 general elections IN ENGLAND at least 50% of votes went to losing candidates.

First past the post.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of first past the post system uk"

A seat won by a 40,000 vote majority has the same outcome as a seat won by a single vote: both elect just a single MP.

Parliament in allowing an internal election of a new Conservative leader to become the Priminister is not only failing to reflect the people it is supposed to represent it is a form of Populous Dictatorship.

A minority ruling over the majority goes against our most basic ideas about democracy.

The latest developments to vindicate a New Primister for the country (who will, in fact, represent the choice of hundred thousand or so Conservervate members out of which 60% are over 50 years of age)  isn’t just bad for democracy; it’s bad for politics and society.

First Past the Post is completely undemocratic severing the link between votes and seats.

Bipolar politics is designed to promote argument, not thought.

So it’s not surprising that we are now witnessing the election of a New Priminister with an out of date spluttering system that is unable to represent its citizens or to negotiate England’s withdrawal from the European Union without a mandate that represents the country as a whole.

Its no wonder England has politicians who most of you didn’t vote for and don’t agree with have the power to govern the UK however they like.

Its no wonder we see the construction/ imposition of one ideology for a period, followed by another, quite different ideology.

Its no wonder we see both main parties cling to their roots with extraordinary tenacity, even when confronted with the obvious fact: the conditions in society giving rise to these ideologies have long gone.

But First Past the Post keeps them in business and allows them to continue to indulge their emotion-based policies – with taxation paying for this indulgence.

Unchallenged by a more competitive electoral system, the ‘left’ and the ‘right’ parties remain trapped in their histories and beliefs, seeking differentiation through adopting the opposite of the other.

First Past The Post has many hidden direct and indirect costs. These are unrecorded, unstated and considerable, in taxes, wasted economic capacity, and wealth appropriation. The costs of all of these zigzags are borne by taxation.

First past the post is a non- linear system a dazzlingly stupid way to organize a modern democracy. It provides the bare minimum of democracy, is unrepresentative for the majority, and distorts the allocation of power.

Finally, First Past The Post is the best electoral medium for preferential lobbying.

This scourge of democracy is near universal.

Its elimination can only be achieved through a complete redesign of systems of government.



It may be simple to write an “X” next to a chosen candidate, but it’s incredibly difficult to know what that vote will mean. Millions of voters are forced to try to vote tactically by anticipating the decisions of other voters.

PR makes sure the share of seats each party gets matches the share of votes they receive. If a party gets 20% of the vote, it wins 20% of the seats. Parliament would accurately represent the people’s range of views and perspectives.

The opposition to PR Says:

We need the strong government that only first past the post can give’ and, by inference, not the namby-pamby government from coalitions and other inadequacies.

Sounds good, does it not?

Flutters the spine?

Makes one stand up straight.

I would say that the voting population of England is intelligent, much more has to change in all of these systems, including the EU.

Systems of government with PR suffer from many of the same failures and poor performance as the UK’s First Past The Post but,

does not allow the lending of votes to one candidate in order to knock out another to become Primisister  

The unseen consequences are about to be seen.

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









, , , ,


(Twenty seven-minute read)









We must now face the inevitable that long before Voyager Two sents back its last message it is most likely that there will be on here to hear it.

It’s happening everywhere, you can see it and you can feel it but for the most part, it is the invisible that will change first. Environmental change, Human factors, Economic effects and Political effects.

But, wait! There are people who are convinced that such a thing will never happen. Our ingenuity, they say, it is more than able to take care of that situation.

Without a habitable planet, we’re not destroying the world, we’re destroying ourselves.

There are six factors that make earth the habitable planet that it is now: water, temperature, atmosphere, energy, biogenic compounds and distance from the sun.

THERE IS NO POINT talking about it, writing, protesting, crying, the price has to paid now not in the distant future.

The change that is to come when we are the past will not suffice.





These ecosystem services are taken for granted and their willful obliteration proceeds at an ever-accelerating pace, despite ample evidence that we are committing suicide.




We now pretend that returning to plant carbon that is produced in annual cycles will somehow replace the geological carbon sources produced over eons.

THERE IS NO POINT planting trees, virtue will not be rewarded.


Scarcity of resources that can be alleviated only by market-based solutions.

Unfortunately for all Earthlings of whatever religious persuasion, the pristine lakes, rivers and streams, clean beaches, thriving forests, living oceans and seas, and fertile unspoiled land, cannot be “produced” by more regulations or by less.

Despite recycling efforts, almost 9 million tons of plastic end up in our oceans.

To deliver biofuels that would displace all fossil fuels, as well as food, we would have to manufacture and colonize six extra Earth-like planets.

I submit to you that this is the grandest of the many delusions that have ripped through human cultures over the millennia.

So here is a blog to read that tell the truth.

