trange things happen in the quantum universe
Strange things happen in the quantum universe in which we dwell
Oh, what is going on here? Man the monkey is what is going on here, doesn’t matter whether the assault is from Marxist primitives, religious primitives or Right-wing primitives, what is under attack is the right to be a free human being not subject to the clubs of head monkeys, equal in rights. Which I said about 20 years ago, which really showed me all I need to know about what filth you are.
Yes, there is actually something worse than Boris: this unelected rat creature Cummings, who appears to think he’s in charge and possibly is in charge, sort of eminence grise. It really is becoming very necessary to carry garlic and crucifix at all times.
Quid agas, cum dira et foedior omni crimine persona est
What can you do, when the man himself is more foul and filthy than any slander you can sling at him?
Juvenal
To so many does that apply.
Immanissimum ac foedissimum monstrum
Gross and putrid monster
Cicero
Applies to many but I think of Saunders and Boden.
Custos dominusque viperarum
The keeper and master of the reptile-house
Martial
Has to be Naylor. Unless in the feminine when it’s Black.
One for Marxists:
Cui dubium potest esse quin opulentiam istam ex sanguine et miseriiis civium pararis?
Who could doubt that you have reaped this opulent wealth of yours from the blood and misery of the people?
Pseudo-Sallust
Both Johnson and Rees-Mogg like a Latin tag. One for the Labour Manifesto, perhaps?
Inplicata inscientia inpudentia est
His ignorance and his insolence are inextricably intermingled.
Cicero.
Whelan, I think, among many others
Strange things happen verifiable strange things, such as spontaneous remission, but on the whole not, and if you have cancer it is not terribly bright to rely on such a possibility. Jesus or for that matter Lazarus rising from the dead has not in subsequent history proved reproducible and most certainly it is a trick Homo Sapiens would like to learn how to repeat. Other strange things happen within the mind. I’ve had time-slips, monumentally unrevelatory and boring though they were. All that can be said objectively is it feels different to imagining oneself in another when, it is another kind of mental experience. The world’s most fucked-up ape hates thinking itself capable and indeed whole nests of fucked-up ape teach it helplessness
Everyone who has ever taught the human race a thing worth knowing has told it to look inside, use what’s inside, cultivate activity of heart and mind.
But the filth merchants say what it is inside is to be vacuumed out, replaced by their Troof. They got this book, see. No other book may be regarded as of either comparable or greater significance. This book what they got tells them the world. They also disseminate the unpleasant rubbish that people can only love other people if they first believe in the book.
10 INTELLECTUAL FRAUDS PERPETRATED BY THE ORTHODOX RELIGIOUS AND THEIR SLAVES
The dishonesty of the average religious spokesman lies not in beliefs not susceptible of proof - you can't lie about things that can't be shown to be true, though you can of course lie that they are demonstrably true - but in statements about the here and now that are - demonstrably - false.
Believing in God makes you a better person than someone who does not believe in God, regardless of what you believe about God or humans. Religious people must therefore always be considered superior to unbelievers, who are supposedly flawed. How we are flawed is explained below.
Religion is a homogenous entity opposed to unbelief. Religion is two directly opposing concepts. One is a flight from reality to a fantasy physical universe populated by fantasy human beings. It is not necessary in this universe to discover, let alone accept, the individuality of others. They come clearly labelled. You know what they are and if they refuse to be it they must be made to conform or die. The other is the path (love) towards discover of the reality of the physical universe and the individuality of the people in it.
The way to be a good human is to deny one's humanity, reject the capacity for independent thought and feeling, and so leave it undeveloped, and obey what men (almost always men) say God said. This produces the necessary emotionally and intellectually inadequate masses who can be relied upon to have hysterics faced with anything they find disagreeable.
Self-will lies in rejection of obedience to the suppurating egos of the men (almost always men) who claim they know what God wants. Theirs is the self-will, the contempt for the individuality, separateness of others, the need to control, have others subordinate. This, however, is the source of 1). The theory is that the believer focuses on something outside his or her self. That what the believer has decided God wants may be a comprehensive exercise in stroking the believer's ego, satisfying his or her wanton emotional needs and justifying his or her inadequacy is elided. There is no logical correlation between belief in supernatural fancy and having a moral compass based on love; the capacity to love is not held to be innate, but a reward for believing in the divinity of Jesus:
1709 He who believes in Christ becomes a son of God. This filial adoption transforms him by giving him the ability to follow the example of Christ. It makes him capable of acting rightly and doing good. Catechism of the Catholic Church
If that were the case, no non-Christian would be 'capable of acting rightly and doing good'. which is of course the basic proposition voiced in 1), disguised but inadequately and not less vile for being so: if you do not accept the hooey of orthodoxy, you cannot love your fellow-humans.
