All posts by Cain

Civility vs Decency

Articles by others, blogs, current affairs, debate, media culture, politics, rant

This is a spin-off from my post yesterday about Quentin Fucking Letts, but its something I’ve been considering for a while, and wanted to talk about more, as a general trend within current political discourse, especially among the “opinion-formers” in the media.

Its hardly a novel or surprising insight, I’ll be the first to admit. I know that its a particular aggravation of the brilliant American blogger HTML Mencken, of Sadly, No! fame and the more I see it within our own papers and political discussions, the more it pisses me off.

Some people, it seems, are far more in favour of civility in a discussion than actual decency. As anyone who reads me fairly often knows, I am hardly the poster-child for civil discussion. I rant, I swear, I mock and I troll. “All your carefully picked arguments can be easily ignored” and all that. But I think, underneath it, I am a fairly decent person. Not in the ‘decent left‘ sense, hell no, those people are the poster children for Civility over Decency (especially as Alan ‘Not the Minister’ Johnson’s lack of concern for human rights shows), but in the basic sense that no matter how nasty or cutting or rude I am, I’m only violent in my presentation of language.

In short, I’m not the sort of person who calls for pre-emptive attacks on enemy countries. I do not condone torture. I despise ‘extraordinary rendition’, hate racial profiling, cannot stand people who barely disguise their bigotry and blood-lust under the guise of cheerleading the “war on terrorism” and the war in Iraq especially. I don’t think we should be throwing out everyone whose skin colour is a little too dark, nor cutting benefits for those most at risk in society. I don’t think we should deny gays, atheists, Muslims, transsexuals or anyone else rights that the majority enjoys.

That’s decency. Having some motherfucking respect for the people around you, not demonizing people who have never hurt you, not acting like a jerk simply because “I’ve got mine, and fuck everyone else”. Or cowering in a corner going “oh no, the scary people different to me are here, we must deal with this immediately!”

Because, lets face it, when you dig behind the supposedly ‘respectable’ and civil writing of papers like The Sun, or the Daily Mail, or especially The Express, that is all that is left. Its dressing up ugly and vile opinions in nice sounding tones. A perfect example is that insufferable cunt Peter Hitchens, who just recently denied that homophobia has any real meaning. Well I’m sure gay people all over the world who are being killed, denied rights, attacked and smeared for their sexual leanings will be SO glad to hear that.

But you see, he said it in a nice way, with clean respectable words and no swearing, so he’s perfectly alright!

Whereas on the other hand, all those nasty people over at the Guardian who were saying rude things about Thatcher are evil and nasty leftists. Never mind that none of them are contributing to a set of beliefs designed to deny Thatcher any of her basic human rights. Never mind that Thatcher put in place policies that did ruin many peoples lives, to benefit a few. Oh no, the problem is all those horrible and sweary Guardian types, who refuse to shed a tear at the idea of Our Great Leader passing away.

Well fuck that, and fuck anyone who thinks in that way. Oh boo-fucking-hoo, the nasty little leftists won’t be all nice and civil when discussing your sacred cows? Civility is “manners masquerading as morals”, to quote Sidney Blumenthal. Its about an unspoken social code that relates in absolutely no way to the actual ethical ideas. Its a way of controlling the forms of argument, of dismissing people without actually having to refute what they say.

Noting the letters that Lett’s reprinted at the Mail, the common theme among them seems to be that Thatcher’s leadership did not enrichen or improve their lives, so why the fuck should they have to kowtow to her and her legions of brainless followers and admirers among the press corps? Letts doesn’t answer that, because he can’t. The idea of treating such a woman as a great leader worthy of such honour is disgusting, and the level of invective it deserves is well beyond that expressed in the Guardian. Presumably Letts would have us all drink tea with our little finger’s sticking out while discussing the pro’s and con’s of torture and genocide as well.

The fact is that you simply can’t fight some people and the ideas they espouse by being civil. You have to let people know that they’re vile, hateful scumbags with no sense of standards or simple human decency. You have to stand up to them and (rhetorically) kick them in the balls. Repeatedly, in some cases. This whole “oh I respectfully disagree with your views on kicking out all the ‘Muslim terrorist scum infesting this country with foreign diseases‘” bollocks has to stop.

