Crumbling Empires

We can make demands ‘til we’re blue in the face. All we will ever get are small concessions that will make no difference to the status quo of the power structures. The changes we desperately need are not going to be brought about by politicians. They have to be brought about by us and we need to address this now.

I propose that the first change to enable the New Society to evolve must be our concept of economy. To do this, we must look at what economy actually is and what its objectives are. It has become such an ingrained element of our consciousness that we find it difficult to imagine how life could even be possible without an economy.

But economy is not air, it is not water, it is not food and it is not shelter. These are the things without which life would not be possible. Many would say Ah! But economy is the means by which we obtain these things! That is not a logical argument. It is simply a doctrine that illustrates exactly how ingrained this belief actually is.

Economy is simply an idea and nothing more. It is a way of thinking. It is a fiction. In the same way that a game of chess is not war but simply a fictional representation of conflict, money is not wealth but simply a fictional representation of value.

Imagine you are stranded on an island that has plentiful fruit and edible vegetation, fish and game are abundant and the land is fertile. The inhabitants of the island are warm, friendly and welcoming. There is constant celebration, music and joy. Would you particularly want to be rescued? Now imagine that another person from the same shipwreck was washed ashore on an uninhabited and desolate island. Vegetation and wildlife are scarce; there is little fresh water and not even enough trees to build a serviceable shelter. However, the island had been used centuries before by pirates to stash their loot… and the other castaway finds the hoard of gold.

Which of you is the wealthiest?

This puts the Western civilisation concept of wealth into perspective, doesn’t it? Money used to represent a certain weight of gold or silver but what is gold and silver? What makes these metals so precious? They are considered to have value simply because they are comparatively rare. It is only since the development of technology that gold and silver has had any practical value at all. Until then, they were simply decorative metals. They are too scarce to serve as a general material for making vessels, which, because of their malleability, they are ideally suited and too soft for any other purpose. Their value has always been an aesthetic value and, therefore, fictional.

When we talk of the value of our homes, we are invariably referring to the current price of our homes should they be put onto the market. The value of a home is the number of people it can accommodate, the shelter and security it provides and the comfort and level at which it reflects our taste and requirements. These only change when alterations are made to affect these aspects. Market forces (another fiction) can only affect the price at which a house can be bought or sold and, regardless of how market forces may go up or down, the value remains constant until actual physical changes are made to the structure to effect the advantages it provides.

The price of a loaf of bread is considerably higher today than it was ten years ago. But the value of a loaf that will feed six people today is exactly the same as that of a loaf that would feed six people a thousand years ago. Value is real and, therefore, remains constant. Price is a fiction and changes whenever those who control the rules of the game change the rules. A dollar or a pound or any other currency has no intrinsic value. It is a game and the rules of the game are to pretend that the dollar or whatever is equal in value to the things for which it can be exchanged. The word: “pretend” is significant here. Those who control the game decide what we are to pretend the money is worth. It is like a game of ‘Simon Says’ combined with ‘Monopoly’. Simon says a dollar is worth a donut and that becomes the truth. No matter how many of us say a dollar is worth a house, until Simon says otherwise, a dollar is worth a donut. It is a game. Furthermore, we are not playing the game any more than the pieces on a chessboard are playing chess. We are being played.

We can stop any time we want to. We can announce that a dollar is worthless and refuse to acknowledge the rules of the game… and then what? Do we loot the stores? Do we turn on each other and grab what we can? Or do we change the rules of the game ourselves. It seems impossible to do unless Simon agrees but Simon is totally dependent on everyone acknowledging his authority to dictate the rules. A dollar is not worth a donut because Simon says so but because we all acknowledge that what Simon says is true.

As long as our civilisation is based on the illusions of power and fictional wealth, it is destined to fall as every other civilisation in the history of Mankind has fallen. As long as we all buy into the illusion that Simon has the power to dictate our lives, Simon will always abuse that power. As long as we all buy into the illusion that Simon controls the concept of wealth, Simon will always be the wealthiest person on earth while others decay in poverty. If I were under the illusion that I ruled the world, I would be regarded as a deluded madman. But, if I were able to convince everyone else that I ruled the world, it would become a reality… but I would still be a deluded madman. Consequently, the world can only be ruled by deluded madmen.

The reason our civilisation is crumbling is the same reason that the Roman Empire collapsed… and Egyptian Empires collapsed… and every other civilisation in history collapsed. We have not learned the lessons and, if we are to have a civilisation that can endure, we must learn them now. All failed civilisations (and we must now accept that ours is also a failed civilisation) have been based on the power of the few to rule the many. I have already intimated that those who aspire to power are deluded madmen. But consider this: it takes just one deluded mad person to fall into the delusion that he or she rules the world. It takes seven billion deluded mad people for that to become a reality. We must begin by accepting that we are all responsible for the failure of our civilisation. It is now time to learn the lesson.

Let’s now come back to the subject of economy. The objective of economy is not to create wealth because economy is incapable of creating anything by virtue of the fact that it does not exist in reality. Economy can only create illusions of wealth and that can only be achieved by creating illusions of poverty. The objective of economy is to maintain and manipulate poverty. People in poverty feel disempowered and, because we all buy into the illusion, they actually are disempowered. It is the poverty of the majority that makes it possible for so few to rule.

Money is effectively a con. It is the means by which people can be made to do things they wouldn’t otherwise be prepared to do. Power is also a con and gives the authority to make people do things they wouldn’t otherwise be prepared to do. Why do people need to be made to do things they wouldn’t be prepared to do?

