tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59557623664268899242024-02-02T05:47:44.036+00:00Corvid's CornerA Murder of One...Corvidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10650430038318207729noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955762366426889924.post-91823697989454804402016-11-16T17:05:00.000+00:002016-11-16T17:05:37.270+00:00The US Election outcome is not so bad Part 2: Ukraine and the Baltic States<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghrLtirtCQTzg0rwRKOUrO0YY_QmxbRObe90R7TIgqo2ku1KEHAlRm0UwEreoydTYPSoXqmKGtLYPwqZXeuj1W54URsnrF6RkMOpeFCjX1XFLtRAHckdCdbNjmelhs0qA9sAhI6uHh-1U/s1600/sad+michelle.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="318" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghrLtirtCQTzg0rwRKOUrO0YY_QmxbRObe90R7TIgqo2ku1KEHAlRm0UwEreoydTYPSoXqmKGtLYPwqZXeuj1W54URsnrF6RkMOpeFCjX1XFLtRAHckdCdbNjmelhs0qA9sAhI6uHh-1U/s400/sad+michelle.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;">Made me laugh...</span></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span id="goog_1009256491"></span><span id="goog_1009256492"></span><br /></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In my <a href="http://corvidscorner.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/the-us-election-outcome-is-not-so-bad.html" target="_blank">last post</a>, I commented on how the situation in Syria had inflamed tensions between the US and Russia, and how Trump's election should calm things down a bit.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">However, it should hopefully also help calm things down between Russia and NATO - and for that we shall look at the Ukraine.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrf2JBoSdUpOUi7Y9FqEZGeXaEnljwFxKGmel4NHSwoR5ZMMCJ7qKK4-VvQ7rRmsexREN7liHznWgkcn2b6OILNf9YSXyw-qJb4UgV6Zm2Wn3M04H8kV4-LjgTGpn-BY-NgpIczSTZVno/s1600/20140322_gdc891_0.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="265" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrf2JBoSdUpOUi7Y9FqEZGeXaEnljwFxKGmel4NHSwoR5ZMMCJ7qKK4-VvQ7rRmsexREN7liHznWgkcn2b6OILNf9YSXyw-qJb4UgV6Zm2Wn3M04H8kV4-LjgTGpn-BY-NgpIczSTZVno/s320/20140322_gdc891_0.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As we can see, the former Soviet Republic is located right on Russia's south-western European border. Now, after the breakup of the Soviet Union, the various republics went their respective ways. Ukraine, which had long had a nationalist independence movement, was for the most part very happy to go off on its own.<br /><br />However, as always, things were not quite so clear cut. You see, the eastern part of Ukraine has a population that is largely ethnically Russian, speaks Russian, and wishes to maintain ties with Moscow. The western part of the country speaks Ukrainian, and wants an independent Ukraine with close ties to the West and the EU. Roughly, the country breaks down in this wise (based on the census of 2001):</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiaeM3awRzcQlvLu-8wQXJmbBqXQdXxLG5JsBQkzZaWmIKmipNMFru9oqfZFGSqt82CUjXlTtDusWV0uNCNJRQ7zw0BwMu88-gxT9bKfDXrfwSWVJJZiopW-hJ4qbSpqeJEdODeYbUVNo/s1600/Historical_regions_of_Ukraine.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="278" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiaeM3awRzcQlvLu-8wQXJmbBqXQdXxLG5JsBQkzZaWmIKmipNMFru9oqfZFGSqt82CUjXlTtDusWV0uNCNJRQ7zw0BwMu88-gxT9bKfDXrfwSWVJJZiopW-hJ4qbSpqeJEdODeYbUVNo/s400/Historical_regions_of_Ukraine.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;"><i>See that red blobby bit on the bottom? That's the Crimea.</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Things kicked off in 2013 when the then president, Viktor Yanukovich, bucked the trend of previous governments throughout the 2000s and rejected closer ties to the European Union by refusing to sign an association agreement with the EU at the last minute, sparking peaceful protest. During these protests, Yanukovich signed a treaty with Russia instead, and took a multi-billion dollar loan from her. Things got rather warm at that point, and on 18th February 2014, violent clashes took place in Kiev, leaving 82 people dead. Long story short, by the 22nd February, the protesters were in control of Kiev and the parliament scheduled a new presidential election - Yanukovich having fled to Russia. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/15/john-mccain-ukraine-protests-support-just-cause" target="_blank">American Senators</a> and EU suits lined up to congratulate the protesters. Freedom and Democracy were alive and kicking, was the message.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Russia, having long dabbled in Ukrainian affairs, voted in the Duma to deploy troops to Ukraine on 1st March 2014. Within a day, Russian troops had complete control of the Crimean peninsula. Of course, the world and his wife lined up to brand Putin a madman, a tyrannical megalomaniac with imperial ambitions.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Of course, the Russophile east of the country was not quite so happy with the outcome of matters, and from March 2014 there was war in the Donbas region, with ethnic Russians opposing the new government - and supported by a number of Russian citizens.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />So the Russians are the baddies, right? Well....yes, they are. But again, things are never <i>quite</i> so simple.<br /><br />See, the Crimea had been part of Russia for a very great many years before the Soviet era. In point of fact, the Crimea was only transferred to the administration of Ukraine in the 1950s, as an administrative convenience. The Black Sea Fleet belonging to Russia was based there following the breakup of the USSR, although there was a bit of a tug-of-war going on over the fleet and the bases between Russia and Ukraine. So Russia understandably got a bit twitchy when things kicked off in Ukraine.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Consider also, that the removal of Yanukovich was in fact a <i>coup d'etat</i> - Petro Poroshenko, Yanukovich's successor has said as much and even asked the supreme court of the country to <a href="http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/06/ukraines-pres-poroshenko-says-overthrow-of-yanukovych-was-a-coup.html" target="_blank">declare it a coup</a>. Furthermore, the main movers behind the revolution was the <a href="https://www.channel4.com/news/ukraine-mccain-far-right-svoboda-anti-semitic-protests" target="_blank">far-right Svoboda party</a>. What the west had supported was, in fact, the overthrow of a democratically elected government by a fascist putsch. Whoops. Not so squeaky clean, are we?</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As a result of the annexation of the Crimea, sanctions have been imposed on Russia, which has had serious effects on the Russian economy. In response, Russia has banned western food imports, which has had the unfortunate (but predictable) effect of driving up food prices in Russia, hurting the man in the street as much as the sanctions do.<br /><br />Now, both NATO and the EU have played their parts in this pantomime. NATO, doubtless with much prompting from the USA, has sought to strengthen itself by recruiting a number of former Soviet republics. The EU has also sought more members, expanding from 16 member states to 28 (and back to 27 soon enough, if the anti-democratic elements within our own parliament are kept at bay) since the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 turned the EEC into the EU. Both organisations have been fishing in what has long been Russia's pond, and Russia is none too happy about seeing its sphere of influence thus eroded. The USA would not tolerate it, but expects Russia to accept it without complaint.<br /><br />Now, think on this: if the EU, through bungling managerialism and a lack of nous when it comes to realpolitik, had had an army to send out into the world, just how much of a mess would it have made of the Ukrainian crisis? Yet its <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/08/jean-claude-juncker-calls-for-eu-army-european-commission-miltary" target="_blank">own army</a> is just what the EU is <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37359196" target="_blank">pushing for</a>.<br /><br />This brings us to the Baltic states, and Poland.<br /><br />As a result of both the drives by NATO and the EU to recruit these states, and the ramping up of tensions with Russia over Syria, NATO troops, tanks and missiles have been <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/26/britain-boosts-estonia-troop-deployment-on-russias-border/" target="_blank">massed</a> on <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/nato-prepares-to-station-thousands-more-troops-on-russian-border-a7380666.html" target="_blank">Russia's</a> <a href="http://thefreethoughtproject.com/nato-us-uk-assemble-largest-troop-buildup-russian-border-since-cold-war/" target="_blank">borders</a> in the Baltic states and Poland, heightening tensions still further. With Trump in the White House, it is likely that we shall see much of this pressure lifted, which we can hope will result in tensions deflating.<br /><br />So again, Trump's wish to improve relations with Russia mean that war with Russia is looking increasingly less likely than it did with the prospect of a Clinton administration.<br /><br />So that's good.</span></div>
Corvidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10650430038318207729noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955762366426889924.post-18089661934172600962016-11-16T13:13:00.002+00:002016-11-16T13:13:59.727+00:00The US Election Outcome is not so bad Part 1: Syria<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgib65WvXG9A8lPj_dTfOV8wW0tJOKlCP9HwCM0_dnd41oWDMz78NMKE-Q5png4Iw7Xge5EO_-9dJl25dvLPtYKMbK11maQC8Dav94a6opRPnRwMwm-FeIQH-WLNOLbg2mEhaRghLXZ7jQ/s1600/donald_trump_flag.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="265" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgib65WvXG9A8lPj_dTfOV8wW0tJOKlCP9HwCM0_dnd41oWDMz78NMKE-Q5png4Iw7Xge5EO_-9dJl25dvLPtYKMbK11maQC8Dav94a6opRPnRwMwm-FeIQH-WLNOLbg2mEhaRghLXZ7jQ/s400/donald_trump_flag.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Well, it's been a while since last I blogged. Not that anyone will have noticed, mind you. I let Brexit pass without comment (others did it far better than I could), news items have come and gone, but given the current meltdown now underway about the result of the US Presidential Election, I felt that I had to comment.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So now - Donald Trump is the President Elect. This is not necessarily as bad as it seems - not least because Hillary Clinton is not fit to run a whelk stall, let alone the world's only superpower.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So why do I say that?</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Well, there are a number of reasons. This will be a long post but I'll try to keep it interesting, and I will have to commit the sin of simplification to a degree. For the most part, what it boils down to is war. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">First and foremost, we have avoided the likelihood of war with Russia. Which is not as crazy as it sounds.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This is...complicated, so I shall break it down a bit.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>Syria</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Take a look at the situation in Syria. It's a total mess, and most of us have wondered why, and just what the hell the West (especially the US) is up to. ISIS seem to have no trouble laying hands on arms and equipment supplied by the US, the Kurds are not supported, Russia's help seems to be resented, and there seems to be a narrative that Assad is somehow worse than ISIS. Just how has never been explained.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Well, as ever, it comes down to oil. And gas, of course.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">See, Europe is largely dependent on Russian oil and gas. Needless to say, the various European countries and the EU are none too keen on this. Neither are the Americans, on account that they would rather Europe was dependent on Saudi and Qatari oil, as those countries are US allies in the Middle East.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">To break this near monopoly, a pipeline has been proposed, to run from either Qatar - a US ally:</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjH7UCG9dNRUfGDClV4aDTxEWIhscurXyscAqkfjIOMgK8ABmJhGHYCvckiqes3cmqH-7q4YXHj3fsrDN8RsgRXIFgl7fzPChqOGTcr7d_rTDE20GTSekADXqn8Y5RQwjbHuuRdZC1W8Vs/s1600/qatar+pipeline.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjH7UCG9dNRUfGDClV4aDTxEWIhscurXyscAqkfjIOMgK8ABmJhGHYCvckiqes3cmqH-7q4YXHj3fsrDN8RsgRXIFgl7fzPChqOGTcr7d_rTDE20GTSekADXqn8Y5RQwjbHuuRdZC1W8Vs/s400/qatar+pipeline.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">or Iran, which is allied to Russia:</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicWGRaneMUqGgCkERnrXktEol0F9FgPS6Y0cm2OY4nuxhERZ4ReKcDR17Mbo66XpEml9LhjFy3cj0XybiP8xQSkN9Jnjq9Nx1an9igVBzxMdS3xlpTScGyM12x4lHpk11G-4hwcISajH0/s1600/iran+pipeline.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicWGRaneMUqGgCkERnrXktEol0F9FgPS6Y0cm2OY4nuxhERZ4ReKcDR17Mbo66XpEml9LhjFy3cj0XybiP8xQSkN9Jnjq9Nx1an9igVBzxMdS3xlpTScGyM12x4lHpk11G-4hwcISajH0/s400/iran+pipeline.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Either way, the pipeline will have to run through Syria, which has its own oilfields as well. With Assad in charge, chances are any such pipeline would be primarily supplied by Iranian oil; Russia would still have quite some sway over Europe's supply. And Russia is not afraid of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/06/world/europe/us-seeks-to-reduce-ukraines-reliance-on-russia-for-natural-gas.html?_r=1" target="_blank">cutting off the supply</a> to countries during conflicts in its own form of modern-day hydraulic despotism.<br /><br />So, the US favours the Qatari pipeline - and needs Assad out of the way for that to happen. They also could not afford to upset Turkey - which is why the West is failing to help the Kurds (who have long fought Turkey to establish their own homeland in Kurdistan) and Turkey is being considered for EU membership, and why Erdogan's maniacal despotism is given a free pass.<br /><br />As a side note, you will notice that the Iranian pipeline will also have to pass through Turkey, albeit only slightly. Which goes some way to explaining why Russia did nothing when Turkey <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shootdown" target="_blank">shot down a Russian jet last year</a> - that, and Turkey being a member of NATO. Putin is far too smart to provoke a war with the NATO countries over a single fighter jet.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Anyway - for Western ambitions to succeed, Assad must fall. ISIS, whatever their ambitions, are not a serious threat to the West and never have been; in point of fact, their geographical area of influence has shrunk considerably over the past year:</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEii2aw9lILNzJYLE7DMYQVzMFSLdgZgxrL1Q3b9kLUzwo_P1JhIHkizeLJaCQDK3sNDIFEb7slD2oW0vA55mN-CInLBpp11NcHZjqQ7JZNrv8zSTyAJIKtJVZdytxFi36oZT63S7uVUcwg/s1600/ihs+isis+map.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="237" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEii2aw9lILNzJYLE7DMYQVzMFSLdgZgxrL1Q3b9kLUzwo_P1JhIHkizeLJaCQDK3sNDIFEb7slD2oW0vA55mN-CInLBpp11NcHZjqQ7JZNrv8zSTyAJIKtJVZdytxFi36oZT63S7uVUcwg/s400/ihs+isis+map.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So the West is happy to let ISIS run about committing atrocity after atrocity, as every day weakens Bashar Al Assad ever further. What the West is not happy about is Russia intervening to help Assad out.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So, in an attempt to have things their own way, the US have tried a number of things. <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-russia-idUSKCN1231X3" target="_blank">A ceasefire</a>, for example, that ended in a shambles because it was not binding on some of the rebel groups, who carried on fighting - causing Putin and Assad to respond in kind.</span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So Hillary Clinton wanted to impose a No Fly Zone in Syria; naturally, Russia would not accept America unilaterally imposing such zones, and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/25/hillary-clinton-syria-no-fly-zones-russia-us-war" target="_blank">trouble was predicted</a> by a <a href="https://consortiumnews.com/2015/12/11/cornering-russia-risking-world-war-iii/" target="_blank">great</a> many people. Let's face it, Hillary is not exactly Carl von Clausewitz when it comes to military strategy as the <a href="http://fpif.org/much-blame-hillary-clinton-bear-libya/" target="_blank">debacle in Libya will attest</a>. And she is not afraid of war, either; she <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Clinton#Middle_East_and_North_Africa" target="_blank">voted for the war in Iraq</a>, she is in favour of air strikes on Iran should that country not kowtow to US demands, she played a key role in the US strikes on Libya, and so on.