Saturday, 30 November 2019

Post No. 1,451 - Cross Posting: Thoughts from this week

This post originally appeared on my political blog at https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2019/11/thoughts-from-this-week.html.

To state the obvious, violence is still a problem in the world.

In the Democratic Republic of Congo, which is still suffering the legacy of violent colonialism, that violence is inhibiting the fight against Ebola, and thus adding to the inherent problems (death, injury, the war crime of sexual assault, instability and lack of governance, food shortages and famine, economic loss to nation and person, etc) of the fighting.

On the other hand, there has been signs of movement towards peace in some places - Yemen, and possibly Afghanistan. The problems with the Taliban are (a) they've shown in the past that they may not act with what is typically considered to be good faith, and (b) they are still misogynistic, and thus any "peace" would probably involve significant human rights abuses and thus be of questionable benefit - that is, is the current level of physical violence and governance of limited effectiveness better or worse than a possibly more stable, reduced physical violence but increased abuse existence under the Taliban?

I can't see any acceptable, viable options for resolving these problems - but I support continuing to talk. Engagement doesn't always help (if the people doing the talking are disrespectful, lacking in understanding, or limited in their comprehension/awareness [including of human rights], it could create more problems than open opportunities for shifts in positions, or may allow movement towards something that is worse - which is what I fear in the case of Afghanistan), but it has the potential to do so.

On solutions, the recent talk by Geoff Gallop at my home state's Fabians annual dinner (I did not attend, to be clear) on ways to improve democracy is now available on YouTube, and is well worth a listen. I've listened to it, downloaded the transcript, and - when I've edited the downloaded transcript into a more readable form, am looking forward to reading it carefully and gleaning what I can from it.

Continuing that theme, one US state is looking to a form of sortition to find a way to ensure that changes to electoral boundaries will fix any gerrymandering and be truly fair.

This is likely to be akin to the use of citizen's juries, in my opinion: if the group of citizens is given good information, including good (unbiased) education on the issues, they will work well - that has been shown by the outcomes of such juries for a range of governmental organisations in my home state; see here, here, here, and here, for instance.

On governance matters, an article from academia this week has confirmed what many, if not most, people have known for a while now, which is that - even without considering climate change - people's lifestyles are changing, and thus the assumptions used for government planning need to change as well.

And on climate change, there is some more fumbling  around the edges of ensuring we have better (or at least less bad)  buildings, including  houses.

Governance matters have not all been good or neutral.

Hungary, the nation which famously stood up to the military might of the USSR, has sadly been regressing for some time, and this week tried to silence Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch - the latter an organisation founded in efforts to hold the USSR to account on human rights abuses.

And Singapore has taken some appalling actions against the human rights of workers.  (If I get the time and energy, I would like to work that one up into a standalone post.)

On a personal note, I've been re-reading Geoffrey  Robertson's "Crimes Against Humanity" (The New Press, 2012, ISBN 978-1-59558-860-9, 4th ed.), and have started reading his book "The Tyrannicide Brief: The Story of the Man who sent Charles I to the Scaffold" (Vintage Digital, 2010, 978-1407066035, Amazon), as well as a few others.

I have also finally had the energy to resume some of my semi-formal studies - which may lead to another post or two in due course.
Posted by at

Wednesday, 27 November 2019

Post No. 1,450: Cross-posting - "Hello, China here"

This post originally appeared on my political blog athttps://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2019/11/hello-china-here.html.

I received another one of those annoying foreign language scam calls yesterday. They're utterly wasted on me, as (1) (relates to their first word - I'll explain shortly) the official legal language here is English, although other may be used to improve communication (using a different language that cannot be understood therefore is not OK), and (2) I have no idea what is being said. In fact, scam calls are why I divert ALL my calls, with an admonishment to leave a message or risk being reported as a scammer.

Anyway, there was a change yesterday: the message started with an English word: "warning". Of course, once it switched to what sounded (from the times if worked for a few weeks there - many years ago, which means I have forgotten most of what I knew of the language) like Chinese (which is also consistent with media reports I've report warning of Chinese language scams), I stopped listening and deleted the message (next time, I might get a friend to translate it).

