The sham of representative democracy in the Ultra-West

“Australia’s political system, as a whole, is based on the indi­vidualism underpinning the political and social ethos of the relatively new nations of the West created by European immigrants; viz. the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand being the nations of interest to us. I term them the Ultra-West. Their tribes are almost all political, even if tinged heavily by reli­gion, or otherwise coloured slightly by ethnicity.”

“My unusual experi­ence with Australian representative democracy at its three levels of government says that it is quite a sham. Its advantage over tribal or other forms of leadership is that our political leaders can be replaced from time to time – but, to what end? Since the tribes of Western democracy, the political parties, would remain permanently on the pitch, how is the nation better off?

Isn’t our choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, there being little difference in modern times between their poli­cies? In the dark of political control, all cats are grey, remaining categorically self-centred; like cats at dinner time, our political parties at election time offer voters unlimited love!”

“Elected pol­iticians are required by their party leaders not to ever rock the boat. It is party policy which denies us voluntary euthanasia, (sought by about 80% of voters) indicating quite clearly that the Vaticanites have achieved control of both sides of politics in Australia.”

“In this context, how different are we from non-European nations ruled by a theocracy, or a god-king, or the military, or a satrap of a dominant foreign power, with some camouflage provided by a form of election?”

“We effectively vote for a party, the candidate being of no significance. He is not going to become rich through our vote for him. It does not matter if the candidate is a prize donkey, a failed priest or business person, or a young party hack, or a nobody with powerful connections, or a dyed-in-the-wool trade union leader. Actually, in terms of a knowable track record, a union leader may be a sound bet because of an identifiable work experience. There is nothing more insulting than to be offered a candidate of, say, 20 years of age, with no significant work experience, and whose brain is not hard-wired to the functioning level of the average adult!”

“On sensitive issues such as voluntary euthanasia (no one would be killed under such a policy), overseas aid directed to family planning (viz. birth control); replacing the monarchy with a republic; direct election by the citizenry of the presi­dent of a future republic (instead of being appointed by the government of the day); a national bill of rights; the importa­tion of certain medications related to birth control; how do we allow the values of the Vatican and other political conser­vatives to prevail at all times? The view that our lives should be guided by authority – how different is it from the prac­tice of the former Soviet, or the current rule by the Chinese authorities?”

These are extracts (with minor editing) from my book ‘Musings at death’s door: an ancient bicultural Asian-Australian ponders about Australian society.” My writing reflects more than 6 decades of a highly interactive and contributory life, as an adult, in Australia.  

 

Tribal conflict – a legacy of colonialism

In Europe, the home terrain of the colonial rulers, nations had been created, about five centuries ago, on the basis of coherent tribalism; that is, an occupancy of the land, and a shared history, language, ethnicity and religion.

Within the unrealistic national boundaries created in the colonial territories, one or more lesser tribes became domi­nated by, or subservient to, a larger tribe. The Hindu Tamils of Ceylon, became an unequal political minority in the new nation of Sri Lanka to the majority Buddhist Singhalese after the British left; they seem to have been better off under the British. With the recent end of the claim for regional autonomy in their traditional territories by the Tamils, the Singhalese are reportedly copying the Israelis in infiltrating the lands of the minority (but without any claim that their god gave them the land in a historical past).

The breakdown of the old Yugoslavia, the devolution of political autonomy to the Scots and the Welsh within the United Kingdom, and the split of Czechoslovakia provide sufficient evidence that artificially created nations may not be durable. Pride in their ethnic heritage lead some tribes in such nations to seek independence. In the future, they may seek to merge with their counterparts in other mismatched tribal agglomerations.

For example, the southern Moslem states of Thailand might logically belong with Malaysia. Does the Buddhist nation of Thailand rule the southern states according to Buddhist teachings? Are the Moslem peoples in the southern regions of the Philippines rightly ruled by the Spanish blood-infused Christians of that nation? … …

In the case of Indonesia, with its official cultural toler­ance set out in its praise-worthy principle ‘Panchasila,’ the very wide diversity of its ethno-religious peoples spread over so many islands may mitigate against equitable and efficient governance. Tribalism can be expected to over-ride a shared hoped-for nationalism, especially if the Roman Catholic priesthood has any influence.

When one considers what the British did to the Indian sub-continent, after bringing together a great variety of peo­ples previously ruled as independent entities, one can only wonder at the seemingly unlimited capacity of the relatively tiny (and now unimportant) nations of Europe to create inter-tribal mayhem elsewhere. That their chickens are now coming home to roost, in the form of their former subject peoples now claiming a home with their former ruler, may be seen as cosmic justice. Or, will cheap labour compensate for the presence of the unrespected ‘other’ of yesteryear?

