Why Empires Fall ..Capital Suction

I'm being a little cheeky here. Obviously there are myriad explanations as to why empires fall. I'm just using this post to highlight one particular problem that will doom all empires sooner or later.

(This post follows on from a post I did earlier this year titled; An Island. An Example, which is worth reading in relation to this. That in turn followed up on my post; EU Discussion: Limits on the Sizes of Democracies. So it's essentially all part of a series really.)

Why Empires Fall...

Anyway, if we imagine a continent. Let's say this one that I knocked up earlier.

If an empire or country conquers all this territory, and rules from its capital, as depicted below. Then that capital will funnel money, power and people towards it. Almost like a black hole. All the tribute or taxes flow towards this capital. All the big decisions are made here. Meaning in turn that successful and ambitious people will also head in its direction. Further concentrating this power.

Of course, all these numerous people in the capital will need feeding too. Meaning food will also be funnelled in its direction. Provided, like the taxes, by people living further afield.

This process is something that can easily be seen in all countries and empires. With the capital city always having this same gravitational effect. An easy example is Britain. Where huge amounts of wealth and people are concentrated in and around London. Completely disproportionate to the rest of the country.

Anyhow, the further one gets from the capital the more distant one gets from political power and influence. Meaning that people further away will be represented or ruled by people that have little idea what's going on where they live, and no doubt less care or concern for what's going on there as well.

Again, this can easily be seen in most modern countries. For instance, people in the north of England or Scotland complaining that Westminster politicians have no idea what life is like where they live.

..And the bigger the country or geographical region the bigger the problem. Likewise the greater the power that gets concentrated at its centre.

It's also worth noting here that even good, well-intentioned rulers will struggle to represent truly far flung places. As the distances involved and the sheer number of people place practical limitations. There are only 24 hours in a day. So there's a limit to how many problems a person or government can deal with in that time. No matter how sincerely they may try. (I touch upon this in the two articles mentioned above).

So in my little cartoonish example you can see that the further away from the capital the people are the less happy they are with their situation (and the harder they are to control). Or rather, the bigger the area governed the bigger the imbalance.

This is all pretty obvious stuff of course, and it shouldn't really require a little break down like this to point it all out. However, people often fail to grasp these simple concepts when they're dreaming of their unions, empires and other grand schemes. You can build your empire at great cost, but once you do sooner or later the bits at the extremities will begin falling off. This is no doubt why we see the same pattern of expanding and retracting empires throughout history.

So what's the alternative to empires? In the 'An Island. An example' article linked to previously I try to explain how "countries" form due to natural organic processes. In my opinion the best way to proceed is to respect these natural processes by respecting democratic choices.

"Somewheres" and "Anywheres" Through The CJ Lens

As you can see from the last post I've finally finished publishing my book Civilisation Judas. This is quite a relief as it felt like quite a big project, and took a lot of time and effort. So it'll be nice to let it leave the nest and fly off on its own. However, there's one final thing I'd like to touch upon which relates to the themes contained within it.

In the book I proposed a new notion. What I labelled the "city aristocracy" - a class of people similar to the more familiar landed aristocracy, but that draw their status and influence from processes which occur in towns and cities.

In the first chapter I explained this distinction as follows;

The landed aristocracy are tied to their land and derive their wealth and status from it. With their power resting largely on tradition and force (the force needed to defend their territory, raise militias, maintain law and order, etc). 

However, the city aristocracy don't have vast areas of land, what they have is transferable wealth - money, gold, trade links, etc. Their power largely rests on innovation and intelligence. Unlike the landed aristocracy they are not tied to the land, but are in a position to move, and to move their wealth as well.

In the book I suggest that historically "Jewishness" was something that emerged from wider society as a consequence of this distinction. Essentially stating that the word "Jew" originally simply signified a member of this city-based social class. As opposed to a member of a separate religious or ethnic class. And that the modern distinctions, be they religious, ethnic, cultural, etc, all originally stem from this social division that naturally occurs in societies.

(This is obviously quite a novel idea which will seem strange to many people when it's first presented. However, I explain it further in the book.)

Somewheres and Anywheres

Anyway, something that would suggest that I've correctly identified a very real historic and social phenomena is the modern, and seemingly very new distinction made between "Somewheres" and "Anywheres".

These are labels that have came about as an attempt to explain the difference between "leavers" and "remainers" in the current Brexit divide. A division that doesn't seem to follow the classic left/right political divide, and that has forced pundits and writers to analyse and search for markers to distinguish each group.

The "somewhere" and "anywhere" labels seem to do this quite effectively. Which has led to their usage becoming common parlance in political debates about Brexit. (They also seem quite apt in describing the divide between Trump and anti-Trump in America, and other such modern political divisions.)

The most noted proponent of these labels is the author David Goodhart, who explains the division quite succinctly in this following Newsnight feature.

(David Goodhart;

Anywheres vs Somewheres)

It essentially states that "remainers" or open-border advocates tend to be more mobile and well educated, and lack any strong connection to a particular place - hence they are anywheres. Whereas the "leavers" or nationalists tend to be less well educated, more group-focused and more rooted to a particular place - the somewheres.

It parallels my above division of city and land quite neatly and again suggests we're dealing with a social phenomena. A divide that naturally occurs in societies due to social and economic factors. With the historical Jewish/Gentile divide, and the current leaver/remain divide, being similar manifestations of the same natural societal tendencies.

Of course, this division in reality is more of a spectrum than a hard line. Much like the naturally occurring left/right spectrum in politics. However, certain events, such as the Brexit referendum, may force people to choose a side. Highlighting this division in ways it wouldn't normally be noticed.

