Posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, 25 February 2009
Video Accounts of Reflection
Below, I have posted two videos which are part of a series I am creating, looking at the economic climate and current cases which are being followed in the media. I will attempt to create some humour and provide people with a chance to see the satirical side of politics.
Consideration of the Future [Article]
There is much to be said for the current economic climate and the present state of the nation. People continue to act in disdain, opposing the Labour Government's approach to the 'crisis' and there is little sign of salvation. Few people are willing to state the Conservatives would do much better.
I believe that there is a rising sense of anger amongst the general public in regards to politics at the moment. Few can distinguish between the policies of each group and we are reminded of the consistent battles that have now become known as 'party politics'.
Members of Parliament are no longer concerned with the affairs and interest of the general public. Jack Straw refused to publicize documents under the Freedom of Information Act. Gordon Brown and David Cameron continue to battle to their wit's end.
It is a frustrating time, especially for those people who have been cast into difficult circumstances as a result. Once more, we see that the Government has not acted upon the demands of the public, rather their actions suggest a theatrical 'gesture approach' which is nothing more than a scandal, a web of lies.
Tony Blair was, essentially, the master of 'gesture politics'. He threw incentive after incentive into the public forum and soon became overwhelmed by the policies which he created, including the controversial Terrorism Act and the dubious 'twenty-eight day detention'.
What can be said for a government that is presenting itself as mere puppets on a stage?
Nothing.
Their actions cannot be defended.
Gordon Brown's promise to help people with mortgage repayments was nothing more than a gesture, a peace offering that helped the few. Much rather than defer the payments for a few months, the interest would be deferred. How is that going to help people?
They still have to pay the mortgage!
Listen closely, Mr. Brown!
He claimed that jobs would be created. On a news programme relating to the jobs market in the current economic climate, the jobs he created were based on seven hours per week at minimum wage. People could still claim benefits and so create a state dependent upon the welfare state.
Buck up your ideas!
The public is not impressed.
This is not the future I, or anyone else, I would hope, wishes to see. I want to see a future that is promising, a future that promises help to families, a future that offers a strong market and a good economy. So far, I've seen nothing more than a state falling into disrepair.
Tuesday, 24 February 2009
On Liberties and Freedom [Article]
What has become of our nation?
Civil liberties have become nothing more than simple luxuries that can be stolen at the whim of those at the wheel. What was once a crucial feature of a political manifesto has become a mere inconvenience. Taxation, crime and global influence has become the focus of all.
It seems that, for much of the nation, there is little to be said of civil liberties. These were ideas that were considered in the past tense. It is argued that we must 'sacrifice our liberties in order to protect the majority', as was once seen in the publication of the Terrorism Act 2000.
The Government is violating our liberties and manipulating the English judicial system to make it fit values which are hidden behind closed doors. A prime example of this is seen in the House of Lords, unelected representatives of a deceptive government. Lords are nothing more than items to be sold at auction at the expense of the British public.
Members of Parliament, and indeed the Governing body of the United Kingdom, continues to steal our freedom from beneath our feet. It no longer acts in the interests of the British public. It acts in the interests of the European Union, an organisation that is set to dissolve national identities.
We are heading in the direction of a 'One World Government'.
It seems that the British Government is creating a manifestation of George Orwell's 'Big Brother world' seen in 1984. One man, Ian Parker-Joseph, leader of the Libertarian Party United Kingdom (who can also be found on Twitter), has seen this become a reality and took action against it. Read all about it here: Libertarian Party UK 1984 Campaign
Some might argue that these are the words of a conspirator, that he is much the same as all other politicians, manipulating the truth for personal gain. Although it is possible, I prefer to liken him to a modern George Orwell.
His ideas and words are attempts at the subversion of the accepted political structure of the nation and observes problems through comic wit and satire, an example is seen here. He discusses a recent advertisement campaign and satirises much of the article.
He is a voice of change in his own right.
Ian Parker-Joseph has coined the term 'regionalisation', an idea that relates to the members of the European Union as being 'regions without identities' and he sees that much of the United Kingdom has become 'regionalised', particularly in Wales (See here).
One can imagine that there can be few surprises as to the intentions of the European Union but it is more frightening to consider that this is a global campaign. There are intentions to create an 'Asian-Australian Union', an African Union exists at the moment. There is no stopping the global campaign for a united world government, global economy and global surveillance society.
Recent examples of the influence of the British government and their intentions can be seen in the continued fight against 'internet pirates', essentially undermining privacy law through legal loopholes and strategic prosecutions. The Freedom of Information Act continues to be undermined. The prime example is that of the postponement of the Northern Ireland local elections, explained here.
