Written Within the Pages

 Greetings,

If you do not read the books, you do not know what is contained within the book. Thus, you have no right to assume to know what the author thinks or has written. This can be applied to those who love to quote aphorisms from authors and then go on to attack them, as much as it is to those who claim that this or that writer is of this or that particular political leaning, due to what they have written. How would a person know what their political leaning is, if they have not read what the author has written?

People need to open their eyes. They need to open their eyes and realise that if they do not at least look at these books and authors they hate so much, they will be unprepared for those who use the writings within them. 

The Nazi Party in Germany did not just sprout from the ground, its popularity did not just grow over night it took time and persuasion of people. It was only when people's rights were being infringed upon, when people were being attacked and murdered that some people realised that something was wrong, but the mass of people didn't. The actions that the Nazis took were legal, they were passed by law. Think about that for a moment, those who hid Jews were breaking the law, those who murdered them, homosexuals and disabled people, were doing it legally according to the laws of their country.

How can you defend against a political standpoint if you don't know how it grows?

How can you defend against an ideology if you don't know what its tenets are?

How can you prevent the same things from happening if you don't know how it all started?

Erasing history because it's ugly, or because it makes people uncomfortable is not a good thing. It is criminal because it leaves people unprepared for the same to happen again. They are unprepared because they don't see the warning signs. The threat is not from the idiot skinheads in the streets marching about, it is from those who keep their feelings hidden, who keep their ideologies to themselves, but make small changes to our society to gradually twist things their way.

People complain about eugenics programs. How about the eugenics program by default that is happening in the world right now as a result of price increases? What happens when the poor cannot afford to eat? What happens when people even on benefits from the government cannot afford to keep themselves alive and eat? They die. The prices go up, more people die. It is eugenics by social class, by wealth. If you are not healthy enough to work, or do not have employment, you are priced out of LIFE.

Sounds crazy? Well who controls the ability to change inflation? Who controls the ability to give people on payments enough money to live rather than having them on the poverty line, or below it? Yes, that's right the government. Who do they act in the interest of? Their rich friends, no the so-called "people". Tax breaks do nothing for people on benefits.

What are the policies of these people? What are their true ideologies? How many of those match up to the ideologies of the fascists that people claim to be fighting by preventing people from reading books? Our oligarchical society, I say oligarchical because it takes thousands of dollars to run for office and not everyone has that money, only the top of the money piles, makes pitiful concessions to those below them while hoarding the riches to themselves. 

They complain about the cost of welfare, that the people on payments are not giving back to society. Well have a look at the Nazi policy and how they felt about the disabled, it is pretty much the same. The problem with the budget does not come from those from below, it comes from those from above. If the billionaires and millionaires actually paid any tax, rather than getting tax breaks, the budget would be a lot healthier. Our politicians look at things from the top, they have no clue about the people they represent. They are the enemy that, so-called politically-enlightened people, are ignoring because they foolishly believe we live in a democracy.

They would understand our actual state if they actually read some of the books they are so frightened to read. They would understand what's happening to their society, and what's happening to the people that they are supposedly defending while they are failing to do so, if they picked up the book and read it and understood what's actually happening.

Read the book. 

Yes, it will be ugly. 

No, you won't like it. 

That's not the point.

Get an education.

Learn how you can actually do some good.

Cheers,

Henry.

The SCA: A Meritocracy

Greetings

Disclaimer: I speak as an individual member, not as a member of any corporate or organisational body. I am not representing any organisation within or without the Society for Creative Anachronism. Like all of my previous articles, this is my opinion and ideas about the subject.

The SCA

The SCA (Society for Creative Anachronisms) is an international Medieval and Renaissance recreation organisation, and the only one that I know of that can claim to be an international one. There are satellites of the main group all over the world. Its stated purpose on many of its pamphlets is to "live the period the way it should have been." What does this mean exactly? Well, it means that we focus our attention on all the "good" bits of the period, and there are certain elements of the societies of the period the Society brushes aside.

The Society doesn't do the Inquisition, and up to recently it didn't do the Plague. Certain elements of reality have intruded upon "the game" and have imposed certain elements of the plague upon the game. Within the core of the Society is the chance to show the world a better way.

