Archive for the ‘philosophy’ Category

How The Left Maipulates Language To Make Dangerous Ideass Seem Benign

March 24, 2017

<!– Authored by ReturnOfKings.com via The Burning Platform, –>

The political left, as they like to style themselves because it sounds less threatening than the more honest ‘authoritarian control freaks, bases much of its campaign rhetoric on conflict-mongering. Left wing political movements have always had as their raison d’ê that they are against something; capitalism, monarchy, religion, inequality, injustice, whether real or fantasized. In the past, when the social orders of the developed world were dominated by rigid class systems that prevented social mobility, left wing politics masked the real nature of what it stood for, replacing the old oppressive elite with a new, often more oppressive elite, by posing as something positive or progressive, the defenders of the working class (or more emotively, ‘the downtrodden masses’. To this end, generations of communists, socialists and paternalistic liberals twisted language to make themselves appear benign while the demon of the day (capitalism, conservatism, religion etc. was pained as something evil and threatening.

Eighteenth century libertines claimed to defend “freedom” while faith became “fanaticism” and “superstition.” In reality they demanded total freedom for the rich from all moral constraints. Double standards and hypocrisy was rife among these ‘liberals.’ A young female servant who fell pregnant after an (often coercive) encounter with the master’s son was classed as morally deficient and condemned to a life of shame and infamy, while the man could evade any responsibility, simply on the basis that the word of a gentleman would always be believed over the word of a ‘low born’ person.

Later, Karl Marx paved the way for emotionally needy virtue signallers to pose as “intellectuals” siding with “the masses,” against authority. The problem there was the intellectuals only cared about the social kudos they could gain by presenting themselves as defenders of the defenceless. Their self image depended on the masses remaining as ignorant, grovelling and eternally grateful for the patronage.

Some manipulated the media into pretending they were part of the “oppressed,” Jews, Roman Catholics, homosexuals or lesbians and thus entitled to sympathy when they were actually hateful, anti-middle-class Marxists who believed their delusions of moral superiority entitled them to be part of a new, academic elite, a meritocracy.

The whole theory of “progress” as it exists in liberal democracies of the developed world where a consensus has formed around the ideology dubbed Cultural Marxism Marx—society ought is that a society should move from capitalism to a collectivist utopia in which the individual interest is subsumed under the desire to serve the community. This is wishful thinking, look what happened in Sovie yett Russian under the communist tyranny of Lenin and Stalin, in communist China under they tyranny of Chairman Mao and his Red Guard, in Cuba, the Soviet satellite states of Europe and most of all in Cambodia under the murderous regime of Pol Pot.

While casting themselves as liberators of the working class and rewriting history to present a self-favoring view of their rise to power, Marxist regimes have always quickly become dictatorships prepared to kill millions of innocent people in order to quash dissent. History seems to have forgotten that in 1870 the Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin warned Karl Marx that a future communist government would rapidly become more oppressive than the old monatchies of Russia and central Europe. History has proved him right.

Just as globalist corporatism destroys communities and enslaved poor and middle income families through debt, cultural Marxist ‘progressivism’ serves to destroy not only nations but cultures and communities. homelands. As long as people can be deceived by buzzwords into belieing some kind of utopia can be achieved if humans surrender their individual sovereignty to collective interests, the confidence trick that both socialism and communism are based on will retains its grip over their minds.

Socialism and communism are in fact the most extreme form of elitism. ‘The Controllers’, (as Aldous Huxley called them in brave New World) or ‘the inner party’ of George Orwell’s big Brother regime in the novel 1984 live in the greatest extremes of privilege and splendour while the masses labour in squalor.

Here are some of the buzzwords that are actual political ploys used by the left in their sinister schemes to worm their way into power.

1. Equality

Perhaps the most massive totem pole of it all. Written, shouted, used as a talisman an indefinite number of times, “equality” has been put forth to justify various mass killings from eighteenth century terror to twentieth century Bolshevism, and closer to us served to unleash female hypergamy and alien millions of young straight-white-males from the societies they should belong in.

