If This Journal Was Music, It Would Be The Mortal Combat Theme

WELCOME TO THE INTERNET

WE RECOMMEND:

A Dangerous New Chemical Weapon
McCain Vows To Replace Secret Service With His Own Bare Fists
Arnold Schwarzenegger Montage
Police Bring It
He So Fresh
Asian Woman Hides In Closet
Funny, If Immature

look at what we've become

They have come for me. My first instinct is to cry out – to shriek, to holler. But this has been my fate since I came screaming from the womb that bore me into this world. I have inched closer and closer, and now the final apostasy is at hand. The “writing” upon the “wall” is in no script that I can understand, yet it need not be. My eyes have been opened; may they never close again. I had expected anything at this point… no, I had expected something. This is not what I prayed for. I prayed for euphoria, or perhaps despondence, but not this - not this throttling, crushing, ultimate pity that takes me. I will be lifted up by those around me – those who would see me confined to the deepest pits of hell – and all I feel is pity.

It will be a change; but I believe for the better. I do not know what awaits me up there, but I have rotted long enough in this relic of bygone ages, the suburbs stretching out from it like some terrible, charnel graveyard, ready to strangle anyone who tries to leave. This mechanical, heartless world. This broken cosmos. This lost Eden. But the skies have never been so light for me as today.

Why is it that we, as human beings, attach so much more importance to those images that we directly associate with that which is ‘real’, rather than the creations of our own imaginations; which are, by definition, many times more spectacular? At the end of it all, our entire lives, real are not, are just pictures in our brain; crackling, firing neurons and explosions of sensory data – and what right does anyone else have to tell me what is real, and what is not? And what when the things we had so hurriedly cast away as fantasy come roaring back, more real than anything else had ever been? One thing is certain; my dreams have never been as colourful as they are today.

Entombed within my own mind, I’ve wandered through many places, far and near, all of them eventually subsiding into what is, according to the enlightened sciences, ‘real’ upon my regaining of consciousness, screaming and tearing at nothingness in hatred of what nature has simultaneously shown me and forbidden me. They trap me here, tie me down – but they cannot hold back the burning, twisting spirit of my mind. This twisted reality of storm-wracked skies and warped buildings is not for me. But the corridors of the asylum have never been as silent as today.

I go now into obscurity. They have come, and with shining hands they will lift me on silver wings from this place. Whether I will live or die I do not know – but I know that I will not exist in the meaning of the word that the desperate, foolish sciences employ. Hah! They have not the faintest idea of the chaotic, writhing cosmos that they try in vain to explain. They have not wandered in the lush forests of the mind, nor scaled the vibrant peaks of the imagination. They have not dived the deepest seas of consciousness, nor struggled with the greatest demons of emotion. Blind, frantic failures of a world that will never understand; a world doomed to failure. And the cries of the physicians have never been as distant as today.

I will pass now, into obscurity. Answers will be given to me that could never have been given by ‘civilization’. Let them ponder the meaning of things – let their hateful spades dig ever deeper into the earth that hides the ultimate insanity. Upon these silver-winged avatars of the dreaming truth I will rise, untold secrets gracing my ears and filling my mind with all the vivid landscapes of my dreams. I know that I leave everything behind now – my family, my friends, my very body. But never have I been as free as today.

I go now into blissful oblivion, and there the truth awaits me.

If we accept that (A) "Wilderness", or unclaimed land, has no owner, and (B) that all people are inherently equal, then it seems to follow that (C) no person should be able to own more land than another.

Why I am an Atheist

Yes, I'm an atheist. To anyone who knows me, even in the slightest, that should not come as a shock; indeed, it should probably be self evident. Because I feel like it, I am going to lay down some reasons why I am a fool for calling myself an atheist, and why I am an atheist. Follow this if you can.

I'm a fool for calling myself an atheist - I'm an agnostic. And, frankly, every atheist needs some introspection time if they're truly an atheist, and not really an agnostic. Here's a few dictionary definitions. (courtesy of http://dictionary.reference.com)

"Atheist -
–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."

and

"Agnostic -
-noun
One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God."

So there may be some confusion over why I label myself an atheist, whilst claiming to be an agnostic (and yeah, I stick by that). Frankly, I don't like the term agnostic - to me, it sounds like I simply haven't spent any time thinking about this topic; basically, that I'm lazy. I obviously have, and, whilst this dislike of the term probably stems from some stereotype, quite a few agnostics have probably just "not bothered".

Having said that, I technically fit into the term "agnostic". Here's why I'm not an atheist, but call myself one - it's easier.