Comparing the Brexit divide to the historic divide between Jew and Gentile may seem an odd comparison, however, as I explain in the book. Before the modern separation of church and state, religions were the state. So religious divides were also political divides by virtue of that fact. Similarly modern Jews and Christians will not necessarily fall into these same anywhere/somewhere categories today. As modern religions are so far removed from their historic origins. Plus the wider social landscape will have changed so much since that time. In fact, most modern Israelis today will no doubt tend very much towards the somewhere category. So in many cases it may be completely reversed.

I would speculate that modern religions are in part simply legacies of earlier socio-economic movements. Though we see them as purely religious or spiritual today. Likewise we can see how, even in this supposedly secular age, political movements often take on the zeal and accoutrements of religion. Be it rainbow flags or MAGA hats.

An Island. An Example.

A good long while ago I published an article on this blog about how democracy works in relation to population size - EU Discussion: Limits on the Sizes of Democracies

This post is kind of a follow up, using an example to illustrate some of the other factors that can influence the size and shape of a democracy.

Overview..

To give a brief overview of the previous article. I essentially stated that democracy is limited by the number of people you can fit into a room. For example, let's say we have a small village of 500 people. Everyone in the village can go to the village hall, express their opinion and vote on any issues arising. Essentially they can represent themselves.

However, once you have more than say 1000 people it becomes effectively impossible to do that. There are only so many people you can fit into a single debating chamber before it becomes difficult for everyone to be heard and to have their say. It becomes impractical. Plus, on top of this, there are only so many hours in a day. So there's simply not enough time to hear everyone speak. Nor time to have thousands of people voting on every single issue of debate.

It's at this point that we need representational democracy, where instead of representing ourselves in a parliament we vote for someone else to represent us on our behalf. This in of itself is a dilution of the democratic process. We no longer get our own personal direct say on every issue. It also may be the case that we end up being represented by a person who doesn't share our particular view. For instance, you may vote for a Labour candidate, but end up being represented by a Conservative one. Still, though it is a dilution of the process, it's nevertheless the only real practical way of making any democracy work ..any democracy that's bigger than village-size that is.

How much our own individual power is diluted in a representational democracy then depends on how large that democracy is. If a politician represents 1000 constituents they're representing you and 999 other people. As well as themselves of course (!) . If they represent 100,000 constituents they're representing you and 99,999 other people. So once again, practicalities come in to it. There are only so many hours in a day, so there are only so many issues and people a politician can respond to. There's much more chance your elected politician will read your letter or email, or even meet you in person, if they're only representing 1000 people than there is if they're representing 100,000 people.

It's much like hiring a lawyer. If you hire someone who can devote all their time to you they will be able to adequately represent you. However, if you're just one of a multitude of clients they may only be able to devote a small fraction of their time to your case.

Of course, in counterbalance to this, there are obvious benefits to being part of a large country or political body as well. Such as the economic and military might that larger countries or unions can call upon. Which may outweigh the fact that you're less well represented politically. Or a smaller fish in a bigger pond so to speak. Also, more politicians per person means more politicians to pay a salary to, and more cost to you the taxpayer. So there are arguments to be made both ways.

Ultimately it's a personal judgement whether you feel the positives outweigh the negatives. The cumulative effect of all these individual judgements in a country then being the ultimate decider on whether things are satisfactory or not. The general feeling or view of the demos.

..I said "brief overview", I may as well have just re-written the whole article again :)

An Island

Anyway, onto the article. There are some pictures here, so hopefully it won't be quite as text heavy.

I'll be using the example below to highlight how natural geographic features can help to shape democracies (or countries in general, democratic or otherwise). Placing, like the village hall example, practical limitations on how democracies can function. It's all pretty obvious stuff really, but simple examples can help us to see these simple things a little easier.

Let's imagine an island;

(some incredible artwork here)

Now on this imaginary island there are 80m people. Who all speak Spanish. Given this situation it would probably make sense for this body of people to govern themselves as a single democracy or country. It would be practical to do this.

However, let's now imagine the island slightly differently;

(they're supposed to be mountains)

There are still 80m people ..but now there is a huge mountain range cutting the island in half. On one side of which there are 50m people who speak Spanish. On the other, 30m people who speak French.

Now in this situation it would make sense for the Spanish speakers on the one side to govern themselves as their own separate country. And for the French speakers on the other to likewise govern themselves separately. Otherwise it would mean that a parliament on the French side would be governing the Spanish side, or vice versa. With the physical barrier of a mountain range, and also a language barrier, separating government from the governed. Putting practical limitations on the effectiveness of the representation.

Now, of course, this doesn't mean that both groups couldn't exist as a single country or political entity. That's still perfectly possible and realistic. However, it would be reasonable for each side to have self-government if they so wanted it. If they felt the benefits of self-governance outweighed the benefits of being part of the wider political body.

The only way to then decide such a thing would be through the ballot box. A referendum, or some other democratic process, which would discern the will of the people in that particular area. Then set them, in a gradual and orderly way, upon their chosen path.

A real world example..

An example from the real world (apart from the endless Brexit that is) is the Northern Ireland issue. The problem here is that two of these natural factors clash. Looking at the island of Ireland geographically it makes intuitive sense that it should be governed as a single country. I think this is perhaps the main reason why most people removed from the issue sympathise more with those wanting to give Northern Ireland "back to the Irish". When looking at the map, as with the above pre-mountain imaginary island, it just makes sense to see Ireland as a single entity. The political view follows on naturally from the geography.

However, there is also the cultural factor. Which is harder for outsiders to see and understand. The Protestant/Catholic divide, similar to a language divide, which historically and culturally shapes the island. So we have this huge clash.

Once again, the only decent way to proceed is through the ballot box. If the people of Northern Ireland vote to remain separate that must be respected. There is no better or fairer way of deciding. However, democracy never stops. So those on the other side of the argument are free to try to persuade a majority of the Northern Irish people to think otherwise. If one day they succeed any such vote must also be respected.

The Squirrel King; Or the False Dichotomy of Rent Or Mortgage

[The Rent/Mortgage problem is a topic I've touched upon before on this blog. In this article I attempt to explain it in a way that most people will hopefully understand.