It is frightening to imagine the implications of the current intentions by the government. What we must remember is that the government is elected by the people, for the people.
They represent our views.
'We should not be afraid of our governments. Governments should be afraid of their people'.
References:
Liberal Democrats call for elective House of Lords
Lords Fiasco: Lords reported for alleged 'cash for amendments' scandal
The Idiot's Guide to the New World Order
Twitter
Abolition of Freedom Act 2009
Civil liberties have become nothing more than simple luxuries that can be stolen at the whim of those at the wheel. What was once a crucial feature of a political manifesto has become a mere inconvenience. Taxation, crime and global influence has become the focus of all.
It seems that, for much of the nation, there is little to be said of civil liberties. These were ideas that were considered in the past tense. It is argued that we must 'sacrifice our liberties in order to protect the majority', as was once seen in the publication of the Terrorism Act 2000.
The Government is violating our liberties and manipulating the English judicial system to make it fit values which are hidden behind closed doors. A prime example of this is seen in the House of Lords, unelected representatives of a deceptive government. Lords are nothing more than items to be sold at auction at the expense of the British public.
Members of Parliament, and indeed the Governing body of the United Kingdom, continues to steal our freedom from beneath our feet. It no longer acts in the interests of the British public. It acts in the interests of the European Union, an organisation that is set to dissolve national identities.
We are heading in the direction of a 'One World Government'.
It seems that the British Government is creating a manifestation of George Orwell's 'Big Brother world' seen in 1984. One man, Ian Parker-Joseph, leader of the Libertarian Party United Kingdom (who can also be found on Twitter), has seen this become a reality and took action against it. Read all about it here: Libertarian Party UK 1984 Campaign
Some might argue that these are the words of a conspirator, that he is much the same as all other politicians, manipulating the truth for personal gain. Although it is possible, I prefer to liken him to a modern George Orwell.
His ideas and words are attempts at the subversion of the accepted political structure of the nation and observes problems through comic wit and satire, an example is seen here. He discusses a recent advertisement campaign and satirises much of the article.
He is a voice of change in his own right.
Ian Parker-Joseph has coined the term 'regionalisation', an idea that relates to the members of the European Union as being 'regions without identities' and he sees that much of the United Kingdom has become 'regionalised', particularly in Wales (See here).
One can imagine that there can be few surprises as to the intentions of the European Union but it is more frightening to consider that this is a global campaign. There are intentions to create an 'Asian-Australian Union', an African Union exists at the moment. There is no stopping the global campaign for a united world government, global economy and global surveillance society.
Recent examples of the influence of the British government and their intentions can be seen in the continued fight against 'internet pirates', essentially undermining privacy law through legal loopholes and strategic prosecutions. The Freedom of Information Act continues to be undermined. The prime example is that of the postponement of the Northern Ireland local elections, explained here.
It is frightening to imagine the implications of the current intentions by the government. What we must remember is that the government is elected by the people, for the people.
They represent our views.
'We should not be afraid of our governments. Governments should be afraid of their people'.
References:
Liberal Democrats call for elective House of Lords
Lords Fiasco: Lords reported for alleged 'cash for amendments' scandal
The Idiot's Guide to the New World Order
Abolition of Freedom Act 2009
Economics of the Crisis [Debate]
It is difficult to comprehend the true nature of the economic downturn, as it has been so phrased by my many of the large media corporations. There are those who state that it is nothing more than a 'bump in the road', so to speak. Others have argued that it is a representation of the consequence of corporate greed and an international ambition to develop a constantly developing economy.
For the most part, I agree with both statements, although for different reasons. I have often noted that, when suffering troubled times, communities fall together as though to stand united in the fight against that which is opposed to them. In both world wars, communities stood together to fight against the tyranny of another nation. Indeed, I would hope that, in times of economic difficulty, communities will come together to support one another as a good neighbour should.
Alas, onto the matters of economic failure. For all that it is worth, I am not one to state that I have a wealth of information in regards to the economic climate but the sheer visual nature of the downturn represents a problem within this nation, and indeed in many other nations.
I have seen crowds standing in JobCentre Plus, constantly seeking labour in a time when the government is claiming to create tens of thousands of jobs for those who have been made redundant. Prices continue to fluctuate in most supermarkets and it has become a battle of the brands to become 'top dog' in a market where people are constantly seeking the lowest price.
It's a sad sight, knowing that there are those who could have prevented this consequence. The Times, a respected newspaper, published a list of those responsible for the economic downturn and I must admit that I agree with most, if not all.
It's of little surprise that Gordon Brown was listed, following the economic ideals of a man who, in later years, agreed that the end result of his economic approach would be a 'boom and bust' economy. In a world where phrases are being thrown around with such great ease and the finger is being pointed, it seems that things will only get worse.
