Monthly Archives: May 2016

Unhappy Birthday / The Smiths


Unhappy Birthday / Smiths (posted on youtube by The Ambitious Outsider)
(The Smiths Unhappy Birthday – La Règle du jeu ( The Rules of Game) is a 1939 French film directed by Jean Renoir.)
I’ve come to wish you an unhappy birthday
I’ve come to wish you an unhappy birthday
Because you’re evil
And you lie
And if you should die
I may feel slightly sad
(But I won’t cry!)

Loved and lost
and some may say:
“When usually it’s Nothing
Surely you’re happy
It should be this way?”
I say. “No, I’m gonna kill my dog
May the lines sag, may the lines sag heavy
And deep tonight”

I’ve come to wish you an unhappy birthday
I’ve come to wish you an unhappy birthday
Because you’re evil
And you lie
And if you should die
I may feel slightly sad
(But I won’t cry!)

Loved and lost
and some may say:
“When usually it’s Nothing
Surely you’re happy
It should be this way?”
I say. “No”
And then I shot myself
So drink, drink, drink
And be ill tonight
From the one you left behind
From the one you left behind
From the one you left behind
From the one you left behind
Behind, behind..
Oh unhappy birthday!

Advertisements

A Response to: Tommy Robinson “Making Perfect Sense”

EDL… pronounced: addle. I really don’t understand why this is posted by Atheism is Unstoppable. Childish handle. What is interesting about this EDL is that it harkens back to a time when Medieval Europe required Christianity as a common protocol to manage our understanding of the world around us and the responsibilities we have to one another. However, this was at a time when we lived a life much less certain of survival, requiring a much greater adherence to expectation for the sake of the community as a whole. The Albigensians challenged this agreed upon context and so put at risk the whole of their society.

Today, we can easily provide enough resources to ensure the survival of unprecedented populations. Our greatest challenges are our greed, provincialism and capacity for contempt–the last of which you seem to have spent some time cultivating. To expect each person to accept what one person sees as reasonable, is, well, unreasonable. Hence, human culture, still requires a protocol for developing a sense of dignity–which counters the development of a capacity for contempt, and arrogance. This protocol, we refer to as religion. We have many of them, each one fails and succeeds in it’s own manner. Each one ensures the continuance of a community of human beings at least for another generation. Each one is subject to reinterpretation as these communities change, grow and mature.

If you want to see what can happen when a whole set of societal conditions is suddenly asserted upon a community from outside that community, or from an over-empowered minority… Soviet and post-Soviet Russia and post-MacArthur Japan provide telling examples.

Your argument here is largely condescending mannerism, rather than insight or reasoning. What you don’t understand is that by providing a front YOU INCITE like response. You say that the ideas these young men put forward are a non-starter, but these are YOUNG men with very little actual power beyond their own opinion. Have you spoken with many young men?! Hell, many men at all?! The veneer of civilization is very thin and supported by very few minds–most people have their heads so securely stowed up their own ass as to be ineffectual.

And you atheists are too proud of your “intellect” to allow any kind of real appreciation for what is going on in the minds of the people around you. What you really fear… well, I am reminded of the “perfect anarchist”, from Conrad’s, The Secret Agent… He is a fanatic, carrying around an indiarubber ball in the left pocket of his trousers which he grasps lightly at the sight of the onrushing crowd–the trigger for a vial of nitroglycerin ample enough to clear the street. And the unthinking animal crowd is the bane of his existence, the thing he most fears. In this is revealed the true sharer of his deepest sympathies… the Crowns of Europe. Just as you Atheists would supplant God’s vision with your own–as rough hewn, borrowed and bastardized as it may be.

