Monday 30 September 2019

Post No. 1,421 - Psychic work this week

Psychic work this week will be:
  • Sunday: the purpose of this day’s work is, mainly, to build a reserve of BPM energy to call upon during the coming week. In addition to the meditation / clearing work described below, I will also be working on making sure I, my crystals and my other tools / devices are as fully charged with BPM energy as I can make them (which is something I have posted about elsewhere, but may post more about in the near future):
     - clear nonBPM units from, and send BPM energy to the Arctic, South Atlantic Ocean, Southern Ocean, Antarctica, and the Indian Ocean, and to all actual and potential BPM Leaders, for all humans to recognise the essential shared humanness of other people, all BPM Interrupters of violence / hate / fear / anger, and for all humans to choose to live modestly;
  • Monday:
     - clear nonBPM units from, and send BPM energy to South and Central Asia, Siberian Russia and the West Pacific Ocean;
  • Tuesday:
     - clear nonBPM units from, and send BPM energy to East Asia, West Asia, Europe and European Russia;
  • Wednesday:
     - clear nonBPM units from, and send BPM energy to South and Central America, the East Pacific Ocean, and all of Africa;
  • Thursday:
     - clear nonBPM units from, and send BPM energy to North America (especially the USA) and Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Israel;
  • Friday:
     - clear nonBPM units from, and send BPM energy to North America (especially the USA) and Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Israel;
  • Saturday: this day will now be reserved for rest, recuperation and healing – of all those who are trying in a BPM way to make this planet a better place, not only of myself and those who are sharing this work. I ask that any and all healers who wish to contribute to this, take a few minutes to contribute to this on this day.
The bindrune I will be using will be:





Saturday 28 September 2019

Post no. 1,420 - This week

As I indicated previously, I am no longer doing the Gnwmythr's News, but I am doing some ad hoc work on news events on my online candles blog. Below are some of the matters I have lit online candles for this past week.

May:
So mote it be.

Post No. 1,419 - some cross postings

The posts below originally appeared on my political blog at:

The problem of ignoring humanity to allow scope creep 
When I was at Uni, one of my lecturers illustrated a point by telling the following story:
Once upon a time (well, no, he didn't start that way), there was an army base. That army base - this was in the far less enlightened mid-20th century - needed a new pit to dump their rubbish in. So, a major told his (see aforementioned comment about less enlightened times- meaning they were sexist) subordinate to take two sticks of dynamite, go out, and blow a hole in the ground to be a new rubbish dump.
The major saluted and snapped out "yes SUH!", decided his superior officer was a nincompoop (remember the era) and told his captain to blow a hole for the rubbish using four sticks of dynamite.
The captain saluted and snapped out "yes SUH!", decided his superior officer was a nincompoop, and added more sticks of dynamite - and on it goes, with each layer adding a bit, until eventually, according to my lecturer, two boxes of dynamite were used - and blew all the buildings in the base off their stumps.
I have no idea whether the story was real or not. Given that it was presented by a Uni lecturer as being real, one would hope so, but . . .

In any case, it raises the issue of scope creep quite nicely.

Where I've been most concerned about this is in how refugees and asylum seekers are treated in detention.

That detention is administrative, not criminal, and yet they are subjected to abusive conditions including strip and cavity searches - including OF CHILDREN.

Where did that "scope creep" come in? Was it political, or in the private company? Was it at the level of the "work face"?

In any case, it breaches the law, and shows a complete and utter lack of humanity.

What seems to be a decline in humanity has been shown by comparing the distraught coverage of the burning of the airship "Hindenburg" with the unemotional commentary at the explosion of the space shuttle "Challenger" just after launch.

What is going wrong that we are losing our humanity and common sense?

Are the people doing a strip search or a cavity search so damaged as human beings that they cannot see the harm, or are they choosing to ignore the harm, whether out of hate for refugees, a blind Nazi-like devotion to "the rules", or fear of unemployment? 

