Martin Luther King: “In spite of these spectacular strides in science and technology, and still unlimited ones to come, something basic is missing. There is a sort of poverty of the spirit which stands in glaring contrast to our scientific and technological abundance.”
The law is a double-edged sword.
The citizen is expected to follow the the laws enacted by their state, for which, in a democracy (you remember that? We used to have one of those in the UK, I think the US was the same once too!), under threat of punishment.
And the opposing edge is that the forces of law and order, the police, the judiciary, the executive, the whole lot - all of them have a side to fulfil for the social contract too. The state must apply the law, and apply it by the explicit rules (as opposed to the implicit rules belonging to each party in power - the 'black' unspoken rules).
That may sound fair enough on the face of it, if not essential for a balanced and stable society. But who decides what balance and stability look like? Where those points exist? And currently the imbalance has skewed society so much, that stability is being stretched in all directions, and all we're waiting for now is that small flaw, that will turn into a tear, one that rips through our lives in no uncertain terms. Just the inbalance of lack of responsibility, unaddressed culpability and almost never made to answer for their crimes (of which incompetancy must surely be included in a position of social power), on the side of the authorities.
Indeed, politicians and the controllers of industries and powerful corporations, the unreasonably and globally unhealthy wealth accumulators, all these people, and the more power they wield, the more they avoid answering for their acts. The poorest person stealing a loaf of bread to survive, will be more likely to be caught, prosecuted and punished, that any of the above.
So we have a far lefty, wokerati eating, tofu wearing scumcialist talking here? But these questions and accusations above are not truly political in the sense we tend to think of politics now. In the UK at least (whom I should stick to talking about, not having lived elsewhere - my perceptions of any similarities over the water are suspect) we run on a political system that's not democracy, but in truth is a partyocracy. All the major political parties with any likelihood to gain power as a government run along similar lines, and to a large degree, the false image of political positioning - the left, the centre, the right, and all the in-betweens, are just smoke and mirrors. The changes are minimal, and the real crime is that all of them are committed to their core (regardless of what some of their members may believe) to maintaining the UK's long-standing status quo.
This, I believe, is one of the main reasons we are in the position we are in. Despite small blip's along the way, essentially all the parties will continue with continuance - the most toxic and self-destructive policy possible (for the rest of us) beyond total chaos. Their own survival is far more important to the real decision makers (those in the party who have power without being chosen by any electorate bar a false one) than the state of the country (that's you, by the way), as long as there is a country to hold power over. Our whole system is damaged, unsupported and unrepaired, and unfit for much beyond keeping things as they are, and now even that's failing as our infrastructure literally (in some cases) crumbles.
This is why we have seen in my living memory, a constant attack on the most important public services we ever had in the last 100 years, one that's continued in one form or another regardless of whom has been in power. That's the last 45 years or so (give or take, excuse my memory) in which we've seen even the so-called Labour party stand up for workers, which grew originally from people's labour - i.e. the people who produced the wealth for the minority other whom had the power at the time, who were the true expression of the country - the people who worked for it, not the people who profited from it. When people say that the UK is one of the world's richest countries, they are speaking with forked tongue, oh dear me yes! What, you need to ask yourself, is a country? Are we talking about a defined area of land and water? That most commonly 'owned' by dint of taking from others whom originally lived there? Or are we talking of the minority whom have taken for themselves that which everyone had created?
Let's not beat about the bush here, we speak of slavery whatever we wish to call it, or be in denial of it! Our own society has sought to distance it's population from this concept. We are taught from childhood what slavery looks like, but that definition is a lie, like so many other subtle lie's taught to so many. Of course, the school attended will have it's own set of lie's it needs to push into the minds of its students to prepare a functional worker.
What was your first thought when I put the word slavery on the page?
Was it denial of some form, or instant recognition and acceptance, or just confusion? What did I mean? We all know slavery continues, but we mostly take it to be out of our lives, unseen, unknown of, someone else's problem.
But slavery on a country-wide scale? Our own country? A slavery controlled by social and psychological means, one most people have been raised to be unaware of? Most especially those destined to be a part of that group? And that most important question: can I add yet another question mark at the end of this paragraph?
The whole capitalist economy, at least in the Western world, but no longer limited to that, has for so long been based on an unsustainable core ruling. The fact it must always expand to survive can surely only be seen as either massively short term to allow movement to a more sustainable process, or as a means of slow suicide, with the parts of society failing like a human with the most voracious cancer - that's spread to every part of the body. Irreparable, terminal, just as it's methodology promised us all, while we all put our fingers in our ears and went "Nah nah nah nah - I'm not listening, I'm not listening ..." (like children). That's been the limit of sophistication and acceptance of reality we've been able to reach.
