A comment left on yesterday's post by Just Another Richard, got me thinking about what we mean by a "Dark Age." When you mention this term, most people think in terms of the supposed 'collapse' of 'civilisation' in Britain and Western Europe as usually presented by popular fiction. It usually features wild Norsemen (they actually came later) pillaging their way across Europe, brning houses, destroying towns and so on. Studying history, one quickly discovers it wasn't quite like that, at least not in most of Western Europe. Certainly certain structures vanished, like the Roman civic administration and, more slowly, the road network. Another casualty was written records and there was a certain loss of 'knowledge' as the scholars retreated Eastward to Byzantium, Alexandria and other places out of reach of the wave of invaders in the West.
So what do we mean by a "Dark Age"? The definition I prefer is that it is a period in which the structures of national and local government breakdown, lawlessness prevails, knowledge and understanding are diminished and the sciences stagnate. To this list should be added, there is a collapse of communal co-operation, individualism rules with the strongest preying on the weak as new power structures emerge, old one's crumble and even national ties loosen and change. All of these are identified in studies of the late Western Roman Empire and most are present in our society today. Another key element in the run up to a "Dark Age" is the loss of a single cultural identity as mass migration begins to change the face of communities and nations. This is, again, a feature of the late Roman collapse, eventually Northern Italy, Southern France and the Dalmation coast had a higher percentage of Visigoths, Celts, Franks and Vandal inhabitants - all with a culture alien to the Roman and Etruscan/Greek occupants - than there were of the original peoples.
Looking around us we see a similar pattern developing as our economic power declines, but our perceived 'wealth' attracts those seeking to escape poverty or oppression elsewhere. Just as with the Romans, there was initially some assimilation, but increasingly, the cultures of the 'host' nations are rejected and the very cultures which locked the newcomers into poverty at home are imposed onec again. Education is, it is said, now more universal than ever before, but it is also being weakened, by the attempts to 'broaden' appeal. Drop out rates from schools are worrying in many 'western' societies and, when you couple it to the lack of 'unskilled' jobs you realise that a latge 'underclass' of poorly educated and unskilled people is being created in the midst of perhaps, one of the greatest technological ages in human history.
Our political elites have lost the trust of the majority as well, creating the opportunity for 'alternative' political structures to emerge - like the "Pirate Party" in Germany, or the socio-political "NGOs" that Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, World Wildlife Fund and even some Aid organisations have become. No longer is the ballot box sufficient for the voters, now we must take to the streets for one cause or another, demanding 'action' on something the majority present rarely fully understand and with no regard for the consequences or ramifications if the 'issue' is dealt with in the manner usually 'popularly' demanded. Just as in the late Roman period, 'celebrity cults' have formed and are exploited to drive competing ideologies of the individual or the 'masses' - a clear indicator of a would be dictator lurking in wait.
The clear marks of a dark age are the breakdown of the political structures, the prevalence of unpunished crime, the failures of education to 'educate' and the collapse of moral authority. Perhaps Just Another Richard is right, a Dark Age is looming over us. How long it will endure remains to be seen, what will emerge from it I'm not sure those who currently hold sway in education, celebrity, politics and law will like it. But then, like the Roman elites, they'll probably decamp and leave the rest of us to suffer the consequences of their folly.
Thursday, 24 January 2013
Wednesday, 23 January 2013
The lost art of debate ...
Yesterday's post by VC, and the comments by Just Another Richard, highlight something other writers, and now an academmic study, have highlighted. There is another aspect to this, which can be traced back to the tactics embraced by politicians of the extremes to prevent dissent, discussion or questions. The old Soviet leaders used to give speeches lasting four or more hours. They never actually said much when you read the transcripts, about what they intended, but they focussed on all the 'evils' of dissent, of any other system, and repeated themselves over and over again. This is essentially what the internet 'trolls' and 'flamers' do and it is certainly what is happening in a wide range of political debates in the wider media.
It's about winning any argument by any means possible. Ideologically it is about denying any opponent the opportunity of putting across anything which might convince a listener that there might be an alternative point of view. The object of the exercise is to prevent that view from becoming known - so the first aim of the 'troll' is to derail the debate. If possible by pulling the discussion away from the point of discussion. The means to do this is to make the attack as personal as possible. It unbalances the opponent, annoys them and can lead to a response that allows them to distract the audience from the message. To the dedicated 'troll' the facts do not matter, truth does not matter, only their view counts, only their view is valid and they will go to any length to silence the opposition, or to destroy their message.
The internet is the ideal medium for many such individuals, since they can make their extremely unpleasant attacks from behind a cloak of anonymity. Often these ad hominen attacks would be actionable under libel laws and sometimes they even contain threats of violence and even murder. Why can they not be controlled, followed up by police or prosecuted? Put simply, all too often these attacks originate from some often sad individual operating from an internet cafe, or some other equally 'mobile' address making tracing them difficult. Those that do not, often use 'proxy' servers to hide their locations and multiple identities to cloak their real names.
Examples abound, the most prominent example is probably the 'debate' on 'climate change' where anyone who does not toe the Greenpeace/IPCC/Friends of the Earth Party line so ably fronted by the likes of Al Gore, must be 'flamed' and 'trolled' as soon as they dare to express any doubts about some of the claims bandied about. Anthony Watt's, the owner of the blog "Watts Up With That," has even had suggestions from a supporter of Anthropogenic Global Warming, that he engages in questioable moral activities. More recently, he has found himself being deliberately misreported and misrepresented - with a wide range of insulting epithets thrown in for good measure. I have found myself on the receiving end of this sort of attack, though not quite to the same level of vituperation.
Then there is the question of whether or not governments should be able to control, restrict or lock down the internet. I for one would oppose that simply on the grounds that no government can be trusted to do that and certainly no bureaucrat should be trusted to do so even if one could be found who is competent to do it.
To some extent this is emerging on television as well. Watching some 'interviews' and 'discussion panels' has become an exercise in annoyance and - for me - anger management. Some interviewers are so transparently pushing a particular view or ideology that it is disgraceful that we actually have to pay a licence fee to watch it. The tactics are simple; never listen to the answer, interupt as soon as a point counter to yours is being made, accuse the interviewee of untruth or obfuscation, and drag them off into trivia and minutiae so that the message is lost in the noise. The hosility is so obvious in some debates that one wonders why the 'target' even bothers to try to debate. The list of these so-called 'debates' is endless, just look at any 'discussion' on politics, religion, morality. Everything is polarised and the name of the game is to be as rude as possible, as negative as possible about the opposing view, and to back your argument with as little truth or fact as possible.
