Britishness July 2007
State of the parties at 26 June 2007
Liberal Democrat 63
Scottish National Party/Plaid Cymru
9 (SNP 6/PC 3)
Democratic Unionist 9
Sinn Fein 5 (Have not taken their
seats and cannot vote)
Social Democratic & Labour Party
Independent Labour 1
Ulster Unionist 1
Speaker & 3 Deputies 4 (Do not
Total no of seats 646 (includes 2 vacant
Current working majority 67
(351 Labour MPs less 285 of all other parties excluding Speaker &
Deputies and Sinn Fein)
The primary groups in UK politics – Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem -
comprise, effectively, the UK Parliament. Although split into three
allegiances, the individual MPs, across all three parties, share in
common their desire and intent to “sign up” to the British
parliamentary procedure. Further, they all submit to a pre-selection
process by their party-of-choice (and “branding”) rather than offering
themselves for direct approval and election, by the voters of their
I suggest the above defines the British MP, regardless of party,
throwing light on character, integrity and ambition. I further suggest
it shows that Parliament comprises a
self-perpetuating group of “Game Players” (in the sense that Eric
Berne* defined) who run Britons’ and British affairs, with the voters
as low-value pawns. Members of the group are termed “parliamentarians”
cementing their difference from “the rest”. Parliamentarians connive at
“parliamentary democracy” (a non-sequitur) gaining, and holding,
party-power by vast monetary expenditure (and any other means to that
end**) while supporting their constituents where this does not endanger
reselection, or party-standing.
From the pool of parliamentarians will emerge the “Speaker” of the
House of Commons and the Prime Minister, both of whom play major
internal Games, aided and abetted by the lower members of the club,
while ostensibly governing a country.
At General Election time, MPs become “rosette stands” for their party,
not political identities. Few, if any, would stand a chance of
re-election were they not a party proxy. They stick firmly to a set of
“manifesto” promises, suppressing their own views, the latter being of
no importance under the “whipping” system in Parliament, where
“rosettes” do as they are told. (Thereafter, manifesto promises,
paradoxically, only get aired when MET; they are often sidelined.)
Any local hero, with the temerity to stand as an “independent”, gathers
very few votes, as the cash-rich election machines frighten or excite
the primitive voter-mind, blinding them to real issues – even reality
itself! Also, in Parliament, the club has no time for mavericks, giving
the perception of a wasted vote.
Democracy is defined as: “Government ULTIMATELY by the people.” We have
government indisputably by an elite club, whose members are not
elevated by ability but by affinity. Those who join with high hopes and
ideals, soon leave, thus maintaining the “purity” of the membership. As
with turkeys and Christmas, the faithful and well-suited, will not do
anything to change this structure, though other systems exist around
the world, and much might be done from first principles.***
In Britain today, voters increasingly choose to be non-voters and the
Parliamentarians seem unconcerned. Is this because there are fewer
minds requiring manipulation at election time? Although it takes many
more votes to elect a Lib Dem than a Labour MP, still the
Parliamentarians are unmoved. Our system of government threw up a
bizarrely motivated performance artist as our recent Prime Minister; he
ignored our cries of “foul”, performed very bad conjuring tricks, took
us into a crazy war, and – with the exception of 1½
“principled ones”, the parliamentarians let him get away with it. Now
the new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has moved a lot of deckchairs –
to the sound of bagpipes – and British parliamentary democracy stands
poised to continue just as before.
What I have described, above, is not democracy; it does not even
attempt to imitate democracy; it just shouts “democracy” a lot. .
If those who sign up to it KNOW this then they are knaves; if they
don’t know it, they are fools. As for “the rest” who allow themselves
to be run by fools or knaves – of whom I am one – I suppose we must
accept: we are fools.
* Eric Berne “Games People Play”
** Politics: The art of self deception wrapped in the craft of
for their own good.
*** CERTIFICATE OF VOTING COMPETENCE.
Children cannot vote for MPs. Presumably they are deemed insufficiently
knowledgeable. But it is abundantly clear that many of voting age are
not really very bright; why else would political parties use such
crass, simplistic inducements to entice their vote? Surely age, as a
voting qualifier, is a nonsense? Voting COMPETENCE should be the
criterion. You can’t drive a car or fix a gas cooker without a
license/certificate; what are you doing being let loose choosing the
management of a whole country? A CERTIFICATE OF VOTING COMPETENCE is
long overdue. Such a certificate would be open to all to aspire to,
(and if we pretend for the moment it will not be subverted by crafty
vested interests) should mean that a COMPETENT electorate emerges who
cannot be outwitted by devious politicians. It does not take a genius
to define the necessary skills to gain a certificate; however, I
personally would propose a psychological awareness component. The
immediate consequence of a competent electorate is a whole new breed of
REPRESENTATIVE MPs and an effective parliament thereby. Out go all the
lawyers who are amoral by definition and out, also, ambition-led
brown-nosers. In come LOCALLY CHOSEN candidates (not party-selected
“rosette stands”) actually motivated by selfless desire to solve
problems and help country and citizen. See where we have got to?
This new brand of MP would apply themselves to WIDENING the pool of
Voter Certification (on merit) as this is the decent thing to do; a
growing democracy. (Tony Blair’s “education X 3” by default, produces
dummies – a magnificent success!) Strange to contemplate: voting
competence might bring “media competence” in its wake, as the
newly-aware reject media chicanery along with the political variety,
bringing an answer to Tony Blair’s parting shot at his loved and hated
Today (December 2006) it is fashionable to invoke “the elephant in the
room” meaning something we are all aware of, but do not refer to. But
what of the animal we all are but seem totally in denial of? We are all
animal – men perhaps more demonstrably than women – yet everyone is
sure they are human; whatever that is. The error lies in the belief
that a “higher brain” with complex functions, such as language and
abstract thought, elevates the whole mass of pure animal which, out of
evolutionary imperative, carries the higher brain. In reality the
carrier-body, remains stubbornly animal. Bodies sweat pheromones, they
are aroused by visual “releaser” (attributes of other bodies). Tall men
accrue advantage from their tallness alone, and the beautiful can
literally get away with murder more easily than the ugly.
In all hierarchical situations, the animal is busy finding its place in
the pecking order, and far from the higher brain running the animal, as
suggested above, the animal of us often hijacks the greater facility
for, deception, seduction, coercion and domination that the complex
mind offers. Post puberty, men are sexually driven, and to date, I have
seen no sign that this can be diminished by a cultural mind-set. I will
not speak for women in this respect, although it is clear that they
have “cultural control” over their expression of any maternal urge.
With this one exception, I suggest the animal in us is running the show.
The higher brain likes to pretend we are “human”. “Quality folk” are
presented as cerebral and refined. Then we come across the sexual
chicanery that seems to go with many men of high office – dominant in
their animal selves – and the myth is dispelled.
