toddler explains why we are arseholes for eating meat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX4O6smZrLE

When your mantra is "You're a dickhead"

When I wake up in the morning, sometimes debatably 'morning', I usally go for a piss and at some point in the bathroom I usually say out loud "you're a dickhead".  Sometimes I say even worse swears.  Sometimes I use the F-ing-C word.  More recently I've been following it with a comic musing out loud for the benefit of any neighbours with super hearing: "Well, that was my pep-talk for the day."

I think some people look at themselves in the mirror and say "go get 'em tiger!" or something like that.  I look at myself and yell "YOU STUPID FUCKING CUNT! YOU'RE A PATHETIC PIECE OF SHIT!!"

I'm not sure this counts as an affirmation.  I think you're supposed to tell your reflection that you love it or something like that.  If that "What the bleep do we know" stuff is true then I'm well and truly fucked.

I'm probably a realist, or even a slightly begrudging existentialist.  I'd like to believe in something beyond, and I kind of do seem to believe in reincarnation, but ultimately I mainly think about the savage realism of reality most of all, and ultimately what forms the core of my beliefs about the world is a pretty cynical outlook that the more fluffy inclined might not feel comfortable with.  I see incredible potential in Humanity.  I see amazing creativity and genius.  But there's a lot of shit that goes with it.

But I decided today that I like Earth.  I think we're privileged to have this opportunity.  There's heaps of good stuff here, and a lot we might miss in generations to come if it fades away.  

I think we'll actually look back on this period and see it as a cultural pinnacle.  It will be a great moment in our history which might struggle to be reproduced in the future.  As we advance technologically there will be tremendous potential to want to improve ourselves in any way possible.  We will jump at the chance to upgrade.  But ultimately I think this will take us further and further away from the soul that drives our creativity.  The more "super human" we get, the more shit we will get at art. I bet you anything.  That's what will happen.  It's maybe like the UFO lore that exists around the idea of "Greys" and "Nordics". They're probably actually time travellers.  There could well be two streams of future timelines of us coming back in time in their saucers to visit us representing our two possible futures.  We either become really evolved Angelic and spiritual beings who look like Viking supermodels, or we wither up into wrinkly grey old hags who live underground and experiment on things.  Maybe society will split in two and they will co-exist.  Like in HG Wells' "Time machine".  In fact maybe that's what he was on about.  Maybe the reason "the greys" are abducting people is because they're trying to figure out how to get their souls back after they tweaked with their biology in every way possible and somehow squeezed them out.  Probably because they wouldn't listen to people like Rupert Sheldrake.

Those TED fuckers will end up Greys, for sure.  Sheldrake will be a Nordic.

Innocence and guilt

I just had an interesting realisation when I discovered that my son left Skype on when he came to have dinner then forgot about it.  I heard the hanging up sound a couple of hours later while he was on the phone to my mum.  I guess at that point they heard him on the other end then realised it was still connected.  At first I felt a moment of paranoia: "What did they hear? What did I say? Anything embarrassing?"  But then I realised the conversations would have all involved my 11 year old son so they would have had the innocence of a child to them and they would have been fine.

So what is this saying?  Children talk about innocent things, and whatever they say it is acceptable.  It might not all be rational, or of great intellectual significance, but whatever it is it will be safe.  At least that's how I saw myself react completely automatically.

This is also saying that it's entirely possible that if it was me talking then there could be a lot to be embarrassed, or even ashamed of.  Could I have said something people would laugh at?  Something revealing?  Something offensive or unacceptable?  What was it that I was afraid I might have said?

It seems I have an inherent disposition of guilt, and children have one of innocence.  What did I lose that lead me from that pure state to the twisted, shame ridden position of self loathing I seem to default to now?  What has really changed?  Aren't I the same person?  When did it all change?

Bollocks

Bollocks

Bollocks to the status quo

Bollocky ollocky ollocks.

Bollocks to the things you know

Bollocky ollocky ollocks

Bollocks to your point of view

Bollocky ollocky ollocks

Bollocks to the things you do

Bollocky ollocky ollocks

Bollocks to the texting hordes

Bollocky ollocky ollocks

Glacial drifts of Bollock fjords

Bollocky ollocky ollocks

Bollocks to your facebook memes

Bollocky ollocky ollocks

Bollocky pulped and molded reams

Bollocky ollocky ollocks

Bollocks to the constant farce

Bollocky ollocky ollocks

Bollocks to the ruling class

Bollocky ollocky ollocks

Bollocks to the firmament

Bollocky ollocky ollocks

Bollocks to this foul lament

Bollocky ollocky ollocks

Bollocks to the stagnant pile

tireless mounds of bollocks

Bollocks to the wasted while

Bollocky ollocky ollocks

Bollocks to the starving soul

traffic jams of Bollocks

Bollocks to the fractured whole

Bollocky ollocky ollocks

Bollocks to the whinging sod

can’t believe the bollocks 

Bollocks to your ugly face

and Bollocks to the Human race.