It is normal, reasonable and sane to have hysterics when faced with and call for the elimination of what one finds disagreeable, to be incapable (to have made oneself incapable) of accepting the existence of opposing views. Actually it is an index of selfobsession, complete indifference to the individuality, separateness and of course rights of others and most of us get on just fine knowing other folks think differently and recognizing that people who strongly adhere to one view reckon those who think the opposite are talking nonsense and pernicious nonsense at that. Here no-one matters apart from the self-obsessed one around whom the thought of the rest of humanity is supposed to revolve and this we are supposed to revere and consider laudable.
Believing in some sort of supernatural fantasy world endows a person with rights over those who do not so believe and entitles him or her to elicit their silence. Again there is no logical correlation, no way it can be argued that believing an unprovable, untenable fantasy gives Person A rights over Person B.
Derision of religion is a recent aberration. As such it will be readily quelled and we shall return to business as usual or in other words subordination to the irrational and emotionally disturbed. Go away and read history.
The godless Enlightenment led to Hitler and Stalin.
the philosophes were largely deist the values of Hitler and Stalin were those of the Roman Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church - authoritarianism, the prizing of mindless obedience, contempt for reason, liberty and the individual. There is no logical correlation between belief in democracy and individual liberty and the Gulag Archipelago and Auschwitz.
Religion stands for absolute morality. To the religious, good is whatever they say God says is good and that covers the entire gamut of human behaviour from the justification of to the abolition of slavery, from supporting Hitler to helping Jews escape. Subjective illusory hurt to the ego because you think you are all that matters is all-important (you get terribly upset about books and cartoons) and objective real hurt to bodies is irrelevant (you don't get terribly upset about women being stoned to death), particularly of course when you think the hurt is deserved.
It should not be necessary to place statues of Liberty on the altars of Westminster Abbey to terminate the distasteful nonsense perpetuated by a 'Labour Party' which thinks the country a province of the Vatican and a 'socialist Left' in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood.
If you are unable to bear:
The world of Ancient Greece, whether its religion, its philosophies, its mathematics, its first startling footsteps in science, its invention of democracy or its invention of the wheelbarrow
The religious history of England, with particular reference to Cernunnos, the Horned God, the founding of the Church of England, the English Civil War, the Glorious Revolution
The Reformation
The Renaissance
The Enlightenment
The French and American revolutions
Marxist-Leninist thought, in particular perhaps if you are the sort of screaming nutter who thinks himself or herself on the Left but freaks at what Marxist thinkers have actually said about religion or capital
The ideas of expanded consciousness and meditation, Buddhism, Taoism and Hinduism
The nature of the universe as so far revealed by physics, in particular perhaps if you ‘know’ God created the world in seven days and the notion everything including us comes from quarks in deep space causes you to ululate
The legal history of England, whether Magna Carta or Blackstone:
The leaft touching of another's perfon wilfully, or in anger, is a battery ; for the law cannot draw the line between different degrees of violence, and therefore totally prohibits the firft and loweft ftage of it : every man's perfon being facred, and no other having a right to meddle with it, in any the flighteft manner. And therefore upon a fimilar principle the Cornelian law de injuriis prohibited pulfation as well as verberation ; diftinguifhing verberation, which was accompanied with pain, from pulfation which was attended with none
II. WE are next to confider the violation of the right of perfonal liberty. This is effected by the injury of falfe imprifonment, for which the law has not only decreed a punifhment, as a heinous public crime, but has alfo given a private reparation to the party ; as well by removing the actual confinement for the prefent, as, after it is over, by fubjecting the wrongdoer to a civil action, on account of the damage fuftained by the lofs of time and liberty.
TO conftitute the injury of falfe imprifonment there are two points requifite : 1. The detention of the perfon ; and, 2. The unlawfulnefs of fuch detention. Every confinement of the perfon is an imprifonment, whether it be in a common prifon, or in a private houfe, or in the ftocks, or even by forcibly detaining one in the public ftreets
BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES PRIVATE WRONGS. BOOK III.
CHAPTER THE EIGHTH. OF WRONGS, AND THEIR REMEDIES, RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS. (1765-1769)
If in short you cannot ‘tolerate’ any set of ideas defining the world opposing your own and seek to suppress and destroy both them and anyone who holds them, if you assume people are your property to be disposed of as you will
Well, yes, you are a screaming nutter, basically fit only for Broadmoor.
Certainly you have no place in any real university in the Western world.
Help is at hand! Yes, you can crawl out of some dirty bookless mindless animal-nest,where no-one questions, no-one thinks, where ‘communication’ is by hitting people, keep pristine and unsullied by thought or reason or morality or argument the sad sick dirty brain of a peasant, a butcher, an animal, a witch-burning savage and become a doctor or nurse. Pretend to be sane! Pretend to be human! Maim and cripple and destroy women! Eliminate intelligence and creativity! Crown yourself lord of creation! Democracy does not exist because you say so! Pretend to be academics and be respected as such. Get positions of authority whereby you can freely impose your evil, your sickness, your sexism, your psychosis on civilized life.