<br /><br />Furthermore, Hillary firmly believes that Russia and China were behind various cyberattacks on the US, including hacking into the servers of the <a href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/dnc-hack-security-firm-crowdstrike-stands-by-research-russia-strongly-denies-involvement-1565788" target="_blank">Democratic National Congress</a> - even though John MacAfee, who despite his being somewhat unhinged, I would be inclined to believe in this sort of thing - <a href="http://www.csoonline.com/article/3133735/data-breach/john-mcafee-iran-hacked-the-dnc-and-north-korea-hacked-dyn.html" target="_blank">denies that Russia had</a> anything to do with it. Hillary, however, advocates a <a href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/clinton-us-should-use-military-response-fight-cyberattacks-russia-china-1579187" target="_blank">military response</a> against Russia.<br /><br />So, had Hillary been in a position to impose her no-fly zone, there is a good chance that Russian jets would be shot down as a matter of policy. And you can <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmE9Jj-rEVs" target="_blank">guess</a> where that would <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdGHjsSts0U" target="_blank">lead</a>.<br /><br />So make no mistake regarding the conflict in Syria - humanitarian factors are at the bottom of everyone's list. This is simply a new round of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game" target="_blank">The Great Game</a>; a proxy war between America and Russia to control the supply of oil to the whole of Europe. And that is something that both sides would be prepared to go to war over.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">However, Donald Trump has made it clear from the outset that it is his intention to <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-14/putin-trump-discussed-ways-to-normalize-u-s-russia-relations" target="_blank">improve </a><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/annaborshchevskaya/2016/11/11/what-trumps-victory-might-mean-for-us-russia-relations/#76f4c8d71639" target="_blank">US / Russia relations</a>, and is <a href="https://www.rt.com/news/365966-putin-trump-congratulates-victory/" target="_blank">prepared to work</a> with Putin on a number of matters including Syria. Needless to say, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/european-leaders-nato-caution-trump-on-warming-relations-with-russia/2016/11/15/1d10c7e8-ab3e-11e6-8f19-21a1c65d2043_story.html" target="_blank">neither NATO nor various European leaders</a> are keen on this - although quite what the European leaders think would be the result of allowing things to continue as they are is not overly clear.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What is looking good, though, is that had Hillary Clinton been elected, we would have been looking at a very good chance of a Third World War. That seems, at least for the present, to have been averted - certainly to those with <a href="http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/731997/Donald-Trump-Jim-Woolsey-CIA-WW3" target="_blank">half a brain</a>. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-d-taylor/donald-trumps-recipe-for-_1_b_9527534.html" target="_blank">Quite where the 'liberal' </a>(was ever a philosophy so mis-named?) idea that Trump's election would be the start of WW3 comes from is anyone's guess.</span>Corvidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10650430038318207729noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955762366426889924.post-30341355884791823002014-06-28T10:00:00.000+01:002014-06-28T11:06:05.827+01:00The Centenary of the Great War - Part I<div style="text-align: justify;">
On this day in 1914, at 11:00 am or thereabouts (10:00 am British Summer Time, 09:00 GMT), a young Serb named Gavrilo Princip stepped out in front of a car carrying the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary and his wife, Sophia, and fired two shots from an FN model 1910 Browning pistol. The first hit Franz in the neck, the second hit Sophia in the abdomen. By 11:30, both were dead.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It's well known that this event was the spark that ignited the powder keg of the First World War. But how did the powder keg come to be there? Why did Princip take the action he did?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Needless to say, the events that led to the war were many and varied, and played out over a long time. I present here a simplified account - a detailed account would be, and is, the subject of a great many books.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Setting the Scene</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Europe at the time was the home of several large empires, referred to as the Great Powers. These were:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXgfr3aWJMCCLLu7aP1KarLYfqUuJh1n88uStYxVDPJQGDTQm4O3Ho_df3uQ0-Tqq3nAWKNpC4CyJPFTDDDmLq8Alt3kuAU-WVLEqWZuMEXbx100GP97POa1mM-L6IWheD4CqSqPuw56M/s1600/8011100.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXgfr3aWJMCCLLu7aP1KarLYfqUuJh1n88uStYxVDPJQGDTQm4O3Ho_df3uQ0-Tqq3nAWKNpC4CyJPFTDDDmLq8Alt3kuAU-WVLEqWZuMEXbx100GP97POa1mM-L6IWheD4CqSqPuw56M/s1600/8011100.gif" height="281" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Great Britain and The British Empire </b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Comprising 25% of the earth's land surface and 25% of its population, the British Empire was at the time the most powerful nation on the planet. Ruled by King Edward VII until his death in 1910, when his son George V became King.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>France, and her Empire</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A long-time rival and enemy of the British Empire, the two were now in an uneasy alliance, with little to gain from conflict with one another.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The German Empire</b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: justify;">Formerly a sprawling mass of principalities, kingdoms and republics, had been welded into the German Empire in 1870 by Otto von Bismark. The ruler at the time we are looking at was Kaiser Wilhelm II.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The Austro-Hungarian Empire</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Bear with me here, because this one is not simple. The legacy of the Holy Roman Empire, Austria-Hungary (cobbled together from a large and diverse number of nations with fifteen official languages) was the constitutional union of the Empire of Austria and the Apostolic Kingdom of Hungary, and for this reason was also known as the Dual Monarchy. Hungary had only relatively recently been granted equal status to Austria within the Empire, but had always had its own parliament and laws. Croatia-Solvenia was an autonomous country under the Hungarian crown, and Bosnia-Herzegovina was under Austro-Hungarian military and civil rule from 1878 until 1908, when it was annexed and became part of the Empire. At the time we are concerned with, Franz Josef I was emperor, with his nephew Franz Ferdinand as Heir.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The Russian Empire</b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Existing as a state since 1721, the Russian Empire spanned Europe and Asia from the White Sea to the Pacific, and also included Alaska. Tsar Nicholas II was ruler at the time.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The Italian Empire</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Existing as a unified state only since 1861, Italy's empire was a result of its participation in the scramble for Africa. </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The Ottoman Empire of Turkey</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Powerful throughout the Nineteenth century, the Ottoman Empire was in decline by the beginning of the Twentieth. Several of its European territories had declared independence from the empire, which Istanbul seemed powerless to prevent.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<span style="text-align: justify;">As you would expect, the Great Powers did not operate in complete isolation from one another. Germany, fearing that if the Russian Empire were to ally with France, </span><span style="text-align: justify;">had </span><span style="text-align: justify;">in the 1870s and 80s formed a triple alliance of Germany, Russia and Austria-Hungary, hoping that the Russians would not guess their intentions. They did, and on Bismark's exit from power in 1890, Russia left the triple alliance and formed her own alliance with France in 1894. Germany and Austria-Hungary remained in an alliance more out of political inertia, although the shared Russian enemy was also a factor. Italy was nominally brought into the alliance in 1882, although she had designs on Trieste and the South Tirol, so Austria-Hungary (in whose territory those provinces lay) didn't consider the Italians a reliable ally.</span><br />
<span style="text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="text-align: justify;">So things ticked along in the usual grumbling European manner, with the Great Powers eyeing one another suspiciously and carrying out their usual intrigues.</span><br />
<span style="text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Bosnian Crisis of 1908 and the Balkan Wars</span></b></span></div>
<span style="text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="text-align: justify;">It was Austria-Hungary's annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908 that really set the cat amongst the pigeons.</span><br />
<span style="text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKpaemnNsYJFCYt-K9TB-mPsntsQ0N6d9q9Md-tflQMZgrMgmNpbebNkhiwOMhGaAGZ6Gttb6QVKlldQtkxxq2KteYZDB6ZCu-NoPGq3l_sGSiTz2Y6skXhEwhyphenhyphenKRNL05wCz8qaLqXTng/s1600/austro-hungary-1914.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKpaemnNsYJFCYt-K9TB-mPsntsQ0N6d9q9Md-tflQMZgrMgmNpbebNkhiwOMhGaAGZ6Gttb6QVKlldQtkxxq2KteYZDB6ZCu-NoPGq3l_sGSiTz2Y6skXhEwhyphenhyphenKRNL05wCz8qaLqXTng/s1600/austro-hungary-1914.jpg" height="310" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: justify;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="text-align: justify;">Bosnia-Herzegovina had been a province of the Ottoman Empire, although under Austro-Hungarian rule for some time (19th Century European politics were anything but straightforward); however, Austria-Hungary wished to ensure that the Turks would not try to re-establish their grip on the region, and so brought Bosnia into the empire. Many of the citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina were happy enough about this, gaining full and equal citizenship as they did, although most of the Great Powers were not so pleased, as they saw it as a violation of the Treaty of Berlin of 1878 (which we won't go into here); the simultaneous </span><span style="text-align: justify;">declaration of independence from the Ottoman Empire by Bulgaria was viewed in much the same manner.</span><br />
<span style="text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="text-align: justify;">The neighbouring nations of Serbia and Montenegro were also deeply unhappy about it; 40% of the Bosnian population were ethnic Serbs, and doubtless both they and Serbia would have preferred Bosnia to come under Belgrade's influence. So great was Serbia's pique that it ordered a general mobilisation, and demanded that either the annexation was reversed, or that Serbia should receive compensation in the form of territory. A strip of land was handed over and the Serbians backed down. Russia was similarly annoyed, but with the threat of Germany backing Austria-Hungary and the careful leaking of documents in which Russia had secretly agreed the Austria-Hungary could do as it pleased with Bosnia, Russia backed down but was not at all happy.</span><br />
<span style="text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="text-align: justify;">Things rumbled on for a time; Serbia, Bulgaria, Montenegro and Greece had gained independence form the Ottoman Empire by the early 20th century, but large ethnic populations remained under Turk rule. In 1912, these four nations set up the Balkan League, partly in response the the Ottoman Empires lack of ability to govern itself and also in response to the failure of the other Great Powers to ensure that Turkey would carry out the needed reforms. Confident that they could defeat the Turks, the Balkan League took up arms and the First Balkan War began, ending the same year with the defeat of the Ottoman Empire and the drafting of the Treaty of London. This ended five centuries of Turkish rule in the Balkans.</span><br />
<span style="text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Bulgaria<span style="text-align: justify;"> was unhappy about the division of the spoils of the war, however, particularly with regard to a secret agreement between Serbia and Greece with regard to Macedonia. Accordingly, it attacked them, and the Second Balkan War began in June 1913. Romania and the Ottoman Empire also joined in, attacking Bulgaria. The war ended with the Treaty of Bucharest, under which Bulgaria lost most of the territory it had gained in the first war.</span></div>
<span style="text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="text-align: justify;">So what had all this to do with anything?</span><br />
<span style="text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="text-align: justify;">Well, for one thing, it annoyed the Serbs. The annexation of Bosnia in 1908 led them to set up the <i>Narodna Odbrana</i> (National Defence) and its more radical spin-off, <i>Ujedinjenje ili Smrt</i> (Union or Death), known as the Black Hand. Both organisations were well known to Belgrade - in fact, the Head of Serbian Military Intelligence, col. Dragutin Dimitrijevitch, was the head of the Black Hand. And it was with these organisations, with their help and blessing, that Gavrilo Princip and his fellow conspirators were affiliated.</span><br />
<span style="text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="text-align: justify;">The Balkan Wars had shown the Serbs that they were strong, and Austria-Hungary's refusal to involve itself in the wars had convinced the Serbs that the Dual Monarchy was weak. Ironically, it was Franz Ferdinand who had been a major influence in preventing Austria-Hungary's involvement in the wars, with the support of Count Stefan Tisza, the minister-president of Hungary.</span><br />
<span style="text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="text-align: justify;">Secondly, it annoyed the Russians. Forced to back down over the Balkan Crisis of 1908, Russia was smarting where Austria-Hungary was concerned, and felt a strong affiliation with the Serbs, their fellow orthodox Slavs.<br /><br />Russia had other, pressing concerns. The Russo-Japanese war and the subsequent rebellion within Russia in 1905 had highlighted to the Russians just how precarious their domestic situation was. Agricultural reforms were needed, and mechanisation required. A programme of improvement had been embarked upon, with Russia trading grain for machinery; the problem was that the Black Sea ports were the only ports Russia had on its western end that could remain open all year round. The Turks had briefly closed the Ottoman Straits (the Bosphorus, Sea of Mamara and the Dardanelles) in the First Balkan War in 1912, during which time Russia's Black Sea exports dropped by a third and their heavy industry in Ukraine all but ground to a halt. When the Russians learned that a German general had been placed in charge of the Ottoman troops defending the straits, the Russians really began to worry.<br /><br />Russia had had to make plans, therefore; in the event of a European war, one of her first acts would be to attack the Ottoman Empire and seize Constantinople and the Straits, in an attempt to keep trade flowing. In an effort to check Germany, Russia had developed strong ties with France, with much in the way of trade and joint defence treaties between the two nations.</span><br />
<span style="text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="text-align: justify;">And Britain too had allegiance with France, with much of the naval strategy of the two Empires being interdependent.</span><br />
<span style="text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="text-align: justify;">And so a group of young, idealistic Serbs hatched a plan to strike at the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and attack the heir as he toured the recently annexed province of Bosnia - a province that the Serbs felt should belong to them. And on the 28th of January, on the last day of Franz and Sophia's tour, they struck.</span><br />
<span style="text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<br />
