Today I read a puzzling article on www.ninemsn.com.au which was based on the increased use by company’s of a system called Voice Risk Analysis. I found it particularly interesting that the software company who made a the version of the system in question had the nerve to do so in the first place.

     The article tells “Software listens to the caller’s voice to detect changes that suggest they are under pressure or lying, and alerts the person taking the call.”

     Really?

     I believe I speak for every employee when saying that when we phone in sick it’s obvious that we feel under some degree of pressure. Speaking to the boss and explaining that you can’t come into work, knowing that they’ll be dissapointed and feel that you’ve let the team down, is an experience all of us would rather avoid if given the choice. The science behind this fact? The brain knows that we’re uncomfortable and this affects our vocal chords, just like a nervous karaoke singer, or like a comedian with stage fright.

      It’ll show.

     An article written about this very subject posted on an American website (The Language Guy) exemplifies why this extraordinarily expensive and wasteful project is neither ethical or reliable. It states:

     “The fact is, first, that pieces of voice risk analysis equipment are not “lie detectors.” They have much lower reliability than lie detectors and, as we all know, even lie detectors are not accepted in American courts as proving the truth or falsity of claims by defendants and witnesses.”

     So, speaking legally, how can any reputable business even consider employing a machine that basically operates on flawed technology?

     I’ll tell you how.

     A company operates on what is called “A bottom line.” This is common knowledge. The Bottom Line dictates that if something or someone does not conform to the company’s best interests, it is therefore a threat to the Bottom Line. When people call in sick, this creates an obvious dynamic. The employees seat is empty, thus affecting productivity, yet the Bottom Line (being the company’s treasure chest) is being dipped into, to pay the employee his sick leave entitlement.

     When this situation is true of several employees at once, The Bottom Line is therefore affected greatly. The company utilizes a tactic that forces the employee into a difficult choice. Come to work or get fired. Sick or not sick. That the company puts the decision making process in the hands of a machine implies that they do not genuinely care about the health of the employee. Rather, they pass the buck to the machine. Imagine all the call centres and offices around the country employing this logic. Never mind the legitimate doctor’s certificate, or even the obvious strain in your voice from being terribly ill. If the good little machine says you’re lying, then you’re lying. No ifs. No buts.

     If this is the future of the Australian workplace, I’d rather pick fruit.

      Yours sincerely,  -BJH

     Most of us have heard of the French seer Michel Nostradamus. His most famous prophecy to date (Century 2, Quatrain 62) has been the subject of ongoing discussion and debate for one primary reason: it gives a precise name to an individual directly linked with ”The Third Antichrist”. The name he provides, very clearly, is “Mabus“. The prophecy (or ”Quatrain”) concerned is as follows; 

Century 2, Quatrain 62
Mabus will soon die, then will come,
A horrible undoing of people and animals,
At once one will see vengeance,
One hundred powers, thirst, famine, when the comet will pass.

     Ambiguous. But when we disect the verse we may observe that the seer is speaking of several consequential events and not one. An individual by the name of Mabus will die, or be assassinated, then as a result there will be retalliation. The line “at once one will see vengeance” is interesting as it implies that the retalliation will be exacted from an individual rather than a group, or nation; yet this retaliation is so fierce that “a horrible undoing of people and animals” ensues. (gulp)

     As for the comet? The comet “103P/Hartley” which passes close to the earth on October 20, 2010 is a contender, but this depends on if the assassination of Mabus coincides close enough with the passing for it to be warranted significant.

     So who is Mabus?  Some contenders are as follows, and the reasons for such are provided.

     One name stands out, albeit a relatively low-key one. Raymond Mabus, the once Mississipi governor and US ambassador to Saudi Arabia (1994-1996) is now the senior campaign advisor to Barak Obama and could be hand-picked for the role of Vice-President if Obama takes office in November. He maintains extensive business and political interests throughout the Middle East. If he were to be assassinated as Vice-President, the President would certainly be compelled to exact a significant revenge.

      Others have theorized that it may be the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Reasons include the similarity to the name in question, his influence in a pivotal region of the world, and the likelihood of large-scale retribution should he be assassinated, or even die naturally, causing a sudden and terrifying power vacuum or civil war.

