Wednesday, 28 April 2010

Classrooms: Survival of the Fittest, 3

Despite our more noble intentions,then, we can see that there is a counter-drive to support bullies rather than the victim. This is straight out of Survival of the Fittest.. Groups, in order to survive, naturally want the strongest most able people with them, and instinctively runt the weaker ones. Society has evolved to a level where we try hard to protect our weak,sick and vulnerable,though the problem with this higher motivation is that helping the weak often is against our interests within the larger group. I`ll show you what I mean:

You have a child who is being bullied in school.There is an instinctive runting process at work where others kids are doing what their adult examples do when they victimise the weaker amongst them to strengthen their animal position. The parent has a child who is too frightened to go to school and approaches the school to ask them to stop the bullying. But it`s not so simple for the school. There is guilt coming their way and they don`t want it. Guilt will effect their feel-good about themselves and anyway they are proclaiming that they do not have bullying in their school. The easiest thing for them to do, therefore, is to join with the bullying children. I can imagine my readers saying ,"No, surely they wouldn`t do that would they? Isn`t that something that would not be permitted?"

The tragic fact is that where guilt is too much of a problem, people will do anything to avoid it, whoever they may be, and there are tried and tested ways that individuals or groups use to avoid guilt. In this case, as I said at the end of my last blog, they use a "make the victim mad" strategy. Probably all unconscious, I might add, it`s too animal to be up there in the conscious mind !!!!! What many schools do is to side with bullies, okay not directly, they don`t join in the name calling as such, but they protect the bullies by saying that the child-victim "needs" counselling or medication. This suits guilt avoidance very well because the victim is then made to look like they had a psychological problem in the first place.

When I said before about there being a contrary intention, I meant that, whilst on the face of it we don`t want children to be bullied, we supply the mechanisms to ensure that bullies can keep their position as "winners" in the group. Time and time again we see psychiatry used to protect bullies. A child is being destroyed by children acting out of animal instinct in a school and because we don`t deal with the bullies, the child ends up being a "psychological problem". The bullies aren't taken out for counselling because of what they do, because to point a finger at the dominant children in a group goes against our animal-biological nature; bullies are winners, after all. It is the child-victim who is the one sent to counselling.

So why is it that G.Ps are often reluctant to help a parent protect a child? Why not send a letter to the school stating that their seeming inability to protect a child from bullying is causing psychological damage to their patient? Well, the simple reason is that a GP. is an establishment group-player. He doesn`t like to go against a school or the LEA. If he is disloyal to his group there may be consequences for him. He doesn`t want to protect his patient, even a child, by putting guilt onto a school( God forbid) and would, too, rather send the psychologically injured child to a psychiatrist or counsellor to enable a guilt shift.

It`s a sinister business indeed. Many children, from the not so intelligent through Special Needs children and upwards to the too intelligent, end up being sent to a professional who, coincidentally(!), perceives the problem is in the child who is not coping and not the school.
It is plain fact that children who do not fit into the group-pack at school... and therefore become categorised as "psychological problem children".... are the indicators of the true nature of the classroom environment. It is for this reason that many schools and medical professionals have a great need to hide the guilt that these children represent. These kids are evidence that schools want to silence bullying.. It`s a hidden crime.

I will be back on this shortly.....

Very Best Wishes to all........">">

Saturday, 24 April 2010

Classrooms: Survival of the Fittest, 2.

Despite efforts to prevent bullying, to help all children keep up with the others, our biological selves can be pulling in the opposite direction. A classic example of this would be our desire to eradicate bullying, not insincere, of course, yet we struggle to prevent it at the same time as we use default strategies to enable it. Sounds strange, I know, but throughout society we do this. We endorse systems that create victims and punish our vulnerable, whilst trumpeting equal rights or humane treatment or protection for victims.
In the case of classroom teaching, all teachers know that a percentage of kids are falling off the pace in class. What happens is that they can`t help them catch up so they attend to the conforming majority and leave the runts behind. The word "runt" here shows us exactly what is happening: just as a weak animal will be abandoned in nature, maybe the runt will be unable to fight for it`s mothers milk, so this same natural selection process happens in class.