We hear plenty of justification for strip searches, but the discussion is never balanced by hearing of the costs (or is flawed by stupid decisions such as that which said being strip searched was the same as a team shower environment), so thee has NEVER been proper consideration of the matter.

Lack of human understanding is also an issue here, just as it was years ago when police and courts were writing domestic violence off as "just a domestic" (which still happens in some parts of the world). It also happens with the harm done by forcing people to give urine samples in front of another person - possibly of the opposite sex - is equally a matter of, basically, sexual assault - or at the very least, profound psychological harm.

The latest manifestation of this lack of humanity is the forced public partial strip search of a disabled person visiting Parliament.

Were the security guards thinking gaining entry is a matter of acknowledging or proving submission to their self-perceived authority?

What is WRONG with people like that?

And there unquestionably IS something wrong with both the people who do those searches (incidentally, I consider the USA's TSA agents child abusers) and those who approve them.

Where have we gone so wrong? When did we start putting authority and bureaucracy so far ahead of humanity?

Running multi-employee businesses  
I recently wrote a post asking if neoliberal politicians could be accused of enabling their mates who are third rate managers to abuse workers to make a profit. Apart from that being a sarcastic, and thus inherently destructive, question, it is simplistic and not correct - I debunked it myself in that post, which is here.

That post was split off from this one, which I hadn't got around to completing (I'm doing a bit of "clear the backlog" today). I now want to finish the rest of that article - and this will be a bit rushed and unpolished.

Neoliberals and others of a Newtonian mind set have learned some basic lessons - simple lessons, and are applying those as best they know, but don't realise the lessons are not appropriate.

Employees are human beings, not cogs, but to expect them to be self-sacrificing cogs (this also applies to this point) attacks and damages their humanity, and, apart from the inherent evil (yes, it meets the definition, as far as I am concerned) of that, that damages their productivity.

To get more out of human beings without damaging them, it is vital to first learn how to be a genuine human yourself. As an example, when managers contact employees away on parental leave, they must not make it about "when can you get back", the manager should be awed at the privilege they have of being able to share an important part of the life outside work of the human who is in their employ.

Another key issue here is motivation.

I've heard many neoliberals grumble that pay is an incentive/motivation: yes, it is, but, when work is invading the privacy and lives of employees by controlling their social media feed (much as it used to try to control what happened in bedrooms through being homophobic; incidentally, I refuse to mention the company I work for here or even on my LinkedIn account because of their orders to include a paragraph of propaganda), the issue of financial compensation becomes utterly inadequate.

Yes, pay is necessary for survival, but to think it should be a primary driver:
(a) ignores the reality of the complexity of human behaviour, and
(b) ignores the development of civilisation, which means that we should be moving beyond basic survival needs. 

On the first point, this was realised by the psychological teams running businesses when they started measuring good and bad perceptions of work (such as the pay is good, but hours of work are lousy) at the same time - DECADES ago.

They "get it", but some of the bosses don't.

In truth, I've often suspected that those who make the surly comment about pay are really complaining because they haven't got the respect they want - and that disconnect is a measure of a failure to understand that employees have -or should be able to have - a life.

Humans are not solely cogs in the machinery of a business.

Now, at this point I'm going to quote from my other article:
There are also brilliant, first rate managers - I have a couple now, and had another in the 2000s. 
There are two issues here.

Firstly, how do we get more managers to become first rate?

I consider that they need to develop their human competence, stop focusing exclusively on financial numbers and start to see the bigger picture (much as national level politicians should also stop trying to pretend they have sole control over economies - which are subject to the vagaries of international events, and have been for centuries) - and stop shoving human interaction issues off to the HR department.

Managers need to be more than a company focused automaton: this is not Japan - and even there they are slowly realising their willing slavery is dreadful. Managers should set examples - for instance, if changing the culture to one where faults can be admitted, do so. As an illustration of that, if financial targets for the company are not met, admit that the targets were unrealistic and apologise (rather than, perhaps, tell everyone to work extra unpaid overtime to meet the targets).

