that's a mighty big "IF!"

(Submitted (elsewhere) on February 21, 2007 - 10:02am.)

If the following sounds a bit like contempt mixed with intolerance (amongst some good sense) then stand by, 'cause you ain't seen nothin' yet. But a word of reassurance: I think that writing it was justified, perhaps you'll think that reading it is too.

But: What it ain't is "hate speech." We (well, perhaps mostly just I) have recently learned about 'framing' (Lakoff); I'm trying to frame as 'innocently' (always as opposed to 'naïvely'), but as fairly as I can.

So, I will (re)start with "G'day!" - note and forever not "Hi," that's 'earmarked' as detested "Ameri-speak," and should not be used in any polite (Aussie) company. The fact that it is widely used in this country is a reflection (Oh, only IMHO of course), of a marked degree of intellectual laziness and/or cultural insensitivity, if not both or worse (i.e. an utter sell-out - like wearing a US baseball-style cap, especially backwards, or owning a behemoth "gas-guzzling" 4WD/SUV. Spit, spit; more detested "Ameri-speak.") Of course, it's always possible that some people use "Hi" in a vain attempt to appear somehow 'hip,' but more fool they.

In particular, my "G'day!" is to Margo - but specifically not to any pro-pushed-paradigm trolls (you know who you are; you may immediately cease reading my hard work and leave forthwith. I have nothing further to say to you lot - except, that is, to express my deepest contempt for you: consider it done, and now POQ.) As an aside to anyone contemplating giving up smoking, here (again) are my tips: a) one must stop completely and forever from one moment to the next (i.e. there's just no such thing as tapering off), b) it helps to give up all other drugs - alcohol, tea, coffee etc, especially where any of these were linked to a smoke - for the duration (say one month; chewing vitamin-C tablets is good) and c) three (3) days is all it takes to get over the physical withdrawal; any other resistance is 'all in your mind, you know.' One week sees the worst behind you, one month and things start to improve and in one year your body (and soul, if such a thing were to exist) will have toadally® recovered. Nothing to do except permanently rid yourself of all tobacco and associated paraphernalia; really, you should just commit then get on and do it. One last tip: no crisis is ever improved by having a smoke, and life after the fags is better by a very long chalk. One problem was encountered by one ex-smoker; she railed at me: "You said my beer would taste better!" - Cured by a better beer.

Another reason for singling out Margo is her erstwhile appeal for tolerance over on 'Morality without a God;' just why that? If one person concludes that what another person is saying is destructive, surely the person recognising such destructive nonsense has a perfect right - when not an absolute duty - to say so? I agree that (direct) abuse of any contributor is not on, but when any contributor aligns him/herself intimately with some paradigm/belief, then criticism of the believed-in material must inevitably be taken as criticism of the believer; the beliefs (it will be maintained) are an integral part of the believer. What should we do? Simply accept any and all bullshit, just because it is believed by someone? Basically (or so I have learned), instead of crying "Bullshit!" one should reasonably and sotto voce say as a preamble "With all due respect, bullshit... " - and then let fly. Some contributors (when unreasonably appealing for unwarranted tolerance) are being more than just a tiny bit precious - especially when their own stance itself can be both by definition and by direct expression a bit more than somewhat intolerant. (Yes, our recent holiday was both remarkably relaxing and invigorating, and thanks for asking.)

Nearing the end of the "god" thing: it has been alleged that science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of any god. Well, one could try considering this: some of the strictest 'laws' known to our science are the conservation laws, i.e. that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. This means that all events have some (physical) origin/cause. As a corollary, (always IMHO), our universe has existed in some form or other for ever (i.e. it pre-dates the Big-Bang which was 'merely' a phase-change), and as a further consequence is infinite in extent - we just can't see that far. In considering the size of this construct - think about 'infinite' for a little while - then considering how trivial all of mankind is (not to mention how trivial again is any single person or life-time) in relation to this infinity, the mind may very well boggle - and then consider how utterly arrogant this god-creator-eternal-life-for-believers concept really is.

