I Have a Question For You..

Yes all of you, if you don’t mind and you’ve got a minute or two spare. You see, I’ve been thinking a lot over the last few days about this World we live in and what a mess its in and from that my thoughts turned to the people in charge (I use this terms loosely) i.e. the politicians. On one side of the pond we have Theresa May, scrabbling to hold on to tail of the tiger that is Brexit and, on the other, we have Donald Trump  who seems to be shooting himself in the foot by refusing to let go of the idea that a $5.6 billion wall will solve all the country’s problems

Yes all of you, if you don’t mind and you’ve got a minute or two spare. You see, I’ve been thinking a lot over the last few days about this World we live in and what a mess its in and from that my thoughts turned to the people in charge (I use this terms loosely) i.e. the politicians. On one side of the pond we have Theresa May, scrabbling to hold on to tail of the tiger that is Brexit and, on the other, we have Donald Trump  who seems to be shooting himself in the foot by refusing to let go of the idea that a $5.6 billion wall will solve all the country’s problems.

My question to you is:

If you were in charge of the US or the UK what would you do differently to Mrs May or Mr Trump?

i have a question for you 1The thing is, we are all ready to criticise their efforts but could we do a better job in their position? Everyone views politics according to their own agenda; if you’re poor you’ll want higher taxes for the rich, if you’re rich you’ll want lower taxes and there are arguments for both, that’s the real problem. All development in societies requires change and human beings really don’t like change, especially if change is imposed upon them by people they didn’t vote for.

We have two nations that are currently divided down the middle: leavers and remainers in the UK and the left and the right in the US. In each case one group is determined to loathe the other and, worse still, to prove them wrong whatever the cost may be and there will be a cost because one side will have to lose. The really sad thing is that there no longer seems to be anyone in the middle; sitting on the fence, however uncomfortable that may be, doesn’t seem to be an option.

We are emotionally bludgeoned by the media, social and otherwise, to take a position and fight for it regardless of whether the final outcome will have any direct impact on us or not. Things which were once of the slightest political importance are now portrayed as major disasters that will cause the fall of a nation. We no longer view our politicians as leaders who will make sensible decisions for their people but rather as either Gods or Demons. We put them high on a pedestal, demand perfection from them and then dance on their political graves when they prove that they are merely human. Either that or we refuse to listen to their ideas because they are on the ‘wrong’ side; what, in your opinion, can we do to change such rigid perceptions?i-have-a-question-for-you-2.jpg

To answer my own question: I would not lie to the people who’d put their faith in me.

Theresa May is telling people that she will fight to get out of Brexit but it’s fairly obvious that her heart really isn’t in it. Wouldn’t it be better just to say ‘OK guys we’ve made a complete pig’s ear of all this so we’re going to give it another year or so to try and put things right rather than creating a huge mess that’s going to take forever to properly sort out’. Of course, she won’t say that because the whole nation would be up in arms……but wait, isn’t that what’s happening now?

As for Donald Trump, his ‘spin’ (a political word for lying) is legendary but I wonder if his popularity would be greater if he just came out and said ‘Yes you’re right, the Mexicans never agreed to pay for the wall so you will have to foot the bill whether you like it or not because I’m President’. He’s arrogant enough to do just that but without admitting that he lied and if he can lie about that, what else will he lie about?

The way I see it, 50% of Theresa May should be grafted onto Donald Trump and vice versa. May is an apologist who will try to appease the masses while simultaneously dragging everyone into a politically correct World where hurting someone’s feelings can be deemed a ‘hate crime’ thereby stifling free speech and causing unnecessary, frustrated anger. Trump will do whatever it takes to create an America that is, in his view, great, not caring that he is often viewed as a racist, misogynistic, bigoted bully and someone to whom political correctness is just something that happens to other people.

i have a question for you 3People are not stupid, they can cope with being told the truth. What they cannot cope with is fear and change and, thanks to mass hysteria on the likes of Twitter and ‘left’ and ‘right’ news networks that is what people are having to deal with constantly.

So, what would you do? What do you think should happen to bring the people of these two nations back together and stop the divide which is such an enormous threat to them both? Please let me know, I’d love to hear from you.