     Many believed that Saddam Hussein was Mabus, with some of the more creative interpretations coming the name Mabus being put before a mirror and thus reading “Subam”. Indeed Saddam’s death did intensify violence throughout Iraq, but the local scale of the fighting indicates that this was not the ‘terrible undoing of people and animals’ foretold.

     It is not surprising that George W. Bush was on the list, but there is really little to go with here except maybe an upside down “W” which would make the remaining five letters Mbush. Nostradamus was indeed clever with his interpretation of Napoleon and Hitler as “Ponelaron” and “Hister” being the first and second “Antichrists” but this is more of a long shot, though Bush’s assassination (at least while as President) would be heavily avenged.

     Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was believed to be Mabus by many because the anagram of Musab fits Mabus perfectly, not to mention his deadly campaign of beheadings, torture and kidnappings across Iraq from 2004 until his death on June 7, 2006. His death did incite a wave of violence across Iraq, as did Hussein’s death, though there is no stronger evidence than this to suggest he was Mabus.

      The list goes on. But as is the case with all prophecies, they are open to infinate interpretation and are more often than not complicated by contradicting streams of information and ideas that the internet serves to provide. Thus we are left with dozens, perhaps hundreds, of varying explainations of what the prophecy means, who it’s about and even its very authenticity. At the end of the day, an ambiguous prophecy cannot be verified.

     However, where a specific name (and an uncommon name at that) is foretold in correlation with a catastrophic event, it is wise to keep an eye on things.

Yours in faith,

-BJH

     Today I’m writing on a wonderful, timeless topic which I both adore, cherrish, create and use personally. Music! 

     For just under twenty years now I’ve been a prolific musician, weaving my way through various styles and instruments to find my creative holy grail - that is, finding how to truly define myself as an original artist. It’s not uncommon that this the most difficult task that recording and/or performing artists have, as it requires introspection deeper than the Mariana Trench and years of experimentation. I say this to any artist who didn’t need to enter either of these psychological tournaments to find their grail - You my freind, are lucky. 

     Once the artistic grail of self-definition has been attained, it is one of the most enlightening experiences that the mind can appreciate. You’ve found who you are. You’ve discovered the style that reflects that person. It becomes clear now. You’re a creator. Setting out to inspire and conquer with your newfound genius. It’s real, infinate and cosmic. I cannot think of a more satisfying thing than to connect with a song in my soul and pour out its harmony, its magic and energy into the guitar, piano, microphone, into the drums or violin. It brings objects to life, if they ever were dead. It opens up the human spirit with every atom of its white hot brilliance which pulses and reverberates through the whole universe, then comes racing back into us like a sudden jolt of electricity into our veins.

     To me, that’s what music feels like.

     My mission as an artist is to communicate the most untrodden depths of the human mind to those who need to identify with that part of themselves. My creative nodes wrap tightly around my emotional vaults like vines, then pull them under like captured prey. I put them under a psychological microscope, then without allowing my busy mind any time whatsoever to create judgements about them, I write. I write, then sing them as they are. Not as my thoughts and preconceptions interpret them to be. This is my most cherrished gift. The ability to see beyond the fog.

     To anyone considering learning an instrument, learning how to sing, wanting to write songs or record music: do it. Not only does it make the road to finding out who you are shorter and less arduous, but it is infinately rewarding in the sense that it feeds your creative spirit and allows the sharing of our more mysterious human qualities. The lyrical genius Daniel Johnston knew this and utilized it to the absolute extreme. His childlike innocence shined through his songs and breathed fresh life into the music scene. It defined him, established him, and ultimately made him very, very famous. That dorky kid from Waller, Texas became Kurt Cobain’s musical idol, among dozens of other prominent artists. I cannot think of an artist since Daniel Johnston that has been able to access such a genuine conduit.

     Hopefully, some day my music will have its intended affect on a larger audience than it currently does. But until then, the magic flows steadily, steadily like a river to a larger body of water - the world.

     For any willing ears, my music can be heard at the below link

     www.myspace.com/bretthenebery

Kind regards,

-BJH

     Hello reader.

     Today I’ve chosen to take a few minutes to bring what I call a ’shadow-topic’ to the forefront of your attention. Author Alain de Botton wrote an insightful book on this subject aptly called Status Anxiety, which was published in 2004. De Botton raises the issue of lifestyle obsession juxtaposed with the economic and social pecking orders, where we stand on that ladder, and ultimately how we believe this affects our self-worth.

