Monday, December 21, 2015

Dangers of a strict adherence to the “Word”.



My latest concern is about a strict even “religious”, adherence to the “word”- not what it means – the spirit or symbolism – but how the word appears in printed form. Such a narrow interpretation has led to much grief and misunderstanding in the World. Particularly now -today.

What are we supposed to believe? What people (politicians, business and religious leaders) say is not always what they do – their actions often belie their words. All leaders employ legions of media advisors or “spin doctors” – those skilled in semantics to change perceptions. A standout in this regard is the “morphing” of Torture (which is illegal and banned by the Geneva Convention) into Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (which is apparently legal – at least according to the CIA’s interpretation of the Geneva Convention).

Similarly, some followers in all religious faiths are guilty of focusing on the words (and often their interpretations of those words) to promote THEIR version of scriptures. Just look at the difference between the vast numbers of Christian belief “systems” – very strict Baptists and Catholics through to more tolerant Church of England(?). The Jews have a similar range of belief systems, as do the Buddhists. Similarly with Islam – Wahhabism (very strict narrow interpretation of the Koran) ranging through Sunni and Shia to the Sufi (some Muslims don’t believe that Sufi’s are Muslims at all). The tyrannous assemblage known as ISIS or Daesh are allegedly followers of Wahhabism – this profanity is so outside normal human conduct that it is difficult to understand what they “believe”.

But they claim to be followers and defenders of the WORD!

Another ploy greatly favoured and resorted to by politicians (particularly in Australia) when they are caught out spending taxpayers money on self-indulgence is, “I have done nothing wrong – what I did falls within parliamentary guidelines”. There is apparently no consideration of fairness or the moral aspect of their actions and ethics seems to be an unheard of concept.

It is written in the rules and regulations – the “word” is there for all to see!

Wednesday, December 9, 2015

Donald Trump is a Democrat “sleeper”



I reckon that Donald Trump is a Democrat sleeper. He is actually a Democrat in disguise. Surely anyone as intelligent as he would have to be to have made the money he has would not show such poor judgement as to defecate on his own door step, as it were, without some ulterior motive.

I reckon that Donald Trump’s ulterior motive is to so befoul the Republican position; so confuse the Republican constituents that they are not sure what anyone stands for any more. He is putting out so many mixed messages; being so controversial; being so divisive that he has achieved his (and the Democrats) aim which is to cause the Republicans to fight amongst themselves!

Thus leaving the Presidential race wide open for the Democrats.

Clever man!   

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Sovereign Citizens



This term – Sovereign Citizens – was new to me until a few weeks ago. I had honestly never heard it before!

Apparently a sovereign citizen is someone who does not accept Australia’s (or any country’s) legal framework or government and consider themselves outside the law. It has reached the stage in the US, such that the FBI now considers sovereign citizens to be domestic terrorists and the Department of Homeland Security has listed them as the No 1 domestic terror threat. There is a similar growing concern in Australia.

These people, these “sovereign citizens”, apparently do not believe in paying taxes, pay motor vehicle or drivers licence fees; they don’t recognise the need to submit to anyone – but themselves. This is a recipe for utter chaos, for anarchy.

What these people forget is that their freedom to act as they wish stops at the point when my freedoms (such as they are) begin.  What these people forget is that living in any society requires compromise – and I repeat, their freedom stops where my freedom begins. This is why we have laws and a legal system – to determine where that point is – where their freedom stops and mine begin. 

What these people conveniently forget (or never realised) is that nothing they do is in isolation. What these people maybe don’t even comprehend is that there is an unwritten Law of Unintended Consequences (or the Law or Cause and Effect).

Whatever these “sovereign citizens” do will affect others and whatever others do will affect them, in ways they cannot even begin to imagine – this is how society works. Don’t “sovereign citizens” drive their unlicensed and unregistered cars on roads paid for with tax-payers money? If injured would they not attend a health facility paid for with someone’s money? What about schooling for their children? Someone, if not them, pays for that! If a natural disaster affected them – a flood, a fire or some such event, who would they turn to for help? I would guess that it would be the government!

I have to admit that I cannot comprehend the level of selfishness; the level of indifference to others; the lack of respect shown to others (respect which they demand for themselves) and most importantly the lack of understanding, these so called “citizens” display. It would appear to me that they are showing distinct symptoms of Narcissism. This can be quite a serious psychological condition.

This is my take on the curious and disturbing phenomenon of “sovereign citizens” – for what it’s worth.

Sunday, November 1, 2015

A Homogenised World?



The World (and it’s people) is changing – what I experienced as a child does not apply today. What I experience today will not be what my children or grandchildren will experience when they are adults. The World is becoming more cosmopolitan – dare I say more “homogenised”?

I have often wondered about the strange desire of mankind to travel, to explore, to emigrate, to settle in other lands. This, generally admirable desire, often led to greater knowledge of the world and should have lent itself to tolerance and understanding. But no! More often than not the travellers caused problems – they became invaders because they were often technically more advanced or militarily stronger – so they overwhelmed the populations of the lands they arrive at.

