At what point should one withdraw from a decaying world? Islamically, when society appears on the point of collapse or beyond rescue, one is advised to detach/flee from that society .
I have fulfilled some of my responsibility by speaking out against what I believe are (some of) the GREAT EVILS of this world. I had the aim that of showing this to others and encouraging them to do so similarly against this grand tyranny.
But lets take a reality check here: The sheeple are NOT waking up (in anywhere near enough quantities). The masses are going along with the slide into despotism, and I suspect they are doing so with various levels of deliberate decision making.
Those who can and have seen the evil core of society spreading and infecting just about anything it can are massively ineffectual (yes, including me).
I think it may be time to stop shouting and time to withdraw. I must have spent years of my life reading and researching. Sadly I have almost nothing to show from it, other than an inner satisfaction that I have not succumbed to that evils and its withering touch (or so I believe!). I think a lot of my use of ‘life force’ has not been fruitful.
I am increasingly of the mindset that its just about time to ‘call time’, and begin to prepare seriously for the collapse, but I suspect any such preparation other than relocation to the isolated countryside to live a detached simple life, relatively free of technology, would be doomed.
That is surely what should occupy my time now.
Islam and monotheism has all but gone, and some miserable deceptive imitation has been hoisted up in its place. I simply can’t see any way to bring back the kind of God fearing (fear of the unquestionably justice that we will one day have to account for) and God loving based society that we need and offers salvation.
I’m not a Christian in the commonly understood sense of the word, but there is something in the concept of humans; may I call it: perpetual sin, which does indeed show the need for man to have an absolver and guiding ‘father’ figure.
I think it’s time to be a bit more “selfish” and prepare.
As a youngster, outer-space and the possibly of travelling to off-world destinations fascinated me, This is especially true of Mars. Mars was always had me carrying the hope of finding some kind of life out there. The Viking missions were awe inspiring.
Now though, these feelings have largely abandoned me. The Curiousity Mars Rover is just another 1 minute story. And as for this ‘7 Minutes of Terror’ thing [the descent to the planet], who the hell plastered that damn ‘terror’ label on it. For pity’s sake! If ever a stinging slap was deserved, it should go to the person who ‘marketeered’ that.
What happened?
Many things probably. Massive disillusionment with the lies and spin within physical science. Shock at the great sums of money and resources wasted on it, while almost 1 billion people go hungry at the end of every day. The weaponisation of science, the politicisation of science, an attempted secularisation/hijacking of science. I have come to see the shit of this world [human acts] covering many of the things I used to hold very dear to my heart. And all the signs are that it’s going to get worse. Much worse. Plus, the realisation there are just some things that we are almost never likely to be able to do.
All this leaves me very sad. The Curiosity Mars Rover has once again makes me remember my young mans optimism for the world and the species – a young man who was brought up ignorant of the monumental failings of the world. Perhaps the worlds crap was deliberately hidden from me, or perhaps not. When young, reading about historical and contemporary wars etc, I would have never imagined anything like suddenly inflicting itself upon my surroundings. I would have totallly not understood why bomds destruction and death were suddenly around me. No, wars and ‘global crap’ were a thing of history. Sure, The Lebanon, Iraq-Iran war were on the TV, but it didn’t really resister and/or it was very quickly forgotten that somewhere, bullets were flying and people were dying.
How different and unexpected my mature elderly life has turned out to be, and boy!, how much crap there is!
Even if Mars was in the news today was discussing its colonisation, I doubt it would have much meaning and significance to me today. We would just be exporting the Earth’s crap onto another unfortunate place.
No doubt the Curiosity Mars Rover reports will seed a new young generation who stupefy themselves with the ‘glories’ of science (chiefly sci-fi and ‘big-talk’ dressed as science) while their neighbours are spied upon and sent to to some torture dungeon somewhere, while shitty Israyhell kills more Palestinians and thieves more of Palestine.
–
Well now I’m beginning to recall some kind of (1980’s british TV series) where people tried to colonise Mars but (I think) In the storyline the Martians weren’t having any of it. I suddenly have the desire to watch it again. Anyone know what the series was called? – The Mars Chronicles I think – YES IT WAS !!! With Rock Hudson amongst others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Martian_Chronicles_%28TV_miniseries%29
For some, that question is enough to stop them believing anything other than the official conspiracy theory or ‘official narrative’ as others may phrase it.