Also, for anyone that's came here via the YouTube video you may want to start further down the page; from the "This Is The Human State" heading.]

Imagine a squirrel. He just finds a tree and that's it. He has a home. If he doesn't like it he just finds another tree. Simple.

After that all he has to do is find some acorns. To eat, and maybe to put some aside for the winter. Some days he may collect quite a few. Other days not so many. Either way he can relax safe in the knowledge that even if he starts falling behind he can just pick up the pace a bit.

However, imagine he wasn't allowed to just live in the tree. Let's imagine there is a squirrel king or landlord who owns not just his tree, but all the other trees as well. And that in order for our squirrel to live in his tree he has to pay this Squirrel King let's say 5 acorns a day.

Now imagine our squirrel's situation. Every day, before he can even think about collecting acorns for himself he has to find 5 for the king. Every single day. Imagine the extra workload and the extra stress. Knowing that every day he has to find 5 acorns just to be in the tree, before he can even do anything else.

What happens if he falls behind? If he has a bad day and finds just 4 acorns. Or finds only 5, but is so hungry he needs to eat a few himself. Then knowing that the next day he needs to find 6 or 7 at least just to get by. Imagine the constant state of anxiety this squirrel would be in.

THIS IS THE HUMAN STATE.

And this is why most humans are in a constant state of anxiety.

Stressed. Depressed and unable to enjoy their existence.

We wake up every day knowing that if we don't find enough acorns to pay the rent this week, then next week we'll be homeless. We need to pay this toll every week just to have some place to exist. We're in a constant state of anxiety because of this. Paying to live, sleep and breathe. Never in a position to relax.

Now we automatically accept that it's normal to pay rent or mortgage every week or month, but is it normal, and does it have to be this way? No other animals live like this. In fact, even primitive human tribal groups and nomads don't live like this. I would say it's highly unnatural - and that it's the number one cause of human misery.

In an ideal world everyone should have their own space to exist. Somewhere to sleep, be, relax. Somewhere that belongs to them, that they don't have to constantly pay another human being for the privilege of using.

Now people may say, we can't simply give everyone a house, and I agree it would obviously be a little impractical to do this at this exact moment in time. However, once everyone recognises the problem we can at least start moving towards the concept.

We could for example make housing much much cheaper. It may sound a little crazy to people so unaccustomed to this way of thinking, but I would say that we should be pushing to make a standard house cost as much as a small car.

A young person should be able to save up for say a year and be able to buy a house outright. Then spend the rest of their life without the constant anxiety and stress of needing to pay rent or mortgage week in week out.

There would also be huge benefits for the government and taxpayer in doing this as well. One of the biggest costs when paying state benefits is the cost of Housing Benefit. If someone is unemployed they will get about £75 a week in Jobseeker's Allowance, yet maybe £120 a week Housing Benefit. If we had a situation where everybody already owned their own home that £120 bill for the taxpayer would disappear.

On top of this, if everyone owned their own home and wasn't constantly spending the larger portion of their income on rent or mortgage it would be much easier for them to save for a rainy day. Just like the squirrel saving his acorns for the winter. So maybe many unemployed people wouldn't even need the £75 a week, as they'd be in a position to put money aside for such periods of unemployment.

Again, this idea of super cheap housing may seem very alien to people. However, in this idea lies the solution that both the right and the left have been looking for ..but have been unable to see due to this false dichotomy of rent or mortgage.

People on the right of the argument tend to believe in home-ownership, but are too wedded to the belief that high house prices are beneficial to make it accessible to everyone. Whereas people on the left see the problem of high house prices, yet think the answer lies in state ownership, or even communism. The real answer lies in universal home-ownership.

Previous article on the topic; Rent, Mortgage and the Real Origins of Slavery

A non-VaporWAVE Election Manifesto

Okay, so we're now firmly in the run-up to #GE2017 and it's all a bit backwards looking. Jeremy Corbyn, though he seems like a perfectly honest guy, seems to want to take us back to the 1970s, and the Tories seem to be offering nothing but the status quo ..plus Brexit, which I hope they're sincere about, but have my doubts.

It's like being given the choice between going back to the 80's or going back to the 70's. It's a retro-election of sorts. A cut and paste rehash of all the old stuff - #vaporwave 2017.

I genuinely have no idea how I'm going to vote at the moment ..or even if I will at all.

Anyway, in my frustration over the last couple of days I've been thinking about what my manifesto would look like were I to run. There's no doubt quite a lot of stuff I've missed out and a few things in here I maybe haven't quite thought through enough yet, but here's what I've come up with so far.

I have six main pledges;


#1 Abolish the BBC License Fee

This is an easy one. Everyone saves money, private enterprise can then expand into all the areas that the BBC is currently dominating with its huge unfair state subsidy.



#2 Parents given the Right to Choose their Child's School Hours

All parents will be given the right to send their children to school as much or as little as they see fit.

For example, if a parent feels the school day is too long and would prefer their child to only attend on the mornings they would be free to do this. This would give parents greater control over their child's education and well being. It would also help to free up time and resources. For example, if the parents of a class of 30 children all opted to only send their child to school on the morning or the afternoon it would effectively half the classroom size to 15 - meaning that the time spent at school, though shorter, would be calmer and more beneficial.

It would also mean that parents wishing to home-school their children, but unable to do so because of work commitments would be able to divide their child's education between home and school. For example, sending their child to school on the days that they're in work, but home-schooling on the days they have free.



#3 A "Living Space" Initiative

I would implement a massive building boom, paid for by the taxpayer and managed directly by the government. The housing would be made available to rent or buy at dirt-cheap rates. Under-cutting the lowest rents and market values in any given area that the housing was built. They would be made available to anyone to rent, but only UK citizens, born in the UK, who own no other residential property would be entitled to buy them. People in the age group of 20-40 would be prioritised, though the option to buy would be open to anyone meeting the above criteria.