These are extracts from my book ‘Musings at death’s door: an ancient bicultural Asian-Australian ponders about Australian society’

The legacy of European colonial empires

What was the legacy of colonialism? In British Malaya, now Malaysia and Singapore, the positive gains were: the English language, now the language of international rela­tions; Western democracy (for what that is worth); respect for law and order in the British way (but needing some serious improvements to deliver justice); and a form of mul­ticulturalism which is potentially more equitable than the traditional forms.

Colonialism, allied to slavery, ‘blackbirding,’ contract transfer of labour from one colony to another, and free immigration entry as needed, contributed to the juxtaposi­tion (and some intermingling of genes) of diverse popula­tions and cultures. This did enhance inter-cultural contacts and relations between the peoples affected. Did the colo­nies of the Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, Belgian, French and Germans benefit in a similar manner? They were known to be more brutal than the British. Certainly, Ho Chi Minh, the leader of the communist revolution which drove the French out of Indo-China, learned about obtaining independence through revolution during his studies in France.

A cursory scan of some of the better-known empires to see if they offered durable benefits either to the subject peoples or to mankind in general might be of some casual interest. The difficulty inherent in this endeavour is in separating civilisation from empire, the former generally localised but often making a contribution to the future of mankind, the latter often generalised geographically but soon not worthy of remembrance. Civilisations endure. Yet, apart from those of China and India, has there been any substantial long-term continuity of civilisations?

China’s contribution to mankind is the emphasis on good governance, with a passing reference to the Void of the Cosmos. India’s contribution? Metaphysical speculations about the meaning of human existence and its relationship with the Cosmos. The contributions, both artistic and techno­logical, by the empires of old pale into insignificance against the wide range of the contributions of China and India (their current deplorable human rights record notwithstanding).

These are extracts from my book ‘Musings at death’s door: an ancient bicultural Asian-Australian ponders about Australian society’

The modern hegemonic empire

It is the new form of empire, however, that is most inter­esting. This is the hegemonic empire, based on influence (including threats and bribery). Only one exists, and it is almost global. Australia is a respected part of it. The empire of the USA does not physically control any foreign territory (except for a few islands here and there), unlike the Chinese and the colonising nations of Europe. It exercises influence in a variety of ways that are decidedly clever.

It appoints so-called ‘deputy sheriffs’ to safeguard the interests of the West in their respective bailiwicks; it has trade and mutual-defence agreements with nations which seek protection from imagined foes; and it has military bases here, there, and everywhere to protect the nations of the West and their allies. The USA will fight terrorism anywhere and everywhere; defend itself from attack by enemies, real or cre­atively conceived; keep the sea routes open, thereby making other navies unnecessary; sell armaments (its primary objec­tive?), and contain political threats, even imagined ones. This has given it the right to have a foothold in all sorts of places; we Aussies are grateful for such protection!

It also makes generous grants as strategically needed, to keep unpopular, even undemocratic, foreign leaders in power. Their job is to ensure that the needs of the USA, viz. oil and other resources, bases, access routes and export opportunities, are met.

Its deputy sheriff Israel is furnished with the latest weaponry to prevent an Islamic resurgence. This includes the intended breakup of Iraq into three ethno-religious regions; so wrote an Israeli scholar recently. A strong foothold on Iraqi soil will give the US power to over­sight lesser nations and overlook the more powerful. … … The US will also enable Israel to recover Judah and Samarra as that pure Jewish nation that their God decided was OK, even as it works assiduously to bring about ‘peace’ between oppressor and oppressed. Justice? Only the Court of Cosmic Justice can ensure that.

Ethnic cleansing, like ‘rendering’-with-torture, and assassination are acceptable, but only in the interests of protecting Western democracy. Australian politicians who visit Israel without being able to notice the plight of state­less Palestinians couldn’t possibly have any concern with this view of the Middle East of the future.

Thus, acceptable democracy in these nations of interest to the West is one with tribal leadership either adequately constrained or destroyed. The desired tribes are political par­ties. The good news is that there is no intended destruction of native cultures. The bad news is that, without occupying each country of interest, tribalism will continue.

These are extracts from my book ‘Musings at death’s door: an ancient bicultural Asian-Australian ponders about Australian society’

A moral leader of mankind – the USA

What could be the legacy of the US Empire? What do the Monroe Doctrine nations show? What evidence is there of governments in these nations displaying adequate respect for basic human rights, viz. freedom from want, freedom from fear, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and gender equality? How would these compare with the legacy of the British Empire in India? How about good governance, edu­cation, employment opportunities, housing, health services, clean water, toilets, and gender and caste equality?