On the surface, the SCA's traditions seem quaint and medieval, even a little barbaric in certain circumstances. The ruling Crowns (typically a King and Queen) of each Kingdom are chosen by right of arms in a tournament held once every six months. If a person looks below the surface, one finds something more interesting. The individuals who achieve this have to be skilled in their pursuit, have trained to achieve this goal, to become the nominal/titular head of state for this period. The ruling is by right of skill, by ability.

More interestingly, the individuals who hold the real power, the seneschals, think like a president of an organisation, these are selected from among the populace. How? By vote? No, they submit applications, and the best person for the job is selected. This is the case for the SCA, it shows the way as a meritocracy; and has the chance to show the world a better way, a way in which people moved and awarded based on their merits. 

Define "Meritocracy"

To understand exactly what is being spoken about, and to ensure that both author and reader have the same meaning, the term "meritocracy" needs to be defined. There are three different definitions which will be presented, to give a better, more rounded definition. What will be noted with each definition is that success in these systems is based on ability, merit and achievement.

"a system, organization, or society in which people are chosen and moved into positions of success, power, and influence on the basis of their demonstrated abilities and merit" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meritocracy)

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition is simple and indicates towards individuals being rewarded with increased position and so forth based on their abilities and merits. A meritocracy when examined literally is rule by merit, so this definition goes simply for the source of how individuals attain increased positions.

"a social system, society, or organization in which people get success or power because of their abilities, not because of their money or social position:" (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/meritocracy)

The Cambridge Dictionary definition tells both the reason that individuals gain success and power, through their abilities, but also examines the subject from a more current perspective, it could be said, stating that individuals do not gain such successes because of their money or their social position. This makes a comparison between the meritocracy and other systems. The Collins Dictionary definition approaches the definition from a similar approach.

"A meritocracy is a society or social system in which people get status or rewards because of what they achieve, rather than because of their wealth or social status." (http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/meritocracy)

The definition does not only focus on the merits of the individual, but also upon their achievements, and this is also important, especially in regard to our current conversation. There is also comment about how the meritocracy does not focus on the individual's wealth or social status as in the previous definition from the Cambridge Dictionary.

Achievement Through Merit

The SCA has a system of awards intended to highlight the achievements of its members. To present these members as having done something for their local groups, and even wider groups, as something which is significant to the group. This award system is prevalent throughout the Society and is based on award recommendations which are sent highlighting what individuals have been seen to be doing. Individuals are awarded and achieve levels of rank on the basis of merit, rather than any wealth or social standing they might hold outside the Society. 

Officer positions are granted on the basis, where there is more than one individual applying for the position, on the basis of merit, what the individual can bring to the office, rather than any social standing the individual might have, so on the basis of merit. This means that the best person to do the job is, or should be, given the position out of a selection of candidates. Evaluation is on the basis of merit and achievement. 

The method describes forms a blue-print which allows the most talented, those with most merit to rise to the top. This means that the individual who works well with others, and achieves things for the group is more likely to achieve awards and officers than the individual who does not have such merits. Such is the idea behind a meritocracy. It is not a perfect system because there are those who must choose between one individual and another for the awarding of officers and awards, but it certainly, in its best form demonstrates fewer flaws than other systems.

System Comparison

In an aristocratic system, there is a family which has a certain blood-line which means they are in power. Power is inherited because of the family blood-line. The only way to come to power in this system is through inheritance, inter-marriage or violent over-throw, replacing one family with another, and history can be examined for examples of such incidences of each type of change of family inheritance. It does not allow for much change in the system, when in a truly autocratic system.

Many hail the greatness of the democratic system where each individual gets a vote. The history of the democratic system does not bear out this egalitarian approach. In Athens, only male citizens had the vote, which is to say, a smaller percentage of the population. It was not until the twentieth century that both sexes had the vote in many of our "civilised" western societies. 

Even now that each citizen, male or female has the ability to vote at elections, votes are often bought by the politicians with promises of things that they will do; sometimes they fulfil their promises sometimes they don't. People are scared into voting one way or another; how often are governments returned in times of crisis even though they are not actually in the interest of many of the people? People are subject to the propaganda of external influences in the media, and their votes pushed in one direction or the other.

