Paul and the Christians of Hate.

So, another large gap between posts… but, you know, life and stuff. Anyway – still been doing the overly long FB debates and have a good few arguments to develop into a solid rant or two. But this week I got blocked from a group (Christian). I am a little upset – do you know how many conversations I was in the middle of: 3 – which I admit isn’t too many but abuse of power is abuse of power (Pagan basically)! Now, I know what the two readers of this blog are thinking: “What were you up to to get kicked out?” Well, the group was an Apologetics forum and I was asking questions about a certain person who tends to go by the name of Paul. He wrote a lot of the New Testament and claimed to have somehow met Jesus after Jesus had been crucified and was dead. Paul is a fairly significant character in Christianity. But what defence can be made of his claim to have witnessed the resurrection of a dead man. Actually that wasn’t my question – which was was about what Paul claims in the first chapter of his letter to the Galatians. Paul says he received a gospel revealed to him by the Risen Christ. Paul says that he did not learn his gospel from human beings and it was not taught to him by human beings – quite clearly Paul’s gospel was not given him by humans. Yet, in the same chapter, Paul claims to have been already persecuting the Church (by which he means Jewish followers of Jesus). Paul was persecuting the Jewish followers of Jesus because of the gospel – Paul must have already known the gospel before his claim to have received it: so, how was the gospel he claims to have received (not from human beings) different from the one he already knew (from human beings). This is an interesting little question and, though I noticed it on my own accord (I think), it has been sort of tackled by the ‘serious’ scholars but they don’t follow the question through to Paul’s ruin – and I think (along with other biblical clues) Paul’s claim to be an apostle, appointed by Jesus, catastrophically falls apart. Obviously that is quite a disruptive theory for Christianity. But being silenced because my question was difficult – that isn’t apologetics: it is being a chicken shit.

I was given an answer, which was that there was no new gospel but that Paul had had an ‘insight’. “Well”, I replied, “given that Paul claims to have been made an Apostle in much the same manner, does this mean he understood himself as an apostle due to just an insight?” Which, given that we were discussing if Paul’s claim to be an apostle was legitimate, was the difficult question that caused the flummoxed admin to hit block!

Now, the particular FB group had a fair number of, what I shall (at least momentarily) call, ‘Christians of Hate’ – which, given the Christian understanding, that God is Love, this is surely tantamount to calling them anti-Christians (even Satanists) – and I had found myself engaging in the ‘Christian response to LGBT liberation’; a controversial subject I’d usually avoid. But I spent many hours trying to get one of these haters to justify their hate. They quickly spout scripture at me but my points were never defeated (by amateur ‘theologians’). But that is for another blog – hopefully sooner than last. And that’s my story for today!

Paul and the Christians of Hate.

“opponents to neoliberalism”

So, I had posted a little response on a FB friend’s post about Corbyn being a Communist or agent of the socialist NWO sort of thing.  My basic point was that the Messianic devotion towards Jeremy prevented his followers from exploring those behind him: that Corbyn is just one man (a figurehead of the hard-left) and it may worth looking a little deeper than his pleasing words.

Someone (unknown to me) responded with a question: who did I suppose were the opponents of neoliberalism? I was a little unsure of the question’s objective but I enjoyed thinking about the answer…


Well, Clive, as I have not mentioned neoliberalism, one may wonder why you would be interested in my opinion on this question. It seems unlikely that you should feel my opinion more trustworthy or informative than simply typing “opponents to neoliberalism” into google and hitting search; something that will provide at least a few interesting reads.

It is perhaps more reasonable to assume that you have taken my words to be a tacit approval of that which the Corbyn Machine is opposed to, which you seem to think, given your question, to be neoliberalism. It may be reasonable for me to assume that you believe the Corbyn Machine is the only viable or genuine opposition to neoliberalism. Yet it is, you may concede, entirely possible that I could be virulently opposed to the Lords of Neoliberalism and also to the Corbyn Machine: standing alongside those whom I believe to be equally opposed to both.