     Status anxiety is responsible for a large portion of societal misery. The concept of status is born from the theory that one person is “better” than another, or that their personal wealth and/or influence should reflect how much respect they “deserve” from others. Fortunately this logic behind status exists nowhere but in the human mind, and there is no basis whatsoever to suggest that status should affect the way we see ourselves in society.

     The true essence of happiness is being completely content both in who you are and what you are doing with your life, irrespective of whatever opinion others may have of you or your chosen profession or past time.

     I personally live in accordance with my instincts, and with the inspiration of mother nature. These two empowering entities, coupled with a strong sense of optimism, have made for a fulfilling existence. In all honesty, I wouldn’t have it any other way. Not caring about status or others’ opinions lifts a tremedous and unnecessary burden off our shoulders. It is only there because we form the idea in our head that it matters, when in fact it does not.

     When we look at what we are, it becomes even more simple. If we break it down to cells and atoms, which is what we are literally made up of, and break it down even further, we see that behind the atoms themselves is pure energy. This is true when looking at every living or moving thing. Our bodies are merely shells. Beyond that shell is the machine, the mechanics that make the body function. Beyond the mechanics is the magic. Pure energy. This realization can open a new door for the mind; the concept that, at the most fundamental level, we are all exactly the same. The beggar, the millionaire, the struggling artist, the priest, the soldier and the passer-by on the street.

     The above is to exemplify why status is a flawed concept which really, when looking at it objectively, causes nothing but stress and dissapointment on a personal level, and widespread societal discord on a local, even national, level. Take inflation for example. Many of us scramble to buy the “best” houses, the “best” cars, the “best” TV’s, the “best” clothes and so on, in a perpetual game of catch-up. The phrase “Keeping up with the Jones’ ” is particularly apt when looking at status-anxiety.

     It is saddening that such a thing exists (albeit psychologically), because it misrepresents true human nature, warping it in such a way as to yell out “Hey, THIS is what is important” and “THIS is what life is about!” It is a media-distributed lie. A certain propaganda which is carefully designed to sustain the status-quo of class divide. One may be curious to know: Why?

     Because status means everything to those who are on top of a pecking order, and It means everything to those who aspire to be on top of a pecking order. It is a human tendency to emulate people, especially those we look up to. However, as media has become more sophisticated this tendency has been grossly mutated into something materialistic and embarrassing. It is now a blatant expectation that consumers be “in vogue” not just with a product but with the societal trend of acquiring status. Status Anxiety has the capacity to create physical burnout, tremendous resentment, self-pity and the collapse of general harmony, which is why it is irresponsible of the media, and of individuals, to put any importance at all on status. Instead, the focus should be shifted to why status is not important rather than trying to make up reasons for why they think it is.

     To anyone suffering from this unfortunate problem, I say this.

     Take a step back. Ask yourself, why are the most simple, nomadic people on earth also the happiest? Why are the communal Norwegan and Swiss villagers more happy than say, high-rise dwelling Manhattan residents? Why is affluent Sydney Australia’s ’saddest’ city? How is it that those with the least worry the least, and those with the most worry the most? Is Tyler Durden’s famous Fight Club one-liner the clicher? “The things you own end up owning you.”

     Dare I say, yes.

     But what would I know? I don’t drive, I earn less than $50,000 and live on the Central Coast  

     - BJH

     I am writing on this subject because I find it both imperative to our understanding of US policy and its own contradictions. I personally find the double-standards evidenced despicable and unacceptable; thus I am compelled to spread this information as far as is possible, to every demographic and corner of the world that is not aware of it already. Indeed I would be very surprised if they weren’t, as it is the biggest miscarraige of justice imaginable.

• HUMAN RIGHTS

     - the International Criminal Court

     A superpower that claims to stand for peace and democracy worldwide, that vows to “bring evildoers to justice” and that launched two large-scale wars in the name of defending the principles of freedom and liberty, openly discarding the legally-binding UN resolutions that protect these very values around the world.

     Take for instance the International Criminal Court. This body is to thank for the prosecution of Slobodan Milosevic for crimes against humanity, as well as several of his cronies. It is responsible for bringing many Nazi war criminals before the court to face sentencing for their horrendous crimes during World War Two - and the court has also been commended with providing a legitimate tribunal for the international community to trust.     

     The U.S flatly refuses to recognize this court. Why, you ask? Well the following may help us understand what they are afraid of.

