Opposition doesn’t help young minds

It is true, that the more clashing material young people use to learn the less time do they spend working within the system to improve their lives.

I’m sometimes baffled with the stuff my daughter comes up with. Some critical thinking that mainly comes from teachers.

Whilst the government has asked schools not to use anti-capitalist material, something that of course must enrage every true Labour politician, kids are caught out in the middle. The state schooled kids that is.

Teachers with strong believes can muddle with pupils’ minds. That’s why it is important that parents talk to their kids. Because only through talking can we see what is going on in their minds.

My daughter came up with stuff that a teacher kept on talking about women’s lib in the context of her lessons. Masking everything into the enslavement of women. That sets a tone.

The latest one is that prisons should spend more money on prisoners. Young people can be influenced in all sorts of ways and often, taken by itself, a lot of arguments make sense to a young person.

Young people are often pre-occupied by fairness for everyone and giving equal chances. Anybody driving that agenda on social media gets a lot of young followers instantly.

That’s probably the curse of state-school pupils, the equality agenda. Whilst kids in private schools come from a wealth creation background, state pupils often come from a search for equality background.

That of course creates a clash in the long run.

UK v. China

The latest diplomatic row is merely based on the territorial dispute around Hong Kong. It makes sense to discharge the Extradition deal on that basis. The UK can hardly be expected to extradite protesters from Hong Kong, which fled to the UK or associated territories.

I just don’t like that the discussion gets based around policies to do with repression of populations in China.

Both China and the UK have policies to reduce population growth.

China houses people but doesn’t allow them to have children, whilst the UK doesn’t house people and allows them to have children.

On my council estate a lot of the 1-bed or 2-bed flats are occupied by single house buyers. Those flats would have been allocated to young mothers or young families who were given a start in life with their children.

As these flats were taken off the social housing register by selling them, we have in effect made it impossible for poor young couples with children to get social housing as easily as it used to be.

Also people who bought a small flat, let’s say 1-bed, they then decide to have kids. The flat soon becomes too small but they work in a town. They cannot sell the flat and buy a bigger one in the same location. They cannot move away without losing the job, so they are trapped in that small flat with children.

Yet the bedroom tax does not solve those problems, yet some Labour politicians do not argue to get rid of it. Overall the decision to sell council flats was the worst decision ever made. Removing the pool of council flats restricted choices for most.

In effect Chinese and British policy has a similar outcome. Only difference is in Britain if you manage to get rich, you can have as many children as you can afford whilst in China, they restrict children to almost all but now rural populations.

There we have the class inequality again that two-class sytem is alive and well in Britain.

As Tony Blair is just as enthusiastic about Margaret Thatcher as Boris Johnson is, the consensus of stopping the poor in Britain from having kids is not just in the domain of the Conservatives.

Hence Labour does not have a policy that is defending the poor to have equal rights for all, so for many, there is little point in voting for Labour.

Morals as fashion item

Morals really are the fashion of the times and rules of ‘acceptable’ morals are usually set by the ruling classes.

For centuries morals were dictated by biblical terms. The permanent marriage between man and woman were promoted by Christians and Muslims.

The inability to fit in with the requirements to marry and have kids and stay in that relationship for live brought on many social complications. Those fancying the same sex partners for example or those needing gender changes because somebody important wanted them in another role rather than their traditional marriage commitments.

It’s often not quite apparent that the ruling classes make the rules. At the moment Western society moves away from fixed matrimony. Because top-society people feel better in equal relationships all our laws are now changing towards equality all around.

Women can now have kids and work. That of course gives men a much better chance to pick new partners and change more often.

In the past, when women were tied to their homes, men found it harder to get good quality new partners. They either had the marital sex or had to look for paid for girls. But now, when they have a big playing field in the work-place to choose from, that latter option becomes more obsolete, though not completely unimportant.

And the desire for changing partners is not just led by men, woman are also supporting that option.

I just don’t understand why women find that necessarily ideal.