And yes, I am an angry leftist. If you call yourselves a decent fucking human being and you look around at the state of current affairs: a supposedly left-wing government tearing down civil rights and engaging in pointless foreign wars while the gap between rich and poor rises, and a bunch of cretinous reporters in the tabloid media who are willing to give them hell over the only few things they have done right, then you’d be fucking angry too.

And if you don’t like it, Letts, you can blow me.

Framing and the stigmergic learning potential of propaganda groups

Articles by others, Black Swan, blogs, media culture, politics, Propaganda, terrorism

Stimergic learning is covered here.

The structure of secular conservative “framing” of events is discussed here.

Note the most interesting thing, that actually being an amorphous mass with seperated command structures but all communicating is actually an effective strategy. Its essentially an open-source platform, applied to political and information operations.

In both cases, each rely on various groups innovating and trying varying methods of attack, the communicating their effectiveness back to other groups who share their aims. The techniques are refined, then packaged for mass release. Then the process is repeated. It is constant refinement based on the ability for fast feedback AND, a mass of people willing to try various strategies.

Its essentially a Black Swan approach to events. By allowing groups to experiment, the whole movement can take advantage of successful methods, whereas failures will only impact on those directly involved in them. Its very smart, really.

Weaponized Marijuana

Articles by others, bizarre, counterculture, Science, war

We all know the CIA was recklessly spiking peoples drinks and dosing them with LSD back in the 60s, but it seems the Army too was playing games with drugs – in hope of creating nonlethal weapons that could minimize casualties in a war.

Sitting on the panel next to Shulgin was an unlikely expositor. Dr. James S. Ketchum, a retired U.S. Army colonel, told the audience, “When Sasha was trying to open minds with chemicals to achieve greater awareness, I was busy trying to subdue people.”

Ketchum was referring to his work at Edgewood Arsenal, headquarters of the U.S. Army Chemical Corps, in the 1960s, when America’s national security strategists were high on the prospect of developing a nonlethal incapacitating agent, a so-called humane weapon, that could knock people out without necessarily killing anyone. Top military officers hyped the notion of “war without death,” conjuring visions of aircraft swooping over enemy territory releasing clouds of “madness gas” that would disorient the bad guys and dissolve their will to resist, while U.S. soldiers moved in and took over.

Ketchum was into weapons of mass elation, not weapons of mass destruction. He oversaw a secret research program that tested an array of mind-bending drugs on American GIs, including an exceptionally potent form of synthetic marijuana. (Most of these drugs had no medical names, just numbers supplied by the Army.) “Paradoxical as it may seem,” Ketchum asserted, “one can use chemical weapons to spare lives, rather than extinguish them.”

[…]

With a larger dose of Red Oil, the reaction was even more pronounced. “These animals lie on their side; you could step on their feet without any response; it is an amazing effect and a reversible phenomenon. It has greatly increased our interest in this compound from the standpoint of future chemical possibilities.”

In the late 1950s, the Army started testing Red Oil on U.S. soldiers at Edgewood. Some GIs smirked for hours while they were under the influence of EA 1476. When asked to perform routine numbers and spatial reasoning tests, the stoned volunteers couldn’t stop laughing.

But Red Oil was not an ideal chemical-warfare candidate. For starters, it was a “crude” preparation that contained many components of cannabis besides psychoactive THC. Army scientists surmised that pure THC would weigh much less than Red Oil and would therefore be better suited as a chemical weapon. They were intrigued by the possibility of amplifying the active ingredient of marijuana, tweaking the mother molecule, as it were, to enhance its psychogenic effects. So the Chemical Corps set its sights on developing a synthetic variant of THC that could clobber people without killing them.

[…]

By the time the clinical testing program had run its course, 6,700 volunteers had experienced some bizarre states of consciousness at Edgewood. Under the influence of powerful mind-altering drugs, some soldiers rode imaginary horses, ate invisible chickens and took showers in full uniform while smoking phantom cigars. One garrulous GI complained that an order of toast smelled “like a French whore.” Some of their antics were so over-the-top that Ketchum had to admonish the nurses and other medical personnel not to laugh at the volunteers, even though it was unlikely that the soldiers would remember such incidents once the drugs wore off.

Ketchum insists that the staff at Edgewood went to great lengths to ensure the safety of the volunteers. (There was one untoward incident involving a civilian volunteer who flipped out on PCP and required hospitalization, but this happened before Ketchum came on board.) During the 1960s, every soldier exposed to incapacitating agents was carefully screened and prepped beforehand, according to Ketchum, and well treated throughout the experiment. They stayed in special rooms with padded walls and were monitored by medical professionals 24/7. Antidotes were available if things got out of hand.

