Migration finally in Progress

nobody@vox.com(Inquisitor) — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 06:07:09 +0000

Articles written and published in 'blogspot' is finally in the process of being 'migrated' to vox.

- inquisitor

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

The War on Terror & the Idea of the State

nobody@vox.com(Inquisitor) — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 05:55:20 +0000

IN BRIEF
The 'War on Terror' and the Idea of the State

Contrary to public understanding, that has been aided in its formulation by the media repeating those self-serving statements of those leaders whose nations have a seat in the UN, the 'War on Terror' is not self-explanatory, unless we take 'The War on Terror' to mean :

The War on those who do not have access to as public a podium as the UN to voice and seek redress for their grievances but who dare to presume to exercise the selfsame aggressional 'rights' as some of those nations who have been snubbed in the UN or elsewhere,

The War on those who have managed to forge ties unbound by the traditional demarcations of the nation-state but who do not see this archaic idea of the state as a necessary pre-requisite to behave as the traditional state had done,

The War on those whose previous fragmentation across the planet had left them unable to form a consciousness of themselves as a group united by some interests or other and put up any form of resistance that 'national' powers felt compelled to consider,

The War on those who, due to advances in technology, are able to utilise those tools necessary to form a global consciousness and advance their interests just as traditional nation-states had been able to form within the constraints imposed by the technology available at that time. The nation-state is a relic of previous technology just as cross-border nation-states are made possible with the technology of the present day.

The war on those who do not view the nation-state as the legitimate vehicle through conflict ought to be pursued because it has failed with its observance of the best of feral traditions to form any sort of harmonious cohesion that cannot be construed as purely self-serving,

Both the United States and Al Qaeda are guilty of conducting a 'War on Terror' that claims the lives of non-uniformed combatants either 'collaterally' or intentionally. The only thing that distinguishes them is that one required some degree of physical proximity and level of technology to form its state whilst the other had to wait for this phenomenon called 'Globalisation' and the 'information-highway' before it could start on the selfsame developmental path as the traditional states.

All political states are dependent on perceptual states. As technology advances and makes gobalisation a reality, the perceptual states advance. Physical proximity is exchanged for meaningful cultural homogeneity facilitated by digital proximity.

The 'War on Terror' is a phrase that depends on previous conceptions of the 'state' for its legitimate conceptual validity. If we were to remove the conceptual restrictions that the idea of the 'state' places on 'cultural consciousness' and what actions are relatively legitimate compared to selfsame actions engaged in out of the context of the state, we would find ourselves hardpressed to argue for the distinctive conceptual existence of the 'War on Terror' as opposed to any inter-state conflict.

The 'War on Terror' as a phenomena distinctive from previous wars does not exist. It is a fallacy that depends on the degree to which we accept the idea of the state as the only legitimate entity within which we ought to makes sense of all reality.

'Terrorism' is an act undertaken by almost all states in their formative years in their efforts to forge a geographically local political entity. Terrorism, again, has come upon us as the 7th horseman, heralding the end of the nation-state as we know it.

(article first published in May 2005 in blogspot)

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

The Fallacy of Disability

nobody@vox.com(Inquisitor) — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 05:53:20 +0000

who's disabled here?

left : Arnold Schwarzenegger, who's unfortunately 'back' in prominence
right : Stephen Hawking, one of the greatest minds in his field and impacting significantly on the course of human history in myriad ways.
left-click on the pictures to learn more

"1. The term "disabled person" means any person unable to ensure by himself or herself, wholly or partly, the necessities of a normal individual and/or social life, as a result of deficiency, either congenital or not, in his or her physical or mental capabilities."

The above is the first item on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights regarding the rights of the Disabled.
~ The full declaration may be found here

Argument 1

1. While the UN ought to be applauded for attempting to promote the rights of the disabled via the Declaration of the Rights of the Disabled, they inadvertently and simultaneously forward and legitimise the notion that the 'disabled' are in fact deserving of the generic category of 'disabled'.