( “In order for us to maintain our way of living, we must, in a broad sense, tell lies to each other, and especially to ourselves. It is not necessary that the lies be particularly believable. The lies act as barriers to truth. These barriers to truth are necessary because without them many deplorable acts would become impossibilities. Truth must be at all costs avoided.

When we do allow self-evident truths to percolate past our defences and into our consciousness, they are treated like so many hand grenades rolling across the dance floor of an improbably macabre dance party. We try to stay out of harm’s way, afraid that they will go off, shatter our delusions, and leave us exposed to what we have done to ourselves and to the world, expose us as the hollow people we have become.

And so we avoid these truths, these self-evident truths, and continue the dance of world destruction.” Derrick Jensen, A Language Older Than Words, Context Books, New York, 2000, Silencing, page 2.

People all across the world are scared, angry and disoriented, and their governments routinely fail to explain the very basics of what is going on. Why is that?

Perhaps for the first time in modern western democracy, our leaders and leading intellectuals are relying in an essential way on keeping people confused.  This puts us on the opposite side of the moon from the attitudes of John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, and so on, who did their best to explain their thinking clearly to all. When these great men lived, the Earth surely seemed infinite, but she is very small today.

Here is the kicker: To pretend nowadays that the Earth is infinite, as most of us effectively do, and is capable of feeding our runaway economy ad infinitum requires some serious self-delusion.

In fairness to our leaders, they lie and we eagerly consume their lies, because otherwise, we would have to change from within, and for most people change is genetically impossible.  Generally, we leave change to political campaign slogans which so obviously lies that we do not have to do anything.

So, this is how it goes. Someone lies about an economic recovery which is just around the corner; someone else lies about the banks that must be saved at any cost with our money because they are too big to fail; and yet somebody else professes that converting over half of our fossil-fuel driven food to a fossil-driven biofuel is good for all.  And we all listen to these empty lies and eagerly try to believe them, for what else we can do.  That is a good question, isn’t it: What else can we do? Can you think about a thing or two you could change on your own?

How far do we need to step outside of the current system of lies that are fact to most?

Not that far, it turns out.  All we need to do is to admit that the Earth is finite, her resources are finite, and the current global economic system cannot grow.  In Europe, Japan, and the U.S., the respective economic systems have already reached the maximum attainable complexity and must undergo deep simplifications.

My Conclusions
“ “Maturity,” Bokonon tells us, is “bitter disappointment for which no remedy exists, unless laughter can be said to remedy anything.” ”Kurt Vonnegut, Cat’s Cradle, Chapter 88, page 198.

More of the tropical forest has been burned alive and a new oil palm or soybean plantation is born. This plantation will produce biodiesel or feed for Chinese livestock.  The good environmentalists will observe that the carbon footprint of the clean biodiesel produced on this plantation is negligible.  The good marketers will say that a free-market solution is used to develop an idle resource in a third-world country.  I say that everybody lies to cover this self-evident crime, but the living Earth is diminished further, in exchange for 10 – 20 years of someone’s illegal cash profits, most likely financed with a World Bank loan. After that, the polluted, depleted, and eroded-away land will be abandoned, and the plantation will take over another area of the forest. And so on, until we run out of the forest.

I am mature alright, and I laugh a lot, but this is what I must say through tears: The Earth is not in a state of “environmental crisis” that would imply a temporary condition amenable to remediation.  Because of too many people, who consume too much and produce too many things using messy technologies, the Earth is in the state of chronic environmental degradation which shows signs of acceleration, not abating.  There are no global solutions, but there are ever more deleterious designs on what is left of the environmental services of the planet.  One such big design involves the production of biofuels in the tropics, and Europe and the United States of America are deeply implicated.

We want to avoid the outcome of Cat’s Cradle: All life on Earth being exterminated by superior science. Thus, we need to step out of the bounds of our current systems thinking and look from the outside on the false security of our complex societies. Perhaps then we will be able to see more clearly where this continuing environmental degradation leads us and do something.

It is safe to say that my difficult and unpleasant suggestions will not be heard by mainstream journalists and politicians on the left or the right.  But what is bound to happen then?  My natural laughter freezes when I think about the consequences of stumbling along, while also knowing that exactly nothing will happen until it is way-way too late“.)

Most people don’t realize What happens to our heat-trapping fossil fuel emissions after we release them, … will continue to expand even though Earth’s atmosphere has begun to recover.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of earth from the moon"

A human can live for only 5 minutes without air, 3 days without water, and 30 days without food.

If you want to live now is the time for Profit Capitalism to be made to pay. ( See previous posts on a World Aid  

With Climate change now becoming a by-product of consumerism we will unfortunately all end up as products of our cultures. 

There is no second world that any of us are going to to visit.

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






, , , ,


( Twenty five minute read)

Most recently, reverse racism has gotten media attention.