True, some of the jobs required to maintain the infrastructure are not particularly pleasant. Neither is unblocking drains or cleaning the oven. The incentives to do these are clear drains and a clean oven. With the technology we have today and the rate at which new technologies are developing, more and more of the thankless mundane work needed for our infrastructure are automated and this is a trend that is likely to continue. Let’s look at an insane example of how money acts as a barrier to progress:

Money has usurped genuine progress as the ultimate goal of industry. Items are being produced not because they are needed by society but because they can generate money. But in order to sell items that are not needed by society, an entire industry has been created dedicated to advertising. This generates money from the manufacturers of largely useless items in return for convincing the masses that their lives cannot be complete unless they feed their children on Turkey Twizzles.

This hysteria for useless things that can catch the imagination of the masses through advertising generates a huge amount of money… which is something that doesn’t actually exist independent of our belief that it is real. However, research into cures for diseases, methods of feeding nations caught in famine etc. is hampered by the lack of something that doesn’t actually exist in reality.

The US alone produces so much grain that the annual surplus would feed the rest of the world. Most of the surplus is destroyed. The reason it is destroyed is because this abundance would keep food prices down and inhibit profits. So something of real value and is vitally needed by so many people is destroyed in order to generate more of something that doesn’t actually exist in reality.

We have the means of producing enough food to feed the world. We have the logistical ability to transport the food to anywhere in the world where it is needed. We have the means to irrigate deserts. So why don’t we? The only barrier to achieving this is the lack of money. We just don’t have enough of something that doesn’t actually exist in reality.

We could feed the world if we had the money. But what is money? It is something that Simon says is worth whatever Simon decides it’s worth. But, beyond Simon’s imagination and our acceptance of the dictates of Simon, money does not exist.

So let’s imagine a world in which we do not need the false incentive of money to do what our society needs us to do. The advertising industry is no longer needed because there is no incentive to create what society does not need or want. The incentive for research would be the use to which we could put the discoveries. The incentive to contribute to society would be the improvements to society our contribution will achieve.

The incentive for a teacher to teach is the joy that a good teacher derives from teaching. The incentive to invent is the joy that inventors derive from inventing. The incentive to build is the joy that builders derive from building. All of the major professions are activities that provide their own incentives. Many of the joyless mundane tasks are already capable of becoming automated. Here, we have another insanity in our system. The reason why we do not automate all the jobs that no one really wants to do is because automation would cause mass unemployment and, without jobs, the people would not be able to afford the goods that industry is creating. It is a self-perpetuating folly.

What is unemployment? Is it idleness? Unemployment is simply the situation of not being in a position to fill a role in society in return for a financial incentive. Why don’t unemployed people train for skills that are valued by society? The reason for that is the cost of training and few can afford it. What would unemployed people do with their time if they were truly free to do anything that was physically possible? In this current culture, many would opt for following the lifestyles of the rich but this is more a reaction to the money-oriented society in which they live than it is an example of the nature of most people.

We are constantly bogged down with financial stresses. We resent going to work because it is yet another demand upon us. People who work at jobs they hate are usually employed in an industry providing useless junk that then needs an advertising industry to convince people to buy it. Society does not need those industries and the creative people currently employed in such industries would be better used in industries that truly serve society.

What is the objective of banking? It simply deals with money. Without money, it is not needed.

There are a number of homes that have been designed to generate their own energy and efficiently conserve that energy to the extent that they even contribute their own surplus to the National Grid. If one house can generate its own energy and contribute a surplus, every house can do so. Industries could also do so and those that require more energy than they could possibly generate could utilise the surplus energy produced by everyone else. Yet governments insist that renewable energy is insufficient to meet the needs of society. This is a lie put forward by the nuclear industry and the petrochemical industry, which finances politics and is done so in order to protect their financial interests. The truth is that there are no investment opportunities in renewable energy. Sunshine and wind cannot be bought cheap and sold at a profit. So the nuclear industry and the petrochemical industry are not truly needed. We already have the technology to enable consumers to produce their own energy and contribute a surplus for other uses. Most transport can be converted to use renewable energies and the reason they are not is because it is not a project that attracts investment opportunities.

Each time, the barrier is money. A society without money would allow people to either be engaged in professions that they love or enjoy more leisure time. If education is free, more people can be trained to do rewarding work that benefits society. Money is the basis of most crime and all wars. It is the basis of oppression and exploitation.

Money is not an enabler. It is a ball & chain. But it is not shackled to our ankles… it is one we choose to carry. All we have to do is let go.

New World Order:

Now I am aware that the advocates for a New World Order are making promises along these lines. They talk of a “One World Currency” (God forbid!) and now there’s talk of doing away with money altogether… and introducing implanted chips. Now before I even get into the reasons why we should not let that happen, let’s look at this latter proposal: Implanted chips replacing money? So is that going to end poverty? If poverty can be ended with implanted chips, why can’t it be ended now? Because poverty is necessary to control the masses. If implants end poverty, it will be because they remove the need for poverty and that means that the masses will be controlled by the chips. I can hear the advocates already: No more crime because the chips can disable criminals in their tracks! No more terrorism because the chips can halt the terrorists in their tracks. If necessary, they can even kill from a remote control room. That will make the world a safer place! The hell it will! Our governments are not fighting crime… they are engaging in crime. They are not fighting terrorism… they are engaging in global terrorism!

The changes humanity needs are not going to come from the politicians. They are all now so invested into the burgeoning global power structures that it has already gone beyond the point of no return. America has already become a corporate-owned police state and US citizens who rely on CNN, Fox News and the Washington Post for their daily dose of prescribed truth haven’t even noticed. Those who have noticed are simply dismissed as “conspiracy theorists”. Yet people are now being arrested for attempting to close their own bank accounts (police taking orders from the banks), people have been arrested for growing organic vegetables (orders from companies like Monsanto who plan to take over global food production), doctors are being arrested for curing cancers without using chemotherapy (orders from companies like Novartis who specialise in oncology drugs and….. er… carcinogenic pesticides). They are now introducing unmanned miniature drone aircrafts that can photograph individuals, dispatch teargas, tasers, grenades and bullets. Yet all this has crept up on them without the majority even noticing. They still cheer the very politicians who sign away their freedoms and, in some cases, their lives and chant “U! S! A!” while their government is setting up the system so that no one can voice protest… and survive.