In order to state categorically that there is a God, there must be proof. This is statement A. In order to state categorically that there is no God, there must be proof. This is statement B.

Statement A I won't go into much detail with - it's simply there to provide a comparison. To me, a single book, no matter how old, holy or truthful it may seem, can prove the existence of something like God. That rules out the Bible. Other proof, such as the argument from design (ever tried shaking a watch around in a box for billions of years, Aquinas?), has never hit a chord with me, and it's unlikely that anything ever will. Any believers who've managed to read this far, feel free to persuade me.

Now, Statement B. "In order to state categorically that there is no God, there must be proof." This is the problem. The very nature of God makes him difficult to prove - and, in the same manner, difficult to disprove. In fact, he is a deal harder to disprove than he is to prove. His omnipotence, transcendence, and all the rest of it, makes him very, very hard to disprove using normal empirical methods. In fact, I'm going to go and say that it is impossible to disprove God using empirical methods. Again, feel free to persuade me, anyone.

With empirical methods out of the way, the zealous defender of God moves on to the fortress of the rationalist. Now, the thing is, logic seems to present a real problem for God - at least, at first. A lot of philosophers have made a big mistake here - and Bertrand Russell is one such philosopher. I can't remember his reasoning precisely, but he attacked God from an ethical standpoint. He claims that the ethics that God gives us are a problem for God himself. If God truly means for us to obey these laws, then there are, to Russell, only two options - either he wishes us to obey them because they are "good", or he wishes us to obey them because he is God, and we should obey him. Now, if they are "good", this implies that there is some notion of "goodness" that even God is subjected to - and this removes him from the top of the pyramid, destroying the notion of omnipotence and effectively casting him down from his seat as a deity. Similarly, if we obey the laws because they are given to us by God, then we must ask ourselves what makes God God. His limitless, supernatural power is the answer. So, we are obeying laws because the entity that gives us these laws is powerful? Russell seems to be indicating some kind of supernatural dictatorship, which is surely no basis to worship God on.

It's quite possible that I have misunderstood his reasoning, and he surely words it better than I have, although I hope the general drift is obvious. The problem is that, as St. Thomas Aquinas pointed out a long time before Russell's logic, God (at least, the Christian God) cannot have the same logic applied to him that we apply to man. In other words, the logic we used, our last chance of attacking the existence of God, goes out the window. Hey presto, that's it. You can't disprove that which is disprovable. It's not disprovable because it's true, it's simply disprovable.

And here's another reason why I don't like to call myself an agnostic - I don't like any God I have come across. Sure, my belief that it is impossible to prove the existence of God may place me in the camp of the agnostic, but I am a firm atheist in my belief that no God I have ever come across is "good", or worthy of worship in the slightest. The Christian God commits massacres all through the Old Testament, continuously and without any regret - he even does it as a means of persuasion (first born sons of Egypt, anyone?). Nothing in the New Testament can give the Christian God any redemption - and, when I look around the world, and see the hatred and fanaticism that other religions also fuel, I cannot help but think that anything that can even be misinterpreted to that extent is not worthy of my worship; and that's why I'm proud to call myself an atheist - although I'm not, really.

Labour is ripping our rights to pieces, right under our eyes. Look at this:

"Suspected drug dealers' assets could be seized on arrest rather than conviction under new plans for England and Wales.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said suspects found to be "completely innocent" would get their goods back."

(from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7266109.stm)

Holy shit, what the fuck? What the hell? Do you know why this shit stinks real bad? Because that goes against legislation that they've signed up to - hell, it even goes against legislation they wrote.

The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe states that "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". Guess what, everyone? We're part of the Council of Europe.

It gets worse. Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (yes, that's our very ownact) also states that "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". Needless to say, that means the presumption of innocence is also protected in the European Convention on Human Rights, which we have also signed up to.

What the hell is this? Not only is it hypocrisy, it is also dangerous - the state is showing more and more of the hallmarks of a dictatorship.

Tolerance
Neutrality
Analytical Mindset
Conviction

Alright, so the last post I made was entitled "another stupid law". I was under the impression that, for the most part, the Labour government that we have at the moment was unprofessional, foolish and generally making a mess of things. However, I got it the wrong way round, and it is only today that I have realised how dangerous the current situation is, and suddenly I'm hoping and praying (despite being an atheist) for a codified constitution. But it's not going to happen.

I didn't realise until today how far the current government has slipped down the road into complete authoritarianism. Without a codified, clear, powerful constitution to hold it in check (and even to safeguard human rights - let's face it, Acts of Parliament aren't exactly immortal) the executive is running riot, and, whilst so far the only massive problem is the unethical, human-rights-breaching legislation it has passed, the danger is impossible to ignore.