There is not only one book in the world defining reality. A belief-system is simply a collection of ideas that seem to make more sense to someone than other collections of ideas. The ceiling on thought placed by fascists, whether clerical or Maoists, Stalinists, Nazis is arbitrary and ludicrous, claiming all that it is sane to think is enshrined in their One Book. There is the repeated claim everything was fixed in one time and one place. The historical Moses is thought to have lived in around 1400 BC. In the 1500 years or so between him and Paul, a multiplicity of world-shaping events and perspectives on being human occurred elsewhere on the planet, the whole of Ancient Greece and with it the birth of democracy, most of Classical Rome, the Upanishads, Confucius, Zoroastrianism, Lao-Tzu, none of which is significant to the orthodox Christian, other than as error or sin or at best feeble gropings for troof. This is first order lunacy: discuss. It worked when there was no mass communication, when the nearest city was an alien land many leagues distant. It doesn’t work now.
It is worth being precise about what hardly anyone believes, because actually it is possible to be entirely precise about what people do not believe, whether they be hard-line materialist atheists or flutterby flower-children. We do not believe there is only one book in the world. We are not a largely illiterate society of desert tribesmen thousands of years ago to whom one book was an all-encompassing explanation. We live in a society with access to millions of books and other sources of information; if we do not read much, we may surf or watch Life on Earth. We form our views based on what we read together with our experience of other human beings. We do not believe one book dictates what we must think; clearly millions of books, the content of which is contradictory, cannot dictate what anyone thinks.
Where the content of books conflicts with reality, we do not believe reality is necessarily over-ruled. Where the content of books contains ideas conflicting with ideas in a 'holy book', we do not believe the 'holy book' necessarily true and other books false.
Indeed, we live in a society shaped by a Trinity, that Trinity being broadly symbolized by the combined content of the Philosophy, Religion and Science sections of a major bookshop.
We may prefer to believe that which is demonstrably false or distinctly less likely but on the whole I think have an awareness of the thing called fact; one of the things that distinguishes the religious nutter from the religious non-nutter is whether he or she accords the Virgin Birth or Mohammed's Night Journey the status of fact, on par with water boiling when heated sufficiently.
Clearly also people who are not illiterate, who read books the content of which is contradictory, come across views that repel or otherwise offend them and do not run around screaming and shouting about it.
It being the case that some views on life the universe and everything directly oppose others, unless you live in a hole in the ground you are going to meet people who think what you think is crap and if you then cavort and scream a) you are mad and b) your ignorance, your self-obsession and your total intellectual and emotional inadequacy are your problem. You seek to annul the external source of your distress because you are an animal with neither self-control (ability to contain your feelings) nor self-command (ability to change your feelings). Go talk to a priest. Or just try thinking of others as equals and individuals, independent, separate, not an extension of your bloody sick self, not your bloody property.
There are millions of bloody books in the world and thousands seeking to describe it or how the author thinks it should be, or another way of looking at it is any book describes a fragment of it or how the author thinks it should be, even the wishful thinking of a romantic novel. If you read only one kind of book you get a very skewed view of things, whether that kind of book is Mills and Boon or the works of Lenin. You need to expand your horizons fast.
Quantum immortality
Proponents of the idea point out that while it is highly speculative, there is nothing in the notion of quantum immortality that violates the known laws of physics
An easier to understand example is the one given in quantum suicide where a physicist sits in front of a gun which is triggered, or not triggered, by radioactive decay. With each run of the experiment there is a 50-50 chance that the gun will be triggered and the physicist will die. If the Copenhagen interpretation is correct, then the gun will eventually be triggered and the physicist will die. If the many-worlds interpretation is correct, then at each run of the experiment the physicist will be split into a world in which he lives and one in which he dies. In the worlds where the physicist dies, he will cease to exist. However, from the point of view of the physicist, the experiment will continue running without his ceasing to exist, because at each branch, he will only be able to observe the result in the world in which he survives, and if many- worlds is correct, the physicist will notice that he never seems to die therefore proving himself to be immortal, or at least according to quantum immortality. http://www.biologydaily.com/biology/Quantum_immortality
Funny old world, isn’t it. Very strange things happen in the quantum world. That is not to say they are necessarily replicated on the large scale. There are some rules governing this planet and I don’t think it would need scientific experiment to prove it would collapse if they didn’t exist. Take gravity. I think we’d all notice if the operation of gravity became random. The electron wave is amazing (Cox and Forshaw: The Quantum Universe: Everything That Can Happen Does Happen) and also real.
I have of course told the mongol metal mutant monkeys what I personally think.
There is no alpha baboon in the sky, beating his chest and punishing uppity females. That field of human experience known variously as expansion of consciousness, self-realization, Union with God is a matter of physics.