Equality exists in mathematics. A number can be equal to another because an abstract unit can be replaced with another abstract unit without change. Mathematical equality exists because abstract units are identical with each other. Outside from the realm of pure quantity, qualitative differences emerge, and thus equality ought to be defined negatively as the absence of difference both in quantity and quality.

It is easy to see that equality between individual beings—not numbers—is a fiction, an attempt to perceive individuals as abstractions or numbers, void of any quality, personality or specificity. Equalitarianism stems from a rather incomplete view of the beings it pretends to apply to, and gets quickly used as a mask for envy or the will to grab something or exert power over someone.

Although equality can enter into the definition of true justice as equanimity—see Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, quote—, more than often, the word is used to foster particular interests at the expense of the wider social equilibrium, to fan the flames of division and sedition, and later, to deny vocations, human biodiversity, complementarity as it implies differences in nature and functions, not to mention ugly tradeoffs where some manipulative group plays the victim or claims rights to what doesn’t belong to them.

2. “Social” “justice”

Are you a victim? Are you victim of a particular inequality? Then you are living an injustice, and this wrong ought to be compensated. This simple framing has been widely used by anti-white, anti-male, anti-Western leftists to create a feeling of victimhood among various social categories. They used this powerful feeling to mount new social identities, inspired from Marxist classes—feminism isn’t about femininity but about women identifying as a separate, adversarial group, whose interests would be antagonistic to men’s—, and perpetual charges hung over the majority’s heads: Racist; Sexist; homophobe; Islamophobe; nationalist; And so on.

“Social justice” covers a blending of several features: an accusatory, anti-white, anti-male, anti-Western narrative, that taints and darkens past history; a feeling of victimhood and class identity for so-called “minorities” integrated into the wider narrative; the systematic, and very real, disenfranchisement and displacement of the majority that finds itself condemned to play the role of the bad guy—and hence charged—in said narrative. In this sense, “social justice” is deeply divisive, defamatory, aggressive, and amounts to a Moloch that eats families, nationhood, and most men.

Actual justice, call it social or not, is of course far from such a terrible conception. Methinks true justice should acknowledge the fact that we are the sons of the Western civilizations, its human substance and legitimate heirs, and that we have a prime right over it. We should have jobs, freedom of speech, protection over violent crowds, a right to fair judgment instead of getting screwed over by HR, “minority” impunity and pussy pass, a right to chances to thick relationships with at least some women instead of clowning our ways through hypergamy… Don’t forget we need to formalize at least some of our intuitions about what’s fair or not to replace the wicked theory of “justice” the Left shatters us with.

3. “Progress” (and the “reactionaries”)

This overrated buzzword has been straightforward long ago. Its Latin root, progressus, stems from the root verb gradior (walk, advance) and was mostly used in a military context, as in the sentence “the army is progressing into enemy territory.” Since then, it has been used analogically to qualify any advancement, even purely relative or fantasised ones.

The Left, following the pompous philosophies of Marx, Tolstoy, Lenin, Bertrand Russell and harold Laskey enshrined its own notion of progress into a general theory of history, thus making it absolute rather than relative. When various strands of modernity clash—for example, individual freedom and collective well-being, which one is “progressive”? Each can be used to fulfill a particular notion of progress. Aside perhaps from technological breakthroughs, “progress” is deeply relative. Even the most shining realizations of genius imply the sacrifice of thousands of potential choices that have been discarded during the process. The Left chose to forget this truth in order to judge everything and everyone from its own authoritarian and binary perspective.

If you do some research about such characters as, say, Ayn Rand and Lothrop Stoddard, you’ll notice they have been widely labelled “reactionary.” Yet each of them was a progressive in his own right. Rand considered industrial development and individual freedom as obvious landmarks of progress: she opposed vehemently to the environmentalist and collectivist—that is, anti-industrial, anti-economic growth, anti-conservative right as a “return of the primitive.”