You may have noticed, in my comments to Rob, that I say: “I don’t agree with your finer details”. If you were aware of these finer details, with which I disagree, you would realize the problems with your question. Putting this aside: in order to explore your question we would need to anchor the word neoliberalism. This is perhaps not as easy as you may hope but we could, for simplicity, opt for an uncontroversial understanding of: the post-WW2 economic model developed largely in the West (US/UK) and buttressed by certain financial institutions such as the World Bank. But even this is not so helpful, as much can change over a period of 70 years. One of the biggest changes is the collapse of the USSR. You may be aware that Europe had secret plans to engage in a counter-revolution should Europe have fallen to Communism (Britain had a similar secret operation to start the resistance should NAZI Germany have succeeded in occupying our island). We must assume that the Soviet Communism had comparable plans (Communism being a world-wide movement, the danger should be considered greater). It seems unclear to me what attempts were put in place to counter the threat of the ‘deep Communism’ fight back. The last Soviet president, Gorbachev, was not ripped apart by a revenging mob but has become a respected statesman (spokesperson for the NWO some might argue). One of the methods of Communism is infiltration and corruption. We can find evidence for this in relation to the Catholic Church (and I don’t simply mean Liberation Theology – where some crypto-Communists may have found a comfortable hiding place). This allows us to consider the question of what extent communists have infiltrated ‘neoiberalism’. We may consider if saboteurs have been at work within the prevailing economic system… etc.

Neoliberalism is often associated with Globalization. Globalization could perhaps be considered as the manifestation of the Anglo-American Empire facilitated by the systems of neoliberlism: certainly this would be the narrative of the forces of anti-globalization and there are significant forces of anti-globalization. This narrative is one given by the hard-left. It is not the narrative given by the economists of neo-liberalism. Perhaps it is better to listen to both sides rather than exclude one narrative. I’m uncomfortable with a movement that describes itself in the negative and not the positive. I want to know what the forces of anti-globalization are ‘pro’. Once the well funded and internationally organized forces of anti-globalization have succeeded; I would like to know what replaces the economic system that the anti-globalization forces of the hard-left have destroyed.

Now that we have a working definition of neoliberalism, Anglo-American Empire, we have a working answer to your question: those who would seek to replace the Anglo-American Empire. This would give us possible candidates including, for example, Russia and China and their allies. But neither necessarily seem to me to be more appealing than the Anglo-American Empire: reform the Empire perhaps?!

Pope John Paul II understood the evils of Communism and is considered by many to have been a significant opponent to Communism. The present pope is a Jesuit and a South American. This is a pope that should understand the difficulties of the poor; especially those that are poor at the hands of the US desire for riches. Perhaps it is to the Church under Francis that we need to look for the credible opponents of neo-liberalism.

Certainly Corbyn talks the talk and I suspect many Jesuits would see a reasonable voice in this man but Corbyn is not one man. Corbyn represents those of the hard-left; there are people behind him – people of means. If Corbyn represents a threat to the Bretton Woods consensus; being one man will not help him. A threat to the prevailing system of Empire will be of interest to the ‘deep state’ of both the US and the UK. If Corbyn represents real change – it means civil war. Mind you, I seem to remember that the New Labour administration reworked the Regiment system – perhaps this will limit the capacity for a counter revolution (Blair was certainly Fabian – even if Corbyn isn’t). Now, there are those who would say that it is not the Anglo-American Empire but the Anglo-American-Israeli Empire and will also point out that Communism is an invention of a Zionist agenda to destroy Religious opposition etc. This would take us to a place where those behind the opponents to neoliberalism are the same as those who evangelize for neoliberalism: either in some cunning plan or in their own civil war.

I could go on but ultimately I don’t adhere to political systems; believing only in personal revolution – internal conversion to the good. And a vague hope that the reasonable people, and not the extremists, will win out.