“The volunteers performed a patriotic service,” Ketchum says. “None, to my knowledge, returned home with a significant injury or illness attributable to chemical exposure,” though he admits that “a few former volunteers later claimed that the testing had caused them to suffer from some malady.” Such claims, however, are difficult to assess given that so many intervening variables may have contributed to a particular problem.

A follow-up study conducted by the Army Inspector General’s office and a review panel convened by the National Academy of Sciences found little evidence of serious harm resulting from the Edgewood experiments. But a 1975 Army IG report noted that improper inducements may have been used to recruit volunteers and that getting their “informed consent” was somewhat dubious given that scientists had a limited understanding of the short- and long-term impact of some of the compounds tested on the soldiers.

Ketchum draws a sharp distinction between clinical research with human subjects under controlled conditions at Edgewood Arsenal and the CIA’s reckless experiments on random, unwitting Americans who were given LSD surreptitiously by spooks and prostitutes. “Jim is very certain of his own integrity,” says Ken Goffman, aka R.U. Sirius, the former editor of the psychedelic tech magazine Mondo 2000. “There is little doubt in his mind that he was doing the right thing. He felt he was working for a noble cause that would reduce civilian and military casualties.” Goffman helped Ketchum edit and polish his book manuscript, which vigorously defends the Edgewood research program.

Humour is a weapon….so you better learn how to use it!

Art, Humour, Lulz, philosophy

“The human race has only one really effective weapon and that is laughter.”
– Mark Twain

“Wit is a dangerous weapon, even to the possessor, if he knows not how to use it discreetly”
– Michael de Montaigne

Both Montaigne and Twain were, of course, entirely right in their assessments.  Especially Montaigne, that genteel and erudite man of letters, whose scholarly essays were always filled with amusing and witty anecdotes, usually at his own expense.

But the fact remains, humour is a weapon.  In fact, its the best weapon there is.  How powerful is a potential Adolph Hitler if all his voters are laughing at him?  Bigots and fundamentalists of all stripes have a decidedly dim view of humour for this reason.  It’s not a product of force, but of the intellect.  It doesn’t reduce cities to rubble or execute heretics, but at the same time it can be used to kill a man stone dead, in the eyes of those whose respect and fear he needs the most.

Even the traditionalist militarists and corporatists are suspicious of humour.  Its not something that can be used for inflating an R&D budget, nor acquired and stockpiled at great cost.  Equally, its subversive tendencies chafe against the regimentation and hierarchical nature of corporate life.

The thing is, with all weapons, you have to know how to use it right.  Just like in a knife fight, where an inexperienced idiot with a blade is a greater danger to themselves than an unarmed expert, you have to know how to use humour properly, or else you’ll end up hoisted on your own petard, as it were.

Because of this, a sort of rumour, or perhaps a scurrilous lie, has been spread about humour.  Apparently, its an inborn trait, like blonde hair, or height, or wanting to be a corporate liar.  Some sort of genetic fluke which makes some people funny and others not.  And if you are one, then you can never be the other, try as you might.

It is, of course, complete and utter bullshit.  No doubt some people have more of a natural flair for humour – perhaps an ease with large audiences, a natural disposition to be the centre of attention, an excellent command of the English language.  But humour, like any other skill and especially writing style, can be cultivated and developed, up until the point it can be forged into a weapon, a perfect design to smash enemies and leave them looking like fools.

Unfortunately, this means we’re going to have to do some incredibly unfunny analysis of humour and how it actually works.  If that bothers you, then I suggest you look away…now.

Right, now we’re rid of them.  I suppose I should start from the beginning.  What is the point of humour?  Psychologists have actually found that humour, while an innate trait among most humans, also serves some interesting sociological purposes as well.

Usually, these are divided down into six reasons:

we laugh out of instinct
we laugh out of incongruity
we laugh out of ambivalence
we laugh for release
we laugh when we solve a puzzle
we laugh when we regress

Additionally, two meta-reasons are often added to this analysis:  we laugh out of surprise, or because we feel superior.

Surprise is obvious and easy.  Its also one of the most universal reasons for laughing.  Embarrassment and trickery are core to this idea.  Obviously, you have to maintain the level of surprise for this type of humour to work.  Easily guessed wordplay might be witty, but lacking that factor, it is not especially funny.