Lisa x

Aren’t We All Human?

What are your feelings on immigration, illegal or otherwise? Yes, I realise it’s a contentious subject but it seems to be one that angers many people and I’m at a bit of a loss to really understand why. The media portrayal seems to be that immigration = more crime and less jobs for the indigenous population but is that really the case or the result of our prejudices?

What are your feelings on immigration, illegal or otherwise? Yes, I realise it’s a contentious subject but it seems to be one that angers many people and I’m at a bit of a loss to really understand why. The media portrayal seems to be that immigration = more crime and less jobs for the indigenous population but is that really the case or the result of our prejudices?

In the UK, people who’ve lived there for years are being deported, in the US Trump wants to build a wall to stop people entering the country. In Italy, they are claiming that their economy is in a state of emergency due to the large numbers of immigrants that the EU have insisted they take. In fact, all over Europe and in the US people are complaining about these ‘foreigners’ who are ruining their way of life, taking their jobs and threatening their sense of security. Why?

I suppose I can understand the problem in the UK, it’s an island and there is limited space, especially in the capital. The NHS is over-burdened and in a state of near collapse and, an additional 250,000+ people arriving in the last year alone is not going to help matters…..unless they work. So, what is the UK doing to encourage new businesses to to open their doors in that green and pleasant land? Taxes are high and extremely complex, people want cheap food and cheap clothes so much of what is for sale is imported from China or India (where people often live in destitution), salaries are low because business expenses are getting higher and higher, especially for insurance and legal costs, and therefore motivation and morale have plummeted.

lawyer quoteEven small companies hire law firms just to keep them up to date with the increased burdens caused by a mountain of employment law. Actions by employees are now the responsibility of the employer so, if an employee makes an off colour remark, the business can be sued because they didn’t offer enough “awareness training in matters of equality, diversity or the possibility of unconscious as well as conscious prejudice”.

The welfare state is such that you can spend your whole life living on handouts without too much trouble. Free healthcare is a huge plus for UK residents as it’s so expensive elsewhere in the world but the system is abused; the litigation budget alone is astronomical, running into the tens of billions each year. Everyone is so aware of their ‘rights’ that new ways to sue the State and businesses are being found every day and, with the advent of Social Media people are finding more ways to complain about their ‘unfair treatment’ which results in increased levels of dissatisfaction with their lives and the State.

Dissatisfaction promotes unrest and unrest leads to increased levels of violence, also often attributed to immigrants and yet some studies show that first generation immigrants are less likely to commit crime than second or third generation so that argument doesn’t really stack up. Perhaps by the second generation they’ve had time to become disillusioned and dissatisfied?

What may be a contributing factor is the fact that the media promotes jealousy; the rich and famous are lambasted and adored in the same paragraph. Young people can make millions by posting pictures on Instagram, by setting up YouTube channels, by taking part in reality TV……..and then, once they’re successful they are wholeheartedly criticised by their peers. They’ve gained weight, lost weight, drunk too much, paid too much for their new clothes, worn too much make-up etc. etc, You name it and they’ll be pulled apart for it.

Newspapers will tell us how much people earn, how much they paid for their house; they won’t mention the struggles they may have undergone to find their success or what it cost them mentally or emotionally to get to that position. Rather, the cry is invariably ‘it’s not fair’. We have a new generation that screams persecution and discrimination at the drop of a hat because they are not given the ‘respect’ that they demand; long gone are the days when respect was something that we earned! All of this has led us to a point where many feel deprived if they are not millionaires by the the time they’re 21 and hatred for those that have ‘made it’. In a nutshell, they want to be people that they despise………

We have become dissatisfied and, if this is true in the UK, it would seem to be doubly true in the US. American cities pay out an average of £1.2 billion each year to people who have sued them for one reason or another. Medical malpractice suits resulted in payouts of around £4 billion in 2018 which means that healthcare insurance is now out of reach for many people. On top of that there are more frivolous lawsuits filed than one could hope to count. Maybe all that began when Stella Liebeck was awarded almost $3 million when she burned herself by knocking over her just purchased cup of McDonald’s coffee?