Getting back to the "science vs. god" case, and in particular consider some/any information-flow. If some "god" were to exist then a) 'it' is either part of our universe - and could therefore be 'seen and be proved' - but 'it' isn't, therefore b) 'it' is not part of our universe (IMHO more generally accepted), in which case no message from any "god" could ever be received (since to do so would be a violation of the conservation laws) - unless some 'magic' is postulated. This indicates to me that c) any "god" (and associated constructs like souls, etc) could only exist as immaterial entities unknowable to our science and further, must be entirely separate from the known universe - while at the same time being (partly) contained within the otherwise knowable universe - IMHO utterly unlikely: it is (again IMHO) a complete and contradictory conundrum; there is none, and cannot ever be any evidence - apart, perhaps, from what appears in some believers' (wishful?) thinking - or, once again, 'magic.' This c) just described piles escalating improbabilities one on top of another, and in particular, the communication of something (the 'original' "god" idea, plus all the rest; Bible, Koran, etc) from something unknown but outside our universe & science by some undetectable method into some actual, living, physical brain(s); think Occam's razor: just what can this 'magic' be? - or alternatively, that d) any "god" can only ever exist in some (fevered!) imagination(s) - and is therefore nothing more nor less than an (aberrant!) mental construct in those so afflicted. The supplicant had this bit correct: irrational. Phew!

I have also claimed before, that any "god" construct is only required (as a mental crutch) by those who cannot accept that any entity's physical death coincides with that entity's own absolute end (apart, that is, from the dead body's then lifeless chemicals). This should be taken neither as intolerance nor derision, except in the case of some proselytizing believer; we all need the privacy of our own thoughts (and incidentally we are - so far, hopefully for ever - guaranteed this by the lack of any (intrusive!) technology, but to attempt to push some unprovable and IMHO spurious belief-paradigm onto others is a form of abuse, and specifically to brain-wash some child with 'god-nonsense' is a (despicable) form of child abuse. Finally, to refer to this as a Christian society is an almost perfect travesty, given how thoroughly un-Christian the predominant practices of our kleptocratic 'rulers' are. There could well be a few genuine Christians amongst the sheople®, they just do not form anything more than an (ineffective!) minority - however well-meaning they consider themselves to be.

To bring some 'closure' (Spit, spit; accursed "Ameri-speak!") to my "science vs. god" case, I'm big enough to admit that improbability is not impossibility, a 'factoid' well exploited by the creationist/ID rabble. But the universe is (for the ordinary imagination, and the c/ID mob have very ordinary imaginations; 'believe' it) - truly huge, and that's just the bits we can 'see' (i.e. the cosmic microwave background radiation (most often abbreviated CMB), an actual afterglow of the Big Bang. This is the 'inside-view' of an incredibly smooth 3,000°K hot 'bubble' now of radius 13.7bio light years, with the bubble-walls rushing away from us at light-speed), or the most detailed and distant pictures from NASA/Hubble - then, if my 'infinity postulate' is correct, the greater universe is actually infinite and unbounded in both size and age - gasp! - But "So What?" I hear someone cry, "Size isn't everything!" - Well, perhaps not, but another relevant 'factoid' is that most religions first appeared back in the true intellectual dark ages literally 1000s of years ago, and may analogously represent nothing more than an afterglow of fear and superstition from those Oh, so primitive times. The rot really set in with the institution of the 'just-war' sell-out, whereby the 'responsible' religious authorities allowed truly grotesque exceptions to "Thou shalt not kill!" And so the stage was set for an absolute ultimate in hypocrisy, the US resource-rape and murdering-plunder of the world, with GWBush vis-à-vis Iraq explaining limply: "God told me to do it..." Basta.

A tip to some possibly concerned person: you may feel driven to seek the solace of belief in what many hypothesize as an imaginary 'god' (or you may be speaking on behalf of some 3rd person so driven, wha'do I know?) - but if you air your views 'in here' then you should be prepared for some robust argy-bargy - one might'a thunk; why else would people contribute except to argue? Not to argue would be to agree that everything in the garden is just lovely - when the exact opposite is in fact the case: we're actually right up s**t-creek in a barbed-wire canoe. We obviously don't all agree, and not all contributors are as nice as I am. Or do you think that people should just come here unchallenged to (vacuously!) gush?

