An intimidating climate

Most human activity finds its motivation in two elemental emotions: Love and Fear. This applies even to the most "rational" pastime of humanity, science. In modern society, people don't need any scientific understanding to benefit from the fruits of the creation of systems of knowledge. According to the most popular narratives of civilisation, the "Age of Enlightenment" has replaced the "Dark Age" of religious superstition, often implying that we live in the best times humanity has ever had.

Without a doubt, we cannot remember a time when seven billion of us inhabited this planet, and we have absolutely no record of living in an age of technology and information like we do today. This relates mainly to the fact that record keeping, and systematic investigation of this planet as a whole started not too long ago, compared to the time homo sapiens sapiens crawls over this planet, or the time Mother Earth existed at all.

Our curiosity about what exists now, and existed before us doesn't need facts. Stories have been the glue to keep societies together, fill the gaps in our knowledge in ways which might or might not serve us as a whole. Explorers and traders increased to story pool of relatively isolated clans and tribes, before writing allowed a new form of transmitting myths, narratives and ideas. The invention of the printing press accelerated this process, the internet now provides access to stories from nearly all parts of the world.

We can pick and choose a narrative from a plethora of ideas for any topic of interest. Let's take the origin of humanity as example. The bible claims that we are product of "God", who created everything on this planet in six days about 6,000 years ago. According to science, humanity evolved from ancestral primates a few hundred thousand years ago. Many First Nations people narratives involve a creator as well, as do other mythologies which survived until today. Of course, one of the more interesting stories floating around mixes many sources to describe humanity as genetically engineered by aliens.

The lack of continuous records means we have to refrain to educated guesswork when it comes to our past. We know of our own existence, and if we're lucky, we might be able to trace back our family history for some generations back. While some people want to convince us that they can trace back to people mentioned in the Bible, our collective past as humanity is anything but certain. Luckily, precise knowledge of our history thousands, ten thousands, hundred thousands or even millions of years ago has little impact to our ability to survive.

Because our survival in the future poses now the biggest danger ever, one of our own making. At least if we believe in the narratives prescribed by the latest whole world religion, science. Long before the heat death of the entire universe, long before our sun burns out and fails to provide the energy which contributed to the diversity of life on this planet, humanity will change the climate in ways which will make our own survival impossible.

Ironically, the narrative of "Global warming" aka "Climate change" aka "Extreme climate" mimics biblical stories. As "supreme" species of this planet, precipice of evolution, this planet is not only at our disposal, but our carelessness will dispose of it by creating too much carbon dioxide. However, the right kind of sacrifice suggested by the new global priesthood might avert the inevitable climate crisis. Meanwhile, doomsday vaults get constructed for those worthy of surviving the coming climate cataclysm.

Excuse me for sounding like a heretic, or in modern language, being a "climate skeptic". Of course, the term heretic cannot be used here, as it describes someone not following specific religious believes imposed to a society. It would unveil the religious character which has become typical for contemporary science. Yet, the similarities between questioning the immaculate conception of Jesus Christ during the times of the Spanish Inquisition and doubting the "consensus of climate scientists about anthropogenic global warming" suggest that autonomous thought remains even in the "Age of Enlightenment" highly unpopular.

But the data! Look at the data! Let's be honest, no one does. No one can. We know more about the average American (if we're willing to pay) than about the weather in the US. Cambridge Analytica prides itself to have about 2000-3000 data points for about 250 million US citizens, derived mainly from online activity. If a weather station logged just the temperature on an hourly basis, it would create roughly 9000 records per year. To know as much about the weather as about the habits of US citizens, it would take about 80 millions weather stations in the US. Which don't exist.

70% of the Earth's surface consists of ocean. According to Wikipedia, we have about 1250 buoys collecting weather data. That means a single buoy collects data for an area bigger as the UK, or New Zealand. I guess if someone wanted to suggest that a single weather station suffices to determine the average temperature for the UK, a lot of people would cry foul. Not to mention the drop of ratings for any weather report based on this solitary station, no one would bother checking it out simply because it wouldn't give them any useful information.