But lets be frank, it is a thoroughly stupid stance to take.
1) That someone involved in one of the most significant world shaking event would, having initially been a willing participant, simply MUST admit to the fact later. This ‘opening’ condition alone, is likely to result in the majority of participants having a very strong reason to keep it secret.
2) Given the likely real suspects behind 9/11 and the dirty things they get up to, it is more than reasonable to believe any potential squealer would face execution with a similar threat facing their families.
3) Imagine some false-flag (FF) has occurred and a squealer came forth 7 years alter. From the time the event happened up until the ‘confession’ the false flag was still a false-flag. It does not magically become a FF simply when someone admits to it.
4) Even if a confession does come forth, the following powerful filters need to be successfully penetrated; The ‘confession’ needs
a) mass exposure
b) mass communication (not necessarily the same as a)
c) mass acceptance.
These filters even when overcome still don’t guarantee people will abandon the adopted mental barrier heading this post.
5) Not all FF’s will have a whistle-blower. To believe that to date, the FF’s and black-ops that have been exposed are the only FF / black-ops that have ever occurred and that no deadly secret has ever been taken to the grave is simply the philosophical stance of cretin.
The weight of ALL evidence towards official forces being involved in 9-11 is simply overwhelming relative to the ‘official conspiracy story’, and in my opinion is is well beyond all reasonable doubt.
Why should justice and punitive action NOT be taken just because of the idiots who adopt such pathetic stances as “If 9/11 was a false flag operation, why hasn’t anyone squealed?” The only answer to that is surely this: Because in reality, possibly deep in their conscious, they prefer and benefit from the consequences that followed the FF rather than the consequences of having true justice be served and all ramifications from that.
What a world, huh!
Suggested reading: “Conspiracy Theorists & Cognitive Dissonance” by http://eleveneleventruth.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/conspiracy-theorists-cognitive-dissonance/
I believe in God. I never used to. Being raised in ‘a kind of’ Christian environment, there was usually a latent background of God, e.g. walking home I’d pass a few churches or the Christmas TV programs etc. Somhow, probably because of the story of Adam, who in my mind, was a declaration that a ‘modern man’ was the first man – very much like we are today, hence, if man came from ape-like ancestors, then that would disqualify the notion of God.
Looking back, all things considered, I’m ashamed that I came to such an ultimate conclusion so hastily, on something which has the most enormous implications for us as a species, and deserves deep study in many fields. Really, I was armed with only a minuscule level of knowledge, and sadly I was far too accepting of the information that was coming my way; I didn’t scrutinise it, I didn’t look for alternative explanations. Because of that I must have been a simple level “darwinian atheist” from the ages of about 14 to 21.
Perhaps my personal shame is a bit harsh given my youthful years, but I was “convinced” it was true and naturally I would promote such a stance when in discussion/debate about it.
Since then, I came across the Qur’an, which tells of how Isa (Jesus) a.s. was raised up from the eyes of man. The utter confidence of that statement {please read it for yourself in the Qur’an – or if you can’t read Arabic, even an English translation retains much of its power} rocked me and it just seemed that what I was reading was the truth,
so how could I deny it?
Atheists may say I was simply swapping my simple level “Darwinian atheist” mindset for a similarly simple level “God exists” mindset instead, and other atheists may also say my personally amazing experience and feelings on reading the Qur’an are laughable. I would appeal to those who may be rofl right now to try and recall something from their own lives that fundamentally changed their perspectives. I’m sure many could recall such a thing and hence I’m sure you will better appreciate my experience on
reading the Qur’an.
I have since invested much time in gaining a much greater understanding of the God question and
try to familiarise myself on the near endless debate about whether God exists or not. Yes, I have a bias
towards God, but atheists has a bias against God, so I guess that’s fair and square.
All this means I have come across the works of Richard Dawkins.