We couldn't even ask ourselves where all our vaunted advantages really were, and what the cost has been, and whether we should continue to pay that cost more and more, just to try and stand still, while we actually slide back, and back, and back to where we came from so long ago, with the stars in our eyes.
It seems to me, humans have amply demonstrated they too are now an evolutionary dead-end. In fact, in our wild and untested and ill-considered desperation to have back what we've foolishly thrown away, and yet we still can't say out loud - we ruined it all! And most of all for our children, our future.
Greed overcame survival - evolution is a series of hacks. They work because if they didn't, that species would be gone. That's it's very nature! And we are gone, we just can't accept that's it's too late now, and it's all because of us, no-one is innocent in the end!
I have to say, it was a little bit of shock to realise just how true that really is! Scary stuff when you see it for what it is. If it isn't - you've not seen it! Unless you're a true nihilist, which is pretty unlikely, though I could predict the rise of cults in the near future, based on the destruction of our species to minimise the damage we do to the biosphere between now, and the death of our species, or death cults who want to lash out in revenge, and all those other things so many otherwise normal people do when they become functionally insane. These people will have the availability of the most horrendous weapons of mass destruction, which our technology will have made available. Hundreds of years ago, biological warfare was rampant. As was psychological warfare (even if there was no name for it then), and many other ways of causing large-scale disruption and destruction, even before you introduce the many modern methods of causing catastrophe. I think enough people will want to end in a bang, not a whimper, when they finally realise.
We see the seeds of this in our rabid media cycles and social media catch-ups, that we are directed to hate the perp, at the top our voices, to drown out the quieter cries of "who allowed this to happen?". Because we will always have people who will do terrible things to others. This is our nature, and to pretend we can somehow remove those people from harming society and the rest of us, is foolish, ignorant and unproductive. What really matters is the oversight of these things, the function to explore, analyse and assess prior situations independently. This is almost unheard of. Government inquiries are now toothless organisms, kept to provide a way of obscuring wrong doing. Oversight, such as environmental controls, have been deliberately made dysfunctional. We, meanwhile, sit on the beach and sniff the ordure, and think, "that's a pity, never mind, what soaps are on tonight?".
If all the other species in the world, could appreciate their place in it, and were offered a referendum as to whether humans should be allowed to go extinct, do you have any doubt as to what the result would be?
The law is a double-edged sword.
The citizen is expected to follow the the laws enacted by their state, for which, in a democracy (you remember that? We used to have one of those in the UK, I think the US was the same once too!), under threat of punishment.
And the opposing edge is that the forces of law and order, the police, the judiciary, the executive, the whole lot - all of them have a side to fulfil for the social contract too. The state must apply the law, and apply it by the explicit rules (as opposed to the implicit rules belonging to each party in power - the 'black' unspoken rules).
That may sound fair enough on the face of it, if not essential for a balanced and stable society. But who decides what balance and stability look like? Where those points exist? And currently the imbalance has skewed society so much, that stability is being stretched in all directions, and all we're waiting for now is that small flaw, that will turn into a tear, one that rips through our lives in no uncertain terms. Just the inbalance of lack of responsibility, unaddressed culpability and almost never made to answer for their crimes (of which incompetancy must surely be included in a position of social power), on the side of the authorities.
Indeed, politicians and the controllers of industries and powerful corporations, the unreasonably and globally unhealthy wealth accumulators, all these people, and the more power they wield, the more they avoid answering for their acts. The poorest person stealing a loaf of bread to survive, will be more likely to be caught, prosecuted and punished, that any of the above.
So we have a far lefty, wokerati eating, tofu wearing scumcialist talking here? But these questions and accusations above are not truly political in the sense we tend to think of politics now. In the UK at least (whom I should stick to talking about, not having lived elsewhere - my perceptions of any similarities over the water are suspect) we run on a political system that's not democracy, but in truth is a partyocracy. All the major political parties with any likelihood to gain power as a government run along similar lines, and to a large degree, the false image of political positioning - the left, the centre, the right, and all the in-betweens, are just smoke and mirrors. The changes are minimal, and the real crime is that all of them are committed to their core (regardless of what some of their members may believe) to maintaining the UK's long-standing status quo.
This, I believe, is one of the main reasons we are in the position we are in. Despite small blip's along the way, essentially all the parties will continue with continuance - the most toxic and self-destructive policy possible (for the rest of us) beyond total chaos. Their own survival is far more important to the real decision makers (those in the party who have power without being chosen by any electorate bar a false one) than the state of the country (that's you, by the way), as long as there is a country to hold power over. Our whole system is damaged, unsupported and unrepaired, and unfit for much beyond keeping things as they are, and now even that's failing as our infrastructure literally (in some cases) crumbles.