Or, is it the case that an empire of political and cultural influence, a hegemonic empire, has no concern about such issues; that each government within the penumbra of US influence is autonomous in relation to human rights and associated institutions; that the policies within these coun­tries of interest to the metaphoric ‘godfather’ relate only to international relations, access by the godfather to relevant resources and markets, the purchase of compatible arma­ments labelled ‘Made in USA,’ and a readiness to join killing ‘coalitions of the willing’ under the nominal leadership of the UN or NATO?

Yet, this neo-colonising nation is the only major power which has shown any inclination to protect a minority here and there in the world from being butchered. As well, minority peoples within the USA seem to enjoy equal opportunity, especially if associated with personal initiative, enabling them to rise to positions of some power. Is there any evidence that such opportunity is available in the former colonising nations for those of their coloured chicken who have come ‘home’ to roost?

Thus, the USA can become a moral leader for mankind. Should we Aussies hold to this hope?

These are extracts from my book ‘Musings at Death’s door: an ancient bicultural Asian-Australian ponders about Australian society’

The West needs the USA

Realism requires us to accept that the Western world needs a strong USA to counter China, were this nation to enter into a payback mode; that is, to reprimand all those nations which sought to obtain a foothold on its home ter­ritory in an earlier century. Those incursions caused great damage to the people and their heritage.

But then the Western world needs not only the USA but also a friendly China and a united Europe (including Russia) to contain militant Islam’s growth. Were Islam to take over the world, what would happen to the liquor industry, the Christianising industry, the prostitution industry, and the usury industry? However, since the nations of Europe seem incapable of burying their sectarian or other ethno-cultural differences, one can only hope that the Sunni-Shia divide is like the Rift Valley of Africa.

A final question? Is the USA capable of becoming truly civilised, (that is, to look after all of its people) in order to receive the respect it needs as the leader of free peoples? What it needs to do at home, and how it has to treat other people, are surely self-evident.

These are extracts from my book ‘Musings at death’s door: an ancient bicultural Asian-Australian ponders about Australian society’

Pre-history readable through the zodiac?

I have had real-life experiences to convince me that horoscope reading by experienced Indian astrologers, based on the minute of birth (and its geographic location) enable probabilistic conclusions about a broad view of an individual’s future. However, I am not persuaded that horoscope reading in Western nations like Australia, based on one of the 12 constellations of the zodiac, are reliable. Projected personalities do not match real-life personalities.

Paul LaViolette, a multi-disciplinary scientist and mythologist suggests that the sequence of cosmic ‘houses’ on the zodiac are not in their proper relationship positions.

Nevertheless, does the zodiac as we know it enable us to read pre-history? This is a crucial question. For instance, it appears that the Sphinx in Egypt had a lion’s head originally. Could it have been constructed in the zodiac Age of the Lion? If so, would we now have a date (within a span of 2,160 years for each Age) for its origin? It could be 8,000 BC to 10,000 BC.

I remember reading that a description of a cosmic event in Hinduism’s Vedas (whose oral origin is asserted as before time as we know it) had been dated at about 8,000 BC. Or, could the associated constellation of the zodiac (the ‘house’ against which the sun rises for 2,160 years each time) refer to the previous zodiac cycle 25,920 years before? Why not indeed! Do we know enough to reject this probability?

In the event, could we then focus on the culture or civilisation which produced the Sphinx? In the light of the very limited technology available in that period to mankind, as claimed by the protectors of the current explanatory paradigm,  could we contemplate the probability of extraterrestrial assistance? This may have come from a watery planet from the 3-star Sirius complex – because a moat apparently surrounded the Sphinx originally.

Or, were our then human ancestors so highly civilised and technologically advanced as to be able to cut, lift, shape, and place the huge and heavy stones (the megaliths) – which we are yet unable to handle.

Thus, we have an interesting choice: extraterrestrial involvement or highly civilised and technologically superior human ancestors. While neither seems credible, a choice has to be made.

As to whether the zodiac placed at the ecliptic enables human pre-history to be read depends on what the zodiac actually means, who conceived it, and why it seems to be embedded in a number of cultures of the past. Apart from the link with the precession of Earth, and the apparent usefulness of knowing when to expect the equinoxes and solstices (for agricultural or spiritual purposes?), what does the zodiac tell us? The next probable cosmic catastrophe?

The question of credibility

I asked in a recent post whether the scenario I painted of Earth having been tilted (to about 45%) about 13,000 years ago is credible (ie. plausible). This tilt seemingly caused the great Universal Deluge, attested by so many cultures throughout the globe. This Flood destroyed most of Earth and its population, with a new civilisation commencing about 8,000 to 10,000 years ago.

There is no denying the Flood, or when it happened. Did a tilt of Earth cause it, and the sudden end of the so-called ice age? Ice ages do not end suddenly.