This is evident in history stretching right back to the migration out of Africa into Europe some 50 000 years ago – the Greeks into Asia, the Romans into Europe and England, the Arabs into North Africa and the Iberian Peninsula, the Mongols into Asia, the Spaniards into South America, the Portuguese into Africa and India, the English and French into North America, the English into Australia, and so it still goes on.

In most instances what these travellers/invaders introduced to the original inhabitants was beneficial – often after the initial shock wore off, they were tolerated, they integrated and so became part of the population. This movement of people was in most cases slow and may have extended over generations. People moved at walking pace, or at that of the ox, the sailing ship and, occasionally, (as with the Arabs and Mongols) on horseback.

This movement of people may, very generally, be traced by the languages spoken across the world.

A consequence of these continual movements of people was a general “equalisation” of knowledge and technology leading, again very generally, to groupings of like-minded people into city states, then nation states, which were fiercely defended. A semblance of stability ensued and people settled down. Each “state” developed their own unique customs and characteristics. This created a divisive “them and us” attitude – which still prevails.

Today however, in the Twenty-first Century, the situation is rapidly changing. State racial purity is on the decline. Immigration, speedy immigration, by air, or at the very least by some form of motorised transport is standard procedure today. For instance within a generation or two the white population of the USA will be a minority (estimated by 2045). Europe is no different and in so far as Europe is a “unified” economic grouping of nations it simplifies movement between member countries.

The complication today is caused (generally) by nations interfering in the internal affairs of others (refer: the Middle East and Asia). This is causing a massive upheaval and a mass exodus from troubled areas to what are considered “safer” countries.

This happens. It cannot be “undone” – the people who left their home countries will not be same ones who repopulate those previously abandoned countries. Another generation, another differently educated people, with different hopes and aspirations will move in.

Each country will benefit from the different cultures, languages, skills, energy and belief systems of their immigrants. It has always been so. But the speed at which the changes are taking place is unprecedented. Integration is now taking place at a frenetic pace and by default will be incomplete and fragmented. Language courses, counselling, special instruction about a country’s social mores and customs are now commonplace to make new immigrants feel “at home” and adapt.

The adults may never feel “at home” but the children will adapt to their new home much more rapidly. Guided by the precedent of armed conflict in South Africa – the Boer War – I understand it took two generations, say 50 years, before the English and the Afrikaans (Boer) speaking population more or less accepted each other. The original combatants could not truly reconcile and they influenced their children (who could possibly remember the conflict). It was only the NEXT generation that had no direct memory of the conflict and had no “input” from the original combatants (now either very old or dead) who were more accepting and, possibly, tolerant of the situation.

As I say, this is generally a good thing – people of all nations, races and creeds must learn to live peaceably together – there is no other viable option.

What this means to the USA, Europe and other countries caught up in the current “refugee” crisis is problematic. The long term effects, however, are very clear. There will be a general “homogenisation” of the world’s population – peoples will gradually, over generations, become one “colour”, will (possibly) speak one hybridized language – understood by all – a very much altered form of English, would be my selection.

Religion will be another matter entirely! Even in those countries and states which have been relatively stable for generations there are, for example, hundreds, if not thousands of different Christian belief systems, sects or denominations. Similarly with Islam – reportedly 73 sects and Judaism has apparently about the same number – 72 sects.

I can never imagine a “homogenised” world religion! We are all too different for that. But the rest? - it will come.

A Homogenised World will be the future – anything else is fraught and should not be contemplated.  

Sunday, October 18, 2015

The Economy and Robotics



Robots seem to be used in increasing numbers in all walks of life, particularly in industry. Now just imagine the following (not so hypothetical scenario) wherein the CEO of an industrial company making, shall we say motor-cycles, decides, because of stakeholder pressure, that the best option to maximise profits would be to invest in a fully automated process – using robotics.

The obvious advantages of using robots are that they work without a break all day if required (apart from any general maintenance), don’t get sick, don’t agitate for higher (or any) pay, always do what they are told, don’t get married, have babies or go on leave and don’t get bored with repetitive actions. In fact they are the ideal “employees”.

This means higher profits and greater returns for investors – even after taking into account, possibly, any increased debt, depreciation and maintenance costs.

Following this through to a logical conclusion the company – with robotics - would now operate at a higher level of productivity, leading to greater profits. The stakeholders would be happy with increased dividends and the motor-cycles (or any other items) produced are likely to be more reliable because the “human factor” has been eliminated leading to more accurate manufacturing and assembly.

This move to robotics would be noted by competitors who would in all probability follow suit. This may possibly lead to more companies, and not just in the motor-cycle industry, converting their operations to embrace robotics and so increasing their profits and productivity thereby.

Another logical outcome from this move to robotics is that the general workforce is reduced.  

The question now needs to be asked, “If the workforce, generally, is reduced because of robotics, who would be able to earn enough to afford the motor cycles (or any other items) produced in this hypothetical factory?”

This is a modern phenomenon which applies across all sectors of the economy.

Interesting.