I have received no response as yet.

“opponents to neoliberalism”

Rant 5: Remembrance, Red Poppies and Football

Why all the fuss? It is clear that ‘remembrance day’ poppies are a religious symbol, a political slogan, and a ‘commercial’ logo. End of argument!

Evidence: (boredom, youth, and family disagreements aside) it is only religion, politics and capitalist enterprise that can generate such floods of passion and simmering thuggery, while inducing a blanket of ignorance amongst the general public.

More evidence: the symbolism and ritualism that accompanies the red poppy can only be understood as religious in nature. There is also a push to make wearing a poppy emotionally necessary. If we are not careful, no one will dare venture out in the month of November without first making sure their poppy is highly visible, for fear of physical attack by disapproving ‘poppy puritans’. The entire establishment is entwined in the promotion of this quasi-religion.

One should remember that November is the month Christians (Catholics) traditionally remember our dead – Remembrance Sunday piggybacks the pre-existing framework of cultural and religious understanding.

But remembering the dead should have a result – religious result. Our compassion should grow and flourish, we should change in our behaviour and, in remembering the souls of the departed, we should turn to remember the living.

Yet Remembrance, despite its thought out religious trappings, brings no change – it is the ritual of a false religion, a death cult.

It is death and carnage that is celebrated through the illusion of remembrance. We are made to forget the insane horror that psychopathic death merchants connive to manifest.

True remembrance of our young men (and increasingly young women) made to march to mad mayhem would bring an end to all war. We would even understand that it would not do to rise up and rip our misguided leaders apart, limb from limb. We would simply see these sick and disturbed individuals, that happily create wars, for who there really are and their shame would be made plain for all to see.

So, poppies are a the symbol of a false religion, of a sinister death cult.

A political slogan: we can move from religion to politics by pointing out that this death cult is a state religion.

The political objective is clear to anyone prepared to step outside of the cult’s narrative: to make unacceptable war acceptable, respectable, and desirable. This has often been a political objective but the absolute unprecedented levels of slaughter and stupidity of WWI, that Great War, required a new glue to bind the people, in shock and anger, to those responsible for their pain and suffering.

It was important for the survival of the establishment that we forget, not remember. Since the wars of the last decades, there has been a growing militarization of British culture (e.g. Armed Forces Day: a political act) and poppies are tied into this political agenda – the population needs to be more forgetful if they are to be ‘on side’ with the madness and evil of war.

We need true remembrance to end war and we need to remember the living as well as the dead.

A commercial logo: corporate sponsorships are a well known part of professional football. Companies pay large amount of monies to have their brand advertised by a football team.

When we see a (cheap plastic) poppy we think of the British Royal Legion. Now there may be a legal difference between a charity and a business but there is not always a moral or practical difference – that is to say: the distinction between what is business activity and what is (an organised) charity activity is not always clear; there is a blurry line (for good and for bad).

The British Royal Legion make their money, in part, from people buying poppies (and other remembrance memorabilia, products, or icons). This money is used to employ people and funds activities that are in addition to helping former combatants (there is even a market place in charities helping these ‘self-inflicted’ victims of war).

Although I do see more poppies being worn (part of which I see as media influence – maybe Jon Snow is the only news anchor left with any integrity), as a general rule I do not see groups of young lads (other than soldiers), wearing poppies. So I am curious why a group of well paid football players would be so different.

There is intention and promotion is its name. Footballers wearing poppies (and in defiance) makes wearing poppies cool and desirable amongst a group of perspective customers who are resistant to the appeal of the brand. If footballers are wearing poppies (and in defiance) many others will wear poppies in support of the footballer (and not in remembrance). Footballers brandishing poppy armbands amounts to much money being made.

If I allow a little TFHT (see rant 4), taking into account the involvement of political and (false) religious interests (and the need to have the population ‘on side’ for the much larger business of mass war), one might wonder if the whole poppies ‘in defiance’ thing is part of the branding effort, in agreement with the cabal of evil that seek for us to forget the living in fake honour of the dead.

