Setting international standards

What humanity needs is an international set of professional standards, that enables all communities of the world to set rules of human interaction.

Even the smallest indigenous communities have standards that are set to enable the community to thrive.

Depending on location and environment, the more primitive societies made the most of what they had but set moral standards to prevent sexual exploitation or unhealthy live styles.

Most major religions are centred around the unquestionable servititude towards a divine being – a God –  and the rulers in charge identified themselves as being a direct descendant of that God. Of course that developed through from ancient times via the Greeks, Romans, then Christians in the west and Muslims in the East.

Through international communications it becomes clear that a lot of such communities exist world-wide, communities who teach their children, that their God is the only true one.

Conflicts are created when one community teaches their followers that they can exploit anybody who is not part of their religion as for example Daesh or Isis did. They said it was OK to exploit anybody sexually who was not a strict Muslim.

This principle leads to tribal conflicts on smaller area disputes as they can happen in African tribes for example, who roam wild areas and conflict with each other over territorial disputes.

Modern gangs, even in western societies use the rape of another gang’s members as a tool of control and stamping on authority. The rape of the women in other tribes is also an ancient method of destroying other cultures.

Religion started off as a moral code to regulate personal and family life to restrict behaviour to acceptable standards to avoid disease transmitted by sexual activity for  the members of any particular community.  Where later on science came in was when ‘doctors’ found  cures for common illness through scientific research, developing medications that could be administered and also by finding hygiene rules to avoid water contamination for example.

Setting a commonly accepted code of standards is important to avoid local and wider conflicts and to enable humanity to develop.

Whilst primitive cultures enslave their followers by simple dicatatorial rule, e.g. everybody must follow the laws of the leader, modern society exploits the poor by having rules, which create dependency. Universal Credit is a nodern example of that because it drove recipients into prostitution or they could not afford to live.

Other countries developed away from religious Gods and became Communist, again using strict dictatorial rules to regulate society.

A lot of states now have nuclear power and use that as a threat to keep foreign influence away.

I really do not think it matters what type of rule a society has, it just matters that each member of any society can live with a freedom of choice and without having to loose dignity.

Yes, the ability to choose aslo depends on intellect and brain function. This can vary from individual to individual. Yet professional standards should regulate good standards of living and enable everybody to contribute to the best of their ability.

Unfortunately much of modern society is determined by venture capitalism, a form of control over people, by making those with the most money privileged. Whilst it doesn’t matter how people gotten rich, they do not loose their wealth, even after they have been found to supply humanity with dangerous products.

Using advertising and mass-media, any producer of any goods can use streaming to attract people to buy their products and get rich, may that be cigarettes or e-cigarettes, alcohol or petrol cars.

Modern societies life-styles have been driven by a desire to have comfort in the home and use less physical activity.

People are required to use their energy to work for an employer and then have little time for their personal lifes. Laws force any person to work for any employer who will give them a job, not allowing the individual to choose.

This produces a downward social spiral. Dismantles family life and the ability of the individual to choose a healthy profession over an unhealthy one.

Earth warming has now become the biggest threat to humanity but the mechanisms that drive international trade, which is mainly responsible for earth warming, are not being dismantled.

When I say international trade I also mean the goods that are being traded and the production of which causes a big carbon foot print.

Wars and conflicts have an enormous carbon foot print. The use of fossil fuels, which also produce petrol, diesel and plastics is a major source of carbon.

Unfortunately many societies cannot exist unless they engage in trade because all services and labour are distributed due to a GDP calculation that is established. GDP stands for General Domestic Product.

Societies, countries rely on tax collections to provide services for the inhabitants.

Unless governments make a stand and refuse to accept taxes from bad companies, we cannot progress.

We need to exercise control over venture capitalism and control goods and services for their beneficial impact on society before we produce, advertise and sell them.


Sectarianism never works. It is, in my definition a violent pressure group, with specific cultural traits, that pressures an established government to allow those specific traits to prevail and if resisted fights for independence.

The Irish Sectarian movement have become clever and since they lost material support from the likes of Gaddafi they hush.