We just don't understand the climate. The measurements happen only in few spots, compared the immense volume of the atmosphere and the depth of the ocean. We don't have a thermometer we can stick up the planet's ass to assess whether it's developing a fever. Climate has been defined as the development of weather patterns of 30 years, so most people arguing about this have experienced one or maybe two "climate cycles". While the efforts to collect more data have increases without a doubt over the last decades, it's still by far insufficient for any meaningful conclusion.

The current data collection doesn't allow any proper estimation of average temperature, the longer we go back the worse it gets. Which explains why no existing climate model could simulate what has happened in the last hundred years. The term "global warming" initially used for this fear-mongering narrative leaves a tell-tale sign about the intentions for it.

First Nations people understand themselves as part of nature, and therefor never as radically changed the surface of the planet as colonialism and capitalism did. In these cultures, "ecology" wasn't a niche subject of scientific inquiry, but integral but the way of life and survival. The eradication of indigenous cultures to exploit natural resources also erased the intuitive understanding of our dependency as humanity on a healthy environment.

Carbon dioxide acts as nutrient for plant growth, and excessive amounts of it should lead to bumper crops. But deforestation and polluting the environment lead to a damage to eco-systems essential for the health of the planet despite not being commercially exploitable. The effects of collapsing eco-systems, such as Great Barrier Reef, or species extinction by loss of habitat, are undeniable. Declaring CO2 as solitary culprit just helps to create another playgroup for inane economic games, helping the enemies of humanity to gain more power and influence.

The fear-inducing narrative of climate change exists for quite some time now, and it taps into our innate love for nature. Just like the concept of monarchy, those who put us into misery present themselves as saviours. Just like the kings of the olden days, submission to their cruel game means more hardship for most, more power for those who love to exploit others for their pleasure. We live symbiotic with this planet. The parasites sucking our life blood don't care for the health of our host, Mother Earth.

Lawless police

Today, another protest against the detainment of Bradley Manning, and the crimes against humanity committed by the US government exposed by Wikileaks, took place in front of the US consulate in Melbourne.

As it was already the third time we managed to organise this legal form of political protest, basically a sit-in, we were familiar with some people involved, like the friendly and sympathetic receptionist, and some of the police. The building manager had changed since we've been there last time. While he seemed less angry than the last one, he still didn't like political protest in 'his' premises.

The last sit-in lasted three hours, so this time we were well prepared to enjoy ourselves while being there. We had some music and food, and prepared some little scenes and speeches to make it a joyful happening. The cause, however, is less funny - Obama's drone war, Bradley Mannings incarceration for years, most of it in solitary confinement, declaring Wikileaks and its confederates as 'Enemy of the state', the Grand Jury against Assange, who is held hostage in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

Learning from their last experience, whoever was responsible to enforce mob law on civil protestors, decided on a faster course of action. And yo a more intimidating and finally violent approach. Police observing the protest initially were quite edgy, carried their guns and actively engaged in house-keeping, removing the flyers we patched to the doors of the embassy.

CIRT (Critical Incidence Response Team), the muscle of the corporate impostor government, arrived with more troops in riot gear, squads from a variety of police stations got into their gloves, ready to rough up the protest.

As I have some good reasons not to get into violently enforced laws, I took care of the belongings of some of my friends, left the building and awaited for the inevitable unlawful eviction. I positioned myself in front of the door, sheltered from the rain and got my camera ready. One of the police clowns approached me and ask me to move on, which I politely declined initially.

'Move away!', 'Sorry, sir, you got no right to ask me to move on'. 'It's for you own safety, it could dangerous for when we remove the protestors.' 'So you're intending to do something dangerous?' 'I don't engage with your semantics.'

The police officer then asked me about the things I put down temporarily, suggested I could join my mates to be forcefully removed, so I moved a couple of metres away, into the rain, still waiting for the eviction.