Surprise is, in essence, the cardinal rule of comedy.  It should have some role in almost everything funny you do.  Without it, comedy ceases to be.  Its a curve ball that throws the audience off balance.

Superiority, of course, is one that should actually interest us too.  All good humour has an element of both tragedy and cruelty to it, to be really effective.  What adds to that effectiveness is the feeling that those who are not the target of the joke, or who guessed at or appreciated the joke, are superior to those who are not.

This may sound, in theory, elitist, but it need not be.  In fact, comedy of this sort is often the great equalizer, documenting and mocking the failings of the great and powerful, of people who want to put you in your place.  Comedy of this sort is the true razor blade of rhetoric, its use is to cut the other person down to size.  Its transgressive nature questions assumptions and cherished beliefs.  As social criticism, it is especially effective because humour goes beyond restrictions and social norms.  Humour can also be used to maintain the status quo, to ridicule out-groups…but that sort of humour is boring and stale.

Instinctively, we laugh as a verbal substitute for an attack.  The laugh of the triumphant is the one that says “I am better than you.”  It is a way of venting hostility when physical assault is not practical.

Incongruity makes us laugh because something is internally inconsistent, it is paired or matched in odd ways.  When we realize why, or how, we laugh.  Often this is related to the idea of superiority, though the original appearance of the incongruous may be surprising as well.  The two combined are especially effective.

Ambivalence is similar to incongruity, but instead of the clash or conflict of irreconcilable ideas or perceptions, ambivalence is the simultaneous presence of mixes signals.  Once decoded, the language expresses both of these feelings, usually love and hate, at the same time.  It is an attempt to maintain dignity, to cover up our foolish errors, and is especially useful in self-deprecating humour.

Release is a pretty obvious one.  We laugh to release tension, to remove ourselves from uncomfortable or dangerous situations, to air truths that may be otherwise hard to face.  This release is especially useful if it can be experienced as a group event – and the element of surprise must be removed.  The audience must know what lies behind the door, or what happens next to the over-curious cat.  That is where the rule of surprise no longer applies.

After we’ve been roughed up, its nice to see someone else take a few lumps.  The idea is that if we are laughing at them, then they cannot laugh at us.  This humour can spark a revolutionary sentiment, or quash it, giving safe release to emotions that may be better used getting people to work at something else.  Consider its use carefully.

Puzzles are also elements of surprise.  Its a matter of configuration, the set up.  You have to frame a problem or a riddle in a certain manner, then propose a valid, if surprising, answer to it.  We take delight in the surprise, and comfort in the superiority of knowledge.

In terms of regression, Freud argued that comedy was as important as sleep.  It allowed for more primitive urges and desires to be expressed in acceptable social ways.  Especially for infantile, sexual or aggressive behaviour.  A playful mood, adopted as relaxation, is the most common form of this sort of humour (consider the comic strip – often the most common form of humour regardless of nationality or culture).  This also includes a desire for social approval however.  Regressive humour is rarely continued without a form of social acceptance, especially from authority figures.  It is therefore a tool to be used when you and your audience share a target in common, someone whom you both dislike and feel needs to be made an object of ridicule.

In short, humour is a manifestation of what society really believes, but dares not say.  It pierces beneath the bullshit and spin to get at the Really Real (Perceived) Truth of the matter.  Because sometimes we cannot deal with tragedy directly, we rely on humour to ease our way to acceptance.

Sick humour, in and of itself, is rarely effective, except perhaps as an opening gambit, a ploy to attract attention.  Beyond that, it can actually have a negative effect on audiences.

So, that’s the why of humour, the idea as to why we need it.  Now we move onto the nuts and bolts, the how of humour.  These are the necessary ingredients for any comedic routine.  Without them, the humour may taste somewhat off or wrong, and in worst case scenarios, ruin the entire joke.

The six principle ingredients are:

Target
Hostility
Realism
Exaggeration
Emotion
Surprise

The target is the most important aspect of this.  A successful target must fit the persona and style you are using, as well as the interests of the audience.  Therefore, pick your battles carefully, and with this uppermost in your mind.  Just remember, you have to reaffirm some the prejudices of your audience, and be very unfair to whoever your target is.  Oh well, such is life.  There is no room for balance or explanation in a joke, you have to be as ruthless as a General.  See the weakness, and exploit it for all its worth.  Deny the goodness of your target.