To my way of thinking the real problem here lies in the loss of courtesy and respect for one another. The more we are told we have to 'respect' this or that minority, the less respect seems to result for anyone. Post modern thinking seems to run along the lines now of 'win at any price' and this means that in everything the biggest bully wins. That is not a healthy society.
We live in an age where access to information has never been easier or as wide. Yet, from the comments one regularly sees on news posts, on FaceBook and in various online forums, many of those who go down the 'troll' and 'flamer' approach are ill-informed and have no wish to be informed. Their philosophy is often best described as "don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up." As VC said yesterday, the internet is, by and large, a very good thing, but it is also the vehicle for vast amounts of misinformation, propaganda and cyber bullying. Regulation is unlikely to change that, but teaching people to look more carefully at their sources, to be more discerning and to show some respect for others, may. We need to get away from the "deconstructionist" mindset and return to a realisation that 'debate' means giving equal weight to all sides of an argument. I won't hold my breath though, it will require a complete change in social attitudes to strip out the taught 'deconstructionism, moral relativism and win at all costs' form of debate.
In the meantime I will adopt the same approach as other bloggers with a higher profile than mine. I will continue to express my views here and permit those who post to do so as well. We will not 'feed the trolls' by responding to them and any troll or flamer who posts here can expect to not see his/her comment appear.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/18/reader-poll-should-i-sue-the-pants-off-greg-laden/
It's about winning any argument by any means possible. Ideologically it is about denying any opponent the opportunity of putting across anything which might convince a listener that there might be an alternative point of view. The object of the exercise is to prevent that view from becoming known - so the first aim of the 'troll' is to derail the debate. If possible by pulling the discussion away from the point of discussion. The means to do this is to make the attack as personal as possible. It unbalances the opponent, annoys them and can lead to a response that allows them to distract the audience from the message. To the dedicated 'troll' the facts do not matter, truth does not matter, only their view counts, only their view is valid and they will go to any length to silence the opposition, or to destroy their message.
The internet is the ideal medium for many such individuals, since they can make their extremely unpleasant attacks from behind a cloak of anonymity. Often these ad hominen attacks would be actionable under libel laws and sometimes they even contain threats of violence and even murder. Why can they not be controlled, followed up by police or prosecuted? Put simply, all too often these attacks originate from some often sad individual operating from an internet cafe, or some other equally 'mobile' address making tracing them difficult. Those that do not, often use 'proxy' servers to hide their locations and multiple identities to cloak their real names.
Examples abound, the most prominent example is probably the 'debate' on 'climate change' where anyone who does not toe the Greenpeace/IPCC/Friends of the Earth Party line so ably fronted by the likes of Al Gore, must be 'flamed' and 'trolled' as soon as they dare to express any doubts about some of the claims bandied about. Anthony Watt's, the owner of the blog "Watts Up With That," has even had suggestions from a supporter of Anthropogenic Global Warming, that he engages in questioable moral activities. More recently, he has found himself being deliberately misreported and misrepresented - with a wide range of insulting epithets thrown in for good measure. I have found myself on the receiving end of this sort of attack, though not quite to the same level of vituperation.
Then there is the question of whether or not governments should be able to control, restrict or lock down the internet. I for one would oppose that simply on the grounds that no government can be trusted to do that and certainly no bureaucrat should be trusted to do so even if one could be found who is competent to do it.
To some extent this is emerging on television as well. Watching some 'interviews' and 'discussion panels' has become an exercise in annoyance and - for me - anger management. Some interviewers are so transparently pushing a particular view or ideology that it is disgraceful that we actually have to pay a licence fee to watch it. The tactics are simple; never listen to the answer, interupt as soon as a point counter to yours is being made, accuse the interviewee of untruth or obfuscation, and drag them off into trivia and minutiae so that the message is lost in the noise. The hosility is so obvious in some debates that one wonders why the 'target' even bothers to try to debate. The list of these so-called 'debates' is endless, just look at any 'discussion' on politics, religion, morality. Everything is polarised and the name of the game is to be as rude as possible, as negative as possible about the opposing view, and to back your argument with as little truth or fact as possible.
To my way of thinking the real problem here lies in the loss of courtesy and respect for one another. The more we are told we have to 'respect' this or that minority, the less respect seems to result for anyone. Post modern thinking seems to run along the lines now of 'win at any price' and this means that in everything the biggest bully wins. That is not a healthy society.
We live in an age where access to information has never been easier or as wide. Yet, from the comments one regularly sees on news posts, on FaceBook and in various online forums, many of those who go down the 'troll' and 'flamer' approach are ill-informed and have no wish to be informed. Their philosophy is often best described as "don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up." As VC said yesterday, the internet is, by and large, a very good thing, but it is also the vehicle for vast amounts of misinformation, propaganda and cyber bullying. Regulation is unlikely to change that, but teaching people to look more carefully at their sources, to be more discerning and to show some respect for others, may. We need to get away from the "deconstructionist" mindset and return to a realisation that 'debate' means giving equal weight to all sides of an argument. I won't hold my breath though, it will require a complete change in social attitudes to strip out the taught 'deconstructionism, moral relativism and win at all costs' form of debate.
In the meantime I will adopt the same approach as other bloggers with a higher profile than mine. I will continue to express my views here and permit those who post to do so as well. We will not 'feed the trolls' by responding to them and any troll or flamer who posts here can expect to not see his/her comment appear.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/18/reader-poll-should-i-sue-the-pants-off-greg-laden/
Tuesday, 22 January 2013
Keep Calm... and admit you don't know the answer
The internet is a wonderful thing. I think that the sum total of the good and bad that the internet has done will be positive in the long run. It is a privilege to live in a time where technology has enabled so much freedom to share useful information, from academic institutions down to individuals who love their chosen subjects enough to have studied them in great depth and who can share their findings with others. I hope that as more and more of the world is connected to the internet, the good will continue to grow.
But...
I'm afraid there is a big but. It could even be spelt with two t's, since it generally leaves me feeling like I've been exposed to the excreta of the human hivemind.
First of all there's the crime. I'm not an expert on this so I'll gloss over it and allow people involved in police work to give far better accounts. I've been told that there are not enough police in the UK to handle the levels of crime, of all different kinds, that are being conducted online. If this is true, then the internet is in need of taming, a bit like the Wild West, before we can fully enjoy the benefits that it can bring. How? I don't know!