Here's an example of a fucking dangerous law - the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. Yes, we all know of how the Terrorism Act 2000 removed the right to protest (in certain circumstances) and the way the right to not be punished unless a court of law rules there has been a breach of legislation was torn apart by the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, but the Civil Contingencies Act is something different entirely.

It states that in the case of an emergency being declared (which can be done orally and without parliamentary consent) the government can make special legislation within a week which allows for the evacuation of people, the seizing of property without compensation, and the banning of any assembly. The only law exempt from this, that cannot be touched, is the Human Rights Act 1998. "Oh, that's alright, then." I hear you say. No, it's not alright. If we're talking about rights, it's not like they're all covered there - other bills such as the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and the Bill of Rights 1989 are not covered.

And how about the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill? It basically allows Ministers to make changes to legislation without consulting the government in the vast majority of the areas of government.

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that not only is the Labour government foolish, irresponsible and unworthy of power, but it is a dangerous force, and a threat to the freedom of its own citizens.

(http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/swords_dc;_ylt=AoZkK6A_FcUiPFQx3pzgzxcE1vAI)

What the hell? Seriously, this is getting ludicrous. This is the last piece of proof anyone really needs that this country is going to hell. This isn't even logical Authoritarianism; they're banning samurai swords because there have been a number of killings associated with them in the last few years. Are they seriously suggesting that these attacks would not have been carried out if there had not been a katana nearby? I didn't realise the curvature of a blade was a significant factor when assessing its liberal-slaughtering effectiveness in the modern age, seeing as these attacks are highly unlikely to be executed from horseback. Maybe I'm wrong?

Also:

"We recognize it is the cheap, easily available samurai swords which are being used in crime and not the genuine more expensive samurai swords which are of interest to collectors and martial arts enthusiasts."

That's a quote from the article - attributed to Home Office Minister Vernon Croaker. It's quite obvious what they're going for here; the possession of certain katanas will remain legal. As in, people who want to use them in conjunction with a martial art, or who simply want to have them as display pieces will not be picked on. Do I need to explain why this is pointless? Ok.

Prove it. Are they going to make "cheap, easily available" katanas illegal, but legalise the ones where the price has been ramped up or there's proof that they are good quality? Seriously, what the hell? I'm sure many criminals who particularly prefer the katana as their weapon are either enthusiasts, or would have no qualms in lying to some idiot PCO. So, the only way to prove that the katana will be used as an offensive weapon is to catch the individual red handed - in other words, catching the individual using the katana as an offensive weapon. You see, the problem here is that in using something as a weapon, you're intending to cause physical (usually grievous) harm, which is in itself already bloody illegal (and rightly so). We don't need another piece of useless legislation to add to the clutter.

This is just another bit of evidence to prove that the current government can't really manage anything - it can't even be properly authoritarian. All they are doing is helping to clutter up a system that is already full of pointless, stupid laws. If I could vote in general elections (am only 17, and not a British Citizen), Labour would without a doubt have lost my vote.

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7129906.stm)

I'm not going to go into the details here, but I'm of the opinion that this type of massacre almost definitely isn't the fault of the legalisation of weapons. I'm for the right to carry weaponry, although I won't be going into that now either. I'm just going to mention something that I found interesting when reading the above BBC article.

That's right, go read it now. The bit that caught my eye was in his suicide note. Firstly, obviously, the note indicates that he aimed to kill himself. He hated his life and - I don't mean to be callous - the usual stuff. The bit that interested me was that in the note he said he "wanted to be famous".

People have blamed society before - they've blamed movies, games, and loads of other things. But perhaps it's partially the attitude. The modern media plays many things up, with famous people becoming younger and younger. It's been recognised that the last few generations grew up with more and more people hoping to become the next wave of celebrities - the next wave of front-pagers. Robert Hawkins managed it.

It was obvious he was severely depressed - it was obvious he planned to take his own life. That's perfectly within his own right to decide (if he was in a healthy state of mind). It looks like his life took a definite turn for the worst, and he decided to give it all up. But those societal pressure and values he grew up with definitely took their toll on him - he could have gone out quietly, but instead he went out with a bang and a headline to remember. Maybe, just maybe, it was us who forced him to do so.

For those of you who don't know what I'm chatting about, go here first, then read my post.

I'd like to start by getting something straight - I don't support the views of Nick Griffin or David Irving in the slightest. I am not anti-semitic. I am not a holocaust denier. I am not a supporter of the BNP. But I firmly believe that the protesters were undoubtedly acting morally irresponsibly by turning out at all, let alone in force.