Courtrooms put on a grand show of rationality. But many a judge has
been exposed – in more ways than one – as a frequenter of the
fleshpots; the urban “water hole”.
The police are found watching seized pornographic movies and the vicar
is served more than tea by his housekeeper. Suburban estates swing and
STDs, in the respectable over-fifties, soar. President Kennedy? Prime
Minister Major? We have declared men and women “the same” for all
useful purposes, yet visit any pet shop and you will find the guinea
pig sexes in separate enclosures; and the rabbits. What luck our
“mix-manned” warships are not “manned” by guinea pigs! They would sink
under the weight of progeny.
The problem is, that the higher brain is pretending to run the show and
giving no credence to the ghost in the machine – the animal in the
basement. We routinely feed alcohol to the combination, whereupon the
higher brain – a bit of a delicate softie – quickly loses its marbles
and an unmodified animal emerges. This animal, if male, having lost its
cerebral default-mode – i.e. lack of self belief - becomes sex on legs,
god’s gift to women and without discrimination; being prepared to mate
with almost anything remotely female. Being male, I am unclear quite
what happens to women when intoxicated. It would seem that they simply
lose compass, gyro-stabilises and the ability to discriminate between
vertical and horizontal. If within the staggering range of male, in the
condition described above, some sort of coupling – don’t ask me to
guess the details – is inevitable. But courts address the whole matter
as if our animal does not exist! Our media are currently in the
fruitless throes of trying to decide the rights and wrongs of drunken
union. “High minded ladies, with no inkling of the phallocentric male
imperative (having limited testosterone with which to address the
matter) are tirading at the assumed evil of the “bloke who decides she
wants what he has got for her! As if he is in any condition to decide
anything; let alone anything with a sexual content! How do you ask a
bull not to serve a heifer who he thinks is “bulling”?
Not only do we stupidly address the behaviour of our animal in high
minded terms but we equally stupidly refuse – in the name of “equality”
– to recognise how different the two sexes are as animals and, by
extension (down blokes) how limited we are in our ability to understand
the workings of each other. If you want to get an inkling of this,
listen to discussion of how the respective members of mixed juries
perform (and their explanations why) in rape trials. This is one of the
few areas where reality makes itself felt.
So: somehow, even in today’s opportunistic, bullying atmosphere of
politically correct feminism and New-Man-ism, we have to resolve to
bang our heads together in the interest of progressing to a greater
state of wisdom regarding the animal nature of so-called humans. There
is an urgent need to focus on the truth of that difference in all walks
of life. We are animals, most of what we do is animal-natured; the
animal deserves respect and appropriate management. We could start by
reducing our intake of alcohol.
Mythology, round the world speaks of various stages of mankind, often
starting with a “dreamtime” when we were non-corporeal. There is talk
of strange shapes – composite animal and human – and a time without
language etc. In consequence, various conclusions are drawn by
different commentators about “souls” and their attempts to enter
evolving pre-humans, plus a range of other constructs.
But what if we take another look simply in terms of the fertilised egg
and developing foetus? It is postulated that, very early in foetal
development, once a rudimentary nervous system exists, input in terms
of vibration of the whole entity might be “registered” even before
hearing commences (14 weeks?) and such recorded by a proto-brain.
I have mooted before, that the up-welling of religious certainty:
belief in a “higher power” (all–knowing, nurturing yet unpredictable)
might simply be infancy “remembered”. By analogy, I am now extending
(backward) into our time of gestation and suggesting this might also
influence our most profound constructs regarding our origin and journey
to the here-and-now, as these might also have a mystical
quasi-religious feel on emerging to consciousness.
It is virtually impossible to construct, with the faculties that, here,
read (or write) and understand these words, a description – idea –
sense – picture of what might be “going on” in a receptive foetus
during gestation. My best guess is that should those impressions
surface in some way into our consciousness (perhaps the shaman) they
would be like traces of another world; mystical half-images suffering
distortion by any attempt to formulate. Does that not sound like world
myths of the magical distant past of mankind?
Myriad books have been written wherein sharp minds note the
universality of our myths; their writers draw one inference from this.
But humanity is global – one race. regardless of colour or physical
attributes; we are totally cross-fertile and share the same gestation
and birth sequence. Thus, agreement on some “past” reality, should it
come from womb rather than cosmic enactment, will present with the same
If gestation and birth is a common theme then, quite typically, the
creative mind of man will play variations on it. (The theme of
Christianity has basic elements, but man has woven many wild patterns
with them.) Hence, to try to fit to foetal development all elements of
“emergence mythology” (e.g. emerging from water and darkness is
tempting) would be foolhardy if not dishonest. I simply re-state my
suggestion that we may well sense a truth, in worldwide myths of
emergence of Homo Sapiens, because we all DO, individually, emerge in a
magical way from “nothingness” into form and function.
Can We Fix It?
From time to time, at some place or other on the planet, people form
groups that fight one another. Excluding paid or conscripted armies,
tribe, area, belief, colour or some other factor, defines the groups. I
suppose one might see this as democracy at work in that joining the
group of choice is a vote – but that vote is surely based on prejudice;
re-establishment of some norm, rather than rational consideration?
Colonial action, world wars and the transport revolution have moved
boundaries and mixed peoples as never before. The ruthlessness of
leaders, in war, social interaction and commerce, strains this mixture
such that breaking points are routinely reached.
Typical human programming (upbringing) ill prepares many for life; I am
moved to wonder whether it is lack of philosophical input into young
minds that makes us vulnerable; or is it that a majority of us are
There can be no doubt that we are animal in much of our daily
interaction. “High mindedness” – philosophy, psychology, altruism etc –
is added to the animal, in varying degree and intensity, according to
culture and nurture. But might there be another variable? Might the
animal-that-becomes-human have a range of capacity for enhancement;
hard-wired into a brain of variable receptiveness to “civilising”
In small tribal groups, living strongly proscribed lives by virtue of
limited experience and challenges, I doubt a simplistic, prejudiced,
bigoted approach to “reality” is a disadvantage – it might even be a
plus! But, in the course of a few generations, we have stirred the
global pot without any consideration, let alone appreciation, of
the very different skills and attributes, individually needed, to
The world is now in the grip of a “madness of doing”, absorbing time
and effort on a prodigious scale and exacerbating pre-existing tension
and imbalance. Another madness, is “Political Correctness” which denies
even the slimmest possibility of all I have written above; in so doing,
making a critical assessment of our fragile state unlikely, or even
Human strife is widespread. It is acceptably exploited by the arms
(defence) industry – one of the world’s biggest earners. Future
conflicts are predictable. The current belief that “Commerce
Cures All” is manifestly as false as “Arbeit Macht Frei”.
Perhaps somebody might do a study to establish a baseline for human
potential beyond the basic. If it is shown that a majority are
incapable of rising much above a simplistic approach to life – we must
settle for mayhem. However, should it be shown that most have the
capacity to become competently human, we only have ourselves to blame
if change for the better is not achieved.