<!– As for Lothrop Stoddard, he rebuffed Bolshevism and environmentalism as pre-scientific ratiocinations that willingly ignored human differences and the proper value of civilization. These “mistakes”, he said, are older than biological discoveries and stem from “degenerate” elements who would rather destroy civilization than letting it progress without them.

The only new thing about Bolshevism is its ” rationalizing ” of rebellious emotions into an exceedingly insidious and persuasive philosophy of revolt which has not merely welded all the real social rebels, but has also deluded many misguided dupes, blind to what Bolshevism implies. (Stoddard, Revolt Against Civilization, chap.8)

I also remember an old-fashioned Marxist who claimed feminism was “reactionary” because, he said, it comes from the wealthy and urbanized bourgeoisie, and hijacks the attention and care given to working classes for the benefit of actual exploiters. This guy’s progressivism has fallen out of grace, likely because it showed unable to destroy Western countries, but he is no less right according to his own logic.

Now, of course, we could say that MRAs are the real progressives as men’s rights are a progress, or that asserting our identities and associated rights are a progress, perhaps more so than SJW savagery and unrestrained hypergamy.

4. Openness or open-mindedness

We all heard about how being “open to new ideas” and possibilities, or being “open-minded” was good. In practice, what the liberals mean when they talk about openness or open-minded is “be a Leftist and believe in our notion of progress.” You have to be uncritical, hyper-sympathetic towards the last tranny or BLM activist that whines about how mistreated and misunderstood he is—and if you are “open” to wasting your money on the latest trendy fashion, it is even better.

But try being open-minded towards what the Left tags as “far right” or “extreme”, for example men’s right, race realism, skepticism on their dogmas such as anthropogenic global warming, or tradition… and it won’t be long before they shriek at you, in a typical display of rather irrational dirtiness psychology. “These ideas are impure! They are contagious!”

Open-mindedness along their lines means being gullible to media and college propaganda. You have to let the managers and social engineers fabric your consent, as Chomsky would put it. They want your mind to be open so they can fulfill it with self-hate and garbage. When it comes to better things libtards suspend open-mindedness, to the point of refusing any objective inquiry and hiding behind their biased, accusatory rhetoric.

In itself, openness or open-mindedness is a double-edged sword. It can, and should be used by those who are intelligent or morally structured enough to toy with potentially dangerous ideas. As to the others, those who are too easily tempted or misdirect by demagogues, especially women—who by their vote always favoured an anti-family, economy-devouring Big State—, the low-IQ and the unhinged, I think they should follow the lead of more qualified individuals.

5. Modern nationhood and citizenship

Since time immemorial peoples have been ethnocultural groups. Romans used the term natio to refer to a particular people, say, the Gaul, the Goths or the Basque. They also used the term civis to refer to a man as a member of his city, thus belonging to it.

Both words have been emptied of their substantial meaning. “Nation” is now mostly used to denote an abstract, bureaucratized State whom anyone can be a national if the bureaucrats hand him a stamped piece of paper. “Citizenship” refers to the pretense to identify with a particular public responsibility or to a world under globalist power: Leftists often claim to be “just citizens” or speak “in the name of the citizens of X place” when they are actually carrying cultural warfare. Remember when a bunch of hateful swindlers tried to rob Sherry Spencer, Richard Spencer’s mom, of her real estate by forcing her to sell it at a cheap price? Complacent media said they were just citizens, or that “the town” was doing it. Yeah, sure.

Citizenship today is a mean to virtue-signal when you are an urban elf. It has become empty, fictitious—it refers to a world of nowhere and more subtly to belonging to a globalist class that abandoned its actual fellow citizens or ethnic brothers long ago.

