Call Social Services- British society has long-term plan to abuse newly-born child.

                                                    Happy Birthday !

           The new British Royal Prince has barely been on the planet 24 hours but he has already been put to work. His job as Prince (name) of Cambridge has already been decided. Isn't this compulsory labour ? Won't his child-hood be shadowed by the expectation to act according to his job?  Shouldn't we at least ask him if he wants to be a Prince?
           Not satisfied with child exploitation, British society will be grooming him for his future job that, in all probability, will be 40 or 50 years from now. It has already been decided that, at some point in the future he will become King. And we expect him to be King until he his dead.
          So that's the little fellow's life mapped out for him then. How kind of us. No wonder we can't contain our excitement.

          Before catching his first breath, before any chance to look around or smile at his mum, it has been ordered that this child's natural abilities and hopes and desires will all be subsumed to the role that we have already decided for him. It will not matter if he dreams of being a footballer or an artist, or of living in a cave in Scotland. We know what we want, and his wants don't, and won't, come into it. Isn't this just a bit cruel?

           Clearly, Britain likes having a Royal family. The phrase is often heard that our Royal family makes you "proud to be British." Are we really proud of bullying infants and encouraging a culture that suggests some people are born special and others are not ? Doesn't this kind of culture positively reek of Naziism?
           But, how can this be when we are taught so clearly that the plucky Brits stood firm against the evils of Hitler ?
          
           As always, information gives idea-

                                 Herr Hitler invites us into his lovely home.

           This is from the November 1938 edition of the British magazine Homes and Gardens. The article takes us Hello-style through the sophisticated living quarters of the man who that very month was to order Kristallnacht.  Corporate Britain of the time didn't seem to find too much disagreeable in the "droll raconteur " who kindly gave a "fun-fair" for local children.

           Corporate Britain of now, sees nothing disagreeable in the current system that happily robs a child of his possible dreams even before his umbilical has been cut, in order to perpetuate a society where we are allowed tantalising glimpses of the top of Mount Olympus thanks to a media that exists to make a profit from the gods that they create.
            And all of this made possible by a culture of anti-communication.

         The Nazis were very big on anti-communication.
         I thought we won,  didn't we ?
 

Kirk Douglas, Frederick Douglass, and Teofilo Cubillas : education = how things work.

                                         

                                       Pour encourager les autres.  

          In Stanley Kubrick's film Paths of Glory, Kirk Douglas plays a World War 1 French Colonel who refuses to obey a suicidal attack order. The Top Brass deal with this by choosing three soldiers at random to be executed. Within the system, the lower orders must obey the orders of their commanders no matter how ludicrous they are. For if the command structure were to falter, who knows what might happen?
          Simply put, if command structures do break down then communication will break loose. It is in order to keep the beautiful twin beasts of describing and explaining in their cage that events like those depicted in the film have occured, and continue to occur, throughout history. Describing and explaining are not a danger to us, they are a danger to those in power and those that serve that power, and that is their threat. At the same time, Bela Lugosi must remain buried, his head severed from his neck, to ensure he does not rise and give blood and energy to the living.
          Information like that of Paths of Glory helps people to understand how things work, and powerful people don't like it. After its release in 1957, the French Government put pressure on distributors to ensure that it wasn't seen, and was only released in France in 1975.

                         "People who understand physics understand the way it works. If they want to bother with the details they'll look them up. Pretty much the same is true about understanding the world. Education is a system of imposed ignorance. It is a system of indoctrination. It is a system which drives out of you a lot of the capacity to understand things."
                                              - Noam Chomsky.

         Three years after the French people were finally deemed fit by their government to watch Paths of Glory, I was watching my first World Cup. It was a very different time, because not only was Scotland one of the 16 teams competing, their manager had gone on record stating that Scotland could win it.
          Naturally enough, I settled down to watch the first game against Peru expecting Scotland to show these primitive people a thing or two. I remember someone mentioning that some of the Peruvian players didn't know how old they were. What kind of place was it were people didn't know how old they were?  Surely and steadily, the world cup began to drip interesting and strange information. Especially when this kind of thing started to happen-

              Peru, dismissed by many commentators beforehand, turned out to be brilliant. Later, I would wonder about why it meant so much to Austria to beat Germany and about the mysterious way that Peru fell apart to lose 6-0 to Argentina, when the hosts happened to need a 4 goal victory to advance to the final.
              Even later, I would realise that throughout the tournament I had not once heard the simple fact that Argentina was a military dictatorship that was actively disappearing people.  Why wouldn't people mention this information? Do people suppress information because their culture demands it? Is this how things work?

