Looking at the global state of affairs, facing the truth about what's really going on on this planet, can be quite depressing. After I chalked an Orwell quote in front of the State Library, 'In times of universal deceit, speaking the truth becomes a revolutionary act', I got into a chat with someone trying to sponsor an NGO, taking care of children in Africa or so.
Before she could give me her spiel, I used the opportunity to give her mine. I updated her about the latest sit-in in the US consulate, Bradley Manning and Wikileaks and the enemy of the state role, war crimes and drone wars. Basically, lots of stuff the main stream media doesn't bother to tell, still information available to anyone who knows what to look for.
Although I tried my very best to convince her that humans are basically harmless, and hinted a lot that government is the real problem, I received probably a typical reaction to handing out a red pill in what I considered a mild verbal dosis. "I feel a little depressed now." came back, after I mentioned that Obama signs the kill orders for the drone war. Oops.
Silly me. I guess I thought the nice girl was maybe interested in me, as a person, and not just as a potential name on the email list for the charity she was working for. When I noticed that her approach to make this world a better place differed a bit from mine, I stepped back to listen to the NGO story she tried to sell.
Who can resist an appeal to one's purse when images of hungry black toddlers are shown? Well, I could easily. When I came across a map of the world in the material she presented to me, I was mildly amused that Australia wasn't even on the map. 'You know, it shows all the countries we're involved in helping children', as if nothing is wrong in this country.
Would somebody, please, think about the children? In retrospect, it seems like a clash of civilisation happened. I happily assume that someone working for an NGO has this weird idea of making the world a better place, which motivates me to expose myself as 'enemy of the state US' by protesting in front of their embassy, to show the hypocrisy of Australian politics that send in the police to end this kind of protest, to chalk messages in public places. Basically, making a dick of myself in public, for no other returns than the experiences I gain.
So there we are, two human beings in front of the library, united in our good intentions, yet worlds apart. Me, appealing to the community I live in, pointing out what's happening in front of our doorstep, for the sake of it, she, wanting to help poor kids in some distant countries, and getting paid for it.
Yet in a way, we used a similar strategy - using information to appeal to our hearts to do something, pointing out some 'bad stuff' on this planet. While I'm happy with planting seeds, without offering any specific solution besides probably daring a bit more a walk your talk, her solution comes easier.
I admit, unless people that walk their talk become more numerous, quietening one's conscience with a donation to starving kids in Africa has more appeal. It takes at least the Hegelian triangle to prevent people from feeling overly depressed when confronted with some unpleasant truth. Or a good dosis of humour.
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Saturday, October 06, 2012
Monday, July 23, 2012
On the brink
The middle of the solar year has just gone, winter solstice in the Southern Hemisphere, summer solstice in the Northern. 2012, the year of many apocalyptic prophecies and even more apocalyptic policies. The empire increases its effort to quench human spirit and enslave the majority of the population.
A glimpse of hope emerged last year with Occupy Wall Street and its many memetic offspring. More and more people world wide not only liberated themselves from the idea that 'government cares for all', but also started caring for each other and get organised.
The wrath of the Empire came fast and vile, filled prisons and thus lined the pockets of the private prison industry like Serco or Wackenhut. The disneyfied news media reported diligently about yet another futile violent protest, elegantly omitting any useful information.
Hundred thousands protest in Mexico against a stolen election, similar numbers protest in Spain against being enslaved to pay for some gambling bankers debt. Japan rises against the use of nuclear power with hundred thousands. Greeks hardly stayed calm since the IMF and Germany took their country over. The middle East is still boiling, hotter than ever.
The traces of the implementation of the New World Order are plenty and wide spread. Without going too far back into conspiratorial history, IMF, WTO and World Bank might be the governance to implement the Agenda 21, an official plan to save the planet.
Cool, not only is there some understanding that this planet needs saving, there's even a masterplan for it. Hold your horses, not everything might be as attractive as it seems in first place. 'Saving the planet from environmental destruction' is only the sales point of a plan that identifies mankind as biggest obstacle towards a 'sustainable planet'.
