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.

Scots language?? No so sure.

This is likely to only be of interest to Scots.

But I just read this an wikipedia and it made me laugh.

This is cited as an example of the "Scots Language", but in my mind it's just the written accent, or maybe dialect, but like in the way that Irvine Welsh writes. Not sure how it qualifies as a distinct language from English - Occasionally there's the odd word like "bairn" (which is Danish anyway) but mostly it's English written in a Scottish accent.

But it made me laugh anyway.

[quote][b]Sample text of Modern Scots[/b]
From The New Testament in Scots (William Laughton Lorimer 1885–1967) Mathew:1:18ff
This is the storie o the birth o Jesus Christ. His mither Mary wis trystit til Joseph, but afore they war mairriet she wis fund tae be wi bairn bi the Halie Spírit. Her husband Joseph, honest man, hed nae mind tae affront her afore the warld an wis for brakkin aff their tryst hidlinweys; an sae he wis een ettlin tae dae, whan an angel o the Lord kythed til him in a draim an said til him, “Joseph, son o Dauvit, be nane feared tae tak Mary your trystit wife intil your hame; the bairn she is cairrein is o the Halie Spírit. She will beir a son, an the name ye ar tae gíe him is Jesus, for he will sauf his fowk frae their sins.”
Aa this happent at the wurd spokken bi the Lord throu the Prophet micht be fulfilled: Behaud, the virgin wil bouk an beir a son, an they will caa his name Immanuel – that is, “God wi us”.
Whan he hed waukit frae his sleep, Joseph did as the angel hed bidden him, an tuik his trystit wife hame wi him. But he bedditna wi her or she buir a son; an he caa’d the bairn Jesus.[/quote]

The only thing missing is "Get tae fuck", "Bag o Shite" or "the wee cunt"

Tao story

http://www.itmonline.org/shen/chap2.htm


... 'I have a big tree,' said Hui-tzu to Chuang-tzu. 'Its huge trunk is so gnarled and knotted that no measuring string can gauge it, and its branches are so bent and twisted they defy compass and square. It stands right beside the road, and still carpenters never notice it. These words of yours [referring to the stories of Chuang-tzu recorded in this chapter], so vast and useless, everyone ignores them the same way.'
Chuang-tzu replied [after giving examples of his point]: 'Now, you've got this huge tree, and you agonize over how useless it is. Why not plant it in a village where there's nothing at all, in a land where emptiness stretches away forever? Then you could be no one drifting lazily beside it, roam boundless and free as you doze in its shade. It won't die young from the axe. Nothing will harm it. If you have no use, you have no grief.

The tree that is logically useful (its wood is desirable) will be cut down; the tree that is logically useless (its wood too gnarled to be of value) is spared. So, which is better? To be useful or useless? And who is to decide whether something is useful: the gnarled tree serves just fine for shade and is not in danger of being cut down for its wood.

In Chapter 22 of the Tao Te Ching, Lao-tzu says (3):
Wise men embrace the one, and set an example to all. Not putting on a display, they shine forth; not justifying themselves, they are distinguished. Not boasting, they receive recognition, not bragging, they never falter. They do not quarrel, so no one quarrels with them.

The tree, in the story above, may be huge, but carpenters never notice it. The Taoist is likewise unnoticed because he does not try to call attention to himself; not calling attention to himself, no one quarrels with him. But, this does not mean that he is without value. Like the Tao, he is "great," like the tree, he can provide welcome relief (shade) and a break from desolation (absence of wisdom and virtue). He is not so useless after all. How many people fret over not being as "great" as another or as they dream to be, feeling depressed about it, yet can do things that are truly important for another person, and so they are doing their part?

pepezabala wrote:
at least they achieved that you talk about it and made some research about it.

Here is what nobel-prize of economy Stiglitz has to say about the movement:

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/stiglitz144/English?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+businessinsider+%28Business+Insider%29


true. Interesting article. I wish I shared his optimism in people power though. I kind of lost all faith in that in 2002 when 2 million marched on London, including my parents, and Tony Blair stood up and said, 'bollocks' then went ahead and used the nation's, tax funded armed forces to invade a sovereign nation, against the wishes of the people of the nation, and the whole rest of the world. Bush rendered the UN effectively useless and shat on the world, and a lot of rich countries "who were just following orders" joined in, like Australia who know they have to do whatever the US tells them otherwise we would be fucked if anyone invaded.

So I guess my depressing point is, if 2 million people doesn't raise a drop of sweat in London, then these occupy protests aren't really going to really bother them much.

There have always been landlords, since the alpha Chimp beat the one from the other mob away with a bone. Territory is a fairly innate part of all animals. But we've also traded/bartered/bought/sold forever too, so we'll always do that in some form or another. Some people seem to be more cunning and can own more of it than us, and we are naturally resentful of that. But seeing as how in our times we can't live off the land so easily as property is owned by somebody, then we should at least all be afforded our natural right to all the basic human needs. This is I think what it is really about. Make sure every human being on the planet has those basic rights, including health-care, and use technology that doesn't fuck up the planet for all of us, do our utmost to protect the rights of all sentient beings, then knock yourselves out, speculate and earn as much money as you like.

The British empire was run largely on trade. Now the US empire is too really. How many countries don't have a McDonalds or Coca-cola now?

They just send in the big guns whenever someone makes it a bit harder to trade. The Bush's are businessmen- from Oil, and people like that go for the presidency to make it easier for them to make more money. They also knew that Oil is a finite resource and Saddam was a pain in the arse to deal with and had a lot of it, so they needed to deal with him.

I guess in 1991 they weren't as worried about running out.

I feel like comparing it to the "arab spring" is a bit wrong though. They're not really the same thing. The "west" loved that and supported it even militarily because they knew ultimately it will end up in more places to set up McDonalds and Starbucks with Wi-Fi to pacify the people while they work on the oil....... etc

In fact, the 1% probably even want to improve the conditions of the poor everywhere, because they realise that every person with a disposable income on the planet is a consumer. I didn't fail to notice the irony in an ice cream man showing up on sunday at the end of the park to profit from the anti-capitalist protesters.

People in the west have less jobs now because a lot of them were outsourced to poorer countries, which is raising the standard of living for some poorer people, so they can afford mobile phones now. 5 billion phones now to 7 billion people. India now has a midddle class of more than the entire populations of the US, Canada, Australia and the UK combined. That's a huge market. Except the bastards keep ringing me up trying to sell it to me.

The people in the west are naturally a bit pissed off about this, but it's really nothing like as bad being poor here as it is in some places, and maybe they deserve the jobs more? We can really deal with poverty and still have a pretty good time of it, at least where I live. I've never had money and am definitely considered "breadline" and I have Ableton Live and several controllers, NS10s, sub, New Macbook pro....etc.......

It's hard for people in the west to really understand what real poverty is. (I say "in the west" but in Australia many Aboriginal people experience the same kinds of poverty as in some parts of Africa or India, but because this country is so big it feels like it could be in a different country. It kind of is.)

I think part of the reason some people in our countries are a bit confused about it is because being poor here really is not so bad, so they are kind of wishing for better conditions for people somewhere else more deprived, and they are saying the way to do this is to abolish capitalism - or maybe more correctly, "corporatism" (which Mussolini apparently said was actually the same thing as fascism). But is that the solution, or do we use the system already in place and just start putting a bit more priority on being fairer?

I think part of the reason for the global upheaval is because Gen Y has grown up and realised a few things about how shit things are, but like all new generations they feel they deserve better. And they do. That is what evolution is.

Fuck is it monday night? that was a total stoner rant.....