There are many things wrong with the EU: To leave or not to leave that is the question

I have much experience of the European Union (EU) having been involved in European Commission research programmes since the 1980s. There is much that needs to change, as the saga of the former chief scientific advisor and the contempt that she demonstrated for those elected to the European Parliament, well demonstrates. One of the biggest problems with the EU is the European Commission, about which I have many disturbing stories to tell, and DG CONNECT’s ICT-ART CONNECT (STARTS) initiative will be a classic!

The UK is an advocate for change and should therefore take on this monster that the European Commission has become. A hard task for sure, but not an impossible one.

In my book A Tale of Two Deserts I wrote the following:

“This is the power of one; it can change anything! Plant the seed of a tree today, and next year there is a young sapling, but in a hundred years, though, there may be a small wood, and in a thousand years, a forest. This is how we can transform and heal the world. No one needs to be hurt and no one has to die to create a better place for all. Someone just needs to say, ‘that which is now will be no more’, and to peacefully start making this so. The climate of thought will eventually begin to change and others will start to see the value and join in.”

The power of one can change the EU. This is a positive perspective. We should be seeking harmony, inclusion, sharing, and cooperation and not surrendering to the power of money. Alas there are many extremists who are looking to the past and offering simple and damaging ideas based on nationalism, which seems to be the only alternative to the EU. It’s that binary thinking again! And it seems to me that the European Commission is playing into the hands of the extremists by providing them with the ammunition they need, with DG CONNECT’s ICT-ART CONNECT (STARTS) initiative being an example: a case of the European Commission meddling in matters they do not understand and surrounding themselves with people with conflicts of interest, who are happy to speak words that reinforce the Commission’s delusion that it knows what it is doing (Charming Snakes & also the Director General’s New Clothes (coming soon)).

To leave or not to leave that is the question. And we the British people will be asked this question in 2017. In the past I would have said that we should not leave, but now I am not so sure. So self-evidently I will be returning to this matter in due course.

Charming snakes

Black snake oil …

The conceited black snake was worried for black snake oil was failing and black snakes and their industry were being questioned. People were rejecting black snake oil and discovering that better snake oil could be found elsewhere. Black snakes self evidently needed to become more ‘creative’ so that black snake oil would be more innovative. By becoming more innovative, it was hoped, black snake oil could be embedded more gracefully into society, or, to put it another way – black snakes would be able to manipulate people into accepting black snake oil.

The black snake, predatory as ever, caught sight of the white snake and saw in it an opportunity to reacquire some credibility and relevance, these now being long lost. It then rose up slightly from its coiled position and looked at the unsuspecting white snake.

The white snake had been lying quietly, in its innocence and naivety, and noticed the attention that the devious black snake was paying to it.

“That black snake is interested in me,” thought the white snake, and, feeling charmed, it too rose up and both then they looked at each other, neither blinking, for neither could.

The black snake too, even with its sense of superiority, was charmed, and it said to itself, “the white snake is interested in me.” Whereupon it said, “I thought perhaps that we might CONNECT black snake oil with white, and explore its innovative potential.” It then moved its head to its left, rising a little higher as it did so.

“Oh fantastic,” thought the poor white snake, who was now much charmed. “The black snake is interested in white snake oil.” Whereupon it said, “oh yes, black and white snake oil must surely go together.” Then the white snake moved its head to its right, it too raising its head slightly higher.

The evil black snake was now even more charmed, because the gullible white snake wanted to CONNECT, and it thought to itself, “I was right, the white snake does have something that can enhance the creativity of black snakes and improve black snake oil.” And then it said to the lowly white snake, “we should CONNECT black and white snake oil for this would be new.” Then it moved its head to its right, positioning it even higher in the process of doing so.

The white snake followed suit, and moved its head to its left and slightly higher, feeling now very charmed indeed, and thinking, “the black snake thinks that CONNECTING black and white snake oil is new, so it said, “indeed we should CONNECT black and white snake oil, for this surely would be something new.”

The devious black snake was now feeling very proud and charmed beyond anything that it had experienced previously, and it said to itself, “ah, so CONNECTING black and white snake oil is new, just as I thought,” so it said to the increasingly charmed white snake, as it, the black snake, moved its head to its left and even higher, “we should undertake a study to show that CONNECTING black and white snake oil is indeed innovative and worth doing to enhance the creativity of black snakes.”

The white snake was now lost in its desire to please the black snake and it moved its head to its right and tried hard to raise its head up to the level of that of the black snake, but failed to do so. As it did this, it thought to itself, “oh, it wants to do a study that will show just how innovative CONNECTING black and white snake oil is and how it will enhance black snakes’ creativity.” So it said to the deluded black snake, “I am very charmed that you think that white snake oil is so worthy of your consideration, but obviously it’s the sort of study that only white snakes can do.”

“Yes indeed, and so it shall be” said the black snake which was now feeling so charmed that its vainglorious character became so obvious, but also thinking to itself, “and just to be certain, I will oversee this so that we arrive where I want to be.” It then shifted its head once more to its right and rose even higher.

