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.
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)
It’s finally prompted me to post this (there have been a number of draughts spurred from various ‘The Truthseeker’ posts over the years)
Rixon. I wish you would stop constantly talking up the Iranian “threat”. You’ve been doing it for years, never seeming to lack energy to warning us of imminent war that’s going to occur which uncomfortably for you, keeps defying your warnings.
With regards to Iran and secretive stuff: So little of what you say contains what most people would constitute as strong proof. You give me thr impression you’re a fan of game theory; Are you?
This latest article of yours – which has the same theme of presenting Iran as the ‘big bad’ – is so full of holes that it would make a Swiss cheese blush. For instance, don’t you think it’s kind of peculiar that the Iranians have no clairvoyant that tells them US intelligence knows about your smuggled dirty bombs?
I would say it is very irresponsible of you to keep banging on about the “threat” Iran poses, especially at a time when hundreds of thousands of Iranian people are in the cross-hairs of the Coalition of the Killing.
To quote:
Ayatollah Khamenei: “the production, possession, use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is illegitimate, futile, harmful, dangerous and prohibited as a great sin.”
and then completely ignore it saying
Nonetheless, they are being kept as weapons of last resort. The Americans know this, and now they are preparing to exploit it in a truly diabolical double-cross.
Is simply ridiculous on many fronts, as have many of your articles on ‘big bad Iran’.
Just one stumbling block along your esoteric revelations is that If Iran had these weapons and would use them ‘as weapons of last resort’ why the hell would the US and shitsrayhell attack them?
What exactly is your game?
In general you do a good job at making people think but stop pimping for a war against Iran will you.
Think about this:
Two men are floating on a shared log raft in the middle of the ocean. One constantly plays a drum. The other asks him “why do you keep playing that drum?” “To keep away the lions” “But there are no lions here” “Exactly” said the man, continuing to drum.
I’m pasting a home made transcript of the below interview with George Galloway and Paul Stott. Will comment on it later and boy is there a lot to say about it
–
Transcript:
GG: We’re going to talk to a man who I think will emerge in time as the principle debunker of the conspiracy theorists on 9-11. I had the privilege of interviewing today for my television show which goes out on Sunday night, and I immediately thought that we should him to a wider audience and that wider audience is you. Let me say right up top that I have never argued, never, and don’t now, that there are many things about 9-11 that we do not know. And I’m certainly not saying that there are not things that raise very serious question marks. And I’m not saying, I’m definitely not saying, that George W Bush and Dick Chaney are not capable of very nefarious deeds indeed. But I am saying and have always said, will continue to say until someone proves otherwise to me, that to allege, as many do, that this act of mass murder on 9-11 ten years ago was some kind of conspiracy by the Americans themselves, that it might not even been what we thought it was, that it might be for example that these planes were not planes or that these planes were empty, that the passengers were duped or stooges or agents or any of the other plethora of other conspiracy theories that I hear – I just don’t buy them. That doesn’t make me a part of the conspiracy – although many of you out there think I am. Most people listening will find this hard to believe, but there is a class of person on the internet that thinks I am an agent… for George W Bush. I’m not making that up. They think I’m covering for George W Bush. They think that the radicalism you hear from me most of the time, is actually a cover, that I’m a gate-keeper. So, I’ve decided to call in some expert witness and Paul Stott the editor of the 9-11 Cult-watch blog, who’s a distinguished academic, he’s my man. Paul., welcome to the show.
PS: Good evening George, you’re all-right?
GG” Yes. Give me your top 5 will you? What’s your top 5 debunking facts?
PS: Well, I think the first thing to talk about really George it’s why people get these theories and why they believe in some of these theories and I’ve spent a lot of time going to 9-11 truth meetings, speaking to truthers, arguing with them on the internet, and I think very often they have a general… there looking for certainty, there looking for explanations from a world that’s lost a lot of its certainties and they don’t really seem to believe in anything anybody tells them anymore which is probably the fault of some of the politicians you mentioned earlier and they find their answers on the internet, they find their answers on you YouTube and once they start it just becomes a viscous circle really.
GG: Well when I hear people say “I’ve been doing a bit of research”, I know that they mean they’ve been on the Internet. And this assumption that exists that if because something is written on the internet, that it’s true, astounds me.
PS: Yeah I mean there was a time George that if you wanted to understand about American Foreign Policy you would read a book by Chomsky to read a criticism of it, or you read a book by one of the neo-Cons if you were a supporter of a that foreign policy. That period seems to have long gone now. It’s all about little snippets of information, little you know it’s a a sort of three minute culture almost and we’re actually all the poorer for that.