With the Kurds there is a peculiar problem, they have been used to fight Daesh – with US support – but now get hammered. But if the Kurds were clever, they would offer a truce to Turkey, let Turkey take over their land, occupied in Syria and then negotiate Syria’s Assad together with the Turks. Obviously the Russians wouldn’t support the Kurds because the Russians alrady support Assad. And fighting Syria and Russia v Turkey and the Kurds would attract international support, but as it is, the world just watches as Turkey hammers the Kurds. There have been escapes of Daesh prisoners already and it seems the previous problems are going to flare up again, which is quite unfortunate.

All Secterian movements are completely unflexible to other lifestyles. Of course that can be said about many cultures but what makes a group of people sectarian is, if they do not have the country to go with the lifestyle.

I suppose it is easy to manipulate any sectarian group anywhere in the world to cause trouble for the country or government they reside within. Any foreign power can supply the Resistance with weapons and get them to harrass the hated government.

I think it needs a world solution to this problem. With the ongoing climate change agenda, countries will need to learn to work together on that basis, perhaps they learn to put carbon footprints on the forefront of their thoughts, because wars are environmentally very damaging.

Perhaps we need a new world council, which decelerates wars. You can argue that nations have a right to defend themselves. This needs extraordinary amounts of weapons all around the globe. Weapons can be a deterrent but they also get used and inevitable cause immense destruction.

Here, we are back to sectarian groups who all think they have the right to be better and bigger.


A new iron curtain?

I suppose the title of my most previous post “A bad political strategy” could also head this one, which is about the Russian, Iranian and world political relationship.

Russia now refuses sanctions against Iran over the Iranian development of nuclear energy. The UN, in line with western expectations accuses Iran of wanting to develop nuclear weapons. It all sounds like the run up to the next invasion of some eastern country by western and UN led forces.

Iran say they have a right to develop peaceful nuclear energy but the West of course accuses them of wanting to make nuclear weapons. We had arguments of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it led to the Iraq invasion and enquiries ever since. Iran has long been a thorn in the eyes of the western politicians, as it will not bow to pressure and is outspoken in opposition to all western policies. Israel has already vowed to invade Iran and attack them to destroy the nuclear power plants they have built or are about to build.

The Russian – Iranian allegiance makes this very interesting though in a dangerous sense.

Britain is at its best to seriously annoy the Russians though, which again draws a big international line across our world geography. Russian oligarch has won case against Russia in the case of murder allegations. Now has an active court case before the High Court, in particular Justice Eady, claiming billions from the owner of an English football club who happens to be Russian. So the Russians do not mind being part of our western world. Anybody really loves their footsie. The West however wants to see more submission to us in the political sense as well as the football club alone.

If Eady J now lets the Russian defector win against the Russian football club owner, there will be some serious thinking to do what can be done with the political headache that is about to become a giant migraine. Of course I said it before and say it again, the courts and in particular civil law is not the method to make politics but this is what is emerging. Judges make politics these days and it not only jeopardises the functionality of justice, it also can cause a war. Think about it. If Russian sides with Iran and the West attacks Iran and Russia is on their side, we have a big dangerous scenario.

The productivity argument

During my visit at the Imperial War Museum yesterday, we made some personalised poppies for a sea of poppies. Then we went to see the exhibits and down in the cellar where some display boxes with German war regalia and I was amazed about 2 things. Firstly that not only Hitler told people to eat potatoes but the British did too and secondly that even during World War I the Germans used the higher productivity output of their factories as argument of their superiority.

They then boasted to a 1/3 higher production of goods and exports than Britain. Seems still to be almost the same argument today. I found it very disturbing when Angela Merkel threatened war as one option to get out of the European crisis only last week because it seems that the Germans want to turn higher productivity into war activity perpetually.

During my few years of blogging I repeatedly always put high manufacture output with high environmental damage, nothing to be proud of Mrs Merkel.

There are no quick solutions to the European crisis and to the need to manufacture products for general use. What is needed is leadership that works for the people and not for the idea of being the best,or just think quantitative all the time.

strikes expected for period of time

What I cannot understand and doesn’t make sense at all, is why doesn’t the government carry out extensive consultation before making such life-changing decisions such as changing pension age and pension contributions. It seems the logical way to go about something that affects the country and the majority of the working population. That is the stuff for referendums and not slash-bang-whallop, governmental announcements that makes people’s heads wallop and purses shrivel.

It simply doesn’t make any sense that a sensible government provokes such strikes when it can be easily anticipated that they are going to happen. It doesn’t make sense also that then the government shrugs their shoulders and blames the unions for being irresponsible.