2. To legitimise the view that they are disabled 'generically', the UN will have to show that they are indeed 'generically' disabled.

3. To show that they are 'generically' disabled, as the title 'disabled' implies, the UN will have to prove their 'disability' in all the dimensions of the human persona.

4. To argue that the disability of the 'disabled' is significant, the UN will have to show that the aspects in which they are not disabled would not significantly impact or benefit their own lives, the lives of others or all sentient society in general.

5. The UN will also have to ensure that any deficiency that they may exhibit in their non-disabled potentials is not due to the differentiated or discriminative treatment they might have received due to the biases that may accompany the view of these persons as disabled. This distinguishes between disabilities and socially-motivated disabilities.

6. It is not enough to argue that it is due to the flawed perception of their being disabled that the UN finds it necessary to emphasise the rights of the disabled.

7. It has to be understood that the starting point of discrimination lies in the recognition, and legitimisation, of the validity of various differences as being a significant indicator of variance in ability.

- Ability here has to be understood as a composite of the act and the output. Disability in the former does not necessarily entail disability or inferiority in the latter.

8. By viewing the 'disabled' as disabled, the UN validates the sectocentric critieria against which they are judged to be disabled. (sectocentric - from the perspective of a sector of society)

9. This is acceptable if the criteria against which the 'disabled' are judged is firstly proven to be valid.

10. For this criteria to be proven valid, it has to be shown that it is representative of, or takes into consideration, the entirety of human capabilities, discovered or yet to be discovered, and its relevance to the entirety of circumstances, experienced or yet to be experienced, that has or may present itself for resolution by humanity, and that these circumstances may not draw upon the unique experiences of the allegedly 'disabled'.

11. Crucial to this point is the assumption that unique experiences arising from the physical or mental (which is the 'agent' counterpart of the 'social' - physical/mental=agent, cultural=social) idiosyncracies (mistakenly known as 'disabilities') of individuals generally give rise to intellectual, perceptual and psychological propensities that enables one to impact in varying ways on problematic phenomena.

12. The second point that is pertinent to this is that the abilities, inclinations and propensities arising out of the stated idiosyncracies, but are devalued within one cultural space or time, may, in another cultural space or time, be valued in ways that the 'able' persons of the former cultural space or time were disabled from recognising.

13. If points 9 and 10 are to be taken as true, plausible or probable, then this in effect serves as an argument for the 'disabled' to be perceived, not as equal to the 'enabled', but as potentially 'enabled' in ways the rest of us 'non-disabled' persons are not.

14. This would in fact serve as evidence of the disability of the non-disabled.

15. In this sense, 'disability' may be seen as the shutting off of a valve that simultaneously enables a greater and more concentrated flow of energy in particular directions that the 'non-disabled' will not be able to effect.

16. In other words, enabling simultaneously disables and disabling simultaneously enables - in varying directions, intensities and proclivities.

SUM

This article calls for the recognition of a more representative reality of disability that is cognisant of the fact that disability is simultaneously an indication of ability and vice versa.

That it would be more accurate to term 'disability' as 'idiosyncrasy'.

That the term 'idiosyncrasy' be utilised not as a referential term for the 'disabled' but as one requiring a prefix when applied to all persons. i.e. physical, mental, intellectual, perceptual, etc, idiosyncrasies.

That these idiosyncrasies be viewed simultaneously as an indication of both ability and disability.

This article recognises everyone as idiosyncratic but in various dimensions, degree and combinations with regards to the entirety of the human phenomenon.

That the salience of the aid extended to another ought not to be indicative of disability. i.e., helping one in a mathematical problem is less salient than helping one up the steps. Both assume disability of the one in need of help.

(article first published in May 2005 in blogspot)

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

In Defense of Yasukuni Jinja

nobody@vox.com(Inquisitor) — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 05:51:01 +0000

Fact : There are no deities of Class A War Criminals housed in the Yasukuni Jinja.