6. “Social struggles” and “achievements”

When they referred to actually good causes, such as trade unions maintaining a high standard of living for most workers and fostering a meritocratic middle-class, these words ringed well. Today, they seem to refer more to the unwarranted privileges of State officers—when theft through taxes and economic rent are presented as something “social.”

The heroic epic of “social achievements”, which conveniently forgets that there is no free lunch and that if a particular segment of population benefits much from them it must be at the expense of the others, covers a host of barely examined ill effects. When it is used to glorify the welfare State, it forgets how such a State tends to disintegrate organic social life by taking away charity or generosity, how it fosters a big parasitic and paternalist State, how it allows females to destroy their families, or how it attracts immigrants eager to get a check and imposes unfair burdens on the productive citizens—I’m thinking about, say, the middle classes who paid for Obamacare, not about cutting taxes for Monsanto.

Conclusion

From fake smiles and cute façades to seemingly innocuous buzzwords such as “you go girl”, “sex positivity” or “self-acceptance” – which sounds better than complacency – the culture conflict-mongerers managed to push their disruptions and degeneration into normality. One step at a time, from actual normalcy to an alien nation, all this believing they were cool or on the good side of history.

Shatter the illusion by explaining what stands behind and unveil the inner vacuity or potentially polymorphous use of the word. May progress not be “progress” and may the mainstream view of justice not be the anti-white, misandric “social justice.” They aren’t smarter than we are, just more manipulative. –>

RELATED POSTS:

Greenteeth Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] … [ Writerbeat ] … [ Daily Stirrer.shtml ]…[Little Nicky Machiavelli]… [ Ian’s Authorsden Pages ]… [ It’s Bollocks My Dears, All Bollocks ] … [ Minds ] [Scribd]…[Wikinut] … [ Boggart Abroad] … [ Grenteeth Bites ] … [ Latest Posts ] [Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] … [Latest Posts] … [ Tumblr ] … [ Authorsden blog ] … [Daily Stirrer Headlines]
[ Ian at Facebook ]

Freedom Of Thought And Information: Quotes.

March 22, 2017

If the ruling elites want to establish global control they need to be able to control all information the general population have access to. The idea of controlling information in order to limit the ability to think and develop ideas served Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and many other dictators well but was completely exposed by George Orwell in the novel ‘1984’.

In recent decades the technique for controlling thoughts and ideas has been more subtle, but that has not prevented many commentators higlighting what is going on.

“If those in charge of our society – politicians, corporate executives, and owners of press and television – can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves.” — Howard Zinn, historian and author

“The corporate grip on opinion in the United States is one of the wonders of the Western world. No First World country has ever managed to eliminate so entirely from its media all objectivity” – much less dissent. Gore Vidal

“Understand that all battles are waged on an unconscious level before they are begun on the conscious one, and this battle is no different. The power structure wishes us to believe that the only options available are those which they present to us, we know this is simply not true.” – Teresa Stover

“People in the West need to understand that if the news they receive bears on the interests of the US military/security complex, the news is scripted by the CIA. The CIA serves its interests, not the interests of the American people or the interests of peace.” – Paul Craig Roberts

In the years the USA could claim with some credibility to be the only global superpower, the elites managed to gain control of print and broadcast media throughout the developed world. Unfortunately the technology developed as a tool to to enhance the ability of the elite to control information while maintaining the illusion of freedom, The Internet, backfired on them. The General public forever despised by intellectuals and derided by the elite and the media proved to be a lot more intelligent and adaptable than ‘the controllers’ suspected.

RELATED POSTS:

Elsewhere: [ The Original Boggart Blog] … [ Daily Stirrer.shtml ]…[Little Nicky Machiavelli]… [ Ian’s Authorsden Pages ]… [ It’s Bollocks My Dears, All Bollocks ] [Scribd]…[Wikinut] … [ Boggart Abroad] … [ Grenteeth Bites ] … [ Latest Posts ] [Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] … [Latest Posts] … [ Tumblr ] … [ Authorsden blog ] … [Daily Stirrer Headlines]

[ Ian at Facebook ]

Alien Life? Who Needs Lizard Men? There Is A Universe Of Ideas Out There.

