Left versus Right – politically: Another View

I’ve always been puzzled by the division of people into a group on the right and another on the left; This division was initially based on the French house of assembly where those to the right of the speaker or president, or King were the ruling government, and those to the left, the opposition in all its variety; The British parliament or House of Commons is similarly organised, government to the right of the speaker, and opposition to the left.  Today its use produces confusion since those on the left, usually dominated by the view of totalitarian control of the people by government and state, are balanced by the right who also often adopt totalitarian policies no less extreme than their counterparts on the left, each labelling the other as extreme.  Yet people remain divided into those who emphasise state control of human behaviour, and those who emphasise individual responsibility and freedom to act or non-state controlled behaviour.

However It’s when we describe the divisions of people on the basis of obeisance to authority that matters become clearer. Humanity can be thus initially divided into those who act on the basis of one or other authorities, whether ideological or theological, (conceptually there can’t be any others since even theology has to be a subset of ideology), and those who don’t. Expressing it even more simply is that those who act in response to an authority tend to see what they believe, which logically then leaves the rest as those who don’t, and who then believe what they see. The first group is thus conditioned to see only what they have been inculcated with, and to be trained to react to contradiction of their beliefs by removing those contradictions by coercion and force because they have no option within their belief system to do anything else, that is to change their minds. And the means by which individuals are retained in authoritarian  belief systems is by fear; of death in the here and now, or the slightly more sophisticated version of death in a metaphysical future; fear of death whether physical or metaphysical. Adherence to a religion is thus based on fear and not on freedom.

People can thus be divided into two groups – the religious and irreligious or areligious, the former acting in deference to their authority that pro and prescribes their behaviour, and the latter those who don’t. However the last group also acts, but as all human action is also wilfully directed, (because what distinguishes the human from the animal is the human’s ability to abstain from instinctive behaviour), this group then acts on the basis of their own understanding of the situation in which action is required.  That is the areligious adapt their actions to circumstances in the here and now, rather than assessing their behaviour in terms of whether it is permitted by their authority.

(This reminds me of an interesting interlocution some decades ago when I proposed a particular geological research project to a mining company whose chief scientist, reacting most politely, mentioned that they were not allowed to think along the lines of what I was proposing. That comment stunned me somewhat as that company actually trained me as a geologist in the first place. In any case that experience also confirmed other observations that this particular company had been “taken over” by the HR set and political correctness, a fate which seems to have affected all of academia).

The activity of the religious is thus predictable and essentially robotic since human action in this case is predetermined by rules and laws as set out by an authority, whether theological or ideological. It is also positivist in that any physical novelty has to be described in terms of what is known and permitted, which is invariably codified into some authoritarian book or scripture or tradition, whether oral or written.

In contrast the activity of the irreligious is by definition unpredictable, since their decisions to act are not based on rigid adherence to authority, but on the contingencies of the situation itself, best summarised by the English economist John Maynard Keynes’ aphorism that “If the facts change, he, Keynes, changes his mind; what do you do, Sir”. The religious cannot change their minds otherwise their belief(s) becomes nonsensical, but the irreligious, because they have no entrenched beliefs, are thus freer to act according to the circumstances.

(I should add we all have beliefs but the difference is that some are willing to change their beliefs, while others not, and since religion was the primary organisational or political system applied by humans to manage large populations based on the economic system of the division of labour, humanity can be divided into the religious and the irreligious/areligious).

The problem the religious face is that when they apply science to their activities, that science has to be compatible with their religious beliefs. The developed world is based primarily on the Judaean-Christian (JC) world-view and a Creation-free cosmology is therefore simply not an option, nor would it be for any other mainstream religion such as Islam or the Hindu religion etc. As for the secular humanists, pseudo creation remains incorporated into their cosmology as the Big Bang event some 14 billions of years ago. Both camps assume an initial creation of an inanimate physical universe to which “life” is a late addition, but both seem to be comfortable with an initial created event. While the conventional “in the beginning 14.8 billion years ago….”, version of Creation is accepted by some 4-5 billion people, the secular humanistic version is in contrast absurd since it assumes a causeless event while at the same time accepting the rest of the liberal cosmology of the religious that remains caused.

Our present day understanding of the Earth’s geological evolution is founded on the liberal creationist world-view involving a quasi mechanistic university cum metaphysical/spiritual domain in which humanity evolved as the pinnacle of creation either by edict or Darwinian evolution which is creationism in slow motion. Hence the biosphere is a recent development on the Earth, and by definition finite.  The geological timescale is also engineered to fit this world view but no where, as the engineer/author Richard Milton wrote decades ago, can one find a complete stratigraphic column anywhere on the Earth. Bits here and there, which are concatenated to produce the mainstream geological chronology. As this construction is basically ideological and imaginative, (since there are no physical examples of it anywhere in one location), it remains a fabrication of history as understood by the religious, whether of the mainstream religions or their flip-side secular humanists.