Whites, who have been historically privileged, feel left out when society is trying to level the field for minority groups. However, many social activists challenge this notion because cultural bias prevents us from seeing other people’s humanity.

It doesn’t matter which colour does the hating.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "belle image contre le racisme"

Prejudice is based on assuming that every one that is part of a group will behave according to stereotypical behaviour.

We evaluate people for the race or group they belong, not for who they are seeing others through our cultural preferences.

Intolerance is natural, rejecting the unknown is part of a self-mechanism.

However, considering the limitless access to education and information, it’s hard to believe that racism continues to be so prominent. It’s unacceptable that, in the 21st-century leaders continue to manipulate people by turning a (racial) group into a common enemy — they’ve turned intolerance into an art.

Rather than taking people for who they are; we are told to judge them by the group they belong to.

Movies, magazines, the news, to name a few, feed our mind with distorted symbols that shape our definition of race.

The paradox of racism is that people are more prejudicial than they want to admit. The worst part is that putting all the responsibility on the unconscious bias removes ownership. People can assume it’s not their fault that they being blinded by the colour of someone else’s skin —the Implicit Bias should be blamed for it.

The problem is that rather than celebrating our differences we are forcing people to fit in, which drives misunderstanding and prejudice creating a racial hierarchy when all humans are closely related. 

We all have the same collection of genes, but slightly different versions of some of them.

Race is a social concept; it’s not part of our DNA, we learn it as we grow up.

Our mind is race agnostic until society teaches us that not all skin colours are equal.

There are several manifestations of racism.

Internalized racism refers to the feelings of self-hatred among oppressed groups. Their traits have been devalued in Western societies.

Colourism is discrimination based on skin colour — darker-skinned groups are treated worse than lighter skin ones by whites or even members of their own race.

Subtle racism is described as a person who has implicit racial or other negative attitudes towards another group. It doesn’t always include acts of bigotry; it also involves everyday behaviours such as ignoring, ridiculing or treating people as less worthy of respect because of their race.

Today there is a refusal to know or see, or to listen or hear, or to validate that we are all complicit in society’s institutional racism.

Day after day on Social Media we witness the inability of white people to tolerate racial stress. This creates a climate where the suggestion or accusation of racism causes more outrage among white people than the racism itself.

Its a favourite topic for standup comedians, politicians, all contributing to a polarised society. It seems we are forever talking about race. Or talking about why we can’t talk about race.

Racism is a system rather than just a slur; it is prejudice plus power.

And in Britain and the US at least, it is designed to benefit and privilege whiteness by every economic and social measure. One has only to look at Donald Dump and the false claims about immigrants during the English referendum.

However  “reverse racism”  a form of discrimination does not come with systemic privilege and so is not racism as per the modern definition.

Why not just say racism is racism?

Reverse suggests it is going in the wrong direction. People who complain about reverse racism never seem to complain about racism otherwise. These are not racial justice advocates.

Whiteness is considered the norm for humanity, it’s default setting.

Culture becomes something discussed only in reference to people of colour so we grant white people the individuality that we don’t afford people of colour.

Racism is a white problem. It was constructed and created by white people and the ultimate responsibility lies with white people.

 Why is colour such a powerful force in our lives when we all bleed red?

We should be more aware of the psychological effects of colour and embrace uniqueness.

Modern science has debunked the myth that certain races have more gifted brains than others. However, many people still take that belief as true.

Our society is still paying a high price for it.

When you understand that the colour of the skin is not correlated to anything else, it’s easier to realize that the world does not revolve around you.

It’s not that white people are not superior, no one else is.

We all know that colour predigests of skin tone to the extent that race is a strong modulator of social cognition and its underlying neural processes.

We have online abuse, prejudice, bias, polarisation, fake news, all disconnected to what is happing.

It’s not only organised racist groups that take advantage of online communication; unaffiliated individuals do it too. Racist groups manipulate information and use clever rhetoric to help build a sense of a broader “white” identity, which often goes beyond national borders. They argue that conflict between different ethnicities is unavoidable and that what most would view as racism is, in fact, a natural response to the “oppression of white people”.

These individuals use online channels to validate their beliefs and achieve a sense of belonging in virtual spaces where racist hosts provide an uncontested and hate-supporting community. Resulting in several examples of violent acts perpetrated offline by isolated individuals who radicalise into white supremacist movements.

This is why some advocate for political education that addresses both personal and structural prejudice more directly, as well as political action and intervention in media systems.

With this complex view in mind, we can see that any attempts to redress or ameliorate racism or any other intolerance must include not only education, or even merely a wide array of communicative responses (media and face-to-face), but also efforts at addressing social inequalities at the structural and policy levels.

One area of particular interest is whether the skin colour issue of whether factors such as skin colour will have have an effect on body-ownership.