              99 years previously to the Argentina World Cup , another man who didn't know when he was born was meeting his former owner. This man was the freed slave Frederick Douglass.
                                         

                  When Douglass was 12 years old, the wife of his owner began to teach him to read. Her husband was enraged by this act, explaining that, if slaves were to read, they would be dissatisfied and want freedom. In fact, it was illegal to teach slaves how to read. This was how things worked in the U.S. at that time.
                  People were denied information because it might give them ideas.


               Douglass eventually became an important abolitionist and, simply through his power of communication, ensured that otherwise ignorant people could behold an ex-slave who was as intelligent and articulate as any man.

                   Yet the United States today still has many problems with race relations. The efforts at communication that Frederick Douglass made have consistently been lassoed and hog-tied by the powerful groups who care only for their own profit; who can not recognise the natural and fitting beauty of describing and explaining, who can not understand that Bela Lugosi is not a creature to be feared, but is instead ourselves, our own true selves, and any society that buries and fears its own true self will eventually find out what grows on the grave that we have buried our own souls in.

                    The Pentagon has twice as many bathrooms as it needs.

               


                   Modern U.S. race relations are explored in the brilliant television show The Wire. It should be noted that this drama attempts to describe and explain how things work in a society like the city of Baltimore in which it is set. It is blatantly clear when watching the show that this kind of art on TV has consistently been as rare as a Snow Leopard. And, in a society of commodification, is becoming increasingly rare everywhere. 
                 In interviews, David Simon, the creator of The Wire, has talked about the influence on his show of Paths of Glory.
                Information gives ideas.. And logically, better information, for example: better stories, give better ideas. That's how things work.

           

                                  

Ex-nymphs vs sex-crazed homos: Describing and Explaining.

   
    

                                                         What is it?

          The part of communication that is giving information can be most easily expressed as: Describing and Explaining. We describe and explain whenever we give information, and from this information there is an idea, because communication always, and most basically, works as:

                                             Information ---------> Idea

        The information we choose to give affects the idea. We might describe former P.M. Tony Blair as "the right honourable", or we can describe him as "a war criminal." The musician Prince has been described as " a supernatural Martian playing at Euterpe's party" as well as "a paranoid little schizo with a bible in one hand and his cock in the other." And even such a relatively simple scenario as this-

        -may be a woodlouse, a butcher boy, or even a 団子虫(dango mushi) or dumpling bug in Japanese.  Would you rather have a louse or a dumpling bug in your house?
       
       All people are born with an innate desire to describe and explain. Without it we couldn't learn our native language. Education generally spoils this natural ability by having a deadening culture of the right answer. Things have become worse in the last couple of decades with the increasing emphasis on mulitiple choice tests-   http://www.edutopia.org/blog/dark-history-of-multiple-choice-ainissa-ramirez
  
     Here's a quick multiple choice test:
Q: The Sun is best described as:

A: A Star.
B. A god.
C. An organ.
D. A yellow dwarf.

    Yes, The Sun is a star. But it is also a god and an organ and a yellow dwarf. A vital aspect of communication is that all information depends on context. In different contexts, the Sun is all these things. Communication problems occur when people are connecting information to different contexts. This is why very basic communication practice involves defining terms.
    Here's George Carlin's perfectly sensible view of the sun: Sun God.

  
Looks like the Japanese were right all along !

