, , , , ,


( Twenty-minute read)


Call it what you want:

Political Science,  Political theory, Comparative Politics, International Relations, Political Methodology. It all leaves you scratching your head and wondering what is Political Science exactly?

Political Science is a social science that focuses on government institutions and political behaviour, but how exactly did it come about?

When one watches gatherings such as the G7/8 of world leader one would have to ask where are we going.

Every major media outlet has a political scientist on call to commentate about likely voter reactions to the candidates’ stances on hot-button issues.

The behavioural models that political scientists create can practically forecast the outcome of an election before a single vote has been cast.

However in the 21st, it means “democracy”, is the crowd-sourcing of politics run by algorithms.

So political science is governed by five myths:

That it is possible to study politicsn> That it is scientific > That it is possible to study politics separated off from economics, sociology, psychology and history > That the state in our democratic capitalist society is politically neutral, that is available as a set of institutions and mechanisms to whatever group wins the election > That political science, as a discipline, advances the cause of democracy.

For me it is “superficial and trivial”, and that concept formation and development is “little more than hair-splitting and jargon”

These days we are told if something can’t be measured, then that’s not it, and if an event didn’t happen twice, then it didn’t happen.

One way or the other all the more interesting questions falling outside the bounds of scientific investigation, the internet age is gradually forcing itself upon our leaders but it is unlikely to make them reconnect with voters “less because they see the light, and more because they are beginning to feel the heat”.

For all the talk about politics, political science has never decided what exactly it should study.

The result is that many trivial matters receive an inordinate amount of attention and many important ones go untreated like climate change.

In short, political science seems to have turned around the order in which any person not trained in the discipline would try to answer the questions.

We will soon learn that political science is not about the real world but only about those features of the world that can be studied by methods deemed to be scientific.

“What should I study?” and “How should I study it?”.

What has political science found out about the political sphere that we didn’t know before, or that isn’t abysmally trivial?

It makes even the worst real-world inequalities acceptable (not worth bothering about) by rendering them irrelevant to the task at hand. Guess to whose benefit?

Few things are more important to the legitimation of capitalist rule than the assurance given by political science that the dictatorship of the capitalist class in which we live is really a democratic state of the whole people.

If political science really wishes to advance the cause of democracy (as one of the myths of our discipline already has it doing), we should help people understand that the main barrier to democracy today is capitalism.

Given the importance of the capitalist context for everything that goes on inside it, this is also a first step toward making our research truly scientific, that is capable of uncovering how the state and politics really work, and how—with the democratization of undemocratic capitalist relations of production, distribution and exchange—they might yet come to work for everyone.

Now here is a non-trivial agenda worthy of political science that aspires to advance the cause of democracy through the use of scientific

The rational choice carries the miniaturization of political science one step further by dismissing what people actually do politically and concentrating on their decisions to do it,

We see news reports, headlines in the papers and if one checks the details you find that the headlines are misleading or half-truths.

I accept that all news, in whatever medium, is subject to some editorial bias but the days of reporting the facts dispassionately are gone due to social media.

Take Brexit for example:

Parties that had strong collective identities are now falling asunder all being lead by popularism into political cul-de-sacs. The loyalty and cohesion of political parties now depend much more on short term smartphone mass memberships.

The results are tragi-comedy modernisation and public mistrusted.

This is what motivated the In or Out referendum not an understanding of the long term consequences.

Annexing subjects like the European Union affects all lives in countless ways –

I don’t think that any political science predicted a Party without power or fame the Brexit Party. It now represents a piece of evidence about how the ground is shifting.

Thus to ask today, in the middle of Mitteleuropa, where political science has been heading is also to ask whether the new beginnings of the discipline in Eastern Europe should or should not follow the path entered by our “big brother,”

The digital revolution will do to grand planners in the West what the collapse of Communism did to socialist planners in the old Soviet bloc”.


Are we somehow going to see sense and see through the lies?

How have rampant inequalities shaped electoral campaigns and promises?

We don’t need political science to say that global climate change is real.

If you don’t believe it you’re anti-facts.

THE ONLY SOLUTION IS, to open up politics with the right of “recall” against MPs with whom constituents were dissatisfied.

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










, , , , ,


( A Fifteen-minute read)

There isn’t long to go until England’s scheduled departure from the EU when we will all see if there is any honesty in politics?

Are we going to witness “a side deal” between the EU and the UK re the backstop?

At the moment the Irish Government and EU leaders are sticking to the position there will be no discussions with the UK on how to manage a no-deal on the Border until after the UK has left the EU.

While the new Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, now claims the backstop is “dead” a kamikaze no-deal Brexit will change that.Some food businesses in North ‘could go out of businesses within three days’ under no-deal Brexit

When it comes to the backstop we are talking about Northern Ireland, not Ulster.