Rant 5: Remembrance, Red Poppies and Football

Rant 4: Trump. Controlled opposition or loose cannon?

It seems I have had one too many conversations with ill-formed conspiracy theorists. All conspiracy theorists are ill-informed, you may counter. True – if we define ‘conspiracy theory’ to mean an unresearched hypothesis put forward as fact. If a ‘conspiracy theory’ is researched it will be debunked or it will not. But something more important has happened – the conspiracy theorist becomes a ‘truther’.

Many will stop at this point. This is a problem, as the ‘truther’ is part of a movement – the ‘Truth Movement’. Yet Truth does not vow allegiance to any movement. The ‘truther’ functions in the ‘post-truth’ age – awkward facts, views and understandings are ignored, derided, and unfairly dismissed as disinformation. The ‘Truth Movement’ is a false religion. True religion follows truth.

Yet there are conspiracies in all walks of life – people conspire (work together for a mutual benefit despite an obvious legal or moral problem with their project) Not an exact legal definition of ‘conspiracy’ but one that is helpful in grasping the next stage. If we question and research without allegiance to some movement, some dogma, applying logical criticism and sound reason, we move into the arena of ‘Deep Politics’.

To recap: we can have apparent insights that may take the shape of wild questions or even arrive fully formed. We can choose to uncritically accept these apparent insights and even propagate them as truth. I do occasional entertain myself by floating the latest alternative/conspiracy theory that has found itself arriving uninvited into my mind – usually wild ideas that I find amusing. This is a little naughty of me but wild ideas are important to development of Human Understanding and there is much to be said for the cultivation of this type of thinking: ‘thinking outside the box’; lateral thinking’; ‘blue-sky thinking’. I prefer ‘tinfoil hat thinking’, or TFHT (pronounced, ‘tif-hat’).

Sometimes TFHT leads nowhere but the knowledge gained in debunking one’s own ideas. But TFHT can be correct; a true penetrating insight. Such as the time I decided to entertain a work colleague with the reason why the Dalai Lama must be a CIA asset – I so convinced myself that I had to do a little research. Somehow my entertaining nonsense was sort of spot on.

So where does all this leave us?

I am not considering the question of Trump (or Hilary) from the perspective of the US voter – apart from the few deluded enthusiasts (who operate in ‘post-truth’), it is clear that most voters will vote for one candidate because the other candidate is perceived as the worse option.

But the nature of Trump is so intriguing. Many Brits ask how so many Americans can be supportive of this billionaire. Partly this is because Trump has not always said or done what was claimed by the largely anti-Trump liberal media. Partly it is because these anti-Trump Brits do not understand the ills of Hilary Clinton, living, as they do, in their own ‘post-truth’ universe.

But how could any female vote for such a slimy, woman abuser? Perhaps this question fails to pay attention to the nature of the slimy, woman abusers, these female voters choose for husbands – we need to see through the eyes of the other if we hope to understand the other.

But controlled opposition – the man who makes Hilary electable? I find it amusing and a little curious that both of Hilary’s opponents have been ‘comic book’ characters; Bernie and Trump (will a burning trump proceed the shit that is kilary Clinton). It is these sorts of observations that can morph into TFHT.

But Trump has a certain amount of success in appealing to certain interests and concerns. For example, Trump is anti-abortionist and this should appeal to the Catholic vote (which usually sides with the winning candidate) but it doesn’t take too much digging to discover that his position on abortion is probably one of political convenience. And what has Trump said to attract the Conspiracy Theorist or Truther vote – a vote that has probably never before been so successfully targeted by a presidential candidate.

Trump could win – and we are only hours away from knowing – but it is still uncertain what he actually stands for. This is not unusual for politicians but with Hilary there are unlikely to be too many surprises; just the continued road to Hell. Trump may represent a change in direction or he may just represent a change in route; opting for a faster more direct path to Hell.