The sad little white snake, feeling charmed to a degree never before experienced, did then look into the matter of CONNECTING black and white snake oil, and low and behold it did indeed find new evidence of the efficacy of CONNECTING these two snake oils.

The white snake had faithfully followed every move made by the devious black snake. As the black snake had just moved its head to its right once more, the white one also moved its head, this time to its left, but it was not now able to reach the height of the black snakes head. And then the white snake said, “behold new evidence.”

And the white snake was just thinking, “this is just what is needed …”, when – the evil black snake had seen enough, and being charmed now in the extreme, it CONNECTED with the white snake by biting it, devouring it whole, digesting it, and then, feeling charmed within itself, it set about doing that which it had always done, only calling it something different, with the result that it produced:

Black Snake oil …

All human life is sacred …

‘All human life is sacred and the taking of a human life is wrong; there are no exceptions’

(Enigma, 2013)

And who exactly do you hear saying such a thing these days. Richard Dawkins? No. Secular Politicians? No. Deluded former chief scientific advisors? No. Vainglorious scientists speaking about the nature of reality as if it were possible for humans to perceive reality? No. Economists espousing the dogma of free markets? No. Western atheists preaching their gospel? No. Communists with their sole truths? No.

Where then? Actually the answer is those people who truly understand and put into practice their religion based on love, compassion and forgiveness. And the fact that there are so called religious people who do not abide by the ‘absolute prohibition’ on the taking of human life, should serve as a warning about ‘secular people’ who do not even recognise that: ‘all human life is sacred and the taking of a human life is wrong; there are no exceptions.’ If people whose beliefs are based on the concept that taking a human life is fundamentally wrong, can engage in so much murder and killing, what chance do you think secularists (who do not embrace the idea of the sanctity of human life) have, of not engaging in the killing of human beings when they find it convenient to do so?

Fortunately you do not need to think too much about this for history demonstrates the answer to this question. How many people do you think have died as a result of Science, Capitalism, Communism, Western Atheism? The answer: hundreds of millions. I rightly hear lots of condemnation of killing in the name of region, but people of the Western world are very quiet when it comes to condemnation of killing in the name of … those things that they are part of and hold dear in their minds. So … ‘let he who is without sin cast the first stone.’

If we do not change as people, we will continue with the madness that has brought, and continues to bring, suffering into our world. The madness comes from one place – the human mind, the place of so-called reason, which allows people to reason that there are ‘exceptions’ to the absolute rule that all human life is sacred and the taking of a human life is wrong. Thus I repeat my message:

‘All human life is sacred and the taking of a human life is wrong; there are no exceptions’

“And you men are the worst offenders when it comes to the violation of this. Yes it’s me Julia, once more! xxx”

Back in Time for Dinner – the beef turned out to be unsafe to eat!

“We should show a little trust!” said the former chief scientific advisor.

“Really,” responded Nemesis. “You seem to have fallen in love with yourself and your science, and can no longer see or understand the consequences of what you do and say.

“And this is the punishment that falls on you and all those who engage in hubris.”

I recently watched an excellent BBC social history programme where one family re-lived the experience of food in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. It was fascinating to see how food has changed over this period, from the bare rations and limited choices of 1950s post-war Britain, to the abundance and choice of food in the 1990s, along with the damaging consequences for health.

And in the 1990s programme we were reminded about the BSE crisis, or mad cow disease, and the assurances that the public were given that British beef was safe to eat, and that one could not become infected with the virus by eating beef. These assurances were – incorrect and indeed people did become ill with a terrible disease called new variant ‘Creutzfeldt–Jakob Disease’. People died because of the government’s refusal to act. Fortunately, British people voted with their wallets and stopped buying British beef. And eventually the government did admit that the disease could be transmitted to humans by eating beef, mostly offal, from infected cows.

And how was it that BSE appeared in cows? The answer is that it happened by feeding to cattle, who are herbivores, processed meat products from contaminated animals. This is what happens when scientists and industry mess with nature. Yet another case when the risks could not be managed, and where, there turned out to be consequences.

Now what was it that the former chief scientific advisor said? Oh yes, it was: “We trust industry where it suits us: in the toothpaste we use, the pizza we buy or the car we drive.” But people seem to have a problem in trusting industry when it comes to influencing policy making.”

Now why could that be?

So BSE and feeding herbivores with animal products and the resulting unforeseen consequences for people in the form new variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob Disease – this scandal we know about. But what else is going on in industry with the help of scientists that could be equally damaging, where the claim will be that the risks can be managed and that there will be no consequences?

“Now you know why you should not trust industry, scientists, governments and chief scientific advisors, former or otherwise,” Nemesis said.

“Now you know that fortune and glory are more important than human lives and health. Now you know what the rule of science and reason will result in and what scientific government will be like. Now you know why, possibly, the chief scientific advisor became the former chief scientific advisor. Now you know why, with all their faults, we need politicians who are the people we nominate to deal with these issues on our behalf, and why we need to de-power industry and scientists and many others. This is what democratic politics should be about.”

Nemesis paused for a few moments, allowing these words to percolate into the mind. Then he continued.