Heinz-soldierLooking at my own dad. He was the kind of guy who liked women but he liked the feeble, nimble and pretty type. He didn’t like the child-bearing obligations a lot. The detective Lauri, in the Deadwind series I am currently watching on Netflix, reminds me of my dad a lot, they even look very similar. My dad was a very good-looking guy.

Unfortunately for him, he was sent to Norway by the Nazis and had to work with heavy water and that kind of messed up his sperm. There is almost nothing more embarassing in Britain today than having a relative who once wore a Nazi uniform. Just realise my dad’s dog looks a bit like the pooch that the detective, played by Neil Dudgeon , in Midsommer Murders has.

But also the relationship that Karppi has with her son, whose become a bully at school and Karppi, telling him that she will always support him. There I am doubting how far that support can go as with detectives, they naturally need to keep the law. Lauri broke off his relationship to his drug-addicted girlfriend because he could not have had a friend with drugs staying at his flat.

Lauri says he never wants to be a father to a child but now has become a father but he also kissed Karppi with the two children.

Men are sometimes mixed up about relationships and obligations.

So women now can decide to have abortions. I have had two myself because at the time I thought that the quality of life those two babies would have had was too low as they were conceived on the move. I had moved out from home, was couch surving and not fixed for a career. I wanted to be married at least and that’s what I did. Actually I did not want to have children at all at first.

So now we come again to family allegiance. And this law and order hinge makes a good case of how much allegiance you actually can and should have to your family, if they for example are breaking the law. Would it not destroy your life if you supported family members, just because you were born in a crime family?

Equally family secrets can totally mess a person up. My advice is don’t have them, so nobody can blackmail you.

If you support your kids when they do wrong, it does not help them to see the error of their ways. They get encouraged more in their wrong-doing than to do the right thing.

 

 

The desperate time government

vehicle driving on freeway towards wind turbines

Hard shoulders are used as driving lanes on many motorways now. Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

They call it gender discrimination but in the times when women stayed at home to look after the kids, we could manage when a school closed. Now all are drafted in as workers and when the workers fall ill, there is nobody to run services and nobody to look after children.

Not even in an equalised society, lets say dads or mums can stay at home any longer because parents have to work when a child is 5 now, and can no longer wait until they reached the age of 13.

woman wearing blue jeans

Photo by Luis Quintero on Pexels.com

If you have people idling around, they can be seen as potentially spare workers but if the country already uses the last man standing to work on, then in a crisis, we have no reserves left and start to panic.

The removal of hard shoulders on motorways, showed all drivers that the non-contingency policies lead to serious problems. If a car breaks down on a lane on a motorway where all lanes are in use, emergency vehicles cannot reach them.

If all parents are working and schools need to close, then who is going to look after the children? Or if workers need to stay at home with children then who is going to do the work?

Supermarkets are our best friends, because they charge the same price whatever the demand. In some unregulated remote, local shops, owners just double and treble prices, during the Corona Virus crisis,  because they just want to make as much as they can out of a crisis.

But what is disturbing, is that quantities are not regulated and those unfortunate enough, not being able to get to a supermarket at 7am in the morning will find empty shelves.

At the Sainsbury’s superstore, there were exactly 8 loaves of freshly baked bread in the shelve at 7:15AM. There was no pasta, no toilet paper at all.

Amazingly people do not opt for the fresh foods. Salads, fruits and veg are the only thing you can do to strengthen the immune system. Eat them regularly to stay healthy.

Not so free after all

Having watched Charles I: the killing of a King, I got a sharp reminder how unfree Britain really is. Remember Extinction Rebellion have been listed as terrorist organisation and ‘order, order’ is the most important value Britain has.

I grew up in the 70s in Germany, the time of the student revolt. Despite never having even taking part in anyone of the many student demos, I was arrested and locked up for 3 months just because the security services felt like it. Of course they eventually came round to admitting that it was all a mistake.

My arrest came about because I was sofa-surfing and one address I stayed at for a few days was under the watchful eyes of the security services.

So, any individual can become over-scrutinised if a national security situation becomes frightful through activities such as XR these days do. Thankfully, XR has not committed any terrorist offences yet.

