Thursday, 22 December 2016

New Age Inner-Conflict

New Age Inner-Conflict


I consider most new age ideas to be half-delusion because most people involved seem to know it's false, or likely to be incorrect, yet get comfort from the ideas. They'd love to have blind faith, they crave an assured world view, yet are unable to accept everything. So they pick nice things and just remain uncritical, as to not cause offence. The average new ager might well be a person who hungers for the illusions they wish to believe, rather than the truly deluded wide-eyed mystic. 

They want to believe in angels, fairies, god and energy, they want to swallow the stories that should comfort them, and yet, they know it is a matter of believing in something they desperately want to be true. The beliefs are important features to them, the idea of a greater meaning and a never ending story across the endless meadow of eternity. It's catchy and desirable. Yet, they often know it is not true, or, should I say, as untrue as to be unreal, since the level of evidence is personal, questionable, or the same kind of nonsense we see from conventional religious beliefs. 

When a belief claims truth and the proof the faithful think they have a cast-iron value to their intangible irrationality, even if the best they have is a series of fallacies, hearsay and hyperbole. The new age believer picks the least demanding kind of religious belief and refuses to take it too seriously, effectively helping to spread nonsense to those who might well be more vulnerable to the methods of the con artist and/or cult leader. 

The average new age spiritualist might well be one who has beliefs, they might well have faith, yet they know how they started the journey. Through a need for comfort, they grasped at a collection of ideas that offer great support while not dealing with real world issues, and even avoiding reality and all of its troubles. So in some cases, rather than admitting real world issues need actual solutions, they pick denial over rationality, and they hope by their act that they troubles will melt away if they believe an archangel can help. Rather than coping with a dead in their family, they pick a fantasy, that we never die, that we go on and even reincarnate, and we have ever been alive because you cannot destroy energy. 

Fantasy has some value, it can stop people from being depressed, from suffering hardship, from being consumed by fear, and yet when you think clearly you know fact from fiction, you know the fairies aren't at the bottom of the garden. It takes many years of being misguided and misdirecting yourself to become truly deluded, and even then the plotholes in the tale remain.

Maybe it is only the truly psychotic who believe to the absolute degree as their minds break from reality?? 

Sunday, 25 September 2016

Gender Identity Contionued...

]More notes from recent thoughts on this subject, see my early article for more thoughts, and more may follow in the future.]  

You may identify as whatever you wish, this doesn't mean you scientifically are the case, with gender fluid and other variables this identity choice is even more illogical from a factual point of view, however, tolerating such identities isn't a problem. What is a problem is confusion over what gender it at the culture level, and how this social understanding is not compatible with the scientific definition of gender. Knowing that radically different points relate to differing areas of thought and study create different results, the pseudoscience of many social justice activists are massively biased to the fundamental views of culture imposing gender identity, which they take as gender in totality, whereas, the less left voices focus on the scientific view only, such as chromosomes. The fact is there are chromosomal and chemical imbalance reasons for gender characteristics meaning the general conservative view is in error, not that social identity is enough to argue that gender doesn't exist and/or is an imposed cultural view.

The nuanced answer has more to say than SJW claims and the (often) right-wing rhetoric.

Friday, 23 September 2016

'Open Minded' redefined by the devout??? [incomplete thoughts]

 I am a self-critical freethinker, I doubt myself and our world, our culture and the swaying branches of humanity.  What I do not do is claim this makes me superior, nor indeed should anyone think because they try to be critical and seek after truth with a rational outlook that they are.  We are open to new ideas and willing to accept change.  We are not made greater or super human by this, we need not beg the ego.  It seems that any New Agers or self-made neo-pagan may talk in terms that we find somewhat familiar, they sketch in the reason into their faith, they use terms such as 'rational' and 'logical' from time to time.  The whole vale of this is to pose the idea that a belief held to be true via faith is true and should be accepted as rational because it is argued with some fair tact and serious sounding language.  If this is so then the green grosser of word salad is master above academic and doubter alike.  This is not so.  To say you have science because you have one study is in error, to ignore data that doesn't fit your beliefs is more than a fools blunder, and to claim that you are open minded as you preach is a joke of epic proportions.

The simple truth is that I am very open minded, and this is because I care what's true.   I am very concerned that to a great many people to be 'open minded' is to be a blind devotee.   It is considered perfectly normal in everyday society to not see the differences between questioning and showing aggression towards an idea, the pondering person may be unsure or have better data.  And, all too often, the question falls on deaf ears and it is seen as being closed minded.  This is considered normal with many people, if you ask a hard question to those who are insistent that they are open minded then what chance do you have in expressing another opinion.  It seems that the devout have the open minds while we who have no set belief, nothing set in stone, we are the closed minded, the negative Nancy or doubting Thomas. 

So, what might we find if we follow this train of thought, where may these tracks lead us if we consider the open minded one is the devout one?  It could lead far beyond the moderate beliefs that are common in the spiritual movement.  If we turn the spiritual gurus logic back upon him will we find the most open minded people join ISIS or knock door to door giving out the Watch Tower magazine?  At any guess, I doubt the logic that the believing psychic or healers are open to honest discussion, and much of my attempt pan this out.  What can be said is that in comparison, as far as beliefs and intellectual freedom, the average spiritual person is far more liberated than an extremist.  Although this is not the factor in question. 

We need to ask simply what is meant by having 'an open mind', to be 'open minded' is said to be open to the truth by many, open to the argument by others, yet others say accepting.  And people wonder why a famous quote says we should have an open mind, but not so open out brain falls out of our head.  Too many spiritual people acceptance is the fundamental point, so maybe they risk losing their minds. 

What is true to you may vary, the facts do matter, not that the big picture is always clear, and we should accept facts and sound theories while being flexible enough to accept new data.  In my opinion, being open minded is more than being swayed by any argument that you consider to be comforting.  Perhaps that's why new age and relating ideas do so well, you get a great deal for every little effort, and people to enjoy a bargain.  If I am told of a thing that is said to be true and I trust the person telling me and I like the idea you can imagine how easy it would be to accept it.  Much like alternative medicine, an accepting person gets results because they take onboard the idea, and the reality need not exist as long as the psychological benefits yield fruit.  This is the road of self-deception, it seems good and kind of works, thus I take to it as if glued to the belief and hold it as practically or literally holy.  The illusion that comes for free is that what you trust in is correct and no accept this is open-minded. 

[not completed]


 No, Edgar Cayce did not predict much of note, unless you use the same tricks as the fans of Nostradamus. If you make things fit from a prediction or a few words that may be predictive you are not finding where it fits, you're making it fit.