First, let's get the consequentialist arguments out of the way - the protest did, in itself, achieve nothing. Censorship has never truly worked; if anything, all it seems to do is increase the interest in a matter that might otherwise have passed completely under the radar. Resorting to violence isn't exactly the right way to go about this either; the only thing this did was offer the two speakers the moral high ground, which they promptly took. Simply put, it makes the protesters look like the "bad guys". Finally, they weren't even invited to discuss racial matters. They were there to discuss freedom of speech, not broadcast ludicrous racist ideas.

This brings me rather well onto my other large point: freedom of speech. It's not just about the consequences. It's not just about the fact that now the speakers have far more attention than they ever would have had if everything had just drifted by. The fact is that freedom of speech is one of the undeniable rights of every human being on this planet. That includes me, you, and Osama Bin Laden. There can be no exceptions to this rule - it is absoloute, categorical and universal. It is supported in numerous human rights laws, including Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is an important part of the liberal democracies we claim to live in - no, not only that. It is one of the essential hallmarks of a healthy, democratic state.

Their demonstration was not anti-racist, it was anti-expression. By taking their narrow-minded, short-sighted views out their onto the streets of Oxford, they condemmed any last remaining shred of belief I might have held in a straightforward left-wing approach to matters. They showed themselves incapable of looking beyond their own (perhaps rational) hatred, to see that they were marching against one of the most important pillars of our society, and of human rights worldwide - irrespective of race, religion, or political affiliation.

What's the one biggest problem with the world?

I know. And it's not pollution, it's not war, it's not fascism.

It's a mental flaw; a little fault, shuddering into our brain and dancing amidst crackling grey cells. We have learnt to accept without evening realising - we have learnt to think in a manner that defeats purity of thought, and it is painfully evident in so many of the political movements in existence today; from fascism to socialism to conservatism. We have learnt to be complacent without realising it. We see problems with society, with the way the world works. We think "How can we shape the system?" when we should be asking a very different question - only a small step in logic, but a massive leap in terms of the possible answer:

"Why do we need the system?"

So it's been like seven weeks or so. Whatever. I don't write in this thing for anyone but myself anymore - and if I don't have anything I feel the need to properly structure (or is not yet ready for anyone else to see), this place will be pretty empty. However, here are some thoughts on Glaucon's argument for a certain nature of justice from Plato's Republic.

His argument splits into three different parts - I will quote the entire passage in italics so that anyone can join in if they really want to.

Part i - Nature and Origin of Justice

"And now for my first heading, the nature and origin of justice. What they say is that it is according to nature a good thing to inflict wrong or injury, and a bad thing to suffer it, but the disadvantages of suffering it exceed the advantages of suffering it; after a taste of both, therefore, men decide that, as they can't evade the one and achieve the other, it will pay to make a compact with each other by which they forgo both. They according proceed to make laws and mutual agreements, and what the law lays down they call lawful and right.

This is the origin and nature of justice. It lies between what is most desirable, to do wrong and avoid punishment, and what is most undesirable, to suffer wrong without being able to get redress; justice lies between these two and is accepted not as being good in itself, but as having a relative value due to our inability to do wrong. For anyone who had the power to do wrong and was a real man would never make any such agreement with anyone - he would be mad if he did."

Essentially, I think there is quite a large margin of truth in what he is saying. It is entirely possible that, in the earliest stages of existence, 'justice' or the principle of 'right and wrong' were simply created because they were beneficial to humankind; that our ancestors created some manner of law out of convenience.

However, his argument completely ignores the important part religion shaped our concept of morality. Whilst in some places, presumably, the laws that had already been organized in order to protect the private interests of each individual, this hardly covers some of the more diverse religious traditions, which were (or are) still viewed as perfectly moral, even by the victims. The classical example of this might be the human sacrifices that were common in historical South America - deemed perfectly moral, despite, as far as I can conceive, not being related in any way to the "I won't steal from you, you won't steal from me" logic that surrounds Glaucon's theory.

So, whilst his theory probably laid the ground rules for justice as we know it, exceptions in a slightly more advanced society could well appear. The question here is why. To me, the answer seems quite obvious; these exceptions to logical law would have evolved from simple science - a studying of the cause and effect of certain actions. If we return to the example of the native South Americans, we can presume, then, that at some point human sacrifice was tested, and the 'results' (for example, a larger harvest, or a positive result from a conflict with a different tribe) duly noted. Thus, modern law and morality has evolved from a mixture of logical mutually beneficial agreements and religious dogma (descended from scientific methods).