I call this a runting process. It`s a harsh and uncomfortable term, but one I want to use because it shines a wake-up light on the biological forces that are so destructive in our societies. The classroom, in general terms, is a classic runting process. The teacher likes the stronger kids, the ones who cooperate and make his life easy. He doesn` t like the less able ones who hold everyone back and disrupt things....even the imaginative,free-thinking, challenging child is often not wanted.
What happens, of course, in this runting process, is that the adaptable, let`s call them "conjunct" children, do better and better and the ones who have difficulty become more and more disjunct. The tragedy of this is for all to see: the kids who fall by the wayside, become more and more disabled as they fall, less and less "deserving" help and less receptive too. They are like our social misfits, tramps, alcoholics, beyond help, disillusioned and hopeless. Probably by this time too, the process has made them hate learning and hate themselves. ......Okay, so let`s just remember here that this didn`t just happen, no less so than a tsunami is a spontaneous act of God !!! It has been CREATED, just like the witch hunts that we were discussing in my previous blog, disaffected children are CREATED by us. The classroom does this to kids. (N.B. I intend to look at illness in regard to the need to runt people in our society, including A.D.H.D., at a later date.)

Isn`t this a terrible thing, you might say? Well, of course it is. The way we strive and thrive against others can have terrible consequences, but I think that if we can be aware of what we do,understanding might help us to make things better.

I want to just go back to bullying in schools before I leave this blog for today...We talked about "evidence" for the case of our cosmetic good intentions versus our underlying biological drives... I have just said that the level of failed children in our education system demonstrates how we profess to want education for all, yet use a system that we know will create failure on a large scale for some. This is a sign of contrary intentions and our mainstream blindness to it shows how we allow our other nature to override our intelligence, I think. So, let`s just look at the way we strive to deal with bullying and see whether there is a confusion of intention here too:

For many children who are bullied in school, there is not the "expected" outcome. The school doesn`t deal with the bullies, doesn`t uphold the bullied child, whilst on the surface they proclaim that they have a "robust anti-bullying policy" or that "no child is bullied in our school." Yet many parents pull their children out of school because of unresolved bullying. Curious! Many G.Ps will not support parents in protecting their child because they do not want to go against the school or the L.E.A., and there is often an outcome that sees the child having to have counselling or even medication to "treat" the psychological damage caused by bullying. So here is an example of how we think that we are on one side, yet are really on the other. Schools, despite a cosmetic stance against bullying, will often be more at ease with an outcome that sees a bullied child having to have counselling or take medication, rather than dealing with bullies. This is a "make the victim mad" strategy seen in the game-play of groups.

Why does this happen?

I am on the back-boiler until my next blog! Please tune in for the sequel !!!!!! Very Best Wishes to all !!!!

Classrooms: Survival of the Fittest.

Having just drafted my thoughts for this blog, I realise that it will probably spread-out into two blogs....or even three!!

Let`s kick off with a nice bold statement:

Classroom learning doesn`t work.

What? you might say. Surely this is nonsense, many kids achieve GCSEs and "A" levels in a class environment, so this statement must be false. Isn`t it?

I think firstly, we have to think about what a claim of success for this form of teaching actually is. Is success measured by percentage? Or should it be measured by success for all? And why doesn`t it work for everyone ?

To get a grasp of this we need to bring in our understanding of both the way children learn and the psychology of groups.

A classroom environment is in very basic terms an example of "survival of the fittest". It is not a "help everyone to learn equally so that everyone achieves the best of their potential", as we are supposed to believe. It can`t be that, it can`t even claim to be that, because different children learn in different ways and at different speeds. Some children have help at home, some are at different stages of development and some have issues of shyness, various inadequacies and some are bullied. So to claim from the getgo that a classroom education is about educating everyone equally, has to be false. I suppose, tiny little concession here, there might be not just a little naivety, maybe selective blindness too, in those who uphold classroom education, but the truth is that in a survival of the fittest test-tube like a classroom, some children will succeed, some fail, with a limping-on group somewhere in the middle.