Since I wrote the above, Bruce Lahn, a geneticist of Chicago University
is reported to have said, regarding recent discoveries in brain
genetics: “It could be advantageous to be dumber”. There you go
Culture Nature Split
It is my belief that we live in a time of disengaged nature
and culture. The dominant culture on the planet is, without doubt:
Production for profitable sale with subsequent purchasing; money being
an intermediary. Let's call this the Western Way.
Those few areas of the planet, where the inhabitants still
acquire and consume all they need from their environment and require
neither foreign currency nor foreign products, will soon succumb.
But the Western Way is at odds with the Ways of Mother
Earth. Man the animal lives in harmony with the rhythms and cycles of
the planet. Western man delights in overcoming and bending to his will
all things natural.
The Western Way exploits artificial light; heat and energy
from fossil fuels (in which term I include fissile materials);
manufacture of plastics and other materials which defy decay; chemical
fertilizer; GM seeds; birth and pregnancy interventions, and an
aberrant approach to all things sexual.
On the other hand, “Primitive Man” lived, perforce, in tune
with the seasons, and the cycle of night and day, used biodegradable
materials and reproduced as natural fertility dictated.
Most importantly, he had cultures which reinforced Nature's
Male - Female division.
Today stereotyping is a dirty word. All grades, shades and
nuances of sexuality are trumpeted as equal (that ultimate “today”
word) and much pressure on society accrues.
It is my assertion that Mankind, having a complex mind which
is capable of thinking strange thoughts and building counter-productive
culture, MUST apply stereotyping if he is to enjoy stability - both
individually and as a group. For every “wayward” individual who is
served by a culture of “all welcome” (well, up to a point) there are, I
suspect, many more than one who suffer from the confusion such culture
engenders. (This is without even addressing the “rights” of those
who would couple with animals, corpses etc.)
Posted mid may 2006
is a Dirty Word
No one can be in any doubt today that the world, in its
totality, is troubled. Climate change, whatever the reason, is staring
us collectively in the face. The planet is awash with arms, nuclear
technology is spreading, corrupt leaders and organisations are
everywhere (so commonplace that we no longer notice). Misunderstanding
and anger, rooted in the past, ensure continued world terrorism.
Against this background, apparent giants stride the land,
rushing about doing good. Tony Blair, not noted for his integrity, and
Bob Geldof, not noted for his maturity, lead the charge.
Are these really the leaders the world needs? What makes a
leader? What makes a good leader? What sort of person wants to be
Surely, before all else, the world needs wisdom and
integrity. And bowing to the fact that many will never acquire these
attributes, we need somehow to ensure that those who have them, rise to
leadership. Manifestly this does not happen. It seems that, in the
business of choosing a leader, the animal in us is far more powerful
than the human. It would appear that that charisma, in its broadest
sense, is the key factor in our choice of leaders. Here I am doing a
sort of reverse definition of charisma. I am using it to define the X
factor in those we choose as leaders when they are in fact, overtly
questionable in human terms. I surmise that in the animal kingdom,
sheer bloody gall confers greater survival on the group, through the
leader, than wisdom and integrity. Intuitively, that has a sort of
right feel about it.
So can anything be done, short of brainwashing the entire
population of the planet, to change the situation whereby the wrong
leaders get to the top and inexorably herald in Armageddon?
We currently have the slogan "make poverty history" - I am
tempted to coin "make charisma a dirty word"! More practically, we need
to ask if it is possible to throw light on this phenomenon such that
the ordinary voter stops voting for charisma and chooses wisdom and
I have long felt that we humans do not mature. This may well be because
our animal substrate matures at a rate that curtails our cerebral
childhood, and dominates us with animal sexuality, thus inhibiting
Whatever the cause, what we end up with, and term democratic
government, is now akin to a wolf pack, with a charismatic
unchallengeable leader, surrounded by acolytes and wannabes (sometimes
both in one skin) controlling our lives.
In a society where supposedly mature adults, routinely
damage their health and competence with a range of substances taken
into the bloodstream, the question must arise: if they cannot see that
error, how will they ever confront the leadership question? The only
group I see as clever enough to influence the required majority of
ordinary folk in the right direction, is the advertisers. These, after
all, are the clever devils who have kept the tobacco atrocity going
against all rationality! I firmly believe that, given enough money, and
a clear brief, they can herald in Utopia, including phasing themselves
out upon success!
But there is a problem. Money and instruction come from
leaders, and turkeys do not vote for Christmas. This change will have
to come from grassroots. Fortunately, there do arise from time to time,
incredibly rich individuals open to Damascene conversion. One can only
hope that this idea of choosing leaders for their human and humane
leadership qualities can be "bought" in the minds of the general
population, and that the scheme will appeal to some mega-rich
individual, above owning a football club. A magnificent act of
Corruption comes in all guises. Often, when pointed out, as in the
British voting system, many people will say: "Oh come on, that's not
Such people have become used to a background hum of corruption in
political speeches, advertising, pricing of petrol, labelling of food,
accountancy practices, court procedures etc. They need a visible wad of
money in a brown envelope, or its equivalent, to acknowledge a corrupt
act has occurred. Otherwise terms such as "sharp practice" are used to
fudge the truth.
In the current environment of "Make Poverty History" the First World
finger has been pointed at African leaders as purloining up to 80% of
incoming aid. Whatever the truth of this accusation, two things arise.
Apparently these "terrible people" store their stolen cash in First
World banks, or they buy trinkets like jet planes, from First World
In the days when every pound note was backed by a little bit of gold,
stored in a vault somewhere, banks built for themselves an air of
honour and integrity. In modern times, banking and its wayward cousin,
accountancy, seems to have gone completely astray. And as these two
institutions are never far from the seat of power, government is also
tainted. To point this up, the EU seems to have had corruption built in
from day one!
We know that Britain's men of power (and women, but are they less
afflicted?) constantly fall into corrupt ways. Hardly surprising as it
is axiomatic that "power corrupts". So is it not time we addressed
corruption as urgently and vehemently as all the other causes celebres?
Is it not time for a little "Mote and Beam Diplomacy"? Were we to admit
our own corrupt practices and put in place barriers and traps for the
corrupt, surely we would gain the high ground, and be in a better
position to take on world corruption?
I declare "Mote and Beam Year" when Tony Blair will admit all, George
Bush will tell us how he got to be President, the banks will own up to
all their fiddles and the Gnomes of Zurich will choose death by
cook-coo clock for their sins. It won't make a jot of difference but it
will be cathartic.
Posted mid May 2006
Primary work, is work related to survival. The harsher the times, the
more work is required just to stay alive. However, success achieved by
work brings self-esteem and approval of others; vital to individual and
When the planet is less harsh, farming is possible. Farming, an
unnatural activity, delivers increasing free time to which, it seems,
we are not adapted. Free time invites expansion of abstract thought;
the development of “culture”. But culture is like the iceberg -
one tenth shining in the sunlight, but nine tenths submerged in the
dark currents of the unconscious.