I dropped the things I took care of next to a table belonging to the cafe next door, still in good sight of the four police clowns readying themselves for some action. One of the youngest of them came over and asked me for ID, which I politely declined with: 'I don't think I'm obliged to give you my ID.'

He moved back, and when I dropped my cigarette butt (I know, smoking is bad, littering as well, but, hell, I got nervous and uncomfortable), one of the clowns marched over to me: 'Give me your ID, I have to fine you for throwing away burning litter!' Luckily, I got backup in the ensuing attempt to contract me to accept a fine, and managed to remove myself from police, put the belongings of my mates into the car and chill for a while.

When we went to debrief into a cafe opposite the embassy, things escalated again. Our independent journalist demanded to identify the cop that pushed him during the eviction, and got done badly. As we still could see what happened, most went back to look after him, and they arrested a young woman, pushed several others to the ground, and took her and the journo on a ride.

Similar to other evictions, they simply drove them off the scene and dropped them somewhere in St. Kilda on the side of the road. When we regrouped with the arrested, the woman had gone into shock, and lay on the pavement in the rain. By the time ambulance arrived to take care of her, people with video evidence could show the medics how police had assaulted her.

The amount of laws broken by police, and their attitude was mostly shocking. In first place, removing the protestors from the inside of the building was unlawful - places of business are similar to public space, and removing someone wanting to talk to a representative of the US consulate in front of it, causing neither damage or danger to persons and property, not even following any sort of protocol, is unlawful.

The rough handling of some the protestors technically is assault, and arresting someone nominally, without a charge, and just dropping them off somewhere constitutes basically kidnapping. The Stanford Prison Experiment has shown convincingly that entitling people with a uniform effectively removes them from personal responsibility, and often of empathy, and turns them into beasts.

While we did our best to alleviate the psychological harm and trauma inflicted, and the bruises caused by brutal handling won't last for long, it's simply unacceptable to have people ostensibly representing the government acting like the muscle of the mafia.

We stood up to injustice in non-violent, lawful ways, and the authorities came down on us like thugs of a fascist, impostor government. Because that's what they are. They get paid to inflict injustice on regular people, while we do it to stand up for a healthy, just society. It's kind of sad that it takes some of us getting beaten up to make a tiny media blip, especially if it's just in Murdoch press.

Yet without resistance, the next generation will be born into inescapable servitude, and no one will remember the god-given right to freedom, so many people in history have fought for. And as we are aware of the policy of intimidation to enforce pretend law, we will not give up.

Bullshit bingo

My disdain with the corporate world was informed by personal experiences - I worked for international corporations and governments for a long time of my life. The amount of resources wasted in places like this seems quite unbelievable. It's OPM (other people's money), and therefore well suited to be generous with.

One corporate game is bullshit bingo - selling a project by using well sounding, but meaningless phrases. Public health is in a dire state in Australia, ambulances have to be paid for by the patient, indigenous Australians have a drastically shorter life expectation, some hospitals haven't been modernised for a half a century, foreign doctors are suspected as terrorists, or face leaving the country for having a handicapped child.

'Reform' is a favorite bullshit term for politicos, similar to 'reorganisation' in the corporate world. The normal function of the units 'reorganised' or 'reformed' gets disrupted, additional levels of management replace manpower for the core tasks of operation. I heard the myth that things operate more smoothly after a 'reform' or 'reorganisation', but I have yet to see this in real life.

The need for improvement of the health system is even perceived by the politicos, hence the 'health reform'. While my health related profession is still not paid for by medicare, not on the list of skilled jobs for immigration, mental and dental health patients mostly left on on their own devices, training for the health care sector still an elitist affair, the health reform bring the patients heaven to Australia. Or maybe I just got the bullshit bingo ad wrong.

FVO: Under the new health reform, the Australian Government is delivering the most significant improvement to our health system since the introduction of Medicare.
[We open on a blue line on a piece of paper. We see more lines, they take shape, illustrating a woman’s eye.]

If medicare was the first go at public health care, this simply means making the system finally work, after it stumbled along for decades. Most significant improvement sounds more impressive. A change in myki management could be advertised in similar terms: 'With the new management, myki will deliver the most significant improvement to our ticketing system since metcard.'