I admit, I want to save the planet. Not singlehandedly, as mythical hero archetype, rather in cooperation with like-minded people. I don't believe in the Messiah myth, which keeps our fixation to leaders alive. Self-organising groups of people have shaped the face of this planet, and this eternal principle of (human) life cannot be broken.
Yet a weird game determines the amount of resources available to any specific group of people on this planet. Since the invention of the magic scheme called 'legislation' a large part of the global population is forcefully put under its evil spell. The historic empires eradicated custodians of their lands, and replaced them with lesser wizards with the responsibility to maintain the magic spell of law.
Domestication of conquered people followed usually similar patterns, if they survived at all. Their cultural identity was subverted to subdue to the rules of the conqueror, from total ban to replacing just the top of the hierarchy.
The latest threat to the hierarchy comes ostensibly from machines. The creation myth of most contemporary societies portraits strict hierarchy as a given, and inevitable. Somebody's got to do the nasty job of bossing the rest around, and many societies regard this as a family affair. Soon, we can retire them, and have some machines bossing mankind around.
It's all for the best of all. My synapses scream and sigh simultaneously while writing something so wickedly Orwellian. While science still largely shies away from the exploration of consciousness, and has only ill-defined concepts of 'intelligence', Artificial Intelligence will blow us away. Or a comet. Or an alien attack. Or global warming. Or the sun exploding. Or the Oil Crisis. Or the Food Crisis. Or the Water Crisis.
When some people think about the future, they often see their biggest fears magnified. While contemplating plans about my individual future these 'globally accepted threats' want some attention. But they don't get it in their designed ways. I can choose whether to subscribe to the idea of humans as helpless, inferior beings needing a guiding hand for anything or whether to accept the challenge of free will.
Depending on the circumstances, we have been programmed to prefer everything 'just like it is', including a self-perception as unimportant and replaceable cog in a much, much larger wheel. Many lack the imagination required to consider a world without the big wheel government as desirable. Media provides us with a plethora of dystopian memes, which clutter our ideas about a potential future.
Assuming that most people on this planet are harmless, a cooperative society emerges easily. The biggest mistake in perceiving a future society lies in taking every bit of the now and converting it into a better working equivalent. Most of the jobs done today are entirely redundant, to keep people busy and reinforce their conditioning on a daily basis.
One essential area for human survival has already largely moved into the hands of the corporate Empire: food. Other omnivores on this planet require about twenty hours per week caring about food, it makes us look quite stupid in comparison if we aim for 40 hours a week. At least in most industrialised countries, homelessness reflects just economic inequality, not a scarcity of resources.
Although a lot of damage to the environment needs active repairing/healing, in average we would do much less in terms of 'job'. If essentials like water, electricity, heating, shelter, communication infrastructure come for free (and there is no compelling reason why it can't be so), the jobs for 'competing for the best offer in these services' go away.
We have developed more than enough technology and products to ensure a comfortable life for every human being on this planet. As of yet, this comfortable life would hardly be sustainable, as most economic processes have been optimised for 'profit', while neglecting efficient (economic) solutions. Transforming the industries we need and want as mankind towards sustainability, that means conscious of the interdependence of mankind to this ecosphere we call planet Earth, sounds like an insurmountable task.
Yet since the idea of ecology became more popular in the 70s of the last century, it raised already the general awareness about environmental concerns, and led to some positive steps towards sustainability. However, this environmental awareness gets now hijacked by the proponents of the Agenda 21, which want to save the ecosystem by culling the majority of humans.
The future remains unpredictable, although some consequences of maintaining the current status quo become very apparent. Especially the contamination with radioactivity, in combination with the exposure to dangerous chemicals erodes life expectation and general health, not only in humans, but in the entire chain of life.
Liberating this planet from its parasitic leadership only begins the next step of evolution. A memetic shift needs to prepare the majority of people not to panic once the emperors without clothes have gone.
A glimpse of hope emerged last year with Occupy Wall Street and its many memetic offspring. More and more people world wide not only liberated themselves from the idea that 'government cares for all', but also started caring for each other and get organised.