I saw it coming and I mentioned previously, do not get involved in those street demos of XR or XR as they will suffer the same fate.

Of course I am not certain whether they will eventually grow into a radical movement just as German students did with the Baader-Meinhof gang but the radical ideology is not dissimilar. Yet XR is funded by Western Billionaires and Baader-Meinhof were German rich kids too who gotten trained by Gaddafi and the like.

It shows ‘the being in 2 minds uncertainty’ Western power figures are. On one hand they are really powerful and on the other they want to throw it all over.

So what is the point in having even a monarchy. Either you have a monarch, who is a real ruler with all the power that comes with it or you don’t. Monarchs tend to be despots with no regard for the rights of their subjects. They just rule and abuse.

Today’s monarch seems more like a display of puppets who do a function, which looks good but has little power.

In fact looking at the reality of it, they can’t do much at all without being constantly watched, criticised and controlled.

Some would call it stalking. Yet, it is their job to be stalked and written about and having their photos taken and being discussed. If that was a private individual, they would have better rights.

Who is really pulling the strings in Britain. It can’t be the monarch, who despite having use of an impressive real estate portfolio has very little actual power but a mere ceremonial function.

Boris Johnson seems to have been selected into post only because of his personality. He comes across as somber and believable. You can hardly resist his voice. When he is together and has his suit on, on TV, Boris is a great actor.

The people of Britain are tightly controlled. Made to work all hours. Kids are taken from their parents at the earliest opportunity and stuck into schools for about 8 hours a day, making the influence parents actually have over their children negligible.

There is really no other way of making it in the public domain other than through kinky affiliations or by being a useful tool and doing what you are told by the ruling elite. And who are they?

I think Britain has a superb publicity machinery, which gives the impression that there is an actual democratic process but if you really look at it, its all talk and no input.

I won’t even go into how proper elections are but think people have not much real choice who to vote for. The public broadcasters and the press are all set to promote private ownership at present.

Whilst that is the mood of the moment, remember please once they stop making a profit from their businesses, we are on our own.

Whilst Labour with a nationalisation strategy gets ridiculed by the press, it seems the only viable solution to guarantee continuation of services when the going gets tough.

There is a general consensus, I would always support that we do like our basic strategy of personal freedom, and liberty of individuals, we should always defend it, that we do not enslave women and that we allow people the right to choose whether to have a religion or not but what seems the complicated part is how our life-styles affect our planet and those questions will rule our minds for some time to come.

We do need an army to defend ourselves from freakish countries like Iran and Northern Korea or Daesh because they are real dictatorships.

Yet so much relies on how our societies are run. Personal freedom often is only possible because we have the luxury of relying on services being available.

One always has to look at the greater scheme of things.

The Fortune Cookie and Equality

I opened my complimentary fortune cookie on Monster Busters and the message said: “All your dreams will come true”.

Just imagine that was opened by someone who has constant nightmares?

The next message said: “You can still dream about what you can’t have”.

freud-assholesThat then brings me to Einstein who has a different kind of message, which relates to  haves and have’nots.

“Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low sef-esteem, first make sure you are not, in fact, surrounded by assholes.”

A lot of the New Year messages have to do with equality and those dreaming of a better life, which they may never have.

But in Einstein’s case, he actually comes up with a recipe for equality because if we all think about each other as assholes, then we are all equal in that respect, though our financial status has not changed a bit.

Genuine inventors may not reap the benefits of their inventions in their lifetimes either.

 

The cookie saturation

Just mentioned on a blog a couple of days ago that I am currently suffering from Plantar Fasciitis and promptly today, whilst I play a game online, during the advertising break, I get an ad stating that there is an ideal gadget to help me in the mornings. If I only buy this item and put it on in the mornings, my foot problems, due to Plantar Fasciitis, will be much better.

Of course that is a result of cookies and algorithms re-calling matching ads, fed into some database by companies seeking customers, that then are played during my games to me to make me buy this item.

Of course that principle of making people use free market economy solutions would work if people had unlimited amounts of money to buy what somebody produces somewhere and then get it shipped to them.