It seems that pretty much everyone is unhappy about something and they’re quite happy for their lawyers to find someone to blame. So, what happens when half a nation is unhappy? The same thing, they’ll look for someone to blame and what better place to start that someone they don’t know? Immigrants are essentially faceless and they are all bandied together in a big pile labelled ‘trouble’. If there aren’t enough jobs they make the perfect blamehound, if crime levels go up the same applies, if the economy is in trouble well, it must be their fault. The media fuels the fire because it sells and people whip themselves up into a frenzy on social media. Of course, there are many studies which show that crime rates actually haven’t risen but in these days of ‘fake new’ who knows the real truth?

In the case of the US we should also probably consider that millions of families are only third or fourth generation so, in fact, their forefathers were all immigrants. We only have to go back 400 years (roughly 12 generations) to find the very first immigrants on American soil.

aren't well all human 4Of course, despite that many people will argue that immigrants only take from a country and I suppose that some do but many don’t, many contribute enormously for example: Albert Enstein, Levi Strauss, Joseph Pulitzer, Rupert Murdoch, Oscar de la Renta, Arnold Schwarzenegger….the list goes on and on. Maybe it’s only the illegal immigrants that are the problem? The ones who aren’t ‘approved’ to life in their country of choice? Well that would be Arnold Schwarzenegger out for a start (yes he worked illegally in the US as did Melania Trump apparently!)

What is it that we fear? Are immigrants who can speak English less of a worry for English speaking nations? Are those who have money in their pockets more welcome than those who don’t? Are we scared that somehow our lives will be less as a result of their staying in ‘our’ country?

Maybe it’s their desperation? Whatever it is that drives them to travel thousands of miles, in terrible conditions, knowing that they will risk deportation or imprisonment wherever they finally land. The thing that makes men leave their wives and children and then risk their lives trying to find a place that will accept them and allow them to earn enough money to save their families from starvation. Perhaps we fear that genocide may, in some way be contagious and that the terrible trials visited on millions of suffering people could somehow find a way into our lives?

Internews' Community Radio Stations in Eastern Chad

Perhaps what we fear most is ourselves. The part of us that can find hate in our hearts for people who want all those things that we are so dissatisfied with. Minimum wage instead of $5 a day, an emergency room that they can go to that will actually have the medicine they need, protection from the State rather than persecution, the freedom to speak about politics and current affairs without risking their lives. Do we fear ourselves because they want the things that we take for granted…. want them so much that they are willing to risk death. ……..

Let me know your thoughts, I’d love to hear from you

Lisa x

FOWC: Stymie

“Are you sure that you want to go ahead with this John?” He was not normally one to shy away from difficult cases but he had deep reservations about this one.

“We’ve already discussed this ad nauseam Peter, I’ve made my position very clear and I have no intention of deviating from it” He didn’t even look up from his paperwork, his very body language left Peter in no doubt that he was being dismissed.

“Are you sure that you want to go ahead with this John?” He was not normally one to shy away from difficult cases but he had deep reservations about this one.

“We’ve already discussed this ad nauseam Peter, I’ve made my position very clear and I have no intention of deviating from it” He didn’t even look up from his paperwork, his very body language left Peter in no doubt that he was being dismissed.

“You do realise that, should we win, a very dangerous legal precedent will have been set?” Peter was loathe to arouse the wrath of this powerful man but he could not, in all conscience, let him continue on this path without a last ditch effort to change his mind. He was not even granted the courtesy of a response and so left the office with a heavy heart and a wish that he would not have to be the one to take this case to court.

“Do you deny, Mr Senator, that you had regular meetings with a member of the banned political group Action Against Atrocities” John felt that his opening was strong; to link the senator with known political activists would turn the jury against him from the start. He doubted that any of them understood the group’s manifesto or their political intentions, it was enough that the Government had handed forth a ban against membership. He wondered afresh at the political naivety of the majority of his country’s citizens….

“The ‘member’ you refer to counselor is my daughter and so, to answer your question, yes I had regular ‘meetings’ with her. If you have children, sir, I have no doubt that you have regular ‘meetings’ with them too” His sarcasm and hostility was not lost on the jury but Peter did notice that one or two were looking at him with something close to sympathy.