It is the same reasoning that creates movements like the Christian-scientists, creation-science, koranic-science, etc. You take what you believe and make it fit reality, BUT it is not reality that fits your beliefs. You build the illusion, bridge gaps, endow the system with the ability to not be totally disproven.  Religion and spirituality are similar to science in one way, it adapts based on undeniable facts. The fundamental difference is science changes to learn from reality and spirituality changes just enough to allow itself to continue without being a totally refuted collection of poorly thought out opinions.

Predictions are commonly based on the idea of a number of changes, good or bad, give that a century or many more years and you'll have many hits.  Some say Cayce predicted the end of communism, he did, but he claims ALL systems will fall with a rising of a spiritual age of enlightenment, so no cigar for Edgar.  He predicted an alliance between the west and the USSR around the beginning of WW2, just like many analysts did, so no cigar again! He predicted a united world and renewed spirituality, so much for that. Oh, and he said dumb shit about energy, reality, the past, highers beings, and he was wrong. Best of all, well in my view, he claimed Atlantis would be discovered, so once again no cigar.

I don't know he was a conman but that isn't important to the issue that concerns me, the fact that he and many other heroes of modern new agers were nothing but mystics with as much or little to offer as the local priest.

Thursday, 22 September 2016

Non-Binary Genders?!?! - Fact Or Fiction?

Socially, there are more than two genders, however, genetically there are two gender types, yet there are variations such as XYY syndrome.  So Socially you can identify differently or act differently, at a social level you can use a label/identity/role as a persona, however, the fact do not change.  I don't think there is a movement to say that 'chromosomes change', or anything of this kind, a rare few will have chromosomal conditions that are non-binary, the previously noted XYY condition is a common example.  Other conditions that may be a factor vary, such as stable chemical differences, thus a lower amount of gender specific chemicals being produced by the body. 

And, regardless of all of this, there are those who are non-trans and do not have gender dysphoria as much as general identity issues, so confusion or preference allows some to confuse identity issues with gender identity issues.  As a result, we have people claiming trans and fluid gender types based on personal mental-emotional issues while they're young and being exposed to new ideas in university.  It's a bit like students who get politicised, in fact, it is the same in many ways and politically social issues are pushed forward by those who fail to define what is social and what is scientifically true. 

There are those who don't trust science and will reject it for social ideological views, they, when they appear, are the troubling phenomenon that is growing out of social justice politics.  And, they are the true core of the trouble with social issue activists. 

My video on this subject:

Wednesday, 31 August 2016

Notes from an online discussion.

Notes from an online discussion.  

Does anyone else think it's funny that Milo Yiansausages bitches about people in universities with liberal arts degrees or degrees in cultural studies when he is a dropout? 

I know he made his first rush of cash from an online business, sure, but he dropped out of law and then dropped out of English literature. So maybe he could have spent a few years doing an artistic or cultural degree instead?! 

He only has a career due to his first flurry of an online business and as an amateurish journalist he capitalised on gamergate, and now he panders to young republicans on US college campuses. 

I'm just saying he may be able to pull off some debates in a moderately fair manner, he can spin a few facts, however, he isn't more qualified for a reasonable discussion than many of my friends on facebook, some of whom have qualifications that far beyond his station. 

So consider the simple facts, we have a person who is by technicality as educated as many of you with a moderately better debating skill level and is able to recall a few basic biased surveys and studies that are flashed across the interwebs.   


Sunday, 21 August 2016

Trumpeters Vs. SJWs: a quick thought.

Funny thing, these videos of feminist SJW fails are debates between passionate students in many cases, these students don't represent the centre, nor liberalism, nor centre-conservativism, but rather a political view that is more of a sweeping simplicity. A basic view grounded fundamentally on what they are convinced of at a young age, not a sceptical view as much as a strong but underfed political knowledge. Also, the troubling thing is how they boil down an ideology to what they want or are told as if a sum of an ideology is what they wish to accept, and all beyond their interpreted view is not truly what an ideology contains.

Trumpeters and left-progressives locked in conflicts and permanent apologetics over the ideological differences they enjoy, making the story up as they go, making facts fit, lying outright for their beliefs. And, these sides are supposedly rational while their opposition is irrational, even though they both like to express only their victories in a style of a propagandist. Not that every student or political person is involved, a fraction of society is involved, and fringe media groups, rarely the mainstream, give credence to such beliefs.

I dare say the mountains out of molehills created in such discussions serves little value, to claim it's agendas here or there with a lack of evidence is fair pathetic, to suggest conspiracy theories, to bend the facts, it is a deceptive affair.
The prideful and the professional victim have little to teach you, their roles serve little value, their beliefs are distorted, they fail to operate as honest people when it is inconvenient.

All this said, I dare say there are good people involved, but to be good doesn't mean you must be right, and to be politically fooled doesn't make you somehow a bad person by an automation.

Sunday, 14 August 2016

The Least Spooky Video Ever! Proof Clouds Exist. Dry Parody Of Every Cloud UFO Video

Horses up near Crooks Peak

I guess this is random.

Plate Fungus, my walk up Crooks Peak, Somerset.

Plate Fungus images taken in the woods near Crooks Peak, Somerset


I was walking yesterday on the strawberry line, not far from Winscombe, I later got to Crooks Peak. However, when I was on my way I came across a resting Dragonfly, I thought I'd share it with you guys. 

Sunday, 31 July 2016

Islam is a religion of peace?

 The Religion Of Peace.

Who am I kidding, I am not going to do that blog, the liberal apologetic blog in which the excuses are on display. 

Islam is a religion of peace much like Onision the famous Youtube sh!thead is a banana, we are not dealing with a religion of peace, we have a religion with many divides and the fact your doctor is Muslim means almost nothing. 

The whining liberal who claims Islam is peace claims because his dentist is peaceful that Islam in all forms is peace, and IS must not be Muslim.  This is a sickening delusion, and a kind of not true Scotsman fallacy against IS.  IS are an evil group by any modern standard, but they follow the Koran and Hadith teachings to the letter, they kill Muslims but many Muslim groups kill rivals, you may as well say Shiites aren't Muslim if IS is not Islamic. 

The liberals who are fooled by extremism are also those who get fooled by people who set up sharia gangs and demand extra protection and rights, people who at best represent a tiny number of western Muslims, but mobilise like they speak for a whole region of London.  The liberals think they are just like their doctor or dentist or local shop keeper, while the noisy extremist in the west is radicalising young men who may even go as far as carrying out acts of terror or joining IS in Syria. 