The building boom would be a deliberate and continual one. The aim being part of a wider plan to extend the "living space" rights of UK citizens. The idea being that everyone should be entitled to own enough land/space to live on, and that no-one should be forced to pay another person, by rent or otherwise, to simply have a place to sleep at night.

"Living space" in effect can be seen as an extension of "personal space". A basic entitlement which we all intuitively understand.



#4 Homelessness Winter Pledge

Every year, between the months of September and April, any homelessness in any UK city or town would be considered a "national emergency" and funding would be prioritised accordingly. Plans would also be put in place to share such costs fairly in order to stop boroughs and councils from simply shifting homeless people from one town or city to the next as often happens now.



#5 Benefits Sanctions to be Capped at 50% of the Benefit

Any sanctions imposed on job-seekers to be restricted to at most 50% of the benefit. This would effectively create a bottom line safety net that any unemployed person would be entitled to whatever their circumstances or compliance.

This initiative would also act as the starting point for the gradual introduction of a citizens income for all UK citizens. However, this would be a long term aim beyond the scope of the next parliament.

Most would agree that all sanctions imposed on unemployed people are abhorrent, and even those who advocate their use and effectiveness generally view them as a necessary evil. The idea that sanctions, as they currently stand, mean the loss of someone's entire benefit and sole source of income is simply unacceptable. The above initiative would hopefully be something of a halfway house.



#6 Any Future "QE" Stimulus to be Fairly Implemented

In the event of any serious economic slump, if the government or the Bank of England deems it necessary to introduce another round of "Quantitative Easing", then the money will be filtered into the economy directly through the public, instead of being used to purchase financial assets.

Any "new" money created will effectively be "given" to the public. Every UK citizen over the age of 16 will have an equal share of the total deposited directly into their bank account. It will be deposited in installments over monthly periods for however long is deemed necessary. This will increase spending in the economy in a fair and democratic way. It will also help stimulate areas of the country in proportion to their general population.

EU by Stealth: How the Mainstream Media are Systematically Destroying UK Parliamentary Democracy

We all hate politicians right. They're just the worst. The biggest crooks. The bane of our lives. If only we didn't have them things would be so much better. Correct?

Well, actually, no. Why do we all hate politicians? - and universally so. Everyone, from left to right, from the most asleep mainstream sheeple to the full on "conspiracy theorists" like myself, we all share this common hatred ..and I think we may all be falling for one of the biggest psy-ops the Media-Intelligence Networks are playing on us.

First up we need politicians, we can't have representational democracy without some people filling the role of politician.

Secondly, is it fair to decry all politicians as bad, dishonest and dishonourable? Surely we the electorate should be discerning between the good and the bad politicians; the honest and the dishonest. And if necessary even standing for election ourselves - in which case we would hope that potential voters would judge us on our individual record and not simply revert to the mantra; this person is a politician, therefore this person is de facto bad and deserving of hate.

The successful functioning of democracy depends upon us voters using our judgement and discernment. When we decry all politicians as bad, or wash our hands of the political process altogether we're failing in our duty as citizens.

It's my belief that the mainstream media have played a big part in fomenting this collective apathy we have. So let's look at the many ways in which the media are undermining the political process. (In this article I'm writing from a British perspective, but I'm sure the same or similar applies in most other countries as well.)

One large event in Britain was the MP expenses scandal. Now I can't defend some of the ridiculous things MPs were claiming on their expenses, nor would I want to, however, the collective effect on the public consciousness was to deem all politicians feckless and greedy.

On top of this there are the endless scandals surrounding the fact that MPs often employ members of their own family as aides and secretaries (in fact, in France at the moment many politicians are coming under media scrutiny for this as well). Now again I wouldn't want to defend every instance of this kind of nepotism and I'm sure there have been numerous abuses, however the practise of employing relatives, if lost, will badly damage democracy. It will make individual politicians even more dependant on the state and the media, increasingly less independent, and consequently much worse at representing you.

In order to understand this you have to put yourself in the position of a politician. Let's say you're a decent, honest politician that has entered politics for noble reasons by getting yourself elected. You're something of an outsider and are new to the corridors of power. Now you need a secretary to help you do your job properly, however you need someone you can trust. You can't just put out an advert and hire anyone that walks into your office, you're doing a quite serious job.

Sure, you can get the person vetted by the intelligence agencies, but what if you don't trust the intelligence agencies? What if you're a politician that the state isn't too keen on? You're an individual politician in a complex political world - the only people you can truly trust and rely on are the people that you already know, in particular your close family members and friends. It would make perfect sense to employ these people in some capacity.

If I was a politician I would most definitely employ a family member as my secretary and confidant.

Not to enrich that family member, but because I would want trusted people around me. It would strengthen my position and make me more able to achieve my aims. I know for a fact that I would be weak and vulnerable if I allowed myself to be isolated and alone in the murky world of politics. I certainly wouldn't want to risk having a shill or spy working alongside me managing all my personal and business affairs.

Now however, thanks to the mainstream media, politicians are unable to utilise their own family members. Individual politicians are therefore more isolated and much more easy to pick off by their enemies than otherwise would be the case. They have to be state functionaries now. Professional employees of the state who are expected to act as such. They can't have an individual power base from which to challenge the state itself.

Another way the media continues to undermine the role of the British politician is by constantly denouncing any plans that there may be to increase their pay. In the aftermath of the expenses scandal it was suggested that MPs should have their pay increased - a perfectly logical response. The reasoning being that an adequately paid MP wouldn't need to claim on their expenses. In fact, the general view at the time was that MPs were claiming on their expenses under the impression that they were justified in supplementing their relatively meagre pay packet that way. In effect it was a fudged system where the expenses perks were off-setting the perceived low pay.

Now again, the pay that MPs receive may seem like quite a lot compared to the average pay of a UK worker, however if we value the democratic process we need to pay MPs accordingly. If democracy is important to us then the job they're doing must also be important and worthy of decent pay. They need to be financially comfortable enough to concentrate on that job ..AND they need to be relatively un-'bribe'-able.

Also it must be kept in mind that a politician may only be in their job for a few years  - if they're fearful of losing their job at the next election because of personal financial worries then moral purpose and dedication to duty may take a backseat. Even for relatively honest and decent politicians this may be the case, especially if they have a family to take care of.

The mainstream media also has a habit (in my opinion a deliberate habit) of attacking all honest and independent-minded politicians and giving shill or "career-politicians" an easy ride. Just look at the treatment politicians like Jeremy Corbyn or Nigel Farage get from the media compared to their more scripted colleagues.

The media also gives UK politicians ample opportunity to look like complete idiots. Take Ed Balls and Ann Widdecombe on Strictly Come Dancing for instance. Ed Balls was once one of the stronger figures in the British Labour Party, and he always comes across as one of the more decent ones whenever I read up on the Blair/Brown years (though his wife seems like an Orwellian schoolmarm XD). Now though he's dancing around on TV in spandex. George Galloway meowing around on Big Brother dressed as a cat also springs to mind.

It seems to my eyes that the British Parliament is being systematically undermined by the media, and that any genuine independent voices are being purged from within it.

We really need to start using our discernment, and to start believing in the role of the politician even if not in the politicians themselves.

The Billion Dollar Mouse Problem

This may seem like quite a mundane post, but it's actually quite an important one to me, and one I've been meaning to write for a while. It concerns the problem of mouse infestations - I know, quite a prosaic topic. I've worked at quite a lot of normal jobs over the years and I've noticed that this is a big problem pretty much everywhere, especially in retail and restaurant work.

I'm a vegetarian and quite hostile to the idea of killing innocent animals, however, at the same time practical experience tells me that this is a real problem, and one that companies and small businesses can't not deal with.

If you have a problem with mice, but aren't prepared to literally kill these little animals what can you do? The answer is, at the moment, very little. Apart from keeping things tidy and making it hard for mice to get access to food, it really is pretty much a case of exterminate or let them run riot. This is especially the case for businesses that can't afford to devote hours of man power doing all the little things that might help keep mice at bay - and this is pretty much all businesses these days.

On top of this extermination is never a complete solution - as mice will keep coming back as long as there's an environment in which they can thrive, no matter how many are killed.

It's like throwing down bird seed in the garden. You could get rid of every bird in your garden one day, but as long as there is food on the floor more will keep coming no matter how many you get rid of.

Now the obvious solution is to run a tidy ship and keep things nice and clean. However, in our bustling, interconnected world no business is an island. You can do everything in your power to limit the conditions for mice, but if the businesses next door are not following the same strict protocols you'll still suffer from their negligence. And more to the point your business will suffer more as the added expense you're going to in trying to tackle the problem is making you less competitive than your more cavalier neighbours.

So for me this is a very big problem that needs a solution. For personal and moral reasons I deem it an absolute tragedy that so many innocent and sentient mice are being killed daily. It's an endless cruelty that underpins our entire economy and is unacceptable in my opinion.

There's also the business imperative. Think of how much stock is written off on a daily basis due to mouse damage across the UK. Add to this the sheer number of man hours spent everyday trying to tackle the problem, not to mention the cost of the resources needed. I would love to see the figures on what it costs the economy on a yearly basis.

There's also the simple fact of how unfair it makes the marketplace. Companies that spend money dealing with the issue, or that go the extra mile to deal with the issue in an ethical way suffer, whilst laissez faire, profit obsessed companies fuel the problem for everyone else.

All the discount chains and takeaways that now proliferate on our high streets are creating havens of mice and rat infestation. It's impossible for any conscientious business to insulate themselves from this.

So what can be done? Surely we are intelligent enough to find more elegant solutions to this problem. I would say that first of all the problem needs recognising and raising to public discussion. Although it's not a glamorous topic to talk about I think politicians need to bring it to prominence. I also think that governments should allocate much more money to not only tackling the problem, but also to pushing new technologies and ideas to take things forward. We need a smarter attitude to this problem.

There should also be policies in place that reward businesses that try to deal with this issue in a progressive and ethical way. Likewise the interconnected nature of the problem needs recognising.

For my two cents one simple and practical thing that could be done is to regulate the packaging that pet and bird foods come in. Often the packaging that say a large bag of birdseed comes in is very flimsy and easily ripped (or nibbled through). Such poor packaging makes it very easy for mice to get access to food. Obviously most people are much less fussy about the food they buy for outdoor wildlife or household pets than they are when it comes to food they buy for themselves and their family. This means there's much less of an impetus for companies to go to the extra expense of providing decent packaging for these products.

It may sound like a small inconsequential thing, but at two separate places I've worked the mouse problem has started around the pet and bird food section. It's a real weak link in the chain. It could be so easily plugged.

To conclude, it seems no-one really appreciates the scale of this problem, or the potential reward of working around it, but it's costing the economy a lot of money, and leading to the endless unnecessary suffering of countless mice.

The daily mouse massacre is an unseen added cost to almost every transaction we make.

Homeless White Males.

The other day I was dropped off in town after finishing work. It was late-ish, about 8:30 pm and pretty cold. I popped in Tesco and outside there was a homeless guy that had fallen asleep whilst begging - he was still sitting up. It was a pretty harsh sight, but not an uncommon one these days.

A few weeks previously I'd decided to walk home at a similar time rather than wait for the bus (it was quite a mild night for December). It was a Friday and the bars and clubs were heaving, but outside every single one I passed there was at least one homeless person begging. It really was quite bad, and the contrast between the people in the bars having a good time and the people outside on the street was stark. I don't ever recall seeing this sort of homelessness at anytime in the past. I'm sure I can't be the only person noticing it.