     As quoted in the ICC’s website which can be viewed by any concerned reader at http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ICC.asp, it states that “the purpose is to have a body that can prosecute serious crimes against humanity no matter who committed them and to try people for gross violations of human rights, such as those committed during military conflicts.” 

     And there we have it.

     The U.S is no stranger to overseas military adventures. They seek immunity from the very rules they expect other nations to follow whilst breaking them in the name of expanding their own hegemony. They are well aware of the past, and indeed present, war crimes committed by their servicemen and women (for countless examples, see the Abu Ghraib atrocities, Guantanamo Bay, the Japan/Okinawa rape cases, etc), and as such are equally aware that those crimes make them no different, in the eyes of international law, than the Nazis, Milosevic or Al-Qaeda.

     It would be beyond embarrassing for the U.S government to have its servicemen, or politicians for that matter, stand before the ICC to face their charges - but the fact that it would be embarrassing should not exclude them from the arm of the law. The ethic is the same. If Hitler or Stalin were alive, should the world excuse them from standing trial simply because it would be embarrassing for (speaking retrospectively) Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia?

     I should think not.

     Irrespective of which nation kills innocent civilians, preemptively invades another country, commits torture and rape, and defies unanimous UN resolutions, those criminals are bound to stand trial for those atrocities. Frighteningly, the case we are specifically discussing is that of the United States in Iraq, but sadly the record of human rights abuses extends well beyond this case.

•  INTERNATIONAL ETHICAL LAW

      -   The international Conference on Racism

     Ironically, in September 2001, the same year and month the U.S vowed not to let ‘evildoers’ stray America from civilized society, freedom and democracy, they withdrew from the International Conference on Racism which brought together 163 countries in Durban, South Africa.

     - The International Landmine Treaty

     Signed in Ottawa in December 1997 by 122 nations. The United States refused to sign claiming that mines were needed to protect South Korea against North Korea’s “overwhelming military advantage.” He stated that the US would “eventually” comply, in 2006; this was disavowed by President Bush in August 2001.

     - The Antiballistic Missile Treaty

     In December 2001, the United States officially withdrew from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, gutting the landmark agreement-the first time in the nuclear era that the US renounced a major arms control accord. The US continues to lecture other nations with regard to nuclear proliferation whilst at the same time discarding such laws itself.

     -  UN Agreement to Curb the Flow of Illicit Small Arms

     July 2001: the US was the only nation to oppose it. Strange, since the US claims to be an international watchtower in preventing such trafficking.

     -  The Kyoto Protocol

      Declared “dead” by President Bush in March 2001. In November 2001, the Bush administration shunned negotiations in Marrakech (Morocco) to revise the accord, mainly by watering it down in a vain attempt to gain US approval. Luckily, Russia has signed the protocol, technically ratifying it.

     Citizens must be aware of the gross double-standards that not only the U.S, but other world powers continue to flaunt. It must be remembered when referring to the US as a ‘democracy’ or a ‘guardian of democracy’, and more importantly, when referring to the US as a reliable and trusted world power.

     If Senator McCain or Obama wish to breathe new life into America and restore its image abroad, they must first reverse track and become part of the solution rather part of the problem. Then the world may be able to take the United States seriously again.

     Yours in faith,  -BJH

     First, a bit of history.

     Russia. Founded in the 12th century, making it 900 years old, this gigantic Superpower spans 17,075,200 square kilometers and borders 14 other countries. It’s official name, the Russian Federation, was adopted after the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991 and has remained its official title ever since. Russia is home to 140,702,094 people and counting (nearly six times Australia’s population).

     Russia has a proud history, having endured slavery, famine, revolution, two terrible world wars and the geopolitical break-up of its empire. It stands today as harbouring the worlds biggest natural oil and gas reserves as well as the world’s largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. This makes it a tripple threat (size, resources and might) on the international scene. 

     But this was not always the case. Russia has accumilated its might through nearly 900 years of struggle and influence. When Vladimir Putin took over the presidency from Boris Yeltsin in 2000 he vowed to return Russia to its former greatness - and in the course of just 3-4 years did just that. Russia had been transformed from a third world basket-case into the world’s most feared and influential nation in this short period.

     But where does it go from here?