Then there's the bullying. People used to just get bullied at school or at work. Now it follows them home and hounds them across the internet. Children are being driven to suicide by this. Curiously, online bullies are spread across all age groups, not just kids, so there's no easy cultural or social ill for the media to blame (video games, working parents, teachers etc etc). A particularly good blog post, which then went viral and triggered a lovely, positive response from the hivemind, can be found here: http://www.amandapalmer.net/blog/20130105/
And this leads me to the behaviour that prompted this post. I've been an active netizen since 2002. I've revelled in debates, commented on news items and generally enjoyed explanding my mind and hearing others' opinions for all of that time. Very early on, I was introduced to the rules of debate (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html) and taught not to devolve into insulting people just because their opinion differed to mine. The forum that I frequented at the time was relatively civilized for a year or two, because the moderators enforced the rules of debate with great energy. Sadly that forum eventually collapsed and I haven't found another one where you could have a sensible debate for 10 years.
At the same time, more and more people have joined online debates, on every newspaper website, blog or forum and I've noticed some disturbing trends. Let's take a look at some innocuous stories first. A professor who is studying the internet to try to work out what makes some stories go viral is approached by his kids and asked for a puppy. He thinks, based on his experience, that he can slow them down by saying "if you get 1 million likes on Facebook, you can have a puppy". His estimate that that would buy him some time so he could get a puppy in Spring instead of now backfired and they got 1 million likes in 7 hours. An amusing little tale, which should have been enjoyable, cute etc. What kind of comments does this kind of article attract online?
"The kids were cute, and good for them for showing they could do it. But....
But...
I'm afraid there is a big but. It could even be spelt with two t's, since it generally leaves me feeling like I've been exposed to the excreta of the human hivemind.
First of all there's the crime. I'm not an expert on this so I'll gloss over it and allow people involved in police work to give far better accounts. I've been told that there are not enough police in the UK to handle the levels of crime, of all different kinds, that are being conducted online. If this is true, then the internet is in need of taming, a bit like the Wild West, before we can fully enjoy the benefits that it can bring. How? I don't know!
Then there's the bullying. People used to just get bullied at school or at work. Now it follows them home and hounds them across the internet. Children are being driven to suicide by this. Curiously, online bullies are spread across all age groups, not just kids, so there's no easy cultural or social ill for the media to blame (video games, working parents, teachers etc etc). A particularly good blog post, which then went viral and triggered a lovely, positive response from the hivemind, can be found here: http://www.amandapalmer.net/blog/20130105/
And this leads me to the behaviour that prompted this post. I've been an active netizen since 2002. I've revelled in debates, commented on news items and generally enjoyed explanding my mind and hearing others' opinions for all of that time. Very early on, I was introduced to the rules of debate (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html) and taught not to devolve into insulting people just because their opinion differed to mine. The forum that I frequented at the time was relatively civilized for a year or two, because the moderators enforced the rules of debate with great energy. Sadly that forum eventually collapsed and I haven't found another one where you could have a sensible debate for 10 years.
At the same time, more and more people have joined online debates, on every newspaper website, blog or forum and I've noticed some disturbing trends. Let's take a look at some innocuous stories first. A professor who is studying the internet to try to work out what makes some stories go viral is approached by his kids and asked for a puppy. He thinks, based on his experience, that he can slow them down by saying "if you get 1 million likes on Facebook, you can have a puppy". His estimate that that would buy him some time so he could get a puppy in Spring instead of now backfired and they got 1 million likes in 7 hours. An amusing little tale, which should have been enjoyable, cute etc. What kind of comments does this kind of article attract online?
"The kids were cute, and good for them for showing they could do it. But....
Monday, 21 January 2013
'Engineered' Solutions ...
During the latter part of my career one of the 'new' approaches to life and property protection was the adoption of the "fire engineered solution" as a substitute for the so-called "prescriptive" approach to fire protection. The problem is that, all toooften, the motive was to reduce the cost of construction and not to ensure adequate protection. "Risk Based" solutions was the new buzz-phrase and a "risk assessment" was generally produced to support the non-provision of a wide range of protection measures. I annoyed some of those who believed everything could be reduced to 'ticks in a box" to support their idea of a "fire engineered solution" by having this definition on the wall in my office -
One of the pioneers of this field, a professor, saw it and took a copy to use in his lectures, an endorsement for caution in my view.
That view has recently been reinforced by the debacle of the new Berlin Brandenburg Airport. Scheduled to open in 2012, it will now not be open until 2015 at the earliest - and that assumes there are no further problems exposed as they attempt to put right what was wrong in the first place.
The problem is the fire protection. It was "engineered" and a lot of the fire barriers that would usually have subdivided spaces to slow down fire spread, have not been included in the design. The sprinkler system has been designed to a minimum and the heads placed at a height where it is unlikely they will respond to anything timeously. The smoke extraction system, a key element, is also found to be deficient and, despite repeated warnings from the responsible Fire Service, the whole scheme was rushed ahead without taking any notice of the objections. In response to the objections, the fire officer was told, 'its an "engineered" solution. It will all work when it is completed."
The result is that, less than 24 hours before the airport was due to be opened with a great fanfare and all the usual dignitaries making speeches - the Fire Brigade pulled the plug and refused to sign the safety certification. That was a year ago. The project is now running several billion €uro over budget, the Chairman of the Project Committee (the Mayor of Berlin) has resigned and more heads are likely to roll as it continues. There was enormous pressure on the fire officers to 'sign' and accept the 'engineered solution.' Based on their assessment - a thorough and very detailed review of the plans and systems and finally a 'hot smoke' test - they refused, and they have been proved right. The tests have proved the fire service was right all along. The "engineered" solution doesn't work.
One of the biggest problems is the smoke control system, which, for aesthetic reasons was not to have any roof mounted ducts, was supposed to pull the hot smoke down into under floor ducting and discharge it in 'towers' at strategic points. Anyone who has experience of dealing with hot smoke will tell you this is NOT the best way to try to handle hot smoke. For one thing, it is difficult to "pull" it into a duct, for another, it wants to go upward - and the ducts create turbulence at the intakes which means you're mixing air, increasing the volume of the smoke. No wonder it failed the tests.
One can only wonder, in the light of this experience, how many other "fire engineered solutions" may prove totally deficient if put to the ultimate test - a real catastrophic event.
In the meantime, the Berlin Brandenburg Airport remains closed. Many of the systems have to be pulled out, redesigned and totally replaced. Many of the buildings require major alteration or reconstruction and the taxpayers are picking up the tab. On top of this, the 'concession' shops had all been let, the tennants pressured into installing their fittings and stock and hiring staff - which is now all standing idle and costing ... If it all goes to schedule, and provided the government keeps paying, the airport now looks likely to open three years late and some €2 billion over the original €3 billion cost.
Probably not the best advert for the design team, the "fire engineers" involved or the Project Managers, who, just to add insult to injury, are all civil service bureaucrats.