The shadow aspect of culture, brings dark practises, sexual aberration,
political manipulation and religious oppression of the many by the
Farming anchors the group. It concentrates people and their waste in
one area while promoting expansion of population. It is the forerunner
of town and industry; disease and pollution. It engenders secondary
work - specialisation. With specialisation comes money (to buy
specialist products) and the tertiary business of money manipulation:
banking, money-lending, gambling and debt. The fewer the number
primarily employed, the less healthy the community (farming being
Free time and excess money leads to travel, with an inexorable
improvement in means to that end. The highly developed transport
associated with travel, now allows the mixing of ethnic groups who have
lived unmixed for millennia. The incomers congregate in the least
agreeable parts of towns, receiving less money and suffering more
A disproportionate number of their young are unemployed - beset by
excess spare time and thereby prey to excess.
Another aspect of travel - colonisation - the bringing of oppression,
religion, farming, industry, money lending; in fact all the “ills of
home”, to other lands, has left much of the “Developing (third) World”
in a mess. But it is all part of the same mess.
The current “diversionary activity” of “Make Poverty History” (make
Africa a conscience-saving “salve-goat“) will not cure the underlying
malaise that Homo Sapiens is unsuited to the prevailing global
If it is possible (and as yet, we cannot know) for 6.5 billion to live,
contentedly, on this planet, intermixing, and with freedom from
the constraints of primary work, stability will not come through
industry (farm and factory) and trade, but from a complete shift of our
aspirations and values. Small pockets of visionary ethos exist (though
virtually all are, to some degree, reliant on the current structure)
but for change to take hold, as with immunisation to control other
“dis-ease“, a critical percentage must be reached with the “vaccine of
With such a “need vacuum” in the world today, a solution is urgent. By
far the greatest danger is a new religion. Should such arrive, its
spread, via the internet, will exceed anything ever seen. But will it
be benign? And will it have the answers?
Posted mid May 2006
Billion to Kill Sadam
I have long pondered the official line about Iraq, that without the war
“Sadam and sons would still be there“.
Suddenly I remembered that they “found” his sons by offering several
What might have been the effect of offering a sizeable part of the cost
of the war - one billion dollars say - to kill Sadam and his sons? I
have a feeling a lot of gung-ho blokes would have come out of the
woodwork. We have at least one parallel, in the field of space-flight,
where a big prize has energised daring men.
I wonder if a western “democracy” would feel too embarrassed to hire
hit-men, as this is what “unprincipled” people do; whereas honourable
countries fight “just wars”.
Written 30 05 05
Posted mid May 2006
This letter to unknown newspaper by Tom Benyon of Adstock Buckingham.
Sir - Theodore Dalrymple, claims that family breakdown is responsible
for anti-social behaviour. There is another cause.
The silent majority is divided into a shrinking minority who are either
Christian with a real basis for morality, or at least remember the days
when such values were valid. The vast majority are not bothered with
such ideals, for increasingly most people are ignorant of the values of
liberty and truth; all they want is personal comfort and affluence, and
they will remain silent as long as politicians deliver these things.
Gibbon wrote that the following five attributes characterised Rome at
First, a mounting love of show and luxury; second, a widening gap
between the very rich and the very poor; third, an obsession with sex;
fourth, freakishness in the arts masquerading as originality, and
enthusiasm pretending to be creativity; fifth, an increased desire to
live off the state.
We are back in Rome.
Posted mid May 2006
The heated debate continues regarding when what we call “life” becomes
There seems to be no concern for the sperm or egg, even though a lot of
evolution and construction has gone into each. The rightness of this
position is debateable, like every other, but I shall not go down that
When sperm enters egg, division begins. Without a sperm, as in cloning,
an electric current is required, so perhaps we might give the sperm
more respect? (Has anyone searched for genuine Virgin Birth? I would
expect it to occur from time to time.) Division and differentiation
proceeds until a sentient organism forms; having increasing awareness
as time passes and faculties emerge.
Were this a bird, forming in an egg, we would accept that on emerging,
without instruction from a parent or, indeed, a school teacher, it
would grow to a flying, nest-building, song-singing, young rearing,
competent adult. Not so Human young - it seems.
A human baby is born and named. (Let’s call him Fred.) That is to say,
its body and mentality are labelled. After being addressed many times
by “its” name, the baby and its name become linked in its mind. I say
“linked” rather than accepted because it is apparent, in those who
declare a dislike for their name, or who choose to be known by a name
other than their first, that free-will operates to some extent.
Although a baby uses its mouth a great deal to characterise shape,
texture and probably taste, it is also aware of limb movements, such
that a sense of ownership, in keeping with increasing hand-eye
coordination ,must accrue.
Ultimately the toddler reaches a sophistication in perception which
allows its mirror image to be seen as “self”. Fred now has the full
set: a mind, a body and a name, which will normally remain associated
throughout life both for him and for those who may know him.
Oddly, if Fred loses his mind to disease or accident, he will still be
know as Fred. When we say: “Fred has lost his mind” it is a euphemism
for: “Fred is lost - only his body is left.” When the body dies,
we treat it with respect and write: “Here Lies Fred”, but the truth is
that Fred resides in our memories and his kids; our connection to his
body is a trick of mind and, perhaps, culture.
But everything we know about Human development seems to show we are not
like birds. Being born with no “social skills” part of our brain
unformed, and much of the rest unwired, we rely heavily on experiences
among humankind to become humanised; most poignantly in the matter of
language which is so vital. If our early experience is among animals,
we are “animalised”.
So what actually is born. What exactly was Fred when we named him?
Fred, it seems, was born a vehicle for his consciousness. Using
whatever impinges on that consciousness will make Fred what he is to
be. If we contrive to rear him in some sort of isolating pen, with no
human input, he will not have a human mind or personality; he will not
“be” human in his own mind and though we might name him, he will not
identify with that name.
So that pre-Fred bunch of cells, a specialised arrangement of elements
selected from ninety-odd found in the Universe, though capable of
making a human shaped body (vehicle): It is not human! Fred has not, in
this case, lost his mind, he has simply not found one!
Written 12 02 04
Posted mid May 2006
of Voting Competence
>From a purely logical standpoint, who should take a decision? When
a mother sees that her child is sick, to whom does she turn for an
opinion or a cure? When your car makes noises, who do you ask? Boiled
right down, the answer is always “someone with appropriate knowledge
In the light of the above, giving each of us a vote is unwise - even
Ordinary citizens get their information from the national media and
politicians. It is now well established that both are fallible, biased,
and dishonest. Hence none of what we think we know can be relied on.
How many ordinary citizens can process data objectively? How many
without being influenced by outside pressures?
