If one's own relationship with one's partner is toxic, and one does nothing to confront that, or is unable to see that toxicity for what it is, then it seems to me that pointing out the toxicity of others relationships and then suggesting one knows how to help them deal with that activity is a deliberate active ignoring of what is. It goes beyond not knowing.
Truly ignorant.
Truly ignorant.
Ignorance and not knowing.
For me these are two different qualities.
Ignorance is the deliberate action of ignoring something.
Not knowing is not knowing.
Tony Blair was ignorant with regards to Iraq. He deliberately ignored the fact that an invasion would lead to mass civilian deaths. David Cameron was ignorant with regards to Libya. He deliberately ignored the fact that supporting a violent 'revolution' by bombing Libyan infrastructure, and supporting violent militia would lead to mass civilian deaths.
Both knew what they were doing, and both deserve the derogatory implication of 'ignorant'.
If someone does not know about something, that is merely not knowing. Indeed not knowing is a core quality of Science, it is what drives good Science.
The problems of Power are best dealt with locally, then nationally, then internationally. We are in a toxic relationship with whoever Rules us. Being ruled over is a toxic state.
As David Smail writes:
"Hardly any of the 'symptoms' of psychological distress may correctly be seen as medical matters. The so-called psychiatric 'disorders' are nothing to do with faulty biology, nor indeed are they the outcome of individual moral weakness or other personal failing. They are the creation of the social world in which we live, and that world is structured bypower.
Social power may be defined as the means of obtaining security or advantage, and it will be exercised within any given society in a variety of forms: coercive (force), economic (money power) and ideological (the control of meaning). Power is the dynamic which keeps the social world in motion. It may be used for good or for ill.
One cannot hope to understand the phenomena of psychological distress, nor begin to think what can be done about them, without an analysis of how power is distributed and exercised within society."
As David Smail writes:
"Hardly any of the 'symptoms' of psychological distress may correctly be seen as medical matters. The so-called psychiatric 'disorders' are nothing to do with faulty biology, nor indeed are they the outcome of individual moral weakness or other personal failing. They are the creation of the social world in which we live, and that world is structured bypower.
Social power may be defined as the means of obtaining security or advantage, and it will be exercised within any given society in a variety of forms: coercive (force), economic (money power) and ideological (the control of meaning). Power is the dynamic which keeps the social world in motion. It may be used for good or for ill.
One cannot hope to understand the phenomena of psychological distress, nor begin to think what can be done about them, without an analysis of how power is distributed and exercised within society."
Genuine healthy self governance is something a people must actively participate in. Voting, on it's own, is not that. But that cannot happen until a people understands the toxicity of their situation, by reflecting on the evidence before them.
We all need to grasp that our income taxes and sales taxes are the basic funding mechanism for Government, and that these are the collateral States use to guarantee their lenders that they will pay the lenders back. That this tax revenue belongs to the people not the Government, who merely hold that money in trust. That has implications. Not least that policy must be evidence based, must serve the peoples real needs and must not be subject to ideology, belief or religion.
We all need to grasp that our income taxes and sales taxes are the basic funding mechanism for Government, and that these are the collateral States use to guarantee their lenders that they will pay the lenders back. That this tax revenue belongs to the people not the Government, who merely hold that money in trust. That has implications. Not least that policy must be evidence based, must serve the peoples real needs and must not be subject to ideology, belief or religion.
Start at home, folks!
Let the people of America confront the abuse of Power they are funding. That way they can prevent sending their military out all over the world to interfere in other peoples lives.
Likewise the people of Britain. Similarily for each and every juridstriction. Deal with the issues at home, first. Demonstrate that it can be done, and is practical.
If they succeed in that enterprise, then they can turn attention to other states where oppression exists, and encourage the people there to follow suit. Because they have proven it can be done. Because they can provide meaningful material support in that enterprise.
Power does all it can to manipulate the people over whom they have that power to ensure that that NEVER happens. Power is bullying.
Kitty Jones has written a really useful blog piece on this. The dynamics will be easily recognised from inter-personal behaviour we have all experienced. The same dynamics apply to any Political Power system that is a dominating system, a hierarchy of power, that exercise power over the people.