Fire Safety Engineering
The art of manipulating processes, materials and systems to protect buildings and people from events we cannot fully assess or anticipate, into models and structures we do not fully understand, in such a way the public at large has no reason to suspect the depth of our ignorance.
One of the pioneers of this field, a professor, saw it and took a copy to use in his lectures, an endorsement for caution in my view.
That view has recently been reinforced by the debacle of the new Berlin Brandenburg Airport. Scheduled to open in 2012, it will now not be open until 2015 at the earliest - and that assumes there are no further problems exposed as they attempt to put right what was wrong in the first place.
The problem is the fire protection. It was "engineered" and a lot of the fire barriers that would usually have subdivided spaces to slow down fire spread, have not been included in the design. The sprinkler system has been designed to a minimum and the heads placed at a height where it is unlikely they will respond to anything timeously. The smoke extraction system, a key element, is also found to be deficient and, despite repeated warnings from the responsible Fire Service, the whole scheme was rushed ahead without taking any notice of the objections. In response to the objections, the fire officer was told, 'its an "engineered" solution. It will all work when it is completed."
The result is that, less than 24 hours before the airport was due to be opened with a great fanfare and all the usual dignitaries making speeches - the Fire Brigade pulled the plug and refused to sign the safety certification. That was a year ago. The project is now running several billion €uro over budget, the Chairman of the Project Committee (the Mayor of Berlin) has resigned and more heads are likely to roll as it continues. There was enormous pressure on the fire officers to 'sign' and accept the 'engineered solution.' Based on their assessment - a thorough and very detailed review of the plans and systems and finally a 'hot smoke' test - they refused, and they have been proved right. The tests have proved the fire service was right all along. The "engineered" solution doesn't work.
One of the biggest problems is the smoke control system, which, for aesthetic reasons was not to have any roof mounted ducts, was supposed to pull the hot smoke down into under floor ducting and discharge it in 'towers' at strategic points. Anyone who has experience of dealing with hot smoke will tell you this is NOT the best way to try to handle hot smoke. For one thing, it is difficult to "pull" it into a duct, for another, it wants to go upward - and the ducts create turbulence at the intakes which means you're mixing air, increasing the volume of the smoke. No wonder it failed the tests.
One can only wonder, in the light of this experience, how many other "fire engineered solutions" may prove totally deficient if put to the ultimate test - a real catastrophic event.
In the meantime, the Berlin Brandenburg Airport remains closed. Many of the systems have to be pulled out, redesigned and totally replaced. Many of the buildings require major alteration or reconstruction and the taxpayers are picking up the tab. On top of this, the 'concession' shops had all been let, the tennants pressured into installing their fittings and stock and hiring staff - which is now all standing idle and costing ... If it all goes to schedule, and provided the government keeps paying, the airport now looks likely to open three years late and some €2 billion over the original €3 billion cost.
Probably not the best advert for the design team, the "fire engineers" involved or the Project Managers, who, just to add insult to injury, are all civil service bureaucrats.
Sunday, 20 January 2013
The Papacy in the Third Millenium
I found this fascinating article on the Blog Archbishop Cranmer, and I have taken literally the invitation in the tail of it in reposting it in its entirety here. Written by a Roman Catholic insider he flags up everything that has always concerned me about Rome and its claims of supremacy and exclusivity in the Eucharist and the ordinariate.
Will the Next Pope Become the Vatican’s Last Pope?
The next pope, expected soon by many, will apparently be the last imperial pope elected. Thereafter, the Catholic hierarchy will likely be compelled to adopt power-sharing reforms under accelerating pressure, including from political leaders in Australia, Ireland, Germany and soon likely the USA, as well. The percentage of voting Cardinals in the Vatican, mostly Italians, has increased considerably during Benedict XVI’s short tenure. This has fortified the Vatican Cardinal clique’s veto grip on the next papal election, which likely will be of an initially younger, longer serving, but similarly imperial, pope.
Benedict XVI’s evident enhancement of the papal election veto threat by his selection of new voting Cardinals helps explain in retrospect the apparent support of long time Vatican powers, Cardinal Sodano, et al., for the elderly current German pope’s election in 2005. This support had been surprising to some, given the earlier reported disputes between them over investigating Cardinal Groer and Father Maciel, two notorious sexual predators. Groer and Maciel had also been strongly supported by Pope John Paul II. The Vatican clique’s enhanced veto power tends to assure that their next hand-picked pope can be expected to continue to run the Catholic Church dictatorially, mainly to maximize the wealth and power of Vatican Cardinals and their subservient, but well rewarded, Cardinal accomplices worldwide.
Italian Cardinals in 1870 lost to a nationalist army their political control over the lucrative Papal States. But these Cardinals and their carefully chosen Italian successors, including Cardinals Ottaviani and Sodano for much of the last half century, have shrewdly managed to recover and even expand their power and wealth since 1870. The Vatican clique has significantly strengthened its already tight grip on the worldwide Roman Holy Empire, with its considerable wealth and political influence, so far at least. In the process, the clique has also succeeded in helping to undermine the overwhelming approvals of the 1966 papal birth control commission of contraception and of the 2,500+ Vatican II bishops of effective power-sharing among the pope and bishops and also to undercut the strong support for making celibacy optional for priests. Very significantly, however, the Vatican clique also has failed to curtail effectively the massive worldwide scandal of priest sexual assaults on trusting children.
Ironically, by the end of World War I in 1918 after a half-century “voluntary imprisonment’ in Vatican City, these Cardinals were finally free of all effective European monarchical controls that had restrained papal power often over a millennium and a half. Beginning in the late 1920′s, the Vatican clique began to expand its political influence and wealth by trading “spiritual” electoral support for local privileges, powers and subsidies, beginning with European facist leaders like Mussolini, Hitler and Franco, right up to the recent effort to dump President Obama to elect a “papally friendlier” Mitt Romney. No longer after 1918 did the Vatican clique regularly have to bend to foreign rulers on bishops’ appointments or to accept related foreign interference in Vatican matters, making the Vatican clique’s power almost unprecedented in Catholic Church history. This may dramatically change soon.
Ongoing developments indicate that electing a new pope now, who would appear to be just another puppet of the imperial Vatican clique, would likely lead rapidly to the end of the Roman Holy Empire. These ongoing developments include: (A) the continuing disclosures of the Catholic hierarchy’s worldwide criminal conspiracies, (B) the imminent end of papal primacy and the return of accountability, (C) the steady restoration of scriptural primacy and simple Gospel values, and (D) the increasing loss of effective Vatican political power worldwide.
