*****
I have limited time and energy: as a result of that, and the much higher
priority that keeping my job so I can support those I do, I can't do
the nice writing that I wish to. As a result of that, and a few other
changes I've been making to my blogging, I've decided to do the
occasional post with just a brief comment or two on current events. This
is the first of those posts.
*****
I'll begin with authoritarianism - and examples of the abuses committed by such systems include the charges against two Reuters journalists who exposed burma's genocide (and Australia's charges against a whistleblower and his lawyer), the disappearance of a woman who "defaced" a poster of China's Chairperson Xi, the continuing grab for more power of Turkey's Erdowan (ph. version of "Erdogan"). Specifically, I read an article arguing that the imposition of sanctions feeds authoritarianism. The article is well written, and worth a read and ponder.I suspect, like many things, there is a need to explore the nuance a bit further (e.g., some sanctions do lead to or aid change), and this article may reflect the influence of the unbridled power, arrogance and bullying of the USA, which is staggeringly backwards socially - to the extent that not many there are even aware of it. (They are also not aware of their hypocrisy over border "security".) When I wrote that, I was thinking, in particular, of debates on LinkedIn where US people have been victim-blaming people born into poverty for "not taking personal responsibility", and neoliberalism generally, but also this case of selling a my nation's soul and morals to neoliberalism.
Another part of the current selling-of-their-souls by nations has been cutting foreign aid. Apparently, however, paralegal aid to developing nations is both effective and supported.
Another thought for aid aimed at promoting peace or at least minimising violence is that "socialisation is a more durable way of promoting restraint"; a soundly based article . . . do authoritarians and victim blamers also need to be better socialised? (One of the problems of writing about that is that people - particularly those in the elites - tend to view such matters from their perspective, which is warped by centuries of social engineering - particularly by neochristianity, but also the desensitisation to suffering and violence perpetrated "on the laying fields of Eton", which is where the grounds of the British Empire was supposedly crafted, and that influence was passed on to the USA.)
That leads into my next item: researchers have found that a mild current applied to art of the brain "reduces aggressive intent". Now, this is not ECT, and it is being worked on in the context of people with profound violence problems in situations such as domestic violence, BUT . . . it raises ethical concerns about where it could go (i.e., large scale changing of character for nefarious purposes, or as an imposition of this instead of being jailed), and it weakens the researchers case that they don't appear to have even thought of that. (For what it is worth, I consider that, if this is proven to the extent that it becomes reliable, safe and "approved for use", extremely violent criminals facing jail for the rest of their lives MIGHT possibly be given the OPTION of choosing this VOLUNTARILY as a basis for them getting out at some stage, but I think it is a slippery slope to make it compulsory - jail violent criminals yes, but I don't trust governments being involved in character modification: that leads to Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World".) In terms of the technique itself, I consider violent tendencies to generally be an indication of a damaged soul: education and personal growth are preferable first steps, but there are people where such techniques may be pragmatically necessary step - for instance, those leaving the overwhelming indoctrination of the military.
Finally, it was god to read an article in the media which was open about the constraints on the media, and the resultant flaws in news reportage.