The wrath of the Empire came fast and vile, filled prisons and thus lined the pockets of the private prison industry like Serco or Wackenhut. The disneyfied news media reported diligently about yet another futile violent protest, elegantly omitting any useful information.
Hundred thousands protest in Mexico against a stolen election, similar numbers protest in Spain against being enslaved to pay for some gambling bankers debt. Japan rises against the use of nuclear power with hundred thousands. Greeks hardly stayed calm since the IMF and Germany took their country over. The middle East is still boiling, hotter than ever.
The traces of the implementation of the New World Order are plenty and wide spread. Without going too far back into conspiratorial history, IMF, WTO and World Bank might be the governance to implement the Agenda 21, an official plan to save the planet.
Cool, not only is there some understanding that this planet needs saving, there's even a masterplan for it. Hold your horses, not everything might be as attractive as it seems in first place. 'Saving the planet from environmental destruction' is only the sales point of a plan that identifies mankind as biggest obstacle towards a 'sustainable planet'.
I admit, I want to save the planet. Not singlehandedly, as mythical hero archetype, rather in cooperation with like-minded people. I don't believe in the Messiah myth, which keeps our fixation to leaders alive. Self-organising groups of people have shaped the face of this planet, and this eternal principle of (human) life cannot be broken.
Yet a weird game determines the amount of resources available to any specific group of people on this planet. Since the invention of the magic scheme called 'legislation' a large part of the global population is forcefully put under its evil spell. The historic empires eradicated custodians of their lands, and replaced them with lesser wizards with the responsibility to maintain the magic spell of law.
Domestication of conquered people followed usually similar patterns, if they survived at all. Their cultural identity was subverted to subdue to the rules of the conqueror, from total ban to replacing just the top of the hierarchy.
The latest threat to the hierarchy comes ostensibly from machines. The creation myth of most contemporary societies portraits strict hierarchy as a given, and inevitable. Somebody's got to do the nasty job of bossing the rest around, and many societies regard this as a family affair. Soon, we can retire them, and have some machines bossing mankind around.
It's all for the best of all. My synapses scream and sigh simultaneously while writing something so wickedly Orwellian. While science still largely shies away from the exploration of consciousness, and has only ill-defined concepts of 'intelligence', Artificial Intelligence will blow us away. Or a comet. Or an alien attack. Or global warming. Or the sun exploding. Or the Oil Crisis. Or the Food Crisis. Or the Water Crisis.
When some people think about the future, they often see their biggest fears magnified. While contemplating plans about my individual future these 'globally accepted threats' want some attention. But they don't get it in their designed ways. I can choose whether to subscribe to the idea of humans as helpless, inferior beings needing a guiding hand for anything or whether to accept the challenge of free will.
Depending on the circumstances, we have been programmed to prefer everything 'just like it is', including a self-perception as unimportant and replaceable cog in a much, much larger wheel. Many lack the imagination required to consider a world without the big wheel government as desirable. Media provides us with a plethora of dystopian memes, which clutter our ideas about a potential future.
Assuming that most people on this planet are harmless, a cooperative society emerges easily. The biggest mistake in perceiving a future society lies in taking every bit of the now and converting it into a better working equivalent. Most of the jobs done today are entirely redundant, to keep people busy and reinforce their conditioning on a daily basis.
One essential area for human survival has already largely moved into the hands of the corporate Empire: food. Other omnivores on this planet require about twenty hours per week caring about food, it makes us look quite stupid in comparison if we aim for 40 hours a week. At least in most industrialised countries, homelessness reflects just economic inequality, not a scarcity of resources.
Although a lot of damage to the environment needs active repairing/healing, in average we would do much less in terms of 'job'. If essentials like water, electricity, heating, shelter, communication infrastructure come for free (and there is no compelling reason why it can't be so), the jobs for 'competing for the best offer in these services' go away.
We have developed more than enough technology and products to ensure a comfortable life for every human being on this planet. As of yet, this comfortable life would hardly be sustainable, as most economic processes have been optimised for 'profit', while neglecting efficient (economic) solutions. Transforming the industries we need and want as mankind towards sustainability, that means conscious of the interdependence of mankind to this ecosphere we call planet Earth, sounds like an insurmountable task.