We see Muslims with differing views who are either peaceful or they are not, and the violent ones are supported by a wide number of Muslims on a global level.  My recent points on Pakistani violence says only part of the story[see the earlier blog].  

I want to touch on this from time to time to remind you that the trouble world is troubled by many factors, not least Muslim Extremism. 

Homosexual - response to Teal Swan fans

The kind of nonsense from Teal fans is often the same, they claim I'm something I'm not, they even claim I'm a closet homosexual, when I'm no in any closets, I'm openly bisexual.  Saying that, I suspect a few more dumb comments will be posted by her fans, and yes we know they are her fans, they use their blog account to comment and some have blogs on new age issues. 

Why is it that insecure people use homosexual as an insult or closet homosexual, it isn't like Teal is a gay male, she's a bisexual female with her main love life in heterosexual marriages, she has had a few.  So, even if I was a closet homosexual I cannot she what the logical link would be to criticising Teal, even if I can click baiting these blogs to see what they provide.  That's the lesson they need to learn, I know a lot about Teal and every time you over react I learn more about you too.  You show the fear under the surface, the vile nature of your new age ideas.  How you're only a step away from panic and knee jerk reactions. 

Lastly, I'm not a reptilian nor an agent from the CIA, just in case the very paranoid conspiracy theorists who love Teal like she's candy read this.  They claim I'm an agent.  LOL

Is Teal Swan the worst kind of new ager?

Is Teal Swan the worst kind of new ager?

She has promoted bad medical health, anti-medication and anti-vaccine beliefs, big pharma conspiracies, and claims we create diseases and cancers and say sun lotion is just a scam, so yes, she is the kind of new ager that you should not follow blindly.  

Fundamentalism in Pakistan, Government Censorship, and Murder.

Pakistani government is blacking out the trouble with its blasphemy laws again, news stories pulled, etc. a story about the way the law is being used to oppress the Hindus and Christians, surprise surprise the Pakistani government it at it again, censoring the stories, not least that of attacks by angry mobs against those who say simple things like 'Islam isn't correct' or 'Muhammad isn't a prophet'.  Needless to say, Pakistani Freethinkers are as endangered if not more so than other opinions on god and religion.

 This image shows the kind of anti-Christian hatred that the government effectively enforces with the blasphemy law, but the average citizen is willing to take up arms himself to kill the infidel.
Murder cases may not be solved, angry mobs that can number hundreds or event thousands of people have attacked average Pakistanis and destroyed livelihoods and places of worship.

We have seen over the years a large number of attacks in the press, although, much of the media doesn't care or fears offending people. indeed, a Shiite Muslim protest a few years ago was turned into a blood bath by young Sunni Muslim Pakistanis who followed the orders of the religious leader, since much of Muslim violence is internalised, between types of Islam. I could add to this concerning censorship the troubles with honour killings, in which, young women are killed for the crime of caring for the wrong person or fleeing arranged marriages. 

This image is of Pakistanis burning flags after the Charlie Hebdo
attacks, and I could literally find thousands of such cases, and often violence is expressed to local Christians for the crime of having the most populous western religion.  The ignorant masses that are controlled by religious leaders who refuse to let Pakistan develop beyond it's dangerous devotion to fundamental views of Islam.  

Sadly, this trend of Pakistani violence isn't a question of the odd attack, it's a matter of a nation that is torn between extremism and civilisation, and sadly the homeland of the Taliban has more than it's fair share of dangerous extremists. 

Wednesday, 27 July 2016

Hillary Clinton's fail? [Ramble without much thought]

ramble, take offence.

if you like conspiracy theories and US politics then lets imagine that the fear was a left winger would lose the democrats the popular vote and if the republicans had Jeb Bush as a middle of the road type the republicans would get in. so as a reaction it was agreed that Hillary should use her influences to lean it in her favour, as a result, she established a lead meaning she has way more than 50% of her party on side. the trouble was a right wing nut got the republic candidacy, and the Hillary camp rigging and deceptive political methods caused a backlash which ensured a close run thing. So Bernie was powered by Hillary Clinton's camp's activities that they thought at first was the best way to beat Bush, sounds sexy, or beat Cruz, and now is a lame duck to face trump? the conspiring to ensure democrats win has meant the democrats are losing the left which is swelling the greens and trump as a right winger is far more likely to win the presidential race.

So if Hillary played fair to win democrats rather than trying to warm up the general population ready for November then she'd not have made her Frankenstein(Sanders) and he's monstrous following(Bernie fans, soon to be greens?).  She created her worst nightmare, someone who wasn't trying to be all things at once, just as in previous cases where a candidate was about being middle of the road, progressive, and anything that gets me ahead.  

Lets just call this a fool's opinion, I'm sure better authorities know better on this issue than I. 

Saturday, 16 July 2016

On working in a Religious workplace.

In my experience, while working in a supermarket, the Muslim employees were happy to discuss Islam, although, as soon as they lost a friendly discussion some would complain to the manager, even though, I was on my lunch break at the same time they were.  No insults and fists, just words and doubt on the historicity of Mohammad, the truth of the Koran, and the existence of a God.  Once a piece of pork off a pizza fell on to a Halal pizza, and I had to throw away most of the food I cooked for the night staff as part of my job.  I could count many such events like this as worth telling you, or save for my memoirs.  Funny thing is I'd tell people something wasn't Halal and they'd still eat it if it wasn't pork or if no other Muslims were around.  So it's a mixed bag of people.  And, without proper training, I had no knowledge of fundamental facts that may have helped avoid the sensibilities of the faithful. 

At one point as a New Ager/spiritualist (pre-2010) I was looking at other religions, including Judaism and kabbalah(an esoteric Jewish method), it was presumed I must be Jewish, I had to make clear I wasn't Jewish, even though it doesn't bloody well matter to most people in any way.  I'm not Jewish, and that shouldn't be a thing that keeps a steaming anger from boiling over, no matter what religion you belong to. 

I had good times too, over four years I had good pay while working nights, but the attitude of some is very unrealistic.  The only time I had a Christian act like an ass at that job was when she thought I was Christian and she was bitching about Muslims following the devil.  She herself was a member of a noisy church that focused the black community, whereas, I was a collector of books on spirit guides, so slight difference.  I put her in her place a bit, some talk of not wanting her faith or theirs telling me what is true. 