The changes our politicians (at the behest of the corporations) have in store for us will be a tyranny such as the world has never seen. One doesn’t need a crystal ball. Just look at historical inclinations of power and combine that with present day capabilities.

We cannot allow those who currently hold power to decide the future of humanity. It isn’t about cuts or bank bonuses. It’s about whether or not your children or grandchildren will kill themselves before they reach adulthood because their lives are so intolerable. We have lived in fear all our lives and it has been so down the centuries: fear of authority, fear of terrorism, fear of communism (if you’re American), fear of losing the things we have accumulated. All that is a walk in the park compared to the fear our children and grandchildren will be living under if we allow this to happen.

There is no point just protesting and certainly no point making demands. The only recourse open for us is to begin to create the new societies ourselves. Decide our own systems to replace the old economies; design our own administration to replace the old governments and refuse to acknowledge the authority of those in power and refuse to acknowledge the currencies. This is not going to be easy! It will be chaos and while the police and the military are still taking orders, it will be hellish. But the alternative is equally hellish so we have nothing to lose in that respect. Whether we take action or do nothing, the immediate future is very ugly. But, if we do nothing, this ugliness will stretch on into the distant future. If we take action, maybe… just maybe we can deflect the path of humanity from the bleak and terrifying existence that lies ahead.

We can blame the politicians, we can blame the banks and corporations but, if you really want to know whose ass to kick, you can start with mine and keep kicking until every ass but yours has been kicked… then bend over. It is not the responsibility of the politicians to sort this out. We allowed this to happen. It’s our responsibility.

Terms of dismissal

I've already criticised the use of "conspiracy theorist" as a term of dismissal but I want to go a little deeper into this.
Lord Hutton, who chaired the inquiry into the death of weapons expert, David Kelly in 2003 famously concluded that the government was wholly innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever and that the BBC was tantamount to the Antichrist. Although this was widely criticised as a whitewash by anyone who possessed a pair of eyes connected to a brain, anyone who intimated at the reality of the situation was still dismissed as a "conspiracy theorist".

Among the "rational arguments" against these so-called conspiracy theories are such gems as "But they wouldn't allow that to happen!" Er... who are They? The only They in view are the They who happen to be committing these crimes against humanity. Who could possibly be the They who would not allow this to happen? But this is regarded as a rational response despite the total absence of reason!

Another and possibly less idiotic response is: "It would take too many people to pull that off. They wouldn't be able to keep it secret. Somebody would either slip or blow the whistle. They couldn't possibly take that risk!" OK. On the face of it, this sounds like a fair point. But it is overlooking one or two major elements here. For a start, while accepting that it would be impossible to keep these crimes secret, I would point out that... well... they haven't managed to keep it secret, have they? Which is why the whole fucking planet is talking about it! Yes, somebody is bound to slip up... and, in regard to 9/11 and the 7/7 London bombings, quite a lot of people slipped up Big Time. How about: "Somebody would blow the whistle"? If you happen to be one of these "conspiracy denial" freaks, please pay very close attention to the following sentences. People involved with these atrocities are blowing the whistle all the time. Those who have any credibility with the public psyche... those who played a pivotal part but have since expressed a desire to confess and set the record straight... are now dead. The remainder of those who played a minor part but were nevertheless privy to the subterfuge are simply being dismissed... as conspiracy theorists.

Lord Hutton has a well documented record of defending the government in the face of perfectly just criticism. He concluded that the government were perfectly above board and whiter than white with regard to the Iraq war. Last month, he became an "adviser" to the multi-billion-dollar US company, Bechtel. What has that got to do with the Iraq war? Bechtel has numerous controversial "reconstruction" contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Coincidence? What are you, some kinda coincidence theorist?

How is is that someone who believes that there are dirty deals behind Hutton's support of the government over the Weapons Of Mass Destruction debacle (since proved to be totally unfounded) and his now lucrative position on one of the major companies profiting from the war he defended is dismissed as a conspiracy theorist?

How is it that someone who believes that the fact that forensic evidence shows that the tube trains in the 7/7 bombings where detonated beneath the undercarriage... to which no terrorist could possibly have had access are in some way significant details is dismissed as a conspiracy theorist?

How is it that anyone who implies that the Home Office official story of the 7/7 bombings is fictional simply because it states that the "bombers" had traveled to Kings Cross from Luton on a train that was actually cancelled is dismissed as a conspiracy theorist?

How is it that anyone who points out that the fact that three of the "bombers" were shot by armed police in Canary Wharf could be regarded as evidence that they had not even been aboard the tube they had allegedly blown up is dismissed as a conspiracy theorist?

How is it that anyone who points out the fact that the alleged "bombers" could not have been aboard the trains they allegedly blew up because the earliest train they could possibly have caught from Luton didn't get into Kings Cross until after the tubes they had allegedly blown up had already departed is dismissed as a conspiracy theorist?

And how is it that anyone who so much as suggests that maybe these proven and undisputed facts should have figured in the inquiry into the 7/7 bombings is dismissed as a conspiracy theorist?

All it takes to be a conspiracy theorist, it would seem, is a functioning brain.

Rioting

OK, I admit it's been a while. But, as I am largely talking to myself here, I'll forgive myself.