If you cannot pick a person, then pick an experience with universal appeal.  But I prefer the well known person route, since we are talking of humour as a weapon here.  Also, remember that if you do pick an experience, do not make it too broad.  It has to be specific in what it entails.  Driving is not funny, women who manage to multi-task every single fucking thing in the world while driving, however, can be.

Hostility is next.  Comedy is cruel.  In our case, necessarily so, because we deal with cruel people in a cruel world.  This hostility is a powerful antidote to the hostility many of us feel to those we are surrounded by in our every day lives – it is a release, because we all have an element of hostility towards something.

Authority is a natural target the world over for comics.  Remember it, cherish it, use it.  People all around the world hate their leaders, their systems, the powers they have to labour under.  This humour is nihilistic – no one is too powerful or too pure to be beyond reproach.  Just remember lots of people have sympathy for the underdog, so direct that hostility upwards.

Next to authority, money and business are also perfect targets.  Aside from that, angst, the painful knowledge of the ugly reality, is another one.  Merchandising human suffering is the fuel which angst runs on.

Realism.  Like all good propaganda and disinformation, comedy contains a kernel of truth hidden within it.  Comedy is essentially telling the truth via lying, the use of juxtaposition, surprise and the bending of language to give life to an unexpressable reality.

Most of the facts of humour should be logical and obvious, but hidden via convention and expression so that we don’t quite apprehend them correctly.  A major deviation from reality wont prevent humour, however it will likely not be as funny as a joke based on reality is.

Exaggeration.  Ah, poetic licence.  Humour is what allows people to suspend disbelief, and this should be used to its full advantage.  Absurdity, hyperbole and outright lying are all acceptable because, as the exaggeration signals to us: hey, its only a joke.  Often the foil to the realism of the joke, the two are held up and follow from each other to create the incongruity that results in laughter.

Emotion.  Hostility alone is not enough emotion.  There has to be an element of anticipation within the audience, the joke has to be built up.  In effect, you create tension, then you release it.  The audience is wound up, then down.  You must, in effect, adopt a persona which can bring about this effect within an audience.  Almost always, the best way to do this is with a character that shows a sort of boundless, almost infectious energy.  You also have to know how to use language.  Where to stop, where to start, where to pause – there must be a rhythm to your delivery.

Stand-up in particular is more a funny man doing material than a man doing funny material.  To a degree, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.  The man who is delivering the material is funny, therefore his material must be funny too.  This identity/rhetorical sleight of hand is not always true, but it is worth remembering and considering.  Delivery is key, and cannot be understated.

Surprise.  Of course, this was mentioned in the previous chapter, but merits a mention here as well.  Charlie Chaplin defined surprise in terms of a film scene in which the villain is chasing the heroine down the street.  On the sidewalk is a banana peel. The camera cuts swiftly back and forth from the banana peel to the approaching villain.  At the last second, the heavy sees the banana peel and jumps over it—and then falls into an open manhole.

The surprise cannot be telegraphed.  No matter what.  It must be genuine, or else it loses its impact.  You have to master the poker face, keep the audience in suspense for just long enough to pull the rug out from under them.

OK, this is getting far too long already, and I cannot possibly hope to include every single possible hint about comedy.  But keep these ideas in mind, play around with them, practice, and encourage creativity within humour!  And as you get better…put it to a use!

Teh great Atheist Conspiracy…

conspiracy, debate, Lulz, media culture, religion

I know I really should leave such things to Anton Vowl, as he is so much better at them. But I was trolling around the Daily Mail messageboard on a slow Friday afternoon when I saw the topic title….

“are atheists infiltrating organizations such as education, government etc?”

and I just knew it was going to be a clusterfuck of epic tinfoil hattery and right-wing paranoia. I was not disappointed.

In the thread about the dreaded Heinz Mayo “gay” ad, one respondent stated that atheists are infiltrating organisations that influence government, educational policy, etc.

Can atheists really do that? After all, they are not an organised as such. Is the real truth merely that more people are rejecting religion and becoming de-facto atheists, such that the proportion of atheists in all sorts of organisations is increasing because of that, i.e. it’s mere statistics?

Is it really a conspiracy?

A sensible start….surely this cannot last. Atheism debates are like those on abortion…pure flamebait.