Understanding if and how multisensory processing can alter self-representations across the boundaries of racial groups will present itself with the first black robot. It will change in body-awareness as a result of multisensory stimulation and go beyond one’s own skin colour.

A hand of a different skin colour performing an action compared to a hand of their own colour.

The colour of our skin says a lot about our minds.

I choose to keep mine open. The brain is a flexible muscle, don’t let stereotypes rigidify your thoughts.

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











, , ,



(Fifteen-minute read)

Three years of political disarray are now climaxing in a non-democratic election of a new prime minister.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "images of civil unrest"

In the present environment which has little or no social purpose, the fundamental problem is that a hung parliament is electing a new leader for the country without a mandate from the country as a whole.

It is absurd to be able to become a leader of a country just because your party is currently in power. Which can only lead to a General election that is going split the United?

All of this is driven by populous Social Media chatter which is trying to be heard under rules of an unwritten constitution based the Great Charter or Magna Carta libertatum written by a bunch of rich dudes with swords who got mad at their king.

Most of the 63 clauses of the Magna Carta were concerned with guaranteeing feudal law and benefited only the feudal nobility. The Church was granted its traditional freedom and privileges. A few clauses dealt with the rights of the middle class in the towns and relieved some economic inequities. But the ordinary freeman and peasant, who made up the vast bulk of England’s population, were scarcely mentioned.

The Magna Carta was not, therefore, a great democratic document, securing fundamental liberties for all. Instead, it was essentially a feudal charter assuring privileges to the aristocracy.

Since its inception 800 years ago, it has been used several times to restrain the power of the monarch. Although the more dated clauses have since been repealed, some remain enshrined in British law today, in particular, the right to a fair trial for all citizens.

Indeed the core principles of Magna Carta can also be found in a variety of legal documents today and are echoed in the United States Bill of Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Not bad for a document that lasted 10 days.

Still considered to be Britain’s “statute number one,” to understand the civil rights it provides and the foundation it laid for future use.

Modified several times over the centuries by ordinary laws issued by the parliament, it is still considered a valuable and fundamental document.

A document which Prime Minister David Cameron said ‘changed the world’.  Indeed! it did.

We feel nothing of the drama and shenanigans of those days of political fever.

I am not advocating here that this the reason that England could see civil unrest but it has set helped to set a class structure that is now divided and will be unable to unite whether England stays in or is attached or leaves the European Union.

That apart the fuse awaiting to be light, is the Northern Ireland backstop.

It is becoming more and more apparent that Brixit is no longer about whether is In or Out of the European Union rather it is about, an out of date voting systems First Past the post, that gives a limited voice to the population as a whole.Image associée

The Eatonmess is now an English breakfast.

Can it be resolved?

Yes and No

It looks more and more like a serious political uprising will erupt when the magic ingredient are in place.

Economic backwardness the Northern Ireland backstop and a deal with Mr Donald Dump, a General election with Nigel Farage, could prove to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

There is only one reasonable course and that is to abort articular 50.

In doing so in order to show genuine participation join the Euro.

So can there ever be a morally respectable case for using predictions of civil unrest as an argument against a proposed policy?  Undoubtedly.

I am afraid that Brexit goes much further than leaving the EU it is reverting to Nationalism due to among many other things the lack of Civic Education to impart an Identity, to the tabloid press and social media that is spreading a post-factual society where evidence and truths no longer matter where lie and truth have equal status.

The gaps between perception and reality must be addressed. One can see this when it comes to immigrants not just in the Uk but across Europe. Immigrants that get resident status should be spread throughout the country and not allowed to settle in certain regions.

Everybody must share in the countries wealth by issuing Citizens bonds. ( See the previous post)

More responsible politics, polarized societies are far less tolerant of Globalization.

This requires dropping the language of fear.

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




, , , , , ,


(Twenty-minute read)


Twenty years ago, in 1999, the world was a completely different place than it is today.


Because we are creating a much more difficult world. A populist World.

A world no matter where you go you can’t get off the grid.

Post a 2009 photo of yourself next to a recent one, to show how much you’ve changed.

Millions have and are criticised for being – among other things – narcissistic, ageist and sometimes a bit sexist.

Each generation brings new social issues to the forefront.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "the world is changing new dangers there be"

Although 1999 might not feel that far away sometimes when you think about how much the world has changed since then, it feels like it happened a million years ago.

You now get updates from the president of the United States on Twitter.

In 1998, the world global population was sitting at 5.9 billion Fast forward 20 years, and the world’s population is estimated at 7.6 billion.

Twenty years ago, less than half of the world’s population lived in urban areas, today 55% of people live in urban areas.

It’s hard to imagine a world without the internet today, but that wasn’t the case 20 years ago.

The internet has transformed virtually every aspect of our lives, from the way we communicate to how we consume news, shop, navigate, and entertain ourselves.