Anyway, just in case it was a threat, rather than a scam, I want to get a few things clear:

  • the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is not the Chinese people;
  • China, existing now as the Chinese people, has an illustrious history, which was brutally stopped by the Opium Wars, where Britain (and other Western nations) enforced devastation so the West could get more profit; 
  • the CCP has lifted many people people out of desperate poverty; 
  • notwithstanding that, the CCP is a brutal, human-rights-suppressing dictatorship of the type George Orwell wrote about in "Animal Farm" and "1984", and is seeking to brainwash the Chinese people and other peoples who have been invaded (Tibet) or are being threatened (Taiwan), and has shown by its actions in relation to Hong Kong that it lies (the "one nation, two systems" claims have been consistently undermined); 
  • the suppression of freedom of thought is now limiting the Chinese economy (as shown by its slowing growth), and thus is now being harmful even to those Chinese people who are not being actively suppressed; 
  • the CCP has a choice: it can become a genuinely progressive party, allow people increasing genuine freedom, and thus start to harness the talents of the Chinese people (which I know are there from the times I worked there), or, ultimately, be rejected by the Chinese people.
    The longer the people are suppressed, the more violent and complete  will be the way they overthrow the CCP * .
    At that time, how the international community reacts will depend on how the CCP has treated other nations - with threats and acts of attempted intimidation and interference, or with respect.
    Leninism and Stalinism lasted around seven decades in the USSR; the Maoist version has lasted around a similar time in China, and is likely to last at least a couple more (decades), but what then?
     It's up to the CCP. 
Oh, and I don't react meekly to threats and intimidation.

 * This was a point made about the USSR in "The Craft of Political Analysis for Diplomats", by Raymond F. Smith (pub. Potomac Books, Washington, 2011, ISBN 978-1-59797-730-2, Amazon).
Posted by at

Monday, 25 November 2019

Post No. 1,449 - Cross posting: Moving beyond lip service in human rights

This post originally appeared on my political blog at https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2019/11/moving-beyond-lip-service-in-human.html.


Although I am of the view that I and every other woman alive today owes a massive debt to the feminists (i.e., pro-women s rights activists, some of whom were male) from the 60s, I also consider that steps such as removing courtesy titles (i.e., Ms, Miss, Mrs) was a disservice in the long term.

It was undoubtedly a tactical gain, as it enabled a short term way of getting around sexist discrimination, but that was exactly why it was a long term (strategic) loss: it got around the problems of sexism, it didn't change it.

There is a valid argument that gaining experience working alongside women would further erode that sexism, but I consider any such decision around actions in support of human rights should be fully informed - i.e., there should have been a discussion about the fact that there was a long term issues not being addressed fr the sake of short term gain.

And such short term gains can be more important - for instance, when lives are at stake.

The issue of short term vs. long term also crops up, however, in relation to the opposition to human rights.

As a couple of examples from the 1960s women's rights movement:
  • women initially asked for an equal share of power, but men said "oh no, we think around 30% would be enough" - and THAT is why the "all power to women" saying started; 
  • people who didn't like using "Ms" could use the argument that titles were being removed to avoid addressing their discomfort over not knowing if women were in an official, state and religion sanctioned relationship.
These days, the bigotry of that second example would probably be termed "unconscious bias", but I argue it probably wasn't unconscious at all.

Also, the first example needs to kept in mind, along with the resistance to giving women the vote that led to the shift from the suffragist movement to the at times violent suffragette movement. There is always resistance to change because it is change, and that is even stronger when it involves ceding rights to others - even though that does NOT diminish anyone else's rights ever. (Feeling less privileged is not a diminishment of human rights.)

Decisions about whether to make life for a discriminated against group more survivable or bearable as opposed to changing the bigotry that causes the problem ideally should be subject to an informed discussion.

On that, there have been a number of reflections on increased discussions (for instance, see here), and that is often good.

As a first step, it can be important, although challenging, to call out instances of lip service.