_____________________________________________________ —————————————————————————————–
(A) The Disclosures of the Catholic Hierarchy’s Criminal Conspiracies
International prosecutors, government investigators and/or abuse survivors’ lawyers will likely continue their relentless pursuit of key Cardinals, including perhaps the pope, for child endangerment abuse cover-up practices and for bank money laundering and other financial crimes.
Pressure will continue to mount from:
(1) the ongoing revelations from the major governmental investigation commission in Australia (and probably soon in the USA as well), which will override non-disclosure agreements and compel testimony, including about the details of communications between the local hierarchy and Vatican officials;
(2) the Los Angeles Archdiocesan file revelations underlying the $660 million abuse settlement and including hundreds of previously secret and unredacted abuse related files;
(3) the award winning HBO documentary (“Mea Maxima Culpa”) about over 200 deaf Milwaukee boys sexually abused by a single priest that will begin airing internationally on February 4, which includes details of the failure of the current pope’s former CDF department to deal effectively and expeditiously with the evident predator, as well as the clip of the pope earlier slapping an ABC-TV reporter for daring to press him on the status of Father Maciel’s almost fifty-year old investigation;
(4) the seemingly unending bizarre saga of Cardinal Rigali’s former Philly Archdiocesean priests’ ongoing child sexual abuse and/or child endangerment criminal trials, and the related blatant perjury and document destruction admissions;
(5) the ongoing stonewalling by German bishops apparently to keep independent investigators like Professor Pfeiffer from getting to the Munich and Regensburg files of the Ratzinger brothers;
(6) New York Cardinal Dolan’s shameful and failed effort to try illegally to keep millions of dollars of Milwaukee funds from abuse survivors, including some of the 200 deaf boys mentioned above;
(7) the continuation in office of Kansas City Bishop Finn after his conviction for a child endangerment related crime, despite the demands of many local Catholics that he be removed;
(8) the arrest of Cardinal Egan’s and Archbishop Lori’s former Bridgeport top aide, Monsignor Wallin, reportedly a cross dressing, porn distributing, alleged drug dealer;
(9) the appointment of one of disgraced Cardinal Law’s former canon lawyers as the new chief Vatican prosecutor of predatory priests; and
(10) inevitably more obscene revelations related to the foregoing, that will just add more fuel to the demand for more and stronger prosecutorial efforts worldwide against the Catholic hierarchy.
(B) The End of Papal Primacy and the Restoration of Accountability
Anticipated disclosures from these prosecutorial proceedings from previously secret Vatican documents and likely sworn testimony from Vatican employees, such as the papal butler who can be expected to reveal more especially after Gorgeous Georg’s surprising promotion to Archbishop, and notwithstanding the apparent effort to buy the butler’s silence with a new Catholic hospital position in Rome, appear likely to raise more issues of greater papal culpability.
These issues will then serve to buttress the increasingly widely disseminated historical and scriptural evidence that shows clearly that “divine origin” claims for papal authority are mainly unsupportable. The imminent collapse of papal credibility and authority will likely lead more Catholics to revisit and to seek to restore the structure that Jesus and his first disciples left behind intentionally, where local church gatherings were overseen by locally selected and accountable leaders, both male and female.
The weaknesses of the papal primacy claims, both scripturally and historically, have recently been very effectively summarized in the outstanding new book by a promising young theologian, entitled,”Democracy in the Christian Church: An Historical, Theological and Political Case”, accessible for free in part at http://amzn.com/0567449521
(C) The Restoration of Scriptural Primacy and Simple Gospel Values
Catholicism is based mainly on the reported history in the New Testament of a unique person, Jesus, and his early disciples. No pope or hierarchy can change or override that, even if they too often try to avoid or misapply the New Testament. The words of the New Testament are there for all to read.
Having despaired of the loss of papal credibility, more Catholics will now acknowledge the increasingly significant historical and scriptural evidence concerning the Eucharist. This evidence makes clear that for Jesus and his initial disciples, the Eucharist Meal was not intended to be an event mainly to be monopolized and controlled by a “mystical” celibate male priesthood managed tightly by an opportunistic and unaccountable hierarchy. For the current Vatican, the Eucharistic Meal appears too often to be mainly a weekly fundraising event for overly trusting Catholics dominated by low-paid priests that the hierarchy appears to believe must be protected and supported blindly, even when they sexually abuse children.
Once the true Eucharist history and the essential role of the assembled Christian fellowship first reported in Chapters 10 and 11 of Paul’s earliest Epistle, First Corinthians, are fully appreciated and broadly acknowledged by more Catholics, as is already happening, it will become clearer that the top-down Catholic hierarchy is a mostly unnecessary and, too often parasitic, accident of medieval history that Catholics should just consider sweeping into the dustbin of church history.
(D) The Loss of Effective Vatican Papal Political Power
The Vatican is increasingly and regularly losing its political influence, as evidenced by significant recent Vatican political failures in Ireland, Australia, the Philippines and the USA, make very clear. For more on this, please read my statement, “A Taboo, a New Pope and a Truer Church”, accessible by clicking either on the heading on the top of this essay or clicking on:http://wp.me/P2YEZ3-8A
For the reasons discussed above, Catholics following Gospel mandates will, and morally are obligated to, steadily transfer their financial and other support from the imperial top-down Vatican church hierarchical structures that Constantine left behind to competing non-hierarchical church structures that conform more closely to the Gospel values that Jesus left behind. Without weekly Catholics’ contributions that currently depend on a rigged purported monopoly on the Eucharist offered exclusively by often excessively obedient celibate males supporting a self-interested and mostly unnecessary hierarchy, the current Roman Holy Empire will wither away over time, with a little help from prosecutors.
In the near term, the gates of hell will not prevail against the current hierarchy. Instead, prosecutors will open hell’s gates for entry by those in the hierarchy who have earned it. True Christian Catholics will then get on with restoring the Catholic Church to conform to the Spirit the first disciples left behind.
Readers are respectfully asked to forward this essay widely and/or to include links to it or quotes from it in suitable comments on other websites, as deemed appropriate.
Will the Next Pope Become the Vatican’s Last Pope?
The next pope, expected soon by many, will apparently be the last imperial pope elected. Thereafter, the Catholic hierarchy will likely be compelled to adopt power-sharing reforms under accelerating pressure, including from political leaders in Australia, Ireland, Germany and soon likely the USA, as well. The percentage of voting Cardinals in the Vatican, mostly Italians, has increased considerably during Benedict XVI’s short tenure. This has fortified the Vatican Cardinal clique’s veto grip on the next papal election, which likely will be of an initially younger, longer serving, but similarly imperial, pope.