“Be that as it may Senator, you were aware that she was a member of Action Against Atrocities were you not?”

“For Christ’s sake, the girl is 19 years old, she’s passionate but naive and, like many kids of her age, she wants to change the World, she didn’t know what she was getting into and being a member of this group was not made illegal until 6 months after she joined” The man’s frustration was obvious, he knew that he was trapped in a situation not of his own making but how could he condemn or deny his own daughter; his only recourse was to fight back.

“No, I doubt that she did know but you did, didn’t you Senator? You knew that this group of activists was causing trouble for the Government with their hacks and their threats of action against the military. You knew that they were labeled a banned organisation after their attempts to free dangerous political prisoners from Guantanamo. You knew Senator” Peter could feel the jury stirring and knew that his use of the phrase ‘dangerous political prisoners’ would be enough for most of them to lose any lingering sympathy for the Senator.

“Oh Jesus” the man in the dock put his head back and stared at the ceiling, maybe trying to hold back tears or maybe just looking for divine inspiration.

“You knew, didn’t you?” Peter pressed him once again and waited patiently, like a snake for his response.

“Do you know who those men were that they tried to release?” the Senator’s voice was strong now, defiant and he half rose from his seat

“Sit down Senator” The judge spoke harshly from the bench, he had not wanted to be part of this trial and was determined it would be over as quickly as possible.

“They were innocent. They were men who had family in the Middle East and who visited them when they could, when they’d amassed enough money for the plane ticket home. They worked two or three jobs just so that they could go back and be with their families but, because their loved ones lived in towns that harbored suspected terrorists, and their travel records showed more than 2 visits in one year to those towns they were arrested and sent to Guantanamo. They have been there for almost 18 months with no explanation and no prosecution, they are merely suspects whose only crime was to want to see their families. They are subject to appalling conditions and treatment and..”

“Stop! That’s enough Senator, this is not a political platform and I will ask you to please restrain yourself and answer the questions that you have been asked by Counsel”

Peter smiled a mirthless smile and repeated his question

“Senator, did you have regular contact with a member of the banned organisation Action Against Atrocities?”

“Yes” Utterly defeated, weary, the man, father, senator slumped down in his chair and lowered his eyes.

On the day of the verdict John was in Court, he did not sit beside Peter but at the back close to the huge double doors. He was wearing a hat pulled down over his eyes and was, uncommonly, wearing jeans and a sweatshirt. Peter wondered if this ‘disguise’ would be enough to fool the waiting press but he doubted that his patron even cared.

“Members of the jury, have you reached a verdict upon which you are all agreed?”

A middle aged woman stood up, her hands shaking slightly, nervous at being the centre of so much attention

“We have. We find the defendant guilty as charged” the words came out in a rush and the woman was grateful to retake her seat

“Senator McBride, you have been found guilty of treason against the Government and you will be remanded in custody until sentence is passed 14 days from today. Take him away” The Senator’s legs buckled as his was led back to the cells in handcuffs; he realised that all hope was lost, for him and for his beloved daughter.

“Well done Peter, you broke him” John was smoking a fat cigar and looking approvingly at the younger man standing before him.

“He as good as admitted that he is against this Government and our great nation and he deserves what’s coming to him” He lowered his substantial buttocks into a black leather chair and puffed away, deeply satisfied with himself.

“John, you cannot possibly mean to continue with this? You’ve won, your running mate for the Presidential candidacy is out of the race, he’s finished and the road is clear for you. In a few months time you will be President, you will have it all!” Peter was beginning to fear that the man before him was losing his sanity to political ambition.

“You know that the underdog sometimes wins Peter; the public loves an underdog”

“John, he cannot come back from this!” He was, against his better judgement, raising his voice and his patience wearing thin.