Is there any point in creating such discontent in the first place? We have a minority government that upsets the majority of people, by people I mean the workers here. And it is all of us who are going to have to suffer from it and the ones who will suffer the most are the vulnerable single parents, pensioners, homeless and disabled.

Of course the government can then come around and make further historical decisions like banning strikes altogether but that in turn will then only cause further militant incidents because that is what always happened throughout history. Why do it, how can it possibly be justified when the previous government didn’t see it necessary and the workers don’t see it essential either. Why does this government think that all workers are stupid and they don’t care about their country and they cannot see further than the end of next week. But at the same time the government relies on the same workers to man the Territorial army teams and civil defences. Then suddenly they are sensible . enough. And the government expects those same workers to make the future home owners.

I definitely think that what is needed is legislature that forbids any government to make such drastic and radical changes without a prolonged period of consultation and referendum like country-wide considerations and asking people what they think and what the broad majority of people would like to do about it instead of asking a couple of consultants who are empowered to make wide-reaching recommendations and then asking some panel of a few people to approve those changes.

It is like so often that governments simply do not see it necessary to consider the views of the ordinary working person. Each individual out there is capable of calculating the costs of running a country if they are only given the figures. I have not seen a comprehensive budget published anywhere that explain those measures to me.  I think this parliamentary system has failed if it fails to satisfy the electorate over a prolonged period of time.

Vice versa

For those who do not know, I live in East London, Tower Hamlets to be exact and today I tried to have a relaxing afternnon at home, the kids were playing and enjoyed themselves. But, to my dismay I had to listen to helicopters and emergency vehicles going around the area all afternoon. It was quite loud. How did I deserve this? It was because there were a couple of demos in Whitechapel that kept 3000 police officers in the area to keep the peace.

The EDL staged a protest vigil an a left-wing counter protest also took place. Altogether there were probably around 3000 people clashing in Whitechapel. Both groups were kept apart by voluntary stewards for the local Asian community and thousands of police officers who cordoned off the EDL at Aldgate.

It all originated because a radical Islamist group started to insult returning British soldiers of the Royal Anglican Regiment from Afghanistan and sort of broke the law on that account. So from what I can read on Facebook and Wikipedia the EDL developed. It is described as far right. This is a word or words that I simply cannot understand unless they are more defined; so I interpret it as nationalistic.

I think that every settled local community has  the right to defend their values. We British and other Europeans were thrown out from formerly occupied colonies because the original inhabitants there defended their homeland and culture against the intruders. In other nations around the globe, nations reserve the right to live to their own best understanding and ask all citizens within their borders to adhere to the commonly known beliefs and rituals in that nation. So far so good.

Yet here in Britain we constantly get this philosophy that it is wrong to feel as a culture and feel good about it. But as a western civilisation and in this case the English have developed their own culture over the years and are quite happy living it.

I suppose if you go to other parts of the British isle you will find much less concentrations of Asian settlers and they are not so predominantly represented but here in Tower Hamlets we almost got a 50:50 ratio from white to Asian now. We have also become used to celebrating particularly Islamic holidays like Eid as quasi official celebrations as our council is also staffed by 2/3 now with Asians who are Muslims.

So far we have not been asked to change our Christian habits or lifestyles to please our Muslim brothers and sisters but if we would be required to adjust, for example western and Christian women had to wear Asian outfits, I suppose a lot of women would see the EDL as liberators and welcome them with open arms.

I cannot understand why some parts of the English nation do not want to preserve their English heritage and give it preference to other cultures. Obviously one cannot mix up all cultures and get equality all around. Just imagine how many more bank holidays we needed if all religions would get equal rights to celebrate their gods sporadically. And why should we want to do that in any case?

But I suppose in the end it is a question of numbers, if the amount of any group of immigrants outnumbers the original population then a cultural change would most likely be desired by the majority group.

Interestingly the British isles were frequently invaded by various groups over the centuries, the Kelts, the Vikings, the French and all of them kept on fighting it out between them who ruled Britannia.  The Conservatives promised a cap on immigration but it effectively rose, and they are very busy to please the settlers by adjusting to their cultural requirements to get their votes. So it remains to be seen how things develop with the least possible friction I may add.