Kitty Jones has written a really useful blog piece on this. The dynamics will be easily recognised from inter-personal behaviour we have all experienced. The same dynamics apply to any Political Power system that is a dominating system, a hierarchy of power, that exercise power over the people.
The truth about the promise of African 'Independence' after WWII, as an example.
Slavery was a separate matter. Slavery was almost an accident. The first colonies used white slaves and white indentured workers, who died in the hot climates of the Carribean and Southern parts of the colonies, from heat exhaustion and malaria. The drive to bring in slaves from areas of West Africa where immunity to malaria was common emerged as a response to the weakness of the white slaves. They had no such immunity. Nor were they acclimatised to the heat of the tropics. There was an existing slave trade in North Africa, and it was to this trade that the British and others turned. They could have taken slaves from South America, or North Africa, or Asia. But the trip across the Atlantic from West Africa was by their estimation more efficient.
Slavery was a separate matter. Slavery was almost an accident. The first colonies used white slaves and white indentured workers, who died in the hot climates of the Carribean and Southern parts of the colonies, from heat exhaustion and malaria. The drive to bring in slaves from areas of West Africa where immunity to malaria was common emerged as a response to the weakness of the white slaves. They had no such immunity. Nor were they acclimatised to the heat of the tropics. There was an existing slave trade in North Africa, and it was to this trade that the British and others turned. They could have taken slaves from South America, or North Africa, or Asia. But the trip across the Atlantic from West Africa was by their estimation more efficient.
In North America, Racism was institutionalised in order to ensure slaves and poor whites did not unite, locally, to challenge their oppressors. The abolition of slavery 150 years later was not about the welfare of the slaves, it was about the Industrialists need to put a stop to ultra cheap labour, to push more and more people into the factory wage work system, which they were busy building as an international empire. If another state had used slave labour in factories, they would have been able to compete and win against the factory wage work system. That potential is what really drove the American Civil War, and the Abolition of Slavery by the British some years later, not the welfare of the slaves. But they could not come out and say that. So they used Christians and Liberals as cover for the plot.
The Betrayal of African Independence, post WWII, is the primary driver of oppression across Africa since WWII.. It had nothing to do with slavery per se. And yet it had.
School history texts claim it happened, and that it was a reward for support in both the European World Wars, but that the Africans fell into conflict with each other, (because they have always been 'uncivilised', primitive, is the standard unspoken, implication) and because of African conflict in many cases it failed.
What actually happened was that every time an African government sought to take control of the resoources of it's lands, above and below, the Europeans murdered the principals, installed their own proxies and maintained their control of 'strategic resources'. They hired in what ever local African thugs would submit to them, and put them to work.
Gaddafi understood that.
Patrice Lumumba understood that.
The ANC reneged on that, and the white liberals who supported them did not understand that.
And had nothing to do with Slavery. Which has been the primary driver of white consciousness concerning black Africans.....
It had much more to do with control of wealth creating raw materials and economic hegemony.
What is implicitly Racist is suggesting the those Black Africans who took the Crowns shilling - the ones the Europeans powers installed, after they murdered the ones who sought to claim African Raw Materials for African Wealth creation - are part of 'Africans savagery towards each other'.
And that ties into the institutionalisation of Racism in the colonies. We are back full circle, where clever lies are used to mask the reality. Gaddafi was murdered, and the State that the Libyan people created together with the wealth of their oil revenues was destroyed because the example of an African state managing it's own resources to nurture it's own people could not be permitted to continue, and could not be allowed to inspire other states to take similar measures.
Venezuela is on the same trajectory.
And that ties into the institutionalisation of Racism in the colonies. We are back full circle, where clever lies are used to mask the reality. Gaddafi was murdered, and the State that the Libyan people created together with the wealth of their oil revenues was destroyed because the example of an African state managing it's own resources to nurture it's own people could not be permitted to continue, and could not be allowed to inspire other states to take similar measures.
Venezuela is on the same trajectory.
Kindest regards
Corneilius
"Do what you love, it's Your Gift to Universe"
Thank you for reading this blog. All we need to do is be really honest, responsive to the evidence we find,and ready to reassess when new evidence emerges. The rest is easy.