I don't suppose the louts who have molested me do like my eschatology, my physics, or my philosophy of love, but since I live in a free country what they do and do not like is a matter of the profoundest indifference to me. I do not give a flying fuck, guys. Is some part of that unclear? Certainly the Left is supposed to represent the dull, ignorant, brutish, savage and vile. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. The Left is supposed to raise them up, not drag all of us down into the gutter.
There is light, energy, power, perceived by some as 'God'.
Before this the little primate brain cowers in fear or not as the case may be.
There is no ‘Law’.
Love is Light. Light is energy. Energy is power. Energy is not, however, authority, hierarchy, pushing other people around.
‘The law’ is projection onto that power by the fear-filled unevolved fractured ape-brain of the heterosexual human male of what ‘must be’. What ‘must be’ is not what is.
Transitory states are taken for abiding truths.
Fracture is taken for the Whole.
Agency is introduced where no agency exists.
There are glitches in space and time not sendings and revelations.
Love is what some people label God.
Neither God is Love nor Love is God are susceptible of literal interpretation.
Supposing you're a writer, wanting to get certain key-points across. God is for everyone, the poor and uneducated and the rich and learned alike. Shepherds, definitely shepherds. Shepherds are good. But God is Everyman not a child of privilege. The rich and learned are not commonplace in stables. Lightbulb moment: let's have some travelling scholars.
You want to make it clear God is knowable and approachable.
At the other end of the story you want to make it clear God is not about earthly power.
If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight for it.
You want to make it clear love is stronger than death.
Every -ism is an an attempt to make aspects of reality, transient realities, temporary realities into absolutes, metaphors for reality into literal truths.
Every -ism is undermined by and eventually crashes on reality, the reality of the physical universe, the reality of individual humans in all their variety, insistent on being what they are not what they're told to be, the reality of the existence of a multiplicity of other ways of looking at the world. This is what happened to Christianity. This is what happened to Marxism.
The vehicle is mistaken for the destination. The shape, size, colour or velocity of the vehicle does not matter. What determines the destination is the driver.
If it is imprinted on your consciousness that Jesus is Lord or there is no God but Allah, you must arrive somewhere where Jesus is Lord or there is no god but Allah, unless of couse somewhere along the road something clicks and you have learned to let go of all your preconceptions.
If other things are indelibly imprinted on your consciousness, then you must arrive where these others things are so, because you are shaping the road, unless of course etc, in other words if you stop shaping the road.
The key to totalitarianism is the supposed helplessness of individual human beings. There is nothing inside. Either they are helpless without the assistance of whatever version of the divine multi-vitamin in the sky happens to be current or they are individually helpless and only collectively capable, whether as the proletariat or as the Volk. On no account must any individual think he or she is significant or empowered.
Rejection of the notion human consciousness shapes the trip lies behind acceptance of 'revelation'.
There is the question of whether everything that occurs to persons is self-generated or whether it may be a connection with other times, other places, other dimensions and the further question of whether such a connection ever is or can be pure or whether it must be refracted through what the human mind thinks (both consciously and unconsciously) must be.
There is the impossibility of the primate brain believing such a connection, should it exist, being a result of human capacity and consequently its convictions that some higher entity is revealing something to it.
There is the incapacity of the primate brain to deal with its own personal 'big bang', consciousness, and to believe itself capable - that that which sustains, that which reveals, that which is everything, is within, 'the force that through the green fuse drives the flower'.
There is one perfectly good sense in which humans are puny and insignificant, and that is as a part of the universe, which as we know is like big. We are not required to find a hill-top to stand on to daily tell the universe how small and meaningless we are, what crap we are or others are, how we hope the universe will forgive us for existing, how much we beg it to let us do its will.
There is and has been for as long as humans started to think about these things, an area of human thought in which belief and unbelief meet. The orthodox of course both know about it and strive with all their might to enforce division. That is pantheism, the proposition everything is in essence god, you, me, the fly buzzing against the window, the lilies of the field. 'Are ye not better than they?' Different: ye have the capacity called consciousness to know what ye are.
To write of goodness, truth, beauty and love, of 'avatars of living grace', is to demonstrate the evil, falsity, ugliness and hate of orthodox religion, which is of course something the free world has long been aware of, but that is apparently unknown to our Beloved Leaders.
'Avatars of living grace'
As I have of course cited reams, written reams to no avail whatever partly because you will not accept that a creature, a twisted dirty monkey like Saunders is pure evil. She is one of our wonderful nurses. I suspect what she actually is, like many of them, is the agent of a hostile fascist foreign power, with her mouth full of priest-cock. Democratic England certainly clearly enough is meaningless to all of them, they reside in another and fascist world. It simply has not mattered how often I have delineated the history of the free world, the history of England, how many polls I have quoted to show the current state of disbelief, how much Marx, Lenin, Engels, Luxemburg, Diderot, Voltaire, Paine I have quoted in support of my points, how many books or works of art I have introduced it to. The cunt is evil. The cunt is vermin. The cunt is filth. A bonehead mental defective, a filthy vicious subhuman, a piece of worthless offal who knows nothing is nothing beside a load of filth and sickness and lies with which it has been programmed by the holy church, evil lies about England, about me, a dirty monkey impervious to all fact, reason and morality. A criminal who should be doing 30 years. And the same for all of them. Why Blair loves them so. Programming the human ape, it’s like writing something on a piece of paper in indelible ink, and whatever is written is regarded as truth, the good and nothing penetrates, nothing moves between the ears. It’s like filling a petrol-tank, the fuel on which they run. No room for anything else. Like the golems in Discworld running on words in their heads.
