To be good

“It is unfortunate when people say ‘this is the only way’. That’s the only thing I’ve got against anybody, if they are saying ‘this is the only answer’. I don’t want to hear about that. There isn’t just one answer to anything.”
- John Lennon

You will have to excuse this blog. It is merely me trying to reason out a philosophical issue in my mind. I find it far easier to reason out a problem, if I am writing it down. That is the purpose of this blog. You may disagree with me, and you may think i’m talking nonsense. That is fine. It is your prerogative to do so.

I often hear the Western World referred to as the ‘civilised World’. I’d have to disagree profoundly with that statement, because there are so many contradictions between the way we live, and the idea of a civilised World; Education, to create a workforce rather than inquisitive minds. Laws to punish crime rather than extensive research and investment into the reasons that create the criminals and the solutions for that. Enough food to throw in a bin because we didn’t finish it, yet still not enough to give to the starving. Nation States that need huge aircraft carriers, and nuclear bombs, just incase. People considered “Illegal” because they fled their Country and came here for a better life. When we get past all of that, we become civilised.

What, then, does it mean to be ‘good’? Can we truly consider ourselves ‘good’ morally? I don’t think so. I think we can kid ourselves into believing we are good people. But below the surface, are any of us truly good? I would argue no.

To be ‘good’ is not to follow the law or to conform for the sake of society. That isn’t being good. You are simply living the life created and enforced by someone else. Conforming to a religious ideal, or Patriotism, or a class, or a race, or a certain way of life is simply creating social barriers between you and the ‘other’ which means, creating or perpetuating conflict. If you accept the meaningless barriers, you are part of that conflict. I am part of that conflict. We all know that being part of a Country is to be part of an endless conflict for superiority. As is being part of a religion. It is absurd to call yourself peaceful if you are part of a social barrier. I consider myself British, which I recognise comes with its wall of absurd superiority. Because to recognise myself as British, means I recognise someone else, who in essence is absolutely no different from me, as being ‘other’ simply because he or she is part of a great absurdity that actually doesn’t exist and is just an abstraction. That pointless and empty abstraction has always lead to a state of continual competition and conflict.

I’d argue that by considering yourself part of a great abstraction, you are creating a mass of dividing lines; not just between yourself and the rest of humanity, but between you and what society expects of you. Sixty years ago, the vast majority of the population of the United States would have told you that interracial marriage was a great evil. This is a curious thing, because in 2010, the vast majority would say the exact opposite. Society has its own brain apparently. It would seem that we look to others to tell us what to believe, within the confines of the four walls of our particular society, and then we conform accordingly. It is immensely absurd at all levels. We don’t tend to question this, because we want to be included in this exclusive club that forbids entry to those considered ‘other’. So essentially, ‘good’ is largely, a social construct. We mould our conduct and our way of thinking to suit that construct. We become robots. If we sat down, and observed the thoughts in our mind, as if we were watching through a one way mirror; did not try to suppress the thoughts and ideas that run contrary to societal expectations, only then would we start to recognise who we are, and act accordingly.

We are taught from a very early age to constantly be in conflict. Be like your older brother. Be like the ridiculously intelligent kid in school. Look as attractive as the most attractive kid in school by wearing expensive shoes or branded jeans. Be like the businessman, if you’re not, you’re a failure, and need a boss, because you’re inferior. We are taught not to question the old adage that life is cruel and that we should apparently just ‘get on with it’. By constantly comparing yourself to others, you are ignoring who you actually are, because you are being conditioned to aspire to be like someone else; someone who is not you, in any way. This also cannot be described as ‘good’.

Now, if you believe you are doing ‘good’ because you are religious, or because you are performing an act based on the expectations of society; you are actually just performing a superficial act of goodness, based on the idea that others may think it is virtuous of you. It is not truly ‘good’. You are not acting according to your own individual, subjective view of the word ‘good’.