Maybe Ireland, as part of Europe, would be the saner option for nationalists; even some unionists. The reality is who would pay for it the EU, Ireland or England or a combination of all three.

When you include the British expats already living in the Republic, a united Ireland would contain about a million people who identify as British: that reality would have to be recognised and somehow accommodated. Britain’s desire to be more British would actually make Ireland more British and Britain less so: because it would have lost the North, and probably Scotland soon after. At least it would reveal that when Brexiteers say Britain, they really mean England. Sorry, Wales.

Of course, is the there is another hypertechnical position.

If the EU fails to support its member Ireland it could opt to join the United Kingdom.

Either options  would be fiendishly complex to organise and require money, imagination and empathy to put together.

There will be no free lunch. It’ll be like starting Ireland over from scratch.

Back to the present.

One way or another the UK now want part of a reality or all of an illusion?

While new beginnings usually offer the chance of a fresh approach, the new Uk government’s approach to date suggests that we are more likely to witness further attempts to avoid the tough decisions and to offer little honesty on the very real trade-offs that Brexit will force on the British public.

Just like today in the Commons, the Irish parliament in Dublin back in 1921 was fiercely polarised between those who accepted the recent Anglo-Irish treaty and those who saw it as failing to offer the promised full Irish republic.

In 1921, the political division between the pro- and anti-treaty groups in Ireland was fuelled broadly by two radically opposing interpretations of the treaty. The pro-treaty faction claimed that the agreement creating the limited Free State was the best they could get and was a stepping stone to further independence. On the anti-treaty side, the same agreement was seen as a failure to achieve what was promised, a Republic, and those who signed it were traitors.

Mr Johnson with no meaning full mandate seems set to try to avoid the backstop through different means—either by trying to renegotiate the deal with the EU or by leaving the EU with no deal all ‘very gung-ho.’

As an Irishman, I am duty-bound to lend my offerings to this.

My first offering is with a no-deal the Northern Ireland border becomes an EU border. As such there will have to be border checks and tariffs.

There is an obligation on the EU and its member states to remain unity together if it wants to keep the main principle of the European Union – Peace. 

The 1998 Good Friday Agreement was a key part of this peace process. One of the agreement’s three main points was creating the infrastructure for “North-South co-operation” between the Irish government and the newly-created Northern Irish Assembly.

Both the UK and EU agreed that, in negotiating a deal on the relationship after Brexit, keeping the border open and upholding the terms of the Good Friday Agreement was of critical importance even if future trade negotiations fail, there should be provisions in place to ensure that the border remains open, as it is today.

That principle is the Irish backstop. The day’s of an Englishman’s word has long gone. 

As part of Brexit, the UK intends to leave both the single market and customs union.

The terms of the Good Friday Agreement can not be upheld without the UK being part of these two things.  Customs and regulatory checks on goods will be necessary in some form (possibly away from the border). Were the UK to leave the EU with “no-deal” Northern Ireland (as part of the UK) would have different customs and regulatory standards to Ireland (as part of the EU).

This means there could and will be a need for customs checks on goods to be introduced at the border, which could create a “hard border” with physical infrastructure, like cameras or guard posts. All undermine the principle of North-South cooperation as set out in the Good Friday agreement.

In March, the UK government set out its plan for avoiding a hard border in Ireland in the case of no deal.

It says it would introduce no new tariffs on goods crossing the border from Ireland into Northern Ireland, and no new checks or controls at the border itself (although some new customs requirements would be placed on a small number of goods, these would happen away from the border. This is a unilateral measure set out by the UK government, meaning it only affects goods crossing from Ireland into Northern Ireland.

As for goods going the other way (from Northern Ireland into Ireland) the exact details of how this would be done remain unclear.

No matter how it is achieved it will lead to different regulations for Northern Ireland compared with the “rest of the UK”.

Whilst it is true that the 9 counties of Ulster do not form Northern Ireland (3 are in the republic), historically, Ulster was a province of Ireland and when Northern Ireland became a part of the UK in 1922, it was agreed that this province would be split as it is today; the 6 counties of Ulster that form Northern Ireland (Londonderry, Antrim, Down, Tyrone, Armagh and Fermanagh) and the 3 retained by the republic; Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal. On this basis, the protestant or unionist collective term Ulster is deliberately provocative to nationalists as the British ‘stole’ and retained part of their country.


On a practical note can someone please tell me if I buy something online in the UK which is no longer a Member of the EU will I be relying on the terms and conditions associated with the purchase rather then-current statutory instruments.

The crying tragedy is when a world needs a coming together to tackle a very penurious future building a wall that will not keep anything out nor in capitalism in all its forms must go beyond just shareholder value.