Sadly, many people there were very two faced.  And, over the course of that job, I had various cases of annoyed people telling me they were offended that I thought god didn't exist, 2010+.  Since it was these people who helped me see the religions I thought I knew a little of were really not the peaceful parts that spiritualist said they were.  Spiritualists and New Agers say Muhammad was an Arabic Jesus, so Jesus?  no, more like a guru or teacher, BUT these dumb fucks never read the koran or knew the history of the wars of Islam and Muhammad.  They were always trying to say he was an Arabic buddha.

Learning the real history was key to me dropping the religious mysticism that the mediums and psychics said was true, I have spoken in detail about the main things that changed my mind, but the fact that the great religions were born in blood was a factor that helped me to see the spiritualists and new agers just repeated positive memes about what they wanted to believe Jesus, Muhammad, Moses and others were like.

Seeing through the progressive deception of what religious leaders helps you to see that it is cherry picking to see Muhammad as a buddha like-person instead of a warlord. 

Saturday, 9 July 2016

What is a Terrorist? - Politically incorrect

What is terrorism? 


The definition of terrorism, 'The unofficial or unauthorised use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.'[Oxford dictionaries].

Any organisation that seeks to kill people based on personal conviction may as well be labelled a terrorist group, although it may be best to explain this in details. If a movement, org, group has as a mantra kill n#gg#rs, or kill the cops, or kill all of those who insult God/Allah, and they act on their dogmatic view that they'd be justified in this action, then they're a terrorist as far as I'm concerned. 
When we see attacks by lone gunmen in America, and they were convinced to act on murderous impulses by an extremist ideology, he is a kind of terrorist, one who is using violence and intimidation to try to create political change.  Fear is a tool of such people, kill one to scare one thousand, send a message to create change.  Often they're not the most mentally sound, after all, whether it's ISIS or Al Qaeda the idea of cutting off a head or blowing up a family isn't something that a rational and sane person can do, well not without brainwashing to shrink one's reason and limit sanity to an extreme ideology.  We shouldn't care what ideology is at work in labelling a terrorist, a white supremacist on an unofficial mission is still a terrorist like the Muslim extremist who has a whole organisation backing him from Syria or Iraq.  
We have had the call from many on the left to make clear that mentally ill killers get called 'terrorists', they have a point to a degree, a person, even if unstable, if affected profoundly by an ideology to act in an extreme manner is a terrorist.  However, the reason why the mainstream media doesn't call such a person a terrorist is often because they're known to be mentally ill, and the charges pressed against them are murder or gross bodily harm, not a law that relates to terrorism as such.  Thus, the term 'terrorist' is deemed unreasonable by the educated journalists and editors for most respectable outlets.  It's a distinction that doesn't prevent us from saying they are indeed terrorists.  In the eyes of the law a mentally ill man killing a Labour politician and he is influenced by far-right ideas, although those ideas didn't call for murder, he is not a terrorist as such.  The dictionary seems to disagree.  

We now have a story in the press that states a man who was closely linked to the hate group, Black Lives Matter, had killed law enforcement officers in the belief that he was justified to do so.  There is a large amount of footage of young, often middle-class and wealthy, black college students in the United States, chanting 'kill the police', while regularly blaming any and every white cop for violence that most of them have no part in.  They try to provoke violence in protests, yelling at cops, in a few minors cases even reaching for their guns, not a clever idea, and physically assaulting people.  Oh, and claiming that Black people cannot be racist.  
The conundrum you need to figure out is why lefties think BLM murderers, who are directly inspired to act by ideologies that demand violence, should not be called terrorists while they plead for the right-wing versions to have that label.  Surely, if a man from a right-wing neo-nazi belief is a terrorist, then so is a man from another extreme group that has actually chant for violence.  
If you can't see a double standard by arguing the point that white right-wing mental cases are terrorists and black ones who are meant to be on the left are not, then you may be confused.

Black Lives Matter are a group that wants to spread it's opinion that black people are oppressed, they bleed lies into the minds of newly political young people, and claim whenever a black man dies it's due to the police being full of racists.  They use selected data, much like any Klan would, to fool enough people, unlike the KKK and Neo-Nazi groups they focus on marxism and other selected views, because collectivist reasoning means a rich black student living on daddy's money can still claim his is a victim.  They play professional victimhood as their game, inciting violence and creating conflict, so they can share their clip of a cop fighting back after being punched and call it evidence of all they claim to be true, even though they edit out the ten minutes of getting toe to toe and hitting the police officer.  After all, how you can create good propaganda if you don't make things up.  

Real crimes against black people don't happen on camera so much, so to fill this gap they will create what they need to demand that society sees all black people as victims, that in any crime a person of pale skin must be wrong, and if it isn't done they get more recruits on many college campuses, mostly because from a slanted perspective it looks like oppression.  It's only when you don't look from an ideology, instead looking at the facts as objectively as you can, that you will see that major of BLM claims are nonsense or huge exaggerations.  And, I need not state the obvious trouble of real world racism to make clear that making up claims and exaggerating are not practical tools for a rational discussion.  

For anyone who thinks they know better than me, you may be right, 
but let us consider the facts before all things.

Thursday, 7 July 2016

Ignorance and Argumentative

Ignorance and Argumentative

The most entertaining aspects of a discussion can be the bad arguments, on a little know video I found extreme stupidity from some supporters of an Indian guru who was a convicted child sex offender, who as it seems may have abused dozens of young girls, I made my response to the story in a very serious and well-sourced manner, due to the horrid nature of the news. The supporters of the guru, Asaram Bapu, who clearly had not checked what my opinions were, and only a few checks would give them a clear picture, not least my view of religion and what coverage Christianity has in the west. Kumar starts by stating “Go for doctor sick poor man, Pope had abused and raped many ones”, so he assumes that the west is Christian, the pope speaks for Christians, thus all in the westerners bend a knee to the chair. So he chose to argue from a point of great ignorance, and, as an atheist, I have little time for any religious authorities, in fact, more than half of the world's Christians do not follow the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, and, in a way, Kumar was ethnically profiling me. 

I agree that covering up child abuse is a crime, and the Roman Catholic church should be held to account, some reports suggest that up to five percent of catholic priests have engaged in child abuse, and yet, I have not heard of any evidence reporting that the pope or previous popes were raping children themselves. Obvious though it is, the reason why Kumar made this move was because I pointed out the legal facts of Guru Bapu's sex crimes, so Kumar thought that the best way to rebuke me was to attack what he thought must be my cult of choice, this is in many ways to sidestep responsibility. He continues “This is the truth, I mean the truth of your religion. India was, is and will remain the best country and land of lords. Blind one cannot see Sun. Poor Guy”, so by not fact checking the power of the RC church, my view of religion, and by seemingly being an Indian/Hindu nationalist, Kumar fails utterly in his argument and fails to defend his own beliefs.