In 1998 a little company called Google was born then came Facebook.

Today, more than two-thirds of all Americans are on Facebook, the most popular social media platform, and in three years there are estimated to be more than 3 billion social media users overall around the world.

The first cell phone was created in 1973.

Today, you can talk on the phone and use the internet at the same time.

For many people, the “Phone” feature has become one of the least-used features. But in the future, phones could make another drastic change. The World Economic Forum thinks that the first implantable phones will become commercially available by 2024.

It wasn’t until after the Twin Towers fell in New York due to the attacks on 9/11 (in 2001) that terrorism became a much more real threat.

The September 11, 2001 attacks led to resentment toward Arabs and Muslims in the Western world that arguably hasn’t subsided in the years since. The attacks also gave way to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — the latter of which is still ongoing.

On 17 December 2010, a Tunisian street vendor called Mohamed Bouazizi refused to pay a bribe to local officials, so had his fruit and vegetable cart confiscated as a result. Faced with an unforgiving bureaucratic process, he set himself on fire.

This act, less than 10 years ago, was the catalyst for what was later known as the Arab Spring – a wave of protests across the Middle East and North Africa that, in some cases, led to bloody civil wars and a refugee crisis that saw a record number of people forced from their homes.

Yemen, where a three-year civil war has led to the world’s worst humanitarian crisis today.

Today, mass shootings are happening on a much more regular basis in the US and terror attacks around the world are commonplace.

After the financial crash trust in financial institutions has never been lower.

Self-driving cars are on the thresh hold of reality.

2018 was when the world really woke up to the reality of plastic pollution as well as climate change. Scientists calculate that about 10m tonnes of plastic waste ends up in the oceans every year Рand that some of that can take hundreds of years to biodegrade.R̩sultat de recherche d'images pour "the world is changing new dangers there be"

The biggest change today for all is that Climate change is becoming a grim reality.

The planet’s average surface temperature has risen by about 0.9C since the late 19th century – and about a third of that has happened in the last decade.

Almost 200 governments will meet in Paris in late 2015 to try to agree on a deal to limit global warming to avert floods, droughts, heatwaves and rising sea levels blamed on rising emissions of greenhouse gases.

THE CENTRAL CONTRADICTION of climate change is that it is at once the most epic problem that our species has ever faced yet it is largely invisible to the average human.

The implications are shocking but something more subtle will also unfold:

As the climate changes, humans might adapt to some extent, and move, but animals and ecosystems won’t be able to in that short time period.

It’s these indirect impacts on natural and agricultural systems that will cause the collapse of society, countries, our ability to live. Given  the magnitude and rate of these changes, If you don’t have a good idea of what’s coming, it’s hard to mitigate against the threat.

What we are talking about here is average climate, not the weather.

The problem is that climate systems are monumentally complex, and impenetrable datasets do little to change our understanding of climate change. It becomes psychologically distant.

But it is here, and it’s already wreaking havoc.

Though we’re starting to feel the effects of climate change, those effects are not dramatic enough on a day-to-day basis to convince the majority. Unfortunately, scare tactics don’t work to change people’s beliefs and behaviour.

If the problem was that bad, wouldn’t we be putting effort into solving it?

If there’s nothing you can do about it, you disconnect, you disengage.

In fact, the election of Donald Trump — who’s called climate change a “hoax” and said on Twitter that climate change isn’t real because it’s cold out.

So, what can be done to make even more people care about climate change? To motivate people to take action, it’s important to connect climate change to something tangible, like air pollution and health problems.

We will not be returning to what it was.

We live in “MarketWorld” now governed by algorithms.

These entities aren’t doing anything good; There’s still no real alternative to our profit-driven economy.

A better world is just one time-management app, one brilliant entrepreneur.

No matter what, if we emit CO2, we are hurting future generations.

By the end of this century, some parts of the world could face as many as six climate-related crises at the same time

We as humans don’t feel the pain of people who are far away or far into the future.

However, the costs of inaction greatly outweigh the costs of taking action. The dire the situation is for humanity, unprintable here.

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

Image associée




, , , , ,



( A twenty-minute read)

We all accept that in a thousand trillion years from now when what left of the Universe that the human species and all others will not exist.

So there is no need to worry nor will there be any need to worry in 6 billion years that the earth will be fried by the sun.

Or in 50 years or perhaps in twelve years our human footprint is predicted to make most if not all the earth unlivable dehumanizing us all.

We have all witnessed today the consequences of dehumanization, ISIS, Rwanda Genocide, Extermination of Jews by the Nazis but it is wrong to assume cruelty comes from dehumanization it’s not the whole picture we often fold to the social pressures of our environment.

Since the dawn of humanity, we are all capable of it in one form or another and there is no doubing that it will follow us into space.