You Atheists concoct an absurd notion of what God is, and then pat yourselves on the back for dismissing him as absurd in the very next breath. You naturally assume that tens of thousands of years of religious evolution is simple idiocy even as you fall under the spell of your own vanity as you do it. Then, you hoist your atheism high as a banner, challenging all and sunder to argue you out of your rationalized existence in the same simple terms you have used to define existence. You chant, “Science!” as verbal totem to relinquish yourselves from any obligation to make sense of the world around you. And in so doing you submit yourselves to precisely the kind of mystical, totemic faith you convince yourselves Christians are guilty of. And it is all so that you can languish in self-absorption and denial of your responsibilities to anything beyond paying the rent. Childish.

post script… And as for [Islamic view of women’s role in society]… I suppose all women should be issued a pole upon which to dance and learn her role appropriately?!

Why is Britain in the EU and what does it have to do with the Canadian wildfires?

The problem with the best minds today is that they are confined to the habits of our educational system and the time constraints of making a life under the terms set by the marketplace. As a result, rather than developing a schema of understanding, naturally guided by a direct curiosity, we follow a curriculum set by other minds divorced from the reasoning or bias behind its forging. And upon completion, we are armed with the habit of studying an issue by reading other disconnected studies to resolve our understanding in quick-time to meet the succession of immediate demands placed upon us by our roles in corporate decision making. This produces a shallow, hack, approach to everything from preparing homes for sale to planning the expansion of transportation systems, or supplying markets with goods or services. Another constraint of popular decision making is the minds juvenile predisposition to assume the world around us is a clockwork mechanism… particularly, in which we are prone, in our understanding of how governments operate. It is not enough to merely say, “yes, governments must change to meet the changing circumstances of that which is governed.” Saying it is not the same as operating with an actual understanding of this truth.

I remember gym class in high school… When playing volleyball throughout a quarter, two basic types of teams emerged. First, there was the team loaded with particularly athletic types who dominated immediately. Second, there was the team which methodically learned the intercept, set, return formula for playing the game effectively. It was this second group which took time to put together the skill sets and strictly demarcated realms of responsibilities and roles of the different players which ended the quarter in ascendance.

Today, governments are presented with the growing impossibility of the task presented to them. To manage resources, effort, organizations and individuals within the framework of a system ruled by an agreed upon set of guidelines. As of 1850, there had only been 1 billion people who had walked the earth throughout all of human history… now there are over 6 billion all at once living together. Further, we have companies and corporations controlling more wealth and influence than entire nations. These entities, these power-capabilities have a very narrow set of goals, act upon the say so of spineless individuals willing to set aside regard for law or the common good, and yet, are central to the survival of the populations. This is a perfect storm for self-destruction. To meet these power-capabilities all we have is government… when protesters hit the streets, they rely on the government to protect them against the entities they protest against (even the governments themselves) and beseech to act on behalf of their cause–otherwise, outright conflict is the only recourse for reclaiming the societies to ones concept of civilization. 

Now corporations, and macro-empowered individuals and entities easily cross borders to carry out their self-centered agendas. To meet such potential challengers to the common good, we need governmental organizations already in place and engaged in the never ending process of refinement to identify and address the threats and concerns of the greater society. Right now, there are wildfires raging in Canada. Just today, my roommate, in response to my question about it, replied, “the one caused by the fracking?” This was the first I heard a connection made between the largest single oil reserves and this out of control wildfire causing the destruction of an entire city and driving countless people from their homes in terror. She had heard an early news report making the connection. Now, however, you would be hard pressed to find the connection made in any news reports making the rounds. Why? Because this company has, no doubt, an army of PR people and inexhaustible legal muscle to point out the liabilities and cost of legal action against any institution making such “false” reports–if they, indeed, turn out to be false. What news agency could stand against, not only such a powerful company, but, no doubt, an entire industry, whose consolidte interest also weighs in the balance. How much might do the politicians of Canada wield to meet this challenge?!

Societies and governments are not like businesses with business plans concerned only with justifying loans and meeting quarterly projections; they are more akin to gardens and gardeners. As these gardens grow, so to, must the resources and organizational capabilities of the gardeners. This is why Britain is in the EU.