It's easy to dismiss a belief when you find such poor critics, and in every religion, there are those who think they defend their faith by insulting you, but you defend nothing by the means of deflecting attention and ad hominem attacks. Such comments are the lowest form of criticism, they rarely offer anything that makes you think, at least if they bothered to discuss this topic then we could share ideas and see what is actually correct, even if we disagree on what we accept as true. 

Nationalism, in my opinion, is one of the vilest forms of mental surrender,
you slave yourself to those who are a bit like you in ethnicity, nation, religion, 
and culture, due to blind servitude rather than a rational argument.

 Asaram Bapu and his son are facing Indian justice for their acts, even if I was in the RC church it would mean Bapu is good, he just means people with power shouldn't be sexually abusing people. 

My video on the cult leader/guru Asaram Bapu


10 crazy cult practices

Tuesday, 5 July 2016

Spiritual pebbles.

Spiritual pebbles.

Probably the oddest idea I know of, is how an ancient piece of coloured glass can improve your health, the experts used word salad, simply using long and overly complex terms to suggest they know how things work, and the believers who don’t yet have this the spiritual lexicon, will simply say ‘I don’t know how it works, but it does.’ In this kind of case, I don’t know what’s worst, the people saying they know because they can make poorly supported arguments sound clever, or the sad cases who accept the bad arguments and cannot explain why they get a kick out of crystals.  Interestingly, it doesn’t have to be old, natural, crystals, just fused glass with a nice colour works great on people who don’t know better, such as blue obsidian, commonly this is just a light blue glass, and is quite popular as a tumble-stone, which means many people are buying a machine smooth piece of glass mostly because it’s a nice colour.  Popular shapes for such items include pyramids and spheres, that pseudo-experts claim help energise an environment, channelling cosmic energy, etc.  However, there is nothing to the science-like claims, other than the placebo built up by a new age mystics, even if they refer to ancient cultures liking fancy looking pieces of old glass, such as the long historical use of jade in the Far-East, or ancient cultures having rituals which included them, such as the ancient Jewish high priest breastplate, which is said to of had twelve gems in it, to represent the twelve tribes of Israel.  
Pointing out where other cultures, including ancient ones, use or used gemstones, doesn’t confirm that since they had them they must have thought of them as you think of them now, and even if they did, how does that prove anything, since each culture varied, and modern new age mysticism goes to the extreme of crystal based healing and meditation. To a Buddhist a crystal may prove a helpful thing to focus on, just as, for decoration and superstition a gem encrusted crown, in 12th century Europe, may convey a sense of power, but can we find anything near the magical ideas of the modern new age movement, apart from elements that often related to various primitive and ineffective practices, some continued through shamanism and esoteric beliefs. In essence, the practices of meditation and devotion with stones is a throwback belief, grounded more in thought reform than practicality, offering self-induced states of delusion, not genuine states that would be far more interesting, to critics it’s just collecting pebbles and carvings in the belief they have magical properties.  The best thing you can say about the properties of crystals and minerals is that the spiritual/psychic claims cannot be utterly refuted, like fairies and Santa Claus, and one day science may shine some light on such topics, although, modern psychology explains much of it, and other fields of study expose the ignorance and wishful thinking of new age spirituality.

Sunday, 3 July 2016



Often I have discussed Atheism with internet Christians, and the misconceptions I will note, I selected a comment, for this response I have removed filler, as well as cheap insults. The content discussed was in regards to Islam, specifically the refutation of Islam and it's foundations, the audio placed on YouTube, edited from god is not great, by Christopher Hitchens, and many people added their points in the comments, often without reading the book or listening to the audiobook. It's worth noting, many pathetic tirades are common to internet comments, those with strong beliefs have a series of claims that are based more on bad philosophy than the facts, personally I value what is truly more than what is accepted on faith.

The comment begins, “Christ is the Word of the Living God. God is Good”, I would call that tame for the youtube, well until the usual claim comes up, “Bloodthirsty atheists can't see this because their eyes are blinded because they hate truth but love with all their heart lies”. The funniest thing about such claims, at least to me, is they are fighting the straw-man, what atheists must be to doubt the Christian faith, he may as well claim we worship Satan and eat babies, well, in for a penny, in for a pound. Many a devout Christian may well think Atheists worship Lucifer, or even because we have no moral guide in god, that we may eat babies if we wish, and if you're willing to make things up, you may as well go all out and tell some really amusing lines. And, in the knowledge, they will antagonise those who oppose you.

To show his poor contact with reality, Erik says, “Ironically enough the power of God claims once a man loves lies, he has sacrificed himself to Satan, the father of lies. For as Satan will use the fool aka atheist at his every whim will then turn and devour that which was faithful to him.” The best work of Christians isn't when they repeat hollow rhetoric, Such statements work on many, affecting those who are vulnerable to such beliefs, yet with most non-believers, you may as well be telling us about our lack of Jedi practice and meditation causes us to fall to the dark side of the force. Repeating over and over the word of the bible is as meaningless as repeating Harry Potter, going over bible verses like the Christian fictional hero, Bible-man, is ineffective except on those within that culture of belief, to us non-Christian it's as compelling as stories about Narnia, and I have let to find evidence against The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe that makes it's absolutely sure that it is impossible. Most things are improbable, even in a vast universe, and we don't get to absolutes as much as the point at much an idea is so improbable that it in effect impossible, making the biblical god with all its miracles as probable as Narnia.

My response was short and clear, “Bloodthirst isn't the point, if there was any, the point is religions often push their politics on everyone, secularists demand that we don't give any group a superior position, to best avoid a limitation of choice.” The thing that the devout don't often understand is that non-believers do not the religious claims about them, we are not out to smash freedom of religion, we are out to ensure that secular values protect the rights of all people regardless of background, including religious creed. However, some people want to utterly destroy religion, even if most atheists see that religion is already practising self-destruction, and at worst no special treatment should be given, no privilege.

These Bloodthirsty Atheists don't seem to exist to any great degree, even angry atheists are often making a point because they are affected by religious influence in a society, some are repressed in a fundamentalist region or town, maybe a local politician is getting the Christian vote by condemning non-Christians, doubters, secularist, and homosexuality, with such decisive politics in the mainstream in the United States, and elsewhere, it's little wonder that many people are antagonised. In highly religious communities it isn't always easy to be the outsider, and with fundamentalists calling atheists the fools for Satan, some people are bound to express their anger on the internet. Much like the disrespect towards many communities, religion says it knows what's best, if you're not following the rules then you have nothing worth saying, this is a major attitude problem, “If you're not with us, you must be against us.” is the belief of many churches, whereas most doubters and religious moderates can get on happily in society, even when they disagree.