YES Mikey my man, oh yes!! Read Peter Hitchins, an ex-communist..

The communist party used to say…go out and submerse Into the establishment, government, schools, authorities…I’m not quoting but find out Mikey. Look at government… the number of ex-communist party members and ex-marxist types…

YES, THE COMMUNIST CONSPIRACY IS BACK IN FASHION! POST #1 BITCHES, AND WE’RE ALREADY BACK TO THE 1950S, BOO-YAH!

Just look at the members in the NUT to find out how far these people have infiltrated education and the ‘elf and safety brigade in local councils are teeming with them. Even the higher ranks of the police have them in abundance.

Reminder: if lots of educated people agree, its not because of superb reasoning skills and access to more factual information, its because they are being manipulated by a conspiracy.

I haven’t read anything this funny in a long time! “These people” indeed. Atheists were around long before anyone caught religion, and do you know what? We’re not communists, marxists or fascists, we’re just people who lead ordinary decent lives without believing in any gods – and you sound so horrified, as if we’re trying to undermine society!

Atheist disinformation agents have even infiltrated the Daily Mail!

i think you are right. you only have to look at Great Britain with high teenage pregnancies, broken homes, political correctness and not being allowed to make judgements about peoples’ lifestyles. There are people being shot dead for being in the wrong place.

I think having christian values did keep people on the right track.

Goddamn those fucking Atheists and their lack of morals making it unacceptable for me to persecute teh gheys. I see no unintentional irony in my previous statement whatsoever, either.

The people that have infiltrated our society have no religious preferences. They probably call themselves atheists but their religion is Marxism. They don’t worship a deity, just an idea that is a proven failure. I suppose that’s the difference: nobody has ever proven that God does not exist whereas Marxism has been tried and has failed miserably.

But that won’t stop those who are hungry for power over the proletariat. Antyjax is obviously familiar with the type, and there are thousands of them, in education, local government and the criminal justice system. It isn’t an organised conspiracy, but each of them are following the teachings of Gramsci and the Frankfurt School.

I’m sure that sounded really smart in his head.

Atheists tend to have the evangelical zeal of all religious zealots. They are so arrogant in their personal beliefs and self esteem, that they will not brook alternative belief systems!

All the PC claptrap, about renaming Christmas and the like, are all down to Atheists in Local Government.

What makes their actions all the more disgusting are their attempts at blaming Muslims, or Hindus, etc.. These unfortunates find themselves beset by Press Commentators, blaming them for something for which they have no knowledge, or inclination! To the contrary. They mostly enjoy the family aspects of our CHRISTIAN celebrations!

(The Muslims also hold Christ in high esteem and see no reason why they should not celebrate Christmas alongside Christians!……… Go to Saudi Arabia and you will find that out in short order!)

Yeah, goddamn Atheists and their Winterval! Religious nutters of the world, UNITE and let us be rid of this menace.

The point of the Bible, and Christianity is to promote harmony and a moral life. The 10 Commandments are good rules for morality, and which every decent human being will follow naturally. As our community has gone away from the church and the fear of what comes next (heaven, hell?), we are heading for barbarism. This is already clear by what is happening in every inner-city and now suburban streets with young men and woman being killed in cold blood for little or no reason. All religions have their own version of the 10 Commandments which again are moral pointers for the followers.

To go to the original question, Jax has answered it pretty well in my opinion. So yes I do really believe that atheists have infiltrated government at every level, hence it will reach the education system. Private church schools, I suspect, are an exception.

Britain was harmonious back when peasants believed the King ruled by the divine grace of God, and I approve of this system. Speaking as an agnostic.

I am more alarmed that teachers are using their jobs to poison the minds of our young children with their left wing convictions. It isn’t as if the teaching profession can be proud of their acheivements as so many children leave school without the ability to read or write properly. Universities are having to train youngsters the basics before they can persue the courses at Uni.

As for the police they have alienated the majority of the law abiding population with their policy of appeasing criminals and taking ot out on the rest of us.

Because ignorance and irrational brutality are hallmarks of all Atheist thought.

I cannot see God but I can have faith In God’s existence. Science may someday come to a proof of the truth or falsehood of a creator, but It Is In no position today to do either. If you say..”I see no evidence that there Is a God” fair enough. But go as far as saying..”I know there Is no God” and you have taken a leap of faith as large as that of any theist.