<span style="text-align: justify;"><br /></span>Corvidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10650430038318207729noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955762366426889924.post-92157396004793506802014-05-29T22:32:00.000+01:002014-05-29T22:32:58.216+01:00Because I like it, and because it's true...In the late 19th & early 20th centuries, children's school copybook used to have little sayings and phrases in the headers of each page. So here is a poem Kipling wrote about them.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<b>The Gods of
the Copybook Headings <o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and
race,<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the
Market Place.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them
flourish and fall,<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice,
outlast them all.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
We were living in trees when they met us. They
showed us each in turn<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would
certainly burn:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and
Breadth of Mind,<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we
followed the March of Mankind.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered
their pace,<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of
the Market Place,<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
But they always caught up with our progress, and
presently word would come<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or
the lights had gone out in Rome.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were
utterly out of touch,<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied
she was even Dutch;<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied
that a Pig had Wings;<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who
promised these beautiful things.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They
promised perpetual peace.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars
of the tribes would cease.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us
bound to our foe,<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said:
"Stick to the Devil you know." <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised
the Fuller Life<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by
loving his wife)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
Till our women had no more children and the men
lost reason and faith,<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said:
"The Wages of Sin is Death." <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance
for all, <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective
Paul; <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
But, though we had plenty of money, there was
nothing our money could buy, <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said:
"If you don't work you die." <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their
smooth-tongued wizards withdrew<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and
began to believe it was true<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two
make Four<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to
explain it once more.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of
Man<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
There are only four things certain since Social
Progress began. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow
returns to her Mire, <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling
back to the Fire;<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave
new world begins<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
When all men are paid for existing and no man must
pay for his sins, <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire
will burn,</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and
slaughter return!</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Corvidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10650430038318207729noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955762366426889924.post-75764304356178869242014-05-28T14:49:00.001+01:002014-05-28T14:49:15.638+01:00All we demand is your silent, obedient consentA few years ago, the idea of gay marriage was a bit strange to most people. Unorthodox. Now, not only is it legal in many places in the western world, but has become something of a new orthodoxy. <a href="http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/gay-marriage-the-fastest-formed-orthodoxy-ever/14855" target="_blank">Far too quickly</a>, as Brendan O'Neill puts it <a href="http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/13518" target="_blank">very well</a>.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Meet Doll, Kitten and Brynn Young, three women from Massachusetts who have recently married each other as a threesome. God help them - one wife was more than enough for me. But I'm a cynical bastard.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVq3ZFiTe6Qwp8hVJrUS6Ftjhl8vkKbD2NMkubQrJaTOzBM29QbJ_kRw1JzfTkIvTpT8vMabtmHo5N6SoSNvbGdCSsWqt0gqHrBjMg_xGy5CMSRVHyQcdpUCceX5tMUgGCcwcygTSgrFE/s640/blogger-image-1189353577.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="275" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVq3ZFiTe6Qwp8hVJrUS6Ftjhl8vkKbD2NMkubQrJaTOzBM29QbJ_kRw1JzfTkIvTpT8vMabtmHo5N6SoSNvbGdCSsWqt0gqHrBjMg_xGy5CMSRVHyQcdpUCceX5tMUgGCcwcygTSgrFE/s320/blogger-image-1189353577.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><div style="text-align: center;">
<i>I notice that their outfits are traditional, at least...</i></div>
</span><br /></div>
<div>
Never mind that polygamous marriages have been forbidden the rest of us for centuries (barring certain communities and cultures). That's not what concerns me here. Neither am I particularly worried about gay marriage either. I do not care who wishes to marry whom. People can have relationships with whoever they choose as far as I'm concerned - as long as all are consenting adults, it's all gravy. The mystery to me is why gay people have wanted government approval for their choice of partner, but each to their own. And I am certainly not going to pretend that this tripartite tying of the knot (what if one of them wants out - how will the divorce work then? A Gordian knot is what it'll be) is the herald of a wave of such marriages, because I very much doubt that it is.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What does interest - and concern - me is the reaction to this, and what it portends. Not the false moral panic that the tabloids pedal, but rather the new moral orthodoxy by which any question or hint of criticism of a three-way lesbian marriage will be met with a barrage of fury, accusation <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxGVlY5qM5c&list=UUjNxszyFPasDdRoD9J6X-sw" target="_blank">or mockery</a>.<br />
<br />
You see, ten years ago, gay marriage was the pipe-dream of a very small minority. The idea of two men or two women marrying each other was...well, slightly preposterous. Now, of course - in the last year or so - any hint of criticism of the idea is met with the kind of reaction hitherto reserved for the holocaust denier. And in the YouTube video linked to, we see TJ, 'the Amazing Atheist', rip into those who have a hard time getting to grips with a gay marriage involving not two, but three women. As though such unions were commonplace and long-established.<br />
<br />
And it is <i>this</i> that I take issue with.<br />
<br />
You see, changes in societal attitudes happen gradually, over extended periods. What was unthinkable becomes shocking, then forbidden, then merely outré, then uncommon, then relatively common, then...you get the picture. This takes time, understandably. People have to get used to an idea, and have to be able to question it, pull it about a bit, examine it from all sides so that they can decide where to put it, how to fit it into their worldview. If you are asking people to accept and live with something, you really ought to let them figure out <i>how</i>. Be patient. It'll come.<br />
<br />
We are, however, seeing an increasing tendency towards social engineering. The forcing-through of societal 'reform' in a manner that is decidedly out of tune with the usual organic mode of change; the refusal to allow people to question and idea, or offer criticism, or even think about it. No, unquestioning acceptance is required, immediately. And if the majority of the population don't like it - well, tough. You are all bigots and evil; see how we select some of you for public shaming - now get in line, prole scum.<br />
<br />
You see, essential to any society is a shared set of values and a commonly acknowledged set of institutions. If there are no shared values, no agreed institutions, then there is no society. At all. There is just a lot of individuals living in physical propinquity to one another, but with nothing else in common. If the existing values and institutions are destroyed - or at least, changed radically to the point that they no longer resemble their former selves, and so quickly that the populace cannot keep pace with the change (which would effectively their destruction and replacement with something else) - then the society that once upheld those values and institutions no longer exists.<br />
<br />
Immigration presented similar challenges to many people; a steady but measured stream of immigrants is something that a people can deal with. They get to know new people who have arrive from far-flung shores, and understand them. Acceptance follows understanding - we have seen this with those immigrants who arrived here on the <i>Windrush</i> and in the years that followed. Acceptance was slow in coming, but it did come. And once the British population had accepted those immigrants, so it became easier for them to accept other people arriving from India, Pakistan, and many other countries.<br />
<br />
However, the progressive left mistook this for, at best an enthusiasm for immigrant communities or, at worst an indifference, which would allow for very large numbers of new people to enter the country in a very short time. When Labour actively encouraged more then three million people to join the population during their last tenure, they utterly failed to keep in mind that people need to be able to adjust to new circumstances.<br />
<br />
Here lies the rub. We find ourselves in a situation wherein a lot has changed, and very quickly. <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26177050" target="_blank">Gender</a> (and, if the example set by the three women above does become more common, number of spouses) is no longer relevant in marriage; the demography of the country has changed drastically and rapidly and the arrivals have brought with them their own values and institutions. Many people have found the communities that they have lived in their entire lives altered almost beyond recognition; political correctness has curtailed drastically how they can express themselves. They are not even allowed to ask questions.<br />
<br />
You see, a society is supported by its institutions. Institutions like marriage, like community values, like language and culture - all of those things. The institutions might change over time, or be replaced, but it is an organic process that, given time, can happen quite naturally. The trouble comes when you knock those institutions away, rapidly, forcibly and without offering anything in their stead; when you try to switch common culture for <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/may/28/equality.raceintheuk" target="_blank">multiculturalism</a> in a very short space of time. The pillars supporting the society have been knocked away, and the whole thing starts to crumble. Predictable, isn't it?<br />
<br />
Don't get me wrong; I have no wish to sound like some Colonel Blimp bemoaning the loss of Victorian values. But I do not wish to see the society I live in become morally and intellectually bankrupt. And that seems to be the way we are going. And God help anyone who tries to point it out.<br /></div>
Corvidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10650430038318207729noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955762366426889924.post-87189984315485879112014-05-28T14:28:00.000+01:002014-05-28T14:28:41.481+01:00Earthquakes, Local and Continental...<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqO8mUVkPhvH18A3mdXo36tXwkO0D5R_tDPqQ4VA6uRbpR-JFZoFJZIc67UqzjTIRTV_xH5yK9Wla5V8fF8pGm25ZXsoR8FQz3niylWJYI0DtCVpg6MF0zE-ZXdARVc6W6S-ZDcdL5o5U/s1600/09_Ukip_r_w.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqO8mUVkPhvH18A3mdXo36tXwkO0D5R_tDPqQ4VA6uRbpR-JFZoFJZIc67UqzjTIRTV_xH5yK9Wla5V8fF8pGm25ZXsoR8FQz3niylWJYI0DtCVpg6MF0zE-ZXdARVc6W6S-ZDcdL5o5U/s1600/09_Ukip_r_w.jpg" height="225" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
So, UKIP did better than the media luvvies would have liked in the elections last week. They did well despite a concerted slur campaign conducted by Labour, the Lib Dems and the Conservatives. They did well despite the misinformation spread by the gutter press - which nowadays includes the broadsheets. They did well despite the right-on metro twitterati tweeting furiously about how racist they all are.<br />
<br />
Of course, in reality, they didn't do all that well. They captured 17% of the vote - which is to say, 17% of the 35% of the electorate that bothered to vote, bothered to vote for UKIP. Claims of an earthquake have been rather over-stated.<br />
<br />
Amusing to me has been the reaction to UKIP's gains, though. The horror and outrage, the illiberal desires expressed that anyone who votes for any party other than those approved of by the chattering classes ought not to be allowed to vote. Democracy, it seems, is like free speech - it is precious. So precious that it should be rationed.<br />
<br />
Anyway, I am not here to fly the flag for UKIP, or anyone else. I am here to express my amusement and bemusement.<br />
<br />
You see, there can be no denying that the parties of left and right have become very similar over the last couple of decades. They are converging in their policies and outlook, as is bound to happen in a democracy, especially one with a 'first past the post' voting system. If the electorate are so short-sighted as to vote only for what will benefit them personally (rather than what is good for society as a whole), then the parties running in the elections will seek to offer them such sweeteners as will induce the public to vote for each party. And so they converge, bribing the voters with the voters' own money.<br />
<br />
This has happened in the UK. The politicos inhabiting the Westminster bubble have long since stopped listening to the likes of you and I, and instead listen only to the lobbyists, the corporate sponsors and the single-issue campaigners. They listen to the eurocrats, most of all. And while they hand more and more of the executive and legislative powers to Brussels, they then seek more power to control what we eat and drink, how much we exercise, what we say, what we think and what we smoke.<br />
<br />
This is not good. Whichever way you slice it, such control over our everyday lives can only ever have negative effects and is not desirable in any way, shape or form.<br />
<br />
The government are supposedly the servants of the public, but they have long since forgotten this and have become our masters. Should any member of the public dare to give voice to what concerns them, they will be branded as <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8649012.stm" target="_blank">bigoted</a>.<br />
<br />
So, surely it is time to shake things up a bit? Wouldn't it be good to make the bastards realise that we, the electorate, wish to be heard? That we are sick of being lied to? Why, yes, yes it would.<br />
<br />
And this is why UKIP's gains have, for me at least, been a cause for celebration. UKIP haven't gained any real power and they certainly will not win the next general election, but they have managed to rattle the Westminster crowd out of their complacency somewhat.<br />
<br />