     The answer lies within the walls of the Duma, Russia’s Parliament. Ever since one-party rule ended in 1991 three political movements in particular (Pro-Russia, the Communist Party and the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia) have sought to take advantage of what was looking like Germany’s status in the 1920’s-early 1930’s. A nation reaching from the ruins of an empire for something reliable to hold on to. Putin changed that. Now Russia has a new, and uncertain, President in the form of Dmity Medvedev, a former law student who became the chairman of Russia’s oil and gas monopoly Gazprom. Putin, as Russia’s new Prime Minister, will retain much of his executive power through the continuity of his policy’s through Medvedev - but not forever.

     The one true firebrand of Russian politics is a man by the name of Vladimir Zhirinovsky.

     A colourful, intelligent intellectual who is head of the ultranationalist LDPR (Liberal Democratic Party of Russia). His policies range from annexing Alaska from the United States to forceably reclaiming the territories of the former Soviet Union, including non-CIS nations of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey. In December 1993 he stunned the world by claiming third place in Russia’s parliamentary elections and has remained an influential force in the Duma ever since, taking third place, nearly second on March 4, 2008, in all Presidential elections since then.

     What this means is that as Russians gradually become disillusioned with communism, the LDPR will claim more and more of the vote - and depending on how Putin’s Pro-Russia party performs without him as president, Zhirinovsky may very well win the next election. Ultimately, Zhirinovsky is seen as a wild card, but the United States in particular is taking this possibly extremely seriously. If elected, it would be Washington D.C, not Ukraine, Georgia or Chechnya, that would be attacked as the result of a stand-off with a resurgent Russia under his control.

     I have read Zhirinovsky’s book My Struggle which I personally found moving, intellectually fascinating and confronting. He speaks of creating common Trade Zones wherien each ‘Great Power’ would be responsible only for its continent or immediate sphere of influence. He argues that this would have both its political and environmental advantages in the sense that it would deter colonialism and reduce jet emissions and travel time where trade is concerned. For example, the US would have Canada and the Americas, Russia would have central Asia and the Middle East, and so on. In theory, it could almost work, but the world has changed very much since his book’s publishing, and his endeavour would be wrought with countless problems.

     I personally find Zhirinovsky a well-intentioned and exceptionally learned man, but I have my doubts about what kind of world we would live in under his rule. Not because of his policies or even his moral code, but how the West would act to contain him in the process of protecting their interests.

     Zhirinovsky was quoted as saying that, if elected, he would be a dictator. He is clear on this point for one reason. Russia cannot surpass its current greatness without the 100% smooth running of his platform. It may involve World War Three to accomplish that platform, but he doesn’t seem to mind. It is not enough for Zhirinovsky that Russia is a superpower. He believes that Russia is destined to reshape the world. To become its ultimate saviour from the evil grip of the United States, China and the European Union.

     As for the present, Russians seem to be happy with Pro-Russia in the seat of power at the Kremlin. But sensationalism must be gaurded against. Russians have a long history of turning to strong, fanatical leaders in time of despair. Thankfully, Russians do not see their current time as one of dispair. Employment is at a good level, the economy is booming and a strong sense of national pride has returned.

     But as we have seen, there can be no guarantees. Russia is fated to carry the burden of maintaining, or breaking, global status-quo. The choice is in the hands of the Russian electorate.

     This said, Medvedev must not fail.

     Yours Sincerely,  -BJH

     Since time began, sovereign nations have had to deal with the problem of secession from within their borders. Such is the case with the UK and Ireland, Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States, Greece and Cyprus, Israel and Palestine, Serbia and Kosovo, India and Kashmir, the list goes on.

     Independence-seeking territories have always been the thorn in the side of larger, more powerful nations, mainly due to the fact that over the years nations of this calibre have acquired an empire of some kind, thus putting the fate of select smaller nations under their control. More often than not it is either the abuse of the smaller country’s resources by its ‘emporer’ which provide the catalyst for rebellion, however matters such as religious freedom, economic autonomy and human rights also factor.

     Throughout history there have been numerous cases wherein the wishes of these aspiring territories have been granted, either by the empire itself or as a result of pressure on the empire from other world powers. 

     Probably the most significant historical geopolitcal case is that of the Roman Empire in 406, closely followed by the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991. In both cases, dozens of nations were granted self-rule and given the oppertunity to decide their own fate rather than be governed by a foreign power.