1. objectively attributable intent behind the visits

What most of these critiques ignore is that the Yasukuni Jinja is a commemoration of those who had died in all the wars and conflicts from the Meiji Restoration onward and cannot necessarily, nor specifically, be of those particular wars and atrocities in question.

To discern the intent of this commemorative exercise, one cannot point to particular wars, particular persons or particular actions as an indication of the intent behind the commemorative event. It is the common or core factor shared by, or attributed to, all the wars and conflicts and the intents and purposes of all the fallen that would be most pertinent as an indicator of the necessary or objectively attributable intent behind the commemoration of the war dead.

The objectively attributable intent behind a commemorative exercise is derived from the core and indisputable function of a phenomena. This has to take into consideration the relational context within which this takes place. The relational context consists of entities without which or whom, the core and indisputable function of a phenomena loses purpose. For instance, a relational context involving 'food' and a 'person', identifies the former with a core and indisputable function - that of nourishment. Nourishment itself requires the other entity within the relational context, the person, to exist within it. Now while, a person may engage in eating because s/he may, well, basically have nothing else to occupy his time with, this cannot be the objectively attributable intent behind the act of eating. This can be seen as idiosyncratic or a possible reason for eating which can but remain an assumption on the part of the observer rather than a certainty. All core entities within a relational context depend on each other for meaning.

It must, however, be noted that core entities are not indistinguishable in terms of ascendance. While food does not need the human being for its objective existence as a substance, the same cannot be said in the inverse. Analogously, while the individual does not need the state for her objective existence as a person, the state is dependent on the individual for its existence, validation, and in the context of this inquiry, its deification.

In sum, the objectively attributable intent behind an activity is derived from the core purpose it serves in relation to that which it satisfies. In this context, the attributable intent is derived from the purpose the Yasukuni Jinja necessarily serves in relation to the other entity within the relational context - the state. Just as 'food', in its core purpose, enables 'life', the Yasukuni Jinja 's core purpose must be seen as that which it necessarily realises. The 'life' and significance of the state as an entity worthy of self-sacrifice. The Yasukuni Jinja housing the deities of those who had died at the behest of the state is thus twice deified. One, as the spirits of the dead, and two, as deities receiving their divinity from their prior role as militant pillars of the Japanese State.

2. The commemoration of a phenomena, be it an event, person or thing, is simultaneously a commemoration of an overarching phenomena.

For instance, to commemorate an individual is to commemorate the person's significance to and within the family, community or other social groups. S/he is not commemorated for her individuality along with her potentials but the extent to which this individuality and potentials can be, or have been, a potential validation/realisation of the significance of the larger social group or powerful other.

Analogously, 'Saints' and 'Sinners' are conceived, not by virtue (pun intended) of their acts but by the extent to which their respective attitudes and behaviour is concordant or discordant with the alleged dictates of the God of a particular faith. Without this relational context, both 'Saints' and 'Sinners' cease to exist as such. Thus, every 'Saint' becomes an extra jewel in the crown s/he will never wear while every 'Sinner' is a thorn in the side of the validity of the faith.

As far as the interests of those who allegedly govern in 'God's name' is concerned, it would be prudent of them to assume the 'state of grace' of every sinner who has died for his nation and who's yet to be proven guilty of any 'mortal' crime against the state, than to assume the sinfulness of everyone which can only serve to compromise the significance of the source of its earthly mandate.

note: we should keep in mind that 'crimes against humanity' and 'crimes against the state' are not one and the same. Crimes against humanity can be construed as crimes against the state insofar as the state comprises the entirety of humanity. The state is one of the paradigms, besides, and amongst others, family, community, ethnicity, humanity, through which crimes against humanity achieves a dual reality. One may not do unto one's own that which the state deems legitimate if done unto another. War is one such phenomena within which this duality is evidenced.

In the context of the state, the commemoration of the war dead is a recognition of the sacredness of an act that derives its sanctity from the prudentially assumed intents and purposes of the war dead insofar as these are not proved to be incongruent with that which is expected from a relationship between a 'saint and her God' or in this context, 'the soldier and her/is State'.