GG: Well it’s the old adage that a little knowledge is dangerous and when people have got that little knowledge from the internet, it’s particularly dangerous
PS: Yeah
GG: Now lets deal with some of the main arguments
PS: OK
GG: The argument that in fact these towers could not have fallen down with only two large passenger plane jets flying into them, that they therefore must have been dynamited down. Answer that.
PS: OK. Well, first thing to say there’s absolutely no evidence that anything other than planes hit. So that’s one of the, you know, you get these no plane theory guys. For people to have brought the towers down with explosives – I don’t know if you’ve ever attended a demolition of an old tower block in London or Glasgow,
GG: Yes, I have yes,
PS: Or wherever, there quite lengthy periods and an enormous amount of cabling has to be laid. Nobody has been seen laying any cabling in either of the twin towers, there was no evidence of any workers going in you know laying the thousands of yards of cabling that would have been needed and to be brutally honest, if your flying two planes into the towers at great speed, why do you actually need also lay explosives?
There is actually some rather interesting research being done that makes the point that for both of the twin towers the NY authorities revoked certain building regulations when the twin towers have been built so that they could be build cheaper so I’m afraid there’s probably some evidence that thy were Jerry build and weren’t as sturdy as they should have been. But we’ve all seen the planes hit. We haven’t’ seen anything of explosives in there.
GG: Now, seems to me that the official versions weakest point is building 7.
PS: Yes…. I think with building 7 the line you always get from thruthers is the focus on this line of ‘Lets pull it”, that one of the owner of WTC7, is alleged to have made. In a way exactly the same arguments apply to World Trade Centre 7 as to 1 and 2. Nobody has been seen placing any explosives in there. A considerable conspiracy of an extremely large number of people would have been needed. No whistle-blowers have come forward, Nobody has been cited up to anything they shouldn’t have been. So, there’s just no evidence as week as strong or as strong as the official story may be. That’s the best story we have until somebody comes up with something else. The line “Let’s pull it” – that’s pretty vague. It could mean let’s putt it down in the future.
GG: Yeah that’s not the main argument about building 7 though. The main argument is “How could it have fallen down?”
PS: Well you’ve just had two planes fly into tow neighboring buildings and those two building come down. You also have uncontrolled fires in that building. You’ve had the Jerry built nature arguably of some of the developments in the world trade centre complex. I think also there’s a background difficulty here George that what you get with 9-11 truthers is they set for everybody else the burdon of proof the prosecution., you know you’re expected to prove every single aspect of the story beyond all reasonable doubt whilst all they require themselves to do is to really play the role of a rather haphazard defence barrister, raising the odd doubt here and there and there’s enough. The world isn’t like that in practice.
GG: What about the Pentagon. They say that there’s no footage ever been released of an aeroplane striking the Pentagon. That the space that was destroyed in the façade of the building was not wide enough for it to have been the size of jet airliner it’s supposed to have been.
PS: Well the, first of all the Pentagon is a military building. By in large you don’t get a lot of footage being released of what’s going on inside all that military buildings. So I’m not hugely surprised we’ve not have every single camera shot of every single angle. The footage you had of the plane going in – you may have seen some news footage of it – the most likely explanation which you see a little bit of I think in the footage, the plane goes through and the wings have followed through, the debris of the wings has gone through behind the planes. It’s also worth noting that with the Pentagon that with the sort the truthers big theory on that emerges from a French guy, Theirry Maison. who wrote the book ‘The big lie’. Not unusually in 9-11 circles, that was actually a work of fiction that eventually got turned into a work of fact. Its’ the same with the film Loose Change. There’s a strong correlation in a way, a strong over-cross between fact and fiction in these circles.
GG: And lastly flight 93. What happened to it? Was it shot down or brought down but the passengers trying to lead a revolt?
PS: I think that’s a harder one. I think at the time of 9-11, America was battered, was humilated and was humbled.
GG: Needed some heroes.
PS: And so I thing that’s the only part of the sort of questions you’ve asked, I can see a little bit on both sides, George. I think we certainly know Bush had given instructions that any additional planes were to be shot down. You’ve got the whole sort of mythology of “Let’s Roll” and what have you. We’ll see on that, really. I’m open perhaps on discussion on that than anything else personally.
GG: Now, how do people follow your Cult Watch blog. What’s the website.
PS: Well, it’s my name, Paul Stott dot typepad dot com and then slash 9-11 Cultwatch or you can just Google my name, go onto the 9-11 Cultwatch blog. The reason really we talk about is from arguing and debating with some truth activists here in London. And you know the use of these terms ‘gatekeeper’, I mean I’m an academic Gatekeeper keeper, Chomsky’s a left gatekeeper, You’re no doubt a media gatekeeper now. And I’m afraid it’s was rather reminiscent from talking to people from Cults, there’s very little, very little you can do to get through to people.