Those to whom we turn for help are (we hope) in possession of some
certification, obtained after study in the relevant sphere of
expertise. To mend a car you should be a car expert - lives depend on
it. To heal a child you should be a sickness expert - lives depend on
To vote for a government, and thereby a Prime Minister, should you not
be a voting expert? After all - lives depend on it; sometimes millions
It is an offence to drive a car unless we have passed a test showing
that we understand how to drive. Why then are we allowed to “drive” a
country, with not a day’s training, and no examination?
The current spectacle, at election time, is one of coercion, duping,
bribery, lies etc, applied to a gullible electorate by politicians,
their hired hands and funding cronies, to swing power to one or other
group. If an examination had to be passed, after serious study of the
ways of these terrible people, and a demonstration of understanding and
competence, only those with voting qualifications would do the voting,
for which the precedent is well established above! The advantages are
Quite where this voting elite goes to obtain unadulterated information
is another matter. It is not unreasonable to assume they would have the
savvy to do something about that!
Written July 2005
Posted mid May 2006
Now that the West is fully entrenched in the “War on Terror”,
demonisation of Muslims - in reaction to the minority prepared to use
extreme action - is proceeding apace.
But as the rhetoric becomes, daily, more righteous, should we not allow
for the fact that Islaam is 600 years younger than Christianity?
600 years ago, Spanish Christians enjoyed a long established
Inquisition and were busy burning “heretics”.
300 years ago, we were burning witches across the world - from Moravia
to Massachusetts - in the name of God.
Only 50-odd years ago, we were fire-bombing women and children
(although, to our credit, we did manage to repeal the “Witchcraft
Today, the fire has, I hope, gone out of Christianity but Islaam
(perhaps predictably in view of its youth) still burns with a passion.
In this time of intractable confrontation, humility, a good Christian
tenet, is certainly called for. But more poignantly, who is most in
need of that other Christian value - forgiveness?
Posted mid May 2006
Government “by the people” is an impossible dream. It can be aspired
to, but not achieved. So is the next best thing “mock democracy”, well
named in that it mocks the people, or could something better be
devised? Let’s just look at what we have now under mock democracy -
I’ll call it demockracy.
1) The prime imperative of the party in power is to stay in power. As
the maximum term of any Parliament is 5 years, this dominates most, if
not all, of every Parliament.
2) As independent candidates rarely get elected, it is evident that any
viable candidate you vote for has been pre-selected by a political
party. The party machine favours dogmatic allegiance to party and
leader before representation of local or individual constituency
concerns. This is hardly representation of you!
3) The party manifesto is compiled, primarily, with winning the
election in mind. Any or all of its promises are there to be shelved,
dumped or bent as circumstances change downstream. A manifesto of, say,
one hundred policies, can never match any individual’s aspirations.
Thus every voter votes for some policies they actually don’t want!
4) As you are voting for a party and its manifesto, the person under
the rosette is a poor third. There must be others who you would much
rather have as your representative on important matters, but you have
no choice. Is it any wonder that these ambitious rosette-stands accept
the whip system in The House?
5) Much of the effort of political exchange goes into crafty
presentation to hide weakness and failure with crafty denigration of
any other party. After that, the party funders must be looked after and
what’s left is applied policy.
In summary, it is entirely possible that you vote for a character you
don’t want, who will support policies you don’t want funded by people
you don’t like for reasons that have nothing to do with you.
So: democracy is a myth and demockracy is a sham; communism is a dirty
word so whither?
What do you want in a representative and or leader? I suggest: Wisdom,
integrity, self-knowledge, humility, absence of personal ambition and
ability to compromise amicably. Is it likely that anyone with these
qualities will sign up to the system we currently suffer under? Yet
there are a few among us who have such qualities (perhaps not the full
set) so how do we get to be governed by them?
What follows is fanciful as the current system protects its own
continuation. (Note the fact that proportional representation is only
favoured by those who have no chance of power yet better represents the
wishes of the people. It will be interesting, indeed, to see how
quickly the Lib Dems install PR, should they gain power. )
Modern technology could enfranchise us all to vote on everything, but
many would not be interested and worse, factions would soon develop as
most of us lack sufficient integrity to remain un-subverted.
It would seem we need a group of “elders” who, first and foremost, must
be integrity personified. The slightest slip from purity should have
them kneeling in Parliament Square, disembowelling themselves - at
No parties, no power grouping etc, just worthies, beyond reproach, for
whom we can vote with no whiff of
manifesto nonsense or mud slinging. It cannot be rocket science
to uncover who these people are, going quietly about their daily lives
uninterested in dominating anyone - almost unnoticed.
Every now and then, some organ or authority invites us to name unsung
heroes in our midst. I am not a devotee of such activities but it
demonstrates the principle for finding our “elders”.
Re-election of these individuals would be entirely on their performance
during the last term of office. The more measured their utterances the
less costly their lifestyle and the more impressive their demeanour,
the more likely they would be to be returned. We would have
government by fine minds with fine principles and no time wasted in
banal activities such as Prime Minister’s Questions.
Oh well, I can dream.
Written Oct 2004
Posted mid May 2006
(Basic Blokes Behave Badly)
Having lived my life as an “Intellectual Artisan” (part bloke part
academic) I think I may have understanding beyond that of the blinkered
swots who crave high office and start wars in my name.
>From my position, with a foot in each camp, the fact that some
soldiers will behave badly is no surprise as “basic bloke” is well
represented in their ranks. To sign up is to become just a number with
all that that implies. You need to be seriously short of options to
accept such ignominy - or to be fooled by the rhetoric of uniform, flag
I happen to have had the opportunity to study juggernaut drivers
(another group of basic blokes) for twenty-odd years. Some of them do
some pretty unbelievable stuff when no-one is watching.
The paradox of a leader who wants us all to be educated yet needs basic
blokes for his personal army is, of course, lost on Mr Blair.
Fortunately for him, his premise is faulty and will produce an endless
supply of “failed academics”, never suited to education, never offered
what did suit, and ideally suited for armed service.
What every aspiring Hannibal should understand, is that basic blokes
make nasty conquerors. The testosterone surge of battle plus the
“winners bonus” can shift basic bloke right into the animal. Rape is
then obligatory and humiliation of the enemy a close second. The
problem is that the rules of engagement are written by high minded
fellows with respectable testosterone levels and no mud, blood and guts
on their slacks. It is no accident that Geneva is a clean city in an
almost sterile country. Rules of war should be written by murderers on
Death Row or rapists and paedophiles in the isolation wing. They would
be relevant and not routinely broken.
Written may 2004
Posted mid May 2006
Do you believe in the Big Bang which is supposed to have started the
Universe? It won't be in favour too long; nothing ever is. But
perhaps I can persuade you to believe just while I get started?
There was neither time nor space. Then, out of nowhere, out of nothing,
came all the something we have now. It came in an instant. It started
as energy which transformed into matter and anti-matter; mutually
incompatible. By some quirk there was more matter than anti matter so
some matter was still left after the slaughter (in the form of
hydrogen and helium) and this went through a long process of evolution.