Further, did Earth’s Golden Age, reported by ever so many cultures, end then? How explain this Golden Age? Did not this Age enjoy equable temperatures throughout the year? How could that happen today? Then, why did Siberia and Antarctica suddenly become frozen?

Is the scenario I postulated by calling upon sundry scientific researchers credible? What responses did I expect?

The science-oriented sceptic would ask: Where is the evidence? Yet, in the realm of science, how many speculative unproven hypotheses masquerade as facts? I instance the Big Bang Theory of cosmology; Darwin’s Theory of Evolution; and Punctuated Equilibrium (seeking to explain the appearance of fully-formed new or modified species). There is a more plausible alternative explanation available for each of these.

Another category of sceptic includes: those who claim (without proof) that our current civilisation is the most advanced ever (let us then ignore the great monoliths which we cannot explain or replicate); and those who claim to be the Chosen People or the Nation of Exceptionalism (how nice!).

The third category denying plausibility, much less probability, includes those who respond immediately thus: “I don’t believe it”; when the question is simply “Is this scenario plausible?” I am not sure if any of us is competent to go beyond plausibility. Then there are those who want to argue about the scenario, based on what they consider to be ‘first principles.’ But do look at how far religious, or even scientific, dogma has taken us in understanding human origins, our place in the Cosmos, and the origin and nature of the Cosmos.

If we want to know, we need to open our minds. Consider how many Ages (Suns) have been destroyed (according to the Mayans). From another framework, are we on the way to the Sixth Extinction (while murmuring ‘That could not have happened’)?

Encouraging quotes (2)

“Talent is cheaper than table salt. What separates the talented individual from the successful one is a lot of hard work.” – Stephen King
“Character cannot be developed in ease and quiet. Only through experience of trial and suffering can the soul be strengthened, ambition inspired, and success achieved.” – Helen Keller

“I decided, very early on, just to accept life unconditionally; I never expected it to do anything special for me, yet I seemed to accomplish far more than I had ever hoped. Most of the time it just happened to me without my ever seeking it.” – Audrey Hepburn
”Often we women are risk averse. I needed the push. Now, more than ever, young women need more seasoned women to provide that encouragement, to take a risk, to go for it. Once a glass ceiling is broken, it stays broken.” – Jennifer Grahnolm
“Get going. Move forward. Aim High. Plan a takeoff. Don’t just sit on the runway and hope someone will come along and push the airplane. It simply won’t happen. Change your attitude and gain some altitude. Believe me, you’ll love it up here.” – Donald Trump
“This too shall pass.” – Persian Sufi Poets
( From ‘Keepinspiring.me’)

 

 

 

The excesses of exceptionalism

A claim of national exceptionalism has infused the global political scene. It is a version of the ‘chosen people.’ We now have a Western nation which, since about 70 years ago, has claimed the right to extend its influence over the nations of Central and South America to intervene in the affairs of nations all over the globe. Its approaches are multifarious. Its rationale (or rationalisation) reflects tactical creativity, backed by high-sounding concepts implying lofty moral intent.

Seemingly allied to (unidentified) local nations with possibly less-than-lofty intent, and ambitious conglomerations seeking to occupy high chairs, an effort to damage axes-of-evil nations or leaders has led to terrible tragedy in the Middle East. What has been the gain to this nation claiming to be exceptional and to its allies?

On the contrary, the penultimate claim of exceptionalism, by a cluster of nations in Europe – the ‘innately’ superior ‘white race’ colonising a great swathe of each continent over half a millennium – achieved substantial material advantages to these nations, with a side-benefit of accruing many coloured souls to the bosom of Christ.

Christian colonialism, however, destroyed or damaged many societies all over the world, and left a legacy of ongoing tribal conflict everywhere. The European nations have now effectively returned to their own borders. Their recent efforts to achieve a united Europe are, interestingly, being undermined by the odd member-nation seeking the benefits of communalism while exercising the rights of individualism.

There is also a re-vitalised Asian nation now claiming to be exceptional. It relies upon ‘traditional’ ownership of adjoining lands and sea. Were this nation to adopt a ‘pay-back’ stance in relation to those Western nations (plus Japan) for the depredations caused by the latter over a couple of recent centuries, the exceptionalism claims of both nations will be constrained.

After all, there can be only one large mastiff in any paddock. With two, there will be competition, with terrible collateral damage most probable. The current debacle in Syria and Iraq will look like a sandpit squabble were there to arise a battle as to whose exceptionalism is bigger.

Empires do tend to fade into the sunset. Protection for the small nations can, in the meanwhile, be provided by a global governance under the mantle of a tripartite agreement between, say, three powerful nations. Alternatively, a number of agreed spheres of interest may avoid the terrible destruction resulting from the excesses of exceptionalism.