I sometimes wonder if this problem is unique to Australia. We could never have had a Google, as we are so focused on grudge, money, and details. Is that our convict origin? I would hope not, given how many people have come here since we stopped being a jail for the English, but that may be offset by the narrative we have stuck to around our convict start.

We have had employee-owned companies, which I consider a good thing in principle. However, when the employees have to buy in to the company by purchasing shares, it becomes an excluding device, rather than an in including. (And yes, there are companies - well, at least one - where shares are allocated to workers automatically without the employee having to give back money.)

I've also seen things like a Contractor setting one part of a project up so the workers would get a bonus for completing it early. That wasn't used on other parts of the project because of technical issues that required us to proceed slowly and carefully, but in that part of the project. On the other hand, a couple of decades later I failed to bring a sub-contractor into the project as an equal partner (which would have been SO much better), partly because I wanted to try to make a good return, and partly because I wasn't sure HOW to do so - what would the wording of the agreement be like?

That's actually a pretty good segue into what I suspect is the cure here: education.

However, the education - which should happen in secondary school - needs to go beyond the financial nitty gritty and be focused on the human aspect of running a business, including:
  • ensuring that employees (workers) are treated well; 
  • the benefits of treating employees better than the minimum standards of the law; and
  • how to set up a visionary / inspiring business, like Google in its early days, when it really did live by the "don't do the evil thing" motto.
The second issue is: how do employees, or potential employees, know if a manager is or could be first or third rate? Well, here are a few suggestions:
  1. Do they support safe injecting rooms?
    If yes, they are likely to be able to look at the long term outcomes (i.e., keeping people alive long enough to recover), and thus be able to invest in and persist with people, rather than kicking them out quickly.
  2.  If ringing an employee on parental leave, what would they talk about first?
    If they first discuss how the child is going, or the employee is finding being a parent, they are likely to have a realistic perspective on the proper relativities of work and life - although they will still no doubt expect some overtime and extra effort.
  3. If they are involved in their company's IT policies, do they insist on changing passwords every three months? If yes, they may have a flawed understanding of human behaviour, or problems staying up to date or accepting evidence. Evidence shows that frequent changes of passwords is likely to lead to people adopting weaker (easier to remember) passwords.
  4. Do they accept climate change is real?
    If yes, they may have a better ability to assess evidence than the deniers, and you are thus likely to be able to present a case for initiatives, etc and have it fairly considered - which does mean they will necessarily agree :)
    I consider that neoliberals problems accepting evidence - and this is a problem found in many, if not all, points of view - is why they both deny the reality of climate change, and also refuse to admit the evidence showing that their policies are destructive, not helpful.
    (This does not necessarily mean they are scientifically inclined.)
This is all just my perspective, based on four decades of work, and three decades of fighting neoliberals. You, Dear Reader, may have an equally valid, but different opinion.

Post No. 1,418 - Cross posting: Another lost chance of peace from assassination

This post originally appeared on my political blog at https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2019/09/another-lost-chance-of-peace-from.html. For readers of this blog, we know that there is protective psychic work we can do to prevent such events, as well healing and strengthening of BPM guidance that we can do after such terrible events.

One of the themes I've written about (mostly on my main blog, as I hadn't created this blog back then - see, for instance, here, here, and here), is the massive harm assassination can do - ranging from the prevention of the ability to heal the rift in US society caused by the loss of Abraham Lincoln, through the near century long insanity unleashed under the pretext of the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, to the robbing from West Asia of peace caused by the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin.

All murders are destructive - for all involved or touched by that act; causing more widespread harm adds to the evil.

And now I've come across another example of nations being robbed of peace, this time in Central Asia.