I also can't help but contrast it with the Women's March on Washington that has recently taken place. It does seem like white males really have it pretty bad at the moment. Now I'm not saying that women, or non-whites, or any other group you care to mention don't have it bad as well. However, I do always try to gauge what's happening in society by using my own eyes and my own primary evidence, rather than being led by images in the media. And what I see is a lot of white males sleeping rough on the streets. The night I walked home I noticed one homeless white girl and the rest were all white guys.

So why is this issue not media worthy? Are white males such a problem that even homeless ones are undeserving of sympathy? Are people blinded even to the very possibility that white males can be victims in our society as well?

I would suggest that it's not deemed media-worthy as it doesn't serve the agendas our elites have planned, but that's another topic. At the moment I just want to simply highlight the issue and point out how unjust it is.

How can we tolerate people sleeping rough on the streets? Especially on nights as cold as these. Surely it's the birthright of all human beings to have a roof over their head. How is this issue being ignored? Why no protests over this?

I must admit I do feel a little uncomfortable mentioning that these homeless people are white, however it is what I see with my own eyes, and it would be remiss of me not to report honestly. There should be no taboo topics. If we can talk about white males when issuing blame, we should be able to talk about white males when highlighting injustice as well.

[I should mention for context that I live in the town of Middlesbrough, in the north of England. From what I've heard secondhand the exact same issue is common to most other towns and cities in the UK.]

EU Discussion: Limits on the Sizes of Democracies

There's one topic that has been noticeably lacking in all the discussions we've had on the question of EU membership, and that is the question of how large a functioning democracy should be - i.e. what is the optimum size of a democratic state?

One thing you'll notice when looking at both the EU parliament and the British parliament is their respective sizes.

There are currently 650 MPs in the British House of Commons.

There are currently 751 MEPs in the European Parliament.

Quite similar figures. Especially when one considers that there are approximately 510 million people in the EU, but only 64 million people in the UK. Were the EU to become the true primary democracy in Europe that would be quite a dilution in regards representation.

(Incidentally, the United States with a population of approximately 319 million has a Congress of 535 politicians - 435 Representatives and 100 Senators).

So why such similar figures for the number of MPs?

The answer is a simple and practical one. There's a limit to the number of people you can have speaking in a single room before it becomes simply unworkable.

This is something that goes to the very heart of the democratic process.

Let's imagine how the democratic process would function in a small village. Let's say there are 100 people. Each could go to the local village hall, express their opinion, listen to the opinions of the other 99 (should they each choose to give one), then vote on the particular issue at hand. This would be a truly fair and democratic way for a democracy to function, and everyone would be truly equal.

However, what happens when there are 1000 people, or 10,000 people. The higher the number the less practical it becomes for this pure form of democracy to function. There are simply not enough hours in the day for everyone to give an opinion and have it heard by the rest of the group, nor a room big enough for everyone to sit down and be able to hear said opinions. Even the simple practice of voting on the issue at hand would be a time and resource consuming exercise.

It's at this point that representational democracy is needed. Instead of each person turning up at a parliament to speak and vote for themselves they would choose to elect an individual to go and speak on their behalf. So, in a town of say 100,000 people each suburb or ward would elect an individual to be their representative. Let's say each ward has 1,000 people, and each ward elects a single representative, there would then be 100 representatives sat in the town hall making decisions on behalf of the 100,000.

This is still democratic of course. However, it's a massive dilution of the process. An individual goes from having the chance to represent themselves in person and voting on each and every issue, to simply getting the opportunity to vote for someone else to represent them once every year, or four years, or whatever the case may be.

There's also the problem that you may end up being represented by someone you didn't even vote for. In which case the person representing you may have completely different views or desires than yourself.

So coming back to the EU vs UK question it seems to be quite clear that the British people would be much better represented by a UK parliament than a European one. And again it's just a case of numbers. There are only so many pieces of information a single person can process at any one time. For example, imagine a single EU President making decisions for the entire continent. How could one man simultaneously know what was going on in Barcelona, Edinburgh, Krakow, Milan, Manchester and everywhere else well enough to make good executive decisions about those places.

Here in the UK we often complain about Westminster politicians not representing the north of England, or Wales, or Scotland adequately (in fact, this is one of the good arguments for Scottish Independence). Again though this is once again a problem of practicality. Westminster politicians have a bias towards the south-east of England simply because that's where they spend most of their time. Theresa May doesn't wake up in the morning and deliberately plot to marginalise the north of England. She simply isn't fully aware of what's happening up here on a daily basis - i.e. she has more information about her immediate surroundings than she does about distant places.

It completely stands to reason that someone living in the south will be more aware of problems facing the south than they are of problems facing the north. This is just basic logic.

For example, I live in the northern town of Middlesbrough. Consequently I have a good understanding and general knowledge about what's going on here. Were I a politician I could probably represent the town quite well. However, conversely, I have very little knowledge regarding what's going on in the city of Newcastle (even though it's only about 30 miles away). So, even with the best intentions in the world it would be very difficult for me to represent the people of Newcastle better than a person that actually lives in that city and witnesses its problems firsthand could do.

So, in summary, it's your local politicians job to adequately represent you. You should be able to speak to them in person at times, or send them letters or emails. However, even the most conscientious of politicians can only read a certain amount of correspondence in a given day. Or educate themselves regarding a certain number of issues or topics in any given amount of time.

How could 751 MEPs ever adequately represent 500 million people? More to the point how could a single EU President adequately provide good governance? Especially when you take into account all the varying language and cultural barriers across the continent. On top of this we have a growing population, not a shrinking one. Surely we need more representation, not less representation.

*****

For further reading check out the following articles;

An Island. An Example.
Why Empires Fall

Rent, Mortgage and the Real Origins of Slavery

I've realised there's a big misconception when it comes to slavery.

The general view, logical though it sounds, is that people are forced into slavery by the fact that slave-owners are unwilling to pay people for their labour.