And surely, whoever you vote for, this can only be a good thing.Corvidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10650430038318207729noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955762366426889924.post-38848002035693610082013-12-04T01:17:00.001+00:002013-12-04T02:25:58.794+00:00LeviathanThere are some things that you simply cannot let pass.<div><br></div><div>A story very recently in the news is that of a woman, and Italian national resident in Italy who came to England on a training course organised by her employer.</div><div><br></div><div>The lady suffers from bipolar disorder, and had neglected to take her medication for a few days. Whilst in her hotel room, she became distressed when she couldn't find her children's passports . She had a panic attack during which she called the police and then her mother.</div><div><br></div><div>She was on the telephone to her mother when the police arrived at her room; she handed the telephone to them and her mother told the police about her illness and her medication. The police told her mother that they were taking her to the hospital to make sure that the unborn baby was in good health.</div><div><br></div><div>The foetus was not their concern however; when they arrived at the hospital she found herself in a psychiatric unit. When she asked to return to her hotel she was told that she could not; when she tried to leave she was strapped to the gurney and sedated. She was then sectioned under the Mental Health Act.</div><div><br></div><div>Two weeks later, still in the psychiatric unit, she was denied breakfast without explanation. Again she was sedated, and awoke to find herself in hospital, having been given a cesarean without her knowledge or consent.</div><div><br></div><div>It transpired that Essex Social Services had obtained a High Court order from Sir Justice Mostyn for the c-section. The lawyers appointed to her by Essex County Council failed to represent her, and the court was a Protection Court, whose proceedings are closed to the public.</div><div><br></div><div>D<span style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">enied access to her child, she was subsequently p</span>ut on a flight back to Italy. When her family, and her ex-husband (now living in the US) requested that the child be given to them, social services refused. At a hearing in the UK, the lady was told that although she was back on her medication and seemed much better and well-adjusted, the judge did not feel confident that she would not neglect her medication again and so would not allow her to have the child.</div><div><br></div><div>The child, now fifteen months old, is to be put up for adoption in the UK.</div><div><br></div><div>This is <i>monstrous</i>.</div><div><br></div><div>That any public body should be granted the authority to behave in this manner is unforgivable. That there are closed, secret courts that can and will consent to - and actively encourage - this signals only that the rule of law is utterly corrupt.</div><div><br></div><div>That an organisation - a public body no less! - purportedly mandated to protect people should cut the child from a woman's belly that they might take it from her is befitting only of the atrocious excesses of Nazi Germany.</div><div><br></div><div>Bad enough were they to take someone's child in this manner - and they frequently do so, whilst at the same time utterly failing to protect children who genuinely are in danger - but first to <i>cut it from her very womb! </i></div><div><br></div><div>'High-handed' does not even begin to describe the attitude and behaviour of Essex County Council, Essex Social Services or Sir Justice (and how hollow that title sounds) Mostyn.</div><div><br></div><div>A precedent has been set. Draw the lesson from this.</div><div><br></div><div>Your organs belong to the state when you die; in July of this year I posted on this blog that it would be a short step to the state helping themselves to your organs whilst you are still alive. It had already come to pass.</div><div><br></div><div>You no longer have autonomy over your own flesh. The state will, with the full consent of the law, cut into you to take what it wants. There are judges sufficiently corrupt and surgeons sufficiently psychopathic that there will be no obstacle to their achieving this aim.</div><div><br></div><div>The law does not embody nor ensure justice; it belongs entirely to the state and exists only to enable those in authority to do as they wish. It is merely the tool by which they give spurious justification to even the most egregious of their actions.</div><div><br></div><div>You are not free. You are a slave of the state and will be used as such. You are disposable. </div><div><br></div><div>The United Kingdom Bill of Rights of 1789, long ignored, has been consigned to history. As far as those in power are concerned, it no longer applies.</div><div><br></div><div>The United Kingdom is no longer a constitutional monarchy, and a parliamentary democracy only in that an election will substitute one cage of posturing apes for another. Those with the real power are answerable to no electorate, to no vote, and the courts are their poodle. </div><div><br></div><div>To the people of Britain I say this: you have too long allowed your politicians to bribe you with your own money. You have too long ignored the batteries of new legislation to pass unremarked and unexamined. You have too long allowed demagogues to spread fear among you, and take from you your liberty in exchange for the promise of security. You have too long allowed your masters to tell you that you fight external enemies, as you have been your masters' enemy all along. You have too long sold your souls in a thousand petty shares; mortgaged your freedom and your integrity for a thousand worthless promises.</div><div><br></div><div>You have embraced leviathan. You have fed it and succoured it and watched it grow. </div><div><br></div><div>And now, unthinking, it shall devour you.</div>Corvidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10650430038318207729noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955762366426889924.post-4868001473626434012013-11-29T00:00:00.000+00:002013-11-29T17:09:00.596+00:00What's in a Name?I've noticed something over the past few years. Names, labels, have changed their meaning. I know that this happens normally, as a language evolves, but this is something quite different.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There used to be people who called themselves communists. Not many people do, now, although there are quite a few who call themselves socialists but seem to espouse ideals that could readily be described as being communist. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Similarly, people who would once have called themselves socialists as often as not consider themselves to be liberal. It's interesting. Especially when we look at what 'liberal' has come to mean for so many. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I have had conversations, discussions and arguments with modern liberals. What a tolerant and liberal bunch they are! How accepting of everyone, how ready to stand up for people they are. And how ready they are to listen to the views of others. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
They do not discriminate against anyone on the basis of sex - unless you're male. They do discriminate on the basis of the - unless you are white. They do not discriminate on the basis of religion - unless you are Christian. They do not discriminate on the basis of wealth - unless you are not poor. They do not discriminate on the basis of sexuality - unless you are heterosexual (and male). They will listen to your opinion - unless you disagree with them. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And it is particularly this last point that is of interest.<br />
<br />
Increasingly, we are finding that those who describe themselves as 'liberal' are less and less tolerant of dissent. If one dares to gainsay a feminist, one is described as a misogynist. Make the point that - in the UK, at least - black boys have fallen way behind in school, and you're labelled a racist. Point out that Islamist terrorism <i>is</i> connected to Islam, and you're labelled an Islamophobe. And so it goes.<br />
<br />
Try going on the Guardian website (for example) and commenting on an article in a vain contrary to that of the majority and see what happens. Go on - try it. A tirade of abuse will come your way, be sure of it. And the abuse will be out of all proportion to whatever comment you may have made - believe me when I say that I speak from experience. The opprobrium will come flying at you propelled by a shocking degree of vitriol and vehemence.<br />
<br />
More and more we see the 'liberal' demanding increased censorship, and distortions of the truth where the truth does not fit the political (i.e. ideological) zeitgeist. Even students, once considered radical in their opinions and beliefs, are demanding <a href="http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/no-blurred-lines-at-all-as-queens-university-students-ban-robin-thickes-hit-song-29772262.html" target="_blank">ever</a> <a href="http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/14161" target="_blank">more</a> <a href="http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/10806773.Bradford_University_student_union_bans_two_national_newspapers/" target="_blank">censorship</a> and <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/10409794/Student-leaders-impose-restrictions-on-Remembrance-service.html" target="_blank">thought-policing</a>; to a degree reminiscent of countries that are decidedly <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/brendan-oneill/lad-mags_b_3690457.html" target="_blank">not</a> liberal, or of certain European regimes of the twentieth century.<br />
<br />
Most galling (and worrying) is the degree of self-censorship that is now expected of everyone - politicians most of all, as Rod Liddle <a href="http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9088381/you-cant-say-that/" target="_blank">points out rather well</a>. I even find that I do it myself from time to time; and given the level of grief one can get for expressing opinions, I don't beat myself up too badly about it. But I do also try to make a point of saying just what I mean wherever and whenever possible - and having the argument to back up my opinions. Much good it does, though, on occasion.<br />
<br />
You see, many who now consider themselves to be liberal favour censorship - both in the press and in everyday speech. They support the suppression of ideas that they find objectionable. Now, I am not saying that I don't find some of those same ideas repellent, but here is the difference - I would not ever try to prevent anyone from holding those ideas or expressing them. Acting on them, certainly - but expressing them, no.<br />
<br />
Many who now consider themselves to be liberal favour defining certain crimes as 'hate crimes' - a ludicrous definition by any reckoning, as such crimes are never committed out of love. If a person is physically attacked because of their race, then the fact that they were attacked should be sufficient under the law for a suitable punishment of the attacker. The fact that the attack was motivated by race in the mind of the perpetrator is neither here nor there; an unprovoked attack took place, and so <i>mens rea</i> is established. But not to the liberal; no, to him (or her, lest we offend anyone) the racism involved makes it all so much worse. It's not the violence he objects to - it's the opinion behind it.<br />
<br />
So, what do we call our New Liberal? What do we call someone who believes in censorship, in ideology trumping reality, in the suppression of 'unfavourable' ideas, in the punishment of those who hold those ideas - and in the meting out of violence to those with whom they disagree? I'd be more inclined to use one of their favourite labels that they apply to others with merry abandon -<i> fascist</i>.</div>
Corvidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10650430038318207729noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955762366426889924.post-70462895764422191312013-09-25T18:25:00.000+01:002013-09-29T14:34:20.591+01:00On Science and PostnormalismIn my opinion, writing is mankind's greatest achievement. The ability to write things down, to record our thoughts and researches for future generations to read and learn from is a thing of wondrous beauty. It has enabled the arts and sciences, civilisation and humanity itself to reach pinnacles otherwise impossible to reach. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_of_Chartres" target="_blank">Bernard of Chartres</a> was correct when he likened us to dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants.<br>
<br>
If writing is mankind's greatest achievement, then, science is his greatest endeavour. We have, through millennia of research, divined the existence of the atom, its structure and how its power may be harnessed; we have bottled lightning, walked upon the face of the moon, cured smallpox and myriad other ills, discovered how to cure the body by cutting into it, built machines that can carry great loads or travel across oceans and skies, found methods of cleaning water to make it safe to drink and are on our way to discovering the deepest wonders of the universe. Each of us has benefited from this; not only can we expect to live longer than our forebears, but we enjoy a life of such luxury and plenty that previous generations could not imagine. We can can travel in flying machines to all corners of the globe, and hold a conversation with someone on another continent as clearly and as easily as if they were in the next room.<br>
<br>
How have we done this? By century upon century if trial and error. By someone noticing something and saying "That's funny..." and then having the curiosity and patience to find out why it was funny and what was going on. By men and women of great intellect spending many patient years trying things out, making mistakes and achieving great results. By these people formulating theories about why things happen the way they do, and when those theories are disproved, coming up with new theories. An endless process of continuous revision, improvement, updating and above all testing, proving and disproving.<br>
<br>
Scientific theories are developed that explain why things work the way they do, and - most importantly - make predictions about the results of experiments and phenomena before they occur, allowing the theory to be tested. Of course, any theory must be falsifiable to be called a theory; you can prove it wrong if it is wrong - but of course, you cannot prove it right. The closest you can come to that is to fail to prove it wrong. And of course, before any scientific paper is published, it is subject to peer review - a process by which all other scientists working in the same field review the research, its methodology and findings, and even attempt to replicate those findings. Damned fine icing on the cake, this last; stops time, money, resources and effort being wasted on blind alleys.<br>
<br>
What a wonder and a glory is science! Bernard was indeed right: <i>nanos gigantum humeris insidentes</i>.<br>
<br>
But there is a cancer eating away at the heart of the endeavour. There are those that seek to invert its principles. There are dwarfs who wish to kill the giants.<br>
<br>
Two such dwarfs go by the names of Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome Ravetz - long may their names be reviled. What these poisonous homunculi thought up was a concept they called 'Postnormal science'. The essence of this was that for cases where "facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent", they suggest that there must be an "extended peer community" consisting of all those affected by an issue who are prepared to enter into dialogue on it. Regardless if those entering the dialogue know anything about the subject - they must be included within the peer review process.<br>
<br>
Clearly, this makes no sense. How can anyone who is not a peer - i.e. not a scientist operating in the same field of research - possibly able to provide meaningful insight? I mean, could you have anything sensible to say on, for example, the altered expression of sialylated glycoproteins in breast cancer using hydrazide chemistry? I know I couldn't. Couldn't even tell you what it means. But our dwarfs would claim that anyone with breast tissue - which is all of us - should be included within the peer review process, and our opinions should count equally as much as those who are experts in the field.<br>
<br>
Insanity.<br>
<br>
Now, the excrescence of Postnormalism was originally defecated onto the protesting face of science in regard to climate change. I shall not speak of this subject here - largely because I am ignorant of the science involved, but also because it is such an enormous subject that it is beyond the scope of this blog to comment upon. The thought was that the consequences of man-made runaway climate change would be so catastrophic if true, that it would be best to corrupt the science behind any research to always show the result that it was true. To subjugate science to a political aim, in other words. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism" target="_blank">Lysenkoism</a> at its very best.<br>
<br>
This has spread to claiming that, when there is no proof either way, a 'consensus' of opinion is all that is required. Let me reiterate that: under postnormal science, a scientific theory does not have to make predictions that are accurate, it does not have to disprove any alternative theories, it does not even have to be falsifiable (and therefore does not even need to be a theory). All that need happen is that enough people - preferably scientists, but not necessarily, and not necessarily operating in the same field - have to say that they think the 'theory' is right (or wrong) and <i>Presto Changeo!</i> The science is in, let there be no more debate.<br>
<br>
And it is not just climate change that has seen this happen. The theory of evolution is now open to challenge by those who like the idea of intelligent design. The origins of the universe likewise. In every field, the voluble, the ignorant and the obnoxious demand to have their voices heard, and for their ignorance to be assigned equal weight as another's knowledge.<br>