I recently had the opportunity to do that on a matter that related to trans and gender diverse (TGD) rights, and have decided to post the relevant part of that here. Please read and consider.
  •  Transition (not necessarily with GRS [gender realignment surgery] ) is supported by medical professionals on the basis that it is necessary for the wellbeing of TGD people; 
  • After years of agitating, medical professional finally realised one of the biggest problems post-transition is discrimination (although I am still seeing surveys constructed with insufficient awareness of this);
  • Now that much of the government documentation has been fixed (this does not cover all documentation, and this is referring to my home state), the biggest problem is most commonly misgendering (i.e., wrong pronouns) – to the extent that some of us consider it tantamount to attempted murder or manslaughter; 
  • Getting official recognition of the problem of misgendering has been slow – in my opinion, because it means people have to go beyond paying lip service to not discriminating against TGD people, to being genuine about it. There has slowly been some movement on this – for instance, the former EOCV guidelines removed mention of misgendering at the insistence of others in 2000/01, and the EOCV only put it back in around 5 years or so ago; 
  • Deadnaming is referring to pre-transition names. It is nearly equally as deadly as misgendering. The desire of some people to insist on previous names being made known highlights a point that some have often talked about, which is some people’s fear of being “tricked” into what they wrongly classify as a same sex encounter on the basis of pre-transition, assigned gender. Again, avoiding deadnaming also obliges people to move beyond lip service / begrudging acceptance to genuine. 
There are many, many, many examples of this problem of lip service.

Be aware of it, and please call it out when you come across it.
Posted by at

Post No. 1,448 - Cross posting: Weekend ramblings: addiction to virtue signalling, the fear of having power, and the mistake of not taking people with you

This post originally appeared on my political blog at https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2019/11/weekend-ramblings-addiction-to-virtue.html.

This is a post in my Ethics, Lazy Management, and Flawed Thinking series - see https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2019/11/ethics-lazy-management-and-flawed.html.

If I had the time and energy, each of these would be worked up into a complete post, but for expediency and health's sake, I've decided to put them all together.

Addiction to virtue signalling

Now, people want to feel good. Fair enough, mostly, although there is an entire religion/philosophy (Buddhism) built on examining how to be happy in "better" ways, some people can develop problematic preferences around things that make us feel good (just ask any anti-smoking, anti-alcohol, or anti-sugar/salt campaigners [and I'm in the first three categories]), and there is the extremely annoying and irrelevant furphies around sadism-masochism whenever this topic is raised.

It is possibly for the desire to feel good to lead to bad things - as an example, I have a spiel around World War (part) One that starts with "people want to feel good". There is also the old neochristian-framed saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", and, on neochristianity, things sex-negativity that can be traced back to seeking approval within that system of dogma.

However, there is also a lot of good - including personal growth work, charity (notwithstanding the slagging off at some people's motivations), and social changes for the better.

Wanting to feel good is a complex and nuanced subject, but what I want to focus on is wanting to feel good in the context of working for social change.

Now, keeping in mind the evidence that one of the ways to prevent a backlash (which is the other side of the "win people over" coin, so to speak), is to be pleasant and not metaphorically beat people around the head, one of the problems to be aware of in relation to wanting to feel good while working for a better society is becoming addicted to what we used to term "feelings of moral superiority", and what tends to be covered these days, to some extent, by the phrase "virtue signalling".

It is an incredibly easy trap to fall into, because it feels good, but it is an error for at least the following reasons:

  1. You are not inherently better than others, even if you are living a low-environmental-impact or "woke" or some other term lifestyle. To think you are better is an attack on the inherent dignity of every  single  human  being; 
  2. You are actually demonstrating a lack of personal "virtue" - read some of Paul K Chappell's book to gain an understanding of this point; 
  3. You are likely to drive the victim of your virtue signalling / moral superiority away (or drive their behaviour "underground"); and 
  4. You are harming the movement you are trying to support in several ways, including forming a link to other harmful actions (i.e., the aforementioned "virtue signalling / moral superiority") that opponents can use.
It is hard to be aware on this point - and it can raise feelings of being threatened or attacked oneself, much as any criticism or self-criticism can. However, as Dr Ibram X. Kendi said, at around 86m:51s in this talk:
"When we're challenged, it's very very critical for us to really deeply reflect on, not who we are as a person, but deeply reflect on what was said, and what was said to us, and what we just said."
I am making that challenge to those who are addicted to virtue signalling/moral superiority now, just as those people will make valid challenges to others on those topics they are passionate about, and just as I have received valid - and often useful - challenges all my life on a wide range of matters.

The fear of having power

I want to make it clear that, while I am strongly spiritual and religious (albeit not mainstream religion), I am not referring to the sense of the following famous (and often mis-attributed) quote from Marianne  Williamson's work:
“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, ‘Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous?’ Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It’s not just in some of us; it’s in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.”
In a personal growth sense, this is something that can be worth considering - people may inhibit themselves out of fear. However, I know people who are strong and confident and either not subject to the above problem, or have overcome it, who still shrink from material world influence.