–
–
Main post
I’m referring to this: Lennox Vs. Dawkins Debate – Has Science Buried God
21:03 – 31:29
[P.S. Dawkins made an error in the debate saying no to ‘things going from simple to complex’, it’s obvious he wanted to to say no to things starting from complex (i.e. God)]
In my pursuit of the Gods existence debate, I was watching Lennox Vs. Dawkins Debate – Has Science Buried God.
I’m quite familiar with Dawkins’s arguments now. Dawkins puts scorn on religious people who, Dawkins says(!), say ‘we don’t know what that phenomenon is’ therefore God did it, i.e. God fills the gaps of our ignorance. Like much of what Dawkins says, it’s very sweeping and unfair in that it doesn’t acknowledge the great number of God believing scientists who do undertake the challenge at revealing aspects of what we don’t understand. Such as the Mathematician Lennox. I am what they would call a ‘scientist’ so I know this – I see it. But Lennox did a very interesting thing. He took Dawkins up on this issue (and Lennox knows perfectly well that Dawkins is very experienced in discussing) but he turned it around.
Dawkins was saying things have to go from simple to complex and that simplicity, in his eyes, negates the need for a complex God. Dawkins protests a complex God needs explanation, and an explanation as to where that God came from.
Typical Dawkins. He attaches onto God the very thing that would nullify God. A good definition of God is ‘that which has not been created’. It’s probably his greatest trick and is self-negating. The trouble is the closer you get to the ‘instant’ of the bog bang, which I think it’s fair to say almost everyone is (currently) at ease with about being how the physical Universe came into being, then it actually gets more and more complex.
Dawkins’ second trick is to simply call it simple. Well I’m sorry, I don’t buy that. I think Dawkins is actually saying the SIMPLIFIED COMPUTER MODELS used to try and simulate the EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE at some time when the universal physical constants stabilised may be regarded as simple, but even then, they surely cannot be simple in physical actuality due to anti matter and dark matter, the latter of which is said by many scientists that Dawkins would be happy to stand along side himself to account for most of the mass and therefore energy of the universe, and these are very poorly understood indeed, hence any simple model is surely wholly inaccurate, causing another major stumbling block to Dawkins on this issue.
Anyway, He says natural, blind unthinking natural selection caused the biological complexity we have today, so things went from simple (Dawkins’s ‘simple’ remember!) to complex, hence God doesn’t need explaining. But Lennox correctly drew reference to two utterly complex issues, the “pre-Dawkinist simple” beginning of the universe [my words not Lennox’s] and the origin of biological life.
It is at this point when Dawkins impales himself completely on his own sword. He says We don’t know these things yet, but we know there will be a Darwinian explanation to it. What Dawkins has done is to use a ‘Science of the gaps’ approach to it. He has blind faith that there will be a simple [it HAS to be simple – that’s a main theme for Dawkins] explanation. But any fair minded person will surely agree, from primordial soup to life today or from a ‘rugby ball’ sized ‘thing’ (from which the Universe too shape) is of course utterly complicated.
Sadly Lennox doesn’t quite navigate as well to expose this as I have tried to do above, but of course, a face to face debate is completely different from a prose based composition like this.
I also liked Lennox’s previous point about consciousness, which Dawkins took up to talk about avoiding a rock or not jumping off a cliff. Lennox is saying reductionism cannot explain consciousness (at least as far as best we know today). there is no rational way in which the reduced set of atoms and molecules can have consciousness. There has to be a way in which the structure of those atoms and molecules can store information and be able to interpret that information.
This is what separates the living (in a bio-physological sense) from the non-living*. That requires a consciousness which surely cannot be explained by step-wise selection or even by the instantaneous crossing of a hugely significant feature (which would in any case require quite a lot of genetic information to encode and endow inheritance).
Lennox called this a ‘language‘ which indicates the pre-existence of a ‘mind‘. Dawkins quickly went away from this point.
It is interesting that when Lennox rather traps himself and puts himself on the back-foot having to explain the mind of God. Dawkins rightly gets a stronger line of argument, but this is an unfair advantage to Dawkins because if there was a God, it’ is inescapably impossible to explain the word of God. Even on a human level success at explaining the means and motives of other humans often fails. How can we with a lifespan of about 80 years, a mind the size of a honeydew melon and primarily only input/output/process information one ‘channel’ at any one instance ultimately explain anything?