<br>
It has reached the point that the website of Popular Science has even had to <a href="http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-09/why-were-shutting-our-comments" target="_blank">close all comments to all further articles</a>. The ignorant and the foolish are so keen to spread their postmodern nihilism, to shit their foolish uninformed opinions into the ears of others, that the drawbridges are having to be drawn up. Should this continue, science will become once again the preserve of the few, understood and mistrusted by the many who will prefer superstition and guesswork to reason and empirical evidence.<br>
<br>
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the age of the Endarkenment.<br>
<br>
<br>Corvidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10650430038318207729noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955762366426889924.post-59483785519277648222013-09-17T19:00:00.003+01:002013-09-17T19:00:55.511+01:00A Brief Note on RacismJust lately I have heard the words 'racism is power combined with prejudice', although the word 'privilege' is sometimes used in place of 'power'. Often, it is expressed thus:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace; font-size: large;">Racism=Power+Prejudice</span></div>
<br />
as though making it look like an equation will somehow make it more convincing. Certainly, it seems to be repeated like a mantra, as though many repetitions will turn a trite soundbite into a truism.<br />
<br />
There is, of course, one problem with this little phrase: it's a load of old bollocks. Let me explain why.<br />
<br />
I could invoke the dictionary definitions of racism at this point, which define it as being discrimination against a person on the basis of their race. I'm not going to do that, though, as it is often the sign of a weak argument, not to mention being a logical fallacy of the <i>argumentum ad verecundiam</i> sort. No, no. I shall leave such floundering to those that can manage no better.<br />
<br />
Let us instead take a look at the thinking behind this sentence.<br />
<br />
The idea is that to be racist, one must be in a position of power over the one against whom one is discriminating. I have actually seen the belief expressed that it is 'impossible for black people to be racist', although this has had to be hastily amended to 'impossible for black people to be racist against white people', and then to 'impossible for black people to be racist against white people in Western countries' when it is pointed out who wields the power in countries such as Zimbabwe and South Africa.<br />
<br />
But this whole idea, this way of thinking, is utterly flawed. Let us presume that we are talking about the UK. If a white person espouses opinions to the effect that all people who are not white are inferior and should be treated as such, that white person would be called racist, and their ideals held to be vile and execrable.<br />
<br />
That's fine - I can get right behind that.<br />
<br />
But if a black, Asian, etc person were to say the same thing about white people, that apparently would be fine and dandy. Because white people, you see, have the power. All of them, without exception. Yes.<br />
<br />
You can see where the wheels are starting to come off this argument already, can't you? If all white people are in a position of power, why are so many of them poor and disregarded by successive governments?<br />
<br />
Well, now we must look at just what we mean by 'power'. Being the majority, perhaps? No, that won't work - no-one would have said that black South Africans under Apartheid had power, despite being the majority by a very long way.<br />
<br />
Does it mean being in government? Well it could; again, looking at South Africa under Apartheid, the government was drawn pretty much exclusively from the white population. By definition, then, black South Africans now all have power. All of them. Even those that live in the townships and can barely scratch a living.<br />
<br />
Seems pretty flimsy to me.<br />
<br />
Is it perhaps a combination of the two? Being of the demographic that forms the majority <i>and</i> forms most or all of the government? It might do. It might well do. But that's the norm in most countries, isn't it - that the indigenous population forms its own government? I thought that this was a good thing? Power to the people and all that.<br />
<br />
Perhaps 'power' means being socially dominant? Isn't that the same thing as being the majority? Cultural dominance - same thing again. Oh dear. We have attempted to grasp what power means in this context, and it's like trying to grasp smoke. It evaporates like faerie gold at sunrise.<br />
<br />
Maybe it means not being subject to the same laws as other demographics within the overall population? Yes, that might be it! It would fit the word 'privilege' well too. I think that we are onto something here. A person who is part of a group, race or sub-culture - within a larger population - that is accorded greater rights and less responsibility than everyone else. A group that is not required to observe certain laws that nevertheless pertain to the rest of the population. A group that cannot be called racist or be prosecuted for racism when they actively discriminate against other races in that population?<br />
<br />
Sounds like power to me. The kind of power that a man on the street might have.<br />
<br />
So, if a member of one race can discriminate against people of another race and not face censure of any sort, that person can be said to have power. Which combined with their prejudice, makes them racist.<br />
<br />
So if we examine the original equation-like argument above:<br />
<br />
If you say that black people cannot be racist against white people, you are saying that black (or insert any non-caucasian race here) people are exempted from the laws, mores and manners of society with regard to discrimination. Which means that black people have power. Which, if one them exhibited prejudice, would by your very own argument make him racist.<br />
<br />
If, on the other hand, you say that only white people can be racist, you are saying that they cannot escape censure for discrimination, which would mean that they lacked power. Which would mean that they were not being racist. Which would mean that they could not be accused of any wrongdoing. Which would mean that they had power. Oh dear. What a very circular argument.<br />
<br />
All of which is to say - the argument that racism equals power plus prejudice is bullshit. Racism really is discriminating against people on the basis of their race. Their race, mind - not religion (but that's a subject for another time). Just that. Doesn't matter what the make-up of the population is, if you discriminate against someone solely on the basis of their race, you're a racist.<br />
<br />
<br />
Oh, before we go, two other things.<br />
<br />
Firstly, isn't it racist to refer to black people as though they were a single homogeneous race? You know, given that only 100,000 people originally left Africa to form the population of the rest of the world, and everybody else stayed in Africa. Which is why there is far greater genetic diversity within Africa than outside it, and that there is therefore no such thing as 'the black race'. There are a lot of ethnically and culturally diverse peoples in Africa - lumping them all in together is orientalism, and arguably racist.<br />
<br />
Secondly, please do bear in mind also that, if you wish to say that any ethnic minority or minorities within a country cannot ever be considered racist; if those minorities should be better represented in government to a degree disproportionate to their size within the general population; if you wish to grant any those minority groups greater power and control over the country - you are arguing in favour of Apartheid in South Africa. Doesn't matter if you are talking about the UK - you are saying that the principles of Apartheid are sound.<br />
<br />
It also means that if you claim that 'black people can't be racist' - you are arguing in favour of Apartheid. Either that, or you are saying that Apartheid wasn't racist.<br />
<br />
Just saying.<br />
<br />
<br />Corvidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10650430038318207729noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955762366426889924.post-32255291608554580632013-09-04T21:44:00.001+01:002013-09-04T21:47:45.677+01:00In absentia Dei, Ratione.So I've just had an entertaining little debate on the joy that is twatter on the subject of religion, with a Christian and a Muslim on the opposite side. And it got me thinking.<div><br></div><div>It's not uncommon for atheists to trot out the argument that wars and murders have been carried out in the name of religion. Now, this is not a good reason to be an atheist. The lack of evidence for god, that is a reason to be an atheist. The fact that of all the explanations for the existence of the universe, "God did it" is the least feasible - that's a good reason not to believe in god. But the shitty stuff done in His name - sorry, no. That's not a good reason. It's just sulking.</div><div><br></div><div>The crux of this argument was that the religious sorts were claiming that it was unfair to blame a religion for the nastier things done in its name. When it was pointed out by others (not me) that war and murder on religious grounds has been commonplace, and that no such thing has been done in the name of atheism, they began to flounder. The Muslim dropped out of the conversation, after asserting that Soviet purges were carried out for the purposes of spreading atheism, but the Christian chappy struggled on for a bit. </div><div><br></div><div>His final point was that if nothing bad has been done in the name of atheism, nothing good had been done in its name either.</div><div><br></div><div>And there, right there, we find the fundamental misunderstanding of the religious mind. Because, you see, many religious people view atheism as a <i>subsitute</i> for religion. And it's not. It is the <i>absence</i> of religion.</div><div><br></div><div>Let's say you are a Christian. It's feasible that you would go out and do certain things - good or bad, laudable or execrable - in the name of Christianity. But you wouldn't go out and do things in the name of <i>not</i> being a Muslim, of <i>not</i> being a Hindu.</div><div><br></div><div>So why then would an atheist do anything in the name of not believing in god?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div>Corvidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10650430038318207729noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955762366426889924.post-58232490258486439702013-09-04T10:14:00.000+01:002013-09-17T18:47:35.614+01:00De ProfundisI don’t like what’s happening these days.<br />
<br />
We seem to be moving towards some kind of socialist state, yet a quick sift through Twitter and the like seems to indicate that the lefties believe this to be some kind of Tory/right wing move.<br />
<br />
New laws are passed with a <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blairs-frenzied-law-making--a-new-offence-for-every-day-spent-in-office-412072.html" target="_blank">monotonous regularity</a> that consolidate ever more power into the hands of the state. The government seeks greater and greater influence over our everyday lives, greater powers to watch us and intercept our communications, and to dictate the mores and manners of society. Offence is now given, not taken, under law and the use of rude words online can <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/aug/10/twitter-legal-risks" target="_blank">result in arrest</a>.<br />
<br />
We are seeing the EU become ever more powerful as the sovereignty of the member states is eroded by the very politicians who are meant to protect it, and all the while the will of the electorate is willfully and deliberately ignored. Power is being passed into the hands of<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15713985" target="_blank"> unelected bureaucrats</a> and we are told that this is a ‘good thing’.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/paul-craig-roberts/the-war-criminal-in-chief/" target="_blank">war</a> <a href="http://warcriminalswatch.org/" target="_blank">crimes</a> are committed by our leaders and anyone who speaks of them is<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning" target="_blank"> imprisoned</a>. <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/10146403/Wind-farms-get-generous-subsidies-for-another-six-years.html" target="_blank">Green energy</a> policies are introduced that will put energy prices up so high that they will soon be unaffordable. Gas burning power stations are being shut down while hippies protest against the idea (let alone the practice) of fracking for gas that we begin to lack the stations to burn, whilst a network of inefficient windmills are subsidised and provisioned with diesel generators as back up that will produce energy at a cost six times as much as that of the power stations being closed down.<br />
<br />
We are told that there is the threat of Islamic terrorism, largely a result of the aforementioned war crimes, but we are approaching a state of dhimmitude at home because the authorities don’t want to upset Muslims and refuse to deport known terrorists.<br />
<br />
The news is censored and only certain crimes are reported, and there is bias in what are supposed to be trusted and impartial outlets. Even well-known individuals working for those outlets find themselves persona non grata if they express views or opinions that have not been officially sanctioned by the political commissars so firmly entrenched within the broadcasting corporations.<br />
<br />
Our freedoms are being <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/7482778/Bad-Laws-Labour-has-clowned-around-with-our-freedom.html" target="_blank">increasingly curtailed</a> to ostensibly protect us from the very terrorists created by our government, terrorists who are then pandered and fawned to by the government. Access to the Internet and impartial information is being restricted in ways that were supposed to be impossible – the very reason for the initial creation of the Internet in the first place. Anyone caught telling you what the government is doing goes to jail for a very long time. Our every word is monitored, recorded and watched, our associations and friendships analysed and sifted.<br />
<br />
And we are lied to. Lied to by the media, and by governments who lie so casually and so transparently that they must know we are not fooled. And all they do is lie about lying.<br />
<br />
Can someone please answer me – what is happening and why?<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small; font-weight: normal;">This post was first published at <i><a href="http://www.kneejerk.org.uk/" target="_blank">kneejerk</a></i>.</span>Corvidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10650430038318207729noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955762366426889924.post-37099550675467445482013-07-22T20:26:00.000+01:002013-07-22T20:26:10.903+01:00The Problem with Capitalism<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now folks, before we get started, I'm going to come right out and say it: I am a capitalist. I<i> like</i> capitalism. Capitalism is a force for good in the world.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Of course, it doesn't currently have that reputation, and we'll come to that. There are reasons - <i>good reasons</i> - for it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