GG: Yeah, there are serious people with serious questions but there’s undoubtedly also a cult around this developed. Undoubtedly.
PS: Yes, yes, and I’m afraid I don’t really see that changing in the short term because obviously the more serious analysts, if you like, or those who’ve perhaps got more interesting arguments to say, there eventually gonna tire of the more you know wacko elements I’m afraid.
GG: That’s Paul Stott, S-T-O-T-T. Paul Stott if you Google him, you’ll end up on the cult watch blog. And it’s worth doing I can tell ya.
About a week ago I came across this article on ICH.
Extract:
America’s “worst enemy”
The Latest Orchestrated Threat and The End of History
By Paul Craig Roberts
September 27, 2011 “Information Clearing House” — Have you ever before heard of the Haqqanis? I didn’t think so. Like Al Qaeda, about which no one had ever heard prior to 9/11, the “Haqqani Network” has popped up in time of need to justify America’s next war–Pakistan.
–
PCR seems to have been right. There’s Haqqani here, Haqqani ther, here a Haqqani, there a Haqqani, everywhere a Haqqani.
Perhaps their Al-CIAda organisation reached its sell-by date. The terror lost it’s fear factor.
The imminent attacks couldn’t muster the necessary terror quotient, despite the CIA/FBI busting their own group on occasion. But I’m wondering could there be a new reason for this new ‘terror’ group? 9-11 defines OBL, and the USUKs coalition of the killing has managed to pin the Taiban to 9-11 too, in certain quarters they pinned Irad and Saddam to 9-11 also. So what’s gonna end up defining Haqqani? Is it going to be “Look! we were soft on terror [we only bombed about 10 countries and killed almost 2 million – not that we care – we don’t do body counts] this is what happens when we are soft on terror”Is the breadcrum trail going to lead to Somalia/Iran/Yemen/Syria?
–
One begins to wonder what the next terror group will be called. Chances are it’ll sound foreign with the ‘throaty’ sounds that so terrify English speakers.
One wonders how many sleeper cells Haqqani has. What false flag it’ll be blamed for. What Muslim charity group will be closed down and have it’s accounts frozen. What happens to those frozen accounts anyway?
No doubt these Q’s will be answered in the fullness of time.
Want to beat the rotten amalgamation of banks, politicians, hedonism and indifference to human suffering? Here’s how:
Dip into the movies and sport a ‘V’ mask. Yes that’s right! That’s gonna hurt ’em real guuuud, a second hand idea in the form of a tired old plastic mask.
Le masque, the weapon of choice for la resistance.
The ‘must watch’ video shows the poor Spanish people on the streets, weaponised with the mask of power, really showing those Spanish fascists a thing or two about how to wrestle power back from people who abused it and sold your life in multi generational slavery.
Actually, the video is pants, as is the soundtrack, but that’s not important.
The real pants at hand is the fact that the people somehow think their mask invigorated street protest will actually make a shred of difference. Sorry to pee on your chips here, but I think modern history tells us exactly what these things achieve.
Diddley squat!
In this age, options for effective resistance can be counted on just two finders of your hand. The most palatable one is by individual economic means. You detach yourself from your economic links with the government. YOU STOP PAYING TAX. Try to detach from the banks, don’t borrow money/use credit, and help out catering for each others needs and encourage others to do the same.
Hopefully after you come home for the night and resume life as normal – which is actually part of the problem, you may get the feeling that you should throw the stupid mask (i.e. empty gesture) into the bin and hit’em where it hurts in the fiat currency gonads.
But that’s very very unlikely to happen, hence my confidence the Spanish protests like the Greek Protests, like the protests in Mesir, Tunisia, Syria, Washington D.C., Tienanmen square, the London 2003 protests … are doomed to failure, because you believe taking to the streets is enough, advertising your price that can easily be bought by throwing some fiat notes at you.
Reject empty symbolism. Do it today.
–
Historical note: The No Iraq War protests in Feb 2003 were by far the most significant and largest protest the planet had ever seen, something like 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 people demanding no war. The scene was repeats in numerous countries across the world but people like BuSh, bLiar and little jonnie coward totally ignored them and got to work to kill over one million Iraqi people on a back of utter lies. THIS event is THE flag that the age of street protests achieving anything has passed.
“The exchange rate is one of the main drivers of economic policy, more so even than productivity,”– Brazilian Finance minister Guido Mantega. Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12148841
Further confirmation of the games that fiat allows one to play. Use of gold goes a long way to rob the fraudsters of this. If gold allowed such fraud, then they were damn stupid to abandon it.