However, I find his last few lines ("For anyone who had the power to do wrong and was a real man would never make any such agreement with anyone - he would be mad if he did.") to be a bit troublesome. For any sort of agreement to exist, some kind of communication would have to take place between members of the race. This, in turn, implies that humans are at this stage already social animals, with a herd mentality. Thus, if such an agreement had been created between many weaker animals, even the strong would be forced to comply. If they did not, they would surely risk being overwhelmed by the weak. Or, perhaps, they were to become the adjudicators of this law - the ancestors to the modern-day government.

Part ii - Men practice [justice] against their will and only because they are unable to do wrong.

"This then is the account they give of the nature and the origins of justice; the next point is that men practice it against their will and only because they are unable to do wrong. This we can most easily see if we imagine that a just man and an unjust man have each been given the liberty to do what they like, and then follow them and see where their inclinations lead them. We shall catch the just man red-handed in exactly the same pursuits as the unjust, led on by self-interest, the motive which all men naturally follow if they are not forcible restrained by the law and made to respect each other's claims."

(He then goes on to give an example rooted in fantasy, which I will shorten here, as otherwise it would be even more long and boring. Gyges, a shepherd, discovers a beautiful golden ring in a chasm. He wears it to an annual meeting of shepherds, and realises it has the power to turn him invisible. In the end, he gets himself included in a party that was to report to the king, sneaks into the palace, seduces the queen, kills the king, and takes his place at the head of the kingdom.)

"Imagine now that two such rings existed, and the just man put on one, the unjust the other. There is no one, it would commonly supposed, who would have such iron strength of will as to tick to what is right and keep his hands from taking other people's property. For he would be able to steal from the market whatever he wanted without fear of detection, to go into any man's house and seduce anyone he liked, to murder or to release from prison anyone he felt inclined, and generally behave as if he supernatural powers.

And in all this the just man would differ in no way from the unjust, but both would follow the same course. This, it would be claimed, is strong evidence that no man is just of his own free will, but only under compulsion, and that no man thinks justice pays him personally, since he will always do wrong when he gets the chance. Indeed, the supporter of this view will continue, men are right in thinking that injustice pays the individual better than justice; and if anyone who had the liberty of which we have been speaking neither wronged nor robbed his neighbour, men would think hum a most miserable idiot, although of course they would pretend to admire him in public because of their own fear of being wronged."

Obviously, this has been written from a slightly different viewpoint than mine, but, until here, I have agreed with the basics of Glaucon's argument. Here, however, things begin to fall apart. He makes a logical step, but completely misses a few important facts, which I will discuss now. I will state, here and now, that there are a large number of human beings on this planet who practice justice not because of coercion, but of their own free will.

First of all, he makes no mention of religion. The problem with religion is that, in many ways, it is the perfect example of coercion. In general, believers follow the religious dogma of their faith for two reasons - because it is the word of 'God', and because they will be punished if they do not do so. The latter is clearly a case of coercion - "if you do X, you will not get to Y, but will instead go to Z." A few examples - "If you do not follow the Ten Commandments, you will not get into heaven, but will instead go to hell" Or "If you do not grasp The Four Noble Truths, you will not attain Bodhi, but will instead continue saṃsāra, the endless cycle of birth, suffering, death and rebirth." In this way, religion only offers a reason to obey the laws of humanity. To this extent, religious people can still fall under Glaucon's massive generalisation.

However, many also decide to act “rightly” because they believe it to be the word of their maker. Aside from the punishment that awaits them if they do not, I do believe that there are many who simply place their trust in this supernatural being, and that when they are taught to “love thy neighbour”, they do so, not to avoid punishment, but because they believe that divine law is the final, utter moral truth, and that following divine dogma is a moral imperative.

So, what about the atheist? Does this mean that all atheists are heartless, scheming people, only conforming to society for fear of punishment? I, as one of this group, say no. Let me quickly examine two chief (interlinked) reasons why I am so sure.

First of all, in Glaucon's argument, he seems to have taken a huge logical step without realising that he has missed out one incredibly important factor - time. In between those primal agreements and the kind of society where punishment is regulated and to be rightfully feared, countless tonnes of water have flown under the proverbial bridge.

Now, over time, Glaucon seems to have forgotten that things change. Those agreements become law. People fear punishment. Then that generation passes, and another, and another. First, it becomes history. Then tradition. And finally, is is accepted. Set in stone. People no longer think “I won't kill this person because I will be punished for it, either by a coercive institution or the relatives of the victim.” Now, they think “I won't kill this person because I wouldn't want to be killed myself. It's not nice. It's wrong. It's morally unacceptable.” It doesn't matter how it evolved – just as we evolved from apes, we no longer (for the most part) act like them.