We shared our thoughts over a series of comments, and in essence, the Christian judged Islam as false using the same logic that refutes Christianity, different specifics with the same reasoning to counter the poorly supported claims of the religion. Claims made about the lack of evidence and history for Islam, and no acceptance of the large gaps in Christian history, the lack of evidence for Christ's existence says as much as the fact we know little of Muhammad. Much of what we claim to know of Muhammad is from the Quran and others books after the time, just as we know of Jesus is from the Bible and the second-hand histories after the time, it is easy enough to say Muhammad is at least a historical Character, and Jesus may as well be largely fabricated. It's worth noting that the majority of historian consider it probable that the man, Jesus, existed, even though a fair number of people think that he may have been created by a few people, or utterly fabricated, others say there must have been some foundation for the stories. It may well be, the earliest stories could be based on the man, the passing through various cultures added to the legend, and, as is evident, the myths of others became weaved into the tapestry.

Erik stated, “I respect the argument that religious people can be pushy as tyrants in the radical Islamic belief, they(Muslims or radical Muslims) say do or die.”, I don't know what was being addressed, I didn't raise that point, pointing out bad beliefs doesn't make other ones good by default. I'm not sure of her meant Muslims in general or the militant forces within Islam, it seemed like a side step from Christian issues on to that of Islam, and the bandwagon that paints Muslims with the brush, rather than explaining what you truly mean, such as the difference between Wahhabi-Sunni Muslims and moderate groups such as the Pacifistic version of Islam as expressed by the Sufi.

The Problem with many Christians is they learn debate tricks from the same sources, the churches and ignorant communities that push an agenda, fleshing the belief out by agreeing with each other, although, sometimes they gets sketchy in a discussion and want to find something to agree upon, or a sidestep the lack of evidence that plagues all religions. Ignoring Christian problems by finding a more dangerous or aggressive ideology cures nothing, pointing out Muslim extremes doesn't cancel out Christian ones, they seem to think we'll forgive and forget the troubles of Christian politics, past and present, and will we accept the lesser of two evils. Evil in this context simply means harm done in the name of ideology, I only note this because a common trick is word games, such as responses like “And where does evil come from.”, so any claim of truth, love, or anything is said to be god's property, and the estate of evil is attributed to Lucifer.

An obvious point about Muslims, outside of the middle east and third world, they are, on average, far from the type of person to threaten you with death, well not more than most other communities, whereas, in the middle-east, including various capitalist democracies, we cannot fully judge a people group by the general view of the worst extremists, since where the freedom to think beyond the Imam or Mullah exists the people flock away from pure devotion. I think many Christians make a fair point about radical Islam, sadly, as long as nations like Saudi Arabia fund Sunni extremism, and the Iranian Government support Shia extremists, we have a mighty problem, and out of such extremes danger will emanate, using hard-line ideology to gain influence backfires, and creates groups like Islamic State. Think about how some American preachers have, by extension, supported the execution of homosexuals in Uganda, you see the tip of the iceberg, where pseudoscience and fanatical preaching pushes such agendas, if not in the western world, then such ideological views filter into less educated and liberal nations, empowering religious extremism, and laws that limit freedoms, and in this case lead to government mandated murder of those who don't follow the same lifestyle as the majority of the population. A preacher in the United States can say things that the US government will not pass into law, knowing this and rallying the church, the preacher can spread hate speech, and post this brand of extremism online as just an opinion, this can easily be picked up by a person in almost anywhere on the planet, from there this 'Science' can be passed off as official. And, if preacher should have an unaccredited doctorate, from a Christian college or diploma mill, then such a quack may be referred to as a doctor before audiences of ignorant fundamentalists or on a professional website.

A common error, the claim of how free and open Christianity is, they ignore the long social changes took and the philosophical development of our society, we're no longer treated badly for questioning the opinions of the church, yet, this is a moderation, not a fundamental view of the Christian faith. Another comment states, “Christianity and Judaism aren't pushy, and anyone who quotes the Holy Bible to testify otherwise is indeed misreading the book.”, this is ignorant of our shared history, how the moderation of religious power isn't due to the faith, as much as the cultural scenery in which religion can operate. Trying to get a modern Christians to agree on which laws and traditions of the old testament that should be used now is a battle they aren't prepared for, it isn't a clear series of ideas that works without interpretation, so how can a person twist Jesus's coming into changing a divine law, since he is said to claim to not break the law, most Christian values are based on modern morality, which is by definition moving beyond the bible. If we reject the old laws it becomes unclear, if you take it as non-literal then where is the line drawn, and if you cast off the bits that are no longer okay, you're believing in something that isn't biblical, even if inspired by aspects of it. Once you reach a wider philosophical view, you're almost ready to drop the Christianity altogether, accepting the books of old were inspired, not scripted by the creator of the universe, not the perfect word of god, nor a clear and factual history. Most Christians play a balancing act with ideas of what is moral, mostly based on background, most Christian don't know the bible well, so many accept what they think they know, and what a minister selects for a sermon.

The fact is many Christians are pushy, otherwise, there would be no debate over abortion, stem cell research, intelligent design, women's rights, LGBT rights, what politicians believe (or do not), and much more.  It's not as bad as Islam in the middle-east and third world, and who would expect the first world comforts to create a Christian State army as a mirror to Islam State, we have comforts and laws that have kept fanatics in line, so religion has become moderate and realistic where extremism isn't tolerated.

Beyond the Holy Word

Beyond the Holy Word 

The bible supports the idea that heathens are evil, or foolish, and passages differ, the trouble with Christianity, as well as Judaism and Islam, is verse selection, the act of quote mining their own religious texts, and in many cases the group or sect they belong to sets a view that condemns or condones a group of people by a very bias selection process. So selecting passages can be used to support nearly any position, especially with some cunning interpretation, this is the sad case of what religion is, in its fundamentalist and moderate forms, an expression of bias that claims divine warrant.