Stupidity and ignorance are qualities of some members of the species which are morally neutral; they are not moral judgments, though both can contribute to someone’s being a piece of shit.
Ignorance is rectifiable. If you do not know where is the post office in a strange town, you can look it up. You can look up million upon billion of things and learn. Whether you understand everything you read depends on how complex the material and how stupid you are. The stupid can become alert and so visibly less stupid. To be of not great intelligence is not synonymous with being a block of wood that reacts to nothing. You can want to know why’s that, and how did that happen? Or just like pretty flowers. Something moves between the ears. It may not be very agile, but it’s awake. Whatever exactly functional intelligence is, mental speed is part of it, can be to some extent increased by talking with children and encouraging them to think, reason, create. The best schools do this, in particular the best private schools because they can give time to individual children. Which is actually quite a socially complex one. If the raw material is the same, one from a home where they cared and sent him to a private school to do their best for him, one from an acutely disadvantaged area pretty much conversing in grunts, the one from the private school is probably going to be fit to be presented for a job in a suit and tie, suggesting he is vastly brighter than the other guy, but he actually isn’t, and what has been employed in a position of at least small responsibilities isn’t really going to be up to it, any more than the other bloke. Hence also BTW the phenomenon of bright alert working-class guys in the ‘other ranks’ in WWII reacting adversely to some bloody fart whose commission was a result of his social background. But some people with appalling backgrounds have made successes of being a human being, gone to university, become artists, or just really good mums and dads and that is I think not only a question of intelligence, but of wanting to and being interested in something driving them. It’s the spark that matters as much as and possibly more than intelligence.
Both world wars of course are sociologically interesting in that they would have been the first time many working-class men got a close-up of the upper classes.
So much for normal people. The bonehead syndrome is something else. I have met people in the NHS so stupid it’s painful. As I have commented, the difficulty arises from their also being Consultant Physicians. Nothing is moving between the ears, eyes glaze over. Clearly something did. When Mums and Dads asked, what would you like to be, dear? they wanted to be doctors and nurses. Nonetheless they are also clearly so dead from the neck up as to be dangerous and totally unfit for any position of authority, let alone the absolute power they so cutely think they wield in the name of their master. What has propelled them into such positions, instead of confining them to things with which they might reasonably be expected to cope, such as the cleanliness of wards, is of course their ridiculous ‘degrees’.
From Opening Doors, Professor Graham Zellick, then Vice-Chancellor of the University of London, Guardian, 20th November 2001
I am the grandchild of immigrants who could neither read nor write English. I can remember both my grandmothers having to sign official forms with a cross. I am a first generation university graduate and Hodge is entirely correct in pointing out that my career owes not a little but everything to that golden opportunity.
Moreover, I spent 30 years working in London's East End. As principal of Queen Mary and Westfield College, we sent our students in droves into local schools, not least to raise aspirations; I visited and spoke at schools and colleges; and we forged strong links with local further education colleges.
I am passionately committed to university being open to everyone who is suited to and able to benefit from it. The history of the University of London epitomises that goal to a greater extent than any other higher education institution in this country. It has a proud record of overturning religious and gender tests and of developing higher education throughout this country and the Commonwealth.
But I do not accept that a 50% participation rate is the way to realise that goal. Nor do I accept that all students in higher education are well suited to it, as increasing drop-out rates confirm.
The suggestion that I derided vocational higher education is again wholly incorrect. Indeed, I was making the reverse point: that expansion of educational opportunities into new vocational fields was entirely right. It was not the vocational courses, but those with neither vocational content nor intellectual rigour that deserved ridicule. ...
Finally, I must point out to Hodge that to disagree with government policy and to promote public debate on a matter of fundamental social importance does not constitute whingeing. It is called freedom of speech, which I thought was valued in our parliamentary democracy and which extends even to vice-chancellors.
It extended to vice-chancellors. It did not extend to mere graduates.
PANTHER -> Site news -> What the university is for
by Ysabel Howard - Tuesday, 14 September 2010, 08:24 PM
The university exists to train minds and further free enquiry. It exists to contemplate and dissect what people think. It does not exist to provide a playpen for the brain-dead, where idiots may feel at ease. It exists to make idiots deeply uneasy by demanding intellectual rigour of them. It exists to look at what people have said and say, turn it inside out and spit out the pips.