A specific feature of this cosmology, and hence its explanatory power, is that life is regarded as an addition to an inanimate physical universe, and that consciousness itself is additional, or epiphenomenon, of this inanimate universe. This is a logical conclusion if and only if the JC world view is accepted as a useful starting point. It is obvious that any science this culture practices has also to be compatible with its core assumptions, that the biosphere is a very recent development of a much older inanimate geological evolution as described by academia that is, unsurprisingly also lists to the political left, or in this writing, the religious.

The situation is that if the data show this world-view as erroneous, which they do, then expecting academia to change its collective mind in light of changed facts, is not going to happen.  It is as the physicist Pauli wrote last century, that scientific progress only happens on the death of the adherents of the prevailing paradigm with the new paradigm entrenching itself by default and not from conversion by reasoning and debate. (In fact it’s a bit of an oxymoron having a debatable scientific fact in the first place).

The problem is that entrenched beliefs are more or less the intellectual analogs of chemical drug addiction or habituation. Thinking is, after all, a biochemical process and as susceptible to habituation as any mind altering drug.  One could say that the religious minded are humans afflicted with belief-habituations that they are totally captive to and when challenged resort the only way they know, violently, either intellectually or physically, in order to remove the disturbing influence from their belief bounded mental cage.

As I’m areligious I assume, in the scientific sense, the simplest of cosmologies, that the electric/plasma universe always existed and that it’s being continually formed by an underlying spirit or consciousness appearing or unfolding from an implicate order as life-forms into an explicate order compatible with the specific physical environments in which it’s found. Well, that’s what I think now, but I reserve the right to change my mind when the facts change. It means, unlike my chief scientist interlocutor mentioned above, I have no difficulty accepting the tribal aboriginal observation that their ancestors witnessed a geological event conventionally dated to 1,150 millions of years ago. My thinking is not restricted by adherence to a particular ‘scientific’ dogma that my peers are subject to.

Belligerent Diasporas

For reasons that are not clear, but occasionally a diaspora might declare war on a nation state, and thus create a potential disaster for its members. But what is a diaspora?

It’s an identifiable group of people dispersed throughtout various nation states frequently lacking a home base, as it were. Diasporas are thus uniquely individuals lacking any government or other trappings of ‘civilised’ states but sharing some common tradition or trait.

So when a diaspora declares war on a nation state, what is the nation state to do?

Nation states have readily identifiable armed forces, army, airforce, navy etc., which the diaspora, by definition cannot have. So if you are a general commanding an army of the nation state, confronted with a belligerant diaspora, what would you do? Who do you fight, for starters. Which army? More pertinently what army?

Given the diaspora would have individuals who might be armed and thus engaged in a guerilla war against the army of the nation state, what could the nation state do in order to protect its citizens? One solution would be to round up all the members of the diaspora inside the nation state and quarantine them in a fenced camp.  Another alternative would be to exterminate the diaspora in the hope that the guerilla section would thus be destroyed but at great cost for the diaspora.

And what policies might the diaspora adopt as a belligerent, having been the first to declare war. Not having a standing army or any armed force, the diaspora might then deploy a mercenary force against the warred against nation state; a proxy army as it were.

Of course the fact of a diaspora declaring war on a nation state in the first place is an act of stupidity and folly, and very much like shooting onself in the foot. As Forrest Gump mused, stupid is as stupid does, and often its the brightest and most intellectual among us, living in their make-believe imaginal world, who frequently need the urgent need of pedicare for their intemperate belligerance.

An Origin of Religion

Some believe that a long, long time ago humans existed as unthinking hairless monkeys living with other animals in a garden of eden or paradise but that this paradise was sundered when humans sinned, leading to the development of religion(s).

Some Indian mystics and ‘gurus’ teach of a human state of awareness in the absence of thought, a natural state of being different to an unnatural state dominated by the physical process of thinking, the development of thought from which abstract concepts, based on memory, occur, and which are then used to imagine future states of utopias as a reminder of what humanity believed its origins lay.  There’s another perspective one might consider.

If originally humans did not think, but simply existed, a state of awareness described by J and UG Krishnamurti, among others, and some cosmic catastrophe occurred drastically changing the nature of ‘paradise’ irrevocably they then existed in, then one human adaption to the changed circumstances or environment may have been the development of memory, as an ancient state of Traumatic Stress Disorder which was escaped by recalling the pleasant memories of the now absent paradise of the garden of eden.  Dwelling on the memory of paradise was thus an escape from the terror of having one’s paradise destroyed by the unpredictable behaviour of the previously unthreatening behaviour of the prodigies, or gods, in the heavens; (see Thunderbolts.info site for one, of many, explanations of mythology). Thought thus became an escape from physical reality.

In essence the development of thinking, essentially the recollection of memories over time that developed into descriptions/words, which were developed into complex phrases and sentences etc that became ever more complex as humans, initially distracted by, but now becoming habituated from the repetition of soothing thoughts of future heavens, paradises or utopias, started to develop language. From this primeval start of grunts and whatever vocalisation our ancestors created, the human mind evolved into an imaginative virtual world that was essentially an escape from the brutal necessities of physical existence; in other words the start of religion in which the imagination of a future blissful state became the escape from the horrible present. And the more more devout one was to one’s beliefs, whether religious or secular, the stronger the wish to escape from physical existence/reality.

The ideological dogmatic could be thus seen as the intellectual equivalent of drug junkies, both involved in escaping from physical reality, one by the workings of the imagination and the solace of religious ritual and spiritual bliss, the other by the more crass physical substance abuse; the common factor being habituation of a stimulus, and the escape from the present.

Hillary, Islam and Methodism

One view of the present US Presidential election is that the drive behind the Democrats and specifically Hillary Clinton may be rooted in a deeper religious conviction – that of the second coming anticpated by the Christian evangelicals, Orthodox judaeans and fundamental Islamicists.

If we also consider the religious as drug addicts, then the prophesies of the Abrahamic religions involving the appearance of the Mahdi, Messiah, etc and the creation of paradise or utopia, is really no different to the physical drug addict’s wish for perpetual escape into whatever the drugs they take provide. Marx was right – religion is an opiate – but his solution was wrong then as it remains now.

But escape from what? Fear, of the present that is based on the past and that leads to Velikovsky and planetary amnesia, and the denial that our past was ever catastrophic.

The understanding of this fear lies in our gaining and understanding of the process of thinking, for it is this process of thinking that has created the Ego, the mind, which then creates the patterns of thought that mesmerise our minds, and thus our brains, into trance-like states of religiosity, whether theological via organised religions, or secular via organised ideologies.  Perpetual constant thinking is itself an escape from what is.

Google Jiddu Krishnamurti and U.G. Krishnamurti for further insights.

 

Religion as a Habit

It’s reasonable to consider the possibility that religion is a specific habit of thinking, in which a specific pattern of thought is repeated until it becomes automatic and thus habitual.  The goal of religion may be spiritual bliss, whether in the here and now, or in an afterlife. But spirtual bliss is simply a metaphysical version of utopia, a materialistic state of bliss, as it were. And drug addicts consume their drugs to generate a physical state of bliss.

So the religious are simply the metaphysical versions of physical drug addicts.

What’s The Difference?

So super-sensitive, self-identified communist Vanessa Badham twits:

Screen Shot 2016-07-15 at 5.57.48 AM

Alternatives might be:

I’m a Christian, Fran. My only loyalty is to the project of Christianity, or

I’m a Muslim, Fran. My only loyalty is to the project of Islam, or

I’m a Bhuddist, Fran. My only loyalty is to the project of Bhuddism, or

I’m a Hindu, Fran. My only loyalty is to the project of Hinduism, or

I’m a [enter what you think you are], Fran. My only loyalty is to the project of [enter your ‘ism’].

It’s like the tower of Babel, no? United we stand, divided we fall.

Armstrong Economics & The Grand Plan

One of the more mystifying aspects of the Armstrong Economics phenomena is the lack of establishment criticism. This is interesting, very interesting because the prime driver behind this company’s public utterings is its computer model in which it is asserted that “the computer program” that is based on chronological cycles based on multiples of Pi, to put it at its simplest, does not need nor requires human intervention.

What mystifies me is Martin Armstrong’s period under detention and why he was released at all. Usually recalcitrants are quietly disposed of, or terminated, to be blunt about it.

Having people act according to the output of some enormous computer program seems to me to be very much a Big Brother type of control. So I wonder if MA is out there as a most sophisticated ploy to have any opposition to the Grand Plan directed away from it, but at the same time capture them by the Socrates system which is being touted as the superior alternative to New World Order.

I’m uncomfortable with the belief we are fundamentally robots, robots of a biological kind, that should really act on the basis of a massive computer system.

Is the business cycle intrinsic to physical reality? Or is it simply believed to be intrinsic to reality. While the diurnal rotation of the Earth is physical fact, as is its oribit around the Sun, and our solar system around the center of the galaxy of which we are part, the fact we are able to modify and alter or abstain from robotic behaviour by the application of will, suggests Armstrong’s theory needs to be treated with caution.

There is a distinct possibility Socrates has been set up as the ultimate authority for the rest of us to obey; we are goyim for a reason, after all.