I've neglected this blog for a number of reasons. Firstly, it can't be found in a Google search. Secondly, even if it was, I doubt it would ever get read. Finally, most of what I've wanted to say I post in comments to social media and other sites where comments are invited.

The reason for today's post is that I need to relieve my mind of 'stuff' which clouds my thinking every time I watch a news broadcast, or read some news item from the mass media. (I don't buy any newspapers, they're too influenced by the Establishment! I get items posted on my social media outlets.)

I'm returning to the theme of 'conspiracy theories'. There are two ways to shut down an argument; if it's 'right-wing', the overuse of the words 'fascist', 'bigot', 'racist', 'Nazi',. etc., tends to blow the argument out. If it's 'left-wing', the big favourite is 'conspiracy theorist'. Both these claims need to be better understood then, maybe we could have a reasonable and intelligent debate.

Let's start on the 'left' with 'conspiracy theorist'. The concept derives from times when some people began to feel that 'something' was wrong with the system. They did so because no matter how they tried, they couldn't reconcile what was really happening in the world with their worldviews of  'peace and tranquillity among all men'. The reality didn't fit with the religious teachings espoused from the pulpit every Sunday, or the cosy soap-opera lives of the people on the TV. Somehow, the "news" being broadcast kept telling them that things were okay in their world, but elsewhere, things were going badly wrong. That those 'others' couldn't get the same lives as 'us'. That our lives were much better than anything they could achieve. What was needed, of course, was our intervention to turn their lives around and make them just like ourselves, and all would be well. But exactly who were telling them these things? Who decided on what news we were to be reported? And how bad was it  for the 'others'? More importantly; why was it so bad for these others? Surely they could see that things could be much better if they just looked at our situation and changed? But as life ticked along, whatever was happening 'over there' really didn't seem to impinge on 'our' lives. So let's leave it to the politicians to sort out. They're paid to do such things, aren't they?

But then some of these things started to impact on our lives. Just a little. And when they did it seemed to always be something  unexpected. Something uncomfortable. Of course, that had nothing to do with our politicians, they were democratically elected on a given mandate which the majority of us agreed upon. Isn't that what democracy's about? But the chatter got louder. Something's wrong, but we can't quite put our fingers on just exactly what's wrong. As far as the politicians were concerned, it wasn't as bad as we thought. The papers reported that there had been some glitch in the system, but it'll be alright again soon, we just needed to hold our nerve. But the chatter became louder.

Some people were saying that some unusual activity had been reported in some obscure magazine. This chatter is where the most bizarre ideas came from: UFOs, alien captures, Area 51, threats from unknown sources, etc. So people started creating their own versions of what was happening. New theories started to emerge. The Bildebergers, Shape-Shifting aliens, New World Order, Illuminati, the Catholic Church, the Jews, the Zionists, the list is endless! It's a very primitive thing to want to explain everything in terms of the 'other'. Innately tribal. "It's not us, it's them!" The media seemed to enjoy publishing stories of UFOs, ghosts, strange secret societies and the like. They seemed to enjoy fuelling the imagination with such stories. TV series' were commissioned about secret services trying to beat these alien threats, or some lone individual desperate to expose the "truth"! Nobody questioned why, though. Which I find strange. I remember many years ago a number of newspapers printing pictures of 'flying saucers' and testimony from experienced pilots adjudged to be very credible witnesses to such phenomena. There are people today in America who genuinely believe that mobile phone technology was a gift from alien beings! There are groups of people who claim to have been abducted by aliens and experimented on! The more off-the-wall these claims, the more likely the media is going to report them. Loudly. Why? So that every time someone uses an argument which questions the government, (or more accurately, the corporate agenda,) the finger can be pointed to the weirdness associated with 'conspiracy theorists'. Of course it's not true, ergo - end of argument. And so that we don't look stupid, or irrational, we tend to shy away from such things. Just in case the finger is pointed at us. Let's just keep our heads down and say nothing in case we're thought of as fruit cakes!