An extraordinary turn of events has gripped this nation is the past few days and we have to look at it without dismissing it as one thing or another. It is not just mindless violence. There is more to this than that. Sure, a lot of those taking part are in it for the ride: the adrenaline, a bit of looting. Some are angry and this restores a sense of empowerment and some of it is simply herd mentality in that they identify with the groups they've seen rioting on TV so they go out and do the same.

But, for something like this to start erupting in various major cities across the country is quite out of the norm. Rioting on this level is usually focused around a strong political issue. Is this because the shooting of Mark Duggan was the last straw? Is it because the role of police has been becoming increasingly aggressive for some time (and black communities are more acutely aware of this than anyone else)? I am white and I have never been stopped and searched in my life. If I were black, it would be a routine part of going out of the house. True, the 'Gangsta' culture is predominantly a West Indian community culture but chickens and eggs spring to mind. Did the Gangsta culture give birth to the police default suspicion of all black people or did being routinely treated like a criminal give rise to the drift into criminal activity?

Whether you are a criminal or not, if you are black, the police largely view you as the enemy. That assumption did not originate with criminal activity in the black communities. It originated with a nationwide prejudice and suspicion of immigrants from the West Indies. In the 50s, no one need be out of work. There were more jobs than could be filled without shipping in a labour force from elsewhere. Those who chose to exploit the relatively new (and chaotically administered) unemployment benefit system instead of working would use the easily identifiable West Indians as the excuse for being out of work. It didn't hold water in reality, of course because there were plenty of jobs but, in the pubs, people are only too ready to find justifications for their suspicion of this influx of people who look so different. "They're stealing our jobs!" became the cry. The prejudice was endemic throughout British society. Much of the institutionalised prejudice within the police is based more in a dislike of black people than in any objection to the criminality they encounter. The riots could be seen as a powder keg that has been exposed to a naked flame for too long and something had to give.

But is there more to this? These riots come at a time when Cameron certainly needs something to distract the public from the Murdoch scandal. It is only a matter of time before the truth emerges about Cameron's discussions with Murdoch over the B Sky B bid. It is clear that he did discuss the takeover with Murdoch by his evasive answer to a direct question about this ("I did not have any inappropriate discussions").... not exactly "Yes" but, tellingly, not "No".

There is a darker possibility here too. Much of the public are already calling for Cameron to call in the army and some are calling for a State of Emergency. A large section of the public are actually calling for a situation in which Machiavellian laws will be introduced, suppressing civil liberties and outlawing public gatherings. Under a State of Emergency, even lawful protest would no longer be lawful. We would, in effect, be living in a police state and this would no longer be even the thin representation of democracy it is at the moment.

The Internet has informed people to the extent that governments can no longer get away with hoodwinking the public and committing atrocities behind closed doors. It is all but impossible to keep anything secret now. A massive change in tactic is necessary to maintain control of the status quo but to suddenly say "Right! No more of this public protesting! Anyone who disagrees with the government will go to jail!" would simply enrage a public that has lived too long in a democratic state to accept having this foisted upon them. The only way to get a police state in place is to have the public demand it.

Problem... Reaction... Solution. Is that the name of the game?

Could it be that these riots are actually part of an overall plan?

Conspiracty theorist! my friends exclaim. It would involve too many people to pull this off! Somebody would be bound to leak the truth eventually!

True. But then we would be living in a police state in which any whistle-blowers could be swiftly dealt with. And then... OK. So you now know the truth. What are you going to do about it? Under "Emergency Law", anyone attempting to address corruption within the government would become a criminal.

Problem... Reaction... Solution.

Think about it. Think about what it would mean if the government actually took the steps that many of you are now demanding.

Perpetual revolution

I know I describe myself as a grouch and, to be honest, this is a fairly accurate description at times. That is to say that I am not adverse to complaining because I'm angry. But I don't think anger or even discontent should necessarily be a part of revolution.

The concept of perpetual revolution is not a continual state of outrage and protest. In fact the concept is applied in industry all the time. It's simply a matter of not being complacent about the current status quo. I am old enough to remember when only important people had a telephone in their homes. The rest of us made do with queuing outside a public telephone box in the rain while Tracy rambled on to her friend, Sharon about the various pros and cons of her latest conquest, Trev. But we were glad that everyone had access to a phone. So, when the mobile phone became available, surely that was good enough, wasn't it?

No. They had to be smaller. So we get nice small phones that do not require users to carry separate battery packs on a strap. Phones that fit in the pocket. Surely we can't ask more than that?? Do they take photos? Do they surf the web? Do they play tunes? On it goes. As soon as a new model comes out, the developers are looking for the next phase. There is always room for improvement. So it should be with society.

No matter how hunky-dory our lives may appear, we should not become static. Society should never stagnate but should be in a constant process of change. Yes, I can sit at this device on my desk and publish my thoughts to the world even if no one else is interested. But can I plug my dreams into a global grid so that others may share my dreams and I share the dreams of others? How can we bring that about? And then, what next? Life is not a static condition, it is a journey.

In a society that has a lot to be desired, the call for change is invariably an expression of discontent. Because of this, revolution tends to be a rather fractious business. Leaders resist any calls for change and emotions run high. But what would be a perfect society? There could never be one. Our aspiration must be for a society that will welcome calls for change and not feel threatened by it. Status quo needs to become an archaic term.

There will always be a place for social critics. They are the research and development department of society. At the moment, the emphasis is on the negative: what's wrong with society. It is about exposing lies and corruption and this is bound to involve a lot of conflict. But we shall get to a point at which corruption, exploitation, oppression, suppression, opacity, abuse, enslavement and so on are part of our dark history and have been obliterated from our present. What then? Do we say 'enough' and leave it as that for evermore?