I've used the word "influence", as it provides a more accurate - or more likely to be accurately understood - meaning than "material world power".

(I suspect Cass  Sunstein's book  "Nudge" may be a good exploration of what I am exploring here, but I have not yet had the opportunity to read that book [although I did guiltily buy it after I wrote the preceding].)

Power, in the context of the material world, often has associations of political-social elites, ultra-wealthy oligarchs, or mafia like mobsters. The truth is, we all have the capability to be influencers, and power can be significant on a smaller scale - for instance, having a well-paying job (if you are that fortunate) and thus being able to support one's family and maybe even make donations.

The organisation 80,000  Hours has some excellent considerations on that.

There are also a wide range of activist  organisations - I first joined Amnesty  International back in the 80s, for instance.

Still, it is possible to be part of such organisations, making a valid contribution, and yet still be dithering on the edges of truly exercising influence.

Where I would like to see more progressively inclined people doing more is political involvement.

The idea of putting oneself out for public evisceration, as most politicians do, is terrifying for many people, and I can understand their reluctance to do so - either for their own sake, or for the sake of their family, for instance.

I won't take on such a role.

However, in addition to writing letters to MPs that are aimed at achieving change (remember Gandhi's exhortation: "do you fight to change things, or to punish?"), there is the challenge of joining a political party and trying to achieve change that way.

I have, and after some time have decided I'm going to focus my efforts in that area on branch meetings - I had been trying to get on to policy committees, but there are logistical challenges for me to get to their meetings, and my health and energy levels are continuing to decline.

It is not easy: you can't just fire off a tweet and sit back and bask in your self-righteousness (and letters I've written have not always ended with the outcome I sought), you have to engage face-to-face with real people - people who may not be as progressive as you like, people who may genuinely hold to an alternative world view, people who are as flawed as you are . . . but, if you can't get people who are at least partly on your side onboard, you have little chance of getting the broader electorate to come on the human rights / progressive journey that you want them to take (more on that shortly).

It can be scary to try to succeed, as you may fail - and that fear of failure stopping people making an effort is what I am concerned about. Take it in steps that you can manage, if you wish, but, as the proverb says, the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Other options that people may not pursue out of fear, perhaps of the responsibility that comes with positions, fear of failing to fulfill the aim of making good change, change that makes things better, include:
  • joining a community organisation's committee; 
  • becoming a Board Director (I'm currently studying towards being able to do this); or
  •  taking on a leadership activism role. 
It is all scary, but if you do make the effort, even if you fail, you - and, as a woman, I am including all genders in this, despite TR's sexist language - can share in Theodore  Roosevelt's famous sentiment, known as "The Man in the Arena":
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

The mistake of not taking people with you 

When I look back at my lived experience of the world, I can simplify my experience into growing inclusivity and caring (and, of particular relevance to me, genuine spirituality, as opposed to old, outmoded and rigid religions) from the late 60s through the 70s, and then a growing backlash which started to predominate as agreed in the 80s, and then as the xenophobia and other forms of hate we're now living with.

With the virtuous benefit of 20-20 hindsight, it seems clear to me that the mistake made - by me, as much as anyone else - in the 70s and 80s was to think that once a change had been implemented in some way, whether widespread social acceptance or legislated, that was it: the "obvious" rightness of it would be sufficient to sustain that change for the better.

How naive and stupid I was - I could have learned more from history, and exploring why I didn't is a whole set of posts and currently continuing reflections and meditations. I had other major life issues to deal with, my exposure to history was flawed (our high school history teacher was so demoralised [and European-centric] that he did nothing when the class just went outside to enjoy the sun), I had too few good role models in relevant areas (I had some, but none pushing the importance of learning from history enough), but I could have, and should have, thought better about things.

I consider the debates that are going on now in human rights are a considerable improvement over what we were doing in 60s, 70s, and 80s. They probably should be, as the field of human rights has evolved substantially since the end of World War (part) Two.

Sacha Baron Cohen's speech when accepting the Anti-Defamation  League's International Leadership Award is a perfect example of this. I have never been into Mr Baron Cohen's humour, but that talk impressed me - full kudos to him, and I urge you to watch it.
Posted by at

Post No. 1,447 - Cross posting: An application of political analysis

This post originally appeared on my political blog at https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2019/11/an-application-of-political-analysis.html.