Wars, Famines, Genocides, Religious bigotry, Racial discrimination, Mass killings you name it and you could have participated in that, and that’s the ugly truth.

The conclusion is that almost anyone is capable of committing staggering atrocities under the right circumstances as we don’t behave in stressful situations the way we think we would or the way we would like to.

Military service relies on dehumanization so people are able to do terrible things to other people only after having dehumanized them.

Acknowledging other people’s humanity won’t solve our problems.

We need a culture less obsessed with power and honour and more concerned with mindfulness and dignity.

If you were able to realize that Jews, Blacks, Gays, Muslims, were people just like you, then evil might disappear but brutality would still prevail within all.

Take white supremacists they know about the humanity of Jews and black people and whoever else they’re discriminating against — and it terrifies them.

One of their slogans is, “You will not replace us.” Think of what that means.

That’s not what you chant if you thought they were roaches or subhuman. That’s what you chant at people you’re really worried about, people who you think are a threat to your status and way of life.

So cruelty isn’t an accident or an aberration, but something central to who and what we are. This is reflected in the psychological appetites we have, like an appetite to punish those we think have done wrong.

Dehumanization is real and terrible.

We all know what is wrong with the world we live in – inequality.

As long as human civilization continues to be dominated and is disfigured by capitalism we will see one atrocity after and other.

Such as.

There are over 35 major conflicts going on in the world today.

35% of the world’s people live in countries in which basic political rights and civil liberties are denied (such as freedom of speech, religion, press, fair trials, democratic political processes, etc).

20 million people held in bonded labour.

Up to 2 million, mostly woman and children, are victims of human trafficking worldwide.

Why are human beings so cruel to each other? And how do we justify acts of sheer inhumanity?

60 per cent of mammal species are not known to kill one another at all.

The simple answer is that it’s in our genes.

One could rattle on forever on the subject and get nowhere but because of the effects of Climate Change to come in the next 12 to 50 years, we are going to see humanity test to breaking point.

However evolutionary history is not a total straitjacket we can build a more pacific less cruel society if we wish.

Climate change is going to intensify our efforts to solve the world’s most serious and pervasive problems. With all our technological advances both climate change and cruelty will be intimately linked.

Who will decide upon areas to be saved?

On what criteria.  By the general appearance or what are the main ecosystems in them.

When it comes to murderous tendencies, humans really are exceptional.

Success will be hard won, mostly because there will be no single path to saving, room for reefs, forests, and other keystone habitats given the huge diversity of cultures, political systems, geographic situations and stages of development in human communities from the inhabitable fringes of the poles to the Equator.

We can’t save ourselves without saving the very ecosystems we all rely on.

A moral abyss.

Humanity is a juggernaut which is essentially mindless presently displaying a combination of ignorance and despair.

With the building toward a stabilizing earth’s climate will see cruelty on a global scale.

The range of threats is dizzyingly varied.

But there are many pathways to solutions, we have no need to surrender to nihilism.

The causes—human population growth, habitat loss, climate change—are complex and interlocking, fueling each other in an ever faster destructive spiral.

We are still at the beginning of a potential mass socialist movement, not a Consumerism, not Communism but an era in need of citizens attachment, with a vested interest in our future — a priceless opportunity we cannot afford to waste.

(See the previous post on Citizens Bonds)

This could be an era, in which value is extended to saving the rest of nature. Knowing it, preserving it, studying it, understanding it, cherishing it, and holding on until we know what the hell we’re doing.

I think that, for the most part, people who do terrible things are just like us. They’ve just gone astray in certain specific ways.

So why worry?

The human populations of the plante is incapable of recognizing the cruelty it inflicts on all forms of life till it s to late.

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







(Ten-minute read)

With around seventy per cent of you voting to remain you don’t have to be told that it is your generation that will have to bear the consequences. Organisers say up to 670,000 people attended today's march

So why have you lost your tongues.

It seems from listing to the current political discourse that politicians do not care about what young people think, but they need to hear it?

If not you’re going to be talking about and thinking about Europe for the rest of your lives.

Now is the time to start yelling out loud not afterwards.

Given that the European Union is a relatively young entity it needs the talent, energy, and the ingenuity of your generation.

Your country might well be doing more trade with the rest of the world after Brexit but you are cutting off access to our closest trading partners in Europe no matter the rewards is folly in the extream.

In this world of yours, you should be an engaged country, not a closed country, not an inward-looking country. You should be working with Europe, not working with America, to solve the big problems in the world. You should be wanting the opportunities that your parents and grandparents have had from the EU and not be limited by Brexit.

Brexit is going to significantly limit [those] opportunities.

You don’t need to convince other young people that Brexit is bad, [but] what you do need to convince young people of is that the hierarchical system of the Uk most change.

You know far more about the EU than they do.

On social media, there is space for your voices to protest but not to be heard.