Philosophising the bible means you pretty much place the new perspective, as a modern ideology, above that of the bible, every church is interpretation above pure biblical acceptance, because the contradictions mean that you cannot come to a view without an interpretation of the bible. Even if you try die-hard literalism, the various contradictions mean you cannot accept all things as equal, the first motion is to say one set of ideas are divine and secondly others were man-created, or only laws and traditions of the time, the line between what we should accept now and what we need not, is not set out in scripture, so even literalists admit this problem. The trouble is that sects find excuses to picks a select various rules out of their books, some by bible study, some by modern tradition, others by claiming that Christ tells them what is right or wrong, this last one being more about conscience than anything divine, and based on a cultural background as the ethical foundation for what god may wish to you. Many read popular Christian books, as a result of modern apologists many think that a Christian belief is rational, depending on who's work they read, and the sect in question. Some are more honest and say that god is not testable, non-falsifiable, such reasoning isn't about confirming that their religion is true, as much as suggesting there's room for some kind of god, and Christianity fits the mould they have just created enough to suggest that their belief is possibility true. 

The modern Christianity we face is a reformed religion, even in cases of biblical literalism, this reformation hasn't fully taken place in regard to Islam, of which similar methods of interpretation are used, and, much like fundamentalist Christians, they claim not to be interpreting the holy works, even though there is no other way to take them perfectly literally, since texts that consist of great contradictions and imperfections.


Ranting over something Left.

Ranting over something Left.

I’m not a fanatic for people who deceive their flock, often this means I am a part-time critic of religions, however, in this case, a want to confer with you concerns over the modern left. the role of the left by history, in its basic form, is to assist in helping the people towards greater equality, a noble idea, however beyond the templates of socialism and relating ideologies we find a diverse series of belief systems. They blur together in the modern era, after the failure of communism and relating projects, and the old left is a dead movement, not that we are free of the walking dead. Old men and young inspired people, ideologically speakers and passionate subordinates.
Blind faith is for such zombies, the certainty of one’s beliefs is a delusional way of thinking that often permeates the newly political, the student for all his or her study is a malleable person, credulous when faced by intelligent authorities. Sadly, most of the modern left is generated from the inspired middle-class student, not from the average working man or woman, since they have unions ad lives, whereas the student convert is driven like any fanatic to be an active part of the change they consider to be justified.
The troubling thing that I find to be more common than not is ignorance covered by knowledge, where the person believes they know something no great inquiry is seen as necessary. Simply, the person who is given enough reasonable answers need not imagine that the answers they have are imperfect, and they needn’t believe they need to look beyond their limited worldview.
What I have experience of the left is thus, the claims thick and fast, the sources selected and biassed, and to doubt the gospel of the devout lefty is to be as countered to him as the vilest ultra-conservative with fascistic tendencies. The facts they have are often good enough to state as fair, they fail because the claims upon the facts are the foundation they lay, and from any radical left or right view, the centre parties all look the same. As looking at two people far away you may not see clearly they are two and distinct, although they stand close to each other. Piling such points over each other while discussing can be very hard to debate, let alone rebuke, this is the plan, just like the street preacher who opens his mouth far more than he dares use his ears for fear of hearing that which is not godly. They may suggest you must read a book by Noam Chomsky or another great author, even if this Labour movement member before you is saying this not to truly inform you, but to bend you. When faced with a horrid wind even the strongest of trees may lean or break under its assault. And, if you don’t swallow the claims, if you have your own solid ground for discussion, nd you bring it to bear, you must be the enemy. In George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four it was the hatred towards Emmanuel Goldstein and his collaborators that got the blood flowing for loyal Oceanians as they chanted hatred, real world extreme socialists are often as full of bile. In fact, the anger they feel towards the outsiders, the moderates, the conservatives, libertarians, and anyone who isn’t a double plus duck speaking supporter of big brother is counter to the truth of IngSoc.
I am happy to say most socialist are not in those ranks, they do not cling to the roles that party lines would impose, they’d rather have a life while supporting social reform and protection of rights. As a result, the average socialist is not only none party-aligned, he or she is a liberal and to a great or lesser degree a centre ground voter. And given the correct politician is more than willing to vote conservative or for a party like UKIP. You can even find videos of the British Nationalist Party members saying they’re socialist, I think they fail to understand what brand of socialism they belong to, not that I need to explain their error to an informed reader.
The Orwellian element is not felt in the liberalism in the Labour Party, which has for a long time been liberal, or at its height a social democratic party, although, the Labour Movement in its many forms isn’t so unblemished. And, it is that movement that is infested by an irrational and unrealistic political philosophy, this perspective is the previously noted one that resonates with the youthful and newly politicised. Naturally, this type of person, pseudo-activist and all, is preached to by old masters, including professors and authors who love the idea of social so much that they promote Marxism while reaping every benefit of a wealthy capitalist society. It is easy enough once most of our troubles are removed to dream up new ones, woo the young women by claiming that feminism is needed now more than ever, to recruit non-conformists by focusing on the cracks in society, to suggest racism is still a vast issue by slanting the issues. Meanwhile, the first world issues of such people lead them towards imposing their politics, including abusing respectfulness, political correctness, to impose their own ideology.
Political correctness is often not to have a tolerance, as we look to the left or right we find rivals, and if we observe the authoritarian groups we find they are willing to impose their politics upon people in the name of ending hatred. A step to the left or right and we find methods of avoiding saying what is truly happening, hiding behind a barking or quacking of mindless terms, duckspeak. Duckspeak is what it is in the Nineteen Eight-Four world to be one who speaks without a use of the higher faculties, simply speaking. Many political conformists are duckspeakers, they use buzzwords and repeat points, they think in a limited way that means they selected data to fit their world view.
Why do smart people believe crazy things?
Because they’re smart enough to find ways of rationalising things.
When faced with selected data saying racism is as bad as ever, the first thing you do shouldn’t be stop looking at the facts, nor should it be fall in line and reading more of the highly biassed sources you may be in lockstep with. Black Lives Matter is an example, a political cult on a practical level, lying through their teeth, and they gather a flock who use their sources like it’s been given down from heaven. I could list off a bunch of groups that fit that kind of bill on the left, many are good by focusing on real issues, however when they take a minor first world problem or hypothetical issue and create a problem for serious activists. While you are busy draining feminist and anti-racist activism towards first world issues there’s a whole world with greater problems than some character types in some computer games, or, the catcalls a girl dressed like a whore gets in Harlem, NY.
With devout socialists in Britain, these people who speak as if we live in the height of the great depression in a mining town, with people on the poverty line and lucky to have steady work. However, in this era it’s not about having enough food or coal for the fire, it’s about people who are getting money and mismanage it, and so selecting sources is normal practice to say the reason why family X needed to go to the food bank is due to the corporate elite and the corporate influenced government, which isn’t utterly wrong. Family X may be a good example, but not representative, not that this matters, all that is required is convincing arguments to sway you, and it’s called evidence. Pseudo-news then? selecting surveys, picking bias stories in the press, and creating other such ways of swaying the under thinking person who should know better, but probably doesn’t.