P.S. dont read the WSJ link. It’s a complete waste of time. I’ll summarise it for you in a few lines “China is so good, China is brill, China is successfull. China is doing good things because they are good. There will be no problems ‘cos China’s just swell. China is great, China rocks. There is no poor. Millions are not slaves. There is no problems. China is fab fab fab. We are fab and so are you.”
First off, please go to Dr Maxtors analysis and watch this very important video. I hope it opens your eyes.
OK.
Main post:
It’s commonplace now for people to review the year, but screw that, it’s been a rotten year for humanity. I’m going to look forward into an errrm, even more rotten future (I thought I’d get this one in nice and early, seeing as the new year ‘feeling’ is there and I wouldn’t have to ‘compete’ with all the other ‘2012 doom’ posts next year ;). It does amuse me quite a bit dreaming up of all the excuses that will come out when those who have choses to believe the Mayan calendar spin. Ho ho ho!) .
And this isn’t about the tiresome Mayan calendar thingy. Karen Alloy dealt with that rather nicely here. This is about the doom from our own failings, failings that we could overcome if we really decided to do it.
I know a number of highly intelligent very charismatic people who do a range of excellent deeds, such as those who conduct research into the global godless-isation (i.e. satan-isation) of our lives, others who’ve given significant parts of their lives to help the plight of the Palestinians, some who are trying to re-teach traditional sustainability concepts and skills for when the growing food crisis becomes too much of a problem.
As for myself, I have a number of interests. My self-critique says that by trying to be actively involved in many of the things which hold meaning for me, I end up in a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none type scenario, but output from each of the ‘jack’ elements, is not particularly effective and poorly sustainable/consistent (something else grabs my time). Hence I understand why people specialise their interests to a particular field, but many of these wonderful and marvelously dedicated people don’t get the results that their efforts should produce. Their results are very disproportionate relative to their applied effort. I put this down to one main factor. Their NETWORK / support group / number of activists is just too small and that is a result of apathy/selfishness/I’m ok ‘cos I’ve made it / look after No. 1 / kind of thinking, where living the alleged ‘comforts’ of this life are what life is all about.
I also know strong critics aware of the global banking scam do nothing about it and ridicule or rubbish efforts of others who do do something about it. I know very well read Muslims who hardly ever mention the slaughter of the Palestinians and the rapidly approaching destruction of Al Aqsa.
Al this it’s quite incredible and yet horrifying at the same time.
Meanwhile corporations continue to grow and use their massive wealth to buy up any significant competitors and end up with monopolies (you’re an idiot if you believe monopolies and mergers commissions prevent this. All they prevent is certain kinds of monopolies!) and practice fraudulent economics / market saboteur techniques almost totally intertwined with government and media. Most of this is sustained by dangling economic carrots in front of the eyes of the masses. Their eyes are transfixed on the lovely carrot, (made to look lovely by being lit with multiple flourescent bulbs and surrounded in dark green (plastic) grass, 70 percent of ‘unshapely carrots were binned in search of the shapely one to display; that 70 percent were mixed with domestic sewage so that the poor or homeless were not able to get it which would reduce demand and lower market price) they are unable to see that the direction they chase the carrot in, ends ends with a vast gorge, the gorge of doom. And many of the people aware of the impending doom, even though the have sympathy for the impending fate of the proverbial donkey, just throw rotten tomatos at those yelling ‘stop chasing that carrot!’.
If we as a species were truly advancing*, the success of these amazing activist people would yield multiples of the efforts they put in , not ever decreasing fractions.
My old chemistry lecturer used to describe equilibrium as sitting in a bath and trying to push the water to one side. The more you pushed the greater the force to resist what you did. The same principle is found in solenoids and so on. There appears to be a convergence in the field of science and social science/humanities.
I think they know this and surely get very frustrated at times, yet they persist. Their human spirit and sense of altruism is just so amazing. The face they project as the inevitable doom approaches is simply Incredible and so admiral. And no matter what ‘goosebump’ of an effect we have along the way, at least we can stand proud that we did something.
It is better to have been an activist and failed then to have never been an activist at all.
* I apologise for the use of that word, but my background – the one that put food on my plate – is one in which ‘advancement’/’progress’ etc words and concepts that are incessantly churned out to the near total exclusion of everything else, and an ethos which has brought about the reinvention of the wheel many times over. It’s hard not to borrow their terminology, but it is useful, as no doubt it will be something that has been drummed into you too.
Living with the Conspiracy 24-7 
Recent Comments