Benedict XVI’s evident enhancement of the papal election veto threat by his selection of new voting Cardinals helps explain in retrospect the apparent support of long time Vatican powers, Cardinal Sodano, et al., for the elderly current German pope’s election in 2005. This support had been surprising to some, given the earlier reported disputes between them over investigating Cardinal Groer and Father Maciel, two notorious sexual predators. Groer and Maciel had also been strongly supported by Pope John Paul II. The Vatican clique’s enhanced veto power tends to assure that their next hand-picked pope can be expected to continue to run the Catholic Church dictatorially, mainly to maximize the wealth and power of Vatican Cardinals and their subservient, but well rewarded, Cardinal accomplices worldwide.
Italian Cardinals in 1870 lost to a nationalist army their political control over the lucrative Papal States. But these Cardinals and their carefully chosen Italian successors, including Cardinals Ottaviani and Sodano for much of the last half century, have shrewdly managed to recover and even expand their power and wealth since 1870. The Vatican clique has significantly strengthened its already tight grip on the worldwide Roman Holy Empire, with its considerable wealth and political influence, so far at least. In the process, the clique has also succeeded in helping to undermine the overwhelming approvals of the 1966 papal birth control commission of contraception and of the 2,500+ Vatican II bishops of effective power-sharing among the pope and bishops and also to undercut the strong support for making celibacy optional for priests. Very significantly, however, the Vatican clique also has failed to curtail effectively the massive worldwide scandal of priest sexual assaults on trusting children.
Ironically, by the end of World War I in 1918 after a half-century “voluntary imprisonment’ in Vatican City, these Cardinals were finally free of all effective European monarchical controls that had restrained papal power often over a millennium and a half. Beginning in the late 1920′s, the Vatican clique began to expand its political influence and wealth by trading “spiritual” electoral support for local privileges, powers and subsidies, beginning with European facist leaders like Mussolini, Hitler and Franco, right up to the recent effort to dump President Obama to elect a “papally friendlier” Mitt Romney. No longer after 1918 did the Vatican clique regularly have to bend to foreign rulers on bishops’ appointments or to accept related foreign interference in Vatican matters, making the Vatican clique’s power almost unprecedented in Catholic Church history. This may dramatically change soon.
Ongoing developments indicate that electing a new pope now, who would appear to be just another puppet of the imperial Vatican clique, would likely lead rapidly to the end of the Roman Holy Empire. These ongoing developments include: (A) the continuing disclosures of the Catholic hierarchy’s worldwide criminal conspiracies, (B) the imminent end of papal primacy and the return of accountability, (C) the steady restoration of scriptural primacy and simple Gospel values, and (D) the increasing loss of effective Vatican political power worldwide.
_____________________________________________________ —————————————————————————————–
(A) The Disclosures of the Catholic Hierarchy’s Criminal Conspiracies
International prosecutors, government investigators and/or abuse survivors’ lawyers will likely continue their relentless pursuit of key Cardinals, including perhaps the pope, for child endangerment abuse cover-up practices and for bank money laundering and other financial crimes.
Pressure will continue to mount from:
(1) the ongoing revelations from the major governmental investigation commission in Australia (and probably soon in the USA as well), which will override non-disclosure agreements and compel testimony, including about the details of communications between the local hierarchy and Vatican officials;
(2) the Los Angeles Archdiocesan file revelations underlying the $660 million abuse settlement and including hundreds of previously secret and unredacted abuse related files;
(3) the award winning HBO documentary (“Mea Maxima Culpa”) about over 200 deaf Milwaukee boys sexually abused by a single priest that will begin airing internationally on February 4, which includes details of the failure of the current pope’s former CDF department to deal effectively and expeditiously with the evident predator, as well as the clip of the pope earlier slapping an ABC-TV reporter for daring to press him on the status of Father Maciel’s almost fifty-year old investigation;
(4) the seemingly unending bizarre saga of Cardinal Rigali’s former Philly Archdiocesean priests’ ongoing child sexual abuse and/or child endangerment criminal trials, and the related blatant perjury and document destruction admissions;
(5) the ongoing stonewalling by German bishops apparently to keep independent investigators like Professor Pfeiffer from getting to the Munich and Regensburg files of the Ratzinger brothers;
(6) New York Cardinal Dolan’s shameful and failed effort to try illegally to keep millions of dollars of Milwaukee funds from abuse survivors, including some of the 200 deaf boys mentioned above;
(7) the continuation in office of Kansas City Bishop Finn after his conviction for a child endangerment related crime, despite the demands of many local Catholics that he be removed;
(8) the arrest of Cardinal Egan’s and Archbishop Lori’s former Bridgeport top aide, Monsignor Wallin, reportedly a cross dressing, porn distributing, alleged drug dealer;
(9) the appointment of one of disgraced Cardinal Law’s former canon lawyers as the new chief Vatican prosecutor of predatory priests; and
(10) inevitably more obscene revelations related to the foregoing, that will just add more fuel to the demand for more and stronger prosecutorial efforts worldwide against the Catholic hierarchy.
(B) The End of Papal Primacy and the Restoration of Accountability
Anticipated disclosures from these prosecutorial proceedings from previously secret Vatican documents and likely sworn testimony from Vatican employees, such as the papal butler who can be expected to reveal more especially after Gorgeous Georg’s surprising promotion to Archbishop, and notwithstanding the apparent effort to buy the butler’s silence with a new Catholic hospital position in Rome, appear likely to raise more issues of greater papal culpability.
These issues will then serve to buttress the increasingly widely disseminated historical and scriptural evidence that shows clearly that “divine origin” claims for papal authority are mainly unsupportable. The imminent collapse of papal credibility and authority will likely lead more Catholics to revisit and to seek to restore the structure that Jesus and his first disciples left behind intentionally, where local church gatherings were overseen by locally selected and accountable leaders, both male and female.
The weaknesses of the papal primacy claims, both scripturally and historically, have recently been very effectively summarized in the outstanding new book by a promising young theologian, entitled,”Democracy in the Christian Church: An Historical, Theological and Political Case”, accessible for free in part at http://amzn.com/0567449521
(C) The Restoration of Scriptural Primacy and Simple Gospel Values
Catholicism is based mainly on the reported history in the New Testament of a unique person, Jesus, and his early disciples. No pope or hierarchy can change or override that, even if they too often try to avoid or misapply the New Testament. The words of the New Testament are there for all to read.
Having despaired of the loss of papal credibility, more Catholics will now acknowledge the increasingly significant historical and scriptural evidence concerning the Eucharist. This evidence makes clear that for Jesus and his initial disciples, the Eucharist Meal was not intended to be an event mainly to be monopolized and controlled by a “mystical” celibate male priesthood managed tightly by an opportunistic and unaccountable hierarchy. For the current Vatican, the Eucharistic Meal appears too often to be mainly a weekly fundraising event for overly trusting Catholics dominated by low-paid priests that the hierarchy appears to believe must be protected and supported blindly, even when they sexually abuse children.