Intermezzo: why am I spending so much time on God&Co? Simply because it's a filthy swindle. There may well be 'genuine' Christians who 'genuinely' believe, with a belief which brings them solace and others some measurable benefit. But (again, IMHO) that's the (tiny!) minority; the organised religions (I speak only of putative Christians; Muslims may do whatever they wish - just as long as they - like any other religious groups should - just mind their own business and don't meddle. A point must be made about Jihad etc: how much of this problem is directly caused by (Western, perhaps 99% US inspired) meddling, not to mention oil theft? But this is the 'why,' this claim to be a Christian society; that, for example, no person will ever be elected US president unless they fervently (appear) to believe, that our own parliament holds prayer sessions - but then these so-called Christian societies blithely proceed to the sort'a mass-murdering theft and chaos that B, B & H have recently 'led' us into in Iraq. Then on further investigation, it appears to this observer that almost the entire US 'led' economic paradigm is based on various criminal-type behaviours: lying, cheating, theft and actual mass-murder; not 'just' in Iraq but spread far and wide. See Perkins' "Hit Man," Blum's "Rogue State," Chomsky's "Failed States," Krugman's "Unravelling," - the list is just so bloody and so boorishly looong.

So much for the "god" distraction and the state-of-play; we have had a call for action by Daniel Smythe (G'day!) Mind you, I have called for action myself on previous occasions (admittedly without much resonance), but let's face it, things are getting somewhat critical. I'm reminded here of some discussions 'in here' as to whether naked opinion is to be accepted, and if not then what level of 'proof' should be provided? To keep this piece short(er) I have not included refs, but if you need some proof then you could follow Bob Wall's tips (G'day!) or do some research for yourself; in which case you could well start at ICH, for example The Imperial System: Hierarchy, Networks and Clients. I have tried over time to say "What you see is what you get" (WYSIWYG), but the trouble is that different people see different things, both because that's what some of them want (i.e. ideology rears its ugly head) and it's where some - possibly different - others, be they ideologically challenged or just ignorant or lazy, some or all those together - look (i.e. MSM, politicians and other known liars). As a bit of a non sequitur, in the 'universe of all statements,' a complete galaxy of lies vastly outnumbers the tiny nub of truth that must, perforce, be contained within. Whereas the lies are concentrated by the aforementioned MSM and politicians (and 'tried-on' by the assorted trolls 'in here,') a pretty good test of any statement is 'how well does it correspond to reality?' The most famous (and my favourite) current example is Iraq, US/UK/Aus illegal invasion thereof; aka murder for oil. We pose the question: is this statement of 'murder for oil' a) possible, b) likely and c) believable? My answer: yes, on all counts.

OK; so why does this matter?

Here's where the mighty big "IF" comes in. (Please note that I do not claim to have coined the phrase; in actual fact I saw it looong ago as part of a cartoon in "Playboy." Read it just for the articles, I hasten to add.) Also a looong time ago (if my recall is accurate), a body called the "Club of Rome" commissioned a study which was published as "Limits to Growth." In somewhat loose language, the nightmare scenarios redolent of that study have now all arrived together, and with a vengeance at that. Specifically, and as the largest threat by far, is the greenhouse climate catastrophe purported to be immanent when not actual and (another worst), approaching unavoidability. In second place is globalisation, promised as our economic salvation but in reality a Trojan Horse for the accumulation & hoarding of ever greater and more vicious inequalities. In short, resource owners everywhere are being ripped-off to further enrich the already fattest of filthy-rich cats (as if they needed a single skerrick more.)