Nazism. Fascism. Bigotry. Xenophobia. Why does that end the argument? Because we've been taught some extremely conflicting ideas all our lives. We're taught that the only way to 'get on' in life is to compete and be the best. Work hard at school, get to college, university and a good job. Then everything's going to be fine. We're fed constant streams of how the "winners" live, and which internationally successful sportsmen/women have earned millions for their efforts, how successful businesses are "relieving poverty", how individual entrepreneurs are making a killing on the stock market and how 'single-mindedness (selfishness) is the key to success. We're taught that Second is the first loser! At the same time we're taught that teamwork brings success, that being happy with one's lot is the mark of success, that having friends is true wealth, that helping others makes our lives better. Which way do we turn? If we give too much help to a friend we're accused of being too emotionally engaged, or providing 'mates-rates', to be successful. If we trample on everyone's feelings for success, we're hated and accused of being sociopaths. So we close up. As long as I can feed myself and my family, I'm okay. Our 'tribes' get smaller. We narrow down. In the end, it's easier. The insults hurt because, somewhere deep down, we do actually care. We just can't show it. So to defend our emotional lives, we get angry. Narrow down further. Don't engage. Better all round. 

Social engineering takes all of our foibles and exaggerate them for public consumption. It classifies, compartmentalises, and drives the masses. "Socialism" is both weak and controlling. "Free markets" make things grow and for "free markets" we need entrepreneurs to come up with the next-big-thing! We don't want anything to get in the way of "progress" because that would put a halt to commercial success. So we're all made to feel just short of perfect. We're led away from proper discourse with each other in case new ideas deflect us from our goals. So we're allowed to call each other "bigots", "fascists", "commies" or "conspiracy theorists" and learn to hate each other. We're constantly fed negative stories about foreigners, invaders, the undeserving poor, thieves, and many more 'others' who lack our 'values' and 'ethics'. We are consistently fed stories with the deliberate attempt to frighten. Fear is a great motivator. 'Conspiracy theorists' are ridiculed and lampooned in order to induce the fear of being associated with them. Fascists are derided and 'criminalised' across the media so that the rest of us wouldn't want to be associated with such cruelty. We use them as weapons against each other. We create smaller and smaller tribes - on both sides of the argument. George W. Bush once said: "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists!" No half-way measure there then! No thoughts of maybe, just maybe, we need to at least try to understand what's causing 'terrorism' before we bombed the shit out of their families and children! 

Are we all really that inhumane? Do we really need to fall on one side of the fence as opposed to the other? Is life really so black and white? I don't call right-wing commenters 'bigots', or 'racists', or whatever, unless they are deliberately making fascistic or racist comments. Most of the time, I try to engage in intelligent discourse. When I do encounter some conspiracy theory, I try to engage in debate about the possibilities which may be forming their opinions. If people disagree with my interpretations, fine. My tribe is all of us. And I'll gladly learn something new. 

Why did I start this particular entry? Because I met with the local vicar during a school governors 'open-day'. Parents were asked to share their thoughts on the future of the school. It became clear to me that they had already made their decision and this was an exercise in "public consultation". Meaning that they had ticked the appropriate box! I do not support the academisation of schools. As the discussion progressed, I happened to mention TTIP. The vicar had not heard of the Transnational Trade and Investment Partnership deal being negotiated in secret between the EU and the US multinationals. The first words out of his mouth were; "Ahhh! Conspiracy theory!" and he looked very dismissively at me. He proceeded to look away from me as if I'd said I'd been abducted by fish-like Martians! So I tapped him on his shoulder and fired up my smartphone. I showed him the official website which makes some attempt at selling this deal to all of us. He capitulated slightly and said; "I really can't comment on commercial agreements that I know nothing about." I asked if he felt that it was okay that such international deals should be negotiated in secret. He walked away. 