August 23, 2016

by Ian R Thorpe
6 August, 2016

Since before civilization began there have been prophets, visionaries, dreamers (or dickheads according to one’s point of view) who have had a very different perspective on life, the universe and everything.* to that held by the mainstream of society. In the Book of Revelation, Saint John the Divine claimed to have seen ‘a new heaven and a new earth’. Chaucer, in the Dream Vision The House of Fame, travels into the heavens on the back of an eagle, which tells him that ‘in this region, certeyn, dwelleth many a citezeyn’.

An idea popular among theoretical physicists which they probably think is new (such people are to be pitied for their naive belief in science, reason and logic,) is the theory of the multiverse, an infinite number of dimensions in each of which exists a separate universe. The idea is not new, as you might expect of any ‘new’ idea proposed by theoretical physicists (they’re good at equations but otherwise not very bright.) Giordano Bruno in the sixteenth century argued for an infinite number of inhabited worlds, with intelligent beings existing on other planets throughout the universe.

Until two hundred years ago, the visionaries and the dreamers controlled the game. The belief that the universe was only a few thousand years old was so well embedded in the human psyche that Shakespeare’s Rosalind could mention it in passing: ‘The poor world is almost 6,000 years old.’ In such a young universe only intelligent design could be a satisfactory explanation for complexity and diversity of life, and a God-created universe could contain all kinds of wonders. It is no surprise that William Blake saw angels in the trees of Peckham Rye, (anyone following his footsteps today would see plastic carrier bags and condoms) and that Emanuel Swedenborg claimed he had conversed with spirits from Mars, Venus, Mercury, Saturn, Jupiter and the moon.

In the centuries following the renaissance of the sciences our understanding of the universe has been completely transformed and with it our knowledge of life on Earth. Geology provides the timeline for evolution; Darwin and his followers described the processes involved. Our more recent understanding of DNA and the workings of genetics provide the tool kit for evolutionary processes. On Earth, instead of regarding ourselves as a unique species, created in the image of our creator we now realise that homo sapiens sapiens (man who knows he knows) is the survivor of a large genus of hominids. It is only the relatively recent extinction of our most persistent competitors, the Neanderthals, that has led us to imagine a human – centric universe.

The change in our universe – view was initially from speculation to investigation, from vision to observation. Every decade has brought new discoveries that broadened our knowledge and understanding of the world to the point we have at last reached: now on the threshold of truly wondrous advances in understanding our scientists seem hellbent on abandoning scientific study in favour of speculation and theory once more.

Astronomers and physicists claim we are on the threshold of discovering planets that could support lifeforms similar to ours, lifeforms that we could recognise and investigate on a scientific basis. The pace of discovery is rapid and accelerating, because we recognise the significance of the search and are devoting enormous resources to it. This only proves what a bunch of dickheads, fuckwits and tunnel visioned idiots physicists really are. They cannot see beyond their own narrow interests. There may be planets out there on which Homo Heidelbergensis – or Homo Neranderthalis, like species are surviving as primitive humans did. There might just as well be highly developed species who regard our civilizations as no more significant than ant’s nests and who would suck us up in a tractor beam into the belly of their mothership to reduce us to basic nutrients.

The scientists who talk about making contact with aliens (based on the flimsiest of evidence that there might, just might, by some one in a billion chance there could be a planet orbiting some distant star that might, just might, by some one in a billion chance support a life form like ours that really wants to be best mates with humanity and go for picnics, attend the First Church of Christ Astronaut services and support “liberal” causes with us are crazy. These are the people who want to spend whatever it takes on discovering the fundamental particle that holds everything together (the Higgs Boson or God particle) and yet vehemently deny the existence of God. These are the nut jobs who are turning science into a religion. Their kind of science has replaced observation, experiment, investigation and critical analysis with dogma, made icons of mathematical models and the statistics they produce, turned untestable theories into a creed and scriptures, and insisted things that may or may not have happened unimaginable distances away and incredibly long ago have been proved by speculative mathematics and statistics derived by subjectively interpreting data. Hand having deluded themselves into believing their fantasies are true they stand on a bogus scientific authority to insist these truths are unchallengeable.