The first five words already alerted my bullshit detector, a 'new reform' set the starting tone to some newspeak muzak. A bunch of nice sounding promises, spiced up with meaningless and unquantifiable comparisons followed.

FVO: By providing more hospital beds…
[We see the illustration turn into a real photo of a woman in a hospital bed, nursing her newborn.]

FVO: …training more doctors and nurses...
[We see another line drawing of a group of young doctors. The illustration turns into a real photograph.]

FVO: …and expanding the number of GP services…
[We see another illustration, of a young boy being seen by GP. This also turns into a photo.]

FVO: …it will deliver better health and better hospitals.
[We see another illustration of a young (16-20) woman talking to her doctor. This too resolves through to a real photo.]

Besides the fact that I'd like to see how a reform delivers (I hope the reform has private health insurance for a safe delivery...) it just appeals to the favorite Australian 'betta' meme. As long as something is betta than the the neighbours, it doesn't matter how crappy, useless or outright stupid something is. The desalination plant is certainly betta than dehydration, it's just a solution ignoring alternative approaches which have been best practice in other parts of the world for decades.

More of the same, however, doesn't turn an inadequate system into a well working system. It's like improving the efficiency in using fossil fuels by driving more gas guzzling four-wheel drives... wait, that is the local attitude here. Cowshit is betta than dog shit, you can use cowshit as fuel, but hey, both are shit. Yeah, my shit is betta than yours! Wait, another quite typical attitude.

FVO: For the first time the Australian Government will take dominant funding responsibility for our health system.
[Our point of view moves out so that we see an aerial view, indicating the vast network across the country.]

FVO: The reform will cut inefficiencies by streamlining many systems into a unified network, with guaranteed funding…
[The lines link and join the whole network as one.]

[Super: Cut inefficiencies.]

FVO: …it’ll be run locally, giving local senior doctors and health experts a greater say.

[Then, different points on the map light up, one by one. ]

[Super: Greater local say.]

I'm sure the phrase 'Streamlining a system into a unified network' will appear on the many available bullshit generators on the web. With 'the dominant responsibility of the Australian government' a glimpse of truth shines through this propaganda piece, yet the supers hammer another lie home. How can the government's dominant responsibility bring 'greater local say'? And what's the role of 'health experts'? Isn't there a need for people practicing health care instead of more management following expert advice how to make more money?

FVO: …and by introducing new strong national standards, it will deliver a higher quality of care in the city and country.
[All of the points and the lines light up at exactly the same time.]

[Super: Strong national standards.]

FVO: Health Reform. For better healthcare and better hospitals.

[We pull out to reveal the illustration of the network spells the words ‘Health Reform’.]

[This resolves through to the logo and super.]

[Logo/Super: Health Reform. Better healthcare and better hospitals. Government Crest.
australia.gov.au/yourhealth]

FVO: For more information about the improvements, as they happen, go to australia.gov.au/yourhealth

[Cut to a black screen with white type.]

There are many examples for propaganda in history. When governments resort to propaganda, democracy ceases to exist. Valuable money is spend to create the illusion of improvement, yet real life experiences contradict the happy world created by our 'representatives'. New strong national standards, wow. More helps more, strong standards lift the quality. New national standards imply a new level of bureaucracy, and prevent the promised greater local say.

The memes used in this waste of taxpayers money reflect the myth that more centralism will bring more efficiency. The Soviet Union provides a great example for the flaws of this approach. The US survived until now as a nation rather because of its federalistic approach although this process is reverted at the moment. Loss of local sovereignty is a trademark of global corporatism. Limiting the level of power for local communities transforms citizens into property of the corporations the government owes to.