See, now, a lot of people out there feel that capitalism is to blame for the world's woes. They imagine that if the world were run on fairer principles - socialism being the main contender - then people would have a far better lot in life.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I disagree; socialism, by despising wealth, seeks not to create wealth but to destroy it. Sure, it'd put everyone on an even footing - we'd all be in the most abject form of poverty. Name a single Eastern Bloc country that fared well under socialism. China has only started to thrive as its ruling elite embraced capitalism, albeit to a controlled extent. And if Russia has suffered under capitalism (and nowhere near as much as it suffered under communism) then it is because they have the worst sort of nepotistic crony-capitalism.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But all of this is an argument for another day. What I'd like to concentrate on here is why capitalism has such a bad rap here in the West, where we enjoy a far higher standard of living as a result of...well, it's not due to socialism.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Anyway - I read an <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/07/22/how-modern-economics-is-built-on-the-worlds-dumbest-idea/" target="_blank">article today that summed much of it up</a>. In brief, the article points out - quite rightly - that modern economics is based on the idea that the sole purpose of any business (and here they are referring to publicly floated companies, but the principles seem to be applied by most companies of every sort) is to maximise short-term profit.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Just that. Short-term profit. To take value from the customer and give it to the shareholder. (I had a similar argument with one of my contemporaries during my university days, and it was like beating my head against the wall). Nevermind that the customer might be so royally pissed off that he never buys from you again and tells everyone he knows to avoid you. As long as you get that short-term profit, you're golden. That these short-term profits are <i>bad</i> profits never once enters the equation.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This way of thinking is dinned into economics and business students all over the western world. And the problem it creates is that that is how people see companies under capitalism - existing solely for short-term profit, with no morality or ethics applied. It also means that, by focusing only on short-term profits, your long-term profitability is screwed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Some people have realised this, and apply a more long-term view to their activities, with the result that, by creating a more touchy-feely aspect to their business, they (hope to, at least) increase their long-term profitability by not only winning new customers but also - and vitally - by retaining their old customers. Sound business sense, of course - but clearly not practised anything like widely enough.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Steve Denning over at Forbes has expressed it far better than I can, so I shall wind up my spiel here. I shall just leave you with a quote from Fred Reicheld, quoted in the linked article:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="line-height: 24px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>”Whenever a customer feels misled, mistreated, ignored or coerced, then profits from that customer are bad. Bad profits come from unfair or misleading pricing. Bad profits arise when companies save money by delivering a lousy customer experience. Bad profits are about extracting value from customers, not creating value. When sales reps push overpriced or inappropriate products onto trusting customers, the reps are generating bad profits. When complex pricing schemes dupe customers into paying more than necessary to meet their needs, those pricing schemes are contributing to bad profits.”</i></span></span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 24px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><br /></i></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="line-height: 24px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Hurrah for common sense.</span></span></div>
Corvidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10650430038318207729noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955762366426889924.post-52971585242646199032013-07-11T19:01:00.000+01:002013-07-11T22:50:32.817+01:00The NHS Organ Grab<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What are the three largest employers in the world?</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well, there is the army of the People's Republic of China. It serves a country that holds vast territory, has extensive borders and a population of a billion people.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Then there is the Indian National Railway. Public transportation and infrastructure for a country that holds vast territory and has a population of a billion people.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Then in third place there is the NHS. It looks after the health - supposedly - of a medium sized island nation with a population of around 62.7 million people at the time of writing.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There's something wrong with this picture, isn't there?</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Don't get me wrong. For all of my libertarian principles, I quite like the NHS. Not for what it is, but for what it could be.</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I have had to make use of their services on occasion. I don't mind paying taxes for an efficient healthcare system that is free of charge at point of use. The trouble is that the NHS is not efficient; if the money spent on management were instead to be spent on front line staff and material, then it could be much better than it is.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But what makes things worse is that politics has crept into our national healthcare provider, as well as complaisance.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Smokers face the greatest discrimination, followed by the obese. If you are in either - or both - of these groups, then the NHS will look down its nose at you. They may even refuse to treat you - and it won't be long before they refuse to treat any illness caused by smoking. Smoker? Need new lungs? Forget it.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And this is part of what bothers me about the proposal to create a system whereby, upon your death, your organs will be harvested unless you have <i>specifically opted-out of the scheme</i>.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiclnt3JtneJAf1hYudThKBAC2w3rYEs5XvdAfKK_V3T8TYS9l5m4FuG2DdcC-IA8hYx0ouHYbBzI1M5SERbVYxHD8y07hCYlDbj-7KIMPv3th1ecNtF9i6tT_8e4k_9ANOhbdEd7f8LVc/s1600/3v548n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="ya bastards" border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiclnt3JtneJAf1hYudThKBAC2w3rYEs5XvdAfKK_V3T8TYS9l5m4FuG2DdcC-IA8hYx0ouHYbBzI1M5SERbVYxHD8y07hCYlDbj-7KIMPv3th1ecNtF9i6tT_8e4k_9ANOhbdEd7f8LVc/s400/3v548n.jpg" title="NHS Organ Grab" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Keep the noise down, sir. You're distracting the surgeon.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I appreciate that there is a shortage of donors. I also appreciate that those who are vocal in their opposition will make sure that they opt-out. I understand - I really do.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Things is, there are four very good reasons why I don't like this in the slightest.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Firstly, as I have said, if you are a smoker, there is a good chance that you will be turned down as an organ recipient. As an organ donor, however, you will be acceptable; Professor James Neuberger, associate medical director at NHS Blood and Organ Transplant has <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10172247/Registered-organ-donors-could-be-given-priority-for-transplants.html" target="_blank">said on record</a> that ".<i>..organs from people who smoked and drank regularly could also still be used despite their lifestyles.</i>"</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So we could be faced with a system in which many of us could be considered fit to donate but not fit to receive. Regardless of the fact that the annual tax revenue on tobacco is several times the annual NHS budget, your lifestyle choice makes you a second class citizen.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Secondly, as the linked article states in the headline, those who do not opt out will get preferential treatment. Quelle surprise, there, but it's the fundamental lack of respect for the wishes of those concerned that bothers me.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, if your lifestyle is less than healthy, we'll take but we won't give. And if you opt-out of giving, you are less likely to receive.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thirdly, I have little confidence that those who opt-out will have their wishes respected. Just what mechanism will be in place to ensure that, when a patient dies (especially if it's in A&E following an accident) that they won't automatically <strike>be turned into Soylent Green</strike> have their organs removed? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alder_Hey_organs_scandal" target="_blank">Wouldn't be the first time.</a></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Finally, I really do not like the precedent it sets. If your body is the property of the state when you die, then it doesn't take much for that to be extended to the state owning your body whilst you are alive. And if that seems far-fetched, consider Stalinist Russia, modern day China, or even Britain at the beginning of the Twentieth Century; how many men were conscripted and sent to be shot, shelled and gassed in the trenches of the First World War?</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is hideously ironic that many people would embrace this sort of statist vassaldom as being progess.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrlHVMTAiTnpQjiCQNOCCuEk0ThK3EhaxBkRZtkqOvDVbg5T0Fk1zWWVJLuRC-GS21chP0n3WguY9AImKhx6rI4qro4xe5YqGnkM1UGsESjjS-5JSAJhEvij2SZxIkZMkiIC5dC7-0lOU/s1600/repo-opera-movie-poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrlHVMTAiTnpQjiCQNOCCuEk0ThK3EhaxBkRZtkqOvDVbg5T0Fk1zWWVJLuRC-GS21chP0n3WguY9AImKhx6rI4qro4xe5YqGnkM1UGsESjjS-5JSAJhEvij2SZxIkZMkiIC5dC7-0lOU/s400/repo-opera-movie-poster.jpg" width="266" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Harvested from <a href="http://www.anonymong.org/" target="_blank">Anonymong</a>. Well, he didn't opt-out, did he?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<br /></div>
Corvidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10650430038318207729noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955762366426889924.post-63549672958634575782013-07-08T19:21:00.000+01:002013-07-08T19:21:33.121+01:00'The Patriarchy' and Progressivist Ideology<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well, I heard something interesting the other day that got me thinking. A rare event, admittedly, but it does happen. These thoughts are not original, but they have, at least, occurred to me.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, the world is in many ways a sorry place, and people have been trying for millenia - with moderate success - to improve it. In this day and age, people are determined to force change and improvement upon the world and its peoples, and drag it kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Trouble is, many of their well-intentioned efforts are either doomed to failure or are actively counter-productive. This is nearly always due to an abject failure to analyse the root causes of a problem, instead focusing upon the superficial effects. This in turn is frequently the result of adherence to a progressivist ideology that, by its very nature, <i>cannot</i> recognise those root causes as to do so would completely negate the fundamental beliefs of that ideology. Allow me to give an example, and a damnably poisonous one at that: Patriarchy Theory.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Patriarchy Theory insists that the world is ruled by men, and that women are forced to occupy a subordinate role in all matters. And numerous examples can be cited for this - let us examine a couple of these:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><b>Women Forbidden to Work</b></i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In a number of countries and cultures, women stay at home while the men go out to work and earn a living. Times being what they are, many women also wish to go out to work, but in some countries - Afghanistan, for example - to do so is all but forbidden, and if a woman is married, her husband may refuse to permit it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
By what right does he permit or otherwise her going to work? Patriarchy! Men putting women down and holding them back, doubtless feeling threatened and afraid that they will be shown up as useless incompetent fools. Bloody Patriarchy!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
...except that might not be the story. Or not the whole of it, certainly.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In many societies, Islamic ones in particular, a husband and father is the head of his household (outside of the home anyway - often once a couple walks into the house, his wife is in charge). As such, there are obligations laid upon him which he must fulfill. Foremost of these is that he must provide for his wife and children.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, let's say our husband and father is living in an Afghan town, and to house, feed and clothe himself, his wife and their - shall we say four? - children, he is working two jobs. He has no choice in this - it is his duty as both a husband and father.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Of course, the obvious question is then <i>'why not allow his wife to go out to work, thus relieving him of the need for two jobs, so that he can work just one?'</i>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A good question. A fine question. The answer is so obvious - <i>of course</i> he should permit his wife to work. Duh!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Except, of course, that this isn't the West. A man has a duty to support his family; to force his wife to work to provide for them as well is considered a sign that he is a failure as a husband, as a father and as a man. It would be a badge of the deepest shame to him.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But this is a shallow reason. There are others.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In most Islamic societies, if a woman is allowed by her husband to go out to work, it is not because he needs her to work, but because he doesn't need her to. She may go and earn her own money - and it is just that. Her money. She is not required to share it with anyone and certainly not required to contribute to the family finances. Indeed, to do so would be shameful. Besides, it's <i>her</i> money.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Fine if you are clearly wealthy, if the kids have left home, all of that. But in the situation of our chap working two jobs, he will be faced with the problem of the children - who will look after them when both parents are at work? Friends, perhaps, or family - but the chances are it will cost money for them to be looked after. And it won't be, cannot be, his wife who pays for it. So he will have to work a third job simply to allow his wife to get a job of her own.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So clearly, the division of labour makes sense - one parent at work, the other taking care of the family at home.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Consider also, that when a country's economy is in poor shape, every job held by a woman for her own enrichment is taking a job from a man needing to provide for his family.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So we can begin to see why perhaps a husband might wish his wife to remain in the home, and why in some cultures the idea of women holding down jobs doesn't sit too well.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
[<i>ASIDE: When did looking after your children become slavery? When did going out to work for someone else become freedom?</i>]</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
However, husbands forcing their wives to stay at home is far from the most egregious example of The Patriarchy (TM)...</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><i>Sex Selective Abortion</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A nasty one, this.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There are a number of cultures around the world wherein it is considered far preferable to have a son than a daughter. As a result, this has led to a situation in certain countries where many female foetuses are terminated, so that only sons shall be born. This is widely known and rightly much deplored.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And why does this happen? Patriarchy! Who would want an inferior girl child when you could have a superior boy child? It's The Patriarchy I tells ya!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
...of course, there are underlying social and cultural causes for this. One is the dowry system - once employed in Europe too - which involves the parents of the bride paying their prospective son-in-law a big lump of cash to take their daughter off their hands (this is not to be confused with Bride-Price, where the husband-to-be pays his prospective in-laws; which is applied varies between cultures).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Another cause is that, traditionally, a son will often remain in the parental home, and his wife will move in with him; between them, they will support his parents in their dotage. A daughter, however, will leave the parental home to live with her husband and his parents, leaving her own folks all alone. In more modern households, a son will move out, but will contribute a third of his income to his parents; a daughter is not so obliged. Should she remain at home all her life, her parents will be culturally obliged to look after her.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So perhaps that dowry payment, hefty as it is, doesn't seem all that unreasonable - give the young man some money as he will henceforth have the obligation of her upkeep.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Of course, she could go out and work and send some of her earnings to her parents, if her husband is amenable, if cultural factors will allow it without apportioning shame - but when times are hard, she will again be taking a job that a man might need to support his family.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So - there are some reasons for sex-selective abortion. They are not nice reasons, and I will not attempt to justify them - but they are the reasons, like it or not.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Alright Corvid - just what has this to do with Patriarchy Theory?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><i>Patriarchy (TM) Theory</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