Further, one vote every four years does not give the individual much control over what the politicians do in between times. How many citizens are politically-active at any time other than elections? How many petition, write letters to their local members? How qualified are these individuals to represent our interests?

In many ways the modern democratic system is more of an oligarchy, a rule by the few. On what basis? In a democracy any individual has the ability to represent their people, yes? How often do independents actually get voted in? Why? Often because we don't hear about them because they can't afford the advertising campaign. Most of the politicians' previous occupations place them in the upper strata of society, which means they have the money to start with. The rich get richer; they are out of touch with "the people" which is why the laws are out of touch.

Socialism has been heralded as the great evener, the great saviour of society, it will see the playing field levelled. Everyone will have the same access to resources and so forth. If the system is so effective, so perfect, why did it fail in the Soviet Union? It is simple, it did not level the playing field. It did not have everyone as equal, there was no equality of access to resources. There were still "haves" and "have nots". Socialism did not solve the human tendency for greed; people want more, and more than the next person. The Chairman and his Council of Ministers certainly were treated much better than their comrades in the factories.

A Perfect System?

Is the system that I have described previously within the SCA perfect? Most certainly it is not. It has flaws like any other system that is designed and operated by an organisation of human beings. These flaws need to be acknowledged.

The first problem with the awards system is that for an award to be bestowed, recommendations about the individual for the award need to be written, and not enough get written. In many situations this is because everyone expects that someone else will do it. Or, because the individual does no think that they are important enough that their award will count for something. This is not the case, of course, every recommendation letter is read, and every letter is taken into account, regardless of whom it is from.

The next problem is that there is a human being, or a group of human beings who compares the merits and achievements of individuals. They compare this either to a scale, sometimes internal sometimes external, against which the individual needs to match up to gain that award. Opinions are often gained about the individual and their impact. In each instance there are personal influences which can impact the situation, sometimes these are purely personal, sometimes they are the result of external forces, such as rumour and reputation. Each one of these will impact whether or not an individual gains an award. Essentially, it comes down to the decision of two people.  

Ironically, like the more important decisions of our lives, the more important decisions of the SCA come down to a single person, usually a seneschal. It must be noted that officers within the Society make these important decisions all of the time, on their own, because that is within their officer description. 

There is no perfect system, because there are people involved. Even if an entire system were computerised, the system would still be flawed, because a human would have to write the program, and a human would have to input the data.

Humans make decisions based on their experiences and the various impacts upon their lives including their beliefs and values. Sometimes these beliefs and values come into conflict with one another, we can just hope that there is a way that we can mediate these situations for the best outcome. If the SCA is examined as a society within a society it will be noted that there is a particular approach, while there is violence within the society, there is also a certain gentleness. While there is a certain forceful nature of the society, there is also a definitive politeness. The SCA has sometimes been termed as showing "the pre-1600s the way we would've liked it to have been" or words to that effect, as a political experiment it shows a way forward; putting the best people ahead.

For those of my readers who would like to find out more about the SCA, there are some links to follow below:

https://www.sca.org/

https://lochac.sca.org/ (for Australian readers)

Cheers,

Henry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation every year to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.

About History

 Greetings,

Having seen a lot of things about showing "history that should not be forgotten" I have decided that it is time that I make my comments about history and its writing and its importance. Just to set the record straight; from some one who has actually studied the subject for most of my life, from someone who is actually qualified in the area. Yes, I am one of those rare people who did the course and finished it, hell, I went back and did Honours just to make sure I had it straight. 

Frankly, I am surprised I have not written on this subject sooner considering it is my subject area, more than politics, though much of politics is explained by history, but I suppose we will get to that eventually. I was the kid who decided he wanted to be an historian early in their schooling career, so I have been studying history in some capacity ever since. What does this mean? It means that I have been pawing through old books, comparing incidents then with incidents now. I can say for sure, people have not learned a lot overall.

"Alas! Hegel as right when he said that we learn from history that men never learn anything from history." G.B. Shaw - Preface to Heartbreak House

The Economy

We have a great standard of living in the "First World" (depending on where you look), we have great access to information (again, depending where you look), great access to health-care (again, depending where you look), and amazing technological advances at our finger-tips (do I have to say, "depending where you look"?). What's all this "depending on where you look" business? Well, all of these advances are available to the upper echelons of society for sure, in the First World, but as you go down the social hierarchy, not so much; in some cases very not so much. Why am I pointing this out?