Tuesday, 14 June 2016

Astral Projection In A Nutshell

A friend on Youtube created a great response to astral projection, a guy called 'Koi' thinks its real because its an experience, Chocolate Hat says otherwise in an entertaining and informative video.  He also shouted me out, so give him a cigar, or failing this a thumbs up would be very fair. 


In my experience the way we can create things that seem real via belief and visualisation is what astral projection is, in a nutshell we are creating a state of mind that allows visual states that can be akin to daydreams or far more vivid.  It's explainable, not that everyone wants to accept that you are the dreamer of the experience and not experiencing of a wider reality. 

Sunday, 12 June 2016

Brexit, a common Brextake?

The Common Problem About The European Union And It's Governance.  

If a man says to you that the nation in which you live is a dictatorship while not proving the claim, would you accept it based on argument and selected arguments?  I should make clear, I have no love lost for me and the European Union, I have swung between sides of this debate since we have a mixed bag of positive and negative issues that give value to both the 'In' or 'Out' opinions.  And, I have swung from neutrality to the Out or Leave side of the argument.  The trouble is the collection of propagandists on both sides who don't see how those of us willing to be sceptical can see though their deceptive political views.  I could reference the 'In' camp's claims, but tedious stats would be a side note, and the scaremongering will only enrage the sensitive among you.

The point I am annoyed by is the claim about European democracy being far from democratic, which isn't totally wrong, yet is somewhat false.  I will clarify, the concern is not a black and white one as you will no doubt understand, it is when The Brexit 'Movie' claims that the European Union is or has turned into a dictatorship.  Now, as a left-libertarian I am concerned on two fold, my libertarian politics respond to the concern of an overly complex and massively funded central government with layers of regulation that limits trades, and my inner lefty who seeks to encourage real progression in society and an end to poverty.  My political entity finds a dictatorial governmental power structure to be against good socialist ideas and the values of a free society.  So if we are dictated to then as a left libertarian I see in it the failure of our politician to safeguard a European society from governmental tyranny.

Now, I ask you on what evidence did I base my previous thoughts?
Was it on the solid fact of the EU's dictation to member nations or the reaction to the claim?  I only ask because we live in an age of reactionary views, and to be told what the enemy does and thinks is another matter from what they truly are.  So, I may be very concerned if I do no research if I let Boris and Nigel tell me what they want to say, for whichever reasons they have chosen for themselves, in truth or bias.  Or when facing the claims, I do research, look at all the data to find out what's what.  This is why a vote on whether we want to be in or out of the European Union needs real discussion.

The obvious facts on how the European Union works, how the bureaucracy work to limit the power of one nation over another, and how commissioners are just put on the gravy train should be serious topics discussed in detail, and in the mainstream news media. 
This is not to say the facts are covered up, nor that the media is just barking common thoughts while trying to act mildly impartial, however, there are very easy answers to some of the Brexit questions.

The claim I hear over and over is we are dictated to by the European commissioners, that these unelected men get onto the gravy train of European politics and simply enjoy the perks of the job while waving through laws from French and German bureaucracy.  However, if you listen to Nigel Farage on this point, when he often claims such things, you may fail to use a search engine on your browser to check and double check the facts.  Are you accepting limited information and slanted facts that make a great mountain of a small knoll?

How are European Commissioners appointed is explained on the Wikipedia page [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commissioner] that gives us an impartial view, and a strong point is that they must be qualified to get the role, the commission president is merely a figurehead, and then green-lighted by the elected members of the European Parliament.  These commissioners are dominated by the national governments firstly, then the European government, the commissioners and the EU parliament, filter out the under-qualified and inexperienced candidates.  It isn't a matter of sending a friend to get rich in an easy desk job, that kind of system is ruled out by the screening process.  So the nearest thing to the gravy train is educated and experienced persons get a job that pays well, although they must spend most of the year far from family, invested in politics and diplomacy, trying to broker ever greater cooperation between nations that are often trying to get a deal that would be unfair to the other member nations.  The result when we have protested against a bill that comes to the Parliament is a rejection that forces rewrites to ensure that the majority can agree to vote yes.

To get back to the point, the commission is made up of experts who have an area to focus upon, they are no so many politicians, nor representatives.  They are civil servants who try to draft bills for the parliament that are designed to get agreement from the various members of the European Union.  Even though they work with the various Parliamentary members, including those who work in the think tanks that help set up policy ideas, and what is or may be desired by national governments.  It could be compared to herding cats.  A series of independent and uncooperative members who all want a special deal, such as the deals that Mr. Cameron has hungered for in negotiations over the last few years.

A quick clarification, the UK Government put forward experienced and skilled persons to be commissioners, the Commissioner president filters out the unsuitable for the civil servant role or roles required, the EU Parliament agrees or does not upon the commission set up, and these civil servants work as diplomats to try to get agreement upon policies that get through the Parliament and are voted up by your representatives.

So, please tell me why this is a dictatorship.

I advise that any of you in doubt see the details of this area of European politics, this factor may not change your or my mind on immigration, proper spending, fair regulation and taxation, but it should be a matter of the facts above political rhetoric.

To add another thought, The Brexit Movie also had images of the top civil servants in the EU, showing people these photos and asking the public if they had a clue who they were.  It goes without saying, they didn't have a clue.  And because these 'presidents' are called such, they conflate the civil servants with rulers, in the American sense of the term 'president'. 

Now, ask yourself, do you know who David Cameron's top advisers are?

Do you know the name of the top think tanks in the UK?

Who are the top four or five civil servants in the United Kingdom?

And would you know who the top civil servants are if I had pictures?

and lastly, if you know all of the answers to these questions above then ask yourself how many of the well over 60 million citizens of Great Britain actually know those answers, or even know their local politicians? 

I doubt most people know enough to say much about the European Government, yet millions are very passionate and driven by poor arguments from walking jokes like Boris Johnson.  You may as well be swayed by George Osborne and David Cameron's pleading to remain at all costs, or the anarchist who won't vote and will never get what he or she wants.

My point is not for the in or out arguments, my point is for a sceptical discussion, not a half-baked series of arguments from both sides touting celebrities to try to woo you to their side, or should I say scare you into committing to Brexit or Bremain.

As I say, I'm saying out, this is most because I'm probably biased with my politics, as we all are, and yet I am willing to hear all sides, are you should be too.  And, dare I say it, our duty is to the facts and the will of the people, so I will support whatever people decide upon with me in the referendum. 

The Brexit Movie