We are told the Taliban are Evil. They are not alone: Johnson, Blair and Bush et al, they are all in the same club.

Greta Thunberg wrote:

"You say you hear us, and that you understand the urgency... if you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act, then you would be evil, and that I refuse to believe."

I have to say, she'd better believe it. We all should, really. 

It is not a negative approach to acknowledge harmful behaviour as harmful. It is, in fact, a hugely positive step as it is the first step towards resolving the problems caused by the harmful behaviour.

Our collective, cultural and individual refusal to admit, to acknowledge, to accept and integrate the evidence all around us, to understand what the corruption, the bloody wars, the environmental destruction really means - the evidence that our rulers and their sponsors are engaged in evil behaviours - is our weakest point. 

We dare not go there.

We will not be able to generate the international co-operation needed to create and apply adaptive strategies that help meet the evolving dynamics of climate change, that cease harmful toxifying industrial and agricultural practice, that start the processes of repair and recovery until we confront and cease the war mongering. This is clear. All war is evil, all war is abuse of power.

We install eco-lightbulbs hoping that will be enough. We recycle, we re-use, fingers crossed. We hope and we pray. We drive a Tesla car. Faint hope. Delusion.

Everyday evil is not dramatic, it is banal. It wears a suit, a neatly ironed shirt, sports boyishly tousled hair, wears a charming smile to mask lying eyes. Evil is looking at a bank balance or a power advantage and judging that to have more value than a human life, than the environment, than the well being of others.  That decision is evil. Adopting that stance and maintaining it is evil.

Evil is normalised.

Evil is normalised, so much so we do not see it. In order to see evil, we must know what it is. 

Evil is consciously allowing, enabling or otherwise permitting avoidable un-necessary harm in order to maintain wealth advantage and power disparity over others. Externalised costs are the very definition of evil. Somebody else pays the price.

It is evil to test cosmetic formulations on captive animals in order to assess how much of the toxic compound can be used, or what toxicity levels one can get away with human use of the product. 

There is no need whatsoever to use toxic chemical compounds in any products for use by any person, except for profit. Those tests are protecting future profits, rather than protecting human beings. The captive animals bear untold and intolerable suffering, for shareholder gain. That is evil behaviour.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Palestine, Vietnam

Excellent, honest and insightful interview with MP Clive Lewis, an Afghan War veteran who shows more humane leadership in this segment, than Sir Keir Starmer has shown since he joined the Labour Party.



Twenty years of war upon Afghanistan, so much violence, nothing to show for it except the prospect of more violence.

Honest history in all our schools would go a long way towards preventing the grass roots population from being manipulated or groomed into accepting war as a tool of State policy, and would undoubtedly help to reduce Xenophobia, Racism and Misogyny.

Hypocrisy

Blair, a proven liar and war criminal walks free, on a generous state pension, whilst Julian Assange, an honest journalist,  rots in a prison cell, held under false charges.

Afghanistan never needed the USUK or NATO to guide it's progress. 

As Naomi Aldort wrote: "Our children do not need us to shape them, they need us to respond to who they are."

The same applies to sovereign countries. Conquest, NeoColonialism, and the urge to force other cultures to adopt the culture of a dominating State is a negative malign influence, and undermines global efforts at peace and co-operation.

The truth about the Establishments hatred of Corbyn is this : the evidence of the past 20 years implicates a significant cohort of the English Establishment, as war criminals, who prosecuted those awful horrific wars, and who knew what they were doing was both amoral and illegal, though it did enable a massive transfer of wealth from ordinary tax payers to already obscenely wealthy oligarchs who donated heavily to the politicians, buying influence. That is evil behaviour.

Lowkey has a spot on take here.

That is a dishonourable legacy.

Evil is human action, human behaviour, more, nothing less. That means it is tractable, it is something we can confront, challenge and impede, and indeed prevent. Here Rory Stewart lays out a perspective that criticises the action of one American president, without taking the whole into consideration. He even suggests maintaining a foreign military presence in other people's lands is a virtue. It is not a virtue.

"Biden can't say the Afghans are cowards. He left them behind."@RoryStewartUK tells @OliDugmore western leaders have only themselves to blame for the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan. pic.twitter.com/qJEPY77no1

— PoliticsJOE (@PoliticsJOE_UK) August 19, 2021

It is an evil. But Stewart's eloquence masks the evil, by pointing at just one aspect of the evil. He is correct that the way this withdrawal has been handled has exposed Afghanistan's civilian population and civil infrastructure to greater risk than need be - but he does not acknowledge that the USUK/NATO presence in Afghanistan is also a much greater evil. 

The unexciting banality of everyday evil.

War is almost always about someone making a killing.

$10,000 of stock evenly divided among America’s top five defence contractors on September 18, 2001 — the day President George W. Bush signed the Authorization for Use of Military Force in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks — and faithfully reinvested all dividends, it would now be worth $97,295.

"Several commentators address this dynamic in the 2005 documentary “Why We Fight,” about a warning that President Dwight Eisenhower issued about the military-industrial complex. Former CIA contractor and academic Chalmers Johnson states, “I guarantee you, when war becomes that profitable, you’re going to see more of it."

source: https://theintercept.com/2021/08/16/afghanistan-war-defense-stocks/

Concentrated Wealth is the most powerful political collective among the developed nation states. 

War is not cheap.

The political power of Concentrated Wealth is based upon externalising costs.

Somebody else pays the price. Leveraging power to dump the costs onto others is evil.

Boris Johnson's behaviour evil. Read a list of his decisions that burdened others with the cost of his egoic avarice.

Tony Blair's behaviour is evil. There were no WMD in Iraq, and even if there had been, the War of Aggression against Iraq would still have been amoral, and illegal.

Jacob Rees-Mogg behaviour is evil. Food banks are indeed graciousness, yet the policies that created the need were one's he pursued, with others for a decade. Uplifting indeed!

The behaviour of Taliban  1.0 was evil. Theocracy always is.

The behaviour of the Saudi Regime are evil. Theocracy always is. Others pay the price.

The behaviour of the Vatican is Evil. Theocracy as a political hegemon always is. They protect their power at immense cost.

The grooming of 'Incels' as a violent political misogynist movement is evil. Grooming always is.

behaviour of NATO is evil. War is dishonour on every measure. Nobody wins in war. War is a losers enterprise.

Nigel Farage's behaviour is evil. Grooming always is. Exploiting vulnerabilities in other people is evil.

Keir Starmer's behaviour is evil. Sending children into schools, to spread the virus, in spite of the available evidence proving that it was unsafe to do so. No ifs, no buts.

Jacinda Ardern's behaviour is not evil. She places empathy at the centre of her policy decision making.

Donald Trump's behaviour is evil. The art of the steal, the grift, the con, the grooming of vulnerable people.