It first fuelled stars which made all the other elements. Then, after
the stars had exploded, at the end of their life, blowing an entire
periodic table to the Four Corners of space-time, some of the debris
formed into planets.
If a planet with a suitable mix of elements found itself bathed in
conducive radiation from the right kind of sun, throw in a thunder
storm and: hey presto LIFE.
Let’s be clear about life. Anything living steals from its surroundings
to maintain its own existence and strives to make more of its own kind
regardless of any consequences. Look around you. See what I mean?
The bottom end of the scale of life is very basic. It doesn’t KNOW it’s
alive. It gets no buzz out of messing up the function of some higher
form by invasion and multiplication; not like a mediaeval army. However
and perhaps more in keeping with armies it does change its tactics when
it gets a bashing by adversity. This is called evolution. It is also
called survival of the fittest but fittest is not the same as best.
Consider the plight of the last two men left on the planet trapped in a
concrete bunker beside which stands a beautiful, healthy woman panting
to do some repopulating. One of our incarcerants is a strapping athlete
cum chess champion, linguist (little help now I fancy) and member of
Mensa while the other is a wimpy nerd with a BO quotient greater than
his IQ. The latter is just over five-foot tall with a thirty-inch chest
and no bum.
The only way out of the bunker (damaged in the war) is a long narrow
gap between two slabs of concrete of great thickness. . . . . . It will
take the planet a long time to get over that bit of survival of the
fittest and when the race so engendered does finally ask the question:
“Why are we all so nerdy and wimpy?” who will come forth with the
answer? Bugs Bunny never explains WHY he turned the wrong way at
Albuquerque, perhaps it was hard earth or rock the other way, but turn
he did, and the rest is history - or evolution. Bugs is not the only
evidence we have for this effect. The fossil record of the earth is
littered with evidence of total extinctions of ENTIRE species which
were, at the time of catastrophe, fully adapted to their environment
and doing very nicely. You are just as likely to be wiped out by being
in the wrong place at the wrong time as by not being really up to the
So, Earth, being an unexceptional product of the above processes (for
there are unimaginable billions of planets with life in the universe)
reached the point where down in the primeval slime something stirred.
With the passage of aeons, this proto-life was beset by heat, cold,
impact, flood, drought, radiation etc. On the occasions that a small
remnant survived it was “adapt or die” and if adaptation amounted to a
“wrong” turn: So what? You were alive weren’t you? And here we are.
Oversize head, tendency to back trouble, hernia, and fallen arches, too
many teeth for our jaw, 98% of us brain damaged and a many of us very
unlovely. But let’s go back a bit.
Ignoring genetic engineering by aliens, we can assume that mankind,
with all his quirks and foibles is a product of evolution on this
planet from early mammal forms via ape-like creatures to Homo Sapiens.
Modern man is inherently unstable (trust me, I am one) and whilst, in
aeronautics, it has been found advantageous to design an unstable plane
which only a gung-ho computer can fly, I am doubtful that instability
is to be prized in man’s makeup. There again, it has been said that
genius is close to madness and this would seem to counter the point
were it not for the fact that genius always seems to lead further away
from stability and towards a mad world in which these geniuses
presumably feel happy and at home. Mark my words; the non-stick frying
pan will, one day, be co-opted as a terrifying weapon of war.
Written c 2003
Posted mid May 2006
My observation of myself and my fellow humans, leads me to the
conclusion that we are fundamentally animal, with human attributes
Modern research shows that the baby given no human input does not
become a human. Foundling babies, nurtured in early life by animals,
take on some of the characteristics of the "mother" and cannot
thereafter acquire human characteristics such as a full speech.
>From the above it would seem that the brain of the newborn baby has
two tasks. It must come to terms with the many animal imperatives
arising from below, as it were, but also acquire human characteristics
from those beings around it.
But what, in terms of behaviour - behaviour to be absorbed by the
newborn - defines a human being? There's the rub!
Human behaviour, whether observed within one family group living in a
suburb of the "civilised world" or in some "barbaric" part of the third
or developing world, runs the gamut from sensitive selfless altruism to
"inhuman" degrading viciousness.
In his book: "Brave New World" Huxley addressed the "programming" of
new individuals in a mechanistic way. His approach was not without some
foundation even in today's Science, but it seems to me (if we ignore
Hitler's Germany) that we are very long way from a society where
Huxley's approach might be applied.
Two things seem very relevant in the nurture a young baby: the
minimisation of what one might call anti-social programming and the
maximising of a sense of security and self-esteem (Secure attachment).
None of this is new, but little of this is applied as things stand
I cannot resist an aside here. In the area of human Surgery, we are
beginning to recognise the fallibility of the human surgeon! Robots
have, now been designed and deployed, in the interests of doing a
Huxley must be spinning with mirth in his grave. There is no doubt that
the average parent, particularly in the "civilised world", is not that
good at the job.
Is it time for artificial nurture?
It seems that somehow, we need to supply the newborn with a sense that
mother is near, even when she's not - e.g.when she's working, down the
gym, or just living her own life. This is going to take some pretty
classy technology which few will be able to afford. It is not the
answer. And I fear we are too far down the road away from simple
mothering by mothers to embrace that solution.
What is not in doubt, is that the behaviour of future generations, not
just as citizens of the world but as parents, depends heavily on the
"world view" absorbed by each and every new baby. It seems pretty clear
that concepts and attitudes, absorbed young, are paramount. Later input
can never be quite as potent as it will be "scrutinised" by the
developing (prejudiced) intellect. Prevention is better than cure.
We are currently preoccupied with financial aid for the developing
world. In truth the whole world is in need of psychological aid,
comprising a solution to the problem set above. A world slowly filling
with humans ill-prepared for being human, hence ill-disposed to one
another, does not bode well for the future.
Personally, I believe we have the knowledge and the technology to at
least apply "damage limitation" to the minds of children worldwide. If
Coca Cola and Macdonalds can reach round the world, (the product of
money and intent) surely it is possible to do the same with
Posted mid May 2006
As a subscriber to “the child makes the adult” who further believes
“the damage” is done very early in life, my efforts are addressed to
mass dissemination of “infant wisdom”.
I have no way of knowing if this can achieve justice and peace,
particularly as most people have little stomach for reality.
This analysis of the “human condition” is male and un-PC. Those who
approach from a female “mind set” may think me deluded; those who
embrace the PC ethos, might denigrate my stance. This is a major
obstacle to moving to a “just and peaceful world”.
The world is rapidly losing respect for the Female Principle and is
hardening in its maleness. War solves problems. Apathy is rife. Money
is king. WAM!
The complex brain that defines humanity, climbed on top of the
underlying ape quite recently, like a tiny jockey on a primitive beast.
It has little every-day understanding or control of the forces below.