As well as many other books, I have been reading "The Craft of Political Analysis for Diplomats", by Raymond F. Smith (pub. Potomac Books, Washington, 2011, ISBN 978-1-59797-730-2, Amazon).

I'm only 60% of the way through it, but want to have a go at using some of the ideas - specifically, among other political forces, the attributes of intensity and violence of conflict (p. 51).

After describing conflict as the engine of social change, the author introduces two axes to assess conflict (which can include discussion, so this is not only referring to physically violent conflict):

  • the violence of the conflict, which can range from the aforementioned discussions to the aforementioned physical violence; and 
  • intensity - which is a measure of the involvement and energy of those involved.
The author gives excellent examples and explanation of these, but I'll limit my exposition to the two dot points above ☺If you want more, buy the book.

Now, keeping in mind that I don't live in the USA and thus am relying on what I can discern from the media, the situation I'm interested in applying these two measures to, is:
What happens if POTUS45 stays in power and loses next year's election?
I have read some comments expressing fears around violence if that happens - quite apart from what POTUS45 would do.

Those members of the public who support POTUS45 undoubtedly have a very high level of intensity. The reasons for that intensity are complex (although too often for racist or misogynistic reasons), and it seems clear that, no matter what POTUS45 does, at least some of that intensity will remain.

Those who oppose POTUS45 (and I am one, to admit a potential bias in this exercise - and I don't live in the USA) have a range of intensities, but as times goes on, the intensities are increasing for more people.

So it is likely that, whatever the result is of the 2020 US Presidential election, there will be very strong reactions on both sides.

But does that mean there will be physical violence? (I am ignoring the very real, incredibly harmful, emotional, mental and moral violence that POTUS45 is committing and causing others to commit for the purposes of this exercise.)

I think it is fair to say that physical violence is unlikely on the part of those who oppose POTUS45. If POTUS45 wins there will likely be protests, and verbal abuse, but whether that escalates to violence depends on how it is handled by police and POTUS45 supporters (and whether POTUS45 says anything churlish or offensive). Sadly, the USA has a history of violent riots, and of lynchings and other mob violence. (On the other hand, it also has Dr Martin Luther King, Jr., Cure Violence, and key roles in the Paris Pact, the United Nations, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.)

I also consider it likely that most POTUS45 supporters would also refrain from violence. They may be bitter, they would would be angry, and they may withdraw from the US political process - amongst the elites who support POTUS45, there would likely be legal challenges, but, despite the intensity, most would not resort to physical violence.

But I'm not convinced that would be the case for all POTUS45 supporters.

We have already had the situation where one POTUS45 supporter mailed pipe bombs without triggers to critics of POTUS45, and the murder at Charlottesville.

At this point, I would comment that society as a whole has the strength in this situation. Yes, I know that doesn't fit on the axes, but people who feel they are in a position of strength are more likely to remain calm and react constructively - or forebear to react at all.

That means it is more likely those POTUS45 supporters who see him as an anti-establishment hero, who possibly feel disempowered anyway, would be more likely to express their anger through violent reactions.

I don't consider a civil war likely. Again, society has the strength, and the USA has lasted despite widespread violence in the past (even if it did take too long to learn vitally important lessons). The most likely violence would be at protests, which we've already seen, and I consider it inevitable that police and civil authorities would be planning for such possibilities (again, given the USA's history, the plans may not all be good, but there would be preparations that would contribute to containing violence - but not necessarily saving the lives of all involved).

Going back to the two axes, the USA has the stronger weapons for violence, even if some malcontents use guns or explosives.

I don't consider it likely that POTUS45 supporters would organise a widespread violent uprising, but, even if they did, I suspect the FBI would likely be monitoring that and pre-emptive action would be taken.

To sum up:
  • intensity is high on both sides - the POTUS45 supporters, and those who want POTUS45 removed from power; 
  • the means for both enacting violence and preventing violence are higher on the part of the US government, and thus the "weapons" available to POTUS45 supporters are likely to be either those of spontaneous choice (as happened at Charlottesville), or asymmetrical conflict - i.e., violent extremism (as happened with the pipe bombs).
Sadly, I consider it likely there will be some, largely isolated violence after next year's US Presidential election, and it is possible some people will be injured or even killed, but I don't consider large scale violence likely.