The only reason people would try to convince the world that such infantile fantasies are in fact true is they have such limited intelligence they cannot deal with abstract ideas. Thus they insist that Big Bang Theory is a proven fact, when in fact it is just another variation on creationism. Leaving aside the creation myth of The Book Of Genesis which is really two creation myths in one, some creation stories are quite interesting. The alt_creation in the New Testament’s Gospel of St. John for example, which starts “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.” OK, what does it mean, you might well ask.  Nobody can really tell you with any certainty, but here’s an idea. The word for God in one of the regional dialects (there was no cohesive ‘Hebrew’ language, but many dialects of Aramaic, the common tongue of the middle east region) was Ea or Jah. This means “I am.” So we are led to ask is the creation really the dawning of consciousness? Think that’s bollocks? Renaissance artist Michaelangelo didn’t. Below is his depiction “The creation of Adam,” from the ceiling in Rome’s Sistine Chapel. Note how God is not forming Adam from clay as in the Genesis version, but is reaching out to touch a fully formed human. For what? To bestow the gift of consciousness perhaps?

tony3

That’s one take on creation, the one in the Zoroastrian Avesta is in some ways similar. The Zoroastrians were great astrologers (in the true sense – study of the movements of stars, not fortune telling) and knew the earth was round. Their god, Ormazd or Ahuru Mazda however created the world of intelligent humans by flattening it (making maps possible) and ‘squaring the circle’ (mathematics) so that area and distance could be measures. Thus in  a way the development of those arts and sciences gave us consciousness by granting our ancestors the ability to be aware of their place in our environment.

My personal favourite creation story belongs to the Uitoto people of the Orinoco rain forest in South America. Here’s how Sacred Texts presents it:

In the beginning, the word gave origin to the Father. A phantasm, nothing else existed in the beginning; the Father touched an illusion, he grasped something mysterious. Nothing existed. Through the agency of a dream our Father Naimuena [he who is or has a phantasm] kept the mirage to his body, and he pondered long and thought deeply. Nothing existed, not even a stick to support the vision: our Father attached the illusion to the thread of a dream and kept it by the aid of his breath.

Don’t get carried away by your rationalism, I said I like the story, not that I believe it. But you will find plenty of respected philosophers and scientists in the developed world who will argue that our world is an illusion, what we see is not solid objects but energy (light) reflected off objects.And physics can offer us no better explanation of matter than that it is highly compressed energy. We really understand very little about the universe of which we are part.

Twenty years ago it was agreed that while in a universe estimated to contain hundreds of billions of galaxies each comprised of hundreds of billions of stars anything might be possible and it was very likely there were other intelligent life forms out there, we had no positive evidence of the existence of extra solar planets. Now scientists claim we know of 700, and the Kepler mission indicates that there may be 50 billion in our galaxy alone. Already the astrophysicist Steven Vogt has claimed that the likelihood of life existing on the unromantically named planet Gliese 581g is ‘100%’. But what real evidence is there of this. A bunch of people whose living comes from taxpayers funded sinecures, they are paid by us to spend their lives sitting around stargazing in other words, have looked at electro magnetic radiation coming from space in the region where these stars and their planets are though to be and interpreted it; “Oh look at that frequency pattern, from my equations using data extrapolated from mathematical models of the universe, we see clear evidence this energy has passed close by a body with an Oxygen / Nitrogen atmosphere on which carbon based life forms might be able to flourish.” Evidence? It wouldn’t stand up in a court of law. Scientists, in spite of their delusions, are just human beings and like the rest of us are inclined to see what they expect to see.