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




, , , , , , , , , ,


(Fifteen-minute read)

The British Empire was the largest in history existing from the sixteenth century into the twentieth century.

Unfortunately, it squandered all that it acquired on a victorian class system.

Queen Elizabeth II

It killed with famine, sword and fire more people than Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, Hitler or Stalin.

In the defence of its imperial interests, it precipitated in two World Wars.

Now it is presiding with “Mad cow disease” it’s very own self-destruction.

At stake are fundamental ideas about British sovereignty and whether in a

a progressively globalized world in which some claimed that the individual

the nation-state was becoming unviable with the can sovereignty in its

existing forms remain intact.

Queen Elizabeth II in 1992, referred to the year as the royal family’s “annus horribilis.”



Because along came a five-year austerity plan aimed at reducing the country’s massive deficit, which had been fueled by bank bailouts and stimulus spending in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and resultant recession which resulted in 52 per cent of voters opting to leave the EU, (making the United Kingdom the first country to ever do so)

Manufactured by Magie Thatcher who turned the market into replacing society as the model of state governance. 

Not surprising as worldwide political culture has in fact transformed from one based on class to a new sort of populist, demotic politics, shaped at least as much by the mass media, especially the popular press, as by the politicians.

A sort of firestorm has broken out not just in Brazil but all over the world.


Because the relationship between public culture and consumer capitalism, while the very Earth itself is struggling with climate change has been close, in many ways the one constantly trying to outguess the other.

This game of one-upmanship, marked by ironic knowingness, has been labelled “postmodern, Brexit or Donal Trump trade wars”.

It points to the growing understanding of the relative nature of truth, itself a reaction against the prevailing supposedly “modern” certainties of the 20th century (reason, freedom, humanity, and truth itself), which indeed have often had and are having appalling outcomes.

However, it is a sign of the times that these antifundamentalist currents, themselves critical of much of Western culture, emerged at much the same time as new fundamentalisms emerged in the forms of American neoconservatism and certain strains of radical Islam. The ferment of intellectual and cultural changes involved are inextricable from the massive changes underway in the transition to the novel forms of society made possible by new information technologies.

What the Smartphone and Social Media have and are doing since the 1960s onward for Africa are also unravelling England and the EU with the perception of poor economic performance and calls for the modernization of not just for British society and the British economy but the EU and the world at large.

Both England and the European Union need to reform.

Optimism only carries you so far.

History rhymes rather than repeats are what is required.

A society where elites are widely loathed, where the political parties are polarized by demographic echoes is on the brink of collapse.


Now as then — much more now than then, in fact — there is a pervasive mistrust of institutions, a sense that governments are rotting from the head down.

The abject failure of rulers in improving human values has resulted in a downgrading of human to sub-human levels with a race to expect dishonest money is the net result of the ultimate degradation of society.

How do you trick someone into giving you something they have?

First, you offer them something worthless, while convincing them that actually much better than what they have. Second, you convince them that what they do have is worthless.

This is a typical approach used by both con artists and governments.

These huge scams are just diversions from the ultimate crime Climate change.

Our survival instinct has to quickly override our conditioned naiveté and passivity that has been bred into us. We are not just threatened as countries but as species at the same time.

A twitter/ facebook driven world will be a world of shallow values- unravelling our societies.

The thin veneer of civilization that we all depend upon on a daily basis is disappearing at a staggering pace and its not just the melting of ice.

The question now is.

Do we follow the trodden path where we only find all the grass eaten?

Creativity and imagination are what is needed as we are not getting across the problems of probability.

How we discuss and what we discuss is vital.

We must know the facts. We need a world brain bus.

Who is more likely to embrace the marginalized, to work for the disenfranchised?

Who will work for those of all backgrounds, all races and ethnicities, all religions, sexual preferences, gender identities?

Who will work to promote respect and equality for all people in the World?

Who sends a message that I want our children to believe in?

The rich and the poor, the entitled and the marginalized—they all make up the threads that a country needs to weave a unified society. When not include we weaken the material that fabricates our entire fabric of the world.

There has never been such a thing as an empire only a company called East India Company merchants. The British Empire did not exist in the Middle Ages. In the early Middle Ages, England was part of other empires: 

The British Empire was a commercial, not a military or political one.

Originally, holding an empire was about power. Throughout history, kings and queens have invaded territories in order to gain strength and power. With colonies, a country gains space, a larger army, more trade markets and the chance to make money out of whatever resources are on offer in them.

The formation of the empire was thus an unorganized process based on piecemeal acquisition, sometimes with the British government being the least willing partner in the enterprise.

An ‘Empire’ is a group of countries ruled over by a single monarch or ruling power. An empire doesn’t need an ’emperor’. The British Empire comprised of Britain, the ‘mother country’, and the colonies, countries ruled to some degree by and from Britain.