Obama's behaviour as an American President prosecuting multiple wars  is evil. Drone warfare expanded, killing more and more civilians. Funding violent militia in Libya and Syria. Supporting war against Yemen. And he is charming, urbane has a wide smile. So what?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's behaviour is not evil. Empathy for the vulnerable modulates her policy deliberations. She seeks to prevent harm.

Darren Grimes behaviour is evil.  Grooming other people through their vulnerability always is.

Noam Chomsky's behaviour is not evil. He has always spoken truth to Power, properly researched and ruthlessly accurate, he has never faltered.

Katy Hopkins's behaviour is evil. Grooming always is. 

Patrick Fagan's behaviour is evil. Grooming always is. A psychologist who misuses his knowledge to exploit vulnerable people.

Gabor Mate's behaviour is not evil. He presents the evidence of socially induced trauma's adverse affects on vulnerable folk, to raise awareness and suggest  ways to recovery and prevention. He does this diligently.

Most ordinary folk, most of humankind are not evil.

Most of us ordinary folk are caught in the cross fire of systemic evil, and most of  us are trying out very best to get by, doing the best we can by ourselves and their families. Most of us ordinary people are innocents thrust into this mess by accident of birth. There's also a significant cohort who are actively trying to counter evil, attenuate the impacts of evil, a constituency of helpers and protectors and healers and pragmatic activists.

And yes, there are evil folk among us too.

The US and UK Military Command (one could argue - all military commands) are, at best, at a rather long stretch, and I am being really, really generous here, decent enough people who are manipulated by evil people, if not evil in and of themselves.

If, at best, they are decent people manipulated by evil, then they are not that intelligent, they are not that brave, they are not really courageous nor are they worthy of their status. They enable the evil rather than challenge the evil. Whose freedoms do they wage war for?.

These people and these powerful hierarchy of violence organisations are all examples of liars and lies that are institutionalised to permit avoidable harms to happen, which do not prevent harm at source, which do so for their personal and institutional gain.

I do understand that for combat veterans this is a huge problem.

Imagine the trauma of extensive violent combat, tour after tour of shocking violence, carrying that, enduring that because you believe you were serving a decent cause? But it was a lie.

To admit that you were manipulated and groomed into performing the most horrific acts of violence, repeatedly, under the pretence that they were fighting for 'freedom' would be too much to bear, alone. 

To turn to civilians who praise 'the sacrifice of our brave men and women' and say 'you are being misled by really evil people' who misled me and convinced me to do intolerable harm to others, my hands are bloodied, my spirit is tainted, my mind seared with agonising violence, my heart is broken.

To say to civilians, to those who love you, that your praise is a denial of what really happens, your concept of our bravery is a lie, your desire to believe in that lie no longer protects us - that is too much to bear.

For us civilians to hear that, to bear the burden with the combat veterans, to accept some shared responsibility for that immense sorrow, to admit that our brothers and sisters never fought for our freedoms, to admit we too were manipulated and exploited, and to understand that we too must sit with the trauma, the pain, the sorrow, the grief and then we must resolve to take action to prevent this from ever happening again.

That is courage above and beyond anything we know of.

There is immense grief here. Immense loss. Unspeakable pain and sorrow, masked by stoic perseverance and resilience, obscured by coping and mere survival - all of which is exploited wilfully by really evil people and really evil organisations.

If  the Taliban are evil, they are no more or less so than the USUK and NATO organisations they have been waging war with for the past 20 years,

The only way to cease war is to wage peace, and peace is more than the absence of war.

Peace can only start with the absence of lies. We must face the truth, which is simple, complex and is also complicated. None of this will be easy. Doing nothing is not easy either.

Kindest regards

Corneilius

Thank you for reading this blog.

"Do what you love, it is your gift to universe."

This blog, like all my other content creation work is not monetised via advertising. If you like what I present, consider sharing my content. If you can afford the price of a cup of coffee or a pint of beer/ale/cider for a few months, please donate via my Patreon account.

https://patreon.com/corneilius  

https://www.reverbnation.com/corneilius

https://www.corneilius.net

https://www.soundcloud.com/coreluminous

Political Grooming Gangsters, Incels and Legislation.

Political grooming gangsters, Incels, Authoritarianism and Legislation

“How can wealth persuade poverty to use its political freedom to keep wealth in power? Here lies the whole art of Conservative politics in the 20th century.” Aneurin Bevan

This is a very brief over view of the Incel phenomenon.

The recent mass shooting in Plymouth is part of a larger pattern. Our culture is a dominator culture. Within it emerge subcultures of violent domination and supremacy, and what tends to happen is that these subcultures are used as proxies and as scapegoats when they are in fact symptoms of the prevailing culture.

There are lots of superb well researched scholarly explorations of the Incel movement, not least because there have been a number of attempted and 'successful' serious, horrific mass shootings and other crimes 'inspired' by the ideology of 'Incel' and that drives a need to properly understand what is going on.

A problem fully understood is half way towards a solution, whereas a problem partially understood is insoluble.

"Mass violence connected to incel ideology has increased public and academic scrutiny of incel communities online. Although not all such communities support violence, and not all those who identify as incel will go on to commit violence, incel communities have drawn the public, academic, and policy world’s attention."

source : here

I wanted to write about this as it links a few different domains that my previous writing has touched upon.

“Opinion is really the lowest form of human knowledge. It requires no accountability, no understanding. The highest form of knowledge… is empathy, for it requires us to suspend our egos and live in another’s world. It requires profound purpose larger than the self kind of understanding.” ― Bill Bullard source

A young Canadian woman started an online web discussion board in the 1990s to explore the experience of being unable to create and maintain intimate relationships, in a world where sexual relationships were paraded as a rite of passage and mark of success, to create a self help group, a place of understanding, a safe space free of ridicule or disdain. 

The term 'Incels' was derived from the descriptive 'Involuntary Celibate' coined by these people, as a term to describe themselves, a cohort of people who were experiencing  problematic intimate loneliness, men and women alike who found forming intimate relationships really challenging, difficult  and distressing (a not uncommon experience) and who were using this online forum to write about and explore their experiences, as a kind of self help dynamic. 

 People in pain and distress trying to help each other. 

It was shortened first to 'InvCel' then to 'incel'. 

Those discussions were well moderated for a few years, and the community grew, and it remained basically honest, and was a safe space for those who were using it.  The Canadian woman who initiated it handed it over to others after a few years, as she moved on in life. 

These posting boards and forums were then taken over by a dedicated group of male supremacists, who swamped the boards, and then actively manipulated and exploited the vulnerable lonely men who were gathering online about their issues, who were seeking support. The male supremacists deliberately worked to create this cult that is now a radical ideology that demands dominion over women’s body’s as sex providers by right.