     The question that is frequently asked is when should an independence-seeking territory be granted its independence, and when it should not? This argument was recently thrust into the forefront of international politics when Kosovo unilateraly declared independence from Serbia on February 17 without its approval. However, the Western powers supported Kosovo’s secession and welcomed it to the group of new nations. The countries Spain, Portugal and Russia did not support the secession and warned that it would ’set a dangerous precendent.’

     And indeed it did.

     Just a month later, Russia announced that it would provide de-facto recognition to South-Ossetia and Abkhazia which the pro-Western nation of Georgia considers part of its nation. Russia began supplying weapons and economic support in its lead up to officially supporting the secession of these two territories. Naturally, this angered the West and has helped fuel a new cold war between Russia and the United States.

     Should not every territory reserve the right to secede if it is their wish? The issue is certainly complicated.

     Take Palestine for example. If Palestine declared independence unilaterally with East Jerusalem as its capital and Russia supported it, imagine the chain reaction. Or if Kashmir declared unilateral independence from India and Kashmir with full Chinese support. Another example may be if Kurdistan declared independence on Turkey’s border with Israeli support. In these scenarios we are looking at three viable flashpoints for a Third World War. Indeed it is very lucky that Kosovo has not yet materialized that way.

     As a general principle, the international community (ie, the UN) has deduced that where there are sufficient and reasonable grounds for a territory to secede, independence should be granted. A particularly good example is if the territory has been under the unwanted occupation of a foreign power. Such is the case with Iraq, yet the US and several of its allies remain there more than five years after they invaded.

     The risks have to be weighed when making the decision to grant autonomy or independence to a given territory, but the ethical argument is squarely in the favour of the underdog. If a territory wants its independence, wants to be free from central rule and authority, let it.

     After all, it would not be fair of parents to deny their 47 year old son his wish to move out, would it?

     In faith, -BJH

     Hello again. I’m writing today to bring awareness to those who ask, ‘is there another way?’ By this, I’m referring to an alternate global system as opposed to the one we are currently struggling with. Below is a list compiled of nations with no income tax, no armed forces, total neutrality and even a general happiness rating. Interestingly, I’ve found that many of the countries in the Top 20 Happiest Nations are also those in the aforementioned categories (no income tax, no armed forces, neutral, etc)

     Today I read an article in the Sydney Morning Herald which asked the question ‘What are we really striving toward?’ where economic growth is concerned. We’re working harder and longer hours than ever to achieve economic growth, so that we can be in the top five richest nations. But why would we want to be? Does money equate to happiness? Isn’t prioritizing work and thus spending less time with family, friends and loved ones inevitably going to make us more miserable and ultimately less fulfilled?

     The modern L.E.T.S system/community illustrates and proves beyond doubt that a community can get by just fine without money. There are other initiatives similar to L.E.T.S that further demonstrate why money is simply a necessity and not an essential, that is, if we choose use our heads and make the new way a reality instead of resigning ourselves to the entanglements of materialism, greed and bottomless debt. Of course there are those who have enough common sense to use money wisely, though it is the intricate and interconnected web of international finance that is making life more expensive, more complex and ultimately more difficult for all of us. One major economy coughs and the rest catch the ebola virus.

     This aside, let us move on to the list. The following countries, in their respective ways, have adopted these policies for a greater good. You may have never heard of these countries. But you know what they say: no news is good news!

Countries with zero income tax

1. Andorra

2. Bahamas

3. Brunei

4. Kuwait

5. Maldives

6. Monaco

7. Nauru

8. Oman

9. Qatar

10. Vanuatu

11. Barundi

Countries with absolutely NO armed forces

1. Andorra

2. Dominica

3. Grenada

4. Haiti

5. Kiribati

6. Liechtenstein

7. Marshall Islands

8. Mauritius

9. Federated States of Micronesia

10. Nauru

11. Palau

12. Panama

13. Saint Lucia

14. Saint Vincent & The Grenadines

15. Samoa

16. Solomon Islands

17. Tuvalu

18. Vatican City

Countries that are Neutral

1. Austria

2. Costa Rica

3. Finland

4. Ireland

5. Liechtenstein

6. Sweden

7. Switzerland

8. Turkmenistan

9. Cambodia

10. Moldova

11. Belgium

12. Laos

13. Luxembourg

14. The Netherlands

20 Happiest Countries

1. Denmark

2. Switzerland

3. Austria

4. Iceland

5. The Bahamas

6. Finland

7. Sweden

8. Bhutan

9. Brunei

10. Canada

11. Ireland

12. Luxembourg

13. Costa Rica

14. Malta

15. The Netherlands

16. Antigua & Barbuda

17. Malaysia

18. New Zealand

19. Norway

20. The Seychelles

     There are examples that we here in Australia, and indeed in the United States, Britain (and elsewhere that claim to be ‘on top of the world’) could do well to follow. This clearly shows that we can be part of the solution instead of continuing (and may I add under duress) to be part of the problem. There IS another way. I hope you’ve enjoyed today’s lesson