It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it.
The university exists to pursue truth and academic excellence. It exists certainly also to examine metre in Chaucer, the vowel sounds of Sanskrit, and taxation in the reign of Henry Tudor, as it exists to examine the migration patterns of salmon, quantum mechanics and the causes of multiple sclerosis. It exists to examine everything and get it right or as correct as is possible given our current levels of knowledge.
Attendu que, depuis des années, une inconnue, nommée la Raison, a entrepris d’entrer par force dans les Écoles de l’Université; qu’à l’aide de certains quidams facétieux, prenant le surnom de Gassendistes, Cartésiens, Malebranchistes, gens sans aveu, elle veut examiner et expulser Aristote…’ C’était vrai. Elle entrait en jeu, la Raison agressive; elle voulait examiner non pas seulement Aristote, mais quiconque avait pensé, quiconque avait écrit…
Paul Hazard – La Crise de la conscience européenne (1680-1715)
[Expected for some years, an unknown called Reason forced her way into the Schools of the University...An aggressive reason entered the arena wanting to examine not only Aristotle but anyone who had thought or written...]
Phaedrus said the same confusion existed about the University...The real University is not a material object...What would happen is that the real University, which no legislature can dictate to and which can never be identified by any location of bricks or boards or glass, would simply declare that this place was no longer 'holy ground'. The real University would vanish from it and all that would be left was the bricks and the books and the material manifestation. It must have been a strange concept to all of the students...The real university is a state of mind. It is that great heritage of rational thought that has been brought down to us through the centuries and which does not exist at any specific location. It's a state of mind which is regenerated throughout the centuries by a body of people who traditionally carry the title of professor, but even that title is not part of the real University. The real University is nothing less than the continuing body of reason itself.
Robert Pirsig – Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
PANTHER -> Site news -> Repost: Lie back in your padded cells and tell me how my educational achievement is the result of privilege
Like most people who subsequently went to and graduated from real universities, I have 9 academic O Levels. I do not, however, have 9 academic O Levels because I attended an academic hot-house such as St Paul's or Godolphin and Latymer, but despite having had the schooling from hell. More broadly, this devastating background is relevant to the current scenario insofar as, when one attends a new school every couple of years, one becomes remarkably good at survival. However hard you try, little pigs, you will not dismiss my education as financial privilege.
Born: Rochford, Essex; there until aged 5
About a term at St Bernard's School before moved to London
St Mary's Town and Country School, NW3 - about a year and a half but not stretched
Francis Holland School for Girls - about another year and half
Moved to Devon: Seaton County Primary School October 1963 to June 1965
Moved to Sussex: Walberton and Binsted County Primary School June 1965 to July 1966
Passed 11+ Chichester High School for Girls October 1966 to May 1967
Spine started to curve and father went to work in The Hague
May 1967 to September 1967 in London
Back to Devon: Colyton Grammar School September 1967 to June 1968
June 1968 Admitted to Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital
January 1969 discharged from Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital after
7 months in plaster
January 1969 to July 1971 English School of The Hague. First six months in a cumbersome and unpleasant orthopaedic brace
September 1971 to March 1972 Edgehill College, Bideford
April 1972 to May 1974 Holland Park School, London, while lodging with my half-sister and my father's first wife
My father from time to time made a lot of money and then spent it. He never invested in property or anything else for that matter, this partly because he was of the generation when if you had a reasonable income you could always find an unfurnished flat. He also didn't understand that continuity and stability are generally held to be educationally beneficial, possibly because, a self-made man like his father before him, he didn't think school was all that essential, providing you were broadly educated. Remember he was born in 1906 and this is a vanished world.
In 1971, just after I had done my O Levels, he was 65 and retired, penniless other than a tiny Dutch pension and a larger, so far as any British State pension is large, British one, in a foreign country, with no house in England to come back to, nothing. My mother, who was then 51, had to go back to work as a junior Civil Servant. She could have thrown us on the State, who would have had to provide something; despite the fact that my father's track-record somewhat labelled him as the feckless and undeserving poor, he was the feckless and undeserving poor who had never been out of work from 15 to 65 and so had paid his NI; I went to university on a full grant because in the days before we were all equally brilliant the State considered it a wise investment to pay for the
education of the seriously bright.
October 1974 to June 1978: Bedford College (University of London); intercalated year at Ecole de français moderne de l’Université de Lausanne
BA (Hons) French with Italian
October 1978 to June 1979: School of Education, University of Reading
Post-Graduate Certificate in Education
Qualified for membership of British Mensa: IQ 155, attained by 1% of the population
Barbara Roche MP is adamant. 'We democratic socialists find equality of opportunity inadequate. After all, does Tawney not note, ‘equality implies the deliberate acceptance of social restraints upon individual expansion’
Indeed. Roche instructs us on the need to agree just how extensively individuals may be messed about to sate the new god, then continues, fixated like all her kind on what money can buy.