Once the true Eucharist history and the essential role of the assembled Christian fellowship first reported in Chapters 10 and 11 of Paul’s earliest Epistle, First Corinthians, are fully appreciated and broadly acknowledged by more Catholics, as is already happening, it will become clearer that the top-down Catholic hierarchy is a mostly unnecessary and, too often parasitic, accident of medieval history that Catholics should just consider sweeping into the dustbin of church history.
(D) The Loss of Effective Vatican Papal Political Power
The Vatican is increasingly and regularly losing its political influence, as evidenced by significant recent Vatican political failures in Ireland, Australia, the Philippines and the USA, make very clear. For more on this, please read my statement, “A Taboo, a New Pope and a Truer Church”, accessible by clicking either on the heading on the top of this essay or clicking on:http://wp.me/P2YEZ3-8A
For the reasons discussed above, Catholics following Gospel mandates will, and morally are obligated to, steadily transfer their financial and other support from the imperial top-down Vatican church hierarchical structures that Constantine left behind to competing non-hierarchical church structures that conform more closely to the Gospel values that Jesus left behind. Without weekly Catholics’ contributions that currently depend on a rigged purported monopoly on the Eucharist offered exclusively by often excessively obedient celibate males supporting a self-interested and mostly unnecessary hierarchy, the current Roman Holy Empire will wither away over time, with a little help from prosecutors.
In the near term, the gates of hell will not prevail against the current hierarchy. Instead, prosecutors will open hell’s gates for entry by those in the hierarchy who have earned it. True Christian Catholics will then get on with restoring the Catholic Church to conform to the Spirit the first disciples left behind.
Readers are respectfully asked to forward this essay widely and/or to include links to it or quotes from it in suitable comments on other websites, as deemed appropriate.
The only thing I would point out to Roman Catholics wishing to find a valid alternative 'home' is that both the Anglican Churches and the Old Catholic Bishoprics already offer the faith described in the penultimate paragraph.
Saturday, 19 January 2013
Harry at School ...
Harry is getting bolder as he grows, and now there are other Shelties to play with, he's joining in a bit more of the rough and tumble. Today saw him joining in the chase and catch games this breed love to play, though he's still unsure about the racing through tunnels ...
And if things get a little too rough, you can always dodge between someone's feet. Sure fire way to slow the bigger guys down ...
And if things get a little too rough, you can always dodge between someone's feet. Sure fire way to slow the bigger guys down ...
Friday, 18 January 2013
Expectations ...
Those of us who grew up in the immediate post-war period of the 1950s and 60s, did so with the expectation that, at 65, we would be able to retire and draw a pension we'd contributed toward, just as our parents had. We also expected to be able to buy our own homes, perhaps even moving up the property ladder from what our parents had. We expected to own a car, enjoy a career and we were raised with the expectation that there would always be a 'job' or, if we were lucky, a career for us.
It wasn't unreasonable of us to expect that our children would have the same opportunities and expectations. Or was it? In the light of the current economic mess we're experiencing, perhaps it was.
Talking to the present generation - our kids - one quickly discovers that they have a wide range of things to face that we did not. The first is the difficulty in finding employment, any employment. Even those leaving university with qualifications commerce and industry can use are struggling, and those with a more technical bent are struggling to stay employed. More and more businesses are falling back on the supermarket trick of employing largely "part time" staff which allows them to pay minimum wages and reduces the overall cost of employing someone - since you don't have to provide a career path or cover pension investments among other things.
Heavy industries are almost an extinct activity in the UK, our once extensive ship building industry is all but gone, steel is no longer produced as far as I am able to discover anywhere in the UK, the mines have vanished and now more and more High Street chains are shutting their doors. We keep hearing that we need immigrants to fill the unfilled jobs, but if that is the case, why are they unfilled? Could it be because they are so poorly paid it doesn't pay to take the work? That seems to be the case for many of these 'jobs.' What the influx of 'new' people does do is drive the price of property sky-high, but that actually benefits those on higher incomes since they are already on the property ladder, and can reap the reward in profits when they sell or when they wish to raise capital against their assets.
For those at the starting end of careers there are several problems, the first being the cost of any property anywhere near the place of work. The second is the cost of transport to and from their place of work. Once again, those who constantly argue for increasing fuel prices to "drive people out of their cars" forget that this increases the cost of public transport as well. Higher fuel prices also drive up the cost of food and every other commodity the hard pressed ordinary householder needs. As ever, the hardest hit are always those at the bottom - the young folk starting out in career (if they can find one), trying to find a home, start a family build a nest-egg for their own retirement.
Recently I talked to some 30-something folk. Neither expect to be able to retire, they have their own home, but at the cost of both working. Both work a six day week, and forget about having a day at home together in the week - the changes to allow businesses to trade 24/7 have put paid to the family having even one day together at the weekend. The law allows the employers to give two days in the week off - not necessarily together and almost assuredly not on a Saturday or Sunday. At least, in the days when I worked that sort of pattern, I lived at the Fire Station and so did my family, not so the folk who work for the likes of Tesco, Sainsbury et al, or the many 'Call Centres' and other distribution centres now working round the clock. You note, of course, that the "executives" of these companies do not, themselves work weekends and public holidays, that is just for the 'plebs.'
I really feel for the current younger generation, their expectations are shrinking and career opportunities vanishing faster than anyone can change a shirt. Even if you are fortunate enough to land one, it is extremely likely, given the current economic situation, that the company will be sold, merged or asset stripped and broken up eaving the employees high and dry. There is no longer any guarantee that a company will still exist in 20 years, let alone 40 or 50.
It has long been my opinion, that the problem is short term thinking. Investors, Board Members, Politicians and even Civil Servants all seem to think no further than this fiscal year, or, if you're lucky, five years at the most. There are no 'visions' any longer, just a 'make the fastest buck you can, grab the money and run' philosophy. Our so-called 'leaders' in business as well as in politics are completely out of touch with the realities and difficulties faced by those below "middle management" and really do not understand the impact of their lack of longterm vision or planning on the very people they depend on to 'produce' whatever it is they have their money invested in.
Add to this the ever growing 'benefits' system of the UK and - from the government's own figures - you quickly realise that it is only a matter of time before the cost of the benefits and the rest of the 'government machine' will outstrip the national income. At that point there will be major hardship for everyone not in that top one or two percent that is the 'movers and shakers' of the Boardrooms, Banking, Politics and Civil Service. Don't expect them to understand why people are starving on the streets and don't expect them to trim their own expensive lifestyles to address the issue. We already have the example of the MPs voting to give themselves a 32% increase in pay and a further 20% increase in their "expenses" while at the same time reducing the basic pay for police. Out of touch? Or simply don't give a damn?