This is not where your voices will be heard because they cause no disruption that any politician has to heed.

To restore UK democracy, to be free of the EU’s unaccountable bureaucrats, and take back control of your borders, your laws, your trade policy, and your money and then hand all of them back to a Prime minister that is elected by 2.7% of the voting electorial is beyond conception.

Yes, 52% vote in favour of leaving the European Union influenced by a litmus test of
the merits of the EU project, and perhaps because of globalisation more generally, rather than as a lightning rod for wider political discontent.

The outcome of the referendum does not necessarily represent a rejection of the EU at all.

Look at the recent London Olympics. It was not the EU competing but individual countries. The French were the French the Dutch the Dutch. The European Union is not a supranational project nor will it ever be.

Its people may feel that their distinctive national identity and the culture that they associate with that identity are being undermined by the EU but honestly ask yourselves can 28 Europe’s nations be forced into a ‘Federal Superstate.

The EU is, for the most part, a relatively remote institution. Few voters have a deep appreciation of what it does, of how it operates, or of the personnel that occupy its principal political positions.

So when they are asked what they think about the EU, voters might be inclined
to think about how they are being governed in general, rather than about the EU in particular.

If you really look at the result of the IN or Out referendum the vote represented a more general dissatisfaction with the way in which voters feel that they are being governed. This is the main reason for the increase in turnout.

Education is, of course, linked to social class and to the results of the referendum vindicated by the pattern of voting in the EU referendum reflected then, above all,
an educational divide. Common to all European states.

Attitudes towards aspects of the immigration were also related to how people voted in the referendum but concerns about immigration can also be thought to be an indicator
of a wider set of attitudes about the kind of society in which people wish to live.

Britishness rather than Englishness has long been promoted as a ‘multi-cultural’ identity, and thus there has also long been a link between feeling British and holding a more liberal attitude towards migrant minorities.

While the older generation gets agitated about the loss of ‘sovereignty’ to a faceless EU bureaucracy, this barely flickers as an issue for young people in YouGov focus groups.

Why? Because the 21st Century is bearing witness to the 4th industrial (technological) revolution.

Taking back control over sovereignty and laws, it a myth.

Young people are no strangers to perceived intergenerational unfairness. They now take it for granted that they will never be able to afford the kind of houses their parents lived in.

The young however have grown up able to look beyond the shores of England. They like being a part of something bigger. They can link up with others in Europe to campaign to improve the environment and human rights. There is a sense that, should things turn sour at home, the EU is there for them as a safety blanket.

In a society in which relatively few have ever felt a strong sense of European
identity, the debate about EU membership seems to have brought false concerns to the fore such that in the event a narrow majority voted to leave while democratic is also non-democratic.

Now you are witnessing politicians pushing their own agendas, bending statistics and contradicting each other – it is your future on which Britain will be voting.

You must demand a General election.

Brexit?  Not in my name.

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





(Five-minute read)

Throughout history, monarchs have rewarded those who have shown service, loyalty or gallantry with gifts or titles.

As ‘fountain of honour’ in the UK the Queen has the sole right of conferring titles of honour on deserving people from all walks of life, in public recognition of their merit, service or bravery.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the queen bestowing honours"

In 1917 the Queen’s grandfather, George V, developed a new order of chivalry, called the Order of the British Empire, as a way of rewarding both men and women who had made an outstanding contribution to the WWI war effort.

Nowadays the Order of the British Empire rewards service in a wide range of areas, from acting to charity work, with honours that include the well-known MBE and OBE.

Here are a few:  Which would you scrap or keep?

What do you think?

The Order of the Garter

This is the oldest and most senior order of chivalry in Britain; it is limited to 24 members who are selected and appointed personally by The Queen.

The Order of the Thistle

Recognising sixteen knights by a personal gift of The Queen, this is the highest order of chivalry in Scotland.

Order of the British Empire

Instituted in 1917 by George V to reward outstanding contribution to the war effort, this Order now rewards people from all walks of life with well-known honours such as MBEs and OBEs.

Order of Merit

The sole gift of the Sovereign to 24 members at any one time, this rewards those who have achieved greatly in the arts, learning, literature and science.

Order of the Bath

Including past members such as Nelson and Wellington, this Order recognises the work of senior military officials and civil servants.

Royal Victorian Order

The personal gift of the Sovereign, this honour is awarded to those who have served The Queen or the monarchy in a particular way.

Royal Family Orders

These are small portraits of the Sovereign attached to ribbon, gifted to Members of the Royal Family.

Commonwealth Honours

Commonwealth citizens can also receive UK awards, and Commonwealth countries have their own honours, which are sometimes awarded to UK citizens.

Military Honours and Awards.

Knight Commander or Dame of the most excellent order of the British Empire abbreviate to KBE and DBE.