Predictably, government initiatives have done little to resolve the problem, especially some of the more controversial policies which were introduced. The 2.5% VAT reduction, for example, has done little to motivate spending and most people would agree that it is not worthwhile. What use is a reduction that, when spending £400, the consumer saves £10.
Having said that, we cannot expect the government to wave a wand and the world will be right once more. Sadly, neither the government nor Gordon Brown has the power to do that. It is within our power to change the state of our nation from one that seems to be growing to represent 1984 (George Orwell) to a nation that represents communities, freedom and liberty.
I cannot imagine that the economic climate will return to normality in the next year. In the legal profession, where 2,200 redundancies have been made so far, claims of a return to normality have been predicted for 2011/2012. We must wait for the time when we can stand again and be proud of our nation.
The question is; how long will we have to wait?
For the most part, I agree with both statements, although for different reasons. I have often noted that, when suffering troubled times, communities fall together as though to stand united in the fight against that which is opposed to them. In both world wars, communities stood together to fight against the tyranny of another nation. Indeed, I would hope that, in times of economic difficulty, communities will come together to support one another as a good neighbour should.
Alas, onto the matters of economic failure. For all that it is worth, I am not one to state that I have a wealth of information in regards to the economic climate but the sheer visual nature of the downturn represents a problem within this nation, and indeed in many other nations.
I have seen crowds standing in JobCentre Plus, constantly seeking labour in a time when the government is claiming to create tens of thousands of jobs for those who have been made redundant. Prices continue to fluctuate in most supermarkets and it has become a battle of the brands to become 'top dog' in a market where people are constantly seeking the lowest price.
It's a sad sight, knowing that there are those who could have prevented this consequence. The Times, a respected newspaper, published a list of those responsible for the economic downturn and I must admit that I agree with most, if not all.
It's of little surprise that Gordon Brown was listed, following the economic ideals of a man who, in later years, agreed that the end result of his economic approach would be a 'boom and bust' economy. In a world where phrases are being thrown around with such great ease and the finger is being pointed, it seems that things will only get worse.
Predictably, government initiatives have done little to resolve the problem, especially some of the more controversial policies which were introduced. The 2.5% VAT reduction, for example, has done little to motivate spending and most people would agree that it is not worthwhile. What use is a reduction that, when spending £400, the consumer saves £10.
Having said that, we cannot expect the government to wave a wand and the world will be right once more. Sadly, neither the government nor Gordon Brown has the power to do that. It is within our power to change the state of our nation from one that seems to be growing to represent 1984 (George Orwell) to a nation that represents communities, freedom and liberty.
I cannot imagine that the economic climate will return to normality in the next year. In the legal profession, where 2,200 redundancies have been made so far, claims of a return to normality have been predicted for 2011/2012. We must wait for the time when we can stand again and be proud of our nation.
The question is; how long will we have to wait?
Understanding the Fear of Control [Article]
One of the problems of this world is that it is so focused upon the search of fulfilment that we find ourselves in the conflict with the flow of the world's direction.
It has often been said that 'Nature is blind' and I am an advocate of such a view. Nature shows no path in her continued determination. She follows a path which she sets.
For most people, life is quite the opposite of Nature's intention. We all decide that we require targets, goals and aims. There is no greater satisfaction than the knowledge that we are 'in control'.
There is one problem.
How 'in control' are we?
Nature often throws obstacles in the path. We cannot expect those obstacles. These are random occurrences. Much of our life is a random occurrence.
Natural disasters.
Financial problems.
Death.
Can we predict these events? Can we expect these events?
No.
We cannot expect to suffer a natural disaster. We cannot predict that we will struggle one month and have a fruitful one the next. Life is not quite so simple as we hope to make it.
Death is one of our greatest fears.
It is because we cannot control it that we fear.
We do not fear what we can control.
It has often been said that 'Nature is blind' and I am an advocate of such a view. Nature shows no path in her continued determination. She follows a path which she sets.
For most people, life is quite the opposite of Nature's intention. We all decide that we require targets, goals and aims. There is no greater satisfaction than the knowledge that we are 'in control'.
There is one problem.
How 'in control' are we?
Nature often throws obstacles in the path. We cannot expect those obstacles. These are random occurrences. Much of our life is a random occurrence.
Natural disasters.
Financial problems.
Death.
Can we predict these events? Can we expect these events?
No.
We cannot expect to suffer a natural disaster. We cannot predict that we will struggle one month and have a fruitful one the next. Life is not quite so simple as we hope to make it.
Death is one of our greatest fears.
It is because we cannot control it that we fear.
We do not fear what we can control.