After my conversation with my young friends, and a bit of thought and digging, I find myself bitter at the way we have all been betrayed.
We were brought up being told that the "Universal Pension" meant we didn't need to make provision for it. Those of us who did, found ourselves penalised for doing so, and then Gordon Brown and the rest of the Westminster and Whitehall Thieves Guild asset stripped them and left most of us struggling. Now they keep telling us that it is the fault of "greedy pensioners." Did we create an uninvested pension scheme? Did we not pay into this scheme, involuntarily for the most part, throughout our working lives? How then are we responsible for the problem?
Over the last seventy years politicians, civil servants, 'captains of industry/commerce' and Union leaders, have played fast and loose with the money we contributed to our retirement and to the building of the nations economic base. They have created a society which is now dependent on handouts, an economy which is owned by foreign capital, where jobs are scarce and getting scarcer, and where our children and their children can look forward to a return to - what? A pre-nineteenth Century system of 'grace and favour' where the wealthy provide for the servants and retainers? Of tied 'cottages' for favoured employees? Of a subsistence economy for the majority and unimagineable luxury for the rich?
Our children are paying for the short-sightedness and greed of Whitehall, Westminster, the Unions and the Captains of Industry and Commerce. It's a disgrace - but I'm damned if I know how we can fix it.
It wasn't unreasonable of us to expect that our children would have the same opportunities and expectations. Or was it? In the light of the current economic mess we're experiencing, perhaps it was.
Talking to the present generation - our kids - one quickly discovers that they have a wide range of things to face that we did not. The first is the difficulty in finding employment, any employment. Even those leaving university with qualifications commerce and industry can use are struggling, and those with a more technical bent are struggling to stay employed. More and more businesses are falling back on the supermarket trick of employing largely "part time" staff which allows them to pay minimum wages and reduces the overall cost of employing someone - since you don't have to provide a career path or cover pension investments among other things.
Heavy industries are almost an extinct activity in the UK, our once extensive ship building industry is all but gone, steel is no longer produced as far as I am able to discover anywhere in the UK, the mines have vanished and now more and more High Street chains are shutting their doors. We keep hearing that we need immigrants to fill the unfilled jobs, but if that is the case, why are they unfilled? Could it be because they are so poorly paid it doesn't pay to take the work? That seems to be the case for many of these 'jobs.' What the influx of 'new' people does do is drive the price of property sky-high, but that actually benefits those on higher incomes since they are already on the property ladder, and can reap the reward in profits when they sell or when they wish to raise capital against their assets.
For those at the starting end of careers there are several problems, the first being the cost of any property anywhere near the place of work. The second is the cost of transport to and from their place of work. Once again, those who constantly argue for increasing fuel prices to "drive people out of their cars" forget that this increases the cost of public transport as well. Higher fuel prices also drive up the cost of food and every other commodity the hard pressed ordinary householder needs. As ever, the hardest hit are always those at the bottom - the young folk starting out in career (if they can find one), trying to find a home, start a family build a nest-egg for their own retirement.
Recently I talked to some 30-something folk. Neither expect to be able to retire, they have their own home, but at the cost of both working. Both work a six day week, and forget about having a day at home together in the week - the changes to allow businesses to trade 24/7 have put paid to the family having even one day together at the weekend. The law allows the employers to give two days in the week off - not necessarily together and almost assuredly not on a Saturday or Sunday. At least, in the days when I worked that sort of pattern, I lived at the Fire Station and so did my family, not so the folk who work for the likes of Tesco, Sainsbury et al, or the many 'Call Centres' and other distribution centres now working round the clock. You note, of course, that the "executives" of these companies do not, themselves work weekends and public holidays, that is just for the 'plebs.'
I really feel for the current younger generation, their expectations are shrinking and career opportunities vanishing faster than anyone can change a shirt. Even if you are fortunate enough to land one, it is extremely likely, given the current economic situation, that the company will be sold, merged or asset stripped and broken up eaving the employees high and dry. There is no longer any guarantee that a company will still exist in 20 years, let alone 40 or 50.
It has long been my opinion, that the problem is short term thinking. Investors, Board Members, Politicians and even Civil Servants all seem to think no further than this fiscal year, or, if you're lucky, five years at the most. There are no 'visions' any longer, just a 'make the fastest buck you can, grab the money and run' philosophy. Our so-called 'leaders' in business as well as in politics are completely out of touch with the realities and difficulties faced by those below "middle management" and really do not understand the impact of their lack of longterm vision or planning on the very people they depend on to 'produce' whatever it is they have their money invested in.
Add to this the ever growing 'benefits' system of the UK and - from the government's own figures - you quickly realise that it is only a matter of time before the cost of the benefits and the rest of the 'government machine' will outstrip the national income. At that point there will be major hardship for everyone not in that top one or two percent that is the 'movers and shakers' of the Boardrooms, Banking, Politics and Civil Service. Don't expect them to understand why people are starving on the streets and don't expect them to trim their own expensive lifestyles to address the issue. We already have the example of the MPs voting to give themselves a 32% increase in pay and a further 20% increase in their "expenses" while at the same time reducing the basic pay for police. Out of touch? Or simply don't give a damn?
After my conversation with my young friends, and a bit of thought and digging, I find myself bitter at the way we have all been betrayed.
We were brought up being told that the "Universal Pension" meant we didn't need to make provision for it. Those of us who did, found ourselves penalised for doing so, and then Gordon Brown and the rest of the Westminster and Whitehall Thieves Guild asset stripped them and left most of us struggling. Now they keep telling us that it is the fault of "greedy pensioners." Did we create an uninvested pension scheme? Did we not pay into this scheme, involuntarily for the most part, throughout our working lives? How then are we responsible for the problem?
Over the last seventy years politicians, civil servants, 'captains of industry/commerce' and Union leaders, have played fast and loose with the money we contributed to our retirement and to the building of the nations economic base. They have created a society which is now dependent on handouts, an economy which is owned by foreign capital, where jobs are scarce and getting scarcer, and where our children and their children can look forward to a return to - what? A pre-nineteenth Century system of 'grace and favour' where the wealthy provide for the servants and retainers? Of tied 'cottages' for favoured employees? Of a subsistence economy for the majority and unimagineable luxury for the rich?
Our children are paying for the short-sightedness and greed of Whitehall, Westminster, the Unions and the Captains of Industry and Commerce. It's a disgrace - but I'm damned if I know how we can fix it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