Some couple of centuries ago, in the same equivalent "First World" nations, there were those at the top who lived well, and there were those on the lower rungs who did not live particularly well. No change there. The date has changed, the technology has changed, the economics are all the same. Push it back more centuries you have the same thing. So what has the human race learned over the past several centuries: Greed is good, because it puts you at the top and gets you the best things. So, some will claim that our political system has changed, and improved.

Politics

"POLITICS. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage." Ambrose Bierce - The Devil's Dictionary

In most of those same "First World" nations, people enrol to vote, once every four years (depending on the system). They vote for someone who claims that they will do things for them that will improve their lives. Most of these Candidates are members of Parties, who then decide what the individual will actually do if they are voted in. Independents, most often do not have much say, unless they happen to hold the balance of power, and then they choose to follow one side or the other. Once the candidates get into office they become Politicians, who are primarily interested in keeping their position, more than serving their constituents, because the job pays well (go back to the economy bit above because it places them instantly in the upper echelon). The individual gets a choice once every four years, unless there is some special circumstance that causes it to occur earlier.

The most representative democracy was in Athens and only male citizens were allowed to vote. This is held up to be the most representative democracy, the birthplace of democracy, the basis of all democracies which followed it. "It's now better than it was." How? In Republican Florence the noble families were represented in their Republic and decided what would happen in their city and its surrounds. "That's an oligarchy and not representative." Really? How is it any different to the rich families who present their Candidates for elections, or give fat campaign contributions to influence Politicians? How is our supposedly representative democracy any different? Because we get to elect our representatives. See how much funding that costs and see how many "average individuals" could afford it and see if it is truly "representative." They represent whoever gives them the biggest donations, for which they also give big fat tax breaks. Politics is a rotten system that is up for sale to the highest bidder, look at how they vote on social issues.

"An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought." Attr. Simon Cameron, Republican Boss of Pennsylvania (1860)

Social Issues

Social issues abound in our contemporary era. It is not like they have suddenly appeared, several have always been there, they have only more recently been more highlighted. Issues of sexuality are present in the Bible giving indication of their ancient origins. Questions about feminist ideals have been present throughout history with many strong female figures being present throughout history, though many of their histories have been denied, or re-told to suit male historians. Racial issues have been an ever-present issue throughout history, along with religious ones, and the cause of many of the greatest wars of history. It is true that in the last few centuries we have damaged our planet more than in all the centuries previous, and there is something that needs to be done about it, but even this is not something new, the evidence has been there for sometime, with pollution irreversibly damaging and changing environments.

The concept of political correctness, or being politically correct (PC) has been around now for about fifty years, at least according to Wikipedia. This idea has changed our language and changed how we address subjects and also people. It involves the use of inclusive language and so forth to ensure there is no offence given to individuals when speaking. This has been pushed into other areas rather than just language. It has been used to address many of the social issues which were mentioned above to increase the level of tolerance toward people, and reduce friction.

There has been a point where this concept has been pushed to a point where people have, in some situations, become gender-neutral. I will give an example. In a previous time it was polite for a gentleman to open a door for a lady. Now, a female might take offence at this action for its potentially condescending nature. This is a simple example where an act of assistance, of politeness previously has been reversed. The act of assistance may be performed for any individual out of politeness, regardless of gender or other defining feature, it's just a polite thing to do. The reduction of such actions reduce politeness due to the potential of offence that may be caused; an ironic reversal of the inclusive intent of being PC.

Historically, politeness was expected in many different ages and it can be traced through different ages through manuals of the period. This is an aspect which seems to be missing in our current age, a lesson that we have lost. The problem is that we are too busy focusing on our differences to notice the aspects that are the same. It is difficult to convince people to unite against a global threat, such as pollution, or a pandemic, when we are too busy being shown our differences, through the highlighting of historical and present situations of difference. 