From here:

My childhood memories of the day Azerbaijan lost Shusha in 1992 are still vivid. I recall one old man weeping because Armenian forces had captured the city. Looking at the replica mosque in Jojug Mercanli, I remember when, the year before, on 20 November 1991, an Azerbaijani helicopter carrying a peace mission – Azerbaijani, Kazakh and Russian officials set to discuss an early end to fighting – was shot down in Nagorno-Karabakh. The crash, I believe, altered the conflict’s trajectory – and maybe that of Azerbaijan itself. At the time, there may have been a chance of resolving the conflict without further bloodshed. But it was not to be. One of the dead was Ismet Gayibov, the public prosecutor general and my father’s colleague. He was a remarkable man, an intellectual of strong character. In a single incident, the country lost several such high-quality politicians and thinkers only a month after it regained independence.
How can the world respond to such assassinations better?

It is fairly obvious, and a bit trite, to say "well, continue to act as if the assassination had not happened", as that ignores the reality of human emotion and the very real loss of being denied the murdered person's perspective, skills, and status, and yet it is the only thing I can think of right now.

I've been pondering this quandary for many years now, and suspect I will do so till the day I die.

Post No. 1,417 - Unethical magic

I like this article on unethical magic, which gets into nuance (what many term "shades of grey"), and sloppy use of words - such as saying "black" when we mean "evil", which is an appalling piece of casual racism. I don't agree with all of the author's decisions, but, Dear Reader, have a look for yourself and make up your own mind:

Post No. 1,416 - homophobia/transphobia and remorse

There is a controversy here over the conduct of a sports player who posted homophobic and transphobic comments and was sacked in response. As he is (was?) a public person whose comments have the power to influence and harm many people, I supported the taking of some action. Whether being sacked was the best move has always been debatable, but it did raise the issue of the invasive control that businesses now exert over their employees' personal lives - and the issue of social media posts has been growing ever since social media came into existence.

Going back to the player, his sacking for breaching his employers' Code of Conduct is now in court, and it turns out that he
(a) admitted he had caused offence;and
(b) offered to publicly apologise. 

In my opinion, this changes everything.

Yes, he is still a religious bigot; yes, he has harmed and is still likely to harm the health and wellbeing of LGBTIQ+ people - but he has shown an inch of remorse,and, for the sake of his soul, that needs to be encouraged.

Acting too harshly now is like trying to nurture a flicker of flame in kindling to a fire by exposing it to a massive blast of air, rather than gently breathing on it.

From my point of view, which is different to that of the employer (who is also looking at past incidents), that flicker of light in this damaged soul needs to be nurtured, as it is the start of healing the soul - which is, as the souls of all bigots are, scarred and in need of healing. This admission changes everything.

The court, of course, will judge the situation purely from the point of view of the law. As I support the principle of the rule of law, I must support that . . . but I can pray and hope for mercy, and for his remorse to be given its due consideration in setting the outcomes of whatever decision is reached.

If you appreciated this post, please consider promoting it - there are some links below, and theres also Instagram

Remember: we generally need to be more human being rather than human doing, to mind our MÓ•gan, and to acknowledge that all misgendering is an act of active transphobia/transmisia that puts trans+ lives at risk & accept that all insistence on the use of “trans” as a descriptor comes with commensurate use of “cis” as a descriptor to prevent “othering” (just as binary gendered [men’s and women’s] sporting teams are either both given the gender descriptor, or neither).

Copyright © Kayleen White 2007-2024     NO AI   I do not consent to any machine learning aka Artificial Intelligence (AI), generative AI, large language model, machine learning, chatbot, or other automated analysis, generative process, or replication program to reproduce, mimic, remix, summarise, or otherwise  replicate any part of this post or other posts on this blog via any means. Typos may be inserrted deliberately to demonstrate this is not an AI product.     Otherwise, fair and reasonable use is accepted under Creative Commons 4.0 on an Attribution-ShareAlike basis https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/