Going into the community, and broadening the vision about health and sanity might improve the health care in this country. Health is beyond the expertise of politicians. A shift in responsibility in the health care system is needed, though. The patients need empowerment, and need to be educated about their own responsibility for the state of health they are in. Healthy people don't generate revenue for the sickness industry, that sells drugs, technology and bad advice. Healthy people might be as well immune against propaganda. Go betta, Australia. Politicians are the worst free loaders society has ever seen, if we can afford to feed them with a golden spoon, there's definitely more than enough resources to build a free and just community.

australia australian betta better bullshit care doctors fvo government health illustration improvement life local national network real reform responsibility standards strong super system

created at TagCrowd.com

The message is the response you get. That's why face-to-face communication still beats any asynchronous interaction like books, articles, recorded music, artworks or blogs. The time-binding qualities of art can create the illusion of efficient message transmission - if we still enjoy Beethoven's 'Ode to joy' it seems to have some specific meaning which extends over the contemporary context of its creation. Actually, Beethoven musical interpretation of Schiller's words must have shocked authorities so much that they decided to censor the lyrics. Celebrating 'joy' is much less anarchistic than celebrating 'freedom', so that Beethoven's inspired musical masterpiece could survive for centuries.

Although it's straight forward to communicate with most bloggers (the only hurdle on this blog is some easy verification to prevent most spamming), it's a rarely used opportunity. Some bloggers don't even like feedback, or do their best to destroy random communication attempts. A lot of media recipients have been thoroughly infected by the mind virus 'political correctness', which often creates a 'can't touch this' attitude. Another brick in the wall that prevents people from interacting more with each other in the interwebs is the perceived opposition of 'real life' and 'online'.

I enjoy deliberately playing with different online personae, yet without entertaining the schizophrenic delusion that my online selfs are separate entities. This attitude prevents me from acting like a bot, and even helps me identifying humanoid bots appearing in traditional media. Check out any TV interview with Australia's Goebbels Stephen Conroy (or about 90% of all political parasites in demo-crazys) if you want to study 'real life' spam bots.

Anonymity hardly exists anymore in electronic media, most people are simply oblivious to the amount of transparency that has been implemented with networking technology. Anonymity does not really exist for all the 'illegal' street art I recycle here, fame and admiration that street artists crave for just requires a certain level of been unknown by authorities. Unless you change your spraying/art style a lot, it's easy to pick up who did what (tag names makes that easy and straight forward, writing messages as well, pieces without deliberate incorporation of a 'name' pose a bit more difficulty in identification).

Of course, I have no idea whether the message in the photo refers to this blog. In a universe where everything is connected, I like to entertain the idea that anything my attention is drawn to might contain a personalised message. People just cannot prevent being the center of their own universe, although they can deny or stay ignorant about this fact. Once you identified yourself as the creator of your own universe in the multiverse of consciousness, it comes quite natural to make it more enjoyable.

Merry Kill-mas

The world has changed on 9 11 -
it has turned into a fascist heaven.

Soon, the coalition of the willing
started their useless killing
with an incredible haste
to dispose their nuclear waste.

Life has gotten so much rougher
with generations bound to suffer
while the spy agencies dragnet
extends to the whole planet.

Reason has lost its place
as motivator for our race
it all went terribly wrong
since only fear moves us along.

War is just temporary insanity
and will not last until infinity,
yet blind trust in war government
prolongs this cruel predicament.

Human rights no longer count,
the prison industry profits abound.
You have to be real brave
not to become the state's slave.

The prize of freedom is vigilance,
but it's less sexy than ignorance.
Lulled into a virtual reality
individuals enjoy lots of cruelty.

Fascists are in power again,
and it drives me insane -
yet it solved a personal mystery,
whether we're doomed to repeat history.

O, how much I'd love to hear
people speaking up without fear.

Thought crimes

Manson, portrayed at his trial as a drug-crazed loner with mesmerizing powers of persuasion, ordered devotees to carry out random killings in wealthy white neighborhoods in an effort to trigger an apocalyptic race war.

Not many newspapers use 34 words in a single sentence, using 6 adjectives to colour their message. The Age obviously caters for an educated audience, capable of digesting this abstract description. The Herald Sun would have probably used more specific details, Manson's piercing, dark, gloomy eyes, Acid-head, violent blood-spattering killings, and so on.