Yet since the idea of ecology became more popular in the 70s of the last century, it raised already the general awareness about environmental concerns, and led to some positive steps towards sustainability. However, this environmental awareness gets now hijacked by the proponents of the Agenda 21, which want to save the ecosystem by culling the majority of humans.
The future remains unpredictable, although some consequences of maintaining the current status quo become very apparent. Especially the contamination with radioactivity, in combination with the exposure to dangerous chemicals erodes life expectation and general health, not only in humans, but in the entire chain of life.
Liberating this planet from its parasitic leadership only begins the next step of evolution. A memetic shift needs to prepare the majority of people not to panic once the emperors without clothes have gone.
Monday, March 01, 2010
Hood rules
I love strolling through my neighborhood,
unsolicited art makes me feel real good.
Humans sharing their vision,
without asking for permission.
Still images producing movement,
tuning me again into the moment.
Life will prevail, they seem to say,
and make me smile on my way.
Isn't that pure anarchy,
or just the creator's vanity?
Freedom of speech needs no words,
freedom of thought needs no swords.
If you feel attacked by art,
it's time to get more smart.
I love strolling through my neighborhood,
unsolicited art makes me feel real good.
Humans sharing their vision,
without asking for permission.
Still images producing movement,
tuning me again into the moment.
Life will prevail, they seem to say,
and make me smile on my way.
Isn't that pure anarchy,
or just the creator's vanity?
Freedom of speech needs no words,
freedom of thought needs no swords.
If you feel attacked by art,
it's time to get more smart.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Universal human rights
Mensch has the right to life by her/his own law.
Mensch has the right to life in the way sHe wills to do.
Mensch has the right to dress as sHe wills to do.
Mensch has the right to dwell where sHe wills to dwell.
Mensch has the right to move as sHe will on the face of this Earth.
Mensch has the right to eat what sHe will.
Mensch has the right to drink what sHe will.
Mensch has the right to think what sHe will.
Mensch has the right to speak as sHe will.
Mensch has the right to mould as sHe will.
Mensch has the right to carve as sHe will.
Mensch has the right to work as sHe will.
Mensch has the right to rest as sHe will.
Mensch has the right to love as sHe will, where, when and with whom he will.
Mensch has the right to die how and when sHe will.
Mensch has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.
Mensch has the right to life by her/his own law.
Mensch has the right to life in the way sHe wills to do.
Mensch has the right to dress as sHe wills to do.
Mensch has the right to dwell where sHe wills to dwell.
Mensch has the right to move as sHe will on the face of this Earth.
Mensch has the right to eat what sHe will.
Mensch has the right to drink what sHe will.
Mensch has the right to think what sHe will.
Mensch has the right to speak as sHe will.
Mensch has the right to mould as sHe will.
Mensch has the right to carve as sHe will.
Mensch has the right to work as sHe will.
Mensch has the right to rest as sHe will.
Mensch has the right to love as sHe will, where, when and with whom he will.
Mensch has the right to die how and when sHe will.
Mensch has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Detained
What a terrible disaster! Stern Hu, an Australian business man, has been detained in China, accused of bribing and stealing state secrets. Rio Tinto is certainly on the leading edge of business with China - they can supply uranium for China nuclear ambitions, and use modern technology to exploit China's natural resources. Capitalism works a bit different in China, as the government officially meddles in business affairs (unlike the Western world, where this happens more occult).
The human rights situation in China looks quite dire. Organ trade, ban of organisations like Falun Gong, outbreeding Tibetans and strict internet censorship are just some topics Western politicians mention at home when defending their own fascist ways. Human rights make no money (unless you're AI, of course), and 'once business relations are established, the human rights situation can improve'. A fairy tale that has yet to come true somewhere.
Rio Tinto has all the hallmarks of a corporate giant. $81 billion in assets, listed in the Fortune 500, headquarters in Melbourne and London. The mining industry provided the fuel and material for industrialisation, traditionally with dreadful conditions for thew work force. Digging resources out of the Mother Earth's soil still takes many lives and shortened even more lifetimes. Unlike many other jobs in our modern world, miners still put their life at risk on a daily basis.