The term Incel was co opted and made into an identifying badge of honour by the infamous Bodybuilding Miscellaneous forums, 4chan and other havens of young men who like to sadistically troll the world and each other with the most cynical interpretations of their social prospects. 

Starting arguments, making money.

This is part of a dynamic called 'The Internet Of Beefs'. 

A competitive atmosphere where actors deliberately initiate open ended arguments that cannot be 'won' or 'concluded' because they are not evidence based, they are opinion or belief based: deliberately inciting deeply biased positions into oppositional arguments in order to drive almost endless traffic through to a page which carries advertising, in order to generate income. 

When people started to make significant income from stimulating aggressive arguments online it became a business model that was hard to put down, and then it became impossible to prevent, the genie was well and truly out of the box. Anger drives traffic online. More traffic means more income from advertising.

The second wave which co-opted Incels was in turn were influenced by pick up artists. PUA theory is basically a modern version of the existing beliefs about women’s nature from the time of (actual anthropological) patriarchy. This tied into existing networks of misogynistic political activity.

The ‘movement’ is driven rather than emergent. It is not by any means a natural development, an emergent movement. 

Driving a 'movement'

Someone with access to funding and logistics is stoking political fires, with intent.

"The “Red Pill,” a term that comes from the 1999 film The Matrix, has become a framework for individuals to describe their awakening to some previously hidden supposed reality. The major contemporary secular male supremacist movements—PUAs, men’s rights activists, The Red Pill, and Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)—all use this terminology to describe their “realization” that men do not hold systemic power or privilege. Instead, they awaken to the “truth” that socially, economically, and sexually men are at the whims of women’s (and feminists’) power and desires. 

As in the film, to be blue-pilled is to accept the mainstream narrative and choose to live in ignorance of the truths of the world. Red Pillers see themselves as intellectually superior to “blue-pilled normies.”

The Red Pill terminology grew in male supremacist forums and was adopted more broadly by far-right and white supremacist groups to describe their own versions of awakenings, conspiracist worldviews that often overlaps with male supremacist positions, such as antifeminism.38

Beginning around 2016, misogynist incel forums began to shift from a Red Pill to an increasing “Black Pill” mentality. This belief system accepts the Red Pill view of society dominated by women but rejects individual-level attempts such as learning game to achieve a sexual relationship with women as misguided, asserting that only change at a societal level has the possibility to be effective. Black Pill adherents believe that looks are genetically determined, and that women choose sexual partners based solely on physical features (“lookism”), so whether or not a person will be an incel is predetermined.39

Misogynist incels attempt to prove the truth of the Black Pill through misreadings of scientific studies, online dating datasets, and their own “experiments” to prove that women only care about a man’s physical looks. Although some incels still seek out plastic surgery, work out (“gym maxxing”), or try to otherwise improve their physical features, many believe such strategies are pointless as inceldom is a problem with society, not the individual. Blackpilled incels are aware of appearance and sociability/game strategies and reject them as solutions.

The Black Pill philosophy typically offers only two options for what to do with their new accepted reality: accept their fate as an incel or try to change society to their benefit—usually advocated as potentially achievable by means of mass violence and terror, not politics or other methods of change. “Copes” are looked down on as methods of coping with without changing the unjust system, including denying the reality of the Black Pill."

https://www.newamerica.org/political-reform/reports/misogynist-incels-and-male-supremacism/red-pill-to-black-pill/

There are very nasty, well funded adept people and organisations who are grooming others who are vulnerable, working on the targets over time using a wide range of tactics and techniques, and online these actors are exploiting micro targeting within existing advertising systems on all platforms.

The emotive dynamics of Brexit, anti-masking, viral marketing, influencers, neuro-marketing, election hacking - based on amygdala hijacking - are all connected elements of modern advertising technologies, methods and strategies.

Cambridge Analytica, Strategic Communications Laboratories, Capuchin are the tip of the iceberg, or for a more apt metaphor, the tip of a volcano of politically motivated behavioural nudge marketing driven by Surveillance Capitalism's gathering of 'behavioural surplus' data of billions of people and their ability to analyse that data, and use it to predict and influence behaviour, on behalf of advertisers.

This area of publishing is entirely unregulated. There are no laws inhibiting nudge behavioural modification techniques, not least because they are now a core element of NeoLiberal governance settings. Nudging unsuspecting populations along lines of behaviour the rulers deem appropriate. 

Choice Architecture.

Channelling carefully crafted content to trigger and exacerbate those vulnerabilities, by feeding the anger side of the pain, by creating scapegoat dynamics such as blaming women, by encouraging rage and providing permission for ever more extreme expressions which leads to attitude changes and those can lead to behavioural changes that can be exploited.

More misogynists would vote for Trump after a tape recording of his misogynistic attitude is 'released'. That release did not harm Trumps election prospects.

All of this kind of activity is political grooming, it has political social impact and it has purpose.

"Regardless, there is a substantial difference between a community being vulnerable to self-harm and promoting and threatening violence against others. Members expressing suicidal ideation on misogynist incel forums are also encouraged to “go ER” or “be a hERo,” meaning to commit mass murder before committing suicide. Many misogynist incels don’t just advocate for suicide as a solution to inceldom, but also to create structural change through first committing mass violence."

Supremacy of any kind is political.

The Plymouth murder spree and other shootings carried out by men who identify as 'incels' affiliated with this online movement is not driven by mental health issues as much it is driven by political grooming operations. 

This is a cultural problem, inherent to the hierarchy of power and violence culture which I call the Bully Cult. Incel grooming and violence is a form of terrorism. Not  all the people who identify as Incel are terrorists. They are, for sure. groomed by people who really are terrorists.

We need to inhibit the movement and prevent future atrocities. That means we must tackle the groomers. That means we need legislation that defines grooming, quite precisely, as a criminal offence, as an act of psychological and emotional abuse.

It is quite similar to the dynamics that drives much of the Brexit marketing campaigns, the Proud Boys, and other online organised grooming operations, David Icke, Alex Jones and so on, including anti-masking and anti-vaxing, where pain, anger and frustration is targeted, exacerbated and turned to active rage which can be exploited for political, ideological or financial gain.

Mycelia of unresolved anger carefully fertilized, by malign actors, fruiting as above ground action, driven by active sophisticated grooming operations. 

Behavioural modification that is enabled by studying behavioural surplus data, finding trigger points, stimulating them via micro targeting, exacerbating the underlying bias or vulnerability and nudging the targets towards behavioural changes facilitated by the developments of surveillance capitalism.

Protecting the vulnerable, defining abuse, inhibiting exploitation.

I propose a discussion about establishing a legal definition of a behaviour that we are all too familiar with.

“Organised operations that target peoples cognitive biases, their social wounded-nesses, their insecurities, prejudices and worries, their misunderstandings, cultural conditioning and fears, and do that through public and social media, through marketing, propaganda, media and online social media campaigns operating as cottage industries or at an industrial scale, intentionally targeting and manipulating vulnerable people for ideological, religious, political or economic advantage.”

This behaviour is grooming.

Grooming is psychological and emotional abuse. If we had legislation defining this, and then criminalising it because it is intentional exploitation of human vulnerability and thus it is a profound abuse, then media platforms would be unable to permit any publishing of such content on their platforms, and it would be impossible then to exploit as a revenue stream. All internet providers would be legally obliged to prevent such behaviour.

I have written a few letters to News Media in England and Ireland on this, and one has been published. I have also passed the idea to my local MP, and he has submitted the concept to the Digital Media and Culture Committee of the Westminster Parliament.

Masculinism: reclaimed

 I have been mulling over this for a while, and I think it is time 'Masculinity' was redefined for the 21st Century, resonating with our most ancient and evolved egalitarian roots of Humanity

#Feminism

#Masculinism

definition : we see and understand the violent hierarchy cult and we see it's inequity and we will, holding hands with one another, as men and women, work together to dismantle that violent hierarchy, confront that inequity and correct it, thus bringing human culture into a healthy balance as we move forwards.

Kindest regards

Corneilius

"Do what you love, it is your gift to universe."

International Men's Day - a proposal for the root or base of healthy masculinity.

Nurture is our bio-logical default, is key to any sustained and healthy human culture.

So what does it mean to be a man?

Or rather, what aspect of being male as in being a person in a male spectrum body, without referring to external value systems, is real and optimally healthy. In part this is a question for each of us, because the answers must come from our interior, the internal who we are part, the baby/person before conditioning started. The other part is ensuring the cultural space for 'male' is reflecting optimal human healthy behaviour, that integrates the diversity of our interiors, that holds space for all our variety.

For me revisioning what it is to be a healthy male on #InternationalMensDay suggests a need to confront the oppressive characteristics the culture tends towards as essentialist when laying out what a man is, and how a man 'should' or 'should not' behave to fit that image. 

I sense a need for this task everywhere - I think we need to do it accurately, it must be evidence based and I think we need to approach it with good heart, determined to create cultural and social and material space for nurture mutual aid, rather than dominance competition as the core gender root.

#Feminism

#Masculinism

My definition : we see and understand the violent hierarchy cult and we see it's inequity and we will, holding hands with one another, as men and women, work together to confront that inequity and correct it, thus bringing human culture into a healthy balance as we move forwards, and thus dismantling those obsolescent oppressive cultural conditionings. We, as responsible adult men call up for this movement emerging from within the humane population, the ordinary, decent, kind community minded folk, to act together and to behave in ways that generate genuine equity and lasting justice because we know that peace is more than the absence of war. Peace is the presence of social material and cultural safety and equity for all, everywhere.

#love

Here's a good place to start from - our beginnings

What Babies Want

#honesty #learning #natural

We are evolved to learn through playful co-operation void of judgement, reward or punishment. my song about learning.

The Culture of Violent Hierarchy trickles down and afflicts us all, from conception onwards. Men and Women alike. It is not healthy and it certainly does not have to be the way it is, even if the task of confronting this looks immense the status quo is not inevitable. I have had enough (of the bully cult).

Kindest regards

Corneilius

"Do what you love, it is your gift to universe."

What Climate and COVID19 tell us : we must work together, openly and honestly to prevent further harms.

To The Editor

What Climate Change, Air Pollution, Plastic Pollution and COVID19 tell us is this - they carry the same message - the only reliable way to protect our shared environment, all our people and our economies is to co-operate across all sectors, openly, honestly and transparently.

We must work with all the available reliably tested evidence before us to solve problems and develop healthier behaviours that repair the damage and prevent further harms.

The apparent short-term costs of taking corrective action fade into insignificance compared to the medium and long term costs of failing to do so, on every meaningful measure.

We must do what can be done, without fear or favour, for all our children's futures, and we must do it diligently, every day.

Yours Sincerely

Corneilius Crowley

London

"Do what you love, it is your gift to universe."

Climate Change, COVID19 and Externalised Costs: Letter to Media

To the Editor

All  industrial and political systems currently operating rely upon externalised costs at every stage from extraction of raw materials through production, consumption and on to end of life disposal, as the primary source of their profitability.

The top 20 Industrial sectors would be 'loss leaders' if they paid for the 'natural capital' they exploit.

Somebody else or some other organism or environmental system pays the price, often with a degraded quality of their lives, often with their lives, of the profits accrued.

All the harms we see are - water pollution, environmental degradation, air toxicity, climate change - are largely the accumulated externalised costs of the existing Industrial Political System.

Until we acknowledge this and then legislate to prevent externalised costs, and legislate to encourage regenerative practices, we are adding on more harm, and these problems will continue to grow. 

We can resolve this situation, and we should.

 It's not Rocket Science. It is Behavioural Science. It is Economic Science. 

The short term costs of correcting the error are well below the long term costs of allowing the error to continue.

Yours Sincerely

Corneilius Crowley
London

Published : https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/yourview/arid-40358324.html



What Climate Change, Air Pollution, Plastic Pollution and COVID19 all tell us is this :  they carry the same message - the only reliable way to protect the shared environment, the people and our economies is to co-operate across all sectors, openly, honestly, transparently and work with the available tested reliable evidence to solve problems and develop healthier behaviours.

Every moment of division, every moment of denial and every act of exploitation is lethal. No question.

*Please feel free to copy, and  post (email it to your local media, your local politicians and government officials, places of worship, schools etc)..

Kindest regards


"Do what you love, it is your gift to universe."

Brexit unmasked with utter clarity, in one sentence.

The difficulties for British live performers and their support crews touring the EU are now almost insurmountable. 

Watch this segment and see Brexit unmasked with utter clarity, in one short sentence, by Phil Moorhouse.

The EU never determined internal political decision making in any member State.  State's are totally free to run their own political affairs, internally.

The EU is a single market trading bloc, an organisational device with democratically agreed rules and standards in manufacturing, industry and trade that levelled the field for all countries operating within the bloc, thus giving all the ability to negotiate with external 'third countries' with the power and status of the larger entity, thus affording all countries within the single market a much better negotiation stance outside the EU and ease of trade within the EU.

Phil Moorhouse, of  A Different Bias, explains it very clearly, in order to clarify the issues facing English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Musicians and Artists work issues working in Europe. 

These four Nations are now outside the EU, and since the EU has no rules on Artists from third countries coming to work in the EU, Artists must now deal with each country in turn, separately.

Thus an English musician who wants to perform in France, Germany, Switzerland and Holland will need to do the separate paperwork for each country, and pay the separate fees accordingly. Separate vat requirements will apply. Separate insurance requirements will apply. Separate work permits will apply.

Why? Because the English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish Artist or crew member is no longer part of the EU and loses all working rights he or she would have had as an EU citizen working in the EU.

Thus the problem for UK Musicians is entirely a problem created by Brexit, and not by the EU.

Anyone with an Irish passport can travel and work freely across the EU.  Because an Irish citizen is still an EU member.

Phil's 100% accurate, precise brief statement neatly exposes the central lies about Brexit, and underlines the reality that a significant proportion of the people who voted for Brexit did so on the basis of a Conspiracy Theory. A Lie.

The people who pushed the balance of the vote over the edge of a 50/50 split were a fringe group, targeted specifically because of their lack of precise knowledge and their emotional vulnerability - the same people whose behaviour was 'nudged' by the activities of Cambridge Analytica, Dominic Cummings and others deploying online industrial scale political grooming, using psychologically invasive tactics that amount to emotional exploitation and behavioural modification.

In short, political grooming aimed at people's studied vulnerabilities, playing on fears and lack of knowledge which is in real terms an abuse of the term 'democracy'. Brexit was not an exercise in conscious open democracy.

To re-iterate the facts : there never was any issue or problem regarding Political or Legislative Sovereignty for the UK when the UK was within the EU. 

That entire story is a lie, a conspiracy theory, a cunning, devious grooming device.

There were developments within the EU to place restrictions on off shore tax evasion devices, and planning for collective action on climate change that would have an impact on every EU country trading in those areas - Brexit was a defence of  the English interests in maintaining off-shore tax evasion facilities and English owned oil and mining assets across the Global South, the remnants of the British Empire.  Nothing of Brexit was designed or intended to benefit the ordinary citizens of the 4 nations of the United Kingdom.

Still, at least we have free trade and travel within those four countries, which are now a shrunken trading bloc. At least..... 

Phil's clarity and his articulation of the most truthful, honest reality about the EU and Brexit is a thing of beauty. His channel is doing the work of honest analysis in News Reporting, hence it is popular. Citizen journalism is thriving just as Oligarchy press is a loss leader.

The difficulties for British live performers and their support crews touring the EU are now almost insurmountable. The difficulties for UK Citizens within the UK are going to increase exponentially, and the vulnerable and poor will suffer the most, and none of this will be at the hands of the EU, it will all be by the hand of the English Establishment. That steel fist in a velvet glove is not a hand you want to shake in friendship, let alone in war. 

Kindest regards

Corneilius

"Do what you love, it is your gift to universe."

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Weapons of Mass Destruction and The Bully Cult.

Those who claim 'deterrent' argue based on belief (might is right, we need big bullies to protect us all), myopia (unwilling to look at egalitarian solutions), greed (lust for power is hungry for cash, your cash) and learned stupidity (propaganda regurgitated, wrapped in flags).  

USA had them first, used them first. A demonstration. 

Who then needed a 'deterrent'? 

It was not USA or UK. 

Has Nukes stopped either of these Imperial Powers from waging war these past 77 years...? 

Is the US/UK waging a proxy war in Yemen, in Ukraine, in the China Sea, in Venezuela, in Sudan, Chad, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Syria and elsewhere? 

Yes. they are. Liars and bullies. 

Putin and all militarised states alike.

Liars and bullies, weak and immature adults, whose need to leverage power is an addiction that threatens all our lives, our shared environment.

Not a Banksy! source : tweet

A shadow burned on to a wall at Hiroshima? 
An unexpected instant intense flash of light as death over a wholly innocent, unprotected population

#NewNormal
#Hiroshima

#Nagasaki
#AcceptNewNormalAlwaysChanges

76 years ago, the political establishment of one country with Imperial ambitions dropped two Nuclear Bombs, weapons of mass destruction, upon masses of entirely innocent people, entire families and communities incinerated, cremated in an instant. That flash of scientific and imperial brilliance, brightest hell on earth, that short instant of annihilation was followed by many, many, many more agonising deaths from radiation, from burns, from gangrenous wounds, from lack of medical supplies and facilities, from lack of clean water in the minutes, hours, days, weeks, months and years that followed. Radiation and illness maimed and killed many more of those innocents, the after effects lingering for decades afterwards. 

That was 14 years before I was born, and I grew up in the 'safety' of the shadow of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in Ireland, many thousands of miles distant. I had nightmares about nuclear war as a child, a teen and as a young adult. 

Psychological dysfunction and structural cruelty.

In my view, as a psychologically sophisticated adult, as a survivor of chronic child abuse, as a global citizen and as a humane being with some degree of empathy still intact, I assert that Nuclear Weapons are a for-profit psychopathology - the Nuclear Weapon Industry is a waste of precious resources that is both institutionally cruel and socially insane, inhumane and irrational. The profits of doom.

The people who build and maintain the Nuclear Weapons Stance are cruel, callous nut jobs. I make no apologies for stating this. It is what it is.  Crazy, insane, unbalanced, psychologically damaged and emotional empty. Abusive. They might well be charming, and kind to their own children. They may be pet lovers, and they could be donating to charitable causes and appear to be 'normal' - but they are not healthy, humane people. They are literally criminally insane.

There is absolutely no need whatsoever for these kinds of weapons or technologies. No need at all.  

Every argument for them falls apart when we assess the externalised costs associated with them and suggest those costs be paid in full, or better still, prevented from ever being incurred in the first instance. Oops. there goes the profit margin! A flash of insight to prevent a flash of utter, criminal horror.

Those who insist otherwise are in deliberate denial, they are immature and they are stupidly, wilfully ignorant. Just sayin'. 

Abolishing Nukes and Abolishing Poverty is a Win-Win Outcome. 

England's population - that's you and I, and everyone else living in England, we need to get rid of the Trident system, and we need to put that cash to good use, for example by abolishing poverty in England. Fact.

I am talking real needs here, not a luxury wish-list. 

Poverty kills people, poverty destroys lives and communities and poverty is a structure of capitalism, communism and all hierarchy of wealth and power cults. Poverty it is not a personal flaw to be whipped into shape by extremely wealthy bullies - I am talking about Austerity, prosperity Gospel and the full range of Calvinist ideologies.

The Global Mafiosa

76 years ago the Rulers of the United States Of America made a political decision to 'demonstrate' the power of their new weapon, as a way to bully the rest of the Earths nation states, and their peoples. They knew what they were doing. Empires always understand what they are doing, even if entire populations do not, or worse, pretend not to understand.

The Rulers of The United States of America deliberately destroyed two civilian cities, obliterating hundreds of thousands of wholly innocent people in an instant, leaving many more with devastating wounds and lifelong injuries.  Some say they also wanted to 'test' the weapons on real city. They already knew what it would probably do, as they had already tested the weapon, and knew the detail of it's explosive power. This was not a trial run, by any means.

 It was a political and very public demonstration. 

"Nice city you got there. Be a pity if something like this was to happen to it!" 

This image and quotes are from here.

The post office savings bank in Hiroshima is bleached with nuclear shadows from the window frames made by the flash of the detonation.

"Meanwhile, because ground zero happened to be above a hospital, many of the city's doctors and nurses were killed or injured in the blast. The city was thrown into chaos as those still alive scrambled to create makeshift hospitals to aid the wounded.

Because the residents had been given an all-clear after the earlier air-raid warning, many were outside when the bomb detonated. More than 50 percent of the casualties died from burns while many others who did not succumb to the initial blast or the fires in the immediate Hiroshima aftermath later died of radiation exposure. Survivors recalled near-lifeless, scorched bodies wandering the streets for a few seconds before they fell to the ground and died.

As the weeks progressed, citizens began to feel the effects of radiation poisoning and a misinformed public believed this condition to be contagious. As a result, those who were suffering with radiation poisoning were ostracized from their communities.

The United States had little aid to offer. Scientists on the Manhattan Project, which created the atomic bombs, claimed to know little about the biological effects of nuclear fallout. 

Even the deputy medical director at one of the project's laborites admitted that, "The idea was to explode the damned thing... We weren't terribly concerned with the radiation."

Tsutomu Yamaguchi was 29 when he was blown to the ground by the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

Three days later, after making the agonising journey home to Nagasaki, and with bandages still clinging to his badly burned skin, Tsutomu felt the shattering boom of another atomic bomb.

He was one of a number of Survivors who have become international icons. His harrowing witness testimony, with others who lived through those horrors, make for sobering reading.

"Elizabeth Chappell, an oral historian at the Open University in the United Kingdom, encountered similar difficulties after setting out to catalog atomic bomb survivors’ testimony. “When you have a silenced group like that, they have a very internal culture,” she explains. “They’re very protective of their stories. I was told I wouldn’t get interviews.”
⁠
Survivors’ reluctance to discuss their experiences stems in large part from the stigma surrounding Japan’s hibakusha community. Due to a limited understanding of radiation poisoning’s long-term effects, many Japanese avoided (or outright abused) those affected out of fear that their ailments were contagious. 

This misconception, coupled with a widespread unwillingness to revisit the bombings and Japan’s subsequent surrender, led most hibakusha to keep their trauma to themselves. But in the past decade or so, documentary efforts like Sakaguchi’s 1945 Project and Chappell’s The Last Survivors of Hiroshima have become increasingly common—a testament to both survivors’ willingness to defy the long-standing culture of silence and the pressing need to preserve these stories as hibakusha’s numbers dwindle."

Silence is not truth, comedy is not satire.

The BBC created a controversy when it's flagship comedy quiz program did a segment in 2011 on Mr. Yamaguchi as  'the unluckiest men alive'. The BBC apologised after it ignited adverse commentary online and across Japan.

The episode triggered criticism in Japan. Toshiko Yamasaki, Yamaguchi's daughter, appeared on NHK's national evening news and said: "I cannot forgive the atomic bomb experience being laughed at in Britain, which has nuclear weapons of its own. I think this shows that the horror of atomic bomb is not well enough understood in the world. I feel sad rather than angry"

The Japanese Embassy, London, wrote to the BBC protesting that the programme insulted the deceased victims of the atomic bomb. It was reported that Piers Fletcher, a producer of the programme, responded to complaints with "we greatly regret it when we cause offence" and "it is apparent to me that I underestimated the potential sensitivity of this issue to Japanese viewers"

So it is that in England which has not suffered the impacts of invasion and multiple wars on it's own soil, even as it continues to export war, by way of materials, logistics and man-power, that a deliberate denial of the realities of nuclear weapons, persists at the public institutional level - the establishment dares not acknowledge what most ordinary folk know. Nuclear Weapons are a reliable marker of insanity amongst the Ruling class.

This England where in recent years Jeremy Corbyn, who totally opposes Nuclear Weapons, is slandered as an 'anti-Semite' when he correctly criticises Israeli State illegal occupation, settlement and militarised violence perpetrated against the Palestinian people as amoral and criminal, the systemic institutional denial and deliberately fostered ignorance is blatant. This England where 14 million people endure structural poverty, and  millions rely upon food banks. This England ready to spaff tens of billions of pounds on these useless weapons, rather than abolish poverty.

Estimates of total deaths in Hiroshima range from 100,000 to 180,000, out of a population of 350,000. Casualties from Nagasaki are thought to be between 50,000 and 100,000. By 1950, over 340,000 people had died as a result and generations were poisoned by radiation. The bombing event was just the beginning.

Hierarchy of Violence is the basis of all Bully Cult logic. 

"We have the Weapons of Mass Destruction, and we will protect you and your freedom, (from us. lol.). Sign up here, and sell your soul for democracy and freedom."

The political rulers made all arrangements needed to immediately censor news of what those two vaporised cities looked like, they screened out images and stories of  the living dead, they deliberately masked the full import and scale of the human atrocity of what they did, because they knew ordinary people would be utterly disgusted, revolted, appalled and horrified if they knew the full story. 

Ordinary people who would understand the nature of both the weapons, and their leaders had to prevent them from reaching that conclusion. Evil to the core.

Enemies of The People

"The results of this live test experiment must remain a secret, except for those who need to know, and those we want to frighten. But we must not frighten out own people. They must be frightened of our designated enemies."

That was a very well understood stance, understood by those other states whom the US and UK had already designated as 'Enemies'

It was the callous decision to murder two cities full of defenceless souls, men, women and children, as a bloody demonstration, a militaristic anti-science cock waving of monstrous proportions by the new top bullies, that drove those designated 'enemy' states who had been temporary allies just the day before the bombs were detonated over those cities, to seek to build their own nuclear weapons as a deterrent to the US/UK Hierarchy of Violence.

However in 1946 one writer and his publisher decided to break the taboo and tell it like it really was.

Hiroshima is a 1946 book by American author John Hersey. It tells the stories of six survivors of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. It is regarded as one of the earliest examples of the New Journalism, in which the story-telling techniques of fiction are adapted to non-fiction reporting. 

"The work was originally published in The New Yorker, which had planned to run it over four issues but instead dedicated the entire edition of August 31, 1946, to a single article. Less than two months later, the article was printed as a book by Alfred A. Knopf. Never out of print, it has sold more than three million copies.

"Its story became a part of our ceaseless thinking about world wars and nuclear holocaust," New Yorker essayist Roger Angell wrote in 1995"

We still need to think about this, to feel it's full meaning.

Stop Worrying, Love The Bomb?

So when the US/UK Governments and various deluded pundits cite 'deterrence' as a reason for their possession of these rain of death from the sky weapon systems, know that they are lying through their teeth, as they smile and carry off the pretence of 'protecting your freedoms'.

This video timeline of every nuclear detonation between 1945 and 1998 - all 'tests' or 'demonstrations' including Hiroshima and Nagasaki - is quite an eye opener. A significant waste of money, brains and time, sold to the citizens as a 'necessity' to 'preserve peace'? Gaslighting on a global scale.

A total waste of money, brains and time.

A global gaslighting operation, an industrial abuse complex and a defining characteristic of the Industrial Militarised  Competing Powers Cult.

This defines the cult, it does NOT define Humanity.  The Human species is largely decent, it is the culture that is the problem.  Externalised Costs are a behavioural characteristic of the bully culture.

Directed by Stanley Kubrick, distributed by Columbia Pictures - Dr. Strangelove trailer from 40th Anniversary Special Edition DVD, 2004, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=11862639

On a more entertaining tip, I humbly suggest folk watch that highly engaging 1964 movie, "Dr. Strangelove : How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love The Bomb." It features Peter Sellers in a dual role as mad man and not so mad man, trying to cope with it all. It is a superb film, a satirical masterpiece. Here's the Wikiquotes page.

It is on Netflix here.

Profits of Terror?

Then the greed of the nuclear industrialists took over and they corrupted Governments in order to pursue their for profit expansion under the veil of civilian nuclear power' siphoning trillions of dollars of people's cash for the profits of the bullies over many decades. 

 The decades of nuclear 'testing' that followed pour more money into the Nuclear cabals back pockets, and pollution into our shared environment. 

Depleted Uranium?

Here's a song I wrote inspired by Brian Haw, whose reason for placing himself, in a tent, with signage and photographic imagery of some of the deformed babies of Iraq, outside the English Parliament starting in Spring 2000, until January 2011, when he was diagnosed with cancer, (from which he died in June that year) was because he understood the impacts upon the Iraqi people of the 10 years of use of Depleted Uranium Munitions during US and UK bombing missions over Iraq, since1991, during the Gulf War and throughout the Sanction and No-fly Zone period right up to the second invasion of Iraq in 2003, and beyond and in particular, the adverse impact upon their children, the suffering and trauma of  the mothers of thousands of terribly deformed babies whose deformities were a direct effect of those depleted uranium munitions.

⁠⁠

The Bully Cult

⁠And last, but not least, here's a live take of my song about having had enough already of the justifications for the Bully Cult.  It's titled "We Have Had Enough!"

 Kindest regards Corneilius 

 "Do what you love, it is your gift to universe."

Externalised Costs - The Effluent in the Room is not an Elephant.

All industrial production systems currently operating or envisaged rely upon externalised costs at every stage from extraction of raw materials through production, consumption and on to end of life disposal, as the primary source of their profitability. This means that toxic outputs from industrial processes are not mitigated, let alone prevented. They are accepted, normalised, hidden away until they impress upon us by presenting as problems, and they are integral to the profitability of the Industrial Competing Powers system.

Ordinary people, especially the low income workers, are the people who do the work that makes most of the real wealth in this system, largely through daily toil, and the wealth workers generate is extracted and accumulated, and withheld, often by force and structures of Power. We have direct evidence of this in recent times from an 1982 Cabinet Discussion Paper written post Falklands War, when the establishment was feeling particularly confident.

The poor are a permanent (deliberately so) externalised cost of Wealth Extraction. Poverty and homelessness are both externalised costs of the Wealth Extraction. Resources are deliberately withheld from those who genuinely need them, as part of driving people into low paid work (to maximise profit taking) and destitution is maintained as a cultural whip..

The destruction of indigenous pre-conquest culture was an externalised cost of conquest. Conquest is always a business proposition, in that it requires massive investment and a demand for returns greater than the investment, in blood and treasure.

Chronic stress of industrial extraction and business working practices  -  mining, deforestation, repetitive assembly work, boring work,low waged shop and hospitality staff, military service - is an externalised cost of the imposed work ethics that demand 'productivity'.

What does 'externalised' mean? It means that somebody else or some other organism outside the transactional economics of the extraction, manufacturing, production, sales, consumption and disposal dynamic pays the price, often with a degraded quality of their lives, or even often with their lives, in order that the maximal profits are generated, and hoarded.

⁠
All the harms we see are - pollution, environmental degradation, air toxicity, climate change, habitat loss, species extinction, poverty, war fare, racism, misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia, social and national divisions and hatreds - are the accumulated externalised costs of the existing Industrial Militarised Hierarchy of Competing Powers, a cult system and its behavioural dynamics.

It is a cult. It is a toxic delusion to call it 'civilised'.

It certainly does not have to be this way. This activity and this cult does not define the Human species. It is a cult, an aberration, an abomination. It is not natural, optimally healthy human species behaviour by any measure.

What ever your stance, unless you are willing to engage with this simple fact, and actively seek ways to resolve that problem, by understanding precisely what those externalised costs are, and how they impact us all, and what we must do to prevent those costs arising or at least pay for them to be resolved, in full, our work on these issues is futile.



Kindest regards

Corneilius

Thank you for reading this blog.

"Do what you love, it is your gift to universe."

This blog, like all my other content creation work is not monetised via advertising. If you like what I present, consider sharing my content. If you can afford the price of a cup of coffee or a pint of beer/ale/cider for a few months, please donate via my Patreon account.

https://patreon.com/corneilius

https://www.reverbnation.com/corneilius

https://www.corneilius.net

https://www.soundcloud.com/coreluminous

Denial can be silly or toxic - either way it amounts to an avoidable tragedy.

I was very ill with COVID March/April 2020, so I had good reason to study what was real and what was twaddle and what was propaganda.

It was abundantly clear by mid March that New Zealand, Vietnam, Australia's State Governments, Taiwan, Finland, Norway, China and all the other Governments and countries populations that chose the strategy of stopping the spread internally, eliminating community transmission within their jurisdictions, as well as quarantining borders to prevent importing the virus, (rather than trying to control a slow spread internally aka 'mitigation' and continuing more or less unrestricted international travel) were taking the optimal public health and economy supportive approach.

Events - actions taken and outcomes that followed - have proven that to be the case.  On every measure of health, economic performance, civil liberties those countries that opted to stop the transmission of the virus in their communities have done much, much better than those that allowed the virus to spread, thinking they could somehow control the virus and protect their economies.

Anyone who denies this very simple fact is being either silly or toxic.

Denial can be silly or toxic - either way it amounts to an avoidable tragedy.

Citizen denial is just silly.

Government denial is toxic. News Media Denial is toxic.

#CovidIsNotOver 

#JohnsonVariant

 #ZeroCovid

Kindest regards

Corneilius

"Do what you love, it is your gift to universe."