Would we really still need doctors, a National Health that prescribes established medications to those wanting certified solutions rather than promoted ones?

When I search anything into a search engine, promptly following on from that for several days, I will get inundated with ads about articles relating to that search.

It’s just like that once an interest is shown that then gets thrown back into our faces again and again with the hope that we spend money on that item.

If we would have no other option than to buy what is being offered to us in case of a need, then we would probably end up getting back to woodoo or witch-craft solutions rather than optimised nationally approved medicines.

Where is the quality control and who checks what type of products get advertised to us? Those freedom of market economy gurus would be able to set the standards if they are the only ones having the power to provide solutions.

Probably Human Rights standards is the only mechanism that saves us from those wanting to sell us anything that goes without making sure we have enough money to buy the stuff.

the rainforest

Is without question one of the most importent assets of our planet. It is concentrated on various geographical locations. Lets take Brazil here as an example.

green leafed trees under blue sky

The typical British countrydise, cleared of forest, ready for farming. Photo by Lisa Fotios on Pexels.com

Of course us developed nations we have already cleared a lot of our forests and developed our lands. We in Britain even talk about becoming self-sufficient farming-wise to justify us leaving the EU without a deal.

For that of course we need to farm the land and clear probably even more forest.

We really do love to rely on the rain forest. The untouched and virgin rain forest, that same rain forest that saves our planet.

But what about those nationas that are couched within the rainforest areas. Nations like Brazil. Do their citizens not have the right to farm, to develp the land, to get skills-based jobs that are based within their national borders.

scenic view of rainforest

Rainforst    Photo by Arnie Chou on Pexels.com

Whilst we here in Britain demand that we can become independent of others, we do expect nations within the rainforest regions to leave that forest and just not devleop, to depend on others, help others, so that we developed countries can stay developing ourselves.

What are the nationals within the rainforest countries supposed to be doing?

Nobody has thought about this and I think that just shows how stupid our privately educated politicians and business leaders are because all they can think of is themselves.

It is an international problem and it needs nations to work together. But of course our political leaders only think about Brexit and becoming indendent from Europe and use the resources of other nations to bolster our own wealth.

The rainforest? The rainforest is depended upon that it stays as it is. So what about putting that thinking cap on?

Equality impossible

It is good to see that we are not the same after all, despite the government trying to force through the annihilation of the genders. Female RAF recruits won a substantive payout to compensate them for march damage.

Women had to carry the same weight as men and walk in the same leg stride of 30 inches, the same as 6 foot high men. Now female soldiers are no longer required to have leg strides longer than 27 inches. One female recruit then suffered 4 pelvic fractures and was medically discharged. Read the full story.

It’s the principle that counts

Often we hear that persons who are psychopaths  are always finding it easy to exploit repetition in institutions to their advantage. Indeed many great institutions fell victim to habitual offending of some sort, stretching from the Catholic church to the BBC.

All institutions are ruled by principles and that is right that this is so. The whole earth follows a principle of its very own existence and we cannot escape that.

I looked at various ways where people tried to escape principles because those principles didn’t suit their own egoistic needs.

Religion is one. Just spent years researching the effects of churches on people and how it came that the Lutheran church broke away from the Catholic church and this then led the Church of England to be founded.

Looking at Luther he was most likely somebody who could not follow the demands of no sex within the church and looked for ways to justify his relationship with a nun, whom he loved. Again in the case of Henry VIII sexual problems, here to produce a son, led to a whole lot of unfortunate brutalities to justify the personal needs of one powerful person.

On that point of principle I am currently astounded to find that the current UK government applies the same principles to each ministry under their wing and in some it works and in some it doesn’t. Obviously Justice under Mr Grayling has adapted a great attitude by saying that prisons should never encourage an alternative lifestyle, whilst the principle of economic viability obviously doesn’t work in the employment tactics that Iain Duncan Smith wants to develop.

We can see that any institution contains various individuals of different opinions but those institutions are trying to house all of them within one principle.