The common danger helped uniting miners, and many civil movements originated from this industry. But on a planet fractured into nations, an international operating entity can easily escape any improvement in one country. From a historic point of view, the mining industry is an essential component for industrialisation, and its mistreatment of its workers has contributed to some important improvements within society.
As mentioned, globalisation makes it possible to reduce the expense of 'worker rights' and 'safe workplaces' drastically. Rio Tinto does not break any local laws when they employ 10 year olds to wade barefoot through puddles of chemical solvents in their African mines - child labour supports maximising profits.
The public does not care too much about the corporate ethics of a mining company like Rio Tinto. Australian workers were paid well, and worked in quite safe environments. Miners were less visible than the blue collar workers in the corporate headquarters, being responsible of making numbers look good. Protests from the indigenous population about the mining sites could easily be muted, and friends in politics helped continuing Australia's genocide by all kind of 'interventions', removing human 'business obstacles'.
Which nicely segues into the second important area of the corporate ethics of a mining company, the mining sites themselves. The destruction of ecosystems and massive environmental pollution go hand in hand with mining, and sites of cultural importance are rarely spared. Indigenous people hardly stand a chance negotiating against a multi national company, especially when their government doesn't like them in first place.
If a 'civilised' country like Australia does not hesitate to mistreat their native people to help business, guess what happens in South America, Africa and Asia. Luckily, Rio Tinto mostly uses the term 'business ethics', in a similar way Dick Cheney talks about 'special interrogation techniques'. Human rights or environmental protection are not part of Rio Tinto's corporate agenda, they are aiming to make money for their shareholders.
"Business ethics' simply means if corruption, espionage and crime lower the total cost of operation, don't get caught. Don't forget to estimate the cost of getting caught (PR, more PR, bribery, coercion, eventual penalties) in this calculation.
Joel Bakan described corporations as psychopaths, and he made a good point. The structure of corporations allows otherwise ethically acting persons to withdraw from individual responsibility - corporate drones (and/or managers) act mainly in the shareholders interest. Shareholders want to see ROI (return of investment), or else the management gets fired.
Workers right, environmental and cultural concerns increase the cost of operation for a company like Rio Tinto, they directly oppose the shareholder interest. Stern Hu represented this company, and most likely did nothing unusual. Yet the Chinese government might interpret internationally usual business practises differently.
At least, some specific allegations have been made. These allegations sound probable to me, yet they might be entirely fabricated. Let's compare this to another case of detention of an Australian citizen, David Hicks.
Hicks was sold the US military in Afghanistan in December 2001, yet it took the US government three years to come up with some allegations. Considering the fact that the US presents itself as stronghold of justice and civil liberty, the 'evil' Chinese reacted still much faster. Rio Tinto complains that the Chinese law is hard to interpret for us, the US set up some special dictatorial legislation (the military commissions act of 2006) to deal with their ignorance for legal advances of the last 600 years or so.
Hicks and Hu were 'illegaly' detained, surrounded by fuzzy legal circumstances. One was tortured by a friendly, human rights loving and raping nation, without having broken any law. The other one might have broken the law (simply by doing business as usual), yet both Rudd and Turnbull have no problem taking his side. The politician's big heart for crooky business and business crooks comes as no surprise to me. (Mr. Hu, this is not meant personally.)
The drama hasn't ended yet. News corporations (no pun intended) will supply us with the next developments of this story. Rest assured, Rio Tinto will invest in looking good, innocent and 'business ethical'. Will the Socialist Alternative organise rallies to 'Free Stern Hu' ?
What a terrible disaster! Stern Hu, an Australian business man, has been detained in China, accused of bribing and stealing state secrets. Rio Tinto is certainly on the leading edge of business with China - they can supply uranium for China nuclear ambitions, and use modern technology to exploit China's natural resources. Capitalism works a bit different in China, as the government officially meddles in business affairs (unlike the Western world, where this happens more occult).
The human rights situation in China looks quite dire. Organ trade, ban of organisations like Falun Gong, outbreeding Tibetans and strict internet censorship are just some topics Western politicians mention at home when defending their own fascist ways. Human rights make no money (unless you're AI, of course), and 'once business relations are established, the human rights situation can improve'. A fairy tale that has yet to come true somewhere.