(British Empire, a worldwide system of dependencies—colonies, protectorates, and other territories—that over a span of some three centuries was brought under the sovereignty of the crown of Great Britain and the administration of the British government.)

To this day Britain’s ‘cultural imperialism’, suggesting that it was based on nationalism and racist scorn for other people.

With a handshake and the commitment “On the word of an Englishman,”
Captain James Cook claimed it for the British crown.In the century 1815–1914, 10 million square miles of territory and 400 million people were added to the British Empire. By the British Empire Exhibition of 1924, Britain was the ‘Mother Country’ of a worldwide empire which covered a fifth of the land in the world, and Britannia ‘ruled the waves’.

Sorry but Empires have benefited no one nor will any future trade deals that are not attached to sustainability do anything to resolve Climate change.

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



, ,

(Twenty-minute read)


The consequences of which were passed from generation to generation making our brains the single biggest threat to the planet.

There is a multitude of reasons why people are so stupid.

If human and chimp DNA is 98.8 per cent the same we as a species with 1.2% differences are our own benchmark for how intelligent we can be which is restrained by our relative inability to perceive the natural world.

The sciences of genetics and archaeology are not able to show how our ancestors transitioned from animal self-interest to human as there are no skeletons to probe for DNA. If evolution’s real, how come no one has ever found any transitional forms between bananas and monkeys.

In the absence of evidence, our images of Adam and Eve are left to the imagination of artists. While western imagery is dominant in depicting Adam and Eve in other parts of the world they could like God be Black, Arab, or Hispanic.

We were stupid a long time ago, we are still stupid, and yet we continue to reproduce enormously successfully. Stupidity may, in fact, help our ability to reproduce quite a bit.

None of us would put up with each other for a moment if it weren’t for the saving graces of stupidity and bonding. Perhaps it is this lack of intelligence that has led us to the most idiotic example of our stupidity – Self-inflicted extinction with climate change.

I’ve spent my whole life assuming we were getting smarter and we’d become a rational species before we made ourselves extinct.

Up until a century ago, the world was safe because there wasn’t enough of us, and the Earth’s carrying capacity could absorb our endless acts of stupidity.

The once-mighty homo sapiens might well end up back in the cave where he once resided. After all, the human mind is perfectly flawed we don’t even know if our logic is even logical.

I hope I am proven wrong. We should be much better than our collective self.

By now the majority of us should know that the byproducts of billions of human lives are overwhelming the ecosystem.

Rising CO2 levels is just one of many indicators that we are self-destructing.

The environment is falling apart right before our very eyes, but we can not add 2 + 2 together to see that our lifestyles have to change drastically — yesterday. Not just yesterday, more like 20 years ago.

We might have some grasp of the environmental catastrophe now in progress, but we really like lovely looking perfect grass, so we fertilize and poison our plot of land, and it looks great.

Unfortunately, 100 million other people do the same thing and the results are a catastrophe for the water table and for insect populations.

But hey, our lawn looks great. It’s just this one lawn after all…

Many among us can’t get over their tribal instincts. It’s pretty obvious that’s there is an unresolvable conflict between democracy and theocracy. As long as billions are oppressed by political and social injustice then we haven’t developed a practical political system to support humans on Earth.

Technology is increasing equality sharply.

Drug-resistant diseases are on the rise, and the global spread of dangerous diseases because of transportation and warming climates indicate the revenge of mother nature is near.

More recently, we thought we could save ourselves, especially with science and technology.   However, most people live with their heads in the sand, cramming their minds with useless knowledge while ignoring all the dying canaries falling from the sky.

I firmly believe we know enough to solve our problems, I just doubt we have the collective will to work together to get the job done.

We have to figure out how the fuck to get along with each other, so we invent laws, and philosophy, and literature, and justice, and commerce and a whole bunch of other stuff.

We do all this smart shit to survive, not because God loves smart shit.

We think we rule the earth because we are smart.

We do not rule the earth, and evolution does not select for smartness, it selects for survival. Cockroaches rule the earth and they are smart enough not to think it’s because they have big brains.

Your social brain, on the other hand, relies on other people instead of reality, which inclines your Social Brain to dramatic outbursts of complete fucking idiocy.

We expect better from ourselves – but that’s only because we’re stupid.

Furthermore, your brain will know the one thing it’s been longing to know all the time, which is what it’s supposed to do about this insanity, this stupidity.

Which is acknowledge it, name it, identify it, and oppose it – no wonder why the fuck it’s there. But at the end of the day, because we only have ourselves to compare to as of yet, we don’t really have an answer.

One can only hope that we have only just begun to crack the depths of knowledge and that there is an endless trove waiting for future generations.

We can now create worlds within our own to interact with and to manage and design intelligently.

So what!

We’ve been creating simulations in our minds since the dawn of man. Thought operates by breaking reality up into conceptual objects, and our creativity operates by rearranging the conceptual objects in our minds.

These mental simulations form the essence of human brilliance. However, the very same process of conceptual division which makes us brilliant also makes us insane.

We ignore the threat of climate change because we are living in a wishful thinking dream world that seems best described as a form of mental illness.

We have lost our common sense and replaced it with stupidity. Knowing the truth, seeing the truth but believing in lies. 

Is stupid only a result or a player?

Genes inherited from Adam and Eve are perhaps a virus which is now being spread by the Smartphone, Google, Artifical Intelligence, Brazil’s Bolsonaro and Donal Trump. The virus may cause changes in the way genes to manifest in portions of the brain in charge of memory and some of the other higher functions of the brain.

The Idiot Box makes sure its a player.

Adam and Eve might have started out ignorant, as thick as the wall, not stupid, they were made stupid by education.

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



, ,


(Ten-minute read)

There is more to them than first appears.

Each day, consumers purchase cheaply made flip-flops, and each day these flip-flops are thrown away — discarded in a landfill or dumped in the ocean. It’s a classic case of wasteful manufacturing.

The flip-flop and sandal industry have not been immune to the calamity of overproduction.

Millions of discarded flip flops posing a huge hazard to ocean life

The average lifespan of a flip flop is two years.

Tons of them are washing up on coast all over the world.

  Each year, tons of flip flops wash up on the East African coast, including Kenyan beaches like the one pictured, posing a risk to plant and animal life.

According to one estimate by 2050, there could be more plastic than fish in the seas by weight. Flip flops contribute approximately 90 tons a year.

Before they reach the ocean they’re already a problem polluting freshwater ending up in landfills with no hope of biodegrading.

We don’t actually know how much rubbish there is in our oceans. But we know that most of it is plastic and that much of this is not visible to the naked eye.

It’s microplastic, which comes from emissions from our treatment plants or from larger pieces of plastic that have been decomposed by the sunlight or ground into smaller pieces by wave action. These minuscule particles, less than five millimetres in size, can be eaten by plankton, which is eaten by fish.

Produced from plastic foam that contains DDT, PCBs and flame retardants they’re upcycled and travel thousands of kilometres absorbing environmental toxins which they transfer to the island shores.

Three billion petroleum-based flip-flops are produced annually, eventually ending up as non-biodegradable trash.

It may be a while before this technology finds its way to three billion people’s feet.

22 billion water bottles are thrown away every year.

The history of flip-flops can be said to be quite long.

Ancient Egyptian murals on tombs and temples show flip-flops were worn around 4,000 B.C.

As early as thousands of years ago, humans used animal skins or all available materials to wrap them around the soles of the feet.

They come in all disguises – “jandals” “thongs” “plakkies”  “zories” “clam diggers” “slippers” “crocs” “zori”.

Billions of them are made every year, often in small factories in China. Flip-flop sales rise with the world population. As one billion people globally still walk barefoot, they are the first step into the world of shoes across the global south.

They also tell stories of how globalisation actually works on the ground.

Garbage is not just inert discarded material, but an active agent in making the future.

We live in an energy-based world. Fossil fuels are burned to produce electricity, which powers the factory in which the plastic is made. Plastic is very important for the economy to grow because in today world it is used in each and every place from cars till rockets.

Take a flip flob for example.

The flip flop is one of globalisation’s darker stories connecting smugglers, disposable workers, garbage pickers and the poorest of consumers.

Their story begins in the hydrocarbon economy – in the oilfields of the Middle East. From crude oil are made into little plastic pellets. The plastic pellets are bought by millions of small and medium-sized flip-flop factories throughout the world in production clusters where labour is cheap.

Like all products, they have a massive carbon footprint in setting up its Manufacture – materials- energy -etc.

Bought online they probably started there life in China transported either by air or sea – Package – reflown and then driven to the buyer.

We humans need to think about how we manage our rubbish. It’s not only about people on the other side of the earth, but it’s also about ourselves.

We need to stop buying unrecyclable items.

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







Dear Sir,

On behalf of all of us who will not be in attendance on September the 23rd, let me say that there is no point in the United Nations showcasing a leap in collective national political ambitions at the forthcoming Climate Summit.


Because the conference will not inject momentum in the “race to the top” among countries, companies, cities and civil society that are needed to achieve the objectives of the Paris Agreement and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

Because like the Paris summit this gathering will not demonstrate a massive movement in the real economy terms in support of the Paris agenda.

There is no point in asking countries to show how they are going to full transformation their economies in line with sustainable development goals.


Because as before there will be no concrete, realistic plans by nations to enhance their nationally determined contributions by 2020, in line with reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 45 per cent over the next decade, and to net zero emissions by 2050.

As you very well know the world is incapable of leapfrog to cleaner, more resilient economies.

The reason for this is that there can be no collective decision on reducing emmissions world wide without financial support. 

There is no need to tell you that the world as we see it today is turning inwards to I am all right Jack.

No matter what the forthcoming Climate Conference achieves I am afraid  there is no country, organisation or individual that is willing now or in the future to pay the costs associated with reverting Climate change.

We all know that to set radical change in motion it is going to take more than hollow promises coming out of confrences around the world.

The implications of global warming are non-negotiable and therefore there can be no compromises.


To really accept that the climate is being affected by human practices and that it is our collective responsibility to take action, we have to get our head around a series of mental obstacles put in place by our evolutionary history and cultural practices.

What is needed is to make profit for profit sake foot the billions that are going to be required.

This can be achieved by getting all world stock exchanges to place a 0.05% world aid commission on all transactions –  Hight frequency trading – Sovernighty Wealth funds acquisitions- Foreign Exchange transactions over $50,000.- Lotteries –

Yours faithfully

Robert de Mayo Dillon.

( If you agree with the above please add your signature to this letter and forward it to- )



, , , ,


(Five-minute read)

Why is this?

Because we have not yet grasped the enormity of what is happing.


Because there are so many dimensions to the climate problem – natural science, social science, policy etc.

It’s all jolly well to say that human-induced climate change is widely regarded as one of the greatest – if not the greatest – moral challenges of the 21st century. Not merely does it raise numerous ethical issues, but many of these are profoundly difficult and take us to the limits of our moral imagination.

Moreover, the ethical dilemmas posed by climate change arise at multiple levels – for citizens, scientists, policymakers, organisations, companies, nation-states and the international community – and traverse many different areas of moral inquiry.

If we go on ignoring climate change there will be a social collapse not because the world is getting warmer but because we will be unable to feed ourselves.

There might well be a growing realisation by the public that the weather is changing but in the scientific community, there is a growing realisation that we are rapidly approaching if not already reaching tipping point.

The distribution of seasonal mean temperature anomalies has shifted toward higher temperatures and the range of anomalies has increased.

If existing feedbacks change because the climate changes, or if new feedbacks like permafrost or methane hydrates become relevant, 2C rise will not be the bottom of the range. Add in the extra warming arising from the loss of ice and you have temperatures rises away above.An activist showing the Extinction Rebellion logo

You don’t have to be a climate scientist to agree that these anomalies are a consequence of global warming because their likelihood in the absence of global warming is exceedingly small.

It is not possible to continue with unstainable capitalist profit which is destroying itself by ignoring science.

Here are the questions yet to be answered.

What is the nature and extent of our responsibilities to future generations?

What is the value of individual species and ecosystems, and how should we value the possible extinction of millions of species?

How should we make decisions in the face of uncertainty, including the possibility of catastrophic and irreversible damage to our planet?

What criteria should be used to determine the appropriate targets for the
stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere?

Who should pay for the inevitable costs of climate change mitigation and adaptation, and to what extent, if at all, should those who suffer the negative impacts of climate change be compensated?

How should the international community respond if certain sovereign states block effective global action or refuse to contribute fairly to the collective effort?

The above are also the reasons that we will be unable to act as one.

Capitalism unsustainable policies for profit ensure this. No one wants to bear the cost.

So there is only one solution to make a profit for profit sake pay.

A world aid commission of 0.05% on all profit. ( See previous posts)

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




, ,


(Two-minute read)

National tempory government, lifting trucks by helicopter across the channel, culling unionist cows, making Northern Ireland the Singapore of Europe, doing itsy bitsy trade deal with Donal Dump, selling British Steel to Turkish army pension funds, allowing billions to flow out of the country, risking a recession while watching sterling devaluation, all for a referendum won by 4%.

Get a grip you are in a deluded fit of national self-harm. There will be nobody coming to rescue you.

You are undermining the very things that you don’t have to think about.

Brexit is shaming you.

By handing over your identity to populists short term politics you are going to get a situation where the choice is gone.

No general election or another referendum is not going to solve the situation.

The solution is to revocate Articular 50.

Stay in the EU and if in the next ten years the EU does not make the reforms that it is badly in need of- Leave. At least by then, you will have reformed your First past the Post.

Democracy is not infallible.

The implications of present events can be seen all over the world and England is not immune.

It takes generations to set up institutions and only a matter of seconds to topple.

That what a feeling of peace is all about.

There is little point in eating Beans on Toast (over 3 million cans each day) for the next ten years.


All human comments appriciated. All like clicking an abuse chucked in the bin.




, , , , ,


(Ten-minute read)

English is a funny language, we all know that but the language of Brexit which is now clear.

A head shake means “Yes” while nodding means “No.”

At £500 to £800 million a week is the biggest farce in British History.

Millions in taxpayer money have been spent on electioneering and billions on hiring civil servants and contingency planning.Boris Johnson

What’s in a name?

Whatever form Brexit takes we now have Johnson’s rhetoric trying to blame Ireland for the mess. (re the backstop)

Let’s get a few things crystal clear.

Ireland nor the EU called a referendum in England.

It is total bullshit to endeavour to shift the blame for a self-inflected SITUATION which has now turned into a catch 22 situation.

The whole situation might have past historical overtones but it about from the evolution of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) under Nigel Farage after a landslide victory for them in the European elections in 2014 by topping the poll ahead of Labour and the Conservatives.

One may argue that the main person or figure to blame for the current Brexit crisis that Britain is currently under would be both David Cameron and Theresa May.

However, it is clear that the first past the post (FPTP) system work against smaller parties such as the Liberal Democrats and UKIP and this benefitted the Conservatives.

With this beneficial election system, David Cameron decided to call a referendum on membership of the EU. This was proven to be the biggest and most catastrophic mistake in British history.

Another key place that blame can be apportioned is Margaret Thatcher.

After British accession to the EU, many people in the Conservative party, including Nigel Farage and Ann Widdecombe were against EU membership.

Even after the resignation of Margaret Thatcher from the Conservatives, she said that she would have never signed such a crucial treaty as the Maastricht Treaty. Margaret Thatcher, widely known as a cruel figure in Ireland, also had her prolonged reservations about EU membership and integration. After her resignation, despite the pro-European stance by John Major as prime minister, Britain was still deeply divided on the issue of EU membership.

Most of all, the key place that blame can be apportioned to is the Conservative party as a whole. It was and is to blame for the evolution of Nigel Farage Brexit party.

The evolution of Nigel Farage and the Brexit party is particularly worrying for the future of Britain and its future relationship with the EU and other countries associated with the EU as it threatens any long-lasting relationship, deal or no deal.

It is now becoming abundantly clear that the Conservative party has and still is destroying Britain forever with their divisions destroying England as a Union.

The Labour Party also has to shoulder a heavy share of responsibility for Brexit, on account of its half-hearted support for the “Remain” campaign, and more generally because it has been unable to form a strong and credible opposition to the Conservatives since losing power in 2010.

Without a shadow of a doubt, it is time for any British government to put any Brexit deal to preferenda which would have options such as remain, no deal, WTO Brexit, customs’ union Brexit, etc.

This in its self will not solve the division within Britain.

Whichever way anyone voted, the paralysis of indecision of this period has been corrosive and damaging to the union. Britain seems to pretend the EU doesn’t exist. Go anywhere in Europe, and the EU flag flies beside the national flag; go almost anywhere in Britain, and there is not an EU flag to be seen.

The EU Commission must also take a good part of the blame for so many people in Britain choosing Brexit.

The EU has moved forward at breakneck speed since the EEC was first created, and it has done so with scant or no regard for public opinion in member states.

Last but not least large parts of the UK media, notably the popular press, has for decades played a major role in promoting any story that damages the image or reputation of the EU, while failing to report the stories that show the advantages and benefits of the EU.

However, in business, as in life, timing is everything. For the Europeans, the exit will happen at midnight, Brussels time. For the British, it will happen at a less dramatic 11pm, London time.

By then it will be too late to realize that we all live in a world where tools and information that were previously only available to governments are now at everyone’s fingertip and there is no longer a need to abdicate responsibility for deciding what’s best for us.

Indeed it could be said that the EU or Britain are no longer relevant in the modern world because of the myriad of problems facing the world with the insanity of its politicians combined and with a steady diet of media mental poison is driving us all to the point of extinction.

In legitimizing the message of reclaiming Britain’s sovereignty it, unfortunately, lacks patriotism. Like everywhere it is an ongoing struggle between nationalism and internationalism.

Its time to get real and realize that the EU is not a free-trade area; it is a customs union.

As such its no wonder it has to have and will always have borders whether Ireland, England or Northern Ireland or any others like it or not.

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










(Twenty-minute read)

There is a putrid stench fermenting just beneath the surface of 21st-century society.

Will this change in the next 150 years?  Probably not.

To be able to understand the future, you must know the past.

So what has taken us to where we are today and what has changed along the way?

The world has changed a lot in the last 150 years, but we humans are driven by the same basic needs as we were 150 years ago, food, sleep, sex, the feeling of being appreciated and loved.

However, it seems these days that there is this omnipresent feeling that the world is going fucking crazy.

You would think by now we would all realize that we have to live together. That we are all racist following policies that encourage racism, inequality, that waste of half of the food produced worldwide resulting in wars.