* non-living – actually Islam mentions rocks, which are considered non-living, as talking in some future event. This I would say, should encourage you to think there is a very different kind of ‘living’which the ‘non-living’ have access. If that’s a struggle for you, just remember djinn and Angels. Of course, the realm of God is beyond us. Dawkins protests he would/could not do science if this ‘magic’ as he pejoratively calls it interfered with science, as if God is likely to say intermittently hide then re-reveal a chromosome for example – He’s trying to cast God in a dark light. And if Dawkins was to ‘give up’ what happened to his accusations of ‘cop out’ and ‘mental lazyness’ etc
The mind consciousness/meaning part resurfaces at 49:57
At the end, I find it interesting, perhaps telling, that Lennox thanks Dawkins; “Thanks Richard” says Lennox, yet all Dawkins does is acknowledge it with a ‘mouth open and close to smile’ kind of thing. Interesting having just heard what the human moral behavioural aspect of the debate.
I believe I’m so familiar with Dawkins’s stuff that I see many many holes in it.
It’s interesting that I can’t find Dawkins debating an intelligent Muslim scholar experienced/familiar with the ‘Western’ style of this debate.
Next up (additions to this post outstanding) is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx0CXmagQu0 (which I notive Atkins also attributes a derogatory term of lazyness to the ‘design’ issue)
I don’t like military dictatorships, like the one in Burmah, and either does John Pilger. I like the works of John Pilger very much!
Pilger likes Aung San Suu Kyi (ASSK) and often writes in support of her. However John, like me, doesn’t like the BBC. But today ASSK praised the BBC – and the BBC wasn’t shy to publicise as much.
I remember seeing an interview with ASSK and it triggered alarm bells in my head. ASSK was saying that her vision for Burmah was (I’m paraphrasing) to be a mirror of typical Western countries. That would involve massive Corporatization of Burmah resulting in an already impoverished people be impoverished even more at the expense of the emergent middle and upper wealth class.
I feel John must have missed out on these things (i.e. the warning signs).
Although I am very sorry about ASSK’s personal history, I get the impression if she was allowed to have taken the role of Burmah’s leader, then it would not bring benefit to those who most needed it, but merely a different kind of slavery and oppression.
To praise a horrible propaganda outlet like the BBC is extreme (possibly naive) foolishness and another ominous warning sign as to what lies in store for the people of Burmah.
In the UK we have the same problem. Each political side is just a different cheek on the same arse.
I wonder if Pilger will ever see his friend fall from grace? I have never seen Pilger so ‘happy’ to interview her. His respect for an apparent peoples leader who has opposed a military leviathan may have, or may be, obscuring his vision. At one stage wondered if Pilger would be like this with Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, but to his credit, Pilger included a caveat about Hugo Chavez when he warned about leaders holding power for too long, saying time would tell as to whether it’s touch would prove corrupting. I will end by saying thankfully Hugo doesn’t seem to been driven mad by power yet, but I have little option by to adopt the stance that ASSK has already had the touch.
We shall see, and so I fear will be the people of Burmah.
Electronic money already makes up a significant amount of global ‘money’. Indeed, some sources say the amount eclipses actual (i.e. fiat money).
It looks like the collapse of money as we know it will happen soon within our lifetime. Of course there’s a fair amount of prepping to do on the population in the build up.
Loyal to the rotten UK establishment as ever the lamentable BBC obliges.
h____ttp://w____ww.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18401164
(remove the underscores for the actual link)
Although totally bogus, fait money – the notes in your pocket today – does still have one virtue. It allows anonymous transactions. Anonymity as applied to individuals is an essential element of a healthy society, and of course this extends to financial anonymity (within honest norms of course) and when that finally goes, heaven help us from the monster of a government and society that will result.
I’m a gold bug. I’ve bought it as a means of trying to give my measly savings some security against the obviously totally bogus totally manipulated paper money crap.
Gold had been rising steadily in (manipulated)price in the medium terms for about 10 years. So many ‘alternative’ websites were going on about gold going to $2,000, $3,000, $4,000, enve $5,000, etc an ounce.