“Peter, you are a lawyer so, you tell me, is treason a Capital crime or not”

“Yes but..” he stopped abruptly as his future President fixed him with stare that was vicious and feral

“Yes. Peter, there are no buts, Senator McBride has been found guilty of treason and he will be sentenced to death in 13 days time; this man tried to stymie my political ambitions and he failed; don’t you make the same mistake”

 

This longer that usual tale was written in response to another super prompt from the lovely Fandango

Lisa x

How to be a Hypocrite

5.Change your position on important subjects regularly to ensure that you are always aligned with the people who can benefit you the most
6. Emulate Donald Trump ( I was going to continue with a 7, 8 and 9 but I don’t think I really need to now)

  1. Make a portable halo; you can slip it on when you need to look virtuous and then just pop it neatly back in your pocket when you’re done.
  2. Make sure that you have a long list of highly emotive phrases which you can use selectively as the occasion demands
  3. Make sure that you never actually take any action that may back up the sentiments expressed in your key phrases
  4. Ensure that you express sympathy and understanding for others whilst, at the same time, do everything you can to make sure that you never offer any actual support
  5. Change your position on important subjects regularly to ensure that you are always aligned with the people who can benefit you the most
  6. Emulate Donald Trump ( I was going to continue with a 7, 8 and 9 but I don’t think I really need to now)

I tend not to read the news too often because it depresses me; good news is rarely reported and, when it is, there is always someone to pee on whichever bonfire happens to have been lit. Instead I skim the headlines until something catches my attention and, these days, I write a blog post about it. In recent days the same things keep popping up –  Trumps’ responses to the tragic, heart-wrenching school shootings in the USA and The Donald’s plans to restrict women’s freedoms. Now, I don’t live in America so you can rightly argue that it’s none of my business what its President gets up to but I really don’t like hypocrisy and I definitely don’t like bullies so, like it or not, I’m going to say something……..

This was one of the President’s campaign pledges:

“I’ll be able to make sure that when you walk down the street in your inner city, or wherever you are, you’re not gonna be shot. Your child isn’t gonna be shot.”

This is a quote, from the same man, to members at an NRA convention:

“Your Second Amendment rights are under siege, but they will never, ever be under siege as long as I’m your president.”

Trump shootingsNow you can call me stupid if you like but, realistically, how can he promise that Americans and their children will not be shot whilst he is in office and, at the same time, promise that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed? The definition of ‘infringe’ is “act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on”; it can be interpreted from this that a change to current law would be an infringement so can we assume that the President, whilst promising to protect the lives of children, will, in fact, do nothing to curb the sales of the weapons that have been used, time and time again, to shoot them?

In the wake of the Florida shooting he gave his condolences to the victims and their families and then said

No child,” he added, “no teacher, should ever be in danger in an American school.”

In February he proposed that school teachers be armed:

Trump quotes“.immediately fire back if a savage sicko came to a school with bad intentions. Highly trained teachers would also serve as a deterrent to the cowards that do this. Far more assets at much less cost than guards. Agun free” school is a magnet for bad people. ATTACKS WOULD END!”

Also in February, there was a case reported in Georgia where a teacher had barricaded himself into a classroom and fired shots through a window causing students to flee in terror. In March a teacher injured a pupil when his gun went off during a demonstration on gun safety. You could say that these are isolated incidents but, please someone tell me, how does bringing guns into a classroom place children in less danger than leaving them in a classroom with no guns?

You could also argue that people who carry out attacks such as those we have seen recently in US schools are mentally ill, in fact that is what Trump suggests, and therefore they shouldn’t be able to have legal gun ownership:

“Number one, you can take the guns away immediately from people that you can adjudge easily are mentally ill, like this guy.”

However, apparently under Florida and federal law, in order to be prevented from buying a firearm:

  • You must have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility.
  • You must be under a court order, which could include having been found not guilty due to insanity

This means that if you have voluntarily entered a mental health facility or you have been treated as an outpatient for mental disorders you can still, legally, buy a gun; this was the case with Nicholas Cruz…….

Moving on:

I am pro-choice in every respect” This quote was taken from an interview that Mr Trump gave in 1999 so just when he was your average billionaire and not the President of the US. To be fair he did say that he hates abortion but he also recognised that women must be free to make their own choices.

Times change and our opinions with them but now Mr Trump is in office his position seems to have reversed; he now says:

 “In my administration we will always defend the first right in the Declaration of Independence, it’s called the right to life.”