Maybe we should stop thinking in terms of what's wrong with society. Even now while there are so many aspects we can identify that are unacceptable. All this is part of a process and even the negative aspects are part of the journey. To confine ourselves to protesting about what is wrong is to be forever looking back. We should be looking forward to what we want our society to be; to be seeking improvements not focusing on addressing problems.

We talk a lot about Them, referring to those who exercise control over our lives. But there are no real enemies. We really are all in this together. Change is necessary not because things are so awful but because this is what the dance of life is. And it is a dance, not a pose. They are Us. Yes our leaders will resist the change we demand just as we resist the restrictions they impose. At the moment, these are the steps in the dance and they are our dance partners. The dance will change and roles will change. The balance of power will change and the benefits of society will change. Needs and aspirations will change and visions of the future will change.

All things change; this fact alone remains unchanging.

It couldn't happen here...could it?

What about a revolution in the West? Yes, we have free speech and the right to free assembly. No, our government is not routinely arresting and torturing citizens nor does it rule by fear and, compared to the ordinary people of the Middle East, living standards here are relatively good. We are a democracy, so what have we got to revolt about?

But it isn't about where we are, it's about where we are going. Democracy has certain safeguards that protect us from the worst excesses of dictatorship... and we are seeing these being slowly eroded. This is supposedly in the name of the so-called 'War on Terror'. The police are becoming more aggressive and we are seeing more incidents of police brutality and fewer incidents of successful prosecutions against police. This, we are told, is for our own protection. So, presumably, seeing police officers dragging a disabled student from his wheelchair and dragging him to a waiting police van is supposed to make us feel safer, is it? What was that about? It was not about terrorism and it was not even about dealing with the student protests. It was a show of power. It was a demonstration of what the police can get away with... and get away with it they did.

But we are not intended to feel safer by the extended powers and increasing brutality of our police. We are meant at first to be outraged and, as we become increasingly accustomed to it, to be cowed and intimidated. The police are being primed. Groomed, as it were, for the role that is planned for them in the envisioned and not-too-distant future. Giant corporations are showing themselves as the true leaders... or rather owners... of our societies. Small businesses are put out of business for transgressing Health & Safety regulations. They are prosecuted and fined. BP causes the biggest man-made ecological disaster in history and Obama has ordered the arrest and prosecution of... er... anyone caught gathering evidence of the true scale of the disaster. Banks go bust and are baled out by the taxpayers and then award themselves multi-billion pound bonuses while Cameron makes empty promises about stemming corporate greed. Has he? No. He has made equally empty promises about plugging the loopholes by which UK corporations avoid paying taxes. Has he actually done anything about it? No. This remains an aspiration.

Exactly how far do we need to travel before we realise we're on the wrong bus? While we are shuffling our feet and not wanting to make a scene, we are being led ever further into an Orwellian nightmare and, pretty soon the infrastructure will be in place to ensure that we cannot do anything about it. Here in Britain, the time and the circumstances are right for change brought about by the people. We have a weak, ineffectual Prime Minister, a crumbling economy, growing unemployment, rising crime levels, and a government so riddled with corruption that, if it were routed out, there would be nothing left but the scaffolding. What exactly is the cue we are waiting for, a trumpet blast?

Our leaders are now congratulating the people of Egypt yet, for the past 30 years, successive UK and US governments have courted, financed and supported a dictator that has kept the people in crushing poverty under a brutal and merciless regime. This is what our leaders euphemistically describe as "stability". Our leaders continue to support ruthless dictators with obscene affection while proclaiming that the Middle East is not yet "ready for democracy". Back home, the police powers continue to increase, police accountability continues to evaporate. If, as our leaders assure us, this is for our own good... to protect us from terrorism, why are they not actually nipping terrorism in the bud? Any meaningful attempt to eradicate the threat of terrorism must surely begin with our foreign policy. Terrorists are not mindless criminals. They are oppressed and disempowered people who are attempting to make some kind of stand against our support of the despotic dictators that reduce them to slavery. Yes, it is misguided to bomb public places and kill innocent civilians but they are trying to be heard.

If ever there was a time for revolution in the UK and certainly in the US, it is now!

Taking charge

Everyone who is able has a moral duty to take charge of a situation that is otherwise out of control. What happens when the out-of-control factor is someone in authority over you? The same rule applies. If, in the opinion of the senior NCO, the officer's handling presents unnecessary risks, he has a duty to take command. Having officially taken command, the other ranks have a duty to acknowledge that authority unless it is, in their opinion, an illegal assumption of command, as in mutiny.

The biggest problem with anarchy is the name. It conjures images of angry people and riots. But it simply means the absence of a ruler. Do we need rulers? We need administrators and coordinators. We need organisers... but do they need to rule? Isn't that putting them in a rather dangerously powerful position? They need to have recognised authority to make certain demands and they need to be able to exert this authority over every member of the group. However, the combined authority of the group always outranks the authority of the leader. This is the natural insurance against exploitation and dictatorships. To rule must be by the consent of those over whom one rules.

However, the responsibility of ensuring our rulers rule effectively and fairly is ours, not theirs. We tend to want to leave all that to the rulers because we are all focused on our particular role. Doing the work the job requires and bringing home the pay, tending the house, tending the kids and, when we can, having fun. Our leaders need to coordinate all the functions that keep society ticking along and we need to be able to trust them to do that for the balanced good of the group. So what do we do? We select our leaders from the legal and business communities and put them into secretive, opaque duties where accountability is minimal and opportunities for corruption are limited only by imagination.

I made a reference on an earlier post to the chicken farmer who trains a fox to watch over the henhouse. How many repetitions of abject failure is it going to take before we conclude that maybe we ought to change some of the things that we're doing here. Giving our leaders power and the right to secrecy and the authority to take sole charge of any investigation into their actions that may be demanded is about as dumbass as training a fox to watch the chickens.