   
   Fundamentalists of all kits, as well as despising Bela Lugosi, also dis-like describing and explaining.  We are told that: "God moves in mysterious ways" (so don't look for better explanations). We also hear very clear statements that in themselves demand more explanation because the idea that follows information is itself information that naturally leads to another idea. That's the way it works. Don't blame me, blame: god/evolution/explanation of choice.  
    For example: what could be more worthy of explanation than the reason why the United Kingdom needs nuclear weapons? Clearly, the ancient and wise Great Britain would find someone who would patiently go through all the necessary explanations to show people why they should spend their money on things that are built to do this-
                             

-rather than spend the money on things that can do this-
                                  


         Clearly, it's a tricky choice that ordinary people can't be trusted with. The British democracy  entrusts this sacred choice with a member of the educated elite who can guide us through this maze. Do we want children burnt to hell or reading books? Luckily, here's Dave to show us the way- David Cameron: We need a nuclear deterrent more than ever
        As reading is now officially something not to be encouraged I'll go through the main points in Dave's explanation-

         We need a "nuclear deterrent" because countries like Iran and North Korea are a threat. North Korea is described as "aggressive".  Presumably, that's more aggressive than our good friend and invading partner the United States that has invaded many many more countries than North Korea in the last few decades. Of course, nobody asks for Dave's definition of aggression. That would entail better communication and people are educated not to do that.
         Also, there is absolutely no explanation why countries like Sweden and Brazil and Switzerland feel that they are fine without any nuclear weapons capability whatsoever. Moreover, there is no effort to explain the benefit any country would gain from attacking Britain with nuclear weapons anyway. If we decommissioned all our nukes tomorrow, would Russia immediately attack? If they wouldn't, then why do we have nuclear weapons ?
        
          How did we get to the point where we accept the feeble explanations of a shiny-faced toff as to why we should turn our ploughshares into swords ?
          The current economic system that Britain is a part of demands weak communication. If the power structures that we already have are to survive, they must ensure that people are not interested in asking and checking or demanding better describing and explaining.  This system results in an educated elite that are not taught how communication works but know enough about describing and explaining to realise that it serves the interests of those in power if communication is a one-way street.
           An excellent example of what can be done with top-down communication is in the BBC documentary The Century of the Self, which profiles "the father of the Public Relations industry" Edward Bernays-          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW_rIdd69W8
   The Public Relations industry is essentially against better communication because it makes their job more difficult. They like simple describing and explaining that puts a simple idea into people's heads. They prefer very much that Bela Lugosi's coffin lid is nailed tightly shut. Modern politics and culture is broadly the same. With simple explanations you can show people ideas that appeal. All the while obscuring more useful information that would give us a more useful idea. It would have been useful information for many people in 1981 to know that members of  Thatcher's cabinet were idly suggesting plans like 'managed decline' for a major city like Liverpool. We only get to hear about it 30 years later. Who is this information being kept secret from? The Russkies? Or us?
       
          The information we give affects the idea. The world now has many more PR people who's job it is to manage information in order to present only certain ideas. Would you prefer ex-nymphs in your garden or sex-crazed homos? Of course, personal preference comes into it, and I don't doubt that some people will be intrigued by the idea of either  a garden full of rampant gays, or unemployed  goddesses. Or both.
           However, my own idea of this information is this-


                                         

             The cicada or せみ（semi) or, tree-cricket or, that thing that makes enormous racket, lives for years as a Nymph. It used to be considered Homoptera, which means "uniform-wings". Interestingly, this explanation is no longer considered good enough. New information became available and the idea has changed.
          You can look at the information of a cicada and get many ideas. You night consider them grotesque or soothing or annoying or interesting. But when a cicada emerges as an adult it has only a couple of weeks to find a mate. So it sings. A lot. Fair enough really isn't it? If you had as little time, you'd want to make some noise too wouldn't you?

              By the way, How do we ourselves define " little time."?






        

       
              

Bela Lugosi is everywhere unwell, and particularly poorly in Japan.

                        Blair/Thatcher - 21 years in power: absolutely barking.
                                         Bela Lugosi is unwell.

             The asking + checking (Bela Lugosi) parts of communication are almost everywhere most often greeted with garlic, crucifixes and sharpened stakes.  Asking + checking  is met not only with the anger of the pitch-forked mob, but also with the fury of the guy in the castle. Those in power recognise that any effort to communicate represents a danger to those whose privileged position must never be exposed to the examination of sunlight lest it turn to dust. Human history shows that an increase in the quality of society is fundamentally linked to an increase in communication. Without the asking and checking of science, we would have none of our modern technological comforts. Without the asking and checking of the heretics we would still be in mortal fear of the church. Without the asking and checking of ordinary people, we'd still be wondering how to control fire.
              It would be cold.
           