Cults precede saints and martyrs, whilst saints and martyrs precede religion.

The war dead precede the deification of the state and its transfiguration.

The commemoration of the war dead, the contemporaries of the 'saints' and 'martyrs' of pre-modern traditional religion, is an effort to validate a theocentric circle at the epicentre of which is located the state. The war dead are the ultimate examples of state worship as indicated by their allegedly well-informed, and therefore 'voluntary', self-sacrifice. In this context, self-sacrifice at the alter of the state, for the state and by the state.

3. The respective directives and perspectives of various regimes are not the necessary for or definition of the commemorative exercise...

...but rather that of how the directives of the state had been, and therefore ought to be, obeyed without question. It is an instance of the state attempting to justify present loyalty by the assumed unquestioning loyalty of past adherents to the religion of the state. It is, in effect, a historical moral exemplar for the 'citizens' of today.

One also ought to remember that directives that are, in hindsight, viewed as atrocitous or regrettable are oftentimes viewed as legitimate at the time of their issuance. The cultural standards of the present serve a dual function as the advocates of that which may be considered as atrocities tomorrow and the prosecutors of those of yesterday. This has remained unchanged throughout history and there is no reason, in view of the certainty of continuing human fallibility, to assume the inverse of the present.

The orders of those respective regimes draws its legitimacy not from its content but from its source - The State. The war dead, thus, become the moral exemplars for the living. Not for the evils that they as individuals had done or for the evils that they as armed representatives of the state had perpetrated, but for what they as faithful adherents of the religion of the State have not failed to do - accord unquestioning obeisance to the will of the state even at the cost of their lives.

aside: The only true aethist is one who is devoid of any motivational belief. Substitution of one God for another is a poor argument for aethism. Every living individual subscribes to a belief/s, be it in the Buddha, the State or her/imself. All of these qualify as 'Religion' by the fact that 'Faith' is an intrinsic part of one's experience of any of them. Show me an aethist and you show me the dead.

4. The commission of atrocities in the course of an attempted adherence to the directives of respective regimes are not the necessary focus of a commemorative exercise...

...unless it can be established that the commission of these atrocities were the core aims of the directives of all the respective regimes whose war dead are enshrined. The commission of atrocities are not necessarily an affront to the divinity of the state insofar as they do not compromise the general attitude toward the state as detailed in 2-3. The state’s explicit directives are not transgressed by such acts. The war dead had ‘given unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar’ - their very lives. That which s/he keeps unto herself, via atrocitous deeds, does not invalidate what s/he gives to Caesar.

5. The enshrining of those deemed to be 'war criminals' is justified by their not having violated any of that enumerated above.

Number 4 is especially applicable here. The deification of 'war criminals' does not call into question the war dead's previous blind unquestioning loyalty to the state which is the central focus of the commemoration of the war dead. Caesar is mocked not by that which you do but that which you fail to do that compromises the interests of Caesar.

6. One should also note that in Japanese Culture, the dead are absolved of their crimes...

One should also note that in Japanese culture, the dead are absolved of their crimes. Their veneration is not viewed as a validation of the moral sense/lessness they displayed whilst amongst the land of the allegedly 'living'.

Most criticisms of the Yasukuni Jinja arise from the application of their respective cultural standards. For instance, in Chinese culture, the exhumation of bodies for posthumous punishment is not unheard of, whilst the Judaeo-'Christian' tradition views the soul as a carrier of the sins and virtues of their mortal past which, in turn, determines their internment in either a 'hell' or a 'heaven'. For the Chinese and the West to demand the removal of those deities deemed as war criminals is nothing short of ethnocentric cultural arrogance. In this sense, there are no deities of 'Class A war criminals' being housed in the Yasukuni Jinja as their 'criminal' status, if it is to be deemed as such, is one they had enjoyed whilst in the land of the living. Just as we do not prosecute those who suffer complete amnesia after the commission of a crime, to demand the removal of those deities deemed to 'Class A war criminals' is to wrongfully attribute guilt to those who cease to exist as such within the spiritual realm.