(Barbara Roche MP ‘Fair share’ in Mind the gap: Britain’s progressive deficit published by Progress)
‘Privilege’, hissed Dezzi, is language, ‘privilege’ is being surrounded by books, hundreds, thousands of the things, ‘privilege’ is being able to read by the time I was four, ‘privilege’ is being assessed aged 6 as having a reading-age of 14, ‘privilege‘ is reading your way through the tiny local library, ‘privilege’ is a family background where people discuss ideas and are interested in the world around them, ‘privilege‘ is not coming from a home where no-one talks to you so that you arrive at school barely able to speak let alone to read, ‘privilege’ is innate intelligence, ’privilege’ is being a fighter. ‘Privilege‘ is cheap or free and people try to buy it but you can’t buy ability and you can’t buy motivation and no matter what you do you can’t stamp it out, only kill it like your Stalinist comrades before you. Hate individual ability, individual effort, individual achievement, hate anything that comes from the inside and demonstrates individuals differ inside. Deride it, dismiss it as privilege. The crime is success, whether personal or that of one’s father, grand-father, great-grandfather. The further back it goes, the worse it is, because the obstacles were greater. Punish the snotty tart because her grandparents loved books when they were supposed to go on being down-trodden, and gave her a privilege no money can buy, punish me because my grand-parents were bright and took advantage of increased opportunity, and it’s NOT FAIR that others in exactly the same social and economic position didn’t advance equally.
In the Guardian Professor Graham Zellick, Vice-Chancellor of the University of London, continued a debate with the Hodge-Podge, noting that he is the grandson of immigrants unable to read and write English, that both his grandmothers signed their names with an X.
And who the hell, hissed Dezzi, do you drivelling imbeciles think were the parents, grand-parents, great-grandparents of those who now oppose you? You think everyone who has graduated from Oxford, Cambridge, London, Durham, Edinburgh in the last sixty years is the son or daughter of a freaking duke or one of they other bloated capitalists?
Contempt for individual minds, contempt for individual bodies, contempt for individual achievement. Actually you’re not lunch because you’re carrion and far too yucky to eat.
So much ridiculous drivel surrounds this subject. One gem is if you miss two weeks’ school you are doomed to failure, you will never catch up. Labour spouts offensive sick drivel to the effect that financial privilege is the cause of academic success, no question of some people being more intelligent than others. They will not accept the fact of stupidity. Tories spout equally offensive sick drivel to the effect that being well off is an index of intelligence; the wealthy are both intellectually and morally superior.
And of course if you go to a new and different school every couple of years or so you are very alert indeed, little neurons twitching frantically making connections, trying to make sense of the world.
This clinically insane rabble of morally derelict IQ5 offal will presumably have convinced themselves that the only reason I got into the University of London was because my parents were well off. Actually the only reason is more like my father was an author, I could read when I was four, when I was 16 I was reading a book a day. Perhaps if they were closely supervised and given explicit instruction in the standards of free, democratic, rational and civilized societies they might cautiously be permitted a little authority. Certainly no creature who thinks its bloody religion over-rides those standards is fit for any position of power. There are only two things for the filth of UCH to be: of sub-normal intelligence unable to absorb the simplest words and pure irreducible evil, contentedly watching brute beasts desecrate and destroy, egging them on, stroking them, telling them how wonderful they are and of course protecting them.
|
|
And here is me in Lina Williams Ward of the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, my loving family around me. You, cunt-pig, any of you. You think I went through that, 6 weeks of literally being stretched, as upon a rack, having the curve stretched out, 6 hours on the operating-table, and a further 5 months in hospital in plaster flat to have a dirty smelly animal wreck it all? I'm damn' sure I know who would get the lot of them struck off, Mr Charles Manning, my surgeon, but of course he is long dead. How silly of me, how out-dated, to think doctors have the highest moral standards.
My papa when young. Were it not for the tedious linear nature of time as we usually experience it, we should not be having this non-conversation because, being a normal Englishman of the half-Irish variety, not being some kind of pervert freak, some sort of fawning grovelling savage, he would have broken your bloody necks for what you have done to my body.
Why did Blair pay five seconds' attention to a sick monkey who wanted to butcher an Englishwoman and destroy England? Because Blair wanted the sick monkey to love little Tony and adopt him and look after him. Assume it was the groveller chimpo bitch photographed when wife of the British Prime Minister on her knees to her master, an expression of repulsive worship on her face, who innocently put me in the hands of our lovely nurses, knowing full well what the sick dirt cunt animals would do to me. Never thought to interfere, did you, Blair. I mean, you were only the Prime Minister.