Economies of Political Struggle [Article]
As the consortium of world powers meet once more in the hopes that their influence upon world banking will deter the crises of economic disaster, we must once more consider several questions, all of which are of crucial importance. First, we must consider who is to blame for this sudden shift in economics when, mere months ago, we were at an economic high. In the United Kingdom, it is stated that the regulations and rules of the 'economic genius' Gordon Brown are held to blame, considering the fact that it was during his period of rule that we were granted economic stardom, however, his shift from one position to the other has meant that guidelines which were once considered the framework of economic growth are now considered the foundation of our downfall. Others look towards the banks with high-risk investments and the attainment of power being to blame. According to some, the banks invested in some of the riskier loan agreements and mortgages which therefore influences the downfall of the world's economy. In truth, both responses are correct, however, we failed to point the finger at one other person to blame - ourselves.
One of the problems that we have is that we continue to desire short-term prospects and discard the long-term disadvantages. In fact, it is this statement which was our downfall. As the economic crises fell upon us, we deemed it appropriate to blame Gordon Brown when, in fact, we are to blame. We desired low-rate bank loans which resulted in inflation. As the cost of food rose, we found it appropriate to blame the banks because their refusal to raise interest rates meant that investments were not reaping the rewards. As the commercial cost of oil rose to its highest recorded figure, we could not help but blame the world. In fact, all these problems are rooted in our demands. We demanded low taxes and as a result, the concept of universal benefits was reconsidered. Investment in failing state responsibilities such as education and hospitals meant that the budget could not allow for interest increases. The cost of living rose because we have become a commercial society.
That being said, it is not the only question to ask. We must also ask what it means for us. The nationalisation of three banks in England has a huge impact in terms of our finances and the economic status of this country. It is quite frightening to learn that Lloyds TSB are purchasing HBOS - bank takeovers are not a promising sign for the economy. What we must understand is that we are all shareholders in the nationalised banks. Gordon Brown declared that he desired that banks to return to their '2007 state', which is the root of the problem. He desires to implement low-rate mortgages in order to protect the public and also increase the turnover of their investment in housing. As the property market crashed in the early months of 2008, Gordon Brown desires to see first-time buyers and investors making their voices heard in the property market.
In terms of the long term impact, there is little that can be said, except that our budget is now focused upon the ownership and control of the English banking system. We have invested approximately £20 billion into the economy, at the cost of other important industries. The Royal Mail, for example, continues to fail to meet its targets and is a nationalised corporation, although there has been talk of privatisation. The NHS, the English health-care system, is in billions of pounds of debt and yet the government has failed to invest the same amount of money which it has invested in the economy. Of course, the investment in the economy may delay the shift from recession to depression but there is clear evidence that this investment will cost us in the future. There will be the prospect of an increase in taxation, disproportionate budgeting and the concept of a 'one world bank' once more being raised and considered.
Having said that, the investment does have its advantages. Gordon Brown is now said to be improving in his character, due to being in his 'element' during the economic crises, which helps to promote national morale. Gordon Brown has also declared that the decrease in the cost of oil should be reflected in the commercial price. The investment is set to decrease the cost of living, however, the prospect of unsecured loans remains uncertain and the approach to banking and housing will never be same. Repossession and increased rates does seem a possibility but only time will tell.
One of the problems that we have is that we continue to desire short-term prospects and discard the long-term disadvantages. In fact, it is this statement which was our downfall. As the economic crises fell upon us, we deemed it appropriate to blame Gordon Brown when, in fact, we are to blame. We desired low-rate bank loans which resulted in inflation. As the cost of food rose, we found it appropriate to blame the banks because their refusal to raise interest rates meant that investments were not reaping the rewards. As the commercial cost of oil rose to its highest recorded figure, we could not help but blame the world. In fact, all these problems are rooted in our demands. We demanded low taxes and as a result, the concept of universal benefits was reconsidered. Investment in failing state responsibilities such as education and hospitals meant that the budget could not allow for interest increases. The cost of living rose because we have become a commercial society.
That being said, it is not the only question to ask. We must also ask what it means for us. The nationalisation of three banks in England has a huge impact in terms of our finances and the economic status of this country. It is quite frightening to learn that Lloyds TSB are purchasing HBOS - bank takeovers are not a promising sign for the economy. What we must understand is that we are all shareholders in the nationalised banks. Gordon Brown declared that he desired that banks to return to their '2007 state', which is the root of the problem. He desires to implement low-rate mortgages in order to protect the public and also increase the turnover of their investment in housing. As the property market crashed in the early months of 2008, Gordon Brown desires to see first-time buyers and investors making their voices heard in the property market.
In terms of the long term impact, there is little that can be said, except that our budget is now focused upon the ownership and control of the English banking system. We have invested approximately £20 billion into the economy, at the cost of other important industries. The Royal Mail, for example, continues to fail to meet its targets and is a nationalised corporation, although there has been talk of privatisation. The NHS, the English health-care system, is in billions of pounds of debt and yet the government has failed to invest the same amount of money which it has invested in the economy. Of course, the investment in the economy may delay the shift from recession to depression but there is clear evidence that this investment will cost us in the future. There will be the prospect of an increase in taxation, disproportionate budgeting and the concept of a 'one world bank' once more being raised and considered.
Having said that, the investment does have its advantages. Gordon Brown is now said to be improving in his character, due to being in his 'element' during the economic crises, which helps to promote national morale. Gordon Brown has also declared that the decrease in the cost of oil should be reflected in the commercial price. The investment is set to decrease the cost of living, however, the prospect of unsecured loans remains uncertain and the approach to banking and housing will never be same. Repossession and increased rates does seem a possibility but only time will tell.
Personal Challenges in Politics
As the elections once more captivate the masses in a delightful turn of events, I should wonder what it is that brought millions of people to decide that we are better left under the control of the Conservatives. After all, do people not know what the Conservatives represent? I should believe that most believe dire reform is required within Parliament. Who wouldn't? We have gone to war with a country that, whilst tormented by disease and poverty, shows little sign of being the bountiful settlement that both Britain and America hoped it would. After all, the intelligent amongst us would know that the Iraq War was not an attempt to restore peace to the Middle East. Far from it, in fact. The Iraq War was, how shall I put this, a political movement. This was all about economics.
Consider the fact that the Middle East prospers. How? The Middle East is ravaged by war. Politics is cast aside, replaced by a theological government that opposes (male) homosexuality and the possibility of a second religion entering the state. How can the Middle East prosper under such considerations? How - because it works. The Middle East is, in essence, a theocracy. People respect religion - people worship religion and, because religion rules, there is no need for taxation and foreign affairs that Western civilisation seems so obsessed with. This isn't the main reason that the Middle East prospers. Of course not, that's ridiculous.
There is one reason - oil. The Middle East accounts for a high percentage of oil. The economics of the Middle East are based, on the majority, of oil sales to Western civilisations because our scientists have failed to discover some alternative source of fuel that will save us all from eternal damnation when, heaven forbid, climate change kicks in. The Middle East sells oil relatively cheap. In fact, if you research the price of oil in different countries, you'd see the surprising difference between Western and Eastern countries.
Rising prices within the US - $100 p/barrel
Rising prices within Asia - $130 p/barrel
This is all due to politics. Consider the images which have been added. Prices shot up at the beginning of the Iraq war because it has a surplus of oil. As the world progresses from crisis to crisis, the oil price skyrockets. Investors continue to argue that oil prices in the US may reach $200 p/barrel within the next few years. If I were you, I'd be afraid. We all depend on oil. We need to consider a back-up plan. In fact, we need a plan! That's where politics comes into it all, that lovely word 'politics'.
British citizens voted in the local elections that Conservatives should have power within Parliament. For the first time in ten or so years, Conservatives have beaten Labour. I wonder, do people honestly believe that a new party will help solve all our problems? I certainly hope not. I'd be afraid if that were so. We need to pull our finger out of our ears and do something drastic. Why not pull out of Iraq? I think it's caused us enough grief as it is. Let them solve their own problems. Why not stop waiting months to decide something and do it in a day? MPs (Members of Parliament) have so much time on their hands, it's frightening. Normal people work so hard and they don't get half the publicity these imposters do.
I say we make a stand and let Parliament know what we want!
Consider the fact that the Middle East prospers. How? The Middle East is ravaged by war. Politics is cast aside, replaced by a theological government that opposes (male) homosexuality and the possibility of a second religion entering the state. How can the Middle East prosper under such considerations? How - because it works. The Middle East is, in essence, a theocracy. People respect religion - people worship religion and, because religion rules, there is no need for taxation and foreign affairs that Western civilisation seems so obsessed with. This isn't the main reason that the Middle East prospers. Of course not, that's ridiculous.
There is one reason - oil. The Middle East accounts for a high percentage of oil. The economics of the Middle East are based, on the majority, of oil sales to Western civilisations because our scientists have failed to discover some alternative source of fuel that will save us all from eternal damnation when, heaven forbid, climate change kicks in. The Middle East sells oil relatively cheap. In fact, if you research the price of oil in different countries, you'd see the surprising difference between Western and Eastern countries.
