Wrath for RAF

When I read the idiotic practices of our Service People on social network platforms, I found myself penning a report automatically - the only means of me being in receipt of whether their ingrained opinions are conscious / subconscious was by asking one question and gauging on their style of dialogue thereafter - actually, I didn’t expect the level of bigotry I witnessed. Yes, the result was conscious racism.

Not a good result, it implies the level of good-will, foreign aid, and respect for Human Kind is dangerously waning. Meaning that the West’s democratic influence is tumbling and from a libertarian perspective this is increasingly worrisome and I kind of know we’ve passed the point of returning to the deep social and moral value that’s expected in the Forces.  Times change but how we treat Humanity doesn’t. My Grandparents were a Wing Commander and a lifelong WAF member, they equally were phenomenal examples of Great Britons who had an aura of immense integrity and their high standards never dropped throughout their lifetimes. To expect half of that sublime integrity, respect back would be a tall order for today’s Service People.

Furthermore, if they’re unable to resemble anything of our past Great Britons via social standing and decorum, I’ll expect that the RAF would deem it imperative a reasonable behaviour pattern would be installed by default as per the RAF’s Code of Conduct. The core values are Respect, Integrity, Service, and Excellence ----- Self-respect via having a proper sense of your own dignity and integrity. And mutual respect for others no matter what their beliefs, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or social background. In the RAF Service people are called ‘Leaders’ and the term derive from their ability to understand and cope with Body Politics, and be a proactive influence for those around them.

Awareness of wider implications is paramount on a national and international level. The RAF requires actions and decisions to be put into context in all walks of life, so that ‘Leaders’ are ready when it comes to Warfare.  The key-point in the Core Code is being mentally agile: every Service Person’s thinking must be innovative and minds ‘fully receptive.’ Once the RAF Code of Conduct terms have been breached every Service Person should be aware of the consequences; alas, my experiences beg to differ – I suspect the sense of RAF ‘educative package’ entitlement and the belief-system that they’re conditioned with after eighteen years... They think they’re above the status quo, social cognitive behaviours that most citizens abide to – instead of computing to a social intelligence, a myopic bigotry resides, beneath the veil (s). 

There’s a difference between cemented bigotry and blind ignorance, the former intentionally causes trouble; however, the latter, unintentionally provokes a storm although wholeheartedly believes in the prejudice due to social conditioning. Probably worth mentioning the book written by Gilbert Ryle:  ‘Concept of Mind’ (1949) – the author relates to the oddity of intentional acts. Mindful attitudes can only be understood by activating physical processes; such as: observing a psychopath watching a live autopsy.  Any emotive documented is logged as a behavioral explanation of consciousness – hence, waking up to a reality.  Same goes with highlighting ‘dog whistle’ online content to an individual who initially feels akin to – it’s not the act of ‘social sharing’ the prejudices it’s how the individual reacts after you pointing out the ‘dog whistle’ meme.

Research

This is the true essence of the offensive intent.  Under an experimental observation affiliated to the Boris Johnson ‘Burqa debacle’ recently, a ‘dog whistle’ meme was ‘shared’ – to start proceedings off the comment ‘probably best not to ‘share’ this sort of meme’ was posted. The recipient could respond amicably and remove the meme with an apology, i.e. ‘sorry, thought it was funny, but can see how it could be deemed offensive.’ I without any doubt would choose this option of dialogue. Yes, mistakes happen and it’s called learning about being socially receptive. In all honesty the language and social structures incessantly change, if you’re closed to variable social structures altogether; you’re incapable to relate to language, prejudices and social network content.

Notably, the actual response to ‘probably best not to ‘share’ this sort of meme’ was this: “seriously?? All the stuff of mine you comment on and this is the one you have a serious retort to?? Some people need to chill out and take life a bit less seriously. As Rowan Atkinson has said. “All jokes about religion cause offence, so it’s pointless apologising to them.”  From the off, you’ll notice the deflection of responsibility, very typical of cemented bigotry; automatically via making the discourse personal: ‘All the stuff of mine you comment on and this is the one you have a serious retort to?? ‘Worth noting, the use of two Question Marks, yet there’s no question… it’s a statement. Then refrains back by informally taking the focus away from the subject in hand by stating: ‘some people’ – see here: “Some people need to chill out and take life a bit less seriously.”  Proof that there’s some social awareness of the ‘dog whistle’ meme, at this point; albeit, the ire remained due to the major tautology issue… I still had hoped the recipient would mend his ways. Then here comes the crunch and it comes from the actor who plays Mr. Bean. “All jokes about religion cause offence, so it’s pointless apologising to them.”

Indeed, another sign of cemented bigotry and conscious too. The irony is Atkinson is more renowned for playing a character who doesn’t talk; again the individual wouldn’t observe this irony and believes his cemented bigotry is now warranted because it was endorsed by another bigot, namely a famous actor. Where’s the individualistic social responsibility? The gargantuan mistake here is to assume Rowan Atkinson is of a Higher Order of prophecy; normally, a parable is used in this context to justify a cause – thus, the recipient doesn’t find a ‘dog whistle’ post remotely serious, why an innate comedian quote sufficed. This draws us back to the original severity of the ‘dog whistle’ post.

Professor, Ludwig Wittgenstein subscribed to the metaphysical if the issues cannot be resolved by philosophy alone.  He deemed entrenched ideologies whereby cognitive prose doesn’t configure whatsoever creates the Human evil in distorted nationalism. In this case, the RAF is a floodgate to the social disorder, they constitutionally embroider prejudices to the point it is inwardly cultivated. To verify this, fully I’ve paid a visit to ‘RAF Banter’ a Facebook group that licenses loathsome hatred; one aspect of the ‘experimental phase’ is the ‘divide and conquer’ mantra of insular protectionism: whereby, when asked about how a British Muslim woman wearing a burqa would feel about Boris Johnson’s quips about how she looked? The answer unequivocally was ‘cemented bigotry, conditioned by being in the Forces.’   I don’t honesty care if it offends them, (again, the deflection went personal) – ‘plenty of things offend me on a daily basis… do I get all uptight & rigid about it?’

Ultimately, the injustice is how nebulous the ‘plenty of things that offend him is’ without relaying what actually offends on a daily basis ---- Hardly comparable to what ‘actual’ prejudices a burqa wearing Muslim has to live with, not through her choice.  Of course it breaches all of the RAF’s Code’s of Conducts, although the style of retort echoes a deep-rooted consensus that’s far greater than ‘one opinion’ – for the evidence stipulates a self-acclaimed grandeur dictatorship which allows for a RAF Service Person to not let other people’s sensibilities dictate what they do or say… including posting ‘dog whistle’ memes on social media and all of this is totally transparent, under the watch of the Royal Air Force hierarchy. So, to an observing bystander would conclude, either the MoD / Armed Forces are totally negligent or they’re institutionally corrupt? This is something the taxpayer should be aware of because these duty bound people genuinely don’t care about our well-being, yet they’re here to protect *all* UK citizens from attack.  What hope do we have if Humanity means so little to these Service People? Indeed, the RAF’s cemented bigotry goes beyond not caring for UK citizens, they despise royalty too; ye-h, there’s more hatred evidence to come.

RIP – A. K. Park --- the fight to eradicate cemented bigotry within our Forces is on.