If we allow that Trump is ‘controlled opposition’, then it makes no big difference if he should accidentally win (the point of controlled opposition): we assume that ‘controlled opposition’ means controlled by the same interests that control Hilary. But he could be controlled by other forces and not be a ‘loose cannon’.

A loose cannon is a navy reference – it is a cannon thrown around by the movement of the ship on the waves. It is uncertain where the cannon will roll and it becomes a danger to the crew. But if we examine more closely we see that a loose cannon is controlled by the ship’s movements (the government) in relation to the sea (the people) – once this is understood, a loose cannon is predictable and quickly under control. As has been seen, Trump can be made to recant on some of his ‘loose cannon’ statements.

Trump has a team behind him. He comes as part of a package. He has friends with similar interests and concerns. The ‘deep political’ questions; what discussions has Trump had with those who would normally demand the ear of presidents; what understandings have been reached with those that have unelected power and influence… we could go on but these questions lead to those who ‘control’ and influence Trump. To bring this ramble to a conclusion, let us consider if a President Trump will genuinely seek to incarcerate Hilary. Some would vote for Trump just to see Hilary in prison and this may be why Trump has said it.

Hilary may deserve to be in prison but when we explore the friends, family and associates of Trump a picture emerges that may well suggest one ‘crime family’ trying to wrestle control from another ‘crime family’. If Trump actually represents a real opposition to Hilary and the prevailing cabal of influence, this does not mean that Trump is necessarily a good guy – this should be seen as a ‘turf war’ and it could get really ugly, especially when this is understood to be a global turf war.

Rant 4: Trump. Controlled opposition or loose cannon?

Rant 3: The trouble with ranting!

Well, a 3rd rant: it turns out that I’m not overly keen on unprovoked rants – I find it a bit difficult to thrust my opinions upon the world, without good reason. However, having settled into a mind frame of wanting to write more, my Facebook contributions have extended greatly. I recognize that I am happier with responding, of being provoked into discussion. And then, with the force of a discovered slug in a salad one has been enjoying, an idea hit me: I can just blog these ‘fb sillies’ (as I have decided to refer to them). It seems inevitable that I shall feel the necessity to edit them here and there – for clarity, effect and general entertainment value.

Hopefully, despite my deep appreciation for both the stiffest of irony and for a satire over abundant in delicate understatement (also the realization I will surely be the only person to ever read any of this), my genuine position on sensitive topics will always be clear. But, if uncertain, the general rule of thumb: if you are offended by what I say them I am likely engaging in some form of ‘further-post-post-modern’ abstract sarcasm, unless it happens that you are a ‘total arse’, in which case – you should probably work on that. And to show my basically well intended objective: even if you are a ‘total arse’, I am one too and have a deep and genuine understanding of how difficult it is not to be overcome by such an unfortunate, but all too common, affliction.

So my ‘fb sillies’ will be a mixture of subjects largely drawn from religion, politics, history, current affairs, and anything vaguely philosophical in nature. Perhaps the common theme would be subject areas where I thought perhaps, with a bit of application, I may be able to win an argument – I realize that treating such potential conversational interludes, as social media can so sinisterly provide, in a quasi-combative manner, is a form of patriarchal sexist domination but, and I offer this as total defence of all my offence; I bring, to this pugilist silliness, a Judo affectation taught me by a significantly fearsome female sensi, thus consequently exposing me to the more strategically underhand, and blindly more advanced, techniques, of which the female is said to employ in that most strange of mating ritual, ‘the domestic dispute’. Applied at just that crucial moment, in the unexpected terrain of masculine expressions of intellect based wrestling, it can have devastating and irrevocable consequences.