Apparently his position has shifted so far that he has now decided that funding will be withdrawn from facilities that perform abortions or refer women to other places where they are performed.

In a Tweet he said, just a few days ago:

For the first time since Roe v. Wade, America has a Pro-Life President, a Pro-Life Vice President, a Pro-Life House of Representatives and 25 Pro-Life Republican State Capitals!

trump-hyprocrite.jpgHis position in 1999, when he had no real influence, was reasonable; although women cannot create babies without a biological contribution from men it is only women who can grow and carry them inside their bodies so, surely, it is only they who can decide whether or not they want to be host to, what will become, another life. His position, now that he has immense power, will affect the rights of women to chose what happens to their own bodies, something which they fought hard for before the introduction of The Freedom of Choice Act in 1964 which states:

“it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child; terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability; or terminate a pregnancy after viability when necessary to protect her life or her health”

It comes as no great surprise that Trump is not a supporter of women’s issues (although he pretends to be – the mark of all good hypocrites!).

In January 2018, in an interview with Piers Morgan, Trump said:

“I have tremendous respect for women”

In 2016 he was forced to apologise after a discussion he had was taped and published in the media; his comments proved that he really has no respect for women whatsoever:

“You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful [women]— I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything……..Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything

Trump HonestyI am rarely prompted to write anything like this  but I honestly feel that, if we are to move away from the downward spiral that we currently appear to be in, the very least we can expect from our politicians is honesty and not rank hypocrisy. Trump is certainly not the only guilty party but he’s the one that bothers least to cover it up………..

As an aside, I’ve just seen this morning that Trump is not permitted to block followers whose opinions he doesn’t like as he will be violating their first amendment rights – that’s got to sting when you’ve got 52 million followers! Still he’s never been one to waver in the face of negative public opinion………

Lisa

x

Be Selfish, we’re Nicer that Way

In conclusion, I say that we should be kind to everyone around us but we should focus more on ourselves as individuals to break this damaging and dangerous mob mentality that we see everywhere these days; in my opinion, there’s nothing wrong with being selfish and there’s nothing better than individual responsibility. Do you agree?

What’s wrong with being selfish? I’m not saying don’t think about other people; we can be kind, generous and empathetic but what’s wrong with putting ourselves first? It seems as though we are constantly being encouraged by the media (social and otherwise) and politicians to think and feel as a collective rather than as individuals and I wonder if this is doing more harm than good….

Kids playingAs children, we naturally think of our own well-being; when we are hungry we want to eat, when we want to play, we play. It never enters our minds to consider whether our parents are hungry or whether they’ll enjoy throwing a ball 500 times in a row just so we can have the pleasure of learning to catch it. We naturally don’t discriminate as children; we don’t care what colour skin our playmates have, where they live, whether their parents are straight or gay. We may be curious but we don’t judge, if the new kid is happy throwing a ball, we’re happy to play with them, it’s never any more complicated than that.

Bearing this is mind, how is it that, as adults, we become discriminatory and intolerant of those that we perceive as being different from ourselves? Some of it will be learned behaviour stemming from the attitudes of our parents and siblings but some of it will be as a result of being ‘grouped’ with others. In school children are invariably separated according to ability and sometimes by gender, for physical education for example; there are also separate social groups for boys and girls such as scouts and girl guides. None of this is going to cause a problem as long as we retain our individuality but problems can start if the group develops a ‘pack’ mentality i.e. they start thinking and acting as a collective rather than as individuals.

Girls bullyingOne strong voice in a group can influence the rest to such an extent that they will begin to view themselves as ‘different’ to other groups, from there a progression towards ‘superior’ follows naturally and, before long, we begin to see bullying of one group’s members by the members of another. These are the same children that, a few years before, saw no fundamental differences between themselves and their peers but now have strong feelings of dislike or even hatred towards others based on the directives of the collective….