Why I am not a Christian - Bertrand Russel

George Galloway and his borderline moronic "stand".

 I have just unfriended my own mother from Facebook.  

It started with unblocking, or unticking "show in news feed" once or twice, just so I didn't have to be subjected to the endless stream of emotional and reactionary quasi-political one-liners with pictures, and snippets and soundbites with no proper fact checking that propagate the facebookverse these days and make people angry over things they don't know enough about to really be angry at.

I've been guilty of that myself.  These things are designed to infuriate and push buttons that will enrage you and compel you to forward them on to all your "friends" at once, lest anyone in the world miss out on the next total travesty going on that "[all you 'sheeple' out there] don't care about".

I have been deeply distressed, like most - well maybe not most, but many people, about the situation in Israel/Palestine.  It's horrible.  But it's horrible in the same way that it's horrible for Indigenous Australians or Americans, north or south.  I might not agree with the original historical decision regarding the formation of Israel, but in 2013 that's a bit like disagreeing with the breakup of the Ottoman Empire really.  The only thing that actually matters now is that it's there and that we need to find a way of reducing the suffering of the people that live there.

There is absolutely no way anyone can expect to do this by refusing to acknowledge the existence of Israel or denying its right to exist.  It's here to stay, and everyone has to accept that fact. What this means in practical terms is that the focus now should be on finding ways to move forward.

So to the Facebook incident.  Yesterday (22nd Feb 2013) my mother posted I think 3 or 4 things regarding George Galloway, the Angry Glaswegian [said mother is also an Angry Glaswegian] MP for Bradford who converted to Islam over 10 years ago.  I used to actually respect him.  I have seen one or two youtube videos of him grilling US senators and really giving them hell.  He was very impressive.  But the latest news involved him walking out on a debate when he found out his opponent was an Israeli national.  I was absolutely amazed, and appalled at this.  For a start, I just couldn't see how any rational person fighting for a cause could take the step of announcing that he would never debate with anyone from the opposing side.  That just seems like an astonishing move to me.  A bit like holding a debate on Christianity and refusing to debate with any Christians.

And I thought he was fighting for the human rights of the Palestinian people and trying to persuade the world that the occupation of Palestinian territories is wrong. But it seems I have misunderstood his goals after all.

It seems he is actually calling for the destruction of Israel, a totally unrealistic objective with no hope of actually being fulfilled, and thus he is effectively fighting to prolong the Palestinians' suffering as much as possible, and fan the flames of conflict.  He might as well announce that he will no longer debate with Americans until the USA has been given back to the Native Americans.  It will do the same amount of good for them.  In fact it is insulting to the Palestinians because it is like saying "I totally support you, but only if there's no actual chance that what we are fighting for will actually happen".

And the fact that he is British makes the whole situation even more ludicrous.  I won't even mention the Mandate of Palestine.  But by his reasoning, if we are not talking to people because we object to the policies of their country then I'm sure there are millions worldwide who could totally justifiably refuse to talk to him because he is British.  I'm sure anyone could come up with many travesties to back up that claim.  But even forgetting past misdeeds, just here and now the morals of the British government are highly questionable.

And even more mental, he is actually even PART of the British government.  He's an actual MP.  So now we have a British MP who refuses to debate people of a particular nationality.  It simply beggars belief really.

I can't help but draw a comparison to parties like the BNP.  Everyone thinks of them as racist. But here we have an actual British MP who has publicly proclaimed he won't debate people of a certain nationality (lets not mince with words here: Jews).  What's far worse about Galloway is that he actually purports to be being racist in the name of human rights.  But then I guess that's not that crazy... I guess the BNP might argue they are racist in the name of human rights too.  But they are doing it for the rights of ...some .. certain people with...erm.. actually what is the official racial configuration of a British person?  I mean, considering the many myths of British ancestry, none of us are really who we think we are.  We are a mongrel race, as are most Europeans.  To be claiming anything at all on the basis of race is plainly stupid... I thought that was the point.

But I digress...

The point being, Galloway has taken things in a very different, and in my opinion very dark direction with this latest revelation.  Refusing to debate people purely on their nationality is one thing, but he is specifically refusing to debate with Israelis because he doesn't recognise the state of Israel.  This is also very dark, if not for the racist connotations, more for the actual practical implications for real Palestinian people who have to live with this every day of their lives.  The view Galloway is taking cannot possibly help the Palestinians in any conceivable way.  All it can do is galvanise the opposition, confirm the already paranoid Israeli view of "everyone already hates us so we might as well do what we like anyway", and ensure that they never de-escalate their hardline military policies or make any attempt whatsoever to accommodate the needs of the Palestinians and allow them to have their own state.

 It reminds me of Jane Elliott talking about a woman in her racism workshop who tried to rise up against the oppression of the blue eyed people in her safe comfortable workshop, completely oblivious to the fact that she was actually being staggeringly offensive, and doing the struggle against racism more harm than good by completely belittling what the victims of racism have to endure on a daily basis in the real world.