Rio Tinto has all the hallmarks of a corporate giant. $81 billion in assets, listed in the Fortune 500, headquarters in Melbourne and London. The mining industry provided the fuel and material for industrialisation, traditionally with dreadful conditions for thew work force. Digging resources out of the Mother Earth's soil still takes many lives and shortened even more lifetimes. Unlike many other jobs in our modern world, miners still put their life at risk on a daily basis.
The common danger helped uniting miners, and many civil movements originated from this industry. But on a planet fractured into nations, an international operating entity can easily escape any improvement in one country. From a historic point of view, the mining industry is an essential component for industrialisation, and its mistreatment of its workers has contributed to some important improvements within society.
As mentioned, globalisation makes it possible to reduce the expense of 'worker rights' and 'safe workplaces' drastically. Rio Tinto does not break any local laws when they employ 10 year olds to wade barefoot through puddles of chemical solvents in their African mines - child labour supports maximising profits.
The public does not care too much about the corporate ethics of a mining company like Rio Tinto. Australian workers were paid well, and worked in quite safe environments. Miners were less visible than the blue collar workers in the corporate headquarters, being responsible of making numbers look good. Protests from the indigenous population about the mining sites could easily be muted, and friends in politics helped continuing Australia's genocide by all kind of 'interventions', removing human 'business obstacles'.
Which nicely segues into the second important area of the corporate ethics of a mining company, the mining sites themselves. The destruction of ecosystems and massive environmental pollution go hand in hand with mining, and sites of cultural importance are rarely spared. Indigenous people hardly stand a chance negotiating against a multi national company, especially when their government doesn't like them in first place.
If a 'civilised' country like Australia does not hesitate to mistreat their native people to help business, guess what happens in South America, Africa and Asia. Luckily, Rio Tinto mostly uses the term 'business ethics', in a similar way Dick Cheney talks about 'special interrogation techniques'. Human rights or environmental protection are not part of Rio Tinto's corporate agenda, they are aiming to make money for their shareholders.
"Business ethics' simply means if corruption, espionage and crime lower the total cost of operation, don't get caught. Don't forget to estimate the cost of getting caught (PR, more PR, bribery, coercion, eventual penalties) in this calculation.
Joel Bakan described corporations as psychopaths, and he made a good point. The structure of corporations allows otherwise ethically acting persons to withdraw from individual responsibility - corporate drones (and/or managers) act mainly in the shareholders interest. Shareholders want to see ROI (return of investment), or else the management gets fired.
Workers right, environmental and cultural concerns increase the cost of operation for a company like Rio Tinto, they directly oppose the shareholder interest. Stern Hu represented this company, and most likely did nothing unusual. Yet the Chinese government might interpret internationally usual business practises differently.
At least, some specific allegations have been made. These allegations sound probable to me, yet they might be entirely fabricated. Let's compare this to another case of detention of an Australian citizen, David Hicks.
Hicks was sold the US military in Afghanistan in December 2001, yet it took the US government three years to come up with some allegations. Considering the fact that the US presents itself as stronghold of justice and civil liberty, the 'evil' Chinese reacted still much faster. Rio Tinto complains that the Chinese law is hard to interpret for us, the US set up some special dictatorial legislation (the military commissions act of 2006) to deal with their ignorance for legal advances of the last 600 years or so.
Hicks and Hu were 'illegaly' detained, surrounded by fuzzy legal circumstances. One was tortured by a friendly, human rights loving and raping nation, without having broken any law. The other one might have broken the law (simply by doing business as usual), yet both Rudd and Turnbull have no problem taking his side. The politician's big heart for crooky business and business crooks comes as no surprise to me. (Mr. Hu, this is not meant personally.)
The drama hasn't ended yet. News corporations (no pun intended) will supply us with the next developments of this story. Rest assured, Rio Tinto will invest in looking good, innocent and 'business ethical'. Will the Socialist Alternative organise rallies to 'Free Stern Hu' ?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)