And that fine lad on the right next to Stef is Robin Blackburn (at about 12) on family hols we took together and he knows who I am too. Simply loads of people know who I am, but then you are completely subnormal, a creature that needs to be in a home for its own safety and that of those around it. I have five fat albums of family photographs going back into the C19th.
|
But all but buried among the chaos and disaster, you need look no further than this for a funny story:
And ooh look, here are lots of (not all) my cousins and sibs at Aunt Ray's 80th, and they all know who I am too. Indeed they must be most brilliant and erudite persons to be able to work that out.
And right now I'm living a stone's throw from loads of people who know who I am, my half-sister Stef left-hand end of the front row, my half-sister-in-law Moya, Nigel's widow (2nd in from the right), Nigel's and Moya's daughters and son, my cousin Harriot. It's a good job I have a highly developed sense of humour, isn't it, to deal with walking breathing jokes, animals whose very essence is ridiculous, especially ones with names like McGuckin, McTiernan, Whelan, McCormack, Linch. |
PANTHER -> Site news -> Margaret, my great-grandmother, an Irish tart
by Ysabel Howard - Thursday, 16 February 2012, 09:07 PM
It's an interesting little story. I wish I knew more of it. She was the mistress of Edward VII's bookie. She was beautiful. I don't know when she crossed the water. I should explain that I am the result of people having had children late in life. My father's father was born in 1871 and my father in 1906, so we're back in the late nineteenth century - the original Naughty Nineties. Margaret became pregnant. I don't know if the relationship continued. What I do know is that he did right by her, paid for Elizabeth's (my grandmother's) school and university education. It was then that he severed all ties. Again there is a gap in the record. I don't know what Elizabeth did as one of a handful of women graduates before she met my grandfather, a Fabian, a socialist and an atheist. I do know that, once grandmama and grandpapa were married and had a home of their own, Margaret lived with them. My father adored her.
Grandpapa also was half-Irish. He was a Lancashire man, the son of a master-weaver. I know nothing about his mother, only that my father said he himself was half-Irish made up of two separate quarters. Elizabeth was a socialist, a feminist and a Unitarian. In all she had nine children, three of whom survived. Grandpa was the son of a master-weaver who left school at 13 and went to night-school. He worked his way up to be a senior Civil Servant. In those distant days, even if you weren't destitute infant mortality took its toll. Being avant-garde Leftist folk, they were heavily into nature cure, brown bread and no sugar. I don't know what if anything Margaret's family back in Ireland (County Kerry) knew of her life in England. I know that at some point they knew she had become a grandmother because my father went to stay in Ireland as a boy. I know they were Catholic because he was taken to Mass, an experience strange indeed for the son of the Left who had been withdrawn from Morning Assembly. Myy father was 11 in 1917, old enough to recall something of the world around him. He remembered the October Revolution and the conviction of the true believers that the revolution would spread throughout the world, as he remembered the front pages of each newspaper covered each morning with the names of the dead from the Western Front. Ten is just about old enough too. Strangely, with hindsight, he never recalled the impact of the Easter Rising on this most Irish of English families. It is not impossible, therefore, that there is a personal element in my profound aversion to women being stoned for their sexual conduct, not to mention my profound aversion to a 'Left' that glosses over women being stoned for their sexual conduct. Possibly the kitsch Left consider it a somewhat extreme version of a moral code they like to think of as having been universal until very recently. Guys, it is simply not how we on the Left do things or have ever done them.
It's really easy to look things up on the Internet, you know. When someone tells you something you are not sure of, you can check facts. Unless you're a mentally defective slobbering bloody subhuman of course.
Deceased nameMargaret JOYNT
Date of Burial12/07/1926
GenderFemale
Age73 Years
Date of deathUnknown
LocationEast Sheen Cemetery
SectionH
Grave503
Deceased nameBarrington Stockwell Howard
Date of Burial04/03/1994
GenderMale
Age87 Years
Date of deathUnknown
LocationRichmond Cemetery
Section18
Grave1341
Deceased nameMrs Kathleen Constance Howard
Date of Burial16/12/2015
GenderFemale
Age95 Years
Date of death01-12-2015
LocationRichmond Cemetery
Section16
Grave2080
You have done so many obscene things to me that rendering me unable to visit my parents' graves is fairly low down the scale. Nonetheless you have and I hold it against you. Your bottomless malice, of course, the spite of a subhuman squirming slimy malformed abortion, revels in it. And they actually take you seriously. People in positions of trust actually take you seriously and fawn on you and show you respect and wouldn't dream of laughing in your face and telling you you're a sick cunt, a dribbling nutter, a waste of oxygen, not worth five seconds' attention. Yes, they hang on your every fucking word and corrupt and desecrate everything in their eagerness to please you. It is inconceivable to them they do anything other than your will, jump to obey your commands. They are unswerving, unyielding in their obedience to evil and sickness. I guess you must pay them very well indeed. Christ, it's a mad monkey. Here's the family tree, mad monkey. I realize that printing it out and sticking it together is probably beyond you. There are sad limitations in life. One of them is the size of A4 paper.