People are so closed up and defensive these days. I support Jeremy Corbyn. What kind of response do I get? "Hard-left 70s throwback!" So I ask; "What's 'hard-left'?" To which the replies vary from: "He sucks up to terrorists, has no idea how the modern economy works, wants to give money to everybody and wants to fill this country up with immigrants!" Those are just the polite comments! Weirdly, none of what Jeremy Corbyn has said in public is reflected in any of those comments. Where did they come from? There's even an anecdote from a fellow supporter, (yes there are more of us!), who recounted a tale about a local TV interview with a woman shopper who was approached for her opinion on Corbyn to which she replied firmly; "I don't like him!" "Why is that?" asked the reporter. "I just don't like him! He's dangerous." She pause just for a second and added; "Are you Jeremy Corbyn?" After the reporter assured her he wasn't, she continued, smiling; "I thought this must have been one of those trick questions you see on the telly every so often. I'm glad you're not him - because I don't like him!" How true this anecdote is, I can't say. But I have seen similar interviews on 'telly' where such tricks are played. It appears people are forming opinions purely on the say-so of TV and mainstream media reporting. But, of course, they don't want to appear foolish! 

The media is a much more powerful force than people seem to realise. A fine example is that of the pollsters who periodically inform us of social trends. The latest one I've seen is the ComRes poll showing the Tories and Labour being 'neck-and-neck'. When I read the analysis, however, I discover that the Tories still lead in the economic credibility stakes by a huge margin! This is despite the fact that one of their own has openly admitted that the previous Labour government had done a decent job of containing the banking crisis. And that the "Labour's mess" narrative, which the Tories claim they're still trying to "clean up" is, in fact, the biggest of all Cameron's lies! So far, in attempting to "pay down the debt", which Oddballs and Camoron are claiming to do, they've doubled the debt! It now stands at £1.7trillion pounds! (They inherited a debt of £872billion.) Short memories are also a boon to the Tories. People seem to have forgotten that Oddballs had promised "short-term pain for long-term gain" in the "emergency budget" of 2010 within which he introduced these 'austerity measures'. He promised that we'd be in surplus by 2014. By 2012 he began adopting Danny Alexanders' economic measures because his 'plan' was clearly failing! And by 2014, just as the next election was being called, "short-term pain for long-term gain" had morphed into "long-term economic plan"! There was also the incident when Oddballs was interviewed on the BBC just before the 2010 election when he'd stated, categorically, that the Tories "were NOT the party of cuts!" that the Labour Party were just "fear mongering"! And of course there was the "there are no plans to raise VAT" promise. And so it began. Promise after promise fell by the wayside. And STILL people believe the Tories are better with the economy! That's the power of the media. Social engineering at its best! Ahh! But that might just be a conspiracy theory!

The New "God"?

I've been reading some history lately and have reached the conclusion that money has replaced religion as the new social adhesive. 

Historically, the question of how societies cohered through the ages appears to have been answered by religion. The standard view of religion's origins tended to be one in which "unanswerable" questions were left to the supernatural. But this has now been rectified to introduce us to the concept that, rather than merely being the response to the mysteries of life, it was a powerful tool to keep large groups of people from simply destroying each other in the quest for survival. 

As populations increased from small hunter-gatherer tribes to agricultural communities, and then on to vast trading societies, it became increasingly difficult to maintain some degree of order. One sure way was to instill in people a belief in an all-powerful, omniscient, unseen being which could monitor everyone from some ethereal realm. The vast majority of the world's biggest religions rely on subjective 'guilt' to encourage the faithful to keep in line.

We are now, however, becoming an increasingly secular society. The 'faithful' are diminishing in number. How then are we to maintain order from afar? Enter money. In the very secular West, we have become obsessed with wealth. Our reverence for the wealthy in our society has led us to be easily manipulated to fight resource wars in order to gain more of the filthy lucre which we then hand over to the already rich in the hope that they may bless us with further investments to secure our own futures. 

My feelings are based on the attitudes most people seem to have regarding wealthy individuals. They appear to enjoy a mystique only reserved for the priesthood. A wealthy person gets hurt and we all, collectively, gasp in horror. The fact that it happens to the underclasses all the time doesn't affect us with the  same intensity. There may be some empathic response from some people, but, by and large, it shouldn't happen to the rich!

Coupled with the view that one day; "I could be rich", we seem to be living in the new hope of a better life - here and now. Heaven is our first million. We revere the rich because we believe that, given the right opportunities, it could be us one day. How many people do the lottery every week? I don't know the full figure, but it must be enough enable Camelot to pay multimillion pound jackpots, plus have enough left over to pay huge salaries to the governing bodies AND to offer philanthropic funding opportunities for 'worthy causes'! 