Luther questioned the divinity of the Pope, saying that the Pope was of human origin and not Godly, yet the whole church started to exist because of God’s initiating it.

What is however quite important is the fact that Luther was a peaceful man who was just interested in getting his own personal relationship justified, after he gotten himself ex-communicated. But in the case of Henry VIII he took the opportunity to start a murderous regime and used his own desires to kill a lot of people, mainly Catholics in the process. Yet our monarch today happily continuous the heritage left since Henry VIII. Only change so far that now the British monarch is allowed to marry a Catholic.

What I think is the main sticking point is the inability of institutions to vary rules so that individual needs can be accommodated.

Basically it is a good principle to rule out sex because personal desires themselves are just often self-indulgent. I gotten horrified when I found out about the child marriages of underdeveloped regions for example where girls as little as 6 years old are sold to rich old men and that the elders of such region sanctify such marriages even if they are against civil law.

At a time in early Christianity when Catholic clergy were allowed to engage in sex they exploited their positions and pressurised locals and used them for personal pleasures, then the rules changed and they had to make a promise to celibacy.

I think it is great that the Catholic church beliefs that no sex is a good basis on which to start out but not all people who are in that church really do want to live that way. Yet as an institution the church is a save heaven for many and a way of life, which recently gotten less easy because many nuns and priests nowadays have to take on jobs because the church cannot support them any longer.

Perhaps it would be better for the Catholic church to introduce tiers of membership whereby those who really want to live without sex make up the upper tier and those who wish to live worldly get less senior roles. I think it is very important that there are religious leaders in the Catholic church that counter-balance our sex crazed world because it is important. In fact I think people should start off thinking that sex is not important and that would help to reduce over-population and reduce reproduction to those who really feel responsible enough to create another human being.

But we should not either forbid or glorify human reproduction.

But to say that all have to live under the same principle is a bad way of trying to organise human life. It is that principle that makes governments decide on stupid rules like gay marriage because we all have to be equal in every aspect of life, which is in itself completely unachievable.

Organisations that live according to strict principles are easy to manipulate by those wanting to do wrong.  We have got to get away from this equalitarien thinking and allow variation of principles to suit people’s needs.

It is the one big qualitative difference between civilised Christianity and uncivilised primitive cultures that girls are not exploited for the pleasure of old men. In this context again I wish to emphasize what I said before that primitive cultures prevalent in Islam, that prosper in economically underdeveloped areas very well, couch a culture that allows the exploitation of young girls and the Taleban are the ultimate tip of that iceberg. Islam itself also centres its religious ceremony around the movements of the moon. Christianity is more in tune with the wider planetary system and follows the sun, which is quite significant.  It is obvious that God who made the earth, made the sun to give us life and the moon is merely a planet that travels around the earth to regulate the water content of this planet.

Obviously for more primitive people it is easier to follow a religious ritual that is based around the movements of the moon as the moon is easy to see in the sky. Christianity is more difficult to understand as it is based around the whole planetary system, as God made the whole universe and not just the moon.

I find it quite disturbing that the biggest misfit of recent times in Britain, by the name of Cameron now wants to host peace talks between Pakistan and Afghanistan, which are two regions of the world, which are heavily practising abuse of young girls. Yet Cameron makes not secret of his hate of the EU and tried to get out of this as early as possible. The EU is a civilised region of this world with clearly defined laws that put age limits on girls engaging in relationships. Cameron should enforce civilised laws on these nations and not host talks with them in this nation whilst nasty things are going on there because Elders still rule the provinces and not those politicians that come to see Cameron.

He is a strange man that David Cameron and if the Conservative Party can produce something like that, then perhaps they are not worthy of our trust. I think the whole Monarchy is being put into disrepute and should consider abdicating and allow Britain to re-organise. The Queen openly declared her full support of Cameron when she recently sat in on a Cabinet meeting.

Cameron should nurture his relationships with other civilised nations and not throw those friendships away in favour of meddling with more primitive cultures as primary political partners.

I think as a country Britain has a lot to win but also a lot to loose.  Even the US criticises Cameron on his stance on Europe.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 53,977 hits