Furthermore, there is the question of conscience. Personally, I do not believe that there is such a thing as the conscience. Do infants have a conscience? Do they feel guild nagging at the back of their brain when they steal something off a fellow? I doubt it. The nagging guilt at the back of the head is a human phenomenon; the result of us still excepting a sharp slap or some harsh words when we do something that we have been taught is wrong. We are taught this because our parents were taught this by their parents, and so on. We have been taught this ever since it was just a mutual agreement – and over the centuries, it has become set in stone. What he believe now, and the guilt we feel, is just a gut feeling that we are breaking the laws of social norms, that keep anarchy (in the non-political sense) from overrunning the world.

Part iii - Unjust conduct is reasonable because the unjust man, has, by common reckoning, a better life than the just man.

Finally, we come to the decision between the two lives, and we shall only be able to make this decision of we contrast extreme examples of just and unjust men. By that I mean if we make each of them perfect in his own line, and do not in any mitigate the injustice of the one or the justice of the other.

To begin with the unjust man. He most operate like a skilled professional – for example, a top-class pilot or doctor, who know just what they can or can't do, never attempt the impossible, and are able to retrieve any errors they make. The unjust man must, similarly, if he is to be thoroughly unjust, be able to avoid detection in his wrongdoing; for the man who is found out must be reckoned a poor specimen, and the most accomplished form of injustice is to seem just when you are not. So our perfectly unjust man must be perfect in his wickedness; he must be able to commit the greatest crimes perfectly and at the same time get himself a reputation for the highest probity, while, if he makes a mistake, he must be able to retrieve it, and, if any of his wrongdoing comes to light, be ready with a convincing defence, or when force is needed be prepared to use force, relying on his own courage and energy or making use of his friends or his wealth.

Beside our picture of the unjust man let us set one of the just man, the man of true simplicity of character who, as Aeschylus says, wants “to be good and not to seem good”. We must, indeed, not allow him to seem good, for if he does he will have all of the rewards and honours paid to the man who has a reputation for justice, and we shall not be able to tell whether his motive is love of justice or love of the rewards and honours. No, we must strip him of everything except his justice, and our picture of him must be drawn in a way diametrically opposite to that of the unjust man. Our just man must have the worst of reputations for wrongdoing even though he has done no wrong, so that we can test his justice and see if it weakens in the face of unpopularity and all that goes with it; we shall give him an undeserved and life-long reputation for wickedness, and make him stick to his chosen course until death. In this way, when we have pushed the life of justice and of injustice each to its extreme, we shall be able to judge which of the two is the happier.”

First of all, happiness is very difficult to measure, and we are not sure what precisely Glaucon means. Perhaps he is referring to material wealth – and, in his scenario, the unjust man will undoubtedly have more wealth. Also, the unjust man will be much more comfortable, and much fatter, and in much less pain. The just man will be troubled by torture, and the injustice of the situation he faces.

However, this is not a fair comparison. Putting one man in a situation of extreme pain and peril, and the other comfortable and happy does not make equal grounds. Rather, let us put each in 'isolation' – where they are free to be either just or unjust, and where there will be no consequences, either positive or negative, for their actions. Then, whilst the unjust man will undoubtedly have more material wealth, he will have to fight an inner battle the just man will not – against the sound of his own growing guilt, conditioned into him by his parents.

In a situation like this, neither has been stretched to extremes – they are both living isolated lives, where the opinions or suspicions of others will not touch them. However, they know of society, and can interact with it. Let us assume both seem just – one truly is, the other masquerades, as this is the social norm. One will feel at home, comfortable – whilst the other, the unjust man, will feel the guilt and isolation slowly tearing away at him. 'Spiritual' happiness (and I use the term loosely – mainly as, with a free conscience) is more important than material wealth, for does not only protect physical, but also mental health. There are many different types of happiness, and so, Glaucon's argument cannot be contested further, because it has become vague and hard to define. So this is where it ends, for now.

Phew, that was a lot longer than I expected. Congratulations for making it to the end of that. Feel free to comment and tell me how stupid I am, if you so please. Or you could hold out for my next post, which hopefully won't take so long to appear, and hopefully won't be so mind-numbingly long.

Let us pretend for a minute that you are the naive, interested listener; that every word I say is picked up and stored within the dusty catacombs of your mind. Let us pretend - just for one, minute, mind you - that everything I have to say is worthy of your attention; indeed, that every syllable that leaks out of my over-enthusiastic mouth deserves to have your keen, white-hot intellect cast upon it.