7. Finally, the dominance of the Shinto religion in Japan at present is due to the efforts of the Japanese administration to ensure the subservience of the populace to the will of the state...

... in counterposition to the morality of the previously dominant Buddhism. The latter was deemed to be antithetical to Capitalism and the cultivation of the hadean spirit required to ensure its success or at least diminish any opposition arising from an antithetical system of beliefs.

With Shintoism, an individual is relieved of accountability in the next life for actions in the present. It was only the state s/he was accountable to. This was achieved through the effecting of state policies at the onset of the Japanese confrontation with the west in the colonial era and the realisation that adapation to western ideals and perspectives was necessary to prevent colonisation. This would explain why the deities are not deemed to be 'war criminals' by the Japanese themselves as this would only serve to undermine the basis upon which the Japanese state would be able to accord itself the role of the arbiter of morality complemented by a religion that absolves its citizenry of any wrong doing committed in this life at the behest of the state. The 'citizen' is thus morally enabled to do as the State states without any or little conscientious repurcussions.

If we look at the west, we'll find that a similar process took place at the advent of capitalism and the rise of the modern nation-state. Whilst the west modified traditional religion to accomodate capitalism, the Japanese ought to be credited with a more honest eradication of it altogether.

8. If we are to agree that the supremacy and divinity of the state is evidenced by the commemoration of the assumed or attributed intents and purposes of the war dead....

..., as discussed above, then we also ought to agree that the proponents of the separation of the church and state have mistaken this contradistinction in name as indicative of a contradistinction in personality and function.

The state’s assumed supremacy and divinity is best illustrated in its view of the individual in the fact that if one is shot for desertion, s/he is killed not for betraying her/is family, but for betraying the state. Till the state can be proved beyond even a fleeting hint of a shadow of a doubt that it is an extensive and equitable representation of all of the people all of the time, its claims to being the ‘family collective’ is suspect. (It is strange that we apply such a standard with regards to the family and yet fail to apply these selfsame standards when it comes to this modern family collective.) In the face of such uncertainty, any claims to the right of life and death over individuals is a claim, or more appropriately, a usurpation of the rights of traditional divinity.

Unless explicitly stated, or at the satisfaction of condition 4, the necessary focus and definition of the commemoration of the war dead is not that of individual wars, atrocities or the idiosyncracies of the individuals. It is a celebration and validation of that which the State claims to deserve of its citizens.

Undying loyalty till death do they part.

Therefore,

1. The Yasukuni Jinja should be dismantled and visitations by political figures stopped if the state is deemed to be an atrocity in itself.

2. The Yasukuni Jinja should be dismantled or visitations by political figures stopped if unquestioning allegiance to the state becomes an atrocity in itself.

3. The Yasukuni Jinja should be dismantled and visitations by political figures stopped if war in the name of the State is deemed to be an atrocity in itself.

4. And even if conditions 1-3 are met, that would not render those who had fought, killed or died whilst in pursuance of activities that were not incongruent with the explicit will of the state, 'war criminals', but rather victims of misconceptions arising from the fallibility of the State.

The Defence of Yasukuni Jinja is a Defence of the State.

AMEN.

(article first published in May 2005 in blogspot)

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

The Big 'C'

nobody@vox.com(Inquisitor) — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 05:48:50 +0000

A string of persons transcending time and space stand in a circle.

A circle so wide that an individual standing at any point is unable to see the one in front of her at directly the opposite end.

They each hand something to the next one in line.

Some add to it, some subtract from it and some just merely pass it on.
Some do it intentionally, some do it reluctantly and some do it unintentionally.
Some put together parts of that which they receive before passing it on whilst others take some of it apart before passing it on.

Some add that which they think is insignificant but which is deemed otherwise by the next one in line.
Some add that which they think is significant but which is deemed otherwise by the next one in line.
Some add that which is significant but which is received unnoticed by the next one in line. Some add that which is insignificant but which is attributed significance by the next one in line.