Rising prices within the US - $100 p/barrel
Rising prices within Asia - $130 p/barrel
This is all due to politics. Consider the images which have been added. Prices shot up at the beginning of the Iraq war because it has a surplus of oil. As the world progresses from crisis to crisis, the oil price skyrockets. Investors continue to argue that oil prices in the US may reach $200 p/barrel within the next few years. If I were you, I'd be afraid. We all depend on oil. We need to consider a back-up plan. In fact, we need a plan! That's where politics comes into it all, that lovely word 'politics'.
British citizens voted in the local elections that Conservatives should have power within Parliament. For the first time in ten or so years, Conservatives have beaten Labour. I wonder, do people honestly believe that a new party will help solve all our problems? I certainly hope not. I'd be afraid if that were so. We need to pull our finger out of our ears and do something drastic. Why not pull out of Iraq? I think it's caused us enough grief as it is. Let them solve their own problems. Why not stop waiting months to decide something and do it in a day? MPs (Members of Parliament) have so much time on their hands, it's frightening. Normal people work so hard and they don't get half the publicity these imposters do.
I say we make a stand and let Parliament know what we want!
Conception of Ideas [Article]
I find it quite amusing that people continue to believe that their life is the exact reality which they have shaped over numerous years, placing their greatest efforts in the prospect of success, wealth and (wo)men. I find it ironic that people continue to believe themselves absorbed in the reality which is life, only to later have the veil swept from their eyes. Their reaction? They simply grasp at the wool and pull it over their eyes once more. They cannot bear to see the reality, the reality which has been downgraded by the force and the impact of the Media upon our lives. Do you not find it distressing that there is an external reality which you are yet to see? Do you prefer to live in ignorance, your life being dictated and perpetuated by the ignorance of your own mind and the delight that is the media?
What you live in, as sociologists have coined it, is known as a hyperreality. This is the reality of images and illusions. In other words, this is the virtual reality for humans. A hyperrealty is created by the media. How, you may ask, can I prove this? Take a look around. The world is nothing but a mass of images. Images of perfection and imperfection. Images of war and peace. Images of life and death. This is the world of images and we are dictated by it. Models are dictated by the hyperreality of fashion. Intellects are dictated by the hyperreality of computers and art. There are none who escape this hyperreality. It is the inevitable fate of life yet, there is a loophole. We cannot escape the media nor can we escape the images which continue to control and dictate our lives with frightening accuracy but we can realise its true intention. We can become our own person.
We are like the lost sheep, seeking a leader in this world of chaos. We found one in the media. What were their intentions? Were these intentions good or evil? Once, they may have been good. This intention has been lost to time. Instead, the media has become a grotesque, realistic image of the devil himself, a spawn of evil that seeks only to promote the chaos of life so that they might continue their existence and bathe in the misery of the masses. This is not poetry. This is reality. War is a reality and yet it is perpetuated by the media. It is an illusion. It was not a campaign for world peace. It was a campaign for control. Why not realise this and become who you are meant to be.
The Political Realities of Anarchy [Article]
I have often pondered upon the subject of anarchists because of the lack of media focus which is received in comparison to other political organisations. I also conclude that, when anarchists do receive the attention of the media, it is solely to return to the fact that democracy and capitalism remain 'the way forward'. In all honesty, has anyone ever truly considered anarchy as a possibility? I doubt it. People continue to have this postulation that anarchy is the abandonment of democracy and law in favour of chaos and dissension into moral and intellectual degeneracy. Could you be wrong? In fact, anarchy is far from the negative publicity which it received. Anarchy seeks to escape the chains of capitalism, to unite the world under a flag of freedom. It does not seek chaos. It seeks unity. It does not seek imbalance. It seeks harmony. To gain these ideals, however, anarchists must act in violence. How else did the countries we now live in manage to control the rebellious? They used violence. When Britain was an imperial state, how did it conquered two thirds of the world? They used violence. This is not a new method. This is the reiteration of everything that has once been done.
How can we actually define anarchy? Is it possible? Here are a few definitions:
How can we actually define anarchy? Is it possible? Here are a few definitions:
- a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn - Anarchy, in its broadest sense, refers to the situation in which a human society exists without Government. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy - Anarchy is the condition resulting from an absence of governing forces. Often synonymous with chaos or disorder. Anarchism is the political philosophy that holds that the destruction of government authority will yield justice and equality in society. See discussion.
www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1451.html
It seems that, of those three definitions, only one actually refers to anarchy in a negative fashion; a state of lawlessness and disorder. This is the exact definition by which the media portrays anarchists. Why, you may ask, do they do this? Do they not have the same validity as a political organisation as other groups do? Of course not. They oppose the government. Why enter the game of politics when ultimately you wish to destroy it? There is no sense in it. That's not the reason why they do it. The reason that anarchists are portrayed negatively is because the media is a direct influence on capitalism and the economy. When war breaks out, the media profits. The media manipulates the economy. If a political organisation directly points to the media as a source of social injustice, how do they respond? They broadcast a message of idiocy and terrorism.
I'm not suggesting that this is the sole source of negative publicity for anarchy. In fact, there are numerous sources. The government, as is expected, uses propaganda to influence the ideals and the belief system of the society. Consider Hitler and his use of propaganda; people believed him. He used images. He used the newspapers. In fact, he published children's books which ordered the complete annihilation of the Jewish community. Of course, we advanced societies have other methods of propaganda. We use films. Look at V for Vendetta; this film was originally intended to influence the ideas of society on the possibility of anarchy. What did it become? A film filled with big explosions and annuciation to the dot. It was intended as a political film and it came out as an action film. Why? Because the government was afraid.
How then do we respond to this? I propose that you look to yourself, much rather than your televisions. Stop believing everything you hear. When your government tells you that you are going to war, ask yourself why. Always ask that question. Why? Why? Why? Soon enough, you'll realise nothing is intended at face value. You have to look deep between the lines. Why not look at the Iraq war as a basis? Didn't they say they believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. It's funny, I've not seen one mention of those weapons since we went to war. Of course, Saddam was a dictator and needed to be removed but this was a secondary objective. Their first objective; occupation and control. Control the oil supply, gain a footing in the Middle East. Ask yourself why.
How then do we respond to this? I propose that you look to yourself, much rather than your televisions. Stop believing everything you hear. When your government tells you that you are going to war, ask yourself why. Always ask that question. Why? Why? Why? Soon enough, you'll realise nothing is intended at face value. You have to look deep between the lines. Why not look at the Iraq war as a basis? Didn't they say they believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. It's funny, I've not seen one mention of those weapons since we went to war. Of course, Saddam was a dictator and needed to be removed but this was a secondary objective. Their first objective; occupation and control. Control the oil supply, gain a footing in the Middle East. Ask yourself why.
Capitalism and the Changing World [Article]
There are often questions of the world. What is it that drives us to the finite objects this world has made, soon to be murdered under the capitalist control of a few men. What is it that drives men to seek infinite power as Hitler did, what is it that makes people seek wealth and fortune when there is nothing to be found but bitterness, greed and sadness where wealth is found. I wonder what it is that makes people ignorant to the virtues of life; when we look outside of our windows, we saw the same old picture, over and over again but have we ever looked? Look again, what if there is a man screaming at his wife and you've never noticed it before? What if there is a woman who smiles at you, yet you've never actually looked at her before? What if there is a world to be discovered but we are too ignorant to look beyond our pitiful lives. It frightens me that ignorance has become as dominant as corruption has. Soon, the world will change and we will be cast into the realities of the world.
Has our own ignorance brought the fall of modern man upon us? For too long, we have heard the world is crumbling beneath pollution, heat radiating from factories and toxic waste spewed into rivers, oceans and lakes that were once beautiful places to sit beside. In our lifetime, we have heard that the oil will run out and our children will suffer an economic crisis as the price of fuel skyrockets, once more seeing a rise in capitalist values where we are exploited in the workplace, only to buy the products which we have been exploited to make. What of our children, our education system, health care even that has become nothing but a mockery of government policies. Our future is destined to be filled with fear of war, death, disease and droughts but is it enough to make us change? It seems it is not.
What are we to do to remove the wool from our eyes? How can we make the people see that this world is run by a few men whom think they have achieved a global balance, blind to the genocide, the corruption seen in the Third World countries. It is their ignorance that must make us see. These men are but a few men, we are a population of six billion. I should wonder how it is that we have not achieved global people when the world grows smaller every day. It is the nature of man that troubles us, greed and sin boiling within us like cruel temptations that we will soon succumb to. How are we to change the world? Can we even change the world?
Will political setbacks for stem cell advocates destroy medical research efforts? [Debate]
Like all controversial issues which involve the dark forces of politics, there is the implication of hindrance and political intervention. Abortion was an issue across the globe as political and religious activists attempted to challenge the legislation that was being passed to help women and support the developments in medicine and research. In the United Kingdom, legislation was passed in light of a crucial vote that was decided through a scarce numbers of MPs (Members of Parliament) and there were implications that the MPs had been 'bribed' for their votes. This is one mere example of political intervention in medical research and the progression of medicine in light of changes in this world.