Then let us pretend that we are happy, as the world is. Let us pretend that our freedoms are what matters to us most. Let us pretend for a moment that we are not hypocrites for speaking out about the rights of the human, whilst so many of us support one unspeakable act or another. Let us pretend that nations are of any importance, and let us pretend that national pride is more than just a hollow shell; another means of control.

Let us pretend that everything written in the history books happened exactly as it is described. Let us pretend we have true freedom of speech. Let us pretend that the description "unbiased" can be truthfully applied to any human on this globe. Let us pretend that people all across the world are happier with this system. Let us pretend that the suffering of the third world is in no way a consequence of the actions of our governments.

And then, when we are pretending all of this, we can be happy. And only when you have pretended so long that you truly believe all of the above - and only then, may you criticise the glorious people who have tried with all their hearts, blood, sweat and tears to change this world for the better.

Open your eyes.

The problem with what extremists are doing in our country, along with a few others, is quite obvious. History teaches us that pain and suffering felt by the collective whole will only necessarily inspire one thing; unity. Of course, unity drives us apart (in order to gravitate towards one point, you will inevitably move further away from another*) but it also strengthens us and breeds defiance. History is full of examples; the revolt instigated by the masses oppressed by the imperialist Tsar rulership in Russia, the worldwide solidarity and "brethren-ship" created through the abuse of the black community through the slave trade being just two examples.

It's happening again. You can see it on the faces of the people - you can hear it in their words. And I quote the partner of one of the victims of the July 7 bombings:


"The more this goes on, the more they will realize how futile their efforts are. The more London shows its bravery the more we show this is our victory."**

This is just one example of what I mean - furthermore, later in the same article, the following is said by Osama Saeed from the Muslim Association of Britain:

"We want to send the message that this country is united. It won't be shaken by terrorism."**

This statement underlines my point almost perfectly. "This country is united." There we go. United by pain and suffering - by the fear of the outside (mad props to the media for that!). However, he's wrong when he says that this country "won't be shaken by terrorism." He's completely wrong. The whole reason that the United Kingdom now feels more united hinges on the fact that it has been shaken by the events of July 7 and September 11. It has been shaken, and we don't want to feel that pain again. But we can't be sure that there will not be another assault - but, as the saying goes:

'United we stand, divided we fall.'

So we grow together, through pain. Nice one, extremists. Real smooth.


--
* This is also happening to an extent in the UK; the British Muslim community is having to struggle more and more to try and stay a part of the collective whole.


** Both quotes taken from http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-07-07-bomb-suspect-court_N.htm

Sometimes I'm surprised at how many people don't understand that the education sector works exactly in the same way as a business does. Steve Jobs (the CEO of Apple) recently (read: ages ago) went on a rant about how new principles aren't allowed to fire teachers because of the strength of the unions behind them. He argued that no business could ever work like that - and, furthermore, he added that schools are a business. This is why.

A (state-funded) school receives a certain amount of money for each student they have. Thus, the more students they take in, the more money they get. This makes sense - larger schools require more funding in order to stay operational. In this way, students are a commodity. In a factory, that, for example, produces chairs, the more chairs they produce, the more are sold, the more money they earn.

And in this theoretical company, it is also true that the quality of the theoretical chairs comes into play. If one good batch is produced, word can spread very quickly about the quality of these chairs, increasing sales. The chairs aren't sold because they themselves exhibit quality, but rather because their predecessors did. Schools work in the same way. Parents send their children to the school which they believe will give them the best education - how do they do this? Why, they look at the results. Thus, a school with better results will earn more money from more students, in the same way that a factory that produces better quality chairs will earn more money from more sales.

And that's pretty much it, lads an' laddesses.

"The Government also respects the right of parents to raise their children in accordance with their own faith."

This is an excerpt from the answer to one of the many petitions being thrown around on the internet - in this case, a petition to "Make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16" (which I wholeheartedly agree with) which can be found here: http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page12202.asp .

The question I put to thee, O great readers, is simple.

Why?

Why is it acceptable for parents to brainwash their children when brainwashing by, say, the government is seen as fascist and wrong? Is it because the parents care for them, clothe them, protect them? [In the average MEDC] The government does the same thing (roughly; give or take some civil liberties, etc) to [nearly] every single person in their jurisdiction, and anything even remotely connected to brainwashing is immediately leapt upon, torn apart and exposed in all it's totalitarian glory for the whole world to see. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favour of brainwashing or anything, I'm simply comparing it.

Is it because, in the loosest sense, the children were 'created' by their parents? That can't be true either. Even according to Christian mythology,* God, when creating humans, gave us free will, so that we could choose to do what we wanted. I don't see many Christian families sitting back and relying on free will to lead their children. Admittedly, I'm having trouble thinking of an atheist example, but you get the picture.