Talking about reactions, I’ve noticed that Africa Americans, and their liberal fan base, have again become upset about American Police Officers shooting them to death for the very suspicious behaviour of being in, or near, an auto-mobile vehicle. Although there are many a complex reason for the state of affairs, I will reduce it down to one cause. This will provide the advantage of simplicity in explanation and in treatment. We can more easily personalize the cause thus finding a suitable scapegoat that can be used to unify the two communities. The primary reason for the breakdown in community relations is the Entertainments Industry (for brevity, I shall simple refer to as Hollywood). It is clear that every other product of that pit of vipers has a poor police officer approaching an auto-mobile vehicle only to blown away like just another piece of litter by some conniving hood. The representation of African Americans by Hollywood is more commonly understood as negative but it seems to go way beyond cinematic representation – vast amounts of financial effort has been put into entertainments directed at developing an image of the African American as a hostile gang member. This is a problem for those within the African American community and those outside of this community. Hollywood has become the master of shaping our self-image.

The way to quickly and drastically change the situation for the better – to make a real and lasting improvement in community relations: ban all police officers and African Americans from engaging in the produce, that rotten fruit, of Hollywood. Instead all free, recreational time should be spent in joint police department and African American family outings and community cohesion programmes – thus breaking down all barriers and revealing our shared humanity while bringing into clear focus the actual enemy that hides behind its Ritz and glamour. Obviously there will be those who will seek to forsake their responsibility to restructure community relations for the better – to work towards a better world. Such people will, by their reluctance to participate, reveal themselves to be the enemy within (the enemy of humanity) and should quickly be removed from either of the communities they are found in. It would be acceptable to remove these hostile forces of division lethality but presumably, in our more sensitive times, it will be deemed only acceptable to exile them to some suitable location such as Alcatraz or the Bikini Atoll. Now, I understand that there will be those who think such an idea as guaranteed to fail and completely unworkable. Well, I will tell you that this is exactly how Police relations were corrected with the Italian American communities (or at least with the Mafia).

Anyway, that’s not my excuse and I’m sticking with it. Now, what further nonsense can I find to store for eternity on this pointless blog.

Rant 3: The trouble with ranting!

Rant 2: Trump has made some shocking stinkers but is he a political genius?

A satirical attempt to understand Donald Trump (apparently it is all the rage), containing the unsettling realization that Trump’s belligerency towards Muslims can be seen as a continuation of US policy of the last fifteen years and not a radical change of directional blame.

First: my apology as I have not posted as much as hoped – I shall try to do better.

Donald Trump – is he a political genius; a true master of complex multifaceted strategy? This may seem a strange question given his apparent crude and basic appeal. Warning: I’ve not really been following this too deeply, Trump being only a potential presidential candidate but he now seems unlikely to lose other than through last minute political slight-of-hand; something that Trump believes will result in riots and if a billionaire wants riots…

Putting oneself in the right mind set and it is understandable how some Americans HOPE that there will be CHANGE with Trump at the helm. Obviously Obama was voted into office on the back of HOPE of CHANGE; he was re-elected; showing us that it is not only Trump’s supporters than can be accused of being dumb.

Politicians are surprisingly renowned for saying stupid things that they have no real intention of implementing – it is almost in the job description. Trump has made some shocking stinkers: banning Muslims from coming to the US (there is so much that could be said about this); his recommendation that the US military commit war crimes and intentional bomb the families of Daesh (I’m not sure of the latest figure for European Muslims heading off to join the Islamic State but there will be Europe wide uproar when US drones start targeting homes in Bradford, Birmingham, or Paris etc.); and that infamous Mexico funded wall (every great nation needs a great wall once in it’s history, I suppose). On account of what Trump has said he has been qualified a Fascist and portrayed as Hitler.

Recently I asked myself if I find the things Trump says he might do, more frightening than what the last two US presidents did do. Before he was elected President Obama did not say that he would drastically enlarge US drone capacity and expand drone enabled warfare into countries not at War with the US, and even US allies, extra-judicially terminate, amongst others, US citizenry as part of a computer generated drone hit list but this is the scary stuff Obama gave the world. The junior President Bush also has a scary legacy.