Well where are those voices now? Gold reached it’s peak at about #1,900 and ounce now it’s about $1,570. It’s lost about 18% of it’s value. Where are those voices? Those crystal ballers who magically “knew” what price gold would go to.
Where are those voices? Why are they not crying at the fact that gold has lost 18% from it’s high. If it were a sham bank, the ‘alternative’ webosphere would be mocking the said fraudulent institution with glee, preparing the champagne for when the collapse went past the point of criticality.
Come on you Mistic Meg’ers (mistake meg!) when gold went up to $17,00… $1,800 you were going “I told you so”, well you didn’t see this 18% loss did ya?
I’ve been getting a tad tired of the ‘alternative’ webosphere on occasions, and often wonder if it’s not part of a game of ‘bipolarisation’. And the ‘crystal balling’ about gold prices is especially tiresome.
Well I’m tired now, so I’ll call it a day.
P.s. I’m not the slightest bit worried about the gold price, cos I’m only interested in the LONG TERM and savings. If you speculate on gold, well, you just as bas as those crap heads wheeling and dealing in derivatives. Gold at 42 cents an ounce does NOT worry me at all. I have total confidence that gold offers THE greatest safety net for savings protection. If gold really did go to 42 cents an ounce, I’m fairly certain the fictional money we use today would experiencing far grater problems, e.g. there may only be 5,000,000p in circulation!
P.p.s. I know the value of gold hasn’t really increased or decreased, rahter the fictional value of the dollar has been manipulated relative to gold. The upward trend of $ against ounce of gold was fully legitimate due to money being debt and the cranking up of the money presses in ‘quantitative easing’ exercises. That “gold has lost value” seems to me to be re-calibrrating or just simple manipulative suppression. The long term future of gold is absolutly assured. So do yourself a favour don’t give a crap about the “price of gold”. Either going up or down. When you want to protect you earnings, buy gold. Do also with the sincere intention of spending it.–
First of all I am surprised the BBZ broadcasted this. Perhaps they felt forced to give a morsel against the countless hours of pro-Zionism propaganda they stream out. Anyway, the short clip was quite interesting.
Often on western media, coincidence strikes with great regularity when speakers with ‘Islamic connections’ talk about it in a negative light (e.g. Tarek Fatah, Asra Nomani, Irshad Manji, Hirsi Ali), usually offering ‘media portrayals of Muslims’ or the bad non-Islamic acts of Muslims as ‘evidence’.
Here, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown (YAB) seems to take on the part, but the refreshing thing is to see Kristiane Backer actually talk FIRST HAND (and not via third party – a la YAB – who is supposedly relaying some very peculiar things people have said to her in their written communications to her) about the inner peace that Islam has brought, i.e. talking about it in a positive sense.
It’s amusing to see the female journo ask Kristiane that surely “she [KB] misses some of the freedoms” showing she is utterly clueless as to what Islam is or means to people.
YAB totally miss the point, quelle surprize, e.g. apparently believing women only come to Islam because they want rules. e.g. she focuses on women asking about LOLing and clapping after a show. I would say these women are asking this question because they have accepted Islam and THEREFORE they want to follow (if any) the correct way, or best way of behaving. YAB is making it appear that women just want rules and THEREFORE came to Islam for that. YAB’s view suggests a dead or certainly soundly sleeping heart. She also is portraying women who embrace Islam simply because of some temporary feeling. Dear oh dear. Kristiane Backer does very well to correct YAB’s incorrect portrayal of it as being an ‘escape’. Islam OFFERS the escape once Islam is accepted. A-B is getting the order of it wrong. Backer does look at it from a heart prospective but YAB from a negative ‘strictness’ regime. I find it extremely hard to believe an actual Muslim convert would soon after his conversion trumpeting, as YAB cast it, about chastising his wife.
Also, YAB opens up another flank raising the yet another negativism about the Hijab and make-up, when nobody had made any mention of it thus far.
In short, we have a demonstration of someone who seems to genuinely love Islam and someone who we actually puts Islam in a bad light. The latter was expected, the former welcomed.