“The alternative is authoritarianism and totalitarianism, like for example, scientists having a seat in government and telling politicians what to do, which is what the former chief scientific advisor is seeking. And this is a road we have already walked – in Nazi Germany and in the Soviet Union. Remind me … how many people did these monsters kill?

“The more you say, the more you reveal your delusions and hubris, and the more you will be punished …”

When woman was taken from man, man started doing and saying stupid things!

And the man said: “Let me tell you about my trouble with girls … three things happen when they are in the lab … You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticise them, they cry.”

And then the man said: "I am sorry for what I said, but I did mean what I said.”

A male European scientist = see my previous blogs about having this triple baggage! QED.

Some other men said things like: “He’s a bit nutty for sure but he is a brilliant scientist, so it’s okay and let’s just continue as before.”

The factual information:

The first remark was made by Tim Hunt, an English biochemist who has previously admitted that he has a reputation for being a ‘chauvinist’. He uttered his now infamous words at the World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul, South Korea. The second follow-up remark came in a BBC interview.

He had to resign from his honorary post as professor at UCL. UCL said: “UCL was the first university in England to admit women students on equal terms to men, and the university believes that this outcome (resignation) is compatible with our commitment to gender equality.”

The other remark (what other men said) is what you get from a male dominated profession where women are seen and treated as inferiors, where gender equality is just window dressing, and where the only way for women to succeed is by behaving like men – remember the former chief scientific advisor!

There is no place in science, engineering, technology or mathematics for male chauvinists – no matter how brilliant. Nor is there any place for anyone who thinks this can just be passed over and excused because the person concerned is brilliant. Such people also need to resign. So why are there so many such people willing to say stupid things? Is the answer 'because they are men or women behaving like men?'

And now for a jest! Or is it?

“Slipped back the lab this evening. Forgot to bring home the makeup! Saw male colleagues hanging from the light fittings. The head of the lab – the big silverback – the alpha male – was standing on the bench slapping his chest and roaring, asserting his authority over his kingdom. When they caught sight of me, there was a certain eroticism in the air, but the silver back made clear that I was his. I made a hasty retreat.

“What’s that? I am being sexist you say. Now you’re criticising me and hurting my feeling. I think I am going to cry.

“Okay, I apologise, but I did mean what I said. So if it’s okay for the brilliant silverback it’s okay for me. Right?

“What’s that Robert? When you decided to connect ICT and Art, it was to bring artists’ creativity into the ICT programme.

“But this is creativity Robert!

“You mean I am not allowed to apply my creativity to show just how masculine ICT is because it is shaped by male values. I am not allowed to make visible the silent narratives relating to the technocentric, technocratic, positivist beliefs on which the ICT programme is founded, and I must not highlight its technological determinism. I should not question your Enlightenment notions of progress. And certainly I must not question your appropriation of art to the Ideology of Creativity.

“Oh Robert, you are criticising me. My female brain is telling me to cry.

“This is Julia signing off. Kisses to all the guys who want to fall in love with me, but sorry, it won’t work out …”

Julia – enigmatic, unknowable, inexpressible, indefinable, and very unlike some men in DG CONNECT! But it does not mean that you are not nice people – don’t be so binary. 

Being a man is not a disease or a disability – it’s a culture. And a highly inappropriate one! It's a culture that means my children will not have a future worth having, and as a mother this concerns me and motivates me to act against you. That’s another aspect of having a female brain! You men should not take the criticism so personally. Try crying instead of being so petty minded and vindictive!

Julia xxx

PS I’ll be back!

All religions are true …

Ghandi is supposed to have said that “All religions are true.” This is a radically different perspective to that which is found in the West with is Abrahamic worldviews – Judaism, Christianity and Islam. These cannot all be true, so the Western mind thinks. Religion and science: creation vs. evolution. One must be true, but not both, according to Western thought. So, you take your pick, plant your flag where you want to, and then the war begins … This is the madness of the human mind.

How is possible that this great man Ghandi was able to conceive that all religions are true? It is in essence a Taoist perspective. Evidently the West has a lot to learn from the East. And if the East were to embrace its cultural heritage, and build a different form of civilisation, one not based on the European’s self constructed realities, one that the European world could not understand, then … To be continued.

A better world …

Three weeks ago I mentioned the seven Abrahamic worldviews; three religious (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and four secular (Science, Capitalism, Communism, Western Atheism). All seek in their own way to create a better world. All have also created tremendous suffering and bloodshed. Understanding why this is so is important.

And this is my message to all of you (which is a quote from my book A Tale of Two Deserts):

“Whatever you call the better world that you seek, your paradise, you cannot build a kingdom of heaven on ground that is soaked in the blood of people who do not agree with you.”

Many of you still have not learned this lesson. The time for doing so has almost run out, for you now stand before the Gates of Hell (which is something I mention in another book (Encounter with a Wise Man)). Collective denial and delusion though, tell you otherwise. So back once more to the problem of the human mind, which is what it is has all been about – it has been from the very beginning. Did you not know this? Judging by what religious and secular people say about sacred books such as the Holy Bible and the Holy Qur’an, it is clear that most have not understood this. And this notion, that people would not understand, was the idea behind these books, which is not as crazy as it sounds. To be continued …