The logical consequence of this thinking then being that "paid work" is something of a step up from slavery ;- paid work equals freedom, unpaid work equals slavery.

This is the view I'd always held and it appears logical enough at first view. However, after reading up on how people were actually forced into slavery in former times I've come to realise that this view is very much incorrect  ..and that our misconceptions on this are fueling much of the misery we see in human society today.

So ..how did slavery really start?

The example that really opened my eyes was the story of how the American continent was discovered and conquered by Europeans.

Now to simplify things it seems there were two categories that individual Europeans could fall into when heading for this New World.

The first type were people simply looking for new land to start a new life - people who simply wanted a little slice of land to live on, feed themselves and raise a family.

The second type were people with grander ambitions - these people wanted to become rich and powerful. To rise up the social ladder, either in the Americas or back home in Europe, through the acquisition of money, resources and power.

Now it's this second group that we owe the slavery in the Americas to ..and this is why;

When these explorers went over in search of wealth and fame they decided to set up plantations and mines in order to exploit the natural resources of the land. However, they needed people to work on these plantations and down these mine pits.

So, they turned to the native population ...BUT the native population didn't want to spend their lives working on a plantation or down a mine ..not even if they were being paid. And they couldn't be persuaded to do so.

This is because they already had everything they needed and wanted.

They had homes - they didn't need to pay rent or mortgage for the luxury of having a home. Water fell from the sky and could be taken from streams or rivers for free. All they really had to do was find food - either by hunting, foraging or growing it themselves. And this only took a few hours a day. (Even today Amazonian tribes only spend a few hours a day "working").

So they had everything they needed, they were their own boss and they only had to work a fraction of the time that we do now (and certainly only a small fraction of the time they would've had to spend working down a mine or on a plantation - pay or no pay).

The idea of working all day, every day simply wasn't attractive to them - and given the choice who on earth would choose otherwise.

So, the plantation and mine owners had to literally hunt down the natives and force them at knife point or gun point to work (this is where we get the modern business term "head-hunting" from). They also had to ship slaves over from Africa.

So, they had to enslave people, not because they didn't want to pay people, but because the people simply did not want to work for them full stop.

..and this illustrates just how crazy our modern way of living is, and likewise illustrates how it's the Rent & Mortgage factor that is forcing us to work such extreme hours. As it's this need to pay rent or mortgage that is one of the driving forces behind why we have to go "out to work" in the first place.

For most people rent or mortgage is the biggest bill they have to pay. It often accounts for at least half of someones outgoings.

So, think about this, most people are going out to work primarily to pay for the privilege of having somewhere to live. Somewhere to exist. Somewhere to breathe. Somewhere to sleep. Somewhere to eat. Somewhere to BE.

Isn't that kinda crazy? Most native peoples took it for granted that they were entitled to somewhere to exist. They weren't paying for the right to simply breathe in and out somewhere. Yet we are, and we think we're free.

If we all had somewhere to live - rent or mortgage free - we would all have to work only half the time we do. We'd all be happier, healthier. Society would be better in every way.

So how is it that we've come to find ourselves in a system where we have to pay money to another human being simply for the right to exist somewhere?

I'd say we're all entitled to at least a little bit of land by birth.

Recently Read: Power Trip by Damian McBride

I've just finished 'Power Trip' by Gordon Brown's former special adviser Damian McBride. It was a fascinating read. Concise, well-written and very engaging. I would highly recommend it for anyone interested in the Blair/Brown period of British politics.

The book more or less confirmed my general view of the Blair/Brown rivalry. Gordon Brown and his entourage come across as good and conscientious, albeit flawed, individuals. Whereas Blair and the Blairites come across as self-interested, self-serving careerists. Ed Balls comes across in a particularly good light, and Ed Miliband comes across quite well too - although I was left with a much more mixed opinion of him. I'm convinced that the bounce in popularity that Labour have recently received in the press is more due to this book than to the Labour Party conference itself, which to my mind was as dull and cringeworthy as ever. I think that political journalists across the board have read this book, seen the two Eds in a much more capable and competent light and that this has coloured their write-up of the Labour conference accordingly.

The book also clearly illustrates that the Blair/Brown divide in the Labour Party was more due to policy differences than personal differences. At times we've been led to believe that it was Brown's personal ambition that drove him to thwart Blair's plans, but clearly he was more driven by a genuine fear that Blair was taking the country down the wrong path (which in my opinion he was).

For anyone of a conspiratorial mindset it was interesting to note how close Brown was to Robin Cook before the latter's untimely death. This following passage about Brown finding out about Cook's death stood out;

"Gordon was so upset he could barely speak. He and Robin had only recently resolved their long-standing feud and become firm friends again, talking almost every day. It was central for Gordon's plans for his premiership that Robin would become his Deputy Leader or Chancellor, or be restored as Foreign Secretary, symbolising a break from the Blair years more than any other appointment could, following Robin's resignation over the Iraq War."

It's hard to underestimate how much of a U-turn that would have represented in regards British foreign policy. Now I'm not gonna sit here and state that therefore he was killed by some security service, but I'd be lying if I said the suspicion had never crossed my mind. Especially given all the intrigue surrounding the death of weapons expert David Kelly.

Anyhow, whatever did or didn't go on during those turbulent years, I find it hard not to feel that Brown was essentially a force for good and that Blair was ...well, er, not a force for good.

Books, especially books written by people in politics, should always be viewed with a degree of scepticism, however I feel that this one may be one of the more honest political ones we'll read in recent times. Recommended.

Occupy Wall Street - Aims/Demands

I’ve been watching the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations with interest over the last few weeks. Particularly our equivalent over here in Britain, Occupy the London Stock Exchange. Their aims seem fairly laudable, although the main criticism levelled at them seems to be their lack of obvious demands. Given this vacuum, and given that it’s also quite fittingly November 5th, I thought I’d try to come up with some myself. Here goes;

We The People Desire…

1) The end of fractional reserve banking.