Trump is upfront about the scary things he would like to do. Does this make him more honest? Surprisingly politicians are not known for their honesty but Trump is not actually a politician. Thinking this through and a vision floated into my head fully formed and beautiful: is Trump a genius protesting the hypocrisy that permeates our political and media cabals of deceit – for example: if Trump happened to be an Israeli politician arguing for walls to be built, curbing the movements and rights of Muslims, and bombing the family homes of Islamist fighters, he would be considered mainstream and applauded for his good sense: without anything like the liberal media outrage – thus revealing the conspiracy of silence.

Alas, I suspect Trump is far more complex than I give him credit for. My brief reverie of Trump, ‘champion of Palestine,’ was interrupted by another picture; Trump as Hitler. These two images crashed into one another resulting in a question: what is Trump’s position on Israel and Jewish people in general. If Trump is to be meaningfully compared to Hitler he should have certain views regarding the nature of the Internationalists that conspire to destroy his country. If Trump does not have these views then he is just a racist and not a Hitler – Trump’s belligerency towards Muslims can be seen as a continuation of US policy of the last fifteen years (not a radical departure or change of directional blame).

I asked YouTube the question and found Trump’s address to the Republican Jewish Coalition Presidential Forum. I also found a satirical review of the same address – the Young Turks. I decided to watch this one first (it was a lot shorter). Conclusion: Trump is a casual anti-Semite who was ultimately displeasing to his audience. But after watching Trump’s actual speech things were not so clear. His casual anti-Semitism turns out to be friendly ribbing that produced snorts of laughter any bit as loud as the booing he received due to his lack of certainty over the Jerusalem question. And what was his response to the booing (from someone he seemed to know personally)? That a President Trump would be the best thing to happen to Israel – just ask his good friend, Prime Minister Bibi (Iran would not be so well received). It is difficult to see how Trump is anti-Semitic. It is important for his campaign that he is seen to be independent from financial influence but I find it increasingly hard to accept Trump as presented by the media. Trump is a hardening of policies many on both sides of the US political establishment already support to some degree.

Just like the followers of Obama, the followers of Trump will realize that their hero is not what he claims to be and that they have been deceived. Unlike the polite supporters of Obama, those who believed in Trump will not fade back into despondent apathy because these guys have guns and are armed and dangerous. Their anger will be unleashed and the long expected second civil war will erupt and, as the South rises to reclaim dignity, Washington will crush all HOPE of CHANGE against that Great Southern Wall – too late, the New Confederacy will realise that the wall, which so inspired them, was never to keep the Mexicans out but the final instrument of Southern annihilation.

Hopefully another dose of utter nonsense will follow more quickly next time. The referendum has been greatly exercising my mind recently and seems a reasonable theme for rhapsodical musings but with Holy Week upon us I shall try to keep my thoughts on more elevated matter.

Be well.

Rant 2: Trump has made some shocking stinkers but is he a political genius?

Rant no.1

Despite the fact that I have long been certain that no one but myself has any interest in the things that go on in my head I do think giving people a chance to find out seems a delightful way to spend my free time…

That and I want to explore the wider aspects of social media and getting some writing done seems a plus.

Questions will be asked and answers considered but perhaps not given – being too much of a philosopher for certainty!

At the moment there is quite a lot running around my mind; such as whether those that want war and conflict will win out or will peace somehow find a way?  How can we be in a situation so tangled?

I can understand why some people may want to believe an easy picture of, “We must bomb IS, we must stop the bad guy from realizing their evil plans”.   It is a story that is easy on the thinking, but could IS just be the face of the real ‘bad guy’ and what are these plans of IS anyway?  To start war and kill lots of innocent civilians?  Isn’t our going to war with them the completion of IS plans?

Support IS: Bomb IS!

Rant no.1