This is why we have seen in my living memory, a constant attack on the most important public services we ever had in the last 100 years, one that's continued in one form or another regardless of whom has been in power. That's the last 45 years or so (give or take, excuse my memory) in which we've seen even the so-called Labour party stand up for workers, which grew originally from people's labour - i.e. the people who produced the wealth for the minority other whom had the power at the time, who were the true expression of the country - the people who worked for it, not the people who profited from it. When people say that the UK is one of the world's richest countries, they are speaking with forked tongue, oh dear me yes! What, you need to ask yourself, is a country? Are we talking about a defined area of land and water? That most commonly 'owned' by dint of taking from others whom originally lived there? Or are we talking of the minority whom have taken for themselves that which everyone had created?
Let's not beat about the bush here, we speak of slavery whatever we wish to call it, or be in denial of it! Our own society has sought to distance it's population from this concept. We are taught from childhood what slavery looks like, but that definition is a lie, like so many other subtle lie's taught to so many. Of course, the school attended will have it's own set of lie's it needs to push into the minds of its students to prepare a functional worker.
What was your first thought when I put the word slavery on the page?
Was it denial of some form, or instant recognition and acceptance, or just confusion? What did I mean? We all know slavery continues, but we mostly take it to be out of our lives, unseen, unknown of, someone else's problem.
But slavery on a country-wide scale? Our own country? A slavery controlled by social and psychological means, one most people have been raised to be unaware of? Most especially those destined to be a part of that group? And that most important question: can I add yet another question mark at the end of this paragraph?
The whole capitalist economy, at least in the Western world, but no longer limited to that, has for so long been based on an unsustainable core ruling. The fact it must always expand to survive can surely only be seen as either massively short term to allow movement to a more sustainable process, or as a means of slow suicide, with the parts of society failing like a human with the most voracious cancer - that's spread to every part of the body. Irreparable, terminal, just as it's methodology promised us all, while we all put our fingers in our ears and went "Nah nah nah nah - I'm not listening, I'm not listening ..." (like children). That's been the limit of sophistication and acceptance of reality we've been able to reach.
We couldn't even ask ourselves where all our vaunted advantages really were, and what the cost has been, and whether we should continue to pay that cost more and more, just to try and stand still, while we actually slide back, and back, and back to where we came from so long ago, with the stars in our eyes.
It seems to me, humans have amply demonstrated they too are now an evolutionary dead-end. In fact, in our wild and untested and ill-considered desperation to have back what we've foolishly thrown away, and yet we still can't say out loud - we ruined it all! And most of all for our children, our future.
Greed overcame survival - evolution is a series of hacks. They work because if they didn't, that species would be gone. That's it's very nature! And we are gone, we just can't accept that's it's too late now, and it's all because of us, no-one is innocent in the end!
I have to say, it was a little bit of shock to realise just how true that really is! Scary stuff when you see it for what it is. If it isn't - you've not seen it! Unless you're a true nihilist, which is pretty unlikely, though I could predict the rise of cults in the near future, based on the destruction of our species to minimise the damage we do to the biosphere between now, and the death of our species, or death cults who want to lash out in revenge, and all those other things so many otherwise normal people do when they become functionally insane. These people will have the availability of the most horrendous weapons of mass destruction, which our technology will have made available. Hundreds of years ago, biological warfare was rampant. As was psychological warfare (even if there was no name for it then), and many other ways of causing large-scale disruption and destruction, even before you introduce the many modern methods of causing catastrophe. I think enough people will want to end in a bang, not a whimper, when they finally realise.
We see the seeds of this in our rabid media cycles and social media catch-ups, that we are directed to hate the perp, at the top our voices, to drown out the quieter cries of "who allowed this to happen?". Because we will always have people who will do terrible things to others. This is our nature, and to pretend we can somehow remove those people from harming society and the rest of us, is foolish, ignorant and unproductive. What really matters is the oversight of these things, the function to explore, analyse and assess prior situations independently. This is almost unheard of. Government inquiries are now toothless organisms, kept to provide a way of obscuring wrong doing. Oversight, such as environmental controls, have been deliberately made dysfunctional. We, meanwhile, sit on the beach and sniff the ordure, and think, "that's a pity, never mind, what soaps are on tonight?".
If all the other species in the world, could appreciate their place in it, and were offered a referendum as to whether humans should be allowed to go extinct, do you have any doubt as to what the result would be?
Credo quia absurdum