See, the problem with Patriarchy Theory and its ilk is that it is an ideology. Almost a religion. It has its own belief system, its own priestesses, its own canon, and it requires only absolute faith. It cannot be disproved, but it can be asserted with impunity and with no evidence, because the only proof it requires is the belief in the mind of the adherent that it is so. It is an article of faith.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is also,quite simply, a conspiracy theory. Tin-foil hat stuff. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
You see, those that believe in the Theory will cite it as both explanation and proof. Why are women forced to stay at home in some cultures? Because: Patriarchy. Why are female foetuses aborted? Because: Patriarchy. Men hate women, and that's all there is to it. Misogyny. Patriarchy. Phallocratic slavery.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Except, as we have - and only very briefly - discussed above, there are underlying reasons for these things. And there are underlying reasons for <i>those</i>, in turn.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Appeals to Patriarchy Theory as an explanation willfully ignore the true facts of the matter; and if those facts, those underlying causes, are not addressed, then meaningful change cannot possibly be effected. Why, then, does this theory ignore the true causes?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The answer is complex and very involved. In part, it is because a neat, pat answer is so very attractive. It is also because an examination of the true root causes is convoluted and difficult. Another reason is that it becomes obvious that the blame cannot be laid solely at the feet of men. Furthermore, because it claims that there is a conspiracy that is hidden, it cannot be disproved.<br />
<br />
And, of course, ideologues are incapable of rational dissection of an issue. That is why they are ideologues.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Were the actual explanation, the true reasons for the lack of change to be stated, the result, of course, would be a reduction in the emotional impact of how terrible these situations are. A loss of enthusiasm amongst the faithful would invariably occur. The shrill and strident cries for Equality (meaning <i>equality of outcome</i>, of course) would diminish, and the Cause would lose momentum. And the ideologues would find themselves bereft of all meaning in their lives.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And the rabbit hole, as ever, goes deeper.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Cultural conditioning, combined with the prospect of additional duties and obligations, can make feminism an unappealing prospect for many women in some developing nations. There is the danger that they would outright reject the feminist credo, thus rendering the movement irrelevant in those cultures. Better, then, to avoid having the Cause explicitly rejected for specific reasons by failing to recognise or state those reasons.<br />
<br />
And maybe, just maybe, the Cause doesn't want to hear the opposing view because the opposing view is <i>right</i>.<br />
<br />
But wait - still deeper we go...<br />
<br />
The ultimate truth as to why feminism - among many other progressivist causes and movements - frequently fail to truly examine the issues against which they campaign, why they fail to seek reasons as to why things have evolved the way they have, why they are doomed to failure - is because they <i>want</i> to fail.<br />
<br />
Feminism, the Green movement, the Racial Equality movements - all employ a lot of people. These are billion dollar industries. A lot of people make a comfortable living, and a few get very rich indeed. To achieve success would be to obviate the need for the organisations responsible.<br />
<br />
A grievance industry without a grievance isn't an industry anymore.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />Corvidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10650430038318207729noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955762366426889924.post-41662804076104121232013-04-20T01:56:00.000+01:002013-04-20T01:56:28.827+01:00Old HolbornThe last 48 hours have shown some of the fouler side of human nature.<br />
<br />
A blogger, who uses the pseudonym of Old Holborn, made a handful of tweets that were, to be fair, a bit near-the-knuckle. This is his habit; there are no sacred cows to OH, and everyone comes under fire at some point.<br />
<br />
On this occasion, he got himself into a spat with a number of Liverpudlians over that city's lasting grievance over the Hillsborough tragedy. As is becoming increasingly normal, a number of scousers called him a paedophile for doing so, to which he responded that the killers of James Bulger were themselves scousers. Not particularly relevant, but then neither was the paedophile comment. Rather ugly, but with such is what happens when you argue with people who are, shall we say, somewhat below the salt.<br />
<br />
Things became rather heated, with several twitterers making threats against Old Holborn. Some of them then managed to identify him, or at least obtain a name and address for him, which they then published online.<br />
<br />
This is a vile thing to do; to publish the personal details of an individual in the full knowledge that there are people out there who are sufficiently unbalanced as to physically seek out the individual involved.<br />
<br />
And seek him they did. His employers were contacted; death threats were made to OH and his wife, and his children may also have been threatened. Naturally enough, he has shut down his Twitter account and facebook account.<br />
<br />
And he has been <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-22216613" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">arrested</a>. In a country where we are supposed to have free speech, a man has been arrested for saying something unpleasant. You will notice, of course, that no mention is made in the linked article of the death threats received. These are insignificant when compared to saying something tasteless. And I very much doubt that those who have threatened Old Holborn, or those who published his details, will ever face any kind of charge. I would be surprised if the police even bother to investigate the matter.<br />
<br />
And this is the worst part of it all. The police are involved now in a matter where someone has said something that wasn't very nice - but what business does the law have in becoming involved in this at all? It doesn't. Why is the law siding with those that make death threats against their fellow citizens?<br />
<br />
We have now reached a point of almost full inversion.<br />
<br />
Making death threats is not seen as much of a crime. Saying something offensive, however, is.<br />
<br />
The law involves itself in matters that no law should ever try to influence, yet divorces itself from those areas with which it should be concerned; it is a greater crime now to hurt another's feelings, but their body may be harmed - or at least threatened - with impunity.<br />
<br />
Under the law, offence is now given, not taken. Whether a crime has been committed is determined not by the thought or action of the perpetrator, but by the emotions of the alleged victim - or anyone else who cares to take offence.<br />
<br />
This is only going to get worse.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="white-space: nowrap;"><i>If buttercups buzzed after the bee,</i></span></div>
<i><span style="white-space: nowrap;"><div style="text-align: center;">
If boats were on land,</div>
</span><span style="white-space: nowrap;"><div style="text-align: center;">
Churches on sea,</div>
</span><span style="white-space: nowrap;"><div style="text-align: center;">
If ponies rode men,</div>
</span><span style="white-space: nowrap;"><div style="text-align: center;">
And if grass ate the corn,</div>
</span><span style="white-space: nowrap;"><div style="text-align: center;">
And if cats should be chased</div>
</span><span style="white-space: nowrap;"><div style="text-align: center;">
Into holes by the mouse,</div>
</span><span style="white-space: nowrap;"><div style="text-align: center;">
If the mammas sold their babies</div>
</span><span style="white-space: nowrap;"><div style="text-align: center;">
To the Gypsies for half a crown,</div>
</span><span style="white-space: nowrap;"><div style="text-align: center;">
If summer were spring,</div>
</span><span style="white-space: nowrap;"><div style="text-align: center;">
And the other way 'round,</div>
</span><span style="white-space: nowrap;"><div style="text-align: center;">
Then all the world would be upside down.</div>
</span></i><br />
<br />Corvidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10650430038318207729noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955762366426889924.post-73742714835580912732013-04-20T01:23:00.002+01:002013-04-20T01:43:27.284+01:00Offence, Political Correctness and CensorshipCould someone please tell me when it became the greatest cultural taboo to cause offence - almost, it sometimes seems, worse than murder? When did it become such an evil thing to say something that upsets people? And why is our language now being twisted by neologisms that are as tortuous as they are execrable? What are these terms that blossom on the tongue of the zeitgeist like a cancer?<br />
<br />
We could blame Political Correctness - the tabloids frequently do so - but this isn't the cause. Rather, it is the supposedly more palatable term for censorship - or more to the point, self-censorship. Political correctness is not the cause, but the symptom of the malady.<br />
<br />
And the malady, when dissected, comprises three main parts.<br />
<br />
The first part we shall simply call:<br />
<br />
<b><i>Labels</i></b><br />
<br />
Part of the problem seems to be that we are expected to make everyone feel 'included' in any discourse; to consider every possible form that humanity might take, and then tippy-toe around any characteristic that might make any of those that have such a characteristic feel in any way different. Skin colour, physical disabilities, sexual orientation and anything else that one might care to name or think of. But different from what, or whom? The largest set outside their particular subset? Their interlocutor?<br />
<br />
Black people are now Afro-Caribbean. Never mind that Africans and Caribbeans often dislike one another intensely, as many Caribbean people harbour a grudge towards Africans, as the ancestors of the latter sold the ancestors of the former into slavery (Europeans may have been responsible for the slave trade, but raptor states such as Dahomey grew fat on the trade and supplied the 'merchandise' quite happily).<br />
<br />
Disabled people are now 'differently-abled' because they might get upset by anyone mentioning that they cannot walk, see, hear or whatever. But the shying-away from the obvious fact that someone has a physical impairment that affects one of their senses or their mobility or cognitive ability really does seem ridiculous; the difficulty they have makes them no less of a person, it just makes them a person with a difficulty. What is the point of trying to hide from the fact?<br />
<br />
This, however, is by far the lesser part of the disease. The usage of nouns and adjectives such as these have a habit of shifting around every few years; it is simply the language redecorating the walls, not making structural alterations, and with about as much real significance.<br />
<br />
No, there is a deeper aspect to the illness, marked not by the labels it insists upon but with the shift in thinking it demands of everybody.<br />
<br />
And so to the second (and unorignally named) part of the malady:<br />
<br />
<b><i>Thoughtcrime</i></b><br />
<br />
Not only must we be vary careful with the nouns and adjectives that we use, but also the verbs. We must avoid any mention of anything at all that could possibly allude to there being any kind of a difference between those perceived as being the 'mainstream' and those who are of a 'different' group.<br />
<br />
Helen Lewis sets this out very succinctly - and far better than I ever could - on her tumblr article <a href="http://helenlewiswrites.tumblr.com/private/47859091039/tumblr_ml72547vSl1rpijql" target="_blank">'Perfection in Language'</a>. She uses a wonderful example:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
.<i>..Imagine walking out of your front door, stopping the first person you meet and explaining your beliefs to them....</i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i> Of course, I’ve already done something wrong in that opening paragraph. I’ve asked you to imagine walking out of your front door. But I can guarantee you that if I wrote that in a piece, I would get at least one comment “gently reminding” me that some people can’t walk, and some people can’t leave their houses. I’ve been ableist</i>.</blockquote>
<br />
Now, what is wrong with walking out of your front door? What could be more normal, more quotidian, than that? Are we supposed to believe that those who are unable to walk, or to leave the house, will be mortally wounded by the reminder that the vast majority of others are able to do so? That those that cannot see must be cossetted with a false belief that there is no such thing as sight?<br />
<br />
So we are to avoid any reference to walking, to seeing, to hearing, to running, to thinking...to living. And to avoid any reference to these things we must erase them from our thoughts. We must curtail not only our tongues, but also our brains. We are to deny to ourselves that our everyday, normal actions are everyday or normal; we must not only pretend to a blind man that there is no such thing as sight, but we must pretend it <i>to ourselves</i>.<br />
<br />
Now, it has been the case from time immemorial that if there is an enemy to fight, a process of 'othering' is first undertaken. It is the psychological distancing of one's own group form the target group; propaganda is often used as part of this process. In so many of the major wars that have been fought, each side has demonised the other, to make the other side hateful and something less than human. Because then, the slaughter can begin in earnest.<br />
<br />
Now, however, we find that this process has been turned inwards, and we are forced to 'other', to demonise, ourselves. Be it skin colour, being able-bodied, mental acuity, wealth, ability - whatever you care to name. If you find yourself in an advantaged or majority group, you are to apologise for yourself and believe yourself to somehow be at fault simply because - to continue Ms. Lewis' example - you are able to walk out of your front door. Nothing less will do than everyone prostrates themselves at the feet of everyone else, each begging for forgiveness whilst simultaneously demanding that as many others as possible kneel before him as penitents keening their <i>mea culpas</i>. Genuflect before the masses, the few that are many and the many that are few.<br />
<br />
And this leads us to the third, and deepest, part of the disease - the very thing that political correctness, this cultural Marxism that has crept into our world, purportedly seeks to cure:<br />
<br />
<i><b>Divisiveness</b></i><br />
<br />
The aim of the politically correct mode of thought is to be all-inclusive. We are to censor ourselves in order to not cause offence to any 'group', or to those that get offended on their behalf. But this is where we find the cancer at the heart of the left-wing mind, the worm that devours the root of the ideology. And it is this:<br />
<br />
By treating every conceivable 'disadvantaged' group with kid gloves, by singling them out for special treatment, any differences between that group and everyone else is highlighted, not diminished. By refusing to allow any subset to be treated in the same manner as the main set, division is created. The left would seek to invert what they perceive as being the historic order of things, to turn the 'privileged' white heterosexual male from being at the 'apex' of society into being the lowest and most despised group, and to take those at the very 'bottom' of the pyramid and raise them to a position of exalted status. And of course, to be at the top of this new world order requires no effort on the part of the new elite; rather a lack of effort is all that is demanded.<br />