People's welfare, mental health and general stress levels does much better under elimination strategy.

Why not stop the spread of the virus, as a way to both prevent further fatality and disease and to avoid future lockdowns, now? People's welfare, mental health and general stress levels do much better under elimination strategy. 

These are very difficult times, for everyone.

And leading into the spread of the virus, and the disease, there was a surge of chronic stress induced by a culture of acquisitive competitive 'meritocracy' grounded in free market fundamentalism exacerbated by 'Austerity' policies mandating vast cuts to social welfare, health and social care programs based on a series of outright lies about fiscal policy and fiscal possibility pre-existed the pandemic. 

Allowing the virus to spread led to repeated lockdowns which added to the stress the more vulnerable among our population were dealing with. Stopping the spread, as Vietnam, New Zealand and a good number of other countries chose has demonstrably led to much better outcomes, on every available measure bar international tourism.

Why are the English Government and others wilfully ignoring the widespread evidence that is right before our eyes, the evidence that 1.8 billion people are being protected by elimination of community transmission strategy. 

How could they all ignore something so blatantly real?

The UK governments, the UK Press News Media, the Labour Party front bench, The Churches, the Green Party , the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party and all broadcasters of TV and Radio refuse to bring that evidence up for detailed discussion. 

What is that?

How could anyone let that slide?

This is to me where the government position is weakest.

They cannot argue all that evidence away without lying or making up stuff .

That is why they dismiss it out of hand, refuse to discuss it. They can’t handle it safely for their objective, because any acknowledgement of that evidence undermines their positions, and their policies.

Why do they dismiss Elimination of Community Transmission?

I think it is in part because doing so requires that the state resources and empowers local government to support all the people to stop the spread, to be helpful, to prioritise help for the local population to take best care of one another and that is too close to socialist practice for neoliberal free market fundamentalists to allow. That cat must remain in the bag.

How does the language of  'freedom' and 'restrictions' emerge to dominate the public discourse, that is to say the discourse published by official news media, mirrored by leading politicians and pundits. What does it seek to 'stimulate' in significant cohorts of the population?

Where the evidence leads is that stopping the spread of the virus in the community offers the best chances of freedom preserved, and allowing the virus to spread reduces all our freedoms, not least when the spread of infection runs out of control, impacting services visibly. For the English government that visibility is about optics, not people's welfare. 

It's not a good look, denial.

In my view Sir Keir 'less with the evidence' Starmer is daily betraying the working class he purports to represent by not bringing that evidence up every time he sits opposite Johnson, every time he speaks to the press. He is also betraying everyone else.

Just one short sentence is all he needs to say "Elimination Strategy is working for 1.8 Billion people" and  "You do know that spread is placing them at greater risk than their own governments are." 

I even have a pithy slogan for him.

"Stopping the Spread is Spreading the Love!" 

One breaths worth of words, at the start or end of every briefing, statement or public utterance. Such a small effort, for such a huge benefit.

Never in the field of population level health care has anyone avoided so small an effort in order to avoid so huge a benefit to so many whilst blatantly supporting a government that is causing immense  deliberate harm whilst pretending to be a political opposition. Not quite as pithy as the Churchill original.

The dynamic of the slow spreader Governments, the English, Brazilian, Indian and other NeoLiberal Free Market Fundamentalist  governments who for whatever reason have chosen to allow spread of the virus have literally made the virus more dangerous and the populations they govern more vulnerable on very front. 

What drives that kind of policy decision making, most recently articulated by Savid Javid, the English Health Secretary, as not 'cowering before the virus'. The little bully. 

"With income distribution at current levels, roughly half of the working population in both the US and the UK would be unable to survive without external help. Most people regard this as a sign that the system isn’t working properly, and they view providing the help as an intrinsic part of a civilized society.

To a market fundamentalist, though, these people are simply not worth what it costs to keep them alive. Their existence is not cost-effective, and being forced to sustain them is an unjustified burden.

Market forces, they say, are meritocratic – and the problem is that these people have too little merit.

Ira Sohn, Professor of Economics at Montclair State University, has pointed out that with technological advances, many of these people (i.e. people who have to work for a living) will no longer be needed at all:

The prospects for adopting labour-saving technologies in many of the labour-intensive sectors in the economy are improving annually: self-checkout at supermarkets, self-check-in and -out at hotels, self-ordering and bill settlement in restaurants, self-administered health diagnostic tests and so on all translate into a reduced need for workers per dollar of gross domestic product on the one hand, and fewer total workers along with higher levels of GDP on the other.

Horses were used extensively on the farm and in transport in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century America and Europe, but once mechanization and electrification were implemented, and the railroad, automobiles and buses became commercially viable as transport alternatives, owning horses became a hobby of the rich, and the horse population declined quickly and dramatically.

The same can probably be said about humans in the 21st century: we just don’t need that many of them – and, in the rich countries, they are expensive to ‘produce’ (prenatal and postnatal care), ‘assemble’ (nurture and educate), and ‘maintain’ (from adolescence to death). As technology continues to become ever more capable and most humans, frankly, do not, there is less and less need for workers to produce the goods and services required by society.

source : https://99-percent.org/what-is-the-market-fundamentalist-agenda/ 

Does that fit the dynamic of the current English Government's policy direction?

There is a good case for Elimination strategy countries to impose sanctions on the spreaders, for reckless endangerment.

The 'try to control a slow spread' countries are more dangerous to the people than the virus needs to be. 

It is a try out, as in it is a trial, as in a well-dodgy experiment based on a fallacious position - ignore known evidence and let's see what happens.

They are exacerbating matters on every front, deliberately. Worse they are taking a huge risk because we know that the virus's evolutionary pressure will find ways to escape vaccines precisely because it is allowed to spread.

 

And it is the spread among the vaccinated who have not yet met the virus where that evolutionary step will occur, not among the unvaccinated. The unvaccinated have already generated variants out of our various conditions. Proving that the virus can interact with different environments and make changes that increase it's ability to thrive.

Suggesting to the vaccinated that they should go out and risk contracting the infection in order to assure economic recovery is a nonsensical suggestion. The economy would be in much better shape adapted to a successful elimination of community spread strategy.

Tourism, for example, does not have to be international.  There are plenty examples of tourism consumers and providers successfully adapting to the current situation, where people take their holidays more locally, putting cash back into their own economies.

All live events and hospitality industries do much, much better under elimination strategy.

Health care does much, much better under elimination strategy.

Everything that affects ordinary people's welfare, mental health and general stress levels does much better under elimination strategy.

Remember each of us is not safe until all of us are safe. This applies to this virus as it does to the matter of climate change, for example. Or poverty. Or air pollution.

Stopping the Spread is spreading the Love.

Kindest regards

Corneilius

"Grooming others vulnerabilities is as low as it gets, in terms of everyday abuse of power."