Although theists are better, because they are right. Or something.

I’m a Christian and I believe In God. It’s really quite easy, I believe there Is one God. He actually Loves you, and you try to mock and sneer, and yet he still Loves you. But I don’t actually have to explain my BELIEF to you, rather you have to explain your ASSERTION that there Is no God?? And you have to do a lot better than “I know there are no God’s because there Is no evidence.” You have a BELIEF that there Is no God, and that Is fine. But you don’t KNOW. So for all your assertions, you’re not being very assertive are you?

Because asserting an unknowable without evidence is an excellent system of logical thinking.

I believe the heading of this post is misleading and would be less so if it read “are the extreme left infiltrating organisations such as education ,government,etc.
the answer is yes they are and always have done just because tony blair denied them the right to stand as labour candidates doesn’t mean they have gone away or changed their beliefs they are still out there burrowing away into all aspects of our lives,and i don’t believe it will be long before they rear their heads again and feel safe to come out into the open again.

They are in all probability atheists,but that is not the b all and end all of their beliefs but may be the basis for them.
The question is ,are they a danger to our society must be an undoubtable yes,but is far more outreaching than just are they atheist !
Many atheists are content in their non belief,and content to let the rest of us believe what ever we want.

The extreme left are not .

Atheists are a front for the Communists! COMMUNISTS!!12!

I find it unbelieveably funny how non believers get so upset about something they don’t believe in

ok, you don’t believe in God. thats your choice. but why do you get so angry and upset with those of us who do believe in God? I find that it is especially the Christian faith which gets such anger etc directed towards it

I do not for one second believe in the hindu religion. However I don’t get all worked up and angry about it. Let them believe what they do.

atheisem is a belief aswell btw


Well, last time I checked, it wasn’t Hindus who had a majority in this country. But of course that couldn’t be the reason, could it?

On numerous occasions, I have had an atheist say to me something along the lines of

“we don’t know what caused the universe”

yet they will boldly claim that there is no evidence of God. If God caused / created the universe then it stands to reason that the universe (in fact all of creation) is evidence of God. Are you able to prove that God did not cause / create the universe?

Incidentally, to answer your question about why I believe in God, there are two reasons.

1. I believe what is said in the Bible about Him. The central theme is that before God, all have sinned and the punishment for that sin is death. God loved the world so much that He sent His Son Jesus Christ to die on the cross so that people can be forgiven of their sins. Only in Christianity can I find this redemptive message where salvation is based on what Jesus Christ has done, not on some works-based method present in all other religions.

2. Since becoming a Christian, I have the testimony in my life as to answered prayer, or how God helped me through a difficult situation. The personal evidence for my faith is therefore my testimony. Now others can choose what alternative explanation they give to what I attribute to God at work, but description of something doesn’t alter what it is. It only affects one’s perception of it.


Logic is really wasted on some people.

Psychedelics making a comeback as medical treatments

Articles by others, counterculture, Science

No, really.

Much greater than usual media attention accompanied the most recent World Psychedelic Forum held in March in Basel, Switzerland, the home of Albert Hofmann. A headline in the May issue of the staid British medical journal The Lancet — known for challenging the Pentagon’s Iraq casualty numbers — read, “Research on Psychedelics Moves into the Mainstream.”

The Lancet article identified a number of early-stage clinical trials being conducted on various “anxiety and neurotic disorders” using psychedelic compounds. As previously mentioned, Doblin and MAPS are conducting three parallel studies in Israel, Switzerland and the United States on the use of Ecstasy for treating PTSD. MAPS is also funding the work of controversial Harvard researcher John Halpern and his Yale counterpart Andrew Sewell, who are studying LSD and psilocybin as treatments for cluster headaches. (Information about their research is available on clusterbusters.com and Erowid, an online clearinghouse for reliable data on virtually every psychoactive plant and chemical known to humans.)

Harvard University, which conducted the last legal research on LSD in the mid-1960s and was the site for one of Halpern’s studies on the effects of MDMA on dying cancer patients, is once again considering clinical trials to support Halpern’s research.

And in a major milestone, on May 13 of this year, Swiss doctor Peter Gasser administered the first legal dose of LSD in more than 36 years. It was for a study of anxiety in palliative care, which helps terminally ill patients transition more peacefully — and with as little pain as possible — into death.