Placing the 'glory' of wealth into the minds of individuals was also the church, which has over the centuries, been the repository of wealth for the 'chosen few'. Indeed the story of Job reveals how the 'righteous', favoured by god, were those whose wealth exceeded that of the lesser tribes. We've now reached the stage where we can dispose of the supernatural and just revere money! 

Max Weber's views on capitalism shows how the ethics of wealth stems from religious ideology but in today's greed culture, religion is sidelined. However, the reverence remains. We still laud the wealthy in a very unhealthy way. How sad we are.

Ripped-off Britons: Graphs at a glance: ONS, Eurostat and World Bank f...

Ripped-off Britons: Graphs at a glance: ONS, Eurostat and World Bank f...: "the love of money is the root of all evil" 1 Timothy 6:10 This biblical quote means people aren't bad for nothing: to ...

Do We Have to Reject Reality?

I've recently been reading some interesting blogs and books regarding socio-economic trends and possible futures. What strikes me, at this moment in time, is the feeling of rising tension among people blogging, and commenting on blogs, across the Western world.

Big calls for Rothschild's blood can be heard right across America! He, apparently, "owns" most of the world's currencies. Meaning that despite us all relying heavily on local credit for houses, cars, shopping, and the like, nations are 'in hock' for their own currencies! Society as a whole is stuck in debt-slavery! Neoliberal capitalism relies on social inequality to operate. There has to be an unemployed group to keep the employed in check. But how far must this inequality go? Well, looking at some of the worst Third World examples, death through destitution and starvation seem to be the markers! Could it really happen here? Check out some of the stories doing the Facebook rounds!

Reading through the blogs and comments on the web, my first shock is the building tension in the USA (of all places) over the rise in corporate wealth and power. Weren't they expecting it then? I was always led to believe that the average American was inculcated in the belief that more was good. Ergo, their global corporate beasts were great. Have they suddenly come to realise that corporate behemoths will take food out of the mouths of babies and children to feed themselves? That nationality means nothing? That flags, constitutions and democracy are meaningless? Wasn't that supposed to be a "good thing" that America "ruled the world"? 

My fear is that most of these very angry people are heading in the most dangerous direction. They seem to be baying for blood! Revolution is in the air and that's never a good thing if not properly coordinated and planned. The problem of "exit strategy" needs to be addressed. The "End Goal" needs to be formerly devised, agreed and ratified. Revolution run purely on adrenaline would only lead to unnecessary death and carnage and lead us back into a state of confusion from which would emerge yet another "strong leader"! Yet another psychopathic despot to "bring order"! Karl Marx and Rosa Luxembourg argued that there could not be a successful revolution without a politically aware proleteriat. We need to gather, organise, plan and execute! We can't just "kick ass"!

The problem of counter-revolution needs to be addressed. No revolution, however well intended, has managed to stem the counter-revolutionary. The individual, or group, that enjoins the revolutionary group to secure their own less-than-honourable ends. Stalin was just such a counter-revolutionary. His 'interpretation' of Marx was to kill anyone who disagreed with the Bolsheviks, and anything he decreed! Mao Tse Dung was just a power-hungry "emperor-in-waiting", as far as I could tell. To overthrow a despotic, imperial class and to ensconce himself in the same role as that of the recently deposed emperor hardly represents "mature communism".  

I have come to the conclusion that capitalists are all psychopathic. The genuine realities of unchecked capitalism are the total destruction of our peoples and our planet. I'm not too sure which will come soonest, but the inevitable outcome can only be total anihilation of human life on Earth. Governed by one or two huge corporations and a tiny number of rich elites, our planet will be stripped bare of anything they deem holds any "value". The people who work the land will be starved in favour of the rich, or disease-ridden, or crushed by unnecessary wars waged using automated killing machines and global destruction due to depleted resources. All pretty psychopathic outcomes, I feel. Plus, there really doesn't seem to be any reasoning with them! Profit is god. 

A question was posed by my sociology lecturer: "We've apparently reached the 'third stage'. What do you think might be the 'fourth'?" I wonder..........