Some do all of the above, without even realising it.

At some point in time and space a recipient of the cumulative produce of many hands and minds, stops, looks at what's been placed in his hands,

Smiles,

Turns,

And applies,

For Copyright.

~~~~~~~~~~

epilogue

Who deserves credit, the producer of the idea or the one who translates it to a particular language?

Selfishness is automatically disabled from appreciating nothing but the most salient of phenomena - the IDian interests of the self and that which is received by the senses occupies the core. Thus, the self is naturally seen as the Genesis of all that issues forth from this Self. It takes a higher intelligence to appreciate the intermediary character of one's efforts and produce.

So what is the Big 'C'?

It is the Contradictory force within the Circle that defies and denies the reality of the continuity and significance of collective contribution, as denoted by the surrounding circle, transcending space, time and consciousness, to all achievement and the achievement of all.

"The Rich profit from it
The Poor depend on it
But the rest of Humanity,
Just fall victim to it."

~ the Heretic ~

(article first published in May 2005 in blogspot)

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Nigger Nation

nobody@vox.com(Inquisitor) — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 04:00:32 +0000

“ City Council bans the use of the N-word

banned the word nigger yesterday in a symbolic crackdown on the widespread use of the term in hip-hop songs, in films, and on the city's streets.”

Guardian

The term ‘nigger’, though historically utilised as a derogatory term of dis-endearment in reference to those of African biological origin, now serves a different purpose. When used between ‘blacks’, it is used to indicate an alternative and subsidiary identity to that of the all-encompassing ‘national’ one. However, when used by ‘whites’ and non-‘blacks’, it is still viewed as a derogatory term.

This is an interesting phenomenon.

Firstly, we see a people being widely and derogatorily referred to via the term ‘nigger’ – in the colonial and early post-colonial period. In this phase, when a ‘black’ uses the term, s/he accepts her subjugated and ‘inferior’ status as a real one – whether s/he agrees with it or not. However, in the following phase, and especially with the elevation of ‘black’ culture, which was a reaction against the attributed inferior status, the term ‘nigger’ took on a meaning different to the preceding phase. Here, the term begins to be re-associated with the relatively elevated status of the ‘black’ whilst its antagonistic position in relation to the ‘whites’ remains - which is especially so since this new culture was borne of reaction against 'white' domination as opposed to a culture that emerges in non-antagonistic integrationist or assimilationist fusion with the existing culture. The term ‘nigger’ begins to mean, “We made it despite you whilst amongst you. Thus, we are we and you are you.” The ‘racist’ term thus takes on a racist meaning only when used by ‘whites’ as the new meaning of the word is drawn built and drawn along the same lines as it once was. This is when it becomes a racialist term when used by 'blacks' that views the 'whites' as a society apart.

Thus the ‘nigger nation’ is formed - consciously and conscientiously aware of their roots as a nation treated shabbily by the colonial banditry, and, as equally aware of, or believing that their elevation was achieved despite the progeny of their enslavers and the underdevelopmental path that had been plotted for them.

"At its worst, the N-word is the ultimate form of disrespect against black people. It is a dangerous snake which is liable to bite," he [Roy Miller] told the Guardian.

- Roy Miller, a lawyer from , , was invited to speak to a committee of the council when it debated the resolution on Monday.

What Roy fails to realise is that in its best form, it is a sign of ultimate respect when used by ‘blacks’ on ‘blacks’ in a variety of contexts as it serves as a constant reminder and acknowledgement that the once subjugated ‘nigger’ is now, relatively speaking, a triumphant one. The ‘nigger’ has redefined the social status formerly associated with the word whilst keeping the word as a symbol of their triumph over what they were intended to be by their colonial masters – the same applies in the case of ‘blacks’ exchanging ‘chains of slavery’ to ‘chains of gold’. If racist terms are utilised less in the course of a nation’s history, it is usually because the developmental path and persona of the marginalised were fused with the privileged. If this is not the case, as it is in this context, it is a sign that the development of the marginalised is perceived by them to be apart from the ‘whites’ – and especially where these once racist terms are used by the marginalised on themselves despite their relatively elevated status. This is a case of prior racism begetting racialism - where the 'blacks' view themselves as a group apart from rather than a part of.