One of the issues I have, is with education. It teaches kids not to be wrong. Because to be wrong, is to be punished throughout life. If you are wrong in business, and you lose out, you REALLY lose out. Too much is at stake to be able to afford to be wrong. Which in itself, is a problem. Sir Ken Robinson, a lecturer on education, says that by stigmatising mistakes, and scaring children into trying to always be right, we are educating them out of their creative capacity. They will be scared to be wrong, which means they will be less likely to be innovative and the problem is that it is financially insecure, to dare to be wrong. Robinson points to Picasso, who once commented that all children are born artists, the problem is remaining so as we grow up. We are educated out of creativity, a resource within us that we all have, for purely financial reasons. Forget your creativity, and your longing for an artistic outlet, and focus on being a data administrator for a Company that doesn’t know your name, or pouring drinks for rich people, and a boss who verbally pisses on you every time he opens his vomit-inducing mouth. Robinson states that the problem is that every education system in the World, puts a hierarchy of subjects at it’s very core. Maths is considered more important than music. And so the natural musicians are less likely to discover their creative talent, because they are too busy focusing on a subject they don’t care much for. If they want to learn this craft, they better be rich enough to afford a private tutor. Robinson says that we are teaching kids to be their heads, their equation solving selves, their computer analysing, data processing selves and nothing more; we are teaching children that their bodies are just a form of transport for their heads… a way of getting their heads to meetings. The hierarchy is set up, on the grounds that you’ll never get a job if music and art were at the top of the list. And so highly talented, brilliant people will steer away from higher education, because they think they simply aren’t good enough, because they were awful at maths and didn’t care much for science. It is a system created and moulded by industry and commerce, for economic reasons. And so, creativity and innovation crumble away.

A business is no different to a Nation. It isn’t the height of human freedom. If I were to make 10 shirts, at £5 each, I have made £50 for the business. If I know I am paid £25 per shift, is half of the money i’ve made, being taken away from me? I have essentially made the last 5 shirts, for free. Why does my boss get a bit of the money that i’ve made? Why is that different from condemning the tax man? The businessman taxes every employee he has, and instead of it going to improving schools or hospitals, roads or fire service, it goes to buying him a lovely new Porsche. I’m sure the Libertarians among us will attempt to justify this and why it is wondrous. It isn’t. It is manipulative. We are encouraged to be entirely in conflict with other businesses, as well as our colleagues. Back stabbing is rife. Competition breeds violence. It is written inevitable.

True freedom is still considered monetary based. Wages, scarcity, succeed or starve. I’d suggest that is a manipulation of human thought. As is the idea that without monetary incentives, humanity would crumble. I disagree. Human creativity and the desire for self realisation, can drive humanity. But so does compassion. We do not all think like Libertarians. We believe in social structures, and the benefit of a social fund. But if we insist on instilling into the minds of every generation, that a World without money and trade is some great ‘evil’ without it ever actually being tried on any level; then all we get is greed and a weak attempt to justify it. This in turn means that every aspect from life, from school onwards is presented as a competition for survival. And so naturally, the human trait of greed and selfishness is amplified. This isn’t ‘good’ and by not recognising this problem, we perpetuate it by throwing our children onto that very same framework that we all don’t particularly like. So how are we possibly doing ‘good’ by our children? We just accept that ‘such is life’. Why? We are deluded.

And so the conclusion is quite unnerving, and perhaps a little too farfetched for most people, but I would suggest that it is far fetched because we’d prefer to choose not to believe it. I would conclude, similar to the conclusions of the great philosopher Krishnamurti, that to consider yourself to be part of a society, or a religion, or a Nation, or a race; you and I are inherently violent. And that is the great problem of mankind. We segregate ourselves. We might not be violent directly. We might consider ourselves charitable and loving. But through the vicious competitive system that we live in, built on rugged individualism conflicting with each other, and the products we buy, and the abstract unreal associations we put upon ourselves, we are one in a vast World of socially created and perpetuated, vicious conflictions that will never cease until we realise we are part of it and try to change it. Our boys go to war, for what? The average Western citizen will tell you they are fighting for our freedom. What an horrendous miscalculation on their part. How manipulatable can an entire populace be? To be anti-American or anti-religious, or anti-British is not necessarily a bad thing. It is portrayed as a bad thing, because it is damaging to certain interests. There is nothing pro-American or pro-British or pro-Islam or pro-Christianity about the major institutions and businesses that act in their name. We are currently the robotic, unquestioning mouth pieces of those major institutions and businesses. And they fucking love it. These societal barriers can never create a ‘good’. We are part of  system that is institutionally violent. But it doesn’t HAVE to be that way. It is a creation. It can be broken. We let it happen. I let it happen. Therefore, I am inherently violent.

‘Good’ is what you perceive to be so, without any outside influence and social barriers.

The great housing problem

I sit here, trying desperately to understand the reasons that the husband of Home Secretary Jacqui Smith didn’t just visit the plethora of wondrous porn sites that grace the internet, rather than using MPs expenses claim for a porn video which subsequently created another problem in a long list of problems for his incompetent and largely pointless wife. It strikes me as ridiculous.

The issue of whether or not the indelibly randy Richard Timney is “getting any” from wife Jacqui is fatuous and slightly nauseating but it brings back to the forefront of the public mind, the problems that have plagued Mrs Smith for some time. Another shiny gold sticker of woe to add to her wall of thousands of the same.

This time last month, John Lyon, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards agreed to investigate whether Jacqui Smith had broken Parliamentarian rules by claiming £116,000 in second home allowances after she designated her sister’s house in London as her second home, regardless of the fact that she spends (according to her neighbours who made the complaint) about two days a week in that home before returning to her constituency home in Worcester.

This raises three issues; firstly, if MPs like Smith and McNulty have not broken any rules in regard to financing a 2nd home, then the rules are wrong and should be changed. You cannot claim so much money for a second home that is less than eight miles from your constituency home, as in McNulty’s case, it is wrong.

Secondly, just because these rules exist, doesn’t mean MPs like Smith and McNulty are morally obliged to push the rules to their limits. Just because they are inside the law, doesn’t make it acceptable. It isn’t.

Thirdly, and most importantly, second homes are not just a problem for MPs. In a society in which Thatcherism tells us it’s ok to own two, three, four or as many homes as you can possibly buy up because apparently owning equals freedom, we’re left with a deep problem. There are very little affordable homes left in the Country, because those who can afford to, buy them up. Often living in one, whilst using the second as a summer retreat. The “right to buy” has meant that one-time council homes that were built so a young couple could get a cheaply rented home until they had saved enough to jump to the private sector, no longer exists. One time council homes are now owned by the private sector, which during the 1980s pushed the average price of a house up by 225% and more and more people encouraged to invest in a second home. And apparently no one saw this credit crunch – with it’s origins in the sub prime market aimed at those who can’t afford such obscene house prices – coming. Which is apparently fine, easy money, and because community is now a dirty word in comparison to individual, it means those who have holiday homes do not care enough about the local amenities, and so those local once thriving communities die out.

The fishing village of Beadnell in Northumberland is suffering disastrously because any one who dares to reject the flawed notion of social and economic Darwinism is considered out of touch at best and Communist at worst. Beadnell was once a thriving fishing town, but because 256 of the 500 homes in the village are now holiday homes used for a very short period per year; shops, local businesses and schools have had to close down.
Beadnell is just one example. The Scottish village ofBraemar is another example of economic Darwinism imposing it’s strict but certainly not absolute (as opposed to natural selection within nature itself) principle of the wealthy few buying up the available homes for private holiday use, destroying the village life in the process, whilst slowly pushing house prices to the limit, forcing locals out. Would it be too “Socialist” and evil to presume that freedom to destroy a village is not as important to uphold as the freedom for those villagers to live peacefully, and as a community? For all of those who truly equate Capitalism with Democracy, would it not be fair and just, to put it to a vote, whether the citizens of Beadnell or Braemar actually want those rich few, using their village as holiday village? Freedom only appears to actually mean freedom, when it applies to those with money, the rest of us only have the freedom to shut our mouths and let it happen.

Labour offer nothing on their policy website. Absolutely no indication of the future of the housing problem in England and what they plan to do. As usual, useless.
The Tories offer the much of the same bullshit that lead to the problem in the first place. “Conservative Government will make it easier for social tenants to own or part-own their home. This will not only help people up the housing ladder, but also ensure residents have greater pride and a greater stake in their community.”…. So what’s new? Any new homes built under the next Conservative government will be privately owned, which will push housing prices through the roof even more because supply will never reach growing demand due to population rise, and yet another generation of have-nots will be thrown into high rise badly secure blocks of flats polluted with crime and a sense that they are the forgotten children of history. Great. You cannot keep throwing a few new homes into the mix, for short term solutions.