So having got through the above, I've now done an internet search, and here is some of what others think:
  • POTUS45 warned of violence if his party lost the "mid-terms" (see here, here, and here): they did, but there wasn't any widespread violence (that I know of); 
  • there were fears of violence during voting in the 2016 US Presidential election - see here (not widespread, that I know of, although there were problems); 
  • there were warnings of violence if POTUS45 was elected - see here, for instance (sadly, came true); 
  • the importance of elections both being and being seen to be fair - see here;
  • this, which starts from the fears of a former POTUS45 "fixer" (I think his comments are where I first came across these fears), and examines some of what could happen; 
  • this assessment of POTUS45 supporters is concerning (I've been generic in my comments, as not all POTUS45 supporters are white supremacists, but I suspect all white supremacists are POTUS45 supporters); and
  • concerning comments about the prospect of violence - and POTUS45's encouragement of that here and here.
There were various discussion threads on this, but I was looking for more mainstream sources.

I also found this, raising concerns about what happens if POTUS45 is impeached.

Having read those additional articles, I still consider anything like a civil war or insurrection unlikely, but there is a chance of violence from some of POTUS45's supporters if he loses the election.

If he is impeached, he becomes a martyr, and the situation becomes more complex, but I consider the likely outcomes the same: the USA will survive, but it is likely to experience violent events.

For anyone who wants to prevent - or even minimise - that violence, I suggest engage in persuasion as best you can, and study the techniques of Cure Violence, and writers such as Paul K Chappell. The potential harm can be addressed.

PS - for a historical comparison, look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLm1gWnlcYw and the related episodes. 
Posted by at

Post No. 1,446 - no PWR this week, and reading

Work demands mean I won't be able to do a PWR this week.

Another excellent article from John Beckett to consider reading: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/johnbeckett/2019/11/dna-is-not-religion-and-upg-can-be-misinterpreted.html.


Posted by at

Saturday, 23 November 2019

Post No. 1,445 - This week (online candles for news events)

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:
For the fires:
  • may all preparation be BPM comprehensive, as needed and effective;  
  • may ongoing harm be BPM stopped; 
  • may all those who died be assisted to BPM pass over;
  • may all those, including societies, BPM aspects of cultures, BPM groups, and individuals, physically, emotionally or mentally injured, or otherwise harmed directly or indirectly (including those who have passed over) by this event be healed and made well and whole, and given the appropriate BPM resources, including support, healing, and recovery resources, that they need;
  • may all those helping those affected be given the support, resources, and all else that they need to BPM do their job and to cope; 
  • may any/all measures to minimise/prevent the the extent of damage and harm from any future such events be BPM identified and BPM acted on; and
  • Artemis, Baba Yaga, Pachamama and Cernunnos,
    help us connect to the wild places
    - show us all the beauty of all the life there,
    human, animal, plant or mineral,
    help all who touch these places,
    to truly know and care for them,
    for their own innate worth. 

    Brigid, Maeve and Aset,
    inspire and help all those who care for the bush or fight bushfires,
    let them fulfil their duties with passion and inspiration;
    and inspire and heal those tempted to do harm
    to such responsibility and caring
    that they can NOT commit such sacrilege,
    but may Ma’at bring swiftly to justice all who do     make such sacrilege.

    Nu Kua, bringer of order to chaos,
    bring your ordered way to the wild places;
    let the rains fall and the winds blow when and where they are needed;
    Durga, protector against demons,
    set boundaries on any fires which may occur,
    and protect the wild places from the demon “bushfire”;
    Cerridwen, transform all harm and damage done into growth: death into rebirth.

    Gyhldeptis,
    we call on you to help synthesise all these threads,
    love, responsibility, inspiration, justice;
    ordered rain and wind, protective boundaries, transformation;
    help these many ways become one great whole,
    for the good of all the wild places, and all the wild life.
    throughout this coming bushfire season and beyond.

    Artemis, Baba Yaga, Pachamama, Cernunnos,
    Let us love the wild places;
    Brigid, Maeve, Aset and Ma’at,
    Heal and inspire responsibility and justice;
    Nu Kua, Durga and Cerridwen,
    Tame and bound the demon bushfire;
    Gyhldeptis,
    Bring all this together.

    Kenaz, Nauthiz, Tiewaz, Berkana, Mannaz, Wolfsangle, Erda,
    May it all be so. 
 So mote it be.
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)