     -BJH

     The LHC (or Large Hadron Collider) is a machine that has been built at
a cost of $8.5 Billion dollars over a period of about 14 years. It is
the most complex and advanced device ever built by humans. It is located
about 100km beneath the French-Switzerland border and is in itself 27km
in legnth and 7000 tonnes. This “atom-smasher” as it has been dubbed, is
being built by the European Centre for Nuclear Research (or CERN).

     The purpose of the LHC is to recreate the conditions that existed one
trillionth of a second following the purported “Big Bang”, and in doing
so locate the elusive “Higgs Boson” God-Particle, the missing link
particle that gives all others their mass. Another secret that may be
unlocked is the question of extra-dimensions. By being able to analyze
the very fabric of time and space the scientists at CERN may be able to
discover these dimensions and the mystery behind “dark matter” which
comprises 96% of the entire universe but which we cannot see.

     The process involves smashing protons against one another at nearly the
speed of light to create a mini Big-Bang, which will then give us a
glimpse into a self-created mini-universe. Effectively we will be creating
a galactical ant-farm of unlimited answers and new possibilities.
And playing God in the most literal sense of the term.

     In short, the LHC could very well answer the mysteries of not only the
universe but how we came to be. The LHC is scheduled to be switched on and fully operational this July. The scientific world is eagerly anticipating the roaring to life of the world’s greatest ever experiment, hoping that the remaining gaps in physics can finally be filled.

     But this is at a cost. Two men in particular, Walter Wagner and Luis
Sancho, are well aware of that cost and intend to caution the world. They
filed a lawsuit against CERN (The European Centre for Nuclear Research)
on March 21. Their case is that CERN have not been able to adequately
guarantee that in the process of smashing the atoms and protons together
at such terrifying and unprecedented force, a mini black hole or stranglet (among other apocalyptic scenarios) would not be created. Some veteran physicists who have closely examined the Large Hadron Collider’s function have themselves warned that the risks have been underestimated.

     CERN’s argument is that even if a mini black hole were to be created, it would evaporate instantaneously. They dismiss Wagner and Sancho’s warning as baseless and scare-mongering. Another point CERN makes is that stronger collisions of energy have been taking place on earth and the moon for billions of years, without any consequence. The force of a hypothetical mini black hole would have as much energy/force as a mosquito, says CERN. So even if one were generated, there is no way that it could pose any credible danger to the earth.

     This is all well and good, except for two things, which make CERN’s argument fundamentally flawed. CERN say that cosmic rays with equivelant energy to that of the LHC smash into the earth and moon all the time and have done so over billions of years without any consequence whatsoever, thus making the LHC harmless. Cosmic rays travel too fast to be captured by earth’s gravity. The Collider particles, however, smash head on like a car crash and can be captured by the earth’s gravity, and the laws that govern relativity predict mico black holes would therefore not decay.  

     Professor Dr. Otto E. Roessler estimates 50 months Earth accretion time from a single micro black hole captured by Earth’s gravity. This gives us until 2012.

     Strangely enough, there is an ancient 3,500 year old Mayan Long Count Calander, history’s most accurate astronomical calander, that ends abruptly on December 21, 2012. The Mayans believe this is the beginning of a ‘new cycle’. This very well may have an ominous double-meaning.

     The timing is indeed strange. CERN conclude that the Large Hadron Collider will be at maximum performance in 2012. This said, we should be closest to “filling all the gaps” during that very year. And if we do? The mystery gone. The questions answered. We would have discovered the Grand Unified Theory. The universe will have been explained.

     Worryingly, December 21, 2012 is the exact date that the planets in the solar system allign with the galactic equator (an imaginary line that runs down the centre of the universe). Also, on this exact day, the earth completes its 26,000 year ‘wobble’. The earth will be in a position that puts us in front-row position for extreme Solar-Maximum, an event that, on this scale, may wreak havoc with the ocean conveyor belt. Many astronomers warn that this could expose earth to unsustainable conditions, and possible polar-shift. Both of these scenarios are beyond catastrophic. 

     Some may argue that the coinciding celestial event in 2012 may be cosmically designed to prevent Our Greatest Discovery of All. After all, what would be the fun anymore? 

     Others may just call it coincidence.

     That’s some coincidence.

   -BJH

Thank you for your attention to this.

     This morning, the government of Myanmar as well as the Chinese State News Agency and United Nations confirmed that the cyclone that recently ripped through Myanmar had killed more than 100,000 people in the course of its 10 hour trail of destruction. The death toll is likely to rise above this figure, as another 41,000 remain missing. Adding it to the list of recent natural catastrophes that are nothing short of historic in scale.

     Included in the report were announcements from Thailand, the U.S and scores of other nations that emergency food and medical relief was being rushed to the country to help the millions without electricity and clean drinking water. Days ago these countries were sworn enemies with Myanmar.

     Just days before the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami which killed a quarter of a million people, many of the countries that assisted the devestated areas of Indonesia, Thailand and Sri Lanka were sworn enemies with the affected nations too. As is the case in this instance with Myanmar, its neighbours (and nations well abroad) rush to their assistance as nothing more than concerned and compassionate human beings. They join forces, join hands and grieve together. For this time they are not enemies, but common creatures aware of their frailty, mortality and compassion.

     The October 8, 2005 earthquake in Pakistan killed more than 40,000 people, and it was arch-rival India who supplied much of the humanitarian aid. Again, the true meaning of ‘neighbour’ came to life and the decades long conflict was temporarily eclipsed by something much bigger, and ultimately, more important.

     Logic and rational thought should rule that as a civilized society we should rise above our squabbles and grudges for the sake of a more stable and promising future. Instead, the second we clear the ruins we’re right back at it, threatening eachother again. Fighting again. Flushing all of our hard work and progress right down the toilet. Going straight back to square one like cranky todlers who suddenly forgot that were being unconditionally loved and cared for.

     This may all sound very spiteful and simplistic, and may appear not to have taken into account the infinately complex human psyche. And the critic who suggests this may very well be right. But the basic fact stands: we are less interested in progress than we are in maintaining the status-quo. Humans have become creatures of comfort, routine, symmetry and habit, so it should come as no surprise that we conveniently forget the big picture over and over again. True, there are world bodies whose aim is to bring humanity together and cooperate on a universal level as opposed to the current ‘local’ level, but some things need to be carefully examined first.

     The first is veto power within the United Nations assembly and security council. Thanks to this miscarriage of justice, the five permanent members can veto (or block) any resolution they wish. For instance, if 99% of the United Nations General Assembly voted in favour of a legally-binding resolution calling for (let’s say) world peace, and one of the “permanent five” members use their veto, then the resolution is dead where it stands. This system needs to change. It is blatant double-standards that the UN claim to stand for the “majority rules” ethic but maintain the veto system at the same time.

     Secondly, the contribution that the world makes to humanitarian crises is not only a pittance compared with what we could contribute but also forgotten. It is puzzling that as a species who claim to want to move forward and unite for the sake of common humanity we are so quick to judge and attack one another. The erradication of this requires a fundamental shift in consciousness.

     The answer lies in the regulation of mass media and the raising of future generations to prioritize from within. It is not ethical or sensical that a child be exposed or indoctrinated to violence and fear, nor is it logical or practical to encourage that child, whatever his or her age, to adopt one way of life over another if it stunts spiritual or humanitarian education.

     We essentially need to begin with a clean slate. We have learnt the hard way that this world headed in the current direction has no future. We need to not only remember charity and compassion but also what we could make of this world if we truly made a real effort to get serious and pool our resources (not just monetary but spiritual and humanitarian) together so that we may distribute it where it is needed and in the quantity that it is needed. We need to put an end to red tape process where the distribution of charity is concerned, and regulate every last one of these world bodies to ensure ethical and efficient operation.

    It is not enough to remember the times when humanity comes together in crisis. We must forget our reasons for not making this our perpetual way of life.

Thank you again,

-BJH.