Why are we here? If it is because of some divine purpose then it is not a question that is answerable by me, nor any of my concern…. except to say that that divine being is a total egocentric bastard of seriously limited intelligence. If the reason why we are here is simply due to chance atomic get togethers, a cosmic knees up, where evolution has taken its course and along the way created us, then that begs a lot of questions probably all of which have quite nasty answers. 

The first and obvious question is morality, if we are a divine invention then that removes all need of thought on the topic, our morals are given to us and the divine being is still a bastard for a) not telling us what they are and b) not enforcing them with any fairness nor logic.

I cannot think of any alternative between a divinity and a cosmic joke so lets go with being a cosmic joke. What now is morality? Well the answer is simple, morality is a social construct which changes as a consequence of the needs of the particular dominant factor in the ruling class(es) of society in any given area and time.

In other words, there is no morality as such, morality seems to be a catch-all phrase to encompass a generalisation that suits the mindset of the dominant faction(s) which does not require specific laws or rules. To put it another way, if you do something which is ‘not right’ but doesn’t fall clearly into a law or rule category then either it becomes OK and a part of the new ‘morality’ because you are very, very powerful, or, the people who are powerful will impose the general purpose ‘morality’ to justify creating some form of correction to prevent you or your ilk from repeating the action. That correction may include a particular penalty against yourself all the way up to removing your life, after all you are a danger to the status quo.

All sets of ‘laws’ and rules through time have been encompassed by or framed by the ‘morality’ of the time/region and morality has changed as radically as the laws and rules have changed. Through time just about every excess and depravity has been accepted as fine within the morality of the day. Slavery, racist slavery, child sex, rampant murder, gross torture, wanton theft, you name it, it has been a normal part of society, often in a cyclic pattern, somewhere at sometime.

If we take slavery, slavery has existed around the globe since the development of an agrarian world. Of course surplus was required before proper stratification could develop. Someone needed time to be a ‘leader’ and therefore someone else had to produce more than they could consume in order to support the parasite (which in essence is what all leaders/rulers are), hence the need for some form of agrarian society.

Slavery takes many forms from taking slaves in war or raids (the most egalitarian form of slavery), taking slaves of particular countries, race or colour such as the African and Chinese slave trade, bondage of a particular sex, slavery of a nation to its rulers (Pharaohs as an example), singular slavery as in the sex trade to the many forms of slavery inherent in any capitalist country. All have not only been legal but have been actively encouraged by the ruling classes. As a side note, not all slaves have been black, white slaves are common throughout history.

Child sex? Well to have child sex firstly there needs to be the classification of ‘a child’ and that is a pretty modern phenomenon. Child labour and young brides were normal for most of history. Mohammed is vilified by the western media for being a ‘paedophile’. One of his wives has been variously reported as being from 9 years old to 19 years old. It should be noted that there is no dispute about Mary being just 13 when she was impregnated (supposedly) by a god! Methinks the Christians need to be careful about throwing stones 🙂

Marriage (and pregnancies) with women aged 12 were very common in the past and even in the modern USA the age of consent varies wildly from state to state and over time. It was also common for men to marry at a far older age, under 30 being considered far too young for a man to marry. We should also note that ‘marriage’ was a device only used by the upper classes anyway (property laws) and commoners never married until quite recently. So this particular ‘morality’ is purely socially driven, the concept of a ‘child’ itself is socially driven and that which horrifies today (in the west only?) would be bemusing as a concept in the past.

Torture, now there’s a good one, morally repugnant in the West… well it was until 15 years or so ago, now the morality compass has been reset by the powers that be and the ‘sheeple’ have, as usual, swallowed the moral compass shift with hardly a blink. It will of course backfire as now it is open slather on american(USA) detainees. But wait, there’s more! We also have the moral compass shift regarding murdering completely innocent men women and children (there is, apparently, a moral degree shift regarding murder depending upon the age and sex of the murder victim?!?). Collateral damage, otherwise known as murder, is now accepted by the US population as morally ‘correct’, not acceptable, actually correct, if it is muslim children who are being slaughtered by american(USA) drones. I think this is partly to, by association, legitimise the murdering of Palestinians by Israel, remember it is the jewish owned press who are behind this current morality shift.