This educated audience can easily identify with living in a wealthy white neighborhood, and most likely picks up on the religious connotations of the expression 'devotee'. Oh my fascist god, religiously misled drug-crazies randomly killing in white neighborhoods! This over-simplified implication distracts a bit from the frog-leaps in reasoning connected to the Manson case.

The Age calls Manson a mass-murderer, even though he had not committed any of murders he got accused of, and he did not kill Sharon Tate. Hidden in the middle of this propaganda piece we can find out about Manson's crime: He ordered his 'devotees' to carry out random killings.

After heaps of fear inducing ramblings the powers of reasoning of the typical audience will linger somewhere in the basement, neglecting habitually the quest for facts, which are admittedly relatively sparse in most mass media products. So let's get back to the facts: Manson ordered his devotees to carry out killings. This time only, we step back from the fear of living in a target area, instead, we play crime writer and try to see the perpetrators perspective.

The Age offers a bit of help in elucidating (or rather clouding) the 'how' of Manson's crime: he used his mesmerising powers of persuasion (which obviously failed the judge and jury badly during his trial). We won't find out any more this mesmerising powers, especially how Manson, a drug-crazed loner, acquired this extraordinary interpersonal skills.

How does one order a murder usually? That depends a lot on the moral compass underlying the definition of murder. I consider sending troops into a foreign country 'ordering murder', I don't subscribe to the inevitable loss of innocent life in war situation as 'casualties'. I also have no problem calling the death sentence ordered murder.

While the former forms of 'order to carry out murders' are not covered by any judicial system I know of, hiring a hitman certainly fits both mine and legal systems understanding of this offense. Murder for money encompasses a commercial transaction (henchmen and soldiers get paid....), and holding both sides of the contract responsible seems totally justified.

Manson did not pay any money, he used his 'mesmerising powers of persuasion' to 'order random killings'. If I had a dollar for each time I heard somebody in a pub or similar situation expressing his desire to randomly kill someone, I would be very, very rich. I had no need to work for the rest of my life if the same would apply to media products - each time Rudd justifies the random murders in Afghanistan would fill my account.

Rudd doesn't use mesmerising powers to order random killings, but a large administration and a sanitising language that disguises killings as casualties. All the promises to minimise loss of civilian life failed badly in the 21st century, more than a million killed Iraqis, hundred thousands of dead Afghanis confirm a lesson from history persistently ignored: Each war involves terror acts against a civilian population.

The 'how' of Charles Manson evil crime remains a mystery. As a pacifist, I despise every war, and I certainly feel absolutely unattracted by the idea of an 'apocalyptic race war'. The perspective of fighting in a war does not stop many Australian from joining the army, it seems like some people want to be in a war situation (the recruitment ad's of Australia war machinery make it look a bit like a bunch of high-tech salvos, and leave out the bloody bits).

'Apocalyptic race war' seems to make no sense, this term reminds me a lot of Palestine. Any war is unreasonable, the sad fact that mankind hasn't abandoned this evolutionary obstacle shows the lack of importance of reason in affairs of society. Any war requires various leaps of faith, usually explained with COWDUNG (conventional wisdom of the dominating group).

Benbrika ostensibly planned a 'war on Australian people', with essential support from ASIO. Given their lack of talent in producing terror weapons, it's hard to say whether these people were sufficiently mesmerised by the persuasive powers of Australia secret terror force to go all the way. Nothing but a thought crime. Killing someone is by far not easy, some biologists claim the existence of a 'pre-programmed' inhibition for interspecies killing (that's why war propagandists use a language that dehumanises their victims, killing vermin is easier than killing humans).

Manson did less than ASIO, he didn't provided training, intelligence, money and weapons. As a 'drug-crazed loner' he most likely ranted a lot about his ideas about society with his 'family', which mostly fits into the description of criminal organisation. I'm still mesmerised by the distortion of facts, and the shameless fear mongering of The Age, but not powerfully persuaded by their vilification of Manson.