Other complexes like addiction and obsessive-compulsive disorder are being treated with what are called the “shamanic plant medicines”: ayahuasca, the Amazonian vine preparation whose psychoactive component is dimethyltryptamine (DMT); peyote, the North American cactus whose psychoactive component is mescaline; and iboga, an African rainforest shrub.

Addiction is one of the most important new fields of study, not only because of the sheer numbers of afflicted, which the National Institute on Drug Abuse estimates at 23.6 million persons a year at a cost of $181 billion. According to a newly released report from the World Health Organization, the United States is the world’s most addicted society. Of those who are lucky enough to get treatment, half eventually go back to heavy use, and 90 percent suffer brief or episodic relapses for the rest of their lives. This makes the search for an effective and long-lasting new treatment more attractive — and more pressing — than ever.

David Icke is running as an MP

conspiracy, current affairs, Lulz

True story.

According to Icke’s own website:

I want to make it clear one more time because a few people have still got the wrong impression. I have not put my name forward in the upcoming by-election because I want to win and nor do I have any chance of winning. I will get a few votes at most in the time we have. Personally I am not in the least bothered if I get zero.

It is not about that. It is about taking an opportunity in a by-election called by the sitting MP on the subject of ‘Big Brother’ to make the point that this is far, far bigger than even he realises and unless we see the BIG picture of what is going on nothing effective can be done to stop it.

We can sit on our bums and moan, or we can do what we don’t want to do (as with me in this case) to communicate what people need to know as effectively as we can.

best wishes,

David

I for one welcome our reptilian overlords.

BREAKING: Clinton to form Erisian party

Articles by others, Eris, Indecision 08, politics

Via the Huffington Post:

NEW YORK…Hillary and Bill Clinton announced today that they are forming a new political party to continue her fight for the presidency. Seeking to draw comparisons with Theodore Roosevelt’s ‘Bull Moose’, the new party will be called ‘Surly Eris’ for the Greek Goddess of discord and strife. According to the press release, the party will “cater to the perceived slights and accumulated frustrations harbored by women of a certain age and Lanny Davis.”

Speculation that Clinton would be placed on the Democratic ticket ended earlier in the day when representatives for Barack Obama refused her demand that he do all his campaigning in an open top limousine. Said a visibly indignant Harold Ickes, “Would we have liked Obama to be capable of enjoying pleasant weather? You bet your ass.”

Meanwhile, longtime Clinton friend and bagman Terry McAuliffe stressed that the new party would be open to “anyone with resentments and a credit card” including “honest, hard working Americans who just happen not to like blacks.”

When pressed by reporters on how Senator Clinton had managed to squander every institutional advantage in her descent from inevitability to runner-up, spokesman Howard Wolfson decried “this endless media fascination with the factual” adding “this isn’t about who won what how, this is about something far more important, the future of the Clintons”.

Hearts and Minds

blogs, current affairs, media culture, Operation:Mindfuck, rant, society, war

Welcome to the modern day war zone.  Right now, as I speak, a thousand battles are being waged for your submission and allegiance.  Commanders and politicians have decided that the enemy is us and that we are to be bought to heel, as soon as possible.

No doubt some of you think I’m using hyperbole, or metaphor to illustrate an example of our socially fractured society and the commodification of identity.  And while those certainly are problems, anyone thinking about those in relation to my rant today are wrong.  Right now, you and I are quite literally at war with at least one government, namely that of the USA.

Oh to be sure there won’t be running battles with light infantry.  No air-strikes are going to be called in on your house, and I’m reasonably certain you wont get carted away to Guantanomo Bay, or any other black site that exists.  But just because guns aren’t being loaded and blood isn’t been spilt doesn’t mean this isn’t a conflict.

You see, war isn’t about the clash of armies on the battlefield anymore.  Hell, its barely even about killing, except as an advertising hook or a final solution for people who refuse to stop being a pain in the ass.  No, warfare has moved through the gentlemanly period of pitched battles and low casualties, blown apart by Napoleon and perfected in the slaughterhouse of WWI.  Its not even the dirty political warfare that characterized the Cold War, marked by futile superpower conflict and strategies designed to bleed a superpower by third world proxies, and on the other end of the scale by terrorism.

No, warfare today is about fighting on the psychological and narrative level.  Its about capturing the mind, and shackling it to the agenda of the day, regardless of what that agenda may be.

Continue reading Hearts and Minds →