The rank entails admission into knighthood, allowing male recipients to use the title ‘Sir’ or female recipients ‘Dame’ before his or her name.

Not everyone wants the honour and people are allowed to turn down the award, which occasionally happens (for example, Roald Dahl turned down his award). People can also have their honour taken away from them if they are disgraced or behave in a bad way.

Such as Benito Mussolini, Robert Mugabe, Rolf Harris, Harvey Weinstein, ( could be still on the list)

God forbid we don’t see Mr Trump getting one that he has to give back.
Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the queen bestowing honours"

Of course, the ethical question in the first place is should one accept an honour from a King or Queen.

These awards are made without recognising ties to the British imperialist history or its legacy. As such their Empire titles of honour suck.

As a free man, not a serf I could not accept an honour tied in name to the ‘British Empire’.

They should be renamed by devising a fair and independent new method to annually acclaim exceptional citizens for their contribution to the nation, not to overweening political parties or the semi-skilled, dysfunctional Windsors.

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





, , , , , , , , ,


(Five-minute read)

The international community is a phrase used in geopolitics and international relations to refer to a broad group of people and governments of the world. It slips off the tongue of BBC correspondents and newsreaders as if it is just good old plain common sense.

The international society thinks this … believes that … is concerned about.


Are they wasting their breath?

If you were to asked me I would say that activists, politicians and commentators often use the term in calling for action to be taken in order to deflect their own countries dismal response.

We all know what is meant by the term ‘international community’, don’t we?

It’s the west, of course, nothing more, nothing less.

Just look at the global issue of climate change which could not be more International which urgently requires a common strategy with binding targets that must be defined on a planetary scale. The central driver of climate change risk is mainstream economic (development) models which aspire to carbon-intensive industrialization.

It is speculated that our global interconnectedness, instead of (only) making us more resilient, makes us more vulnerable to global catastrophe.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the international community"

Solving climate change will take a global effort not an international effort.

Take Aviation pollution alone it is forecasted to triple by 2050 if there are no global policy measures are agreed.

The Earth can not appeal to an International community but our world in which no individual, and no country, exists in isolation, is now facing perhaps its final disaster.

The involvement of Muslim countries – and from contrasting traditions to those of the Arab world – would be most valuable.

It would also represent a most welcome redefinition of the “international community.

Take China for example:  

In fact, the Chinese have their own definition of “international community” to counter what they see as a western-dominated and defined international community.

Take Lebanon, for example:

What did the beloved “international community” think:

Take War-torn Syria, for example:

It is one country where there are sharply divided views between the West on the one side and China and Russia on the other.

Take India, or Latin America, or Africa, or South East Asia?

What do they think?

We are never told. Nobody bothered to find out.

Take Brexit.

Everyone seems to have someone, perhaps some group of people, on whom he or she looks down or whom he or she considers inferior. That is why, for example, the west finds it almost impossible to win votes on many issues in the UN general assembly.

If we are brutally honest with yourself it comes from sheer ignorance.

There is no international community. There is merely a group of states motivated by self-interest.

The international community is a mythical joke.

There will never be one that is worthy of respect rather than a cheap joke.

What we got is a digital dictatorship in its infancy. A world run by Algorithms mostly for profit.

What is needed is an global awaking.

Image associée

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




, , , , , , , , , ,


( Five minutes read and twenty minutes listen)


By establishing a unified economic and monetary system, to promote inclusion and combat discrimination, to break down barriers to trade and borders, to encourage technological and scientific developments, to champion environmental protection.

Fifty-two years later even as it adapts to meet the evolving challenges of the modern world, with all its faults, it has delivery just that- Peace.

Let us all remember the price the world paid to agree with these shared values.

The lessons of World War II — on whose ashes the United Nations was also founded emphasizing that remembrance is a debt owed to those who had lost their lives in World War II.Slide 3 of 18: Navy, Army and Merchant Marine servicemen in New York read the Daily News on June 6 for information about the D-Day invasion.

(By the end of the war, the total deaths ranging from 70 million to 85 million. Civilians deaths totalled 50 to 55 million. Military deaths from all causes totalled 21 to 25 million.)

However, the ideals and spirit that inspired the creation of the United Nations and the EU remain to be transformed into reality.

It is still necessary to remember the causes and overcome the legacies of the Second World War.

To reject and condemn any attempts to rewrite history or undertake attempts to glorify Nazism or any type of fascism.

Today, tolerance and restraint continued to be considered in world policy as signs of weakness and the use of violence and sanctions were praised; the world could therefore not say that the Second World War had been properly remembered.

Indeed it is our duty to revere and preserve and reform both the United Nations and the European Union because too much was paid for them, and too much is now at stake for succeeding generations.

So here below for all the Donald Trumps, Brexiteers, and Populous is a Speech that tells the TRUTH. 

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