A few people (spurred on by the BNP) seem to be of the opinion that immigrants are “queue jumping” and eating up the last remaining social homes, leaving none for British born citizens. According to a report by the Equality & Human Rights Commission, immigrants made up less than 2% of social housing in the UK. So it isn’t the fault of immigrants, much like every other problem we seem to be blaming on immigrants, isn’t their fault. We appear to ignore the fact that around 800,000 unused private homes around the country, and instead we choose to blame those ‘damn’ immigrants.

So maybe renting is the answer?
No.
Since that wondrous 1988 Housing Act, landlords can freely set rent at whatever price they so choice, which usually means most of the tenant’s wages per month, which in turn means those tenant’s cannot save enough to get a mortgage, even though mortgage payments are usually cheaper than the rent they’re currently paying. And so enter the sub prime market. We all know what happened with that one.

According to Sky News, 83,000 people were homeless in Britain in 2008. Let’s sort that little gem out before we start allowing people to own an entire village, using it once a year for two weeks. If i’m expected to support “freedom” which includes the right to own as many properties as you like, without anyone living in them for most of the year, pushing property prices through the roof, just so you can make a profit and buy a bigger TV, whilst someone else lives on the street, largely ignored, I’m afraid i’m going to have to tell you to fuck off.

And it’s all down to the fact that those cleanly shaven business men in their Armani suits keep telling me that a house is the best investment i’ll ever make……….. I have to disagree with them. A house is not an investment, a house is somewhere to live, to raise a family, and to enjoy. If I ever manage to own my own home, it will not be with the intention to make a nice tidy profit in the future, it will be a home. People should not be allowed to own more than one home.

Still, as long as Jacqui Smith can claim that she broke no rules taking £116,000 for no good reason whatsoever, the equilibrium of greed and immorality is restored.

The rise of Nationalism

“Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel” 
- Samuel Johnson

According to a publicly leaked document on the British National Party, members now include doctors, teachers, and police. Aside from the fact that you should not be entering public life if you have such strong, senseless prejudices, I cannot understand why a deeply racist person, would involve themselves in a line of work, where they have to protect those they hate. They cannot have an Us vs Them mentality, public services should have a “us” mentality, an “us” that incorporates everyone.
It’s the equivilant of Hermann Gorring getting annoyed because Jewish schools in Warsaw refuse to interview him.
If they have such fundamentally flawed beliefs, built on intolerance, they should not be allowed anywhere near the public sector.

They use St George as the symbol of Britain……… St George….. born in Palestine. Go figure. 

I got annoyed reading the BNP website. I’ll show you why.
From the BNP site…

“we, the native British people, will be an ethnic minority in our own country within sixty years. “ 
- This is a lie. A piece of, let’s face it, racist propaganda, scare mongering. It’s only purpose is to create an air of suspicion for anyone who happens to have a slightly darker skin complexion.

“the introduction of a system of voluntary resettlement whereby those immigrants who are legally here will be afforded the opportunity to return to their lands of ethnic origin assisted by a generous financial incentives both for individuals and for the countries in question.”
- Why even suggest that? What’s wrong with them being here? By even saying that in the first place, it shows a deep dislike of those who aren’t of British origin. Racist. Xenophobic. Not to mention a beautiful way to destroy a community, close business, lose millions of jobs, and bankrupt England.

“We will abolish the ‘positive discrimination’ schemes that have made white Britons second-class citizens. “
- I sure as hell don’t feel second class. If a Pakistani who has just moved here, is better at the job than i am, then he should get it. If he puts himself down on the housing list before me, he should get a house before me. That’s fucking obvious.

” work to restore Britain’s family and trading ties with Australia, Canada and New Zealand, and to trade with the rest of the world as it suits us.”
- Yeah that’s just what we need, selfish take-take-take, whilst at the same time, taking the moral high ground by suggesting that all immigrants do is take-take-take, and so the hypocrisy continues. Notice that the nations we’d be trading with on our terms, are predominantly white.

“The BNP will crack down on crime and restore public safety and confidence. “
- So a Party built on crime, nazis, and creating racial tension, they’re now trying to reach social harmony? 
I smell hypocrisy in the air.

“Globalisation, with its export of jobs to the Third World, is bringing ruin and unemployment to British industries and the communities that depend on them.”
- Under Blair, the country was more prosperous than it’s ever been. I very much doubt the criminal mind of Nick Griffin could better that. He’s completely out of touch with contemporary politics, in his own little bubble. His Britain would be the kicking and screaming child of Europe, prices would shoot up, unemployment would be rife given that only White Brits would be allowed the jobs, and racial wars would be taking place across the Country. Our ageing population would not be replaced, meaning pensions would be insecure, and the economy in general would be finished.

“Accordingly, the BNP calls for the selective exclusion of foreign-made goods from British markets and the reduction of foreign imports. “
- Which would mean pretty much everything would cost a fucking fortune.

“unemployment in this country will be brought to an end, and secure, well-paid employment will flourish, “
- Ahahahahahaha, That’s all that one needs.

“We are against the ‘trendy’ teaching methods that have made Britain one of the most poorly educated nations in Europe. “
- What he means is, let’s bring back ignorant teaching, that catered to the clever kids. That ignored pyschological problems. And why are we so poorly educated? Where’s that stat from? Given that more people are going to university than ever before. My best teachers, the ones that got through to me the most, were the eccentric ones who dared to be different. Fuck the BNP for suggesting otherwise, they have absolutely no idea.

“We will also seek to instill in our young people knowledge of and pride in the history, cultures and heritage of the native peoples of Britain.”
- If the BNP do that with my children, i will teach my children the complete opposite. Respect for everyone, love, charity, empathy, compassion, and that above all, regardless of who we are, where we’re from, how we look, what colour we are, what sexuality we are, if we’re tall, if we’re fat, if we’re short and thin, regardless, we’re all the same, and not to be a slave to the evil the BNP spews.

“We reject the idea that Britain must forever be obliged to subsidise the incompetence and corruption of Third World states by supplying them with financial aid. “
- If we have £10,000,000,000 to bail out greedy bankers, we sure as hell have the money to prevent a child in the third world dying. If we can even help one person who’s only wish in life is that their child doesn’t die of starvation, who isn’t concerned with which country you’re born, then we fucking should. Yes it’s our responsibility! It’s the World’s responsibility, the responsibility of the civilised and decent. You can keep turning your head and ignoring if you want. But no far right racist agenda will change my mind on that one.

The suggestion that the BNP are sticking up for British people is so badly flawed, given that the majority of  those same British people despise the BNP. 
Britain is a liberal country.
Therefore, logic tells you, that if you want to represent the wishes and values of the British public, you must be liberal.
It amazes me that they seem to be suggesting they are truly British. Was Churchill not truly British, given that his goal was to wipe out the threat of Fascism from the shores of Britain? That very same fascism that the BNP now holds dear.
Mark Collett, leader of the young BNP, said “hitlers germany was a better place to bring up children, than oldham in 2002.”

Nationalism is nothing but an idea that makes the ignorant feel a little superior. A place where they can all get together, and hate foreigners, and yet ignorantly depend on them for most of the things we buy.

Being British has no static identity. It’s always changing. It’s always updating. It’s the beauty of England. We’re much more accepting than most other developed Nations, including The U.S.A.
People who want to stick to basic, ignorant principles, and not move with the fact that we’re living in a much smaller World, are the ones out of touch. The Government is a liberal government, the opposition, is a liberal opposition, of course there needs to be a better form of immigration control, but not to the extent that the BNP offer, which would kill Liberalism, it would kill human decency, it would kill the idea that we respect each other on the premise that we’re all people before we’re any Nationality.
 
I absolutely love this video. This is Russell Brand, with Mark Collett, leader of the young BNP, i’d strongly advise watching it until the end. It gets good, and sums up, in a few short minutes, why I despise the BNP.