Obviously claims such as Vogt’s are complete bollocks. One only has to note the ways in which words like might, maybe, possibly and chance are used to see the authors of such guff are just phishing for research grants. In fact even a lay person reading this account will ascertain that Vogt’s childish enthusiasm for playing with Star Wars toys finding evidence of alien life has got the better of his common sense. The joint discoverer of Gliese 581g is a little more objective however, as the link shows.

Alpha Centauri, the nearest star cluster is over 4 years journey away at the speed of light (186,000 miles or about 300,000 km per second). The fastest spacecraft we have ever launched however would take 70,000 years to reach the closest star in Alpha Centauri. We should not forget that the universe, defined as that which is with the shock wave that has emanated out from Big Bang at the speed of light for 13 billion years (estimated) is … chuffing big. Now a light year is the distance travelled by light at the aforementioned speed and our fastest spacecraft as at March 2011 when I looked it up is 17 km per second (around 11 miles) although that is in a heliocentic orbit, the fastest we have on a trajectory that will take it out of our solar system is going at a mere 15.75 km per second because of the effect of solar gravity. I carried out that little exercise in response to a bunch of “scientists” who were yelling about how important it was for governments and international agencies to start throwing money into a fiscal black hole named “Let’s build spaceship to take us half witted wankers to the stars.” To put this into perspective our current fastest spacecraft would reach the nearest star, the Alpha Centauri constellation, in 70,000 years. And to get to Gliese 581g, the nearest planet yet discovered that might just might, possibly support some form of life, would take 20 times as long. Ad think how disappointed those scientists would be if they found life on that planet had not evolved beyond the amoeba stage or worse still had become extinct during humanity’s journey to greet them.

If we were to commission an exploratory expedition lasting say 40 years to Proxima Centauri, the closest star in the Alpha Centauri group at a distance of approx 4.2 light years from earth we would need to build a spacecraft capable of a tenth the speed of light, 18,600 miles or 30,000 kilometers per second. Now remember that what we have now, even with the pedal to the metal will only do 16 km per second. It is not science these imbeciles are talking about, it’s science fiction.

Not only do we have not have any new technology on the horizon capable of achieving such speeds but new materials would be needed to resist the stresses on the spacecraft and very possibly a completely new type of human being to cope with conditions on board the craft and devote forty years of their life to something that pointless.

What would be the consequences of the discovery of alien life, even if it were of the merest microbial life form on a planet orbiting a distant star? Well apart from “scientists” all round the world having a spontaneous orgasm and running off to change their underwear, none at all. If such a planet were to be discovered in our solar system it would be a different matter but no such planet exists in our solar system. Our species has developed its beliefs, its cultures, its religions on the basis of our uniqueness, on the idea that we are alone, the only truly intelligent life form in the universe. Some believe this universe was specifically designed for us – and I am not just talking of religious creationists here. Physicist Dr. John Gribben (In Search Of The Multiverse) proposes the universe may have been designed by an intelligent life for much like ourselves – I do not agree but it is an idea and this article is about ideas not mathematics. Incontrovertible proof that we are not alone would force us to reexamine all our knowledge, to build new theories of life, its origins, its diversity, perhaps its purpose. If we discover one life form we will discover many, for the universe is vast and the number of stars almost uncountable. Somewhere out there, almost certainly, would be life forms that possess intelligence recognisably like our own, for they will have developed by the same laws of evolution, bound by the same physics and chemistry that we know on Earth. Should we prioritize seeking contact with these hypothetical life forms, ahead of matters like feeding our growing population of meeting increasing demand for food, water and raw materials. What if they turn out to be bigger, harder and more technically advance than us … and complete bastards to boot.

Though the level of our current knowledge suggests humans will be earth bound for the foreseeable future there is a universe of ideas out there in the deep space of our minds waiting to be explored. In addition to Gribben’s Designer Universe we have the possibilities of Quantum Entanglements which I have written about in a deliberately provocative way, the Morphic Resonance theory proposed by biologist Dr. Rupert Sheldrake and the ideas of many other pioneers in various branches of the sciences. And then there are the ideas of philosophers, both humanist and religious, the philosophies of established religions and the speculations of modern visionaries, artists, poets and writers. I find it particularly sad that among people who claim to be “scientists” (though in reality they are science fans, a dogmatic approach has taken hold. These people will try to suppress or shout down discussion of interesting, off – message ideas because they are convinced there is only one idea and one way of thinking that can possibly be right.

* Life, the universe and everything: a line from Douglas Adams’ Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galaxy. I mention it because in an article some time ago when I used this very well known phrase one of those cupid stunts who commented, the type of person whose only contribution to the exchange of ideas on the internet is to attack original thought and try to suppress free discussion accused me of plagiarism in a pathetic attempt to discredit my article.

The Battle Of Ideas festival

RELATED POSTS:

Chinese Lunar Rover Finds No Evidence of American Moon Landings
As the ‘Science Squad’ (Brian Cox, Dara O’Briain and assorted Star Wars fans) get hyper over Major Tim Peake ‘going into space’ I call for scepticism. He hasn’t gone into ‘space’, the space station is in a fixed orbit 250 miles above the earth and that is within the earth’s atmosphere, in the layer known as The Thermosphere, which is not even the outermost sphere of the atmosphere.

It Doesn’t Take Much To get Scientists Excited

Yesterday we saw on television news bulletins pictures of scientists jumping up and down, screaming and shouting and generally behaving they way we would expect from Liverpool football supporters if they heard Mario Balotelli had been transferred to another club. What was the cause of this celebrationete? You might well ask …

Creativity Must Triumph Over Conformity
Bruce Elkin argues that to save civilisation creativity must triumph over conformity. We must kick our addiction to consumption, rediscover the things that are really important and use the unique abilities of humans to create a society in which fullfillment is the goal rather than wealth and power. In other words we must redefine what we mean by success.

Why The Intellectual Elitie Truly Despise The Lower Classes
Have you noticed that the professional hand wriners of the left have shifted their focus from ‘the poor’ to minorities. They did not succeed in abolishing poverty so what’s going on? Simples. The intellectual left having elected themselves to speak for the poor found the poor were able to speakl for themselves and resented posh pokenoses pontification about matters of which understanding cannot be gained by reading books. This article exposes the hypocrisy of the left …

Science, Certanties and Stereotypes
The left are always quick to accuse their opponents of stereotyping but when it comes to embracing certainties and applying stereotypes there is no political group worse than the left, which includes the supporters of politicised science and the miolitant atheists for stereotyping their opponents as a way to suppress views opposed to their own. …

Scalar Waves – the true sustainable energy

Why has science become so intolerant of those who question

The Truth Is Not Out There

Before Big Bang part 1

Before Big Bang part 2

Brian Cox’s wonders of the universe replaces reality with computer simulations

Are we becoming slaves of our machines

Alchemy For Beginners

Carl Sagan Day

We Need A Culture of Existentialism To Counter Scientific pseudoreligion

Not Intelligent Design but a Designer Universe

Turd Nine From Outer Space

Return Of Turd Nine From Outer Space
Quantum metaphysics: forget the God Particle, this will blow your mind.
Scientists claim to have created artificial life in a laboratory are just showeboating
Did you see that? Those half feen shadows might be Amoeba Constabulae
Life on Mars – a crazy look at how the ‘canals’ on the red planet might have been made
Who wants to live forever? In an overpopulated world what is the point of science trying to extend our lifespan
Clear Night – across the universe in a thought

Atomic Verse – a poem on quantum physics

CREATIVE COMMONS: Attribute, non commercial, no derivs.