We did this. We handed over the authority to control our lives without even thinking to just check that they were actually sane. We let them get away with it. We let them rip us off because it's easier to just muddle along. So we wiggle along until we wiggle ourselves into a hole we can't reverse out of. We are entrapped into a slavery of debt. Our house gets forclosed because we assumed that the leaders had our best interests at heart. The company that employs you goes bust because you thought that banks were there to look after your money. It is ridiculously naive to hand such powers to questionable individuals in the way that we do.

If you had cockroaches, would you ask them to police themselves and ensure that they do not invade your kitchen or would you just get rid of them? I think there's a good chance that the cockroaches might have their own agenda. And so it is with politics. Every individual in politics has their own agenda and their career is the pursuit of the power to put their agenda into action. This isn't because they are evil. It's because they are individuals with dreams and hopes and fears just like the rest of us. But they are placed in a position that can so easily be exploited and abused and supported by the very powers that make the laws... what the fuck do you think they're gonna do?

Now the chicken farmer could rightly hold the fox responsible but the fox was doing what a fox is supposed to do. The chicken farmer's expectations were unreasonable. The chicken farmer is responsible for the decision to use a guard-fox and, consequently, responsible for any damage that results. We are responsible for the damage resulting from our ill-considered approach to selecting leaders.

We have got to stop thinking in terms of power and think in terms of function. How do we want our leader to function? How does the leader want the group to function? The leader must have some authority but the group combined must have the authority to keep the leader in check. It's about creative manipulation. It's about relationships. It is not about power.

Imagine a business model in which the manual and administrative staff owned the business equally as a cooperative but the managerial personnel were employed. Here is the hierarchical dilemma: The 'boss' is in charge of the business and must be able to ensure that his or her decisions are carried out or revised accordingly. The boss tells you what to do and you do it. This is the arrangement. But, as a group, you own the company that employs your boss. You have to trust your boss to make the right decisions. You select your boss on track record and you want a boss that will run your company smoothly and profitably, not one that gives you an easy time. You want a boss who can handle income and expenditure efficiently for the business, not one who will hand-out generous bonuses the company can't afford. Your boss is part of the machinery of your company and you want the machine to run smoothly and efficiently. Here would be a perfect balance of power.

In the army, a warrant officer is the highest rank of NCO and the lowest rank that earns the right to be addressed as 'sir'. Regimental Sergeant Major Ron Britton of the Coldstream Guards was in charge of officer training at Sandhurst in the 50s. All trainee officers held a provisional rank of 1st. Leutennant, outranking the RSM. His introductory address to new officers always included the clarification: 'I will address you as sir and you will address me as sir... but you will mean it.'

Authority and command is as much about personal qualities as hierarchical position. Whether or not you want to listen to somebody depends on whether or not your views will be equally sought. It is an ability to get others to listen... by also getting them to talk. A manner that leads people to trust your integrity. Whether you have any official authority or not, people will listen and there would be a natural inclination to follow your directions. Only when you are countermanded by a recognisable authority that focus shifts from you. You instinctively draw focus to you.

However, people in positions of authority, are not necessarily natural born leaders. They are probably (a) constantly worried about their own position, (b) loners with limited social skills and (c) constantly suspicious of everyone. They are not best suited to the task... yet they are running local government. When we use the term 'shyster', there are many 'professions' that aptly apply but 'businessman' and 'lawyer' comes up with alarming frequency. Either generally regarded to be unethical, mercenary and self-interested. So which particular stereotype is the gene pool from which we select our leaders? Remind me again. Oh yeah. The Shysters. Good choice.

We did this. We put these people where they are. We gave them the power that they have and we turn a blind eye as they create and defend structures of governance that nurture corruption. Is it because we are stupid like the chicken farmer and the fox? No. It's worse than that. We don't care. Just run the show. Make sure everything works. There's the treasury, there's the judiciary and here's the keys. Yes, yes. I subject myself entirely to your will and all that... right. I can leave it with you then, can I? We don't care how they do it as long as it doesn't bother us too much. When everyone is contented, no one cares who is ripping off whom or what's going on in the background of our realities. Things go wrong and we start looking for flaws in the system when the main flaw is that we recruit personnel from the professions in which the main talent of those who gain success is an uncanny ability to shaft people for money.

Am I missing something here? Do you think these factors might be important? Maybe right up there with blue eyes and a white smile? Where do these candidates come from? They seem to just appear. Nobody's ever heard of them and now they hear of nothing but as the two or three names are imprinted into our psyche: good guys, served in the armed forces, seen action, won medals nice smile... everything you want, eh? What about business interests and family connections? Look at those interests and think how they could benefit from a friend in power. That would give you an outline of the manifesto regardless of what they may tell you.

Now, considering that we goofed and handed absolute power to people who, we now realise in retrospect happened to be those most likely to exploit the situation in an orgy of mindless greed and shaft us for every penny we have, whose responsibility do you think it should be? The crooks who are fleecing us or the politically disinterested victims who, rather stupidly, put them there in the first place? The beneficiaries of a corrupt system are not going to take steps to make it less corrupt. They are going to make it harder to investigate. Which is precisely what is occurring. What cue are we waiting for? The whole system desperately needs an overhaul and of course our leaders aren't going to like it. Are we waiting for the fox to actually say: "Look here. I'm a fox. I kill chickens. I'm probably the worst choice you could have made..." because I don't think that is going to happen.

The changes that need to be made will not be made by those who currently hold power. In fact, they will be resisted by those in power. That is because they are, quite naturally trying to hold onto something they understand and that serves them well. As would you or I or any of us. There are no enemies here but there are opponents whose main weapon is power. Our main weapon is not recognising that power. Obviously, the less time we spend squabbling, the sooner we can see where we want to take Humanity.