<br />
This inversion is intended not only to affect the perceived hierarchy of society but also the effort required to reach any particular station. Are you able-bodied? Hard-working? Independent? Determined? Ambitious? Talented? Then you are a sucker. Because in this new order, the harder you work, the further down you will go. You cannot work your way up the ladder - all you can do is slide all the way down. Refuse to work, blame your background, society, anything you like, and you will rise. The great shall be abased and the abased made great - the promise of Christianity has come about, but in a wholly secular and hateful manner.<br />
<br />
<br />
Naturally, the proponents of this way of thinking countenance no dissent. This uber-tolerant mob can tolerate anything other than a difference in opinion. Do not dare to speak out, do not think of pointing out the absurdity of the premises, do not imagine that you can go against something that so clearly has the love of humanity at its heart and above all do not, <i>do not</i> examine that discomfort, that cognitive dissonance that perturbs you.<br />
<br />
Helen Lewis did, this very week. Within hours, her feminist and politically correct comrades had hounded her into closing down her Twitter account, to suspending her blogging and writing. What hatred and bile spewed forth, simply because she dared to try to apply reason.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Corvidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10650430038318207729noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955762366426889924.post-44911715612304823262013-04-18T15:18:00.005+01:002013-04-18T15:18:50.174+01:00We all have our crosses to bear...<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2310526/Three-men-deported-Saudi-Arabia-irresistible-women.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">This</a> happens to me all of the time...Corvidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10650430038318207729noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955762366426889924.post-13749839516135650832013-04-08T18:25:00.000+01:002013-04-08T18:28:38.096+01:00Margaret Thatcher - Initial ThoughtsSo, today Margaret Thatcher died.<br />
<br />
Needless to say, there were many who trumpeted and brayed about the fact and claimed they would be celebrating her death. Predictable enough; a quick Google search of 'Maggie's Dead' shows a large number of websites that had been counting down to her demise and were crowing about it loudly. Comparisons with Hitler have been trotted out (Godwin's Law, anyone?) along with cries of 'Ding dong, the witch is dead'.<br />
<br />
You might admire her. You might hate her. But to celebrate her death is...well, unseemly.<br />
<br />
You see, many of those who have been cheering her passing are the same people who preach tolerance and respect to all. Yet now they show themselves as being deeply intolerant and disrespectful - and yet will still claim to possess and indeed exemplify those virtues that they so openly flout.<br />
<br />
And that's what galls me the most; the assumption that morality is something to be forced on others but disregarded on an individual basis. That the person doing the speaking may judge others, but wishes never to be judged themselves. Yet how can anyone cite, let alone lay claim to, a morality that they themselves choose to ignore when it suits them?<br />
<br />
I shall explore the topic further in another post. Suffice it to say for now that the time to celebrate Margaret Thatcher's passing was in 1990, when she was removed from office. Not today.<br />
<br />
<br />Corvidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10650430038318207729noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955762366426889924.post-21387370801714481872013-04-04T19:49:00.002+01:002013-04-05T00:00:33.109+01:00The Patriarchy? Seriously?<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Well now. Have you ever heard the term 'The Patriarchy'? I'm sure you have. It's the go-to boogeyman of feminists, leftists and right-on types, and it gets used and blamed a lot.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">They do seem very reluctant to truly define it, though. Requests for clarification are met with answers like: "You know. The <i>Patriarchy</i>."</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Which doesn't really help clear things up any.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It's either that or some allusion to the oppression of women by men. Which is also rather vague, I feel.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So I thought I'd have a little look and see if I couldn't find out for myself what it might be. Now, this research below didn't take long, and if anyone can give me a better explanation, I'd like to hear it.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Anyway.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Let's start with the name. The
term 'Patriarchy' means that men - or more specifically given its etymology - <i>fathers</i>, rule society. And indeed, men have ruled over many societies,
not just western ones, since time immemorial. No argument from me there.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The problem I see
is that this has lead to the assumption that<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>all</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>men rule over the society
of which they are a part. And this simply is not true.
Moreover, there is the idea that men have oppressed women since the dawn of
time, and this is also not true.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Allow me to
explain.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">These twin
assumptions would lead one to the impression that all men, throughout the ages,
have lived well and had a say in how society is run. They also would lead
you to believe that the lot of women has been far worse, that women have had no
say at all in how society is run, and have generally been held in thralldom to
the wills of the men to whom they are related or married, and boy have they
suffered for it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Here's the thing:
whilst civilisation has invariably been run by men, it has only been the
men at the top: those belonging to an elite class. Nobody else had a say
at all, for a very long time. Even here in the West, in our much-vaunted democracies, it was pretty much a closed shop.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Allow me to present, as an example, a timeline for the right to vote here in the UK:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>1800:</b> Voting
allowed on the basis of wealth and class. About 3% of the population could
vote.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>1832:</b> The Reform
Act allowed certain leaseholders and householders the vote, taking the figure
to 5%.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>1867:</b> The Second
Reform Act extended the voting population to about 20%.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>1884:</b>
The Third Reform Act extended the vote to any adult male owning or
occupying land with an annual rateable value of £10 or more could vote - and
the figure went up to 24%<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>1918:</b> The
Representation of the People Act meant that all men over the age of 21 could
vote, and all women over the age of 30 could vote.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>1969:</b> All adults
over the age of 18 could vote.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So, until 1918,
the majority of men were unable to vote; even after 1884, less than 50% of men
could vote or have any say in what went on.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And in the
meantime, who fought the wars that the government decided to fight? Who
worked in the dangerous jobs?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">When women were
campaigning for suffrage in 1916, where were their men? Where would you
have rather been at that time - chained to railings in Belgravia to campaign
for the right to vote, or conscripted against your will to a
mud-filled trench in France to get a facefull of mustard gas?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">My point being,
the Patriarchy, if such we are to call it, oppressed men a damned sight more
than it did women. Which leads one to think that the Patriarchy is, in fact, a myth.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It was a monarchy.
It was an aristocracy. It was an oligarchy. Given the use of
the militia to quell,<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>inter
alia</i>, the chartist riots, it was arguably a timarchy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But I cannot see how it has ever been a patriarchy.</span><span style="font-size: medium;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
Corvidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10650430038318207729noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5955762366426889924.post-30309232120051752562013-04-04T19:38:00.002+01:002013-04-08T18:32:28.504+01:00The Men's Rights Movement<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">OK, bear with me here. I'm a newcomer to blogging, the
'blogosphere', whatever you want to call it. I'm not all that
interested in the conventions of it, other than keeping a<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>relatively</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>civilised tone and trying to back up
my opinions with facts, or at the very least, convincing justification.
Or, failing either of these, bad language. The internet is too full
of idiots who want their voices to be heard, but have nothing to say.
Maybe I'm just adding to that, judge for yourself.</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If you have
noticed my little bit of profile detail off to the right there, I'm
an atheist, a libertarian and favour (to a point) the Men's Rights Movement. The
first two because anyone with an ounce of sense (in my opinion) ought to be if
they just think about it, and the last because I have in the past been in a particularly poisonous
relationship, which really opened my eyes. Whilst my intention is to explore the atheism and my political views, I shall
make a bit of a start with the MRM thing.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So now - I have
found an awful lot of MRM blogs and websites out there. Some of them have
something to say, and say it well. Others have something to say, but say
it badly. And some are just misogynists, plain and simple. I am not
a misogynist, whatever anyone wants to say, but there are a few fundamental
issues where modern feminism falls flat on its face, and it needs pointing out. The emperor is fucking naked, and I refuse to
pretend otherwise.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Feminists have for
many years sought equal rights for women. Hear, hear, I say. Women
should have equal rights and equal opportunities; that view goes right along
with my libertarian leanings. We all want the same things when you get
down to it, regardless of age, gender, creed, ethnicity and so on. The
trouble seems to come when people fail to recognise that we all want the same
things, or believe that these things have to be competed for - as if there were
not quite enough rights or opportunities to go round, and that some sectors of
society ought to have a greater share than others. They all want a larger
slice of the abstract concept pie, which is about as ludicrous as you can get. Rights are not a zero-sum game.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Anyway - I
digress. My beef with feminism is that they seek ever greater rights for
women, and seem to have over-shot the turning somewhat; women have
for years had rights that are more-or-less equal to those of men (I'll not deny
that some fine tuning is still needed here and there). Women can vote,
got to university, get jobs in just about every sector - bar combat roles in
the military, although that is starting to shift. Yet still, they call for
greater rights, to the point where they have privileges greater than
those enjoyed by men, yet still this is not enough.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">For example,
I have worked with a number of Local Authorities and Housing Associations here
in England, and have found in these a number of women who have been
promoted far beyond their abilities. I don't mean just a level or so
above where they should be; that is in the nature of promotion, that everyone
gets promoted to a point or level<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>just</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>beyond where they should be, and there
they stop. However, I have encountered a number of women who have been pushed
ever-higher up the ladder, and they lack the aptitude and capability to be anywhere near where they are. I do <i>NOT</i> mean all women at high level management, but
there are quite a few out there. Organisations - particularly those that
are publicly funded - seem to believe that one way to establish their right-on
credentials is to fast track such people to the upper echelons, with
the result that incompetent twats end up running the show. Not<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>semi</i>-competent twats, as is the
natural order of things, you understand; fully paid-up,
need-someone-to-hold-the-map-while-they-use-both-hands-to-find-their-arse
incompetent twats. People who are fundamentally (is that a
pun?) useless.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But it is not just
this that irks me. You see, as I mentioned earlier, I was in a
relationship that I can only describe as abusive. It did not start that
way; they seldom do. It creeps in, gradual-like. You make a small
compromise or concession, then another, then another, until you realise that
you have been gradually alienated from friends and family alike, and that your
self-confidence has been subtly eroded away. You are scorned and upbraided by
your 'loving' partner for things that she (or he) does with impunity. You might
suffer this in silence, until one day they push their luck a bit too far, and
it brings you up short.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">My own epiphany
came when, after having listened to some neurotic bullshit for - I
kid you not - six hours, I lost my rag and shouted. Fully justified in
doing so, as well.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"If you raise
your voice to me again," I was told, "I'll call the police and tell
them that you are unstable and get you sectioned under the Mental Health Act!
They'll take my word for it, and it will just be one tired doctor who
wants to go home and he'll sign anything!"<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Fuck me.
This woman thinks she can get me sectioned just for<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>shouting</i>? When she has been
screaming, slamming doors and trying to physically push me around the room?
She's mental, I thought.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Yes. <i>But
here's the kicker</i>; a good friend of mine, a criminal law barrister, has
told me that she could indeed get me sectioned.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Imagine that.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">On the
uncorroborated testimony of one person, another person can find themselves
arrested, incarcerated and considered insane just because they<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>raised their voice</i>. No
due process to speak of. Just one person making an allegation that is
unfounded, and that's it - the machinery of the state swings into action, and
you're fucked. The state as a tool of abuse.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And this is where
it gets<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>really</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>messed up; were I to try the same
thing on her, what do you think my chances would be? Zero. I am a
man, she is a woman, and therefore I am totally at her mercy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now - someone tell
me that I am not alone in thinking that that is totally fucked-up.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So, I started to
look into the matter. And<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>that</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>is where it got really scary. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Needless to say, she is no longer a part of my life. Can you say<i> hallelujah</i>?</span><span style="font-size: medium;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
Corvidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10650430038318207729noreply@blogger.com0