With the growth of social media especially, communication between groups has become much easier and, as a result, their voices have become louder. On-line bullying is becoming more and more prevalent but also more vicious as ‘packs’ find more and more ingenious ways to hide their individual identities. This is a genuine example of pack mentality or mob mentality, if you will, amongst children:

Ryan Halligan: Poughkeepsie, New York
An autistic thirteen year old that’s sweet as can be just trying to make it through the days became a prime target of cyberbullying. Going through his days, and like any boy, he had that one crush. This girl that he had his eye on, had stuck up for him for a while but soon became the main bully. She pretended to like him and then made fun of him and said, she would never like a guy like him. As his pain got worse, he had a pen pal that was encouraging him to end his life. Ryan became so hurt, the he hung himself. All because of cyber-bullies.

Gender diversity formThis type of behaviour is rare between individuals; in a one on one situation, unless one party is a psychopath or sociopath, bullying of this kind doesn’t really happen but it’s becoming more and more common as we move away from the individual to focus on the collective. In the last few years, in the name of promoting tolerance, its seems as though Governments and the media have created more groups than ever; we are now separated by gender, by sexual orientation, by religion, according to political ideals, by ethnicity etc etc and all these collections of individuals are afforded legal rights and protections but why should these be applied to groups according to their differences, why do we need separate laws? Shouldn’t the laws of the land apply to all individuals regardless of their different characteristics?

All of these groups, many of which have grown under the banner of ‘equality’ have activists amongst their membership who will promote their groups rights above the rights of all others. In times gone by this sort of promotion, which also becomes a quest for support and followers, would have been done by the distribution of leaflets or standing at Speakers Corner, it was difficult to gain momentum then but, these days, one click of a button and your message is online instantly. Unfortunately, it seems as though the whole world is now caught up in the social media feeding frenzy and even celebrities that, one would hope, are role models for today’s youth are perpetuating the myth that it’s socially acceptable to abuse, threaten or verbally attack someone as long as it’s not done face to face. These tweets alone will have created spin off groups who will side with one celebrity or the other and yet more dislike and antagonism will be created.

CELEBRITY TWEETSWith the likes of Twitter people can separate into groups still further, for instance, feminists now divide between radical feminists, trans-feminists, trans-exclusionary radical feminists and so on and so forth. In theory they should all be working together as they have the same goals, equality for women, but instead, they fight amongst themselves, threaten violence and, in some cases, carry out violent acts. Why? Because they’ve stuck a label on themselves which sends out two different messages at the same time:

“I am different (and therefore special) but I belong to this group of people who all think in the same way as me (and is therefore more powerful than me as an individual)”.

However, a group is only as radical as its most radical members and these individuals tend to promote mob mentality as a means to their own ends. One of the ways that they do this is to encourage their members to view themselves as ‘victims’ of persecution by another group; if you perceive yourself as a victim and therefore threatened in someway, the natural response is ‘fight or flight’. This article which is aimed at American teenagers tells of a psychiatrist who believes that post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) can be passed down through generations and that black children today could be adversely affected by the experiences of their ancestors, many of whom were violently abused as slaves. Whether there is any real basis for this assertion I really don’t know but I can’t help wondering who it will benefit? Descendants of slaves may believe that they should feel emotionally disturbed because it in someway shows respect to their ancestors. Non black people may believe that they should feel guilty about the atrocities that their ancestors carried out but no-one can change what happened in the past. Wouldn’t a better response be to focus on the present and acknowledge that racism is far less widespread than it was even 20 years ago? Aren’t we better served as a species by recognising the things that we have in common rather than the things that separate us?

Labels are for clothes

Human beings are essentially not so different from many other animals insomuch as they prefer to be in a group rather than alone but our thoughts are that much more complex than other species and our ability to share those thoughts is far greater now than at any other time in history. However, it seems to me that, rather than bringing people together, modern technology is ensuring that the beauty of the individual is being over-looked in favour of the ‘rights’ of the group. Even politicians are getting in on the act with slanging matches rather than policy statements being the order of the day!

In conclusion, I say that we should be kind to everyone around us but we should focus more on ourselves as individuals to break this damaging and dangerous mob mentality that we see everywhere these days; in my opinion, there’s nothing wrong with being selfish and there’s nothing better than individual responsibility. Do you agree?

xx

Ps. Having just read back through all of this I wonder if losing our individuality will be the cause of our downfall or whether humanity will eventually self-destruct thanks to Social Media……..