However in principle I cannot see why any resident population cannot devise a rule when all settled persons get preferred treatment to all newies because that makes the most sense to me because those who settled the longest are part of that particular culture. I suppose if we went to another culture, for example tried to emigrate to Afghanistan, Iraq or Egypt we would have to work our way up to achieve social acceptance too.

Not long ago, during a Radio discussion one lady remarked that we should be glad that so many people want to come and live in Britain but don’t they come to live in Britain because they see a real chance to change the face of this country to suit them instead of adjusting their lifestyles to fit in? The English have particular difficulties defining their own preferences contrary to other countries who are much more direct in outlawing habits that clash with their culture like France.

Added on 4/9/11. Looking at the situation in Whitechapel, we have reports of problems whereby Christians feel intimidated by the loud noise from the Whitechapel Mosque when the Imam loudly sings out into the community, which can be heard hundreds of meters away. But we did have discussions that church bells were too loud and disturbed people. In around the Whitechapel area, in addition to the large Whitechapel Mosque, we have up to 3 smaller prayer centres per street, which are used by hundreds of Muslim worshippers several times per day.

I learned that in some other areas of the UK Mosques could not establish because they had been sabotaged during the building process.

Of course many Muslims are very right-wing in that they do not allow inter-mingling with Christianity and the rumour goes around that Muslims who wish to break away and integrate will be punished by their communities. So it seems the rumours that Islam wants to turn Britain around ring true and it remains to be seen how the population reacts to this.

Fear of losing home stops people from looking for work

Quite obviously the new regulations that enable social landlords to evict tenants after now 5 years are just another matter to have leverage on social control. The legislation is not properly formulated, ill conceived and does not make any sense whatsoever.

Clearly that if you do not know where you live the next day, you cannot plan for work. There are hardly so many well paid jobs around that you can improve your lifestyle from one day to the next.The job market is littered with jobless ex specialists in their fields.  It is just a lame excuse to change tenures for life to intermediate tendencies to be able to shift the poor around to districts less desired by the rich. Many vulnerable people have enough to do to keep their daily lives stable enough to care for their children, they cannot cope with the extra costs of moving home all the time. I completely disagree with those housing measures. It is a matter for the economy to be more vibrant so that people can find work and not a matter of housing policy if they are jobless.

Just now it has been announced that a further 7.000 workers at the MoD are to loose their jobs. Maybe those wish to apply for volunteers at the Olympics because I had the impression that the Olympics prefer ex police or government personnel as volunteers. But that does not replace any job of course.

The whole new government is a huge shambles. Just as the economy has improved by only 0.2% under ex sex-party business leader George Osborne, we get more and more indigestible policy changes.

Incidentally I saw a totally fat man squeezed in his little Porsche driving by yesterday and wonder whether it was Pickles driving his Porsche through London’s East End, just as that is the kind of community that drives Porsches these days. Just as under the Conservatives public borrowing has risen, job losses have increased and benefits have decreased, I think we ought to demand to know exactly where all the money goes.

All those public relations disclosures of who met the NoW at what time has no impact on the real issues, namely how our economy is run, how much the government borrows and why all those spending cuts do not impact and reduce the borrowing rather than increase it.

Flirting with the enemy

I am not impressed by the joined efforts of Sarkozy and Cameron to go to Libya. The unrest in the Asian world excites both the Christian leaders of the West and the radical Muslims of the East because both parties hope that the uprisings will bring changes to the social life of the area in that  the Westerners hope better democracy will get rid of the religious stale mate but the Islamists hope that greater religious powers will be obtained, wanting to get rid of parliamentary democracy altogether.

I think that too much time is being put into this because it is just the age-old situation in that in such problem spots of the world trouble always brews and that does little to the stability of our home lands. In fact putting too much energy into this deserts our own agendas at home. Afghanistan is one of the better known areas that has been riddled by world powers trying to influence what is going on there and ended up being hijacked by militant Muslims and armies of Taleban.

I do not see much hope of the Middle East becoming suddenly like western democracies and think Cameron should know better and put more efforts into his homeland rather than flirt with the enemies abroad or even worst put more into a war effort. The world is on the edge of a World War III at the moment with so many trouble spots around the world emerging.

It is more important to keep the peace especially in the light o the fragile nature we are dealing with.