Stem cell research is a concept which is opposed by religious advocates on the grounds that it is not within 'God's plans' and religious advocates often have an influence on American and British politics. For example, the 'New Christian Right' which is a Protestant denomination, often supports the decisions of the 'rich and powerful' and, although their influence on American politics is quite small, their influence still exists. If the case remains that religious advocates have an influence on politics, there is no question that controversial issues such as stem cell research will often meet challenges and be burdened with politicial activism such as open debate, protests and, in the extreme of cases, violence.
What one must understand is that political activism often hinders the progression of that particular subject because the government is unwilling to support a cause which is opposed in an 'open fashion'. Abortion, for example, was opposed for quite some time until news of 'back-street' abortions came to light and the government argued that it was in the interest of the public to legalise abortions under a doctor's supervision. In a number of respects, funding for such research projects as stem cell research is often stiffled in the light of public conflict and a tension between political views.
GM crops were first opposed due to the criticisms of farmers and the public being hesitant to eat foods which had been modified in order to make them 'last longer' or 'resistant to pesticides.' Abortion was opposed because it was deemed wrong to 'kill a life'. Throughout time, there have been countless examples of controversial issues being pushed aside. When the government should be casting light on a subject, instead it is left in the dark until the public has 'settled down'.
Stem cell research is a vital part of government research and medical advances within this field can help to save thousands of life, with the potential to find cures for cancer and other known diseases being unlimited. Stem cell research has helped experts in the field of medicine to understand the cause of disease and illness. Genetics has progressed ten-fold in the last few decades as a result of government funding but political activism forces the government to withdraw their support in order to 'appease the public.'
For the common man, he must ask himself this: what is it worth? Stem cell research could save the child dying of leukemia. Stem cell research could save the woman dying of cervical cancer. Stem cell research could save the frail man dying of pneumonia. There are endless possibilities. What political activism does is to damage the reputation of notable figures and questions the purpose of such a task, falsifying the evidence in order to sway the public in their favour. Does political activism hinder the advance of society? Yes. Does political activism damage the prospect of a better world? Yes. Should people remain silent? No. Stand up and be counted. There is no room for violence. There is no room for anger. In a world where millions are dying of poverty and disease, people have to begin to think, is this what is right for the world? In a world where people are being told that 'crime is on the rise' and 'financial crises are upon us', there is nothing worse than politicians sitting in a room quarrelling over a good cause. Stand up and be counted. Stand up and change the world.
Google claims that internet censorship is the same as international trade barriers. [Debate]
International trade barriers are the creation of political disputes and the failure to accept that the world is united in its purpose. International trade barriers are caused through the political divisions between the rich and the poor, which can also be noted as one of the economical aims of the United Kingdom; to close the gap between the rich and the poor. However, international trade barriers, some of which are the cause of the likes of the United Kingdom, prevent such aims from being met and thus should be considered a disadvantage to society and technology's advances into the modern era, also leading to third world countries becoming disheartened at the lack of support.
Internet censorship, on the other hand, should be considered a necessity to protect the world's children, some of whom do not understand the meaning of such graphic images which are found on some websites. Without Internet censorship, child pornography would be on the rise due to the lack of statements, one of which is known as the US 2257 statement which states all models have agreed to such photographs and films and are of legal age to perform as such. Internet censorship is protecting the views and beliefs of others, which without it, would lead to racial hatred, gender discrimination and an anarchistic use of the Internet.
The two are quite different, as Internet censorship is used to protect others whilst international trade barriers are a disadvantage to society. Internet censorship leads others to feel safe, both for their children and themselves whilst international trade barriers lead to a further gap between the rich and the poor, used quite often to show the power that a country has above another and could be perceived as a form of dictatorship in the control of goods, money and people themselves.
This, however, is but one side of the argument. Internet censorship, as used in some countries, leads to a totalitarian society where free thought and free speech are abandoned in place of a dictatorship. Internet censorship can lead others to be at a disadvantage because their opinions are being disregarded because of the implied meaning and also prevents a lack of development in the mind because of blocked images and texts. In strict Muslim countries, Internet censorship could be used to prevent members of the public viewing Christian texts and thus leads to a form of dictatorship, as seen in previous years under the reign of Saddam Hussein.
A similar argument remains with international trade barriers. Without such barriers, both arms and people could be transported from one country to the next without question, leading to an increase in slavery and terrorism. Countries such as North Korea would have access to radioactive material, which some would argue, would be considered immoral as would trading arms with a known terrorist country. Trade barriers also mean that there is a decrease in wars because of lack of arms dealerships and a decrease in slavery, which continues to happen in some countries.
I, however, believe that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages of Internet censorship and that the implied meaning of Internet censorship is to protect others, whether that is with the censorship of pornographic material or simple forms such as the US 2257 form. It should be noted that international trade barriers have an economic effect upon the world which far outweighs the social effects of Internet censorship and as such, it is not the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)