The classroom is a place where the fittest, most adaptable, most fitinable children do well. It is also a place where the teacher`s personal issues bear on which children he/she likes, which he doesn`t like and how he, subconsciously, disadvantages certain kids beneath others.

We all know the phenomenon of "teacher's pet", but this is rarely seen for what it really is: an enactment of group/animal favouritism, pushing the child that we love or like best into a strong position of superiority over others. In fact, one could argue easily that the classroom is a place FOR the strongest kids and not a place for the ones who don`t make the grade in terms of our wider social group. The classroom functions as a place where the kids who will be a success in our world are formed.
The class, in terms of the children alone, creates popular kids and misfit ones, uplifts some to inclusivity and happiness and others to bullying, exclusion and misery. These are manifestations of our inbuilt animal selection, our animal impulse to make happy groups for ourselves and sustain ourselves by creating misfits and victims. But children aren`t consciously doing this are they? No, of course not, no more so than adults do, but they are doing it, that`s for sure. They are learning this behaviour from their parents and people around them and are practising it on their fellow little-people. It is a miniature of our adult world, where children are learning to be like the adult world around them.

Bullying is a product of this..and one would expect it to be. The classroom/school is the training ground for all our good and bad devices, where some children fall and some shine.
I think we can prove the underlying forces of group psychology here when we see the outcome of state school education. There is always ...and will always be... a fall-out statistic of children who fail in this group-survival boiling pot. I don`t say that just because of the nature of class teaching, the way it creates hierarchy and pushes down its inferiors, although this of course is the method whereby it is achieved , I say it because this is our biological nature at work, it is something that we struggle to shake-off, endeavour to rise above, but we don`t because it is our undercurrent.

See you in my next blog on this topic........

Sunday, 18 April 2010

Home Education, Sanctuary for Children.

Please sign this petition to help a persecuted Home Ed. family:

With the Government`s recent failure to clamp their iron-fist on home education, many home educators are re-realising their rights, their right to privacy and their autonomy. Yet this menace of government to invade our lives and take away our cherished liberties is merely put on hold. There is no real liberation, no change of conscience by government and certainly no evidence that their thinking could or would include insight into the dangers of their one-track-mind solutions to issues of child abuse.

I have talked about this subject in earlier blogs, but I really want to revisit it here because the message of home education is still not getting through. Most of the media have followed government propaganda on the issue, with only a few T.V. programs or articles representing a balanced picture.

Why is this? Clearly, as with the Government`s psychological tactic that whipped up paranoia about terrorism and Muslims, the witch hunt of home education is created. That is to say that it doesn`t just happen out of thin air, so to speak, someone, some department or agency has to propel a witch hunt. Now, we have spent considerable time in my blogs talking about the hows and whys of demonisation, but I want to gather together these ideas here so that we can see it at work right in front of our eyes.

In order to witch hunt someone, or some group, you have to use fear. Fear is the way to control the people you want to help you in the hunt: folks are more likely to respond if they are frightened by something. I think though, that fear begets fear and therefore we should look to the fear that the pursuer of a witch hunt feels himself, what has caused his fear, and track his actions from there.

We know that the Government, because of the failings of the Social Services in cases of child deaths in recent years, felt pressure to prevent further cases of child deaths so that it could diminish its guilt and protect its position in the eyes of the media and the public. Obviously, a government that does not prevent child deaths will be seen in a negative way and will fear for its political survival. Political shame or embarrassment, loss of votes and loss of power for politicians, causes huge fear!

Because of this need for political survival, the Government needed to show that it would do everything to prevent further child deaths. Where it was seen to be preventing child abuse or death, didn`t matter, just the visibility of its earnestness. There then took place a classic psychological tactic to recruit all and sundry to the mission of preventing child abuse: find someone or some group, a minority, and whip up a demonisation drive. Simple and classic, it`s been used in every society over millennia !! The great thing about it is that it works every time!
The group this time is home education!! Not Jews or Muslims or Gypsies,but home educators !!! Brilliant. So home education was to be the perfect way to bury the guilt of the Social Services and get rid of those nasty fears about losing political votes!
So let`s see what Graham Badman (assigned the task of conducting a Review into home education) did to create a universal fear of home ed. that would be swallowed whole by most of the media.....

The single most important factor in the Review was to manipulate the statistics so that home education would look like a den of child abuse. Rule number one, make sure you drum up fear by using untruths about the people you want to demonise and make the fear as big and powerful as you can !!! The other vital tactic is to trap your new recruits in your demonisation drive with a guilt manoeuvre !!!! What I mean is, your potential allies will join you if you make the fear big enough, certainly, but just incase some of them wont follow you on just fear alone, you make them guilty if they don`t !!! The message is, "if you don`t help me in targeting home education, you will be guilty if any child dies" !!! The combination of these two components makes for the most powerful group drive. We saw it in the Muslim demonisation drive, for example, and let`s also not forget that the very same group psychology resulted in the death of Jean Charles de Meneses.

So, in summary, the need to shift guilt onto home education was the reason why government locked into a relentless persecutory drive. The method for it was classic fear-guilt psychology. Where the media might have defended home educators in the same way that some spoke up against the creation of terrorist paranoia to justify the Iraq war or Guantanamo, the guilt component of the strategy largely prevented them from doing so. Few in the media will want to side with a tainted group where, they are made to believe, there may be child abuse, because this would bring accusations of collusion or complacency in child abuse.With the dual operation of fear and guilt the Government managed to manipulate most of the media, and with such a small voice, home education had little chance of getting mass-media support.
More on home ed. later.......">">

Wednesday, 14 April 2010

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and the Gut, 3

Continuing from my last blog:

Well, there are a number of illnesses that are easy victim to medical abuse. We have mentioned just two here, but it is an age-old tactic to use psychiatry/"insanity" to hide guilt in every social sphere.
In very general terms we can see this at work when we observe people in our everyday lives trying to refute accusations against them by suggesting that the person making the accusation is in some way mentally unstable. We have seen the phenomenon at work where a country wishes to prevent political opposition... in the old Soviet Union, for example, and we even see it at play in our own courts. In basic terms it`s the age old, "I am not guilty, so you must be mad to accuse me" ! It`s an easy dupe!

So why do people use it? Well, simple, if someone is guilty of something, and they can show that a witness to this fact is insane, this makes the witness non-credible. It`s the sort of device we saw in my blog where I examined victimhood: people who are weak, old, vulnerable and mentally ill lose their power because in their weakness they have become less credible.

A patient with M.E. who has a "psychiatric disorder" (diagnosed or hinted at) is instantly less of a guilt-threat to the medical profession because they are seen as suffering from a mental illness and are thereby diminished in status. Similarly, a child with a gut dysbiosis caused by vaccination, who is seen as needing psychiatric medication, also loses the rights they would assume as a patient with a physical health problem. If you are reading this and are thinking that it is too incredible to be true, I would ask you, please, to ask yourself this question: If there is a direct link between vaccinations and A.D.H.D, vaccinations-antibiotics and M.E., is it not just too coincidental that both find themselves within the province of psychiatry?

We see all around us examples of the people who are most likely to be victims and, as sure as night follows day, where there is greater weakness and greater guilt to be hidden, we see a greater use of psychiatry and psychiatric medication. In the U.K., G.Ps have been giving dumbing-down medication to hundreds of thousands of old people in Care Homes, just so that they could be kept quiet. And why? Yes, yes, we know the presented reason(!), to make it "easy for staff to manage people"(!), but the real underlying reason, I believe, is that old people, in their very vulnerableness, make people feel guilty. The fact that old people are generally treated so badly within the health service, adds to the guilt that staff carry and increases the psychological need for them and their group to use the chemical cosh. The compartmental conscience says, "they need to be medicated for their own good." In basic terms, when we abuse people, we want and need to see them as things that we need to suppress and control and in this guilt-shift device we get rid of our guilt. Make no mistake about this, old people in Care Homes receiving psychiatric medication has everything to do with shutting up the guilt of staff and little to do with caring.

More on this subject very soon...........

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and the Gut, 2

Guilt has to be hidden if at all possible. But why do I think that there is medical guilt associated with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome?

There is much evidence that antibiotics damage the gut, yet these drugs often get off the hook because most people are not seen to sustain gut damage. Gut flora is not measured or monitored and therefore the effects of antibiotics are not seen. It is thought that the more antibiotics a person takes, the greater the risk to ongoing gut ecology damage and that for those with the predisposition of gut flora imbalance, the risk is higher. But antibiotics are given to patients without regard for their history and without concern for any possible resulting illness, let alone a professional reporting of ensuing illness to any medical body. Of course, this is all very alarming, but still more so is the fact that doctors really do not want to have the cause and effect monitored.

Of course there are exceptions within mainstream medicine. Some G.Ps, mindful of the risks, will advise patients to take probiotics during and after antibiotic use to minimise risk.( If there is no link at all between antibiotic use and deleterious consequence to health, why would they do this?) And of course some few doctors in the N.H.S. know what is happening and just keep quite. Let`s do a double take on this: "some doctors know what is happening to people and keep quiet"? Well, yes, there are an enlightened few, but as always within groups, there are things that have to be done in order to maintain one`s position within the group organism. Group rewards don`t come gratis, they come at a price. Doctors who overstep the mark, even if this is to try to help patients, risk, at worst, losing their job, but there are lesser consequences too. In short, there are some things that doctors with conscience just cannot speak up about.

So with some doctor`s awareness of the dangers of antibiotics, some keeping shtum and some quietly advising their patients, we can see that the medical profession is carrying a lot of guilt, suppressed guilt, unconscious guilt sometimes, but enough to account for a less than adequate response to some illnesses, illnesses where there is medical guilt. Okay, so I think at this point we need to look at A.D.H.D........

Once again many doctors within general medicine will steer a parent towards the managing or fixing of A.D.H.D. in their child upon the basis that it is a gut disorder. A dietary program, supplements, all to minimise the "hyperness" resulting from foods that feed a likely candida overgrowth.

I wonder why this has not been the standard approach, though? Why do doctors feel, and let`s emphasise the word "feel" here because it is indeed a subjective diagnosis, that a child should be medicated with a psychiatric drug like Ritalin for a gut disorder? Doesn`t this sound like the worst kind of evil ? Well, in my view, it sounds like a very serious and unethical perversion of medicine. I so much feel that it is an outrage to treat a child as if it has a psychiatric illness when it in fact has a physical illness, but we have seen this before haven`t we? (Sarcasm intended here!!!) M.E., even with a half-hearted recognition as a physical condition, still incurs the disrespect of psychiatric interventions. Can we believe that this is happening in the 21st century? Well, it is almost beyond belief I know, and this is why we need to know how and why this should be so. Why would doctors who, after all, are supposedly all about wanting to help people, get caught up in pushing physical illness into the psychiatric sphere? Could it be that vaccinations cause allergies and autism, A.D.H.D. and the like, and doctors are fleeing from their involvement in it?

Contd. in the next blog. Please do join me.


N.B. For those of you with C.F.S., please check out the Specific Carbohydrate diet, S.C.D.

and Dr. Natasha Campbell McBride`s treatment protocol.

Parents with concerns about A.D.H.D.or autism please see:

Sunday, 11 April 2010

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and the Gut, 1

Mainstream medicine is extremely unwilling to recognise M.E./Chronic Fatigue Syndrome as most often a gut condition. This begs the question, why? I come to this subject with experience of M.E. myself and a long struggle to find the cause of the symptoms. I contribute to forums and try to support friends who have this chronic illness...and have been delighted to see many people find ways to manage their illness and many to be near enough "cured" (please see notes below).

In this blog though, I want to think about both the causes of M.E. and the long-standing medical abuse of patients with this illness. I also, in my inimitable fashion (!), want to look at the psychological factors that place M.E. sufferers in a place somewhere between the legitimacy of a physical illness and the disrespect of a psychological one. Let`s ask what it really means to have a physical illness that is still in the dark ages of medical recognition and treatment, and why there should be a medical establishment blunt-headedness that prevents proper research into the real causes of M.E.
As usual, I am very much interested in how our social groups, with their inbuilt survival mechanisms, figure in the status, and consequent treatment, of an illness, and if it all sounds a bit too intellectual to be worth much to those who suffer, I would argue that it is only when we see the bigger picture can we understand and maybe, just maybe, influence the medical profession to change.Much of this will be in the second part of this blog.

Okay, so here goes:

Firstly, why should doctors be happy to shunt off people with M.E into a place where their symptoms aren`t recognised as a gut disorder? Well, funny things happen where there is guilt involved, and judging by just how many folks come down with M.E after taking a antibiotic, there is ample reason for doctors to avoid any attribution to gut issues. Still further, when one goes to one of an increasing number of physicians, usually outside the N.H.S., the question they ask is, "how many antibiotics have you taken?" The reason why many doctors believe that M.E. is a gut disorder, or more precisely, a gut dysbiosis, is that antibiotics can knock out the good flora in our guts, allowing the proliferation of harmful flora that take over, damage the gut lining and produce a whole range of symptoms from fatigue to allergies, to the neurological. In very simple terms, when a gut dysbiosis is caused, toxins are produced that leak out of a damaged gut wall into the bloodstream.

Of course antibiotic triggers for M.E. are direct cause and effect indicators of exactly what is underlying Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, but the history of the patient, too, can make them at greater risk from antibiotic use.

You will notice, above, that I said that antibiotics can knock out good gut flora..Well,the reason that some people can go on taking antibiotics till the cows come home with no apparent ill effect, is that the consequence of taking this drug is dependent upon what sort of state our gut (and our general health) is in when we take it..... It`s rather like the case that most babies don`t get allergies or eczema or autism after vaccinations, most are fine, but an infant who has compromised gut flora at the time of vaccination is at greater risk. It is not really so arbitrary as we might imagine.

This latter example also bears relevance to what happens to some people`s health after taking antibiotics, namely that the symptoms they exhibit, in babies asthma, for example, is manifested damage to gut flora. Babies inherit flora from their parents, so a baby with good flora will be less susceptible to vaccinations compared to a baby who has not such good flora at the time of vaccination. But let`s also be aware that babies are future parents, who in their turn pass on their flora to their own children, and a baby with compromised flora will likely pass on that gut ecology to their offspring.
In the end, babies struggling with allergies or A.D.H.D. or any gut-related condition, will carry a less that adequate gut flora into their adulthood and will, therefore, be at greater risk from antibiotics than the greater population.

To be continued..........................


N.B. For those of you with C.F.S., please check out the Specific Carbohydrate diet, S.C.D.

and Dr. Natasha Campbell McBride`s treatment protocol.

Parents with concerns about A.D.H.D.or autism please see:

Tuesday, 6 April 2010

Equal Rights for Some, Loss of Rights for Others.

We don`t have to look or think very far in order to see that freedoms for some will result in loss of freedom for others.

There has been such a drive to impose the "rightfulness" of the Human Rights Act that little thought has been given to the outcome of forcing through liberty for some people, on some issues, against the rights of others, where these issues conflict.

If we just take this down to the small scale a moment, we observe that in a family where liberality is dispensed without reserve towards children, there will be no freedom for parents (or neighbours!). Children free to keep the hours they choose, play music at x decibels and generally act in a selfish manner towards those around them, will lead to the sleep cycle of the entire household being disturbed, others not being able to hear their own conversation or listen to their choice of music and generally, a domination of child over parent !!!!!

Let`s take a few examples where the rights of one person collide with the rights of others:

People take where they can. It`s human nature. If freedoms are up for the taking, there are those who will try to force their rights to the limit. We have seen over recent decades that gay rights have become one of the most prominent quests in our society. A group that feels past injustice and wants to claim their equality with the rest of us, will push and push until they get whatever they feel they have been deprived of...and more. The question is though, whether the rights of any group with new liberties should deprive others of their rights ?

The equality demanded in human rights law, with all its moral high ground, would steal from others long-held rights of religious practice, for example. Gay rights would demand that the church has to have gay clergy, that they HAVE TO CONDUCT gay marriages, that anything less that absolute equality with the heterosexual community is in fact a continuation of abuse of gays..

In the mission towards the enforcement of equality, Jewish schools would have to accept pupils who are not Jewish, indeed, the state, with an equal rights jack-boot, would wish to tell Jews that they may not decline the status of Jew to someone whom Judaism regards as a non-Jew !!!! Equal rights means that it is unfair not to allow a non-Jew to be Jewish !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Here we see that the state`s desire to adopt a new rightfulness would render Judaism a nonsense to Jews. It is in effect saying that society wishes to change the beliefs of Jews within their own belief system.

Humanists are wanting faith schools to be abolished, because, according to their beliefs, it is wrong to indoctrinate children into religion. For the same reason, humanists have wanted to have home education inspected with a view to preventing parents instilling religious belief into their children.
But have humanists thought about what it really means to prevent people from pursuing their religion exclusively? I think not, because within this fervour to make atheism available to all, something which humanism regards as a release from the mind-shackling of religion, is actually a practice to control what others may believe. In other words, humanism believes freedom of mind can be achieved with the abandonment of religion (this may well be true!), yet this belief carried to its conclusion, would in fact result in one mind control, religion, being overturned by another. In the end, telling people that they must think what you tell them to, is the ball and chain of totalitarianism, not the apotheosis of liberated thought !!!!

So, what we are seeing here is a new morality trying to usurp the old. The Human Rights Act is a new ideology for people to follow and is rapidly gaining the moral force of religious belief. The imposition is, "if you don`t believe the new moral code, you are a bad person". With this comes the power that any religion knows only too well, people who are non-believers are "badified", marginalised, demonised, and we see this happening to all religions in these times. Christians feel persecuted for their beliefs because they often don`t believe in the new moral law (sexual equality,etc.), Muslims are disdained because they are seen to deny woman equal rights, Jews are seen as discriminatory because they will not accept that non-Jews have the right to be regarded as Jewish !!!!! and so on.......

We can see from these examples that we cannot allow the Human Rights Act to be our new morality, a new religion that we worship without common sense or balance, because if we do we are opening the door to a new beast that will enter our societies under the cloak of "human rights", yet bring with it authoritarianism, intolerance and hatred. The Human Rights Act, untempered, gives us the opportunity to become new dictators glorying in our new goodness, and just as many of us perceive religions to do, blindly following our beliefs even in the face of contrary evidence.

We have seen how religions have been diluted so as to not offend people of other faiths !!!! We see how multi-faith wisdom seeks to diminish the differences between us and others, we are persuaded that if religion were to be homogenised everyone would feel so much like everyone else that they wouldn't want to hurt each other! Yet I strongly believe that the opposite is the case: if we lose our identities, our respective and distinct cultures, our rights to belief, and become swallowed up in a mishmash- society of diluted and sanitised, degraded and imposed beliefs, we will indeed come to despise each other for our lost autonomy. We will surely become bereft at the loss of our distinctness, and those deprived of their rights to their own religious beliefs, will become the new oppressed, the new victims, such is the course of history.

I see that the groups who are persecuted around the world at different times over millennia, for various reasons, just come and go in cycles, nothing changes. The sorts of people who are persecuted change all the time, but the fact that some people are always persecuted, remains. If we allow the Human Rights Act to influence us to create laws that persecute some people, we just create another cycle, a new set of victims who at some future date will need to reclaim their rights. Just as blacks have done, or women or the disabled.

More on this soon.........