London is already reeling from the Olympic preparations. Whole landscapes are deserted and improvements not taking place fast enough to not disrupt the local infrastructure and the socia lifes. We do not want to see crime rates rising again at home and our leaders should work where they are elected to work and not pounce around abroad all the time.

Added on later

Mr Hague is also in Libya and feels inspired by the rebels but I think Mr Hague would be better off touring East London and get some inspiration here.

The liberation of Bin Laden’s wives

There is a link to a comprehensive overview of the proceedings that led to Bin Laden’s killing and closure of his compound in Pakistan. There has been a military operation against a person who lived as a civilian but carried out military terrorist war type actions against nations. That is the new face of war that with the guerilla phenomenon we see this problem of persons apparently living like ordinary people being in charge of armies and operating like military. They expect to be treated like civilians but act like army. It’s a bit puzzling and opened many questions of operational legality.

What is however most disturbing about Bin Laden’s lifestyle, is that one of his 3 wives, a Yemeni woman, asserted that she had not left her room for 5 years, that she had spent her whole time in the compound in that one room.

I had read on other sources that strict Islamist husbands expect a woman to sit in one room on a chair, heavily dressed all day and every day or they would make themselves liable to sexual attack (e.g. rape from other men). Just think there were 13 children in the compound and their mothers where never allowed to leave their rooms. How unhealthy is it if a woman is never allowed to leave her room? In western terms that would be unlawful imprisonment of a person.

plenty to think about

having watched the royal wedding gave me plenty to think about.  It was a very impressive event for several reasons. Of course as already hinted my main interest is the business and economic side of it because my main training is in business but I was also fascinated on other aspects like the strongly sexist impression I got from the very basic order within the family, which saw all males in military uniforms and all females in fancy dress.

Starting on the sexist part it appears a little implausible that a change in the female entitlement to become first to the throne would not also bring a change to the strict dress code. I thought males looked much nicer yesterday as their outfits looked better organised and more glamorous than the women’s. Men’s outfits were also more gay and even if the basic uniform colour was black in some cases like for instance Prince Harry, the colourful tassels and batches, buttons and medals made up for that.

I think women should have to counter that basic dress sense and design their own uniform code to be equally glamorous in the dress department to equal the men properly. Or why did the Queen not wear uniform when she as head of the country should have outshone the congregation, which was led by equally well dressed church officials alongside the military men. The only uniformed females on the day were some female police officers on crowd control outside.

And of course the main question for me is what does this royal wedding do for the economy and there the real puzzle starts. We saw a racially white royal family, served by white religious and military personnel, admired by a mainly white crowd, which was totally unrepresentative of the racial mix the actual population consists of.

What is important in this context is also the fact that the UK economy sees very little growth and suffers a deficit in the balance of imports and exports.

What we see is a small group of white people who made a huge diplomatic effort to befriend representatives of other racial origins, which were of course the carefully selected diplomatic guests from around the world.

In the crowd outside were a few almost Asian or black looking people but most were plain white. The question is how long can this small but powerful minority, in the international sense cling on to power and how much economic impact will that small group have? Of course we continually see the strategic efforts to give key posts within the royal household to persons of other racial origin but that can only stay diplomatic because on a personal level no racial mixing takes place. The only previous attempt of a member of the royal family to go astray ended in tragedy, when Princess Diana mixed up with Egyptian Dodi Fayed.

Yet each racial group must be allowed the basic right to preserve itself or not and that is really the question whether there is such a feat. Culture and colour are ingrained in groups of people who have occupied geographical regions for a long time and that is the same around the world. It is just that some racial groups are smaller than others.

In how far technical and intellectual superiority plays a role the balance of power has shifted to other parts of the world now that contains much larger groups with other racial features. Insofar as basic food production is concerned the UK has long outgrown its ability to grow their  own in self-sufficiency.

I think that the royal family itself has little economic power and it will have to be seen whether royalty will have to keep up economically to be able to stay in power.  Well saying that we saw lots of property owners yesterday.

Yet coming back to the dresses and costs all around I think women should insist less on variety and save resources and adopt a similar dress strategy to men, who dress more basic but more effective also. It also makes more economic sense if women would wear less choice and more style that is cheaper to maintain. Women damage their own economic prospects if they keep on spending on variety that is short-lived and expensive to produce.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 55,049 hits
%d bloggers like this: