12 July, 2017

What is Form?

Sacred geometry?

Form: We think we know what it is!

And, we certainly know how to use it.

We have reached a remarkable sophistication in how we develop it.

Indeed, these positions have even led to it being generally promoted to delivering the essential Primary Causes in all of all of concrete Reality - and even, indeed, to the establishment of the Idealist philosophical standpoint, and the escalation of form's nature-and-laws, in Mathematics, to the position of Queen-of-the-Sciences, from its real position as its pragmatically useful Handmaiden.

But, it delivers, quite clearly, a wrong, or perhaps more accurately, a mistaken, path, overlaid-upon-and-hiding the more essential Route-to-Truth, and achieved by man's remarkable intelligence-and-ingenuity in purposely adjusting real situations to conform artificially, though never perfectly, to the consequent ideas and techniques of such a stance.

Early Man's intelligence coupled with his first intellectual tenet of "If it works, it is right!" - termed Pragmatism, had already equipped him to spread across the whole accessible World, as a successful hunter/gatherer. And, it has also underpinned all subsequent intellectual development, as it still does, to this day.

Initially, developments were slow in coming, as Man's only source of tools was sharp-edged, brittle-but-hard Flint, and his succession of discovered "cultures" were almost entirely to do with how he knapped pieces of Flint to produce variety and effectiveness in those tools, and, it took around 90% of Man's entire existence as a separate species (over 170,000 years) to arrive at the Neolithic Revolution. which began to change everything, culminating around 7,000 years ago with the first Human Civilisations.

By some 2,500 years ago, in Ancient Greece, the first entirely new addition to man's intellectual toolkit was, in fact, the recognition and study of Form.

It took the study of shapes into a wholly new level with what we now term Euclidian Geometry, and this in turn led to a whole series of other disciplines suggested by the success of that initial development of Mathematics.

It was in this following explosion of intellectual pursuits that Form, as dealt with in Mathematics, became essential. Indeed Formal Logic even includes that basis in its title.

But, in spite of its efficacy when coupled with a now well-developed Pragmatism and consequent effective technical achievements, it had a major flaw! It literally never worked perfectly in Reality-as-is!

All situations in Reality were clearly the results of many often-contending causes, and it took the union of Pragmatism-with-Form to begin to bring aspects of the real World into Man's better control. Situations were purposely simplified by removing as many contending-and-confusing factors as possible, and, thereafter, maintaining that control while the now clearly-revealed Form was extracted and studied.

Reality was firmly "pinned down" all the better to study it! BUT, was that studied-aspect exactly the same, when so artificially-isolated, as it was when embedded with others in Reality-as-is? The consensus decision was that it was indeed the same. So, implicitly, a crucial Enabling Principle had been inadvertently assumed.

It is, in fact, the Principle of Plurality: and it states that all factors, acting together, are independent of one another - they are indeed totally independent of all containing contexts. But, that is , most certainly, not true!

And, that fact is proved by successful use: for the extracted Form can ONLY be used successfully, if the very conditions of extraction are adequately replicated in use. And, Man, being a consummate pragmatist, could always achieve that requirement, and hence effectively use what had been revealed.

In spite of Plurality being incorrect, its inadequacies could be overcome by pragmatically optimised conditions. Technology was saved, but Science was sorely-damaged!

This was because extracted Forms were raised to the status of eternal Natural Laws, and that was quite-definitely untrue. And, consequently in Explanatory Theory such supposedly "eternal laws" were brought together in dealing with complex situations as totally FIXED components, and that was incorrect.

The edifice of "scientific explanations" was based upon an unsound premise and would, therefore, inevitably lead to both contradictions and impasse situations.

The philosopher Hegel had been right!

Though he was talking about thought, it definitely applied in Science Theory too, and his revelation of Dichotomous Pairs of totally contradictory concepts, revealed by unbridgeable impasses in Formal Reasoning, was true not only about Formal Logic, but also about all pluralistic Scientific Theory too.

A whole panoply of intellectual disciplines arose with exactly the same flaw, but only in the West. In India and ultimately in the East generally, the Buddha at about the same time as the ancient Greeks had implicitly assumed Plurality, had assumed Holism instead. The Principle of Holism took the opposite assumption - that "Everything affects everything else!" And, without any doubt, there is a greater content of Truth in this alternative.

Complex situations were seen as composed of multiple, always-varying factors, and though temporary dominances were indeed possible, and could last for significant periods of time, there always was an underlying dynamic which would, at some point, lead to dramatic changes, and crucially Developmental Changes too.

It was indeed, if an appropriate, investigative methodology could be developed, the ONLY basis for scientific Theory. The ultimate model of the pluralist view was Laplace's Clockwork Universe.

While, that of the developed holist view was closer to an Evolving Universe!

So, can we say what exactly the "Worship-of-Form" actually leads to, and why it has triumphed for so long?

As it turns out, we must answer the second question first. Form is true only when a single factor is acting in a simplified situation! It reveals a pristine-relation caused by a single physical cause. So, it is a legitimate extraction in such a situation.

BUT, even there, it is never primary, it is the result of the quite different and definitely primary Cause. And, this shows the Universality-of-Form: for the very same form can emerge in very differently-caused situations - and those actual causes do NOT have to be connected, just the resultant form is one of those which regularly occur all over the place! And hough, they can be used for description-and-prediction, they can never be used as the Sufficient Causes.

Now, why is this the case?

All versions of situations involving a particular cause are clearly related: but they are inevitably changed by other causal-factors acting-simultaneously. They therefore posess a family likeness: every one will be similar to the pristine-single-cause version - that is why they are all assumed to be the SAME! The pristine version is the Ideal Version of an adaptable Form.

As such it is fixed, but never happens as such in Reality. Indeed, the whole of Mathematics restricts itself solely to these Ideal Versions! And, all theorems, manipulations, and the rest are only true of those. We call that World Ideality: it is NOT Reality!

So, the process of finding-and-fitting measured data to a Mathematical Form is not only a simplification - due to the absolutely-necessary Farming-of-Context, but is also an idealisation of the actually-performing, modified-cause in the real situation. And, this puts major limitations upon systems of using these "fixed Laws" in production. Each law is limited to its own ideal context, so all productions necessarily involve sequences of ideal contexts, for each and every "law" used: it can be made to work, but only via this "factory-like system"! And, crucially, if those context-conditions are allowed to change, even marginally, or even if the process in a given context goes on for too long, it can cease to be appropriate, due to tiny and consequently uncontrolled factors, and the involved "Law" ceases to deliver, so the process inevitably fails.

Have you worked in a factory, if so you'll know exactly what I mean!

Now, in 1927 at the Solvay Conference, Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg unveiled their Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, in which, to solve the problems of numerous impasses and anomalies in Sub Atomic Theory, ordained that Physical Explanations had not only failed in this area, but were also objectively impossible to take any further at the Sub Atomic Level, and proffered, instead, a wholly-mathematical-approach that could be made to successfully predict outcomes. 

Their main opponent was Albert Einstein, but though he argued for physical Explanations as paramount, he was also committed to mathematics as evidenced by his General Theory of Relativity, and the Copenhagenists won the day.

But, in the light of what I have revealed within this essay, it must be clear that this retreat was doomed from its outset. No wonder they had to invent Wave/Particle Duality, superposition and the illegitimate use of probabilities upon "simultaneous states of the dualist object", not to mention Quantum Entanglement and the Collapse of the wave function due to measurement.

With their gravely flawed philosophical stance, absolutely NO solution is possible. And, those errors are not just confined to Copenhagenists, but also to their Classical opponents too, and even those around de Broglie and Bohm's positions. The various amalgams of Idealism, Materialism and Pragmatism have to go, and the cornerstone of Plurality dumped for a Holist alternative.

Now that is, admittedly, a very Big Ask, but it has already commenced with the work of this theorist, Jim Schofield, to apply Hegel's solution to flawed premises in order to successfully solve every-single-one of the anomalies in the whole set of Double Slit Experiments. And, he did it by re-instituting the key omitted premise - the presence of a currently undetectable Universal Substrate throughout the Universe.

Remarkably, this assumption not only tackled those experiments, but also made possible the trascending of many other unexplained aareas such as quantised orbits within atoms and Electromagnetic propagation, as well as the subtending od concrete fields in what is usually assumed to be totally Empty space, and even Pair Productions and Pair Annihilations.

The "holistic" experimenter, Yves Couder, has even achieved quantised orbits in media at the macro level, and proved the role of such substrates as both general Sinks and Sources to provide energy in active situations, when its origin by the usual stances deliver nothing at all.

And, previous work by the holists Charles Darwin in his Origin of Species, and Stanley Miller in his Experiment to produce amino acids from an emulation of the Earth's Primeval Atmospheric processes, are both under review. First to extend Darwin's Natural Selection backwards into Non-living chemical reactions. And, secondly, with Miller's experiment to re-design it in order to monitor its internal developments as they occur.

Finally, a major and significant holist-dialectical critique of the whole History and development of philosophic Stances of Science is nearing completion.

The era of the dominance of Pure Form is finally coming to an end!


Directed Meta-Level Gravity 

The construction of a directed gravitational field within the Universal Substrate

Clearly, if we drop the frankly-magical varying-active- and-directed gravitational “field-happening-in-totally-nothing” - somehow subtended across vast volumes of completely Empty Space, we not only have to consider the presence of a Universal Substrate as its necessary means of a propagation, but also such a field’s own self- erection within such a Substrate, and delivered solely by the Substrate’s own special Units, as responding-and- active parts of that only possible intermediary.

And, it is also clear that such a field is merely only initiated, rather than caused, by the presence and properties of both-of-the-Masses involved. For they are certainly not intrinsically altered in any way by the fields they apparently subtend!

So that, instead, we must have a self-built Substrate-Field, actively constructed by the implicit properties of that Substrate, but located outwards from each initiating Mass, by each-and-every Substrate Unit that is involved in both moving-to the initiator, and equipping- itself both with an appropriate(?) energy deposit, plus a crucial directional-indicator pointing back directly towards that initiator.

How else could that field cause movements of the right size and direction to any affected bodies?

We can only assume that particular gravity-field-versions of the Universal Substrate set of Units, or Gravitons, were, in the prior absence of any massive initiator, both just randomly-moving-about (like a gas), and, because of this, also cancelling-out any of their resident properties, so as to be totally-undetectable.

NOTE: the parallel problem of Electromagnetic Fields has also been solved in a very similar way, by involving two exact mirror image units in equal quantities, the Magnetons, which also required detectable properties in order to actively function as they certainly must, but also needed to be undetectable when inactive. Clearly, a similar solution will be necessary for Gravitons also.

But then, with the arrival of a massive object, into such a Substrate, it would seemingly effectively “capture” those previously randomly-moving Units into a series of static concentric shells surrounding that material object, with all their directional features pointing exclusively towards (and directly-away from it, in a dipole manner), and filled with enough energy (dredged from elsewhere in the substrate) to be available, in an inverse-square- law manner, to deliver a gravitational impulse, when encountering a another material intruder coming into its aegis.

NOTE: the directional element within each Unit must be “dipolar” in a different way to the similar directional elements in electromagnetic Substrate Units (the magnetons). For, it does not have dissimilar opposite directions - such as the magneton’s North & South, but here presenting the same effect in both directions.

The reason for this is that the aligning of gravitational substrate units around the initiator, will on the one hand to balance the gravitational mass of the initiator, but also to transmit that same effect outwards via the dipoles of the units of the field.

Clearly, such “gravitational field Units” of the Substrate could, at this stage, only be influenced by the size of the initiating Mass, as no other interacting Mass is yet on the scene, as currently that aspect of any possible future interaction is yet to be addressed.

Clearly, nothing will then happen, until another material entity’s own gravitational field, building-out-from-it, as initiator, encounters the prior gravitational field of the first-considered Mass.

Clearly, when the two material objects are still very far apart, a reasonable “simplification” might be to consider the fields as wholly independent of one another - established around each, but not yet acting upon anything else.

But, the situation, which must be addressed, is when that is no longer the case, and two such bodies, both depending upon their own individual total Masses, will apparently begin to mutually affect each other.

The major question must be, “Will both initiators then produce joint field units, combining effects from both Masses, or will the fields continue to exist, separate-but- interleaved with one another?”

Once again, the reasonable initial simplification must be to assume the latter, because of the implications of the former, for the then clearly much more complicated Gravitational field Substrate Units will be too much to deal with just yet!

Now, with these assumptions, each Mass is affected by the other in proportion to that other Mass’s size, and, via the involved, connecting line of field units, is forcibly- directed towards that other - all the time suffering changing effects as the distances between decline. It is concerning the amount of this movement, where each body’s own mass also becomes involved.

NOTICE, how the Equations, derived for these processes, hide the actual contributions-and-dynamics, as well as their reasons, in a purely quantitative, simplified and idealised pure mathematical form!

In contrast, what is being attempted here is primarily a Physical Understanding and Explanation!

Also, it is important that because of any prior in-process movements of the two bodies, they may well only be merely re-directed by this gravitational interaction, and will, having passed one another, carry on upon new paths, taking their separate fields with them!

Apart from possible collisions and even merging, the only other possibility, will undoubtedly be the capture of one body by the other, resulting in an orbit of the lesser around the greater, and, a complex interaction of the two fields in some stable situation.

These fields may well, in fact, actually merge, but be then transformed into a two-ways-facing joint-field-unit, transmitting attractive influences back to both masses and causing them to move towards one another.

But, is much-too-soon to address such complexities: we will stay with our simplification as long as it suffices in delivering increased understanding of what is going on. The two “interleaved” fields will change in contained energy to always reflect their varying, current distances apart. Only when these changes are instituted will any consequent field actions occur.

Then, both the masses involved will use the gathered-in energy in its adjacent field units to be pulled towards the other! The changes in both fields will, themselves be modified by the changing positions of the initiating Masses, so propagations of field energies will be changing due to two simultaneous effects:-

1. the using up of field energy to move the affected Masses

2. the moving-in of energy from elsewhere in the Substrate to replenish depleted Units back to the appropriate, currently-required levels

NOTE: In the actual, here-unaddressed situation of merged fields, there would also be a third constant adjustment to even the un-used field energies, to reflect the changing distances away of the initiating Masses.

Of course, such descriptions do not say either “how” or “why” these things happen, for instead of simple “cause-and-result” situation, we have, instead, each seen as both cause-and-result of each other, while the whole thing is actually entirely due to an affected-and-effecting Substrate, actually delivering everything involved.

We can, and indeed do, simplify, by usually taking a relative-to-one-mass standpoint (as most of our experiences are of vastly-differently-sized entities), but the real situation is usually more complicated than that.

The problem, as it was with Electromagnetic Fields, also within the same Universal substrate, is surely Movement. For, it was the Movement of charged, orbiting particles that activated Magnetic Dipole Effects, and, in so doing, also delivered the necessary capabilities of built-in Direction.

So, it looks highly likely that such Movements could also be responsible for similar effects in Gravity: indeed something like a dipole-direction-effect, related to ordinary Gravity - in the same way that Magnetism is related to moving electrical charge effects.

Just as magnetons, when moving, also deliver a Magnetic effect, and when in orbits define an orbital plane with a directed magnetic effect perpendicular to that plane, so, it is here postulated that when gravitons move they too deliver a Meta-Gravity Effect, when in orbits, also defining an orbital plane, with the directed Meta-Gravity Effect perpendicular to that, in the same way!

This paper can be found in our new Special Issue (51)

Holist Cosmology

10 July, 2017

The Electric Universe & The New Dialectical Physics

Having returned to re-assessing The Electric Universe stance, as a consequence of encouraging developments in my own Dialectical Physics, I found both interesting resonances, but also very clear bifurcations, clearly due to the very different origins of the two stances.

Yet, both approaches seem to arrive at very similar positions, in many important areas (though for very different reasons), particularly concerning attitudes to the major retreat that is The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, as well as both Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and The Big Bang Theory in Cosmology.

But, both of these different origins have their merits! And, because mine was initially based upon the crucial need for Materialist Explanation, and then later, upon a developed philosophical critique of the universally-established “western” approach to both Mathematics and Thinking via Formal Logic - that equally involve a surprising amalgam of Pragmatism, Idealism and Materialism, I feel that I can also understand the alternative approach of the supporters of The Electrical Universe, as they seem primarily to be Electrical Engineers and Experimental or Observational scientists, rather than either being Mathematicians, or mathematical physicists, as is now the norm in Sub Atomic Physics. So, the reader will understand, that the resonant strands I have discovered in both views, as well as how they were impelled from both sensible and sufficient grounds, are seen as worthwhile criticisms of the current consensus Copenhagen position.

I have also been a long-time student of Human Prehistory, and surprised by the preponderance, as well as the clear successes of Pragmatism over the vast majority of Mankind’s existence upon Planet Earth. For, long before Civilisation began to be firmly established, this physically weak descendant of the apes, Homo sapiens, had not only conquered Fire, and the making of flint tools, but, geographically, had also spread- out across almost the whole Earth, and even, thereafter, carried-through the remarkable Neolithic Revolution, to significantly change from being mere hunter/gatherers to actual competent farmers, with new skills in Animal Husbandry, Weaving, Pottery-Making and, most crucial of all, growing crops in a settled place, and having an increasingly rich and communal lifestyle. And though, all this was achieved with Intelligence, for sure, it, literally, only involved Pragmatism as its sole intellectual methodology.

So, most certainly, I then had to discover just how Mankind has also inserted both Idealism (as in Pure Mathematics) and Formal Logic, into its Thinking, and integrated all of these with a strongly Materialist stance too. For these are not exactly conducive to one another, yet have persisted, in that remarkable contradictory amalgam even to the present day. The remarkable survival of this amalgam was surely down to a still-strongly-adhered-to Pragmatism - “If it works, it is right!”, which could always be used to paper-over the unavoidable, inherent contradictions, by references to pragmatic successes in concrete Reality.

But, such a contradictory set of simultaneously-held positions was sure to lead to major problems, perhaps most certainly of all in Science. Pragmatic justifications and Applied Mathematical methods may be sufficient in finding productive solutions, but they turn Explanatory Science into a patchwork of cases with more papered-over links than revealing Understanding.

In Theoretical Physics, and increasingly at the Sub Atomic Level, it was becoming an absolutely insupportable mess. So, while the Technologists were forging ahead with ever-more effective applications, particularly in electrical and electronic areas, the theorists were more-and-more delving, ever-deeper, into Elementary Particles, using ever more powerful and expensive kit. Yet, the theories of those physicists were falling apart: they couldn’t string them together into coherent, consistent and comprehensive explanations. Theorists tended to rely more and more upon mathematical forms alone, which they had managed to usefully-fit to phenomena, but increasingly without any underlying physical explanations.

The ultimate resulting situations were becoming inevitable! While the technologists stuck ever closer, via their Pragmatism, to concrete Reality, the theorists began to speculate, from their useable equations, into wholly new idealist entities - governed by rules rather than physically explicable relations.

It should have been no surprise that a major and contrasting alternative, based upon highly competent, materialist-yet-pragmatist technologists, would arise, and, thereby, attempt to do the theorists job for themselves. That seems to be the contribution of The Electric Universe group! They are still wedded to Materialism, but by solely-pragmatic ties.

Now, another group, led by first de Broglie and then Bohm, still sticking fast to the old, classical amalgam of philosophic stances, did attempt to counter the Copenhagen tendency. But, they were bound to fail! For, the main plank of their position was exactly-the-same as that of the Copenhagenists! Both groups subscribed implicitly to the Principle of Plurality.

Now, this premise is very old indeed. It arose, because Mankind’s awareness of Reality was unavoidably limited to a belief in the un-changeability of Reality: most things seemed entirely fixed to them. So, they assumed that Reality was determined by fixed (indeed actually eternal) laws, which were always totally independent-of-context! Now, this certainly isn’t true, and it seriously disabled those critics, just as much as it had their now dominant opponents.

So, a third group was possible, but it did not exist, as yet, within the "Scientific Community”. It did exist, however, in the Philosophic Community, and had been re-invigorated by the German Idealist philosopher Friedrich Hegel, some 200 years before. For he, in his study-area of “Thinking about Thought”, had realised the inadequacies of Formal Logic by being incapable of dealing with Qualitative Changes of any kind whatsoever. So, he built upon Zeno of Elea’s Paradoxes of around 2,300 years earlier, by generalising such contradictions into what he termed Dichotomous Pairs, and put these down to the validity of qualitative changes actually occurring.

Indeed, a much more accurate tenet of Reality was considered to be the Principle of Holism - “Everything affects everything else!”. So, he decided that a thorough-going critique of Formal Logic, based upon the holist position, was absolutely necessary, which for the very first time would accommodate qualitative change, and hence ultimately deliver a Science of Logic. His approach was to seek out Dichotomous Pairs of contradictory concepts, as occurred when un-traversable impasses unavoidably cropped up in Formal Logic. He discovered many of them, and decided that they were due to erroneous, flawed or even missing prior premises, as the cause. So that, if corrected, the impasse would be replaced by a eminently transcend-able bifurcation or fork-in-the-reasoning-path. But, in addition, the actual causes of directly opposite pairs required explaining: and this he did not succeed in delivering. But, he did describe a methodology of addressing the opposites to get at the ”changeable truths” of Reality, which he termed Dialectics.

Now, certain of his followers. especially those well versed in History, such as Karl Marx, immediately recognised that Hegel’s discoveries extended validly a great deal further than just Human Thought: they also applied to developments in human history, and the sequence of economic bases for a succession of societal forms. Indeed, he and his colleagues transferred Hegel’s Dialectics wholesale to concrete Reality itself - to a Materialist Stance, which he termed Dialectical Materialism. Clearly, the prospect of applying these gains to Science was the most exciting revolutionary prospect! But, sadly, it never happened.

Marx was first preoccupied with his primary specialism, History, but also soon realised that he had to tackle Economics to take even that to any necessary conclusions. So, he spent many decades upon Capitalist Economics, in his work, Das Kapital. But, the basic Sciences were never addressed in this comprehensive way.

In spite of single contributions by Lenin and Caudwell in the key area of The Philosophy of Science, absolutely no root-and-branch critique of that Philosophy was ever undertaken by Marxists, and the whole trajectory of developments in Science (and particularly in Physics) has been with the total absence of any postulated dialectical alternative. So, the chaotic mish-mash of contradictory stances still stands, though more and more, currently, as equally inadequate “warring camps”.

Sadly, the justifiable rebellion of, first the neo-Bohmians, and, currently, from those of The Electric Universe persuasion, are both still founded upon alternative amalgams of contradictory stances. Neither have tackled the inadequacies of their long-held underlying assumptions.

The Copenhagenists are entirely without any genuine Materialist Explanations (they have retreated into Mathematics and Speculation), while the Electric Universe adherents are without a comprehensive, consistent and coherent set of explanatory theories (their technological origins are still not only evident, but remain dominant).

So, both of them are also still without any means of breaking-through the inadequacies of their still strictly “pluralist stances” - and the crucial problem of qualitative change is never even considered!

In spite of many valid criticisms put forward by the Electrical Universe adherents, they don’t wash with the Copenhagenists who now “dwell” in an entirely formal World - Ideality. But also do not and indeed cannot present a coherent, eminently extendable alternative. It is like the Technology that produced them, a collection of pragmatic achievements and relatively unsophisticated, though clearly materialist, explanations. They now, more than ever, require the thinking of well-established and well-equipped theorists, which are unobtainable from the Copenhagenist tendency.

It now seems clear to me that an entry into these ranks by Dialectically-competent theorists could make real headway. But, only if the topic of the Philosophy of Science is allowed in, and the assumptions on which these ideas are based, truly challenged. 

This paper has been published in the latest issue of SHAPE Journal, which you can read here.

Issue 51: Two Weeks in June

The papers gathered here are not about the U.K. Election or Grenfell, Jeremy Corbyn and Chunkymark are effectively dealing with all that very well indeed.

But, here am I, nearly blind and getting old, stuck at home!

Nevertheless, I am a lifelong Marxist, philosopher and scientist, so what I can do is very different but still, I believe, very important. It isn’t only politics which is going down the hole, but philosophy and science too! And, I can still do that!

This group of papers was written within a fortnight, and puts forward revolutionary ideas within my areas of expertise. They critcize the methods we all use to attempt to understand things.

Methods imposed upon us by the enemies of ordinary Working People.

Methods that hide truths rather than reveal them. 

Methods that cover up for those that have caused the ever deepening crisis that now find ourselves in. 

Methods that determinely edge us towards War as a solution.

So, though it wont be what most people feel should be done, I am convinced that apart from those who are clearly on our side, the rest of us have been misled in a thousand ways, with lies and confusion, so true human achievements are never part of our delivered News, or our Education to help our Understanding.

So, here is two weeks of what I deliver to the World.

Jim Schofield

(marxist. physicist, sculptor, activist, teacher, philosopher and lifelong socialist)

03 July, 2017

Grenfell Obituary


The funeral cortege is miles long. 

It winds slowly through the streets of London in dead silence. 
Millions line the pavements with heads bowed. 
As each Black Herse slowly passes, 
you can see the names of children 
picked out in flowers along each small coffin. 
Some are tiny, for they contain babies, 
while others form lines containing whole families, 
who are now no more. 
The usual short interlude of respect is here impossible. 
The funereal procession seems endless. 
160 dead.
The onlookers cannot bear it, crying and wailing breaks out. 
People are throwing flowers at the passing cortege. 

The perpetrators will be made to pay!

A Cure For Capitalism

Richard Wolff talking at Google