This extra brain power, probably a survival stratagem (or even
by-product) is of no great value to Nature, whose main thrust is
genetic continuation of the ape. Thus we find that a promising
development of higher intellect and skills is halted - at best
attenuated - by the onset of puberty and the arrival of sexual
appetite. In truth: mind doesn't matter.
History records pockets of tranquillity against a background of
unending mayhem. These are never groups of alien soldiers or labourers,
meeting to do what soldiers or labourers do; they would just end up
fighting. Such cooperative gatherings are of intellectuals, so intent
on stuff of the mind, that the animal below is stilled. They exchange
knowledge - even wisdom. Their outpourings are written in books - hymn
books full of the flowering of human potential. They fill libraries.
But before long, “in another part of the wood” the beast below hi-jacks
the mind above and hoards of “mindless beasts” go on the rampage,
scattering the intellectuals (or putting them to work in the fields)
and burning the library. Nature is back on track.
The World runs on prejudice.
We are here (according to current belief) as a consequence of Natural
SELECTION and the Survival of the Fittest - in a word: PREJUDICE. You
cannot expect to eradicate such a fundamental factor in humanity.
Indeed, even to suppress it is to run a serous risk of unpleasant
So, if I am right, we have a planet - now shrunk to a “global village”
- with a range of colours, languages, cultures, religions and even
faces, all falling over one-another; the whole seething mass
underpinned by DNA-deep prejudice. This is not an easy situation; the
evidence is all around, but in trying to “stamp out” prejudice, are we
“sowing the wind” with the inevitable whirlwind to follow? Indeed,
could it be that we already have the makings of the Whirlwind in the
“War on Terror”?
If it is not too late, I would like to promote a new atmosphere of
honesty in which we ALL acknowledge our prejudices. Those already too
steeped in the PC fashion to “come out” in one go, could start
with small admissions like hating cats or even - say - Tony Blair’s
grin. Perhaps the way forward is through the foundation of “Prejudiced
Anonymous” groups, where you let it all hang out and no-one is censured
for being human.
If we can rid ourselves of the two shibboleths of the (nonexistent)
unprejudiced person and the (impossible) goal of eradicating prejudice
itself, we can then focus fully on the business of living with it. By
this I mean living with its underlying inevitability, not with the
painful, but avoidable, consequences. There is no doubt that we CAN
live with it, but it requires a level of honesty and philosophy not
current in our society; possibly in none, today.
Success could well prove that prejudice, far from being the great
divider that the PC movement wishes to stamp out, is one of the very
few aspects of global man that we all have in common! What better
foundation on which to start a, truly viable, initiative toward World
I gather that one of the great truths of philosophy is that he who
controls language, controls the people - that is, their thinking.
Some time ago I began to ponder the business of how we think, and came
to the conclusion that, like animals, pre-verbal babies, must do their
reasoning without words. This evening, it suddenly occurred to me, that
thinking in words might be "the problem"!
I have, elsewhere, suggested that many of our ills, have their roots in
farming. I see a sort of parallel, in the suggestion that language
might be a curse.
Some languages apparently began their written form as pictures or
pictograms, and I can't help wondering if these are differently
processed in the brain. This might be a red herring but I am suggesting
they fall part-way between non-verbal and left brain language.
Anyway, I have read that only three people in the world can envisage
five dimensional systems, and I am wondering how difficult it is, once
language is acquired, to envisage thinking without it. But I feel
absolutely sure it must be possible! The whole concept is fascinating.
I find myself suddenly wondering: when dreaming, do we think in words?
Much has been written of chimpanzees and other primates, solving
problems. When the chimpanzee moves the box, picks up the stick and
knocks down the Banana, we know it has thought no words. If we move the
box, pick up the stick, knock down the Banana, do we use words? Or do
we only use words for more complex strategy?
Whatever the truth of the matter, it is certainly worth a thought, that
thinking in words might rank with farming - and what else? - as bad
news for contentment among humanity.
I wonder if it is possible to train ones-self to think without words?
Could this in fact be one of the Eastern disciplines? Perhaps
sculptors, painters and the like, go for some time without thinking any
words when engrossed in their work?
I have written elsewhere of the damage done by the spoken and written
word, but perhaps the “original sin” is language acquisition itself.
I heard recently that Chimps read body language, in terms of intent by
humans, almost as soon as the intent is formed. This might suggest that
absence of language develops this skill; as well it might.
to Make Sense
In the light of recent events, which show Bush as a pathetic child and
Blair not the great visionary he believes, I am trying to understand
the mind of the general “educated” voter who puts such men into power.
I have to conclude that the ability to think, about issues and people,
is severely limited in the general public. Would this be “emotional
In terms of Berne’s “Transactional Analysis”, discriminatory thought
resides in the “Adult“. The Adult, emerges in the growing child from a
Can it be that the greater mass of people - regarded as educated and
intelligent - are in fact not that much above zero in Adult
functionality? This would account for the power of religious
belief, advertising, fashion, power of newspaper opinion and acceptance
of political clap-trap.
I am beginning to envisage a pyramid of humanity with the mass at the
bottom having weak Adult function; rising to a rare few sages at the
top point, who can see the true state of things.
Returning to Berne: It seems that those who aspire to power have plenty
of “Parent” belief and also a “Child”- based drive to “be someone”.
Sages do not seem to become politicians, nor are they found among their
advisors. Politicians seem not to have much more Adult capacity for
philosophy and compromise than their flock. They apply Parent rules for
behaviour, e.g. race laws, but fail to realise the forces they are
dealing with and the limited ability of the sheep to stay on message
when under pressure.
We are born little animals. If no one introduced us to language, we
would grow to be big animals. Language allows us to modify our animal
selves - this is culture; perhaps “civilisation”. But,
paradoxically, language is hi-jacked by those who want (need)
power, to tell us what to think. Directly and indirectly we are told
most of the things we are to think. We are taught very little of HOW to
think and how to analyse what others think (or profess to think).
Now that life is all about commerce, education is simply preparation
for profitable work. We are battery hens, laying “eggs of work“. It
would seem that when it comes to awareness of “what is going on”, we
are certainly about as bright as battery hens. Our leaders manipulate
the light, heat, feed and water in the battery house to keep us settled
and then give us extra feed just before an election.
Half Made Up?
The more I pondered our inability to make a job of being human, the
more puzzled I got. Suddenly it occurred to me that it might be the
lack of time available for the human bit of us (“us” being the “ape
confused by language“) to become mature and wise.
Just suppose we could delay puberty for ten - or whatever -
years. The “reasonable child” of 11-or-so, whose development, they say,
is by then complete (less puberty) could continue to be reasonable,
progressively, and arrive at puberty much more able to handle it, and
the rest of life. The tenuous human veneer, would gain “dominion over
To put it another way, as things stand, we become sexually driven
animals long before we achieve true adulthood; maturation stops. Sex is
inimical to wisdom - there is nothing of wisdom about copulating
bodies. A sex-orientated being is no vehicle for a rational,
constrained, constructive sage. This means that, in human terms, we
live our lives as overgrown children; unable to resist the modern
excesses of shopping (with associated debt) eating (obesity) drinking
(intoxication) copulation (with associated deviations) status (the
“good job”) novelty (unending invention) consumption and
manufacture ( exhaustion of resources) and argument (war).