Maybe I'm missing something, people: please tell me if I am. If not, well... there you have it. Fuck organised religion.

I'm out.

* I hate this example as much as you do, dear reader. It's not a very good one, but it's all I could think of on the spot.

cyn·ic (sĭn'ĭk)
n.
1.A person who believes all people are motivated by selfishness.
2.A person whose outlook is scornfully and often habitually negative.
3.A member of a sect of ancient Greek philosophers who believed virtue to be the only good and self-control to be the only means of achieving virtue.


People sometimes tell me to “cheer up”. It's generally agreed that I have a pretty dull view of life – a very cynical one. And, just for a moment, I want to try and explain why: although I doubt that I can find the adequate words to truly describe my feelings on the matter.

Let's start with a statement. My opinion on a general outlook on life on it's massive, terrifyingly random scale is based on evidence and experience. This can be seen in everything I do – in fact, in everything we do. We know the Romans existed because we have ruins, we have Annals. I know that we get five channels on our TV, because flicking any further brings nothing new. I know that correctly constructing and explaining an argument is the key to communicating the true, undiluted message because this has worked for me before.

We base everything on evidence – experience, really, is evidence. Cynicism is just an assumption I have created through the gathering of such evidence. Whilst I have included a reasonably accurate definition above, my personal definition is “A person whose outlook on life and the actions of humankind is negative.” It's more to do with the faults and failings of us as a race. Now that I've given a little introduction, here is the centrepiece.

I am a cynic because the history of the human race proves that we, as a race, are selfish, manipulative and downright dastardly beings. So many wars. So many deaths. Sure, there have been beacons of light every now and then, but true altruists are few and far between; much more common is the charlatan altruist. Throughout history, the overriding theme is ever-present selfishness. People oppress for their own needs. The oppressors are overthrown by new selfish humans. The cycle goes on and on and on.

And what reason should I have to think that the future is going to show anything different than the past? Hold up a mirror to the true motives of current governments, current soldiers, current people, and you'll see it's hardly distinguishable from the same motives that made soldiers crush each other with heavy objects in the battlefields of Medieval Europe, the same motives that has held the fragile little lie we call society together for so long.

We unite because we are all the same – but the same in the worst possible way. We are selfish, naturally conditioned to care only for the furthering of our gene pool. We understand that separated we fall, united we stand. Thus, from selfishness, Democracy is born. Thus, from selfishness, society is born. Thus, from selfishness, we are all born.

Pretty cynical, huh?

There is an island; an island, rising from the black maw of the sea like a lone watchman. Upon this island, there is a hill.

Upon this island there is a house.

The storm never ceases; the storm never abates. It is everywhere – it's soldiers gathering in the heavy air, it's hooves crashing in the heavens above, and it's spears and arrows smashing down into the restless sea as bolts of pure-white lightening. The rain comes with it, like the tears of a God. Sheets upon sheets of droplets – hurtling to their destruction from the clouds high above; destined to live for moments only before shivering into quiet oblivion against the water-heavy blades of grass that rise from the hill.

The hill is ancient. Built before tongues could speak, before ears could hear. It is less of a hill, more of a mound. Nothing will grow on it's surface, save the dark green masses of grass that gather there in the shadow of the house beneath the heavy rain. To the casual eye it would for a moment perhaps seem natural; but a certain queerness of shape would soon betray it's nature. This mocking, elusive knowledge follows all who have seen it; an angel of cynical smoke that hangs above their heads until the end of their days. Words alone cannot describe that nagging, immaterial knowledge; description is beyond those who have gazed upon it. The sight of this mound is known to be a dark omen indeed – for that suffocating, wispy confusion has a penchant for throttling the very mind, so that none who experience the strangeness of the mound live for very long at all.

The house is silent. Silent and strong. Build from solid foundations deep within the mound, it reaches towards the heavens, yet is but a supplicant of the capricious Gods of the storm. Build in the colonial style, whitewashed to perfection, it stands out from the dark grass, the dark skies and the dark seas as a beacon of compromising calm. It's tall windows shuttered, it's large oak door closed, it braves the might of the storm alone. No one can say who lives there; or if anyone does, or if anyone ever has. But sometimes, in the dark of the night, those few sailors who come within range of the island swear that glimmers of light, golden and pure, can be seen through the sheets of rain.

Tricks of the eye? Perhaps. Simple superstition? Perhaps. Best left undisturbed? Yes, with the Blessed Lord Himself as my witness.