But it will be up to us to put our house in order. Surely we can produce a blueprint for a better society. Not some political promise of brighter futures and all that bilge but a true blueprint, restructuring the balance of power for the benefit of Humanity. We, then proceed to put it into action to see if it works. The only thing that can stop us is the lack of will to even pay enough attention to avoid electing self-interested criminals. That's the problem. The fact that we are being shafted is only a symptom.

Conspiracies! Conspiracies!

"Conspiracy theorist" is an interesting term, wouldn't you say? It carries a certain message: Crank! Lunatic Fringe! Ignore! Ignore! and suchlike. It is a term of dismissal; just a conspiracy theorist. The fact that this conspiracy theorist has probably scoured through endless data and gathered information that can be supported with hard evidence doesn't even come into it. He or she is just a conspiracy theorist.

How about a new term? How about Coincidence Theorist for those who maintain that there is no link between this piece of evidence and that piece of evidence even though it may appear so, due largely to the fact that they fit together like a fucking jigsaw. The 'Simply-say-it-is-not-so' brigade. By what criteria does a version of events so full of holes it's pathetic earn more credibility than a studied report supported by evidence?

We're barking up the wrong tree with our obsession with evidence. It isn't about proving that corruptions of law and justice are taking place and it isn't even about who is guilty. We are all guilty. Guilty for standing by and watching as they built a system of governance as corruption-friendly as it is possible to be. Then we gasp in horror when we find out that they are dealing in corruption. I mean... if you saw your ten-year old son enter the hen house... carrying an axe... and he closes the door behind him... well, aren't you going to feel a little more comfortable if you knew exactly what was going on? Wouldn't you want to... you know... keep an eye on the situation?

Forget evidence. Just assume that they are guilty. If we jump to the wrong assumption, well, no harm's done. This isn't a court house. The point is: can they? The answer to that is, of course: yes. The whole system has been designed so that they can milk it for all it's worth because it was designed by the very people who stood to gain the most from a secretive and opaque system that had plenty of scope for corruption.

So why do we have corrupt governments?

Well, excuse me... but who was it who effectively said: "We want you to be our leader. We have absolutely no idea what that job entails so you can make it up as you go. We don't care how you do it just as long as the fridge works, the TV works and the paychecks keep coming in"?

We give them the power to control our lives completely. And do you know what they have that gives them the power? What gives them the power to manipulate the economy so your company can no longer afford you and you lose your job and the banks foreclose on your house and suddenly everything you had now belongs to the banks that created the whole mess? What do they have that gives them such awesome power?

Your consent.

Yeah sure. They're wealthy... but only because they say so. Look, if I gave you a piece of paper with five dollars written on it and asked if you could change it, would you say yes or no? Obviously, that would depend on whether or not the piece of paper is something that you have been conditioned to recognise as an item of value. But what is its value? Who decides that? The banks. And what does its value actually mean? What is a 'dollar'? Or a 'pound'? What does it mean? It means nothing. It means that you are legally entitled to exchange this for a loaf of bread. I know... you're thinking Five dollars for a loaf of bread??? but I'm thinking ahead. One day, people will read this and say A loaf of bread for just five bucks!!!??? Which brings us to another irritating little characteristic which can only be enjoyed and exploited by the mega-rich: money kind of inflates. So the price of a loaf of bread today is several times the price it was ten years ago. Has the value of a loaf of bread changed? No. Of course not. A loaf that will feed twelve people is the same value as a loaf that would feed twelve 100 years ago...1,000 years ago. Value is stable because it is based on reality.

Price is based on fiction. What is it about a dollar bill that makes its value a dollar? It isn't the object itself because to make an identical copy would not produce a dollar. It would produce a forgery,which, no matter how good, would not have the face value of a dollar... although, as artwork, it may be worth more. J.S.G. Boggs, an American artist who draws banknotes, actually spends his creations... quite legally. He will buy a meal and give the Maitre'd the option of accepting the actual banknote or the subtly changed, hand drawn copy. Unsurprisingly, most choose the copy, recognising it as a piece of artwork. It's the ones who don't that are interesting. Boggs' work, although having no face value as currency, has an intrinsic value as artwork.

Now here is the interesting dilemma: Boggs' work is real artwork because it is hand drawn and beautifully executed. A such, it is valuable. People pay a lot for his work (unless you're a lucky maitre'd). But it is not real money. Real money has no intrinsic value and an abstract value is assigned to it. That value is a fiction. It is an invented representation of value. All money provides is a benchmark against which we can measure value. Because the value of money is a fiction, it is highly volatile. Fictional values can be manipulated and are constantly adjusted against stock prices so that fiscal values are constantly on the move. So, for money to be real, its value must be fake. For a Boggs original artwork to be real, the object itself must be fake. No wonder the FBI don't like him.

You see the whole money con? We are told that the value of money is subject to something called 'market forces'. Although a dollar is always a dollar, what it will buy fluctuates. What causes this fluctuation? Decisions. (A) will decide that he will pay no more than (B) for the commodity, (C) and (X) will accept no less than (Y) for his (Z). Numbers are being made up and manipulated and the price of stock either expands or contracts. The 'value' of the dollar is adjusted accordingly. None of this is real! Price is nothing more than a hypothetical value. We are, in effect, pretending that a dollar bill and a dollar's worth of sugar are of equal value. In reality, the sugar is worth far more than the intrinsic value of a dollar bill. So, for 'Face Value', read 'pretend value'.