It is ironic that many now opt for late pregnancy - delayed by up to
twenty years from puberty - but they fill those “years of delay” with
frantic pursuit of the unsophisticated goals and diversions
above; rather than in an increasingly competent search for wisdom and
It seems that God and Mother Nature lived in harmony for many an eon,
until God chose to imprint his mental attributes on some hapless ape so
that it might worship Him. (He too, it would appear, lacks maturity!)
The resultant brainy ape, having invented agriculture and easy living,
now gets to well-fed puberty ever-earlier, hence with no time to
complete itself “in the likeness of God”. This mess - “scarce half made
up” is us!
Post script: Today I heard part of a wildlife program on Radio 4.
It seems that young bull elephants HAVE PUBERTY DELAYED BY THE
PROXIMITY OF OLDER MALES who, effectively, mediate their maturing
before they move out; whereupon their sexuality is triggered!
Might such a delay occur in "primitive" human societies where there is
the "men's house" into which, one presumes, boys are admitted at some
age. Could the maleness of that place (including pheromones) delay
Entropy and Life
Even if we do not accept the big bang as the start of “everything”, it
is clear that elements combine to form compounds and, on a good day, we
get DNA and life. This is “Self-Organisation” the opposite of “Entropy”
which, we are told by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, leads in the
direction of disorganisation - to chaos - death.
This duality is not lost on Homo Sapiens. In his life-long quest to
understand and control self and environment, he surely becomes aware of
underlying duality, and builds it into his various religions.
Unfortunately, religious imagery gets taken up as truth. Destructive
comets become dragons and the universal property of Self-Organisation,
becomes a Creator-God. It is but a small step, to pray to God for
protection from the Dragon!
Dead matter is all around us. Life, when present, inhabits (so to
speak) dead matter, but the dead matter must be properly organised to
be termed “alive”. To kill something alive, we do not “extract the
life”; we simply disorganise the matter.
A box of radio components (including a battery) is dead. Organise them
correctly and an oscillating energy will arise entirely due to the
relationship of the components i.e. organisation!
The radio is “live” and able to perform its function of detecting and
processing the signals received from its electro-magnetic environment -
just as animals detect and process signals in their environment. If we
disrupt the radio with a hammer - it dies. But no life is lost - life
has no being. The same is true for animals, of which we are one.
Science is, today, busy seeking to organise dead matter into an
arrangement which, by its behaviour, can be termed “alive”. Should they
succeed, many will call this “playing God” but the play actually
started, long ago, with us playing at Religion!
A vast array of industrial processes require precise arrangement of
chemical elements to form complex molecules with amazing properties.
This is never called “playing God”. It is termed “invention“.
We invented God - he is ours to play with, ignore, or even play as we
After we create God the Creator, it is very tempting to go on to create
a Destroyer - Devil.
But the First Law of Thermodynamics will not allow anything to be,
ultimately, destroyed; it conserves all energy, of which matter
is a manifestation. Neither can the Devil take life, as it has no
being. Perhaps this is why we need to invent a soul? Something for our
Devil to vie for!
Shoot the Messenger
(Religion, cowards and heroes.)
The apes who ape humanity have now all-but lost sight of reality. For a
brief moment in time, they saw their reflection in Darwin’s mirror. But
ape-children love play, and to play at being human, is more fun than
just being an odd ape.
Pretenders soon forget they are acting a part. They begin to take
themselves seriously and their beliefs as absolute. Strange to tell,
the belief of any one group always declares the other group
Harsh technology mediates winners in a fight. We are leaders in harsh
technology. Now the whole world believes in it, but other beliefs are
at odds. God, heaven’s reward and cowardice, are bones of contention,
as the bones of lost "debates" are laid in the ground. Whenever
ideologies clash, heroes and cowards become confused in the small minds
of “great leaders“.
This is when the limitations of aping are laid bare, as the headless
chickens come home to roost.
Their impending arrival, threatened a whole way of life.
So the fight was taken to the invader.
In World War II, had we not killed Germans to avoid invasion?
They were not out to annihilate us, of course, we knew that.
But they would dictate our way of life - nothing would be the same.
The thought was intolerable.
Yes, they were human, but we had to kill them to protect our lifestyle.
You can’t think we should have let them come, and just “see what
On the killing: our culture and religion were, indeed are, quite
It was just, and necessary.
How many? Oh - a few million or so.
* * * * *
* * * * *
* * * *
So she went ahead with the abortion.
The invasion was averted; her lifestyle protected.
Now a new battle is raging about the sanctity of life.
IT’S REALLY KILLING
THAT SHE’S SO WILLING
The error of stereotyping by outer appearance.
“Don’t judge a book by its cover” they say. But they also say: “If it
looks, walks and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.” Tell that to Hans
Morphism - discrimination and labelling on grounds of appearance - must
be stamped out. Tolerance, in this damaging area of social practice
must not be tolerated.
Since the PC revolution, took hold in the mind of person (formerly man)
we have been subjected to the use of “his or her” and “he or she” ad
nauseam. THESE ARE MORPHIST TERMS; dependent upon the erroneous
idea of just two denominations of person, presumed definable and
presumed accepting of their defining. This is a vile heresy. It is
Morphism in all its presumptuous effrontery.
To designate a person in terms of external fitments and aspect ratios,
without paying attention to internal adjuncts, endocrine chemistry,
brain wiring and mind programming, is to fall prey to Morphist Madness.
The next time you espouse, carelessly, the assumption of “he or she” on
encountering an unknown person, draw back from the abyss and remember
the Anti-Morphism Code:
NO CLASSIFICATION WITHOUT SPECIFICATION
To avoid affront to all those poor devils whose outward manifestation
is misleading to the general public, we owe them the deference of using
the wholly proper terms: “they” in place of he or she and “their” in
place of his or her.
We have long accepted the “woman” in a suit and "man" in a dress; now
it is time to remove those irritating - nay offensive - signs on toilet
doors and to re assess the whole business of “public convenience”. I
suggest that just as motorway services have: knife and fork, bed,
petrol pump etc on the sign, we need signs for, sit-down, stand up,
disposal bin, baby changing etc. on every toilet door. These symbols
would simply indicate the facilities within, to be judged in terms of
suitability for the task to be addressed by the approaching human.
Gender need not be defined.
I leave it to others, more qualified than I, to define and present,
through the medium of the symbol, those parts and functions of the body
which might reasonably be serviced in a public toilet.
This would only go a small way to the suppression of Morphism, but it
is a start. I can only hope to see further progress in the fullness of
2006 Barrie Singleton. All