             Power structures everywhere can only exist with the support of those within them. This support is usually tacit as those in power generally see to it that education and culture do not encourage people to communicate. This is a normal and necessary function of the system.
             If education and culture were to encourage communication, then asking + checking would be seen to be a good thing, and would naturally lead to genuine efforts to describe + explain. Yet in education there is usually no simple effort to encourage questions. There is no push to grade students on their ability to ask and check, which is fully 50% of communication. There is no acknowledgement that asking and checking are fundamental  components of communication.
            In the general culture, we can see how valued asking and checking is by the esteem in which debate is held-   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate
            In formal debates you are usually defending your position from attack and trying to convince others that your position is correct.. Like this, people's idea of high-level communication becomes no better than dogs woofing at each other. The important questions become: who did it louder? Who did it cuter? Who has the glossier coat? Televised political debates have rarely risen much above this as in formal debate there is absolutely no emphasis on trying to understand the other person's idea, and so no real attempt is made to communicate above dog-level.
            People's communication becomes barking.

           As all communication always works as: Information -----------> Idea, the most basic and important function of asking and checking is to understand the idea.  If we are not trying to understand the other person's idea, then what are we trying to do? It's clear that fundamentalists of all coats represent problems in society, and it is also clear that these people have zero interest in the ideas of others. So why isn't it common practice for people to attempt to understand someone's idea before dismissing it?
      Here's an example from a conversation I have had recently with a Japanese student of English in my class. This student is a qualified tour guide, very capable of expressing himself in English-
          
Student.    Recently, there was a recommendation by Japanese business leaders                        that  correct English pronunciation is not so important....
                
       Me.    I agree. Japanese students are usually far too worried about style rather                   than basic information.                 

Student.    But if you don't have correct pronunciation communication is difficult.
          
       Me.    Well, it's impossible to communicate well if you are not trying to ask and
                check. It's these basic skills that are a million times more important than
               the idea of correct pronunciation.

Student.    Mm...Anyway, talking of pronunciation......

          It's clear here that the student is making no basic effort to understand my idea. That means, no basic effort to communicate. He is, of course, perfectly free to consider my idea to be rubbish, but I would appreciate him explaining why it is rubbish. How else am I going to learn?
          Basic communication is a more of a problem in Japan than in other places for the simple reason that Japanese culture discourages asking and checking even more than other cultures do. It is very common for Japanese to guess the other person's meaning rather than to ask them directly for more information. Also, Japanese are often encouraged by their culture to not articulate their ideas. Naturally, Japanese continue this approach when they attempt to communicate in another language. Unfortunately, with this attitude, the necessary practice for communication generally does not, and can not, happen. To take an example, in one of my classrooms recently a post-card sized strip of wall-paper had been taken from the wall. Quite naturally, I decided to fill that space with a demon trying to burst through from a parallel universe. This room is used for one-to-one lessons; of the next 30 students who came in, only 3 asked about the demon.
           If you are not prepared to comment on, or ask about, a small red imp attempting entry into the classroom from another dimension, then what do you deem worthy of communication?
        

                                                "Mark, Mark, let me in........"

        Another important point about asking + checking is that it's a vital part of the way we learn our native language. 
      Small children are born with the natural ability to ask and check. Small children, without any hesitation, try to get the information they need- what is it? when? where? is it ? and especially why? are asked with no prompting. And they are not copying adults, because adults are much more hesitant to ask questions.
      All of this means that asking + checking are innate parts of human communication. Children are born with the natural ability to ask and check yet it has largely been eroded by the time they become adults. In between, they go to school and are socialised according to the mores of the society. And society does not want too much communication. (However, according to Mrs Thatcher, there is "no such thing as society." A hugely interesting idea about which nobody asked or checked . As usual.)   

     Although there are important problems with asking and checking in Japan, we should  understand that problems with Bela Lugosi are a very basic human problem and not a specifically Japanese one. It's just easier to see in Japan.
      In my own country, Great Britain, we are in no state to feel superior about our communication skills because in Great Britain we are closing libraries. More than 200 in 2012.                 http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/dec/10/uk-lost-200-libraries-2012
      More than 200 is also the number of nuclear weapons that Britain retains.
     
      We are closing the libraries and are prepared to upgrade our nuclear weapons.  Isn't this a clear symptom of a sick society, a society where Bela Lugosi is unwell  ?