Actually Revery is a better word than convert as we are Muslims before we are born. ‘Convrts’ are just getting back to their roots.
P.S. I think Gita Sahgal (the atheist from a Hindu background) is another Irshad Manji type. In just a few seconds she goes from talking about Muslim coverts to Islam and then to repression then to repression of women and then to the Taliban in just 20 seconds!!!! PHEW! She honestly believes there is a link to converts and those falling into the clutches of the Taliban. Dear Lord! Incredible and what rally takes the cake is she attributes most of the civilian casualties in Afghanistan to the Taliban.
Bet her chances of future western media appearance paint a bright and rosy financial future.
The Luddittes were a group of people who, whether they fully knew it or not, were visionaries of the human consequences of mechanization. The Luddites are generally associated with the early 1800’s, in the middle of the industrial revolution, whereupon they destroyed factory based mechanized processes particularly those found in textile mills. They probably did so for primarily selfish reasons – they didn’t want to be out of a job.
The industrial revolution was in essence the result of development in the understanding of science, in particular energy and the ability to exploitation that energy along with the discovery/realization of abundant, easily extracted energy sources – coal and oil.
But it is a great pity they failed. I feel this because I believe the mechanization/automation we have today has overall, lead to a much worse human society than would have been the case. I have no crystal ball, but I do know mechanization and automation have lead to a military capability that would be extremely difficult to equal or surpass otherwise.
As so the the modern age.
My workplace recently introduced a finger(print) scanner to ‘clock-in’. I am going to refuse to use it. Hence I’m a neoLuddite. I’m not sure what the consequences will be, and I am very sure my reasons will carry no weight whatsoever. But I am extremely tired of unthinking {that is simply meant as a statement of truth. In no way should be be taken as an insult, because it is certainly NOT said for the purposes of insulting} people just following the ‘flow’ of society which I am sure WILL only have negative consequences to later generations. History shows mankind – does it not? – that if there is ‘something’ that can be used to gain an advantage over people, then there are some who will seek to capture/acquire/possess/monopolize that ‘something’
That ‘something’ is electronic data.
And don’t even for a second dare parrot out the “If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear”. That’s exactly the kind of unthinking regurgitation-without-thought of someone else’s incorrect and hollow catchphrase which annoys me so much. Personally speaking, whether I have something to hide or not, I simply don’t want anything of my life to be available for others to view – other than what I want them to see, and I don’t want ANY information about me to be viewable and manipulable by any other person. Sadly there is info about me already out there, but I don’t want to exacerbate the problem.
Besides, the human trait of ‘ dignity‘ alone dictates that privacy is essential to humans.
For some years now, I have been of the opinion that the more electronic data we have, the less privacy we will have and the more that data will be used by the evil powers that be – that means governments folks! The idiots in society believe the answer is greater cyber security, e.g. data encryption. I totally disagree. The NATURE of electronic information makes it inherently insecure. The answer to e-information theft and fraud is to have LESS of it, a Luddite concept if you will.
I am not going to have my fingerprint data stuck on some crappy machine that even a little kid could download, or for some spooky individuals to try and frame me with something should the desire take them. Neither do I want someone using that information to try and defraud me.
What brought all this on? The BBC/BBZ article about a part of Britain’s “intelligence” network sponsoring a prize for what it calls “Cyber Security”. The winner is quoted as saying
“We’re going into an age of cyberwarfare… it’s very important that there are experts out there that can keep people safe” – Jonathan Millican UK Cyber Security Champion
Come on, that BS. GCHQ doesn’t give a rats arse about keeping people safe. Thy expect me to believe the very godless scum that keeps almost half the population on less than $10 a day and 1 billion people hungry each day are to be trusted to keep the people safe????? How utterly ridiculous. Well, maybe not that ridiculous – it actually does want to keep some people safe: the people safe who threaten the safety of most ordinary people on the planet. The kind of scum that gets a thrill out of killing innocent Afghan people while sponges off the people and one day may be the King of Britain.
I predict like the Luddites of old that I too will fail, but I’d rather resist and fail than to jellyfish out and fail.
Living with the Conspiracy 24-7 
Recent Comments