Everyone will agree that gold is more valuable than iron. Why? Because gold is scarce and it costs more money. Being scarce doesn't make anything better than if it were not scarce so this is an artificial value. To make a rough assessment of comparitive intrinsic values, let's try to imagine what would happen if iron suddenly ceased to exist and everything made of iron disappeared. Buildings would crash, people would be lost at sea or falling from the sky... our civilisation would fall apart. Now imagine if it were gold that ceased to exist: the fillings would fall out of my teeth. Which is the greatest value to our society?

Fiscal value is the biggest lie of all. It is the lie with which the maximum number of people can be manipulated and controlled to the maximum level with the minimum of effort. Create a form of litter called money. Control what this litter will allow them to have by fluctuating its fictitious value. Then, when everyone's convinced that the lie must be the truth because it apears to work, you can then buy into the same illusion and live a life of excess and indulgence simply by accumulating lots of your own litter.

It is not the responsibility of them to not take full advantage of the fertile bed of corruption you have allowed them to assemble, it's your responsibility to do something about it. We keep demanding that they do something about it so they do this or that, which has a negligible effect because it isn't in their interests to change it.... and, by the way, only they have the power and authority to conduct an investigation into their actions in the event of strenuous demands for an investigation.

We're kind of asking the vandals to do something about the vandalism. It isn't going to happen. We are hoodwinked into believing that the only people who have the right to even decide whether or not an investigation takes place and the authority to effectively dictate the findings are the very people we want to investigate. It is no good waiting for a change in the law that would enable us to truly hold those in power accountable (notice the term is always in power. Never in service). We try. It fails. We try. It fails. How long is it going to take a chicken farmer to realise that training a fox to watch over the chickens was not a smart move? How many times is he going to repeat "Well, maybe this time..."? before it occurs to him that maybe it wasn't the fox's fault... well, not entirely?

So the question always comes back. What are we going to do? Jefferson said: "When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty". The fact that they have covered their asses by making any effective way of withdrawing consent for the leader's authority illegal also relies on your recognition of of such a law. They may say "Because I say so" but the reason the status quo is as it is is (are there too many 'is's there? No? OK) because you accept what they say. The commander gives the order to fire but the choice always rests with the infantryman. He is responsible for pulling the trigger and he does so because he chooses to do so. He thinks he has no choice. He thinks he is pulling the trigger because he was told to do so. He is pulling the trigger because he has surrendered his conscience, his right to question, his right to judge and any accountability to the hands of those he thinks are in control. He chooses to acknowledge the authority of another to demand that he commit acts that are repugnant to him and he chooses not to acknowledge his right to say 'No'.

We made this mess.... and we choose not to clear it up.

The Chrysalis

What we are seeing in Egypt right now is absolutely unique. There is no leader yet groups of up to two million strong act as one; are of one voice. Individual visionaries have yet to emerge and this is seen as a weakness. I see it as their strength. Each one is motivated by a united heart, a united mind and a united intent. They are not united in varying degrees of allegiance to this or that ideology. They are united as Humanity. The lies and the illusions have begun to crack as if they had been the shell of some kind of chrysalis to keep us in check while we slumber... just as the caterpillar slumbers in its coccoon ...at least, I hope so... I can't begin to imagine what that kind of transition would feel like... although maybe we're about to find out.

I see something emerging here. I see a liberated Humanity. Liberated from the only bonds that hold one to brutal regimes that rule by fear: the fear itself. There is a vital rule in effective leadership that even gorilla troups have figured out. The Alpha Male might seem to throw his weight around but, by and large, he is necessary to keep the troupe together and protect them. So he has to be the biggest, toughest, meanest sunnuvabitch in the whole group. But no gorilla is stronger than the united group. When the Alpha Male becomes too aggressive or is an inadequate protector, he is ousted by the group. He needs their consent to retain the position. By what perverse and distorted process of evolving logic did this instinctive inclination to select an Alpha Male lead us to arrive at a choice like David Cameron?

The Rule is: The ruler must be bigger than each individual but cannot be bigger than the group.

The leaders coordinate the establishment of strategies to acheive the shared needs of the group. Their job is to focus intention into action and they gather the skills around them to best acheive that. In order to do this, he or she must have the authority to direct the individuals and, in an open society, this does not have to be done brutally and should only be done for the benefit of the commonly held Greater Good... not for profits or rake-offs. The Group as a whole, however, has a collective authority over the leader and must have the authority to direct or remove a leader. This would be a true democracy.

Unfortunately not even the blatantly corrupt systems we mockingly refer to as 'democracy' come anywhere near that. Well, OK. It's not really a problem and it won't be too far into some bizarre and pointless conflict (if it arises) before we realise that. We don't actually have to play the game. We have just witnessed a repressed people, brutalised by an inflexible tyrant stand up and exercise its authority. Egypt has shown what can be done and against the toughest and most brutal odds.

This is a lesson for the leaders of this contrived simulation of democracy in which we feel so comfortable. Romans had a system for maintaining a compliant society: Panem et circenses or Bread and circuses. Keep them fed and keep them distracted with mindless entertainment and no one will be moved to consult their conscience. Well, this slumber is just the shell of the chrysalis. Truth is reaching a global audience (OK... you have to sift through a lot of tosh to find it but you recognise it when you see it). Deception, the substance of illusion, has been rendered ineffectual. The internet is the fertile soil from which this new transparency is springing. Without deception, the illusion crumbles and, without the illusion... well... remember that final confrontation scene in The Wizard of Oz?

Lies create the illusion, illusion creates the fear and fear commands unquestioning loyalty. These are the vital elements to maintain a dictatorship. Lose either of these and the rest just falls apart. When the people abandon their fear, a dictatorship is not possible. Leaders must lead on merit, not force or influence. We are seeing something truly Great in Egypt.