It strikes me that there are many people supposedly fighting for the Palestinian cause who are well meaning, but ultimately ignorant comfortable westerners, inherently incapable of really understanding exactly what the reality of all this means to real people on the ground and thinking that the answer is to join the fight on the side of the oppressed.  By doing so they are failing to realise that they aren't actually looking for a  satisfying peaceful solution that will alleviate the suffering of real people on the ground, but instead they are just taking sides in a war.  And on top of that they are not offering real material assistance to help win that war either, just a vague good will gesture that "we are behind you in your impossible task brother!"

It's like going up to an Aboriginal Australian and saying "I got your back brother, I support your goal of getting rid of those 21 million white people in your country!"  A nice gesture that maybe makes the person saying it feel good for a brief moment, but ultimately more disempowering and disheartening in real practical terms, and more likely to wind up attracting a deserved punch in the face.  I know, I've been punched in this manner before.

Since this George Galloway debacle I feel like I need to really overstate this point: Israel is not going anywhere.  We really need to move past debating whether that is right or wrong.  We really can't do anything about that now.  The only way borders change dramatically it seems is via world ward, and since none of us desire, nor would likely survive another world war, the focus now needs to be on where to go from here.

The Israelis are very, very far from Angelic in this situation.   But that is almost irrelevant.  The Australians regarding their treatment of "Asylum Seekers" is as equally, if not further from Angelic. The only possible course of action from here on is to focus on what the map will look like on the future, completely forgetting what it looked like in 1966 or 1947.

I won't presume any more to try and solve a problem that ultimately has nothing to do with me.  But after seeing yesterday the enormous amount of hollering and chest beating that supposed Palestinian supporters let out in favour of Galloways actions, I just felt like I needed to add to the chorus on the side of reason out here on behalf of supporters of justice for Palestinians who think what he did was a really, really stupid and counter productive thing to do.

 Noam Chomsky explains the reasons well in this interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRu2mUcFXpg

What is consciousness?

There have been plenty of people that have delved into 'consciousness studies', many of them neurologists, or neuro-psychiatrists such as Peter Fenwick, and Biologists like Rupert Sheldrake (author of "The science delusion - kind of an 'antidote' to Richard Dawkins' 'God delusion', which challenges a lot of the dogma there seems to be within the mainstream modern scientific view, largely thanks to people like Dawkins).

 I was watching some videos on Youtube last night on Near death experiences and it's a fascinating topic, and certainly one way of approaching the big question of what consciousness actually is. Many of the 'materialistic' biologists say that it is a purely brain oriented experience that happens at the moment of death or revival, but there have been some very strange cases where people have been clinically dead undergoing brain surgery and described accurate accounts of details of what went on during their surgery at times when their brain was completely inactive. They have also been able to see from different angles/viewpoints in the room, and 'hear' even while their ears were obstructed.

In that video I discovered Professor Stuart Hameroff who is a professor of Anaesthesiology and director of the Centre for consciousness studies at the University of Arizona, ( interview ) and he, along with Sir Roger Penrose, has some very interesting theories regarding microscopic components of brain cells called 'micro-tubules' which he theorises may connect our brains to the universe on a quantum level.  He has studied near death experiences in depth and suggests that the quantum information held by these micro-tubules may be released on death to the universe at large, but still connected via quantum entanglement so that when someone is revived it is able to re-enter the body.  At least this is my understanding so far of his very complicated theories.  But he is well worth checking out.

 Scientists from Australia and Japan have managed to teleport wave packets of light photons, which is a significant step in the world of Quantum computing. Although this refers to "Quantum teleportation" and shouldn't be confused with the normal use of the word "teleport" as most of us would understand it, this kind of research is at least going down a path that could very much tie in with the theories of Hameroff and Penrose.

 Rupert Sheldrake has spent many years as a biologist and is a strong proponent of a theory called "morphic resonance" where he suggests that consciousness behaves more like a field, like electro-magnetism, and he has conducted a number of experiments on things like "the sense of being stared at" (in his book of the same name) And dogs knowing when their owners are coming home, and other studies of "telepathy". I have wondered if this is true whether there might be an associated "consciousness particle" that might be discovered one day.  Maybe it will be the thing that one day enables us to build the star trek 'transporter'.

There is also the whole area of Remote viewing, which was a method of "psychically" viewing remote situations under double blind conditions which the US military funded through Stanford research institute, (some have claimed they still use it), and the reason they started studying it was because the Soviets had already been doing it for a long time. They found the results to be solid enough that they kept funding it for 20 years. Dr Hal Putoff ran the program and is on youtube, along with some of his viewers such as Ingo Swann and Joe McMoneagle. I also watched a talk on youtube given by David Wilcock where he said there was a chinese study where they put a chinese character in a sealed box with sensors and the remote viewer got the correct character and the sensors detected many thousands of photons in the box at the same time... suggesting that some part of the viewer's consciousness was able to travel to the location.  I'm not sure what he was referring to or how reliable the source, but I have found reference to similar studies described in a book called China's super psychics.

thread on the serious stuff forum.