Unity

Humanity. This is an important word and one that should unify us all. It is a lesson from history that throughout all of the conflicts and other horrible things that have happened throughout history that we have seen that we have forgotten. Why was the United Nations formed? To bring the world together. How is this possible with all the different religions and races? Because they are all focused (or were focused) on the same thing, a global threat. Unfortunately that has gone for many. We have lost the lessons of history... again.

COVID-19 was a chance to bring the world together again. Instead the nations of the world used it as a chance to fracture the world, to show our differences again. A unified front against the virus would've helped a lot, and likely reduced its effects, but we were too busy looking inward, comparing "us" and "them"... again.

Too often we see people showing the pieces of history which fracture, rather than those that bring us together. They show the ones that "must not be forgotten" because they are shocking; because they show how someone did something bad to another human being, or one group against another group of human beings; because they show our differences; they do not show pieces of our histories where people came together and helped one another, assisted one another, showed their humanity.

The greatest lesson that we can learn from history is that: we all do horrible things; we all make mistakes; we all live on the same planet; we share the air we breathe; we all have people we care about, and who care about us; we all have the capacity to do good things; we all have the capacity to help one another and improve others' lives; we all have the capacity to work together with those who are different to us; we are all really not that different; we are all human beings.

Maybe, just maybe, if we can learn that lesson from history, then this world might have a hope.

Cheers,

Henry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation every year to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.

Democracy or Oligarchy?

Greetings,

Is Australia a democracy or an oligarchy? It is a question which must be asked when we look at how our country is run. There seems to be a lot of top-down thought being used, with the people at the bottom often being forgotten in favour of the people at the top.

A democracy is a system in which each person has a say in how the country/nation/state is being run. This is regardless of gender and with the only restrictions in our system being that you need to be an Australian citizen, and of legal age. This allows you to vote once every four years on average. The system also has no barring to political office based on class or financial status, or so it says, or so it is supposed to be.

An oligarchy is a system in which only the top echelons of society have a say in how the country/nation/state is being run. There is a system to ensure that only the upper echelons of society have any say in what is happening in the system and most other people sit below and have to put up with the decisions made by the top echelons.

With these pseudo-definitions in place I can point out a couple of things with regard to the system in Australia. Examine firstly how often we actually get a say as voters, this is really only every four years or so when we make our selection of the individuals who happen to be running for office at that time. This is the same at local, state and federal levels. These people who we pick and chose from are the people who actually run the system. Sure we can send messages in different forms to our local members to have our problems looked at. But what are the results? Who's opinions really get heard? Sure if we don't like it we can run for office, but then there are the chances of actually getting in.

This is where the system begins to feel a little oligarchic in nature. First part of this is the question of who really gets heard. Businesses get heard. So-called interest groups get heard. And if enough "normal" people get together (usually requiring thousands) they get heard. The first two groups mentioned get heard because they have an effect on the economy, they have power, they are part of the upper echelons. So the upper echelons get heard more than the "normal" people.

For a person to run for office they need to make themselves known. Indeed they need to make themselves known before they start to run for office, before the next election is due. Examine our politicians, see how many of them are known leaders of the community, be that community leaders, people in business, or people who help the less fortunate, or in some instances sporting stars. These people are known in their community because they do things. Often these things take money and bring a lot of media attention. How does the average Joe compete with that level of publicity? Media campaigns take money. Getting to be known takes money. The wider that you want to be known the more money this will take. Quite frankly in the end the one who makes the bigger noise is more likely to be heard, and elected. Without some sort of financial backing you are quite frankly bought out of the race. Sound familiar? Restriction of access to politics to the upper levels? As I have said oligarchic in nature.

Interestingly even the cradle of democracy did not have true democracy. In Athens everyone was equal? Nope. In order to stand and be heard you needed to be male of the age of majority, and a free-man. Still even in this system the loudest was still heard. You talk loud, you get most attention, more people listen to you, your point of view is more likely to be heard. The idea of the political campaign is nothing new. So even the original system was somewhat limited.

This is not an attempt to change the way that things are. For the most part the system actually works and things get done, so long as the politicians get rid of the personal crap. I am not advocating some sort of rebellion. I am advocating that we open our eyes and see how the system really works, to see what can be done with our voice, and for pity's sake vote how you believe.

Cheers,

Henry.