2) An incremental reduction in the length of the average working week. Clearly given our current level of technological advancement we don’t need everyone working forty hours a week - global unemployment levels are a clear illustration of this.

3) Complete transparency of governments. Including intelligence agencies.

There we go. Clear and concise. Now lets see the politicians get to work achieving this.

Oliver Letwin Caught Throwing Official Documents In Park Waste Bins

I've just read an article in the Mirror about Oliver Letwin, David Cameron's right-hand man, disposing of secret papers in park waste bins - see here.

One of the documents, concerning MI5 and MI6, contained this telling line;

"We know in the past agencies have provided, for whatever reason, incomplete and inaccurate information. This was the case on rendition, but also on the London terrorist attacks."

Conspiracy theorists get your teeth into that. Is this a deliberate leak? Would someone so high up in government really be stupid enough to dispose of documents by dumping them in public waste bins?

Personally, I feel that over the last ten years since 9/11 things have been happening in Britain that shouldn't have been happening in an open, democratic country. Is this leak an indication that the British Government and Parliament are trying to wrestle back control of our foreign policy and intelligence services? Were our intelligence services, our elements within them, working not on our behalf but on the behalf of foreign interests during the years following 9/11?

The recent scandal surrounding Defence Secretary Liam Fox and his 'adviser' Adam Werritty only adds interest to all this. Dr Fox is something of an 'Atlanticist' and is very much of the American opinion when it comes to foreign policy. If he loses his position on the back of this it may very well put a dent in the 'special relationship' we supposedly have with the United States.

If all this moves us towards re-establishing our independence in regard foreign affairs I think it'll be a good thing. Although, I don't hold my breath.

Is A Shorter Working Week The Solution To England’s Divided Society?

The recent riots in London and elsewhere have got me thinking about the great imbalance in our society, the biggest being the imbalance of work - some people work forty plus hours a week, others are completely unemployed. In fact, I think there’s a clear divide of opinion in the country, with those that work feeling a deep resentment towards those that don’t and those that don’t feeling a deep disenfranchisement and frustration. To me, the only realistic solution to all this is to shorten the working week. Clearly it would be better to have everyone working, say, twenty hours a week and have full employment, than to have some doing all the work and others doing nothing.

It’s clear from the current levels of unemployment, both here and around the world, that we don’t need everyone working a forty hour week. This situation is a consequence of our technological advancement, and as our technological capability increases this trend will continue. If we don’t rebalance our social structure accordingly we can only expect more and more division in society, and, no doubt, more and more rioting. I think any government worth its salt should now be pursuing policies that can bring about this change in an incremental way. Offering incentives to companies that hire more workers at fewer hours would be one way of doing this, another way would be to increase the minimum wage.

The benefits, both economic and social, of having a shorter working week would also be immense. People would be less stressed, which would lead to better health and a reduced bill for the NHS. People would also have more time to spend with their children - clearly beneficial to any society. In fact, the number of hours children spend at school could likewise be reduced to reflect this change in working habits. After all, true education is more about the culture people grow up in than it is about the number of hours spent in a classroom - just look at how obvious the link between educational achievement and home life is. The responsibility for education could be shifted back to the parents somewhat, and at the same time we could maybe even save some of the money we spend on education. A more balanced society would also lead to a reduced crime rate - another massive burden on the public purse.

Clinging to the concept of a forty hour week is, in my opinion, the biggest mistake we’re making as we move into this new era of human history. A reduced working week is the most realistic solution to the problems now facing us. It would make sense, both economically and socially, and it would create a happier, healthier society. It’s the obvious missing link in Cameron’s idea for a big society where people spend more time in socially useful, non-profit activities.

If we’re truly smart about all this, and our technological capability continues to increase, we can maybe even begin to look forward to a point in the future where our average working week starts to approach zero hours.

Any Good Murdoch Phone Hacking Conspiracy Theories Out There?

I've been gripped by the storm currently facing Rupert Murdoch - phone hacking, News of the World termination, falling share price, etc. Personally, I'm quite pleased about all this as I'm not a fan of News Corp. However, I'm still waiting for a really good conspiracy theory about all this. It seems to have the perfect ingredients. Jay Rockefeller leading the charge against Murdoch in the US, Murdoch being a staunch critic of the EU (and therefore something of a bulwark against plans for a one world government, New World Order, and so on). In fact, I also recall reading a few slight digs at Nat Rothschild in Murdoch owned papers. Are we seeing another round of infighting in the world of global, high powered politics?

Or is this just the public finally bringing Murdoch to account?

Will Our Abandoned High Streets Return To Nature?

I've been watching with fascination the news that all these high street chains are going into administration or downsizing - Thorntons, Habitat, TJ Hughes, etc. I think we're seeing a major shift in the way we live. In fact, I predict that city centers, to some degree, will move away from commerce and more towards agriculture. I think rising populations and environmental issues will make us seriously rethink food production. We're already starting to see well developed ideas regarding vertical farming and things like that. I wouldn't be surprised if in twenty or thirty years time we see town and city centers becoming producers of and markets for food, with most other commerce being taken care of mainly via the Internet.

A Revolution in the Banking Industry?

Question: Will the rise of the Internet and modern technology revolutionise the banking industry the same way it has the music, newsprint and publishing industries?

I was thinking, when money becomes completely digital and all financial transactions are electronic, it will, firstly, be easier and cheaper to set up new banks, without the need for high street branches, etc, resulting in more competition. And secondly, much harder to keep up this fractional reserve charade - once every financial transaction is recorded electronically, we’ll, theoretically, be able to track the history of every individual pound and penny, from inception to its current location. Any new money created, be it by bank or government, will be readily apparent, assuming the information is freely available, of course.

Is this just wishful thinking, or is it a realistic possibility?