Here’s a good one, it is morally repugnant for Islamic ‘terrorists’ to not fight ‘in the open’, against staggeringly ridiculous odds cf firepower and armour, but it is ‘good’ to murder civilians by bombing from the air with planes well out of range of even detection, let alone anti-aircraft fire.

 
Advertisements

New World Order and the Enslaving of the ‘Working Class’
I may be an economic neophyte, but, how do you stimulate an economy by creating 20% unemployment and lowering or eliminating all discretionary spending? If it is solely to improve exports, is that not saying that the Greek people are irrelevant and Greece is being used as a supplier of cheap goods to wealthier nations?

Rights and the Common Man
I am always amazed at the number of people who seem to think that they have ‘rights’ or that the laws are there to protect them or for them to use. Unless you are very rich or very powerful you have no rights. You never had any rights. You never WILL have any rights. And the laws and the police are only there to keep you in your place and to protect the rich and powerful.
If you do not understand this then you have never, ever looked openly at the world and the way it works!
Not sure whether these two fit here or not. Magistrate Bone, one of the many local magistrates who live in a personal fiefdom and operate in a medieval view of the law. I have seen this gentleman on three occasions, the first was during a property/custody case, an uncontested one with both parties present and presenting a jointly worked out ‘settlement’. She didn’t want the children, it was the reason she left (amongst others of a weird and wild nature). Dear magistrate Bone argued but finally acceded to the mutually agreed settlement, one in which I had custody of the children. Bone recorded in his ‘judgement’ that he didn’t think it was best for the children for a male to have custody but he would reluctantly agree. This set the stage for a future situation which was devastating for my children, one they will never recover from. This is not one of the two cases however.
In 1989 I faced the local court at the behest of the local council and I was tried convicted and fined for failing to vote TWICE in the same election. Of course, had I have voted twice I would have been guilty of a jailable criminal offense, magistrate Bone, however, felt that complying with the law was an offense. Case two, a wealthy landowner from an ‘aristocratic’ squatocracy family, drove completely across a bridge into my stationary car at the other end, local police arrived and were informed by a breathless tow-truck operator that the offender was Mrs. Lizbeth Ivy. All parties, except me, repaired to a local house and re-emerged some while later. I was booked and ARRESTED for negligent driving (there were no injuries btw). I took photos at the scene for later evidence. In court I proved to the magistrate that in fact I was in the right and Mrs. Ivey had driven negligently and at a too high speed. I used photographs and measurements (plus mrs Ivey’s own statements) to prove several things, one that I was stationary, two that I had arrived at the one lane bridge first and three that mrs Ivey drove onto the bridge, never attempted to brake and simply drove straight into my stationary car at the other end of the bridge. Magistrate Bone accepted my evidence in full (it would have been difficult to deny it) stating that my evidence was “far superior” but then went on to say that it was his  “duty to support the police” and found me guilty in spite of the evidence!?!?
So far that has been my only court appearance against the Australian elite, but it is enough to demonstrate to me in a personal way that the legal system is run to benefit the ‘aristocracy’ against the working classes no matter what. The voting case demonstrates that the judiciary will do anything, including ignoring the law, to suppress the ordinary people and support the ‘powers that be’ to that end.

 

Want to know about austerity?

Austerity is the new decade, maybe the new century, the rich will get obscenely richer whilst ‘austerity’ screws the workers over. Get with the flow, austerity is just a phrase to lower the living standards of the workers, to slash wages to ‘Asian’ levels and to turn back the clock on all worker gains. Unions crushed, awards ripped up, entitlements won over hundreds of years stripped away in a matter of months. John Howard introduced ‘work-choices’ a while ago, hardly choices btw, his STATED goal was to lower Australian wages and entitlements to match those of Asia. He failed. Austerity will succeed. Howard failed to use the media to spin the new morality, the IMF and the World Bank, both private for profit organisations, are succeeding and know how to use the spin.