My claim is that the single agency behind all (well, most) of our troubles is the US military/industrial complex, aided by the Harvard Business School (the rip-off philosophy perpetrators), the MSM - Madison Ave unholy marriage (the lying propaganda propagators), Hollywood (the dream factory; over time the purveyors of all possible perversions), the TV set in every home (i.e. the medium is the message), and the bone-laziness and mind-deadedness of the population-at-large. (Is this all arrogance? IMHO not, merely 'my best' at an accurate assessment.)

Sooo, far from 'the best of all possible worlds' we've ended up in a truly ghastly worst-case scenario; ergo it's time for action. Not just talk (although there's certainly gotta be plenty of that), but effective action. And note that in mentioning 'the MSM, politicians and other known liars,' I didn't just specify B, B & H outright, but just said 'politicians.' To be more specific, I mean Libs&Labs here, Repugs&Dems 'over there;' in general the opposition parties are not part of any solution but rather are a large part of the problem: they don't (effectively) oppose, and (worse) they're just not 'on our side.' We could see this in the way Latham raged against the Great Satan as a back-bencher but then caved in completely as leader as he came 'under the fire' of the more established politicians - i.e. those 'in power' - and their crooked MSM perjurious pets.

Dear readers (not the trolls; you still here boys? Thought I told you to p... off?) - err, dear readers, you may be anticipating where this is going, but I'll be specific (spade = bloody shovel): we, the people, are being told lies, by both sides of politics and the (corrupt!) MSM - incl. big bits'a the AusBC. Q: Does it matter? See the mighty big "IF:" IF we had unlimited resources, IF the atmosphere wasn't being choked to death, IF the ice wasn't melting, IF we had a fair(er) deal? (no-one expects absolute perfection, but we hardly expect to be robbed Oh, so continuously & Oh, so comprehensively); finally IF we could look forward to living happily ever after - then A: "No."

But, daaarlings, we do have limits now becoming acutely visible, and we are surrounded - and worse, ruled by - lying, cheating and murdering thieves. It's Time - to do something. I think that appealing to any of the established parties would not just be not effective; it'd simply be the wrong address. Those currently in power have allowed the situation to develop; the opposition are not philosophically committed either to us or to any real change, but only basically to more of the same rubbish that has produced our current situation, with hardly the slightest difference in flavour. Demos don't work; they just don't listen. Since most of the damage is being done in pursuit of the (toadally® unholy) dollar, a proper boycott could do it, but no dinky-di will give up his/her cargo cult; they all want iPods, wide-screen flat-panel TVs and fat 4WD/SUVs. Retail therapy, but for what disease? Its more like retail pornography: More, more! I'm still not satisfied! My tip: vote both major parties last on all ballots. This has to be a popular movement, and could only ever be organised by word-of-mouth - start talking... That would (IF 50% plus a few more did it) assure us of a fully independent parliament - who might then listen to our problems, and try for a few real and proper solutions. Not what we'll ever get, any real solution that is; not with the current mob - on both political sides, and a filthily corrupt (and traitorous!) MSM to boot.

-=*end*=-

PS Do I care if anyone reads this? No. I'm sooo tired of this, but in a way the illegal invasion of Iraq by B, B & H (murder for oil) was a bit of luck; it made me start examining the world around us. But the 'downside' (spit, spit!) of this is shock! Horror! Our entire society is based on lies, cheating, theft and murder. It's all there, festering away under the surface but there for all of those who look to see: thanks only to the internet. The MSM lies to us continuously in what I now see as deliberate (criminal!) obfuscation. Likewise our (equally criminal!) politicians; all a 'front' for the vicious business of filthy rip-off business - the worst criminals of all. I have considered the remaining decent 'rump' of Christianity above, what I haven't discussed is 'the wo/man in the street' except in the off-hand: the sheople®. Contrary to the way I write of the sheople® - it is my way to employ perhaps too much irony - I 'believe' (there's that word again), that most sheople®, Christians, Muslims or outright atheists or whatever, are decent people looking only for a regular feed, a roof over their heads and some real peace. But the dirty underworld I attempt to reveal is - revolting to the point of sick-making, and I'm sooo tired - but someone has to point out the truth: that's really all that I try to do.