But the world isn’t as bad as it was a century ago.

It’s just that we’re more aware of all of the bad things than ever before.

The violence is not new; it’s the cameras that are new.

Cameras, the internet, and most importantly, social media.

This is what’s new.

This is what’s different.

How we’re getting information, what information is reaching us, and most importantly, what information and views we are most rewarded for sharing.

We feel desensitized and dejected from the seemingly constant carnage raging across the planet.

The internet has generated a platform where apocalyptic beliefs are celebrated and spread, and moderation and reason is something that becomes too arduous and boring to stand.

It is what is causing this constant feeling of a chaotic and insecure world that doesn’t actually exist. And then: it’s this feeling that is the cause of the renewed xenophobia and nationalism across the western world.

It’s this feeling that has consumed the consciousness of millions of people and caused them to look at their country through the lens of a surreal world exaggerating all that is wrong and minimizing all that is right.

Despite living with more safety and wealth and access to information than anyone in human history, we feel as though the world is going crazy and something drastic must be changed.

By now, we’re all familiar with the tech world circle-jerk about how we’re connecting the planet and the world is getting smaller and we’re all becoming one big Kum Ba Ya global community and how this is amazing because starving people in Yahem to a mass shooting in El Paso can each have their own iPad, and blah, blah, blah, the internet is cool.

Outrageous news and information spread faster and further than any other form of information, dominating our daily attention.

On the other hand, the rise of the internet and social media has accelerated social progress in many ways. It’s helped herald a breakthrough in LGBT rights, it’s raised awareness about discrimination against women and minorities, and fomented the populist overthrow of a number of repressive governments worldwide.

Activists and concerned citizens can quickly mobilize to spread the word and hold the appropriate authorities accountable for change.

This is our brave new world.

When all information is freely available at the click of a mouse, our attention naturally nosedives into the sickest and most grotesque we can find, ignoring the reality of climate change.

To protect ourselves from the overreaching judgments of others, we consolidate into our own clans and tribes, we take refuge in our own precious identity politics and we buy more and more into a worldview that is disconnected from cold data and hard facts.

We become only exposed to the most extreme negative aspects of certain groups of people, giving us a skewed view of how other people in the world really think, act, and live. We demonize each other.

We judge groups of people by their weakest and most depraved members.

Take Brexit, for example, presently being sold as taking back sovereignty to gain freedom from the EU.

Freedom can only exist when you are willing to tolerate views that oppose your own when you’re willing to give up some of your desires for the sake of a safe and healthy community when you’re willing to compromise and accept that sometimes things don’t go your way and that’s fine.

The only way to beat the attention economy is to opt-out of it.


I am attempting to go back to learning about the world only through long-form journalism that has been thoroughly researched and vetted before being published.

I’m exercising the muscles in my brain responsible for focus, depth, and concentration. I’m stretching out my logic, trying to challenge my own beliefs and always holding on to a healthy amount of doubt.

In a weird sense, true freedom doesn’t exist.

Because the only way for human rights to persist is for everyone to collectively agree to accept that things don’t have to go their way 100% of the time.

They want a freedom to express themselves but they don’t want to have to deal with views that may upset or offend them in some way. They want a freedom to enterprise but they don’t want to pay taxes to support the legal machinery that makes it possible. They want a freedom to elect representatives to the government but they don’t want to compromise when they’re on the losing side.

A free and functioning democracy demands a populace that is able to sustain discomfort, that is able to tolerate dissatisfaction, that is able to be charitable and forgiving of groups whose views stand in contrast to one’s own, and most importantly, that is able to remain unswayed in the face of some violent threat.

We’re seeing a lazy entitlement wash over the world where everyone feels as though they deserve what they want from their government the second they want it, without thought of repercussions or the rest of the population.

It seems like people don’t actually want democracy anymore, they want a dictator who agrees with them.

The choice is, do you and I consume what is here now and change the planet to something unknown and different for the next generations?

Or do you and I slow our consumption to a regenerative rate, ensuring the same planet we live on now is here for the generations to come?

This is a personal choice.

It isn’t something an outside party, such as the government is going to fix.

You and I are the consumers. You and I are the ones making the choices.

What choice will you and I make in the future? They will be governed by Climate change.

You will not find these choices in the cloud.

I believe in the next ten years, science will prove that too much technology (e.g. heads always in our phones) is actually a negative thing for the mind and longevity.

I believe we’ll be forced by climate change to find a sustainable balance between technology use and real-life experiences.

All too often, problems being solved in tech are first world problems.

Many of us forget that there are some huge global problems, particularly in the developing world, that need to be solved for the benefit of us all.

But we have to take charge soon and make it so.


Society will tear itself apart! The root causes will remain the same.

We have no clue about what we are doing, but we are the best at

telling others what to do!

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