Such usage of the 'N-word' is a subconscious recognition of their being a nation apart despite the nation they are all a part of.

If the New York City council wants to relegate the ‘N-word’ to the dustbin of history, they ought to do so in appreciation of the aforementioned perspective, and do so for the sake of undermining the currently observed historically antagonistic relationship between the ‘Nigger’ and the white via, amongst other means, the term ‘nigger’.

usa news racism discrimination racialism sociology uk slavery

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

The Fallacy of 'Per Capita Incomes'

nobody@vox.com(Inquisitor) — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 14:22:20 +0000

In brief,

In considering per capita incomes, one would have to take into account, amongst others, the 'per capita debt'(debt which is enforced upon all via, amongst others, housing/education costs) and 'per capita liabilities'(amongst others, healthcare costs). Thus, an individual earning 'less' in a semi-socialist state than her/is counterpart in a bourgeoiscratic one may actually be earning more in real terms than the latter.

It is not what one earns but how much of it one gets to keep unconditionally, and how much of what is taken away comes back to oneself that determines the significance of research done on ‘per capita incomes’. Without taking this into consideration, comparisons between countries is nonsense.

Additionally,

'per capita incomes' may have the effect of allowing a significant proportion of the population to think that the stated (local) high 'per capita income' is an amount that may be aspired to as it is already a local reality - albeit applicable to only a small sector of the local population. In other words, since it is supposed to be the 'per capita income' for the particular country, it may be perceived to be an amount that anyone of the local populace might aspire to. This may have the effect of perpetuating the miserable conditions suffered by many amongst the local populace - especially if the 'per capita income' figure is bloated by the amount earned by a small proportion of the population - since little will be done to agitate for the closing of the chasm between the rich and poor.

Of course, to realise this, the respective populations have to be in possession of significant ‘per capita' and 'per individual' intelligence.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

The Paradox of 'Top Givers'

nobody@vox.com(Inquisitor) — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 05:19:37 +0000

The Guilty

Businessweek published a list of what they term, ‘The Top Givers’, which, amongst others, included Bill Gates. What Businessweek forgot to mention is that many of these ‘Givers’ and ‘philanthropists’ also range amongst the ‘Top Expropriators’.

In Truth,

A ‘Top Giver’ is one who ranks amongst the least of the Takers. This is not to say that the least amongst us ought to give the most from the limited pool of resources that we are allowed to retain after the expropriators have extracted their share. Rather, we ought to bring about a system where ‘Top Givers’ are not undone by their simultaneously and oxymoronically being ‘Top Takers’. Where the amount expropriated via ‘taking’ exceeds ‘giving’, the latter becomes nothing but insincere and insufficient restitution.

We ought to aspire towards a society where everyone is a ‘Top Giver’ where ‘taking’ equals ‘giving’. This can only be so where the disparity between ‘taking’ and ‘giving’ is eradicated with extreme prejudice. And this can only be achieved by the complete and utter eradication of the disparity between classes via the eradication of class-based systems.

When one thinks about it, for global misery to be attributed to nature, we cannot have a sector of society taking more than it gives. If this is the case, then we can never say that we have done everything that is humanly possible to eradicate misery. It is the humanitarian disbursement of that amount that makes up the difference between what is taken and what is given that argues for us having done our best.(i.e. we take a $100 and give $20, we are short of $80 in our purported attempt to eradicate global suffering.)

For a slideshow of some of those who hold the difference between taking and giving in their bloated coffers, and who, with the connivance of the political, economic and psychological infrastructure of the capitalist system, have perpetuated the conditions that give rise to millions of deaths annually, go here.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend