The Deaf: A culture not a disability

Hanging on the walls of the National Portrait Gallery in London last November was an artwork produced by Grayson Perry with words “The Deaf: A culture not a disability” writ large across it.

Grayson Perry – whose female alter ego is called Claire – is an artist who is a living demonstration that gender is not binary; in every man there is a woman, and this is a natural state-of-being. This observation is relevant to the theme of this week’s blog, which is about perverse notions of what constitutes a normal human being. Here in Europe, humans are only allowed to exist in a binary state-of-being – male of female. States of indeterminacy – people who are both male and female are not recognised. This is because perverse notions of normality in humans have been developed and are a deep rooted characteristic of the European mind. These classifications are also a means of exercising power over people to force normality upon them, with the branding of ‘abnormality’ applied to those who do not submit to this power. Note the word ‘classification’ once again …

This particular blog however in not about gender indeterminacy, but another form of ‘classification’ of the lack of normality – disability. I will have more to say about gender in the future, so for the time being I will focus on the subject of the art object in question, and the European notion of disability and the ‘normal human being’.

The so called disability in question is (mostly) congenital profound hearing loss. So I am referring to people who have been profoundly deaf since birth, whose first language is often not English, but British Sign Language (BSL). BSL, in case you did no realise, is an entirely visual language comprised of signs, gestures and facial expressions. It has no written form, and has its own grammar. It is not signed English.

In keeping with the perversity of European thinking about what constitutes a ‘normal human being’, those who are profoundly deaf and use BSL are considered to be abnormal. They have been discriminated against, patronised, prevented from using BSL, and forced to conform with what the hearing world demands.

According to the medical profession, with its grounding in science and reason, profound hearing loss is a medical condition that has to be diagnosed, treated and, ultimately, cured. But if you were born profoundly deaf, and were brought up to use BSL as your first language, you would not consider yourself as being disabled or abnormal. You would not feel yourself in need of medical assistance. In fact you would consider yourself as part of a distinct culture, not only with its own language, but also with its own history, humour, etc. You would think instead that the disability lies not with those who are part of this culture, but with a (so-called) civilisation that has made life very hard for the profoundly deaf and have persecuted them and sought to destroy this culture. And to avoid any misunderstanding, I am not talking here about what happened in Nazi Germany, but a disgraceful story of the way the profoundly deaf were treated in the UK from the mid–nineteenth century up to very recent times. This is history of the persecution of a minority by the majority who looked to science and reason to justify their actions.

Society though is changing, and the rights of minority cultures are being increasingly recognised. Yet there still persists the belief that being born without functional hearing is abnormal. This is because Europeans are engaged in a quest to become supermen (yes I do mean men, for it is a male thing) and this is part of an obsession with control and domination – the male Will to Power, with its manifestation in science and the desire to reengineer humans so that profound hearing loss disappears from the gene pool. And with this will go a unique culture - and you will call this ‘progress’.

So in what way are people who believe in this stupid notion of ‘progress’ any different from the Nazis?

Genocide and European science

Genocide in Europe …

It will not happen in the same way as was the case for the last two rounds of European genocide. The future genocide will be different from what happened in Nazi Germany and in Bosnia. It will be so different that you will not even recognise it as genocide, for you will give it different names, and those ethicists working in science will condition you and prepare the path so that you will not question it, and just accept it as normal. In fact you will call it, as you always do, 'progress'. The Nazis you see, where brutes, and you are far too sophisticated and advanced to engage in such barbarism. Europe is an 'advanced civilisation', so you will execute the next holocaust in a 'civilised way' with science leading the way.

I say that the Nazis were brutes, but they were also using that very human characteristic and ability called ‘reason’. They reasoned their way to and through the gates of hell, and its realisation in places like Auschwitz, the embodiment of the values and beliefs of the Nazi state, which was … a very European phenomenon, with very strong connections to science and reason.

And next time it will be different because we are now aware of what political (and religious) extremists with perverse ideologies can do. The danger, though, lies in those 'civilised' areas like science which is also an extremism; one with a perverse ideology, but which is not recognised as such. I am here referring to the de-humanization of humans by Western science – you are after all, according to Western science, nothing more than a complex biological machine. And de-humanisation is one of the steps towards atrocities like the holocaust. It is also what enables experimentation on humans – human embryos are not human – they are sub-human, untermench. So ‘reason’ gets to work and you convince yourself that the so-called 'research' is okay. It is 'progress', it is for the common good, it is, as the former chief scientific advisor would say, for the benefit of Europe’s citizens. And you wonder why people create abominations like Auschwitz.

Do you know the story about the frog and the boiling water? If you would be so cruel as to throw a frog into boiling water, it would make a frantic effort to get out – the will to live! If you put a frog in cold water, and then start to slowly heat the water, it will just stay there and slow boil to death. Well this might not be true in practice, but the point is not whether it is true, but to make a point. People slowly adapt, and accept, until matters of have gone too far, by which time it may be too later. This is what is happening to society because of the growing rule of science and reason – the Will to Power.

You are all being treated like the boiling frog and slowly you are being conditioned into accepting that which no sane civilisation would find acceptable. But you are not part of a sane civilisation – you are Europeans, and European do not have a civilisation, just a way of living that destroys everything of value, and then makes a virtue of it, for the only value that matters is the economic one.

Western science, future genocide, killing day old chicks, GM, scientists’ Will to Power, scientific government, the making of money, experimentation on human embryos, Auschwitz, for the benefit of Europe’s citizens: everything is connected …

The nonsense of 'ethics' in European science

Some people think that ethics in the sciences is important and will, in some strange way, help to protect us from the madness of Western science. So I thought that this week I would expose to you the European approach to the 'ethics'.

Last year I came across the following in a LinkedIn ethics discussion group:

“Worldwide, billions of day-old male chicks are killed annually. Although this instrumentalised use of animals is developed in response to the demand for affordable animal protein as food source, this large scale killing of young animals caused societal resistance in the Netherlands (and Germany). Alternatives to the killing of day-old male chicks have been put forward to solve this problem, but each alternative leads to new dilemmas. At first sight, it does not seem logical to use genetic modification to solve such a problem as GM is rather controversial. However, due to the disadvantages of the other alternatives, the GM innovation might be the lesser of two evils. Therefore it is good to have a better understanding of the arguments related to GM in animal food production and whether these arguments change in the context of new innovative developments. The aim of this paper is to study how it is possible that an application of GM in animal food production might be the lesser of two evils. A normative technology assessment on the ethical and social aspects will be conducted using existing literature and expert opinion as input. The GM alternative to the problem of killing day-old male chicks will be used as a case.”

This is what I wrote in response:

“The question highlights the nature of European culture: a bag of bones and entrails dressed up with a little good meat. Ghandi is supposed to have said when asked what he thought of the idea of European civilisation, that “I think it would be a good idea.” And when we do have a European civilisation, people will see the question posed about GM and one-day old chicks, for what it is, the product of a people that live like a plague of locusts, striping the world of its assets and destroying most of what is of value, rather than living life like a lotus. This is not a personal attack, for I am sure you are a very nice person, but its time to stop the type of behaviour that leads to such stupid dilemmas. Nor is this statement a rejection of genetic modification, which is what many European minds will assume, given their love of either/or (binary) thinking (another peculiar characteristic of the modern European mind). As I said in one of my short stories (A Tale of Two Deserts), man’s intellect does recede ...”

Here I would add … especially the intellect of those minds caught-up in the perversity that Western science has become, where regression on minds is accelerating. You perhaps think that 'ethics' will protect and guard against the growing madness that science will inflict upon humanity and nature. If you do, then you are participating in collective denial and delusion. 'Ethics' – it’s about slowly conditioning you to accept the unacceptable. In the end you will be supporting all sorts of perverse activities, and you will call it 'progress'.

The killing of one-day old chicks is an example of the Will to Power – in this case the power of life and death over other life forms. The use of GM to engineer the gender of chicks is an example of the Will to Power – in this case power over nature. The killing of one-day old chicks and the genetic engineering of chicks are both done for one purpose – to make money. Let us not pretend that it is done for the altruistic purpose of providing affordable food.  Money equates to power – another example of the Will to Power. The production of food is just a secondary issue, a means to the achievement of the main objective – money and power.

If you truly want a better and different world, now is the time to oppose this 'masculine' world view. The masculine and the feminine – about this I will be saying much more in the future for evidently it is important. Gender is not binary – sorry all you Europeans, for you are indeed going to have a hard time in the future living in a non-European world.

Western science, future genocide, killing day old chicks, GM, scientists’ Will to Power, scientific government, the making of money, the masculine view of the world: everything is connected …

The vainglorious scientist’s Will to Power

Last week I wrote about the Will to Power and mentioned in doing so, scientists and their Will to Power. No sooner was the blog published than up pops a case in point with a scientist spouting nonsense by questioning the appropriateness of a Member of Parliament to serve on the House of Common’s Science Select Committee, simply because the MP in question is not caught-up in scientific ideology and dogma, unlike that is, the scientist in question, perhaps better described as ‘Mr It’s so Wondrous” who the BBC should retire from our screens on the grounds that its high standards have in the past led to broadcasting legends (like David Attenborough), not broadcasting liabilities.

More journalists with integrity and less of these scientists claiming to be unbiased and having no particular axe to grind, are what are needed, please, BBC, for the latter show how far Western intellect has fallen! From the days of greater thinkers such as Spinoza and Kant, we are now treated to vainglorious scientists passing condescending remarks about an elected Member of Parliament who believes in astrology, calling him a person who is “an outlier on the spectrum of reason”. The discussion on social networks highlighted what one suspects, that the remark was made based on ignorance rather than a well researched and learned understanding of astrology. But the comments were made by a scientist, who is also a European, and also a man. Quite a disability!

And yet Newton, not a scientist, but a natural philosopher, was an alchemistic, and Kepler, who radically altered our view of the solar system, used the Christian concept of the Holy Trinity and with its forces acting on humanity to come to the understanding of the forces acting on planets and the effect of this on their orbits. Both were “outliers on the spectrum of reason”, which is probably why they were so creative. Evidently also, both Newton and Kepler would not be fit to serve on the House of Common’s Science Select Committee!

Scientists may well want to vet people who serve on such committees but my the message to all such people is – get back to your monasteries, for you may well police the boundaries of science with the fervour of a religious fanatic, but you are not going to gain the power that you seek, for the time has come to put the tiger back in its cage. We have had enough of your reductionist thinking, your machine-centric worldview, your simplistic views, your delusions about the nature of reality, your sole truths, your one best way, your binary minds, your … very European and masculine perspectives.

Men’s intellects recede. Perhaps therefore it is time for women to take the lead, provided they are prepared to do away with the masculine nature of modern science and embrace their feminity, rather than betraying it as the former chief scientific advisor and many other female scientists have done. I know it is a man’s world, but you should not be joining their club on their terms. Mastery, dominance and control, which lie at the heart of Western science, are what men bring to science. And the consequences of this are now clear for all to see as dear Rachel Carson made clear in her landmark book, Silent Spring. Yet the matter is not one of binary choice, as you might think from the above, but one of unity of opposites. Europeans will struggle with this! They will also struggle with the notion that gender is not binary. Hard luck, for the future belongs to those who can embrace the unity of opposites (goodbye Europe, hello India and China).

There was a time when university professors appeared on television because they were university professors. Now it seems that the position of professor is given to people because they appear on television, and the university money making machines swing into action. Western science is about men’s kudos, men’s desire for power, and men’s lust for money. And also women’s too, as the former chief scientific advisor well illustrates, if they join this club on the terms and conditions determined by men. 

It is time for change. Everything is connected …

Will to Power

Humans possess a will to live – as do other animals. It is quite natural. Humans also possess, according to the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, a Will to Power. This, as far as it is possible to know, is something unique to humans.

The Will to Power leads to human suffering, death and destruction – it’s the story of humanity, and these things will only be brought to an end when the Will to Power is overcome and channelled towards altruism. And the only way to do that is for individuals to commit themselves to achieving this goal, which if you look carefully, is exactly what Jesus said. Religion in its present form though is not the way to achieve this – it has been an exercise in containment which has also been corrupted by the Will to Power. It is time now to move on and for everyone to begin a journey towards …

I deviate from the point of the blog, which was to focus on the Will to Power. If you want to understand this and where it leads, then the best place to start is a novel called Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell. This book is a work of art, so do not be put off by the strange structure. When you start reading it you will be wondering where the storyline (in actual fact several storylines) is heading, and it will not be until towards the second half of the book that you will see that it is about all the different manifestations of the Will to Power and the consequences and the ways in which people justify these consequences (e.g. progress, or for your own good, etc.), which demonstrates another point – human delusions and denial know no bounds. The Will to Power of scientists is also addressed, along with the corporate Will to Power, the two things now being already the same.

To quote from the end of Cloud Atlas: “Tortuous advances won over generations can be lost by a single stroke of a myopic president’s pen or a vainglorious general’s sword”. To this I would add that these advances can be lost at a stroke by the foolish words and deeds of myopic, reductionist, and deluded scientists, chief scientific advisors and former chief scientific advisors. Now is the time for peaceful opposition to such people. Now is the time to develop a different type of civilisation, where their quest to power will be seen for exactly what it is, and where those who are the slaves of ideology and dogma and who think they are not, will have no place.

Everything is connected …

You need power only when you want to do something harmful …

“You need power, only when you want to do something harmful, otherwise love is enough to get everything done.”

The above was said by Charlie Chaplin and it is true, so next time you hear or read about a scientist, a chief scientific advisor, or a former chief scientific advisor saying that science must have a seat in government, you will know why they are saying this – it’s because they want power so that they can do something harmful. That is the nature of modern Western science.

I do not want any power because all I need to change to world is love.

All power corrupts. Power corrupts politicians, both elected and non-elected, it corrupts business people, and it corrupts scientists, engineers and technologists. Power also corrupts chief scientific advisors and former ones too. And the reason why this is so is because all these people are just frail humans who so easily succumb to the rewards that stem from holding power, and one of those rewards is power – over you, nature and life itself.

Now is to time for peaceful resistance, for peaceful opposition. It is time to drive out of government all those people, like the former chief scientific advisor, who are seeking power, who are so bound to an ideology and its dogma, that they are no longer able to recognise that this is so.

Power, science, genocide, totalitarianism, the rule of science and reason, dehumanisation … Everything is connected …

The “recollections” of a former chief scientific advisor

Just when you thought it was safe …

I have already told you that we have not heard the last of scientists and their Will to Power. And in The Guardian newspaper on February 5th, a devote of the secular Abrahamic belief system known as Western science, presented some “recollections” of time spent as chief scientific advisor to the president of the European Commission. I use the word “recollections” deliberately, but you will have to wait many months before you see why.

In the article we learn that one of the former chief scientific advisor’s “recollections” is disappointment that the relationship with the president was not as close as it could have been, and that, (one-to-one) meetings with the president were not very frequent. This begs the question: why was that so? I speculate, but could it be that Barroso realised that, if you sit in a room with a tiger, it will eventually eat you. Most likely we will never know unless Barroso at some point in the future reveals his side of the story – his own “recollections”.

In the former chief scientific advisor’s “recollections” we also learn that the (at the time) new appointee to the post of president, Jean-Claude Juncker, would have nothing to do with the doomed chief scientific advisor. All praise to President Juncker for taking such a stance. Perhaps he too recognised the dangers of having a tiger sitting in the room. Perhaps he also understood that the demand from scientists that they must have a seat in government are just the words of a vested interest group, and the people who make such demands, along with their organisations, are the ones who stand to gain the most, in terms of power, money and kudos, from the realisation of such. Perhaps, and I would like to believe this, he also recognised that such demands are fundamentally undemocratic and that all such previous outings of scientific government – which requires totalitarianism to sustain – have led to disaster. The belief that it will be, “different next time” is just collective delusion and denial, which is something scientists, including chief scientific advisors and former ones, have in abundance, along with much hubris.

We also learn from the article that there is a new book coming out soon in which a longer essay of “recollections” will be published, so more opportunities for exploring whether there is anything other than just “smoke and mirrors” to these “recollections”, and if there is anything more than just one individuals attempts to write their own history, to create myths. And a whole book, by highly deluded, but dangerous people, advocating the rule of science and reason, and mapping out how they, for the common good, will be running your lives in future, is bound to be a rich source of material for satire, which is exactly what this lunatic fringe deserve.

Which brings me to the matter of art and literature, which you should understand, does not exist for the purpose of communicating how marvellous science and scientist are to an increasingly sceptical and distrusting public, but to expose the reasons why people should be sceptical and distrustful, and to help people to understand that they do not have to accept the perversity that Western science has become. The former use of art is just propaganda, and people who advocate art for the purposes of glorifying science, stand in the company of Stalin and Hitler – it is the new religious art. Art exists to help people fly, to set them free from dogmas, including that of Western science. And art can also help people find an alternative path that leads away from the world that chief scientific advisors and former ones, are creating.

Recall that two weeks ago, in an article about extremists masquerading in a cloak of respectability, I said that it is time to take a peaceful stand against extremism in all forms, before the social, economic, and political conditions become such that the extremists’ simplistic ideas and solutions begin to look attractive. Recall also that last week I wrote about the inevitability of a third round of genocide in Europe.

Everything is connected …