Sick disgusting freaks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_and_works_on_the_Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum

Bacon, Montaigne, Descartes, Hume, Locke, Kant, Mill, is there anyone the dirty old apes didn’t ban.  The Index of Forbidden Books was abolished in 1966.

All the senile old freaks in the Vatican therefore grew up with the idea people could be told what they may read.   Dictating to others is automatic to them.  Civilized people were appalled by Nazis burning books.  You think it worried the dirty old apes?

I doubt the great Catholic universities of Europe, from Rome to Dublin, paid the slightest attention, but that’s not really the point.  Few went to university and the many were not supposed to read books that might make them think

Copernicus was banned for 200 years until 1835. Les Miserables – perhaps you saw it on stage – was banned until 1959. 

Faced with this nonsense in their local bookstores, I’d be guessing the thinking Irish would have popped over the water, filled their cabin trunks in Dillon’s as it then was and popped back.  Or taken a flight to Paris. Customs?  As in the guy in a uniform checking your luggage?  Possibly it depended on the individual officer; if you met a zealot, you had a problem.What a bookshop stocked would also have depended on the proprietor?

Books, savages, barbarians, philistines, books that civilized people read to find out what other people think and give themselves things to think about, books, which spark mental activity and change minds.

I have hundreds of the things, though rather fewer than I did have, since the barbarians presided over my having to dispose of half my parents’ library.

Not one bloody book nutters think contains Troof and with which all other books should broadly concur.
Ridiculous, vile and ignorant technicians without a clue both what other people think and have thought and of the history in which they thought it. 
One more time the short history lesson.
A SHORT HISTORY LESSON
 
Magna Carta: 1215

The Pope denounced Magna Carta as the work of the  devil, you know. Others think it a cornerstone of Anglo-American  democracy. Britannia  ecclesiam romanam non amat neque amabat.

Welcome,  therefore to England, land of Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, Charles I,  Cromwell,  William of Orange, the Glorious Revolution, Paine, Darwin, Marx. Of course in  turdville they know no  history. Faith schools not all they're cracked up to be then?

1534: Act  of Supremacy established the Church of England, of which the monarch is the head.

Once upon a time there was  a king called Charles. He had a Catholic wife,  upheld the rejected concept of  the divine right of kings and cosied up  to Rome. His head ended up separated  from his body, rolling gently away  from him down Whitehall.

English Civil War 1642-1651

30 January 1649 Execution of Charles I

Shortly  after, there was another king called James and his reign ended with the Glorious Revolution and the installation of the resolutely Protestant  William of Orange  and the law-makers rather thought they'd settled  things once and for all.

1688 Glorious Revolution and establishment of Protestant  succession
 
It can be argued that James's  overthrow began modern English parliamentary democracy: never since has  the monarch held  absolute power, and the Bill of Rights has become one  of the most important documents in the political history of Britain. The deposition of the Roman  Catholic James II ended any chance of  Catholicism becoming re-established in  England, and led to limited  toleration for nonconformist Protestants — it would be some time before  they had full political rights. For Catholics, however, it  was  disastrous both socially and politically. Catholics were denied the  right  to vote and sit in the Westminster Parliament for over 100 years  afterwards. They were also denied commissions in the army and the  monarch was forbidden to  be Catholic or marry a Catholic, thus ensuring a Protestant  succession. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution

 And I do declare that no foreign  prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any  jurisdiction,
power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority,  ecclesiastical or spiritual,  within this realm. 

And whereas it hath been found by  experience  that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this  Protestant kingdom  to be governed by a popish prince, or by any king or  queen marrying a papist, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and  Commons do further pray that it may  be enacted, that all and every  person and persons that is, are or shall be  reconciled to or shall hold  communion with the see or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish  religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be excluded and be  for ever  incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the crown and government of  this  realm and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part of   the same, or to have, use or exercise any regal power, authority or   jurisdiction within the same; 
English Bill of Rights, 1689

The office of Prime Minister had yet to be created.  Academic lawyers could argue for years about whether it was within the  spirit of the law  that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom  to have the Prime Minister married to a  Catholic. 

Indeed they were bloody lawyers.  They knew what they were messing with. 

And then roughly 100 years later there was a little  upset in France and another king found his head rolling gently away from his body and  lots of blood coming from his neck and there was the  Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Civil Constitution of the  Clergy and they just don't seem to  learn, cos they got Troof.

French Revolution  1789-1799

12 July 1790 Civil Constitution of the Clergy making all Roman Catholic priests subordinate to the French government
21 January 1793  Execution of Louis XVI
17 November 1793 celebration of the goddess 'Reason' in Notre-Dame de Paris

 4 July 1776 Declaration of Independence of these United States of America
 
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America was adopted in December 1791. 

Congress shall make no law respecting  an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;  or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a  redress of  grievances.
 
Probably the Vatican didn't even notice, being somewhat more locally engaged. Others, however, did and do.
 
They didn't surrender to the voice of sweet reason. They were forced to surrender and indeed fought a valiant rearguard action.

Wherefore, civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power and authority. justice  therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness--namely, to treat the  various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them
promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one  religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone  is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic
States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engraven upon it. This  religion, therefore, the rulers of the State must preserve and protect, if they  would provide--as they should do--with prudence and usefulness for the good of
the community. For public authority exists for the welfare of those whom it governs; and, although its proximate end is to lead men to the prosperity found  in this life, yet, in so doing, it ought not to diminish, but rather to increase, man's capability of attaining to the supreme good in which his  everlasting happiness consists: which never can be attained if religion be  disregarded.

22. All this, however, We have explained more fully elsewhere. We now only wish to add the remark that liberty of so false a nature is greatly hurtful to the true liberty of both rulers and their subjects. Religion, of its essence, is wonderfully helpful to the State. For, since it derives the prime origin of all  power directly from God Himself, with grave authority it charges rulers to be  mindful of their duty, to govern without injustice or severity, to rule their
people kindly and with almost paternal charity; it admonishes subjects to be  obedient to lawful authority, as to the ministers of God; and it binds them to  their rulers, not merely by obedience, but by reverence and affection,
forbidding all seditions and venturesome enterprises calculated to disturb  public order and tranquillity, and cause greater restrictions to be put upon the  liberty of the people. We need not mention how greatly religion conduces to pure  morals, and pure morals to liberty. Reason shows, and history confirms the fact, that the higher the morality of States, the greater are the liberty and wealth  and power which they enjoy.

 23. We must now consider briefly liberty of speech, and liberty of the press. It is hardly necessary to say that there can be no such right as this, if it be  not used in moderation, and if it pass beyond the bounds and end of all true  liberty. For right is a moral power which--as We have before said and must again  and again repeat--it is absurd to suppose that nature has accorded indifferently  to truth and falsehood, to justice and injustice. Men have a right freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things soever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but Iying opinions,  than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and  moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State. The excesses of an unbridled intellect,  which unfailingly end in the oppression of the untutored multitude, are no less
rightly controlled by the authority of the law than are the injuries inflicted by violence upon the weak. And this all the more surely, because by far the  greater part of the community is either absolutely unable, or able only with  great difficulty, to escape from illusions and deceitful subtleties, especially  such as flatter the passions. If unbridled license of speech and of writing be  granted to all, nothing will remain sacred and inviolate; even the highest and  truest mandates of natures, justly held to be the common and noblest heritage of  the human race, will not be spared. Thus, truth being gradually obscured by  darkness, pernicious and manifold error, as too often happens, will easily prevail. Thus, too, license will gain what liberty loses; for liberty will ever be more free and secure in proportion as license is kept in fuller restraint. In  regard, however, to all matter of opinion which God leaves to man's free  discussion, full liberty of thought and of speech is naturally within the right  of everyone; for such liberty never leads men to suppress the truth, but often  to discover it and make it known.

 Libertas, Leo XIII, 1888

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd  principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best  constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that  human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any  more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made  between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of  Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to
assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is  recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties,  offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to  foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's  personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every  rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an  absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether  ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to  manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by  the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not  think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;"3 and that "if  human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be  wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of  human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ,  how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."4

Quanta Cura, Pius IX 1864

It is doubtful whether England would accept governance by the heavenly host but by an organization as utterly tainted as the  Vatican - you  cannot be serious. But of course there is always ignorance and ignorance is  enthusiastically cultivated by clerical and secular  anti-educators alike

The Reformation was a number of things. One of them  was people failing to make a connection between Jesus's teachings and  what is known  of his life and a mega-buck empire based in Rome. Since  neither the New  Testament nor the mega-buck empire has vanished, people  continue to fail to  make the connection, regardless of how many saintly  priests do good works in abject poverty.

How simple is it possible to make this? Jesus did not  like religious farts. A large number of people inside the Churches and  outside them,  follow Jesus because he did not like religious farts.  Attempting to foist religious farts on people on the grounds they  represent Jesus isn't going to  wash.

And how it's done, the conversion of a democracy to a   theocracy, is of course by seizing the citadels of bourgeois power,  politicans  as puppets.

It goes on and on, the filth, the attempted indoctrination that faith is intrinsically superior, when it is entirely evident that it isn't

 And in the very dead of night, long after even the  most  determined revellers are tucked up in their little beds, long after the foxes  have finished crashing around in the bins, when it's  absolutely quiet, if you put your ear to the ground you can hear a  rustling noise like dry paper. That's  money talking.
Nothing is more hated than intelligence, except intelligence in a female body.  And fact.  The simplest facts of history are to be suppressed.
TRIVIALIZING THE REFORMATION
 
P-R-O-T - yikes, they can't even read. The clergy do not have the same role as in the Catholic world and now they are less important than ever.
____________________________________________________________________________________
This is the Protestant world and has been for some time. That it does not occur to us we want or need Rome to interpret the Bible for us goes deeper than 'modernity', 'liberalism', Marx or the Enlightenment, itself the child of Luther, of people reading the Bible for themselves and deciding the Vatican talked nonsense and pernicious nonsense at that. : everything that has happened to religion and spirituality in the Protestant world is, no matter how utterly opposed to and divorced from his beliefs, the child of Luther not of Rome, just as the entire thrust of Neu Arbeit, hanging on the words of members of spiritual hierarchies and indifferent to what ordinary people think, and particularly the despised adherents of "pick 'n' mix" religion, is anti-Protestant.
This is overlooked, the 'schism' portrayed as trying to agree on the nature of the Host so they can all be one church again.
This site has gone on at inordinate length about the Enlightenment and Marxism but that has missed the point. The thrust of Blair's clerical fascism was actually pre-Reformation. The Vatican was supposed to matter to all of us, not just the members of a minority sect called British Catholics.
Protestants believe that through Christ they have been given direct access to God, just like a priest; thus the doctrine is called the priesthood of all believers. God is equally accessible to all the faithful, and every Christian has equal potential to minister for God. This doctrine stands in opposition to the concept of a spiritual aristocracy or hierarchy within Christianity. Priesthood of all believers
"The Magisterium of the Church
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48
87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me",49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

 
The true root of the free world, Protestants thinking for themselves.  Someone tell that dirty chimp, those evil diseased smelly animals in Rome, who of course think exactly like fucking Muslims, who fundamentally see no wrong in Islam, other than theologically, who equally assume women are to be defined by men, decided for, that they are meddling in the formerly Protestant world, where they have no authority, where they are not wanted, and where no-one gives a fuck about them, and keep fucking out. 
 
If you tell me that there is a single person in the whole of the island of Ireland who does not know that England is Protestant, I piss with laughter.
 
Right now, half the country has no bloody religion and you filth are taking a one-way trip to hell.  But you’ll murder me anyway.
 
And again
REALITY 102
 
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. Some people (they know who they are) claim everything is enshrined in their One Book, with the resultant claim that 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  insane religious from the sane 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 read many 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 nonsense.  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 have neither self-control (ability to contain your feelings) nor self-command (ability to change your feelings).
 
REALITY 103
 
Either you decide in advance what the world is and what the individual humans in it are and when they fail to be it coerce them into being it or kill them if they are recalcitrant or your frame of reference dictates their category of human has no right to life or you look at the world and the individual humans in it and what they do and have done and say and have said and form conclusions therefrom. Either you categorize humans according to their external appearance (form) and declare women or Jews or Arabs or gays are fundamentally a different kind of human to you or you start with the proposition that all are fundamentally human (essence).

Those who believe in One Book, One Truth, whether that book is the Bible, the Qur’an, the Torah, Das Kapital or Mein Kampf prejudge and of course deny all evidence to the contrary, whether scientific or social. The authors of these works have created the world as they think it must be or if you prefer have created fictional worlds. The rest in a nutshell is their lamentable struggle to fit the real world into the box they have created for it.
 
There are single, absolute realities. A grain of sand has the properties of sand. It is not a malign entity seeking to infiltrate your sandwiches at a beach-party. Everything is itself, not what it ‘must be’ or you imagine it is, has its essence independent of how coded perception sees it. The unique identity of an individual may be less obvious, not least to the individual himself or herself. People play roles and seek to cast others in them.

The human capacity to deny reality is pretty limitless. When you have dismissed the observable evidence of what people say and do, you are finally happy living in a world that unfortunately exists only in your head and you can truly dedicate yourself to protecting that inner world from any encroachment by reality, because you think you'll fall apart. Emotional maturity is knowing that you won't fall apart.
Some people wish to live in the C21st. The modern world is based on reality.

 1. The reality of individuality. Modern people are not obsessed with               race, gender or sexual orientation.

 2. The reality of one world. We sit in Surbiton and talk to people in               Singapore, San Francisco and Sierra Leone, whether on the               telephone or over the Web. We understand the world is a single               ecological unit. We understand we're all just people. We live in a               free and borderless world called cyberspace. We read and watch               and say what we like. We communicate with each other as               equals.
REALITY 104

Perception is conditioned from birth onward as the small and screaming I seeks to deal with the world. Internal realities are formed of what people are, what situations means – mind-patterns, concepts of ‘I’ and ‘you’ and ‘I’ in relation to ‘you’ - stereotypes at the most elementary level. All irtubi are vicious, and so, if I should meet an irtubi, he or she will attempt to injure me. If that is my conviction and I meet a charming, courteous, irtubi, I conclude he or she is feigning pleasantness, suspect him or her of setting some trap for me. Conflict is set up when experience of people, situations – external reality – fails to conform to one’s internal reality. It may be repressed. Alternatively one may make minimal adjustment to the head-set. The mind is very flexible in this respect. All irtubi are vicious. My friend is irtubi. My friend is not vicious. He is the exception that proves the rule – a peculiarly meaningless expression. The brain’s attempts to order the world, order the input, have resulted in false conclusions. The brain has sought to protect itself from what is there. What is there may hurt. We talk freely of people feeling threatened. There is no physical danger. The rickety concepts on which the ‘I’, the self-image, is based are under attack. It may seem strange to say it is essential to personality that one believe for instance that all irtubi are vicious. Nonetheless, the self, the sense of self, may be made up of similar deeply held convictions, and when one foundation-stone is in danger of being pulled away one fears for the whole building.

True loss of self, not the dirty perverted kind purveyed by the clerical ape, which means accepting his lies, lies in ceasing to code perception and seeing what is there, such that there is no ‘I’ between oneself and the universe, the inside equals the outside.
 
And again
PANTHER: the argument

The collapse of the credibility of Marxism has enabled the power of both religion and capital to go largely unchallenged and the restoration of a Left ready to confront both is needed to restore balance in our societies.

We are being taken into Never-Never-Land where the most basic facts of political and intellectual history are ignored as though they never were: 'defamation' and derision of religion have been standard form for some 300 years from the Enlightenment through to Marx, Darwin and the counter-culture, and are the root of the free world. ‘They eat and drink, shit and piss their god,’ observed Voltaire (‘chient et pissent leur Dieu’, Dictionnaire philosophique: Transubstantiation, 1769) ‘Spiritual booze‘, ‘mediaeval mildew‘, opined Lenin (Socialism and Religion, 1905). People have not hesitated to say what they think, not what others have instructed them it is permissible to think and so established the foundations of the modern world, of science, of medicine, and of gender equality.
 
The hostility the Enlightenment evokes in certain orthodox religious is due to their loss of power. Instead of the self-appointed representatives of God set on high above us all to dictate what we may think, what we may do, how we may be, we became equal in rights. Power was transferred to the governed who gave power to the governing, who are equals, fellow, fallible human beings  accountable for how they exercise the power given them and can be dislodged and dismissed if they abuse it.

I own me. Who else can? Slavery has been abolished. I decide what I read. I decide what I think about it. I decide what I say or write, as I decide what I wear and with whom I shall make love.
The notion it is given people are in some sense property, tools of a greater purpose, whether God’s will or the demand of the State (in both cases of course what equally fallible fellow-humans have decided is God's will or the demand of the State) appears to be  gospel for something like 95% of the current 'Left'. Soviet Marxism adopted it lock, stock and barrel. To insist on being oneself not a creature of the will of others, thinking only what one’s masters permit, is evil/insanity. The wannabe overlord has a stock vocabulary - wilful, insolent, impudent, rebellious all terms which simply mean resistant to the wilful, insolent and impudent, if not rebellious, attempting to impose its will not only on other people but on reality itself, to define the mental world of all who surround it, to create a false reality and call it Truth.
 
You may wish to have a purpose to your existence, but it is not for others to say what you are for.  Once people are designated a purpose , if they fail to be fit-for-use they are expendable. Thus the Gulag Archipelago.

It is possible theoretically we are in some sense the property of God, but that does not make us the property of God's self-appointed representatives. This is a Protestant country; we sort ourselves out with God, should He, She or It exist.
 
And again
The French have a word for them.
lèche-cul , nom masculin Sens De manière vulgaire, désigne une personne extrêmement servile envers des responsables ou supérieurs hiérarchique, dans le but de se faire bien voir ou accorder certaines faveurs.
Arse-lickers
Liberty is a function of love. Control is a function of self-will.
You are not self-forgetting by definition if you are forcing others to obey you, placing to the fore the seedy clamourings of your self. Similarly 'God's mercy' is an exercise in self-stroking, whether attributed to God or claimed by the religious, a sitting there stroking yourself at how virtuous you are being because you are 'showing mercy'. If you love other people, you don't want to do that from which you are 'mercifully' refraining in the first place. Self-forgetting is graciousness, as in beauty of manner. Grace is paramountly not forcing oneself on others other than to restrain them from forcing themselves on others.

 
I do not suppose that anyone could propound a hypothesis of the nature of creativity more likely to arouse a derisive titter than the idea that in the act of creative imagination we are mouthpieces of divinity - how could anyone entertain a concept so far removed from science - a concept lying so far on the wrong side of the tracks created by Karl Popper's line of demarcation between the domain of, on the one hand, science and common sense and on the other hand, of religion, metaphysics and imaginative literature.  Let us have a good laugh - but only in the vivid consciousness that we certainly cannot do any better and that the explanations of creativity by psychologists and the machine intelligence boys are in their own way just as inadequate.
Peter Medawar: 'Creativity - especially in science' (1985) in The Threat and the Glory: Reflections on Science and Scientists, OUP, 1991
I really do not know what your fucking problem is.  Apart from being dead from the neck up, of course.
We know from, among other places, the Lascaux cave illustrations of 17000 years ago that there were creative, artistic cave-persons, and we know also by deduction that there were cave-persons whose approach to, say, fire was more pragmatic, shall we say, than to just squeal it was a mighty god, or else the species would not have moved on at all. Is it not a most interesting question, then, why I or anyone else in a free country in the C21st century with the whole of world thought, the whole of world art, available for our contemplation should be bothered by the more retarded sort of cave-person?
And by the way, since every bloody thing in the universe comes from a few quarks, there may be a rather large  improbability factor but there is no intrinsic impossibility in this mind lark coming from being part of the universe.
Me charm.  You just strange. 
THus Doc Hollowhead
The pressing reason for kicking medicine and other biological sciences out of the university is of course the abolition of mind. If you do not believe mind exists, it's hard to see what purpose you have in an institution dedicated to training it: the door is over there.
 
All those years in Medical School being told he shares 98% of his DNA with the chimpanzee have taken their toll on Doc Hollowhead. Knowing a little about chimps, he now thinks he knows everything about human beings. Fruit-flies are best, of course. Fruit-flies are a sure-fire guide. He looked around anxiously. Fruit-flies were reassuring, but alas there were none to be seen.

He therefore behaves like an ape. A bigger monkey has beaten his chest. Bigger monkey = power. Power = can hurt little monkey. Little monkey fwightened. Fear shuts down human mind. Being also human little monkey hastily attributes probity, rationality, goodness to bigger monkey. Bigger monkey can't possibly be lying or otherwise talking out of his arse. No need for debate. No need to check facts. Reality is whatever a bigger more powerful baboon says it is. What most people recognize about authority, namely its capacity to talk out of its arse, is lost on Doc who of course knows everything about human beings, being conversant with the DNA of the chimp.

There came the Enlightenment. What bloody garbage is this? they cried. Authority is a fellow-human. He may be right. He may be wrong. Fact and reason are the determinants. If he or she desires to exert force over you, he or she must give valid reason.

The unmitigated evil of orthodox religion is of course an equivalent reductionism: it reduces humans to helpless gibbering apes, terrorizes them into fearing thought and langugage. When a representative of the Pink Hippo speaks, there is instant suspension of all rational processes, all speech, instant suspension of all decency, all morality, because what the worshippers are taught is to be evil on command.
http://www.dillsplace.com/the-abolition-of-mind.html
 
Believe what they're told and think  themselves intellectually superior to those who question because what  they have  been told 'must be' the truth so any divergence from it is  lies. Do what  they're told - that one's easy once they've been fed lies - and think themselves  morally superior because virtue lies in obedience. Stripped of all  individual psychological processes, whether those  of the mind or those of the heart. Reality is whatever Master says it  is. The Good is whatever Master says  it is. Master knows best.
Do anything, tolerate anything because challenge to authority is 'evil'.  To be organic, to be real, to be that arising from  oneself, the activities of one's own heart and mind, is evil.
You gotta  believe what you're told, regardless of whether it's garbage.
 You gotta do  what you're told, regardless of whether it's evil. 
They have believed what they were told and followed regulayshuns and proseedyures.  It is inconceivable to them they have done anything wrong.
http://www.dillsplace.com/index.html
 
Don't suppose they have much time for Plutarch either: For the mind does not require filling like a bottle, but rather, like wood, it only requires kindling to create in it an impulse to think independently and an ardent desire for the truth.
 
How, after all, can they have trained minds, when they show no signs of having any minds at all?
 
Thus a rabble of criminal animals who live n a mental world that exists solely in their heads, completely intellectually incapable, unable to analyse the content of their own minds, let alone anyone else’s, deliberately rendered intellectually and emotionally helpless by their filthy educations to keep them dependent, hanging on the tits of priests,, taught it is evil to question, taught it is evil to engage in independent thought.  Totally unfit for any university worthy of the name, so we must send them to trade-schools and pretend they emerge with degrees, create a fake professional class of the intellectually incapable deliberately created to destroy anything approaching a rational basis for society, armed with the unshakeable conviction of the clinically insane, the psychopathic, that they know everything and they know best.
 
What it means, of course, that calling the illiterate illiterate is a capital offence, held so by Blair and Milburn, is very obvious and very evil.  It means literacy is not considered important.  It is not important to be able to express oneself clearly.  It is not important to be able to analyse the words of others.  IT is not important to be able to use language.  It is important to remain readily manipulated, to be used by the language of others. 
 
I of course am but a little maid who all unwary/Came from a ladies’ seminary – I say, didn’t you previously have two legs? A word of thanks is undoubtedly due to Dr Eva Jacobs, my tutor, whose capacity neatly to remove limbs while naturally attenuated in seminars in the Reid Building provided an excellent role model. Don't it mean nuffink, my silly little degree. Not like I was a ners. Just have to learn the hard way, won't you. I am a graduate of the University of London. It's all I need to be.
 
"Archchancellor, Archchancellor! There’s a delegation of medical morons terribly red in the face claiming we award ‘silly little arts degrees’."
"Bah! Turn ‘em into toads!"
"There’s a problem with that, Archchancellor – " "Problem, what problem? Use your initiative!" "They’re toads already, Archchancellor." "Talking toads, eh?"
"More of a splutter, really, Archchancellor, a gurgle." "Give ‘em a few flies and ask ‘em to wait."
"Oh. No. It’s not quite like that. It’s really interesting, actually, like the Librarian in reverse. I mean, he has an orang body and a human mind. They have human bodies and toad minds. The toad spell bounces back."
While the entrance to the Unseen University is a little hard to find, being the full stop in line 10, page 43, of an 1844 translation of Beowulf in the stacks in Senate House Library, the assistance of the Librarian may of course be sought by those unfamiliar with the Library, though possibly a little risky. The Librarian really does not like people who despise his books. Indeed, it is said that Death keeps a small branch office among the textbooks on Old Norse.
Mix, that’s the ticket, doctors should mix more. Don’t you think it would be funny if groups of doctors and nurses regularly barged into UCL and told the occupants of seminars on Kant, lectures on Vulgar Latin, tutorials on the Elizabethan wool trade how really stupid they were compared to health professionals and how silly little arts degrees were absolutely meaningless.
An adequate method of culling, I think. [A few moments later.]
"I asked them to wait, Archchancellor. They say they’re going to put in a complaint." "They what!"
"It’s the painting. The Reclining Virgin with the Small But Perfectly Formed Boobs. They say it’s totally unsuitable. Out of keeping with the dignity of your office. I told them it’s a Squelch. The fat one said who’s Squelch? The short one said he presumed some decadent layabout. The spotty one said he was appalled. Such things should not be permitted. "
"Not planning to read History of Art, then." The Archchancellor has an idea.
"Are they edible?"
"Very squishy, Archchancellor. Lots of flab. Not a very healthy diet."
 
 
To all practical purposes outside the narrow confines of their work, they’re mongs, tards, mental defectives, impossible to hold a rational conversation with them.  Medicine is a fucking joke. 
Of course it keeps itself sealed.  No-one must find that out, find out that when ddealing with creatures like Whenlan, Ardeshna, O’Mahony, one is essntially dealing with ingnorant ineducbble anti-itellectual tards.
Between being Severed and monstrous bloated insane ego that tells them they are Doctor and Nurse and they know everyhing, totally imepetntratable to fact, anything contrary to what they think they know dismissed instantly, what you are dealing with is to all pratical purposes total tard, mng, subnormal, it allmakes senses then.  It doesn’t matter what you say to them if a heead monkey has told them something different. 
They have of course no place in the University, they are a tumour, a cancer
Certainly these doctor zombie subhuman creatures only survive on suppression of fact. I'm sure the University is entirely dazzled by the intellects displayed by first half-killing me then crippling me then proving entirely incapable of speech. Having been contained at least from dismembering my body, they now treat me like a silly little girl who is idiotically objecting to having been quite rightly beaten as punishment for her crimes and who is to be ignored.. I mean Medicine is quite overwhelming, isn't it. I'm sure the University is completely awestruck by them
http://www.dillsplace.com/therefore-vice-chancellor.html
 
They’rer a fucking joke, a yawning sick twisted evil halfwit like ‘professor Whelan is just a fucking joke.  Rotten all the may through, rotten to the core, impervious to all fact, reason, reality, understanding only power. 
THEREFORE, VICE-CHANCELLOR
 
Well, yes, repeatedly being clubbed has failed to stop the daughter of Marxist-Leninism who is also a student of Voltaire and a child of Woodstock with a distinct fondness for Greece from accepting that it is inconceivable and ridiculous to mock, criticize and condemn religion, no-one ever has, no-one ever either had views deviant from orthodoxy or felt entirely free to voice them, as is has failed to convince an Englishwoman that no-one previously has ever said the Vatican is a crock of shit, but then no-one not severely mentally damaged would have thought it would.
 
I suppose these nutcases think atheism is and always was proscribed. My father was an atheist.  My grandfather was an atheist.  Do they think Marxists crept around in terror of being overheard by the 'holy'?  I have of course pointed out that, whatever cosy chats Uncle Richard and Cousin Rodney, being card-carrying members of the Communist Party,  might have had with the security services, they lived happy untrammelled little Communist lives, not forced out of employment, crippled or otherwise victimized. 
It is reasonably clear that if these people were questioned by any normal educated intelligent person in an open forum where their lunatic notions of Authority, the pathetic and diseased convictions of the psychotic that what they say goes because they say it, so disguising their inability to provide argument or fact supporting the argument and attempting feebly to disguise their rejection of and contempt for others' equal right to speak, they would come over as severely retarded, completely intellectually incapable.
But they can't be....So really what the fuck is wrong with them? Certainly fear addles minds.Certainly they are ruled by fear. Certainly fear may be inculcated in them, frightened of getting into trouble, frightened of going to hell. Certainly the fear also contains them internally, they identify themselves with what they believe and if they feel those beliefs threatened they fear they will disintegrate.While the ceiling on thought imposed by a belief-system is of course arbitrary and the ceiling on thought imposed by biology is of course not, each represents a closed system. The Vatican/insert drug of choice/Vatican particularly among the religious but also of course Stalinism and Maoism drools that of course it upholds reason and means by that that the frame of reference, the boundaries of the system, the bricks in the wall are not to be questioned, all that may be 'questioned' are the elements in the box, though in fact this is not so much active questioning as a passive exercise in understanding how those elements fit together, because of course if and when the bricks are questioned the whole thing collapses, and so what is meant by 'reasoning' is understanding how what is given comes to be. Much learning of biology must necessarily be the same, understanding the mechanism by which A becomes B. The thinking is relational. Sounds good. Is it? Possibly even necessarily relational. Ooh, ooh. It is learning to understand how, how absolution works, how the liver functions, how the dictatorship of the proletariat leads to the withering away of the State. That in biology the bricks are real, you cannot challenge what a muscle cell does and adduce argument to demonstrate that actually it performs the functions of a platelet, does not I think affect the general process.
With regard to religion, the bricks are of course not there.. Could I have said this before?
The Reformation was an expansion of thought beyond the entirely arbitrary limits set by the Vatican, as the Enlightenment and so the present day are expansions of thought beyond the bounds set by Christianity. Minds can go anywhere and where love and reason guide them the result is a vast improvement on anything before. Those in mental cages are going to have to grasp this.
 
All thee diry little ae can do is butcher,, murder, estroy anything that refuses to be mohnkey
 
They won’t be struck off, of course, the criminal protection racket is too powerful.  Just so long as people know.
 
So very important to shuffle them all to the top, the self-obsessed frearks from the slums and gutters, intellectual if not physical slums, the creatures devoid of both moral and intellectual education, who have never been taught which fucking end is up, never been taught they live in a free and democratic country in which people are equal in rights, never been told they’re criminal, unclean, rotten at the core.
 
With regard to mass immigration the devil is in the detail.  By all means let people in, so long as it is made entirely clear to them which end is up.  Immigrants are individuals with the same range of opiniohs as anyone else, but if they were brought up in corrupt fascist societies and are not dissidents, if they are educated in filthy faith schools or Trot-nests, which are probably just as bad,  they will be possessed of the views of corrupt fascist societies, they will think it dangerous to question power, they will regard some things as given, which are by no means given, such as that it is inconceivable to mock religion.  In the land of make believe all immigrants are freedom-loving democrats and of course they are not  They must be therefore remodelled.  No, this is not a sexually sick fascist psychopath possessed of the delusion he or she can dictate the opinions of the rest of the country, this is a religious person, morally superior to all you nasty rational people. Views clearly inimical to the fee world, views decisively rejected by the free world, are welcomed.  We must regard those who hold them as an asset to the country.  Immigrants are the fall-guys for the attack on the free world which comes both from the fascist fake Left and from the Right.  Thus we have had the absolute insolent refusal of government after government and of course the filth of religious  to state categorically that this is a free country and a democracy, women and gays can like everyone else do and be what we choose (most specifically including ‘their’ women, who are not regarded as independent British citizens by the powers-that-be, whose education and existence are at the mercy  of the political and religious views of their families), people state their own views not those some freakoid  fuck-up deigns to permit us and if you don’t like you’re best off elsewhere more conducive to you. 
 
The haematology clinical nurse specialist rabble is overwhelmingly white, all but one and a half of them, the half being I guess ‘mixed race’.  If for the sake of this particular argument we define ‘British’ as speaking with an English accent, born here, all but two are British (and white).  Other fascist effluent from the bog, probably driven out of Ireland by Ireland’s modernization, are found in Oncology. 
 
SHIT, MAN, THEY WON'T EVEN STATE THEIR PROBLEM IN THE AGORA.
As Socrates said...
but if any man says that he ever learned or heard anything privately from me, which all the others did not, be assured that he is lying. . Apology: 33b
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0170%3Atext%3DApol.%3Asection%3D33b
 
Cf John 18:20 Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.
Doubtless transparency is supposed to be the bizarre and quaint invention of a silly little woman.  As with so many things, this of course is a wonderful index of the total lack of contact these wonders of academe have ever had with any civilized life.
Socrates: ..., instead of being angry with themselves, and say that “Socrates is a most abominable person and is corrupting the youth.”  And when anyone asks them “by doing or teaching what?” they have nothing to say, but they do not know, and that they may not seem to be at a loss they say these things that are handy to say against all the philosophers, “the things in the air and the things beneath the earth” and “not to believe in the gods” and “to make the weaker argument the stronger.” For they would not, I fancy, care to say the truth, that it is being made very clear that they pretend to know, but know nothing.  Apology: 23c-d
cf Matthew 23: 27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
Socrates: many things which are, as I maintain, unworthy of me—such things as you are accustomed to hear from others. But I did not think at the time that I ought, on account of the danger I was in, to do anything unworthy of a free man, nor do I now repent of having made my defence as I did, but I much prefer to die after such a defence than to live after a defence of the other sort. For neither in the court nor in war ought I or any other man to plan to escape death by every possible means. In battles it is often plain that a man might avoid death by throwing down his arms and begging mercy of his pursuers; and there are many other means of escaping death in dangers of various kinds if one is willing to do and say anything. But, gentlemen, it is not hard to escape death; it is much harder to escape wickedness, for that runs faster than death. . Apology: 38e-39a
There is such a thing as integrity.  That too doubtless is supposed to be my bizarre personal invention.  Loonies expect me to cower and crawl and lie because they had the power to club my spine.
Socrates: False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil. Phædo 91
Create a false frame of reference, an illusory reality.  And of course anyone who thinks a belief-system that shapes the reality of human beings and so dictates the frame of reference in which they interact with other human beings cannot be questioned, challenged, derided is out of his or her tree
Alternative versions of unprovable supposed realities are not by the way false words.  Whether these goons whose notion of a fact is something they have been told is true have any way of distinguishing false words is an interesting question.
Perhaps they should be asked to write an essay.  How about.  'Is there any difference between writing about the gods of the ancient world as though they were and perhaps still are real and writing about Yahweh-Allah-Jehovah as though he was and perhaps still is real?'
Socrates: In every one of us there are two ruling and directing principles, whose guidance we follow wherever they may lead; the one being an innate desire of pleasure; the other, an acquired judgment which aspires after excellence. Phaedrus
Of feeding one's itsy-bitsy ego with a delusional notion of its dominance over the rest of humanity, yup.
The defining element here of course is the possibility of change implicit in the much-quoted – at least among those who can quote anything – Socratic dictum 'I do not know'.  I may think, believe, reason that, but I do not know.  It is this that despite the sexism of  Classical Greek society made it possible that Athens + Jesus would have resulted in feminism contrasted with the dead-heads of the Abrahamic faiths who claimed they knew, they were certain, no question, no doubt possible, let alone permitted.
Like UCH really.  It is the utter absence of 'I do not know' that makes these goons totally unfit for any real university, their dead-head conviction everything is fixed, authority cannot lie, power cannot be in the hands of criminals,  everything is known, no questions are needed – lies freely rule.
Welcome to the world of the animal in which to demand intellectual and moral standards is to be fascist, Tory, and the rest of the dribble of the Trot, expect it to be literate, expect it to adhere to fact, reason, ethics, expect anything other than rank bestiality, stupidity, criminality. 
 
I have a right to be me.
 
Falsity, that was it.  The over-arching illusion of self that needs to dominate and control others, that thinks others an extension of it, to do and be and say and read and write what it decrees, composed of lies, lies about itself, lies about others, lies about the world, and so contains nothing true, nothing real.  Nothing solid.  If you open them up, there’s nothing there, except garbage, drivel, delusion, illusion.  Sand-castles washed away by the tide.
 
Layer upon layer, power, wealth, corrupt law, all to protect them from reality, the simple and most obvious realities such as other human beings who are separate from them, different, equal in rights, coming from somewhere else, running on separate tracks, the frantic desire to make us all crawl to them, be mirrors of their will, such that disagreement, fact, will not perturb the fragile screaming self, which will totter, fall if the lies of which it is composed are destroyed, total inadequacy, conceal it is an intellectually emotionally morally impotent animal who cannot cope with love and mind and can only butcher and destroy, cannot cope with being challenged by a woman, ludicrous creatures who live in a fantasy world, a world that exists only in their heads, and demand we must all share their insanity, power, wealth, control their dependencies, without which they feel incomplete, the crutches to which they cling. Devoid of love and mind, they feel permanently incomplete.  If they can just get more power, more money, more control, they’ll be in command of life, as other people cling to drink or drugs or  shopping.  It can never be enough to them to just be themselves, everyone else has to be them too.
 
Perhaps in five year old English

[I may add to, subtract from or edit this at a later date.  Or I may not.]

Perhaps if I put it in 5-year-old English.
I am not you.  We are agreed so far?  I am here and you are wherever you are.

There is only what is. 

What is may be pretty basic.  Fred said to Joe, “I’m buying the next round.”

Anyone who heard Fred say that to Joe and denies it is lying.

A lie is a false reality, a statement something is true that is not true, leading people to believe it is true and think and act in accordance with its being true.

Conveying a false reality is not necessarily a deliberate attempt to mislead.  Nonetheless, a false reality is something that pisses people off, be it ever so minor. Due to simple cock-up,  a delivery  promised for Tuesday, as a result of which you stayed in/took time off work, does not appear.

A belief system is a series of propositions abut the universe and its inhabitants, put into a box labelled ‘Marxism’, ‘Anglicanism’, ‘Sikhi’, ‘Buddhism’, whatever. 

There are generally some propositions you have to accept to belong in the box.  If you do not accept them you live in another box.  For example, Unitarians believe in God and Jesus, but do not believe Jesus was God incarnate, thus denying the Trinity. 

Broadly every individual on the planet thinks what he or she believes is true, because he/she wouldn’t believe it if he/she didn’t think it was true, or at least half-believe it, a definite maybe.  People do not go around cheerfully proclaiming, “Everything I believe is a total garbage.”

Broadly too, those individuals are divided into those who distinguish between their personal beliefs and universal truths.

It is those who insist what they believe is Truth with a capital T who are a pain in the arse to the rest of us, who say ‘x is true’ when what they mean is ‘I believe x is true’.

I am certainly not about to dwell in your ridiculous world of lies, accept your ludicrous delusional reality.

On a number of levels

 The denial of the history of the free world. Religion is mocked and that mockery enabled the free world, in which we are capable of distinguishing between ‘x is true’ and ‘ you believe x is true’ and entirely free to do so.

Your conduct is that of a sick animal, as defined by law, as defined by psychiatry.  If your conduct is the will of this god of yours, then your god is clearly a sick animal.

We are therefore now in the territory where the criminally insane are lauded and deferred to.

Certainly I should think it your curious contention – sorry, five-year-old English: since you a sick nutter, it is your party line that it is not you before whom I should abase myself, not your thoughts to which I should defer, but your god, of whom you are but the instrument.  I must accept the Will of this god, because it is further your contention that you alone possess truth; it is your monstrous contention – you’re a very sick nutter – that obedience to what you say, obedience to your (non-existent) authority is obedience to what God says, obedience to God’s authority.

You haven’t a clue what God thinks, should it exist.  You merely think you know.

I do know what it says it in the New Testament.  Within your own terms, since a) you are devoid of love and b) you are a coward, you do not represent Jesus.

I should forget my silly self-willed notions and lose myself in God is I think your basic position, but it is of course absolute rubbish that complying with the will of a self-willed, ignorant vicious animal constitutes loss of self.  What you mean is I should lose myself in you.  You are about as selfless as any other vandal, a two-year throwing a tantrum because he doesn’t get his own way other people, they won’t all obey him.  Nonetheless the scam is you have no self, you are immersed in God, but the agent of his purpose.

Loss of self constitutes union with reality.  The inside mirrors the outside.  You are clearly completely delusional, existing in a world solely inside your head.

You claim to possess absolute truth, but so do many other belief-systems.  You have no rational grounds for that conviction, any more than any other.  But if you hit me, I shall magically understand you are right and everyone else is wrong.  You are beyond pathetic.

I think my own thoughts.  You think your own thoughts.  It is a little bizarre that I should be expected to think, or at least pretend to think your thoughts and keep silent about my own thoughts.  Nonetheless it is a proposition often bought into.

Truth has been revealed to you.  Ah, you were there at the time?

You believe truth has been revealed to you.  Others believe a different truth has been revealed to them.  Others still believe no truth has been revealed to anyone.

Your beliefs are therefore to be respected because they are true.  Means because you think they’re true.

Argument by authority is a fallacy.

‘With god all things are possible.”   That may indeed be the case, evil grin, which physical laws applying depending on which side of the singularity you are.  Or simply if you are on the moon with less gravity. Nonetheless, this side there is the concept impossible things, for instance Virgin Birth, walking on water, rising from the dead.  Your beliefs cannot therefore be held to be true.  They cannot be proven. 

In that majestic word of science, the effects described are not reproducible.

There is a good story about the man who built his house on rock and the man who built his house on sand

...a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. 
Luke 6

Your house is built on sand.  It is founded on the premiss of an omnipotent god who can therefore transcend the laws of physics but there is no proof of the existence of this god.

We are back therefore to argument by authority is a fallacy: God exists because you say so.

And historically as currently if people differ you’ll hit and hit and hurt them and kill them if they disagree with you, at very least sit hissing in your pit dribbling atheists are evil.  This is not impressive conduct.

We find ourselves at the argument by numbers.  A lot of people say so.  A lot of people have said a lot of things throughout history which have been shown to be flatly false.

Thus the concept of ‘faith’.  It is faith that underpins your conviction your truth is correct and everyone else is wrong, or in other words nothing whatever underpins it. People must have faith and not irritatingly require evidence. 

You would I think claim along with Murphy O’Connor that the absence of faith is the greatest of evils.

Why is the suspension of reason evil?

The answer of course is that once people start applying reason, your sand-castle collapses.

Reason or reality.  Once people emerge from the opium-haze and take a look at the world around them they discover the world is not as you describe it. 

Back to the series of propositions.  The person who put them together believes they make a coherent whole and convinces others of the coherence of the whole.

But others come along and worrit that it is neither coherent, nor a whole, hence a) theology and b) all those nasty heresies and schisms.  Still others come along and say this proposition or that is garbage and vicious garbage to boot. 

A fairly arbitrary collection of propositions choosing to taste from all the available possibilities.  Clearly Mohammed was convinced the Jews had called it correctly and God is One, dismissing both Trinity and polytheism.  He could also have said Jews are really interesting people and the source of many of my ideas but preferred to say Jews are apes and monkeys.

Christianity crashed on reality.  Marxism crashed on reality.  Islam is badly, badly threatened by reality and will do anything to maintain the dream. Yes, I know it doesn’t look threatened, but if we recall that even Tariq Ramadan had to admit the large number of Muslims who couldn’t be said to be even loosely practising, the picture is different.

It is marketed as Europe’s fastest growing religion but that is a false statistic, because it takes no account of the rate of loss, since for rather obvious reasons Muslims who have lost their faith or are as loosely Muslim as some Brits are loosely Christian, do not stand up shouting, look at us!  They really need to do so and indeed there may come a point when they have to do so but that requires the protection of bodies such as the Labour Party who at least currently are in bed with their would-be assassins 

Muslims in the West have come into contact with key realities, lots of other belief-systems, the reality of women and gays.  For all I know all those no longer practising have become Muslim-flavoured Buddhists, though I doubt it; could well be some.  How many Muslim teenagers in England do not have phones?  Everything the world has ever thought is in their hip-pockets.  The trick is therefore to stop them looking, keep them convinced Islam is the sole truth, to close their minds. Faith-schools are a good trick. 

You claim to represent Christianity.  You are clearly a fraud.  There is no love in you.  You are a coward.  Cowardice is fear and perfect love casts out fear.  That too is a matter of reality, the gulf between what is mouthed and what is observed. After 1800 years of Christian governance, people starved.  There would not have been a French Revolution had the Church spent the previous 1789 years insisting people love one another.

That too is a question of stopping people looking.  The mongol metal mechanical monkeys are so hypnotized by what you appear to be, what they think you must be, they cannot see what you are. 

How do I come to be subordinate to you?  I am one human being on this planet.  You are another.  That you believe your god, of whose existence there is no proof, says I am is not sufficient cause and reason. 

Just curious as to the rationale here.  I may not think what I think, but must think what you think.  Precisely how do you envisage what in practical terms is neurosurgery – you enter my mind and excise all parts of it displeasing to you – except fear is supposed to compel me to do that to myself. 

The pollies who back this drivel should also of course be the laughing-stock of the educated world.  I mean, really, Blair, is this some kind of joke?  The answer to which is yes and the name of the joke is you.  I’m supposed to erase from my mind everything I have read and everything I have thought, which does not concur with the untenable, unproven, unprovable drivel of this creature.  Or at least pretend to.

Let me be precise here.  Why should I erase true things to appease a nutter.  I know Marxism exists.  I know there was an epoch called the Enlightenment.  I know there was a French Revolution, a Glorious Revolution, an American Revolution.  The Constitution of the United States of America exists.  Unless we are to potter off to that level of discussion of knowing in which there is a possibility we are all brains in vats being fed illusory bodies, illusory surrounds, an illusory world, with an illusory history by a mad scientist, I am familiar with the facts of the political and intellectual history of the free world.  Were I to be terrorized into babbling dirty rubbish, I should in fact still know these things.  Why should I split myself between what is and what is not?   Why should I or anyone do that? You think you utter certain words and phrases which control people,  Word of God, religion, holy, blasphemy, offence and people will automatically erase their minds, like a stage-hypnotist can make people do ridiculous things. 

You are a real lawyer, I take it, Blair?  Sarcasm is the lowest form of..but it’s fun.  I gather the courts take perjury seriously:

Perjury is a statutory offence in England and Wales. It is created by section 1(1) of the Perjury Act 1911. Section 1 of that Act reads:
(1) If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding wilfully makes a statement material in that proceeding, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of perjury, and shall, on conviction thereof on indictment, be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven years, or to imprisonment . . . for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine or to both such penal servitude or imprisonment and fine.

So why does the law have no problem with people knowingly making false statements or remaining silent in order to create a false reality in which all concur with drivel?  Let alone being coerced into so doing.  Isn't there an offence of suborning a witness or something?
I say what I think.  Why should I say what you think, even on an anodyne subject, such as a difference of opinion on what colour to paint a room?  I’m not a part of you, an extension of you, I am separate, with a mind of my own, not to mention aesthetic sense.  But why should I say what you think on the position of religion in C21st England, when you are clearly stupid, ignorant and vicious with complete cunt-for-brains or you wouldn’t believe what you do.  I, however, am not stupid, ignorant and vicious with complete cunt-for-brains.  How do you arrive at the cute notion I must do and say what you tell me, you are in control of me, you are set above me?  How do you reason that, ape, animal?  Something to do with your having a penis, is it, monkey, pervert, freak?  Women must do what you say.  It is given.  I really want to know how you think you come to be empowered to walk into my mind, or anyone’s, and start directing what goes on in there.  After that they can section you.
 
In the mind of the twisted filthy animal pervert filth, I am insolent, arrogant, spoilt, because I think I can  speak, because I think I have a right to my own views, because I don’t crawl, because I am not a mindless monkey, a creature of its will, jabbering its filth and lies.  Because I am me.  In their world I have no right to be me. 
 
I have a right to be therefore, both intellectually and morally superior to screaming capering malignant half-wits. That of course is the crime of crime, to be better.  Scream on, animals, scream on.
 
Filthy, filthy filthy little IQ5 animal women strutting around thinking they’re Christ Almighty, bags of rotting flesh, totally corrupt, totally criminal.  Just leave it to the malignant vicious spite-ridden bsetial ignorant ineducable animals, eh, Doctor, knowing full well what would happen.
 
Just answer Mr Benn’s questions

 
 

The House will forgive me for quoting myself, but in the course of my life I have developed five little democratic questions. If one meets a powerful person--Adolf Hitler, Joe Stalin or Bill Gates--ask them five questions: "What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?" If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.
The role of the Speaker has another importance. When the political manifestos are yellowing in the public libraries, a good ruling from the Speaker in a footnote in "Erskine May" might turn out to be one of the guarantees of our liberty.
There are two ways of looking at Parliament. I have always thought that, from the beginning--from the model Parliament--the establishment has seen Parliament as a means of management: if there is a Parliament, people will not cause trouble, whereas, of course, the people see it as a means of representation. Those are two quite different concepts of what Parliament is about. The establishment wants to defuse opposition through Parliament; the people want to infuse Parliament with their hopes and aspirations.
I have put up several plaques--quite illegally, without permission; I screwed them up myself. One was in the broom cupboard to commemorate Emily Wilding Davison, and another celebrated the people who fought for democracy and those who run the House. If one walks around this place, one sees statues of people, not one of whom believed in democracy, votes for women or anything else. We have to be sure that we are a workshop and not a museum.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200001/cmhansrd/vo010322/debtext/10322-13.htm
 
And I laugh
And I laugh because all you have proved is that you are that slimy nefarious corrupt object called ‘the Establishment’ which meets in clubs and on race-courses and spends as much in an hour as would feed, clothe and house a family of four for a month, assumes it governs, unaccountable, cowardly, uncontrollable. 
Oh jolly old boating weather.  Do rather miss the Thames and Eton is awfully pretty.  Used to take the train to Windsor and Eton Riverside and walk upstream.  Oh, are all the little slave-sluts and sycophants and general issue cock-suckers and arse-lickers cheering for the best of schools.  Sure Cameron and Johnson can tell us more about that.  Just think, I used to be able to walk, walk miles.  Nonsense like that doesn’t matter when little penises are twitching.  Just don’t need the use of my legs, do I
Now, pet, I imagine that in  what passes for your mind England and the  English like everyone else and  everywhere else belong to God. It’s a possibility. There is, however,  something in between England and  God in your model, is there not. You, little  you. You represent God and  rule England on God’s behalf. 

There are a  few problems here, as those nice young men in their clean white coats I’m sure  would be glad to explain to you. 

1) there is not one shred of evidence  for your conviction you carry out God’s will
2) If you do carry out God’s  will, then God is clearly a grossly  mentally disturbed being to whom no sane  and civilized person would give two seconds’ attention 
3) There is not one  shred of evidence for  the existence of this God of yours. You believe he  exists. Others do  not. What is not demonstrable cannot be binding. You must see  that. Some people believe this God exists. Others do not. They can’t both be  right and it is impossible for any individual to be bound by both beliefs.
 
So we have a situation here, Houston Control, where this fucked-up  baboon 
thinks he carries out God’s will. The territory he inhabits may  be summarized 
as the supreme authority of the Church which I must be  made to accept. The 
fruits of the independent exercise of the hearts and minds of humans are the 
work of Satan. This is to what Blair and the  rest of the New Labour rabble 
consider me subject. It's perhaps not so  much a question of why haven't they 
been arrested as of why haven't they been sectioned.
 
That which makes you look stupid, ludicrous, ignorant, irrational.
 
There is somewhere in literature or oratory a superb put-down I cannot unfortunately recall and can’t be bothered to hunt for.  It may be classical, it may be Churchillian, but the gist is: your refutation of my argument would be greatly enhanced by your having understood it
 
THAT AM I

That indeed, ‘old boy’, are you, the difference being I know what I am and you do not. If you have love and the universe, you do not need God, though possibly you have It anyway. Depends on what you mean by 'God'. 

My happiness is not contingent upon your approval, your liking. That of course your sick sad ego finds intolerable. You must matter to me, no? I must find you important, defer to you, take you into account. I do not. Thus in common with sick sad monkeys of all kinds, Nazi monkeys, Stalinist monkeys, religious monkeys, you force yourself into my life physically, impairing my mobility such that you are ever-present in my life. Vulgar little man, aren’t you, not a gentleman.

As I have previously remarked:

Having class is entirely distinct from being a member of a social class. You, I suspect, may be either what people think of as a 'real' aristocrat, ancient title and blah, or someone who thinks having a lot of money and mixing with the 'right people' makes him posh.

Since, however, you are sly, cowardly, dishonest piece of puke, a thug, a wordless, mindless baboon, you have no class at all. 

You seem to think your culture (what culture?) important. We all have our cultures, of course, and within them many quaint customs that have not survived into the modern age. If we are to be civilized, we do not do such things any more. Perhaps you might ponder that? However, if you insist on being a product of the Stone Age, I would remind you that my culture used to have a fondness for stringing people like you up from lamp-posts. Shall you all swing together/Dressed in the old light blue? Just a thought. Perhaps we should therefore agree to differ? 

Hmm, that would be irresistible. No, not the stringing-up. A Labour Government was so mortified by the distress of an Old Etonian that it allowed him to cripple the grand-daughter of Labour pioneers. You do just have to see the funny side.

But then it is terribly obvious that the entire ‘New Labour’ project was dedicated to the destruction of England, the destruction of freedom, the destruction of reason.
There is of course another light blue here, that of Cambridge (specifically Gonville and Caius).
And I laugh because I have made no impact whatever, as well does a swimmer tell a shark you cannot behave like this, you cannot treat me like this. These creatures are not human, unreachable by human means, by love or mind.  As well to reason with a shark, indicate my inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 
Religion has of course been destroying women for 3000 years, since the first Jew dribbled about that spare rib and the root of all evil.  They’re very good at it, a word in your ear, some ridiculous woman.
I read actually that Ancient Egyptian religion made remarkable strides towards gender equality, though no-one can say how true that was in practice.
A story on a papyrus dating from the 2nd century CE relates that the goddess Isis, bestowing gifts on humanity, gave as much power and honor to women as she did to men. This tale reflects the high status women enjoyed in ancient Egypt. Although they never had the same rights as males, an Egyptian woman could own property in her own name and hold professions that gave her economic freedom from male relatives (women could practice medicine, handle money and make real estate transactions). A wife was entitled to one third of any property that she owned jointly with her husband and, on her death, could will her property to anyone she wished, male or female. Egyptian women were equal in the court system and could act as witnesses, plaintiffs or defendants (as we would understand those terms today). Women were accountable for crimes they committed and would have to stand trial the same as any man.
 

The Goddess Isis
 
Married women were known by the title `Mistress of the House’ and most women’s time was spent caring for the home and children. Her responsibilities would include child rearing (unless she was wealthy enough to be able to afford a slave for the purpose) house cleaning, sewing, mending and making clothes, providing meals for the household and managing the accounts. Even so, there is ample evidence of women tending to chores outside of the home such as the care of livestock, the supervision of workers in the fields (even doing field work herself) the maintenance of tools, buying and selling slaves and real estate and taking part in the commerce of the market place (all of these rights and responsibilities, to this extent, the women of Sumeria and Greece never had).

The Egyptian Wisdom Texts admonish husbands to treat their wives well since the balance between the male and the female resulted in harmony (known as ma’at) which was valued by the gods and, especially, the great goddess Ma’at, she of the white feather of Truth. Marriage was considered a pact between a husband and wife for a lifelong commitment of equal partnership and companionship which could only be broken by death (which was the will of the gods, not of the individual marriage partners) although divorce was common in practice. Women were legally protected against abuse from their husbands and, in the documents from a 12th Dynasty lawsuit, a man had to “swear that he would henceforth refrain from beating his wife, on pain of one hundred blows with a cane and the loss of everything he had acquired together with her” (Nardo, 35).
And I laugh because some dribbling squirming heap of infected shit thinks I should be ashamed of my body, ashamed of being ‘soiled’.  Because as an act of cold brutal deliberate evil these pervert freaks have once again been loosed in this country and it is universally hailed as good.
And I laugh because my not inconsiderable mind means absolutely nothing to them, I might as well never have written a word, and that too is universally hailed as good.
And I laugh because all  you have proved is as I repeatedly say you are filth and evil, haters of love and mind, haters of anything clean, anything upright, anything rational, filth and evil and lovers of filth and evil.  That filth and evil are to be unswervingly, unyieidingly and universally upheld and protected.  That filth and evil are not to be disturbed or upset by being named.
Of course I laugh.  Laugh in their vacant evil stupid faces.
And I laugh because the world is full of books to read and things to find out about, infinitely more than any one human being can manage in a lifetime, and they are so ludicrous that they think they have nothing to learn.  Nothing outside the garbled drivel in their heads, their fuck-up beliefs and their loony conviction of their own perfection exists.
And I laugh because there is one form of ‘medicine’ at which I am very good.  I should long since have bled to death from internal wounds but I staunch the flow, knit the tissues, heal the cuts, because I make me and that they can never understand.
And I laugh because these obscene filthy brutes who have pawed and mauled me, smeared their dirty animal selves indelibly over my body and my life are irrelevant to me.
And I laugh because my life is a huge mad joke.  All I ever wanted to do was write and go for excessively long walks in wild places but I had to earn a living and so fell through a black hole into a parallel universe of the raving mad who have broken my body, raped my mind and wrecked the remainder of my life, a world divorced from reality in which truth and good are the drivellings of the ape with the biggest club, in which everything independent of the dribblings of some authority figure with a club is dismissed out of hand, in which language is treated with contempt and force, power, violence are all, all fact, reason, decency, sanity are jeered at and regarded as a joke, where people regard themselves as slaves, owned, to do only what they are permitted by the mad, are damaged nutters who think it wrong to doubt and question the words of authority, independent thought is regarded as evil and independent action is inconceivable to them,  where a woman’s body is simply a punchbag for inadequates and a woman’s mind is a joke, and that there is universal agreement the world of the criminal and the psychopath, of the Broadmoor patient, be regarded as normality.
And I laugh because these perverted deformities really expect me to see myself as a slave, property, who has sinned, transgressed, said and done things Master does not permit, functioned independently of her lord, been self-willed, disobedient, and of course a freak who does not accept Master’s right to punish her.
Yeah, I have a mind of my own and know how to use it.
And I laugh because they think so very much of themselves and have not the smallest intellectual virtues, contemptuous of fact, unable to learn, unable to reason, to construct argument, to research fact.
And I laugh because like Dill I combine my father’s rationalism with a profound esotericism; unlike Gandalf I have not met a Balrog.  I have met so many fucking Balrogs that it’s funny, nearly as funny as the entire political class intoning, O great Balrogs, you alone we worship, you alone we adore, there is no truth beside you, there is no good beside you, you alone are our meaning and our source.  Sustain us, great Balrogs, fill us with your truth and might, that we may do your will.
Because they sure as fuck don’t do anything else.
And of course, great Balrogs, we thank you for the bounty you send.  It sees the kids through school and uni very nicely.
Has anyone checked out these folks' bank balances? Research funding? PFI? Living above their means? Come on, they can't all be dribbling religious loons. What's the going rate for selling out everything? Where there's muck there's brass.

Nobody wants to give Pussy squeaky rat-toys to play with. Could this be because they're rich rat-toys?
And I laugh because Medicine, the University, Government, politics, everything has become a sick joke. See them press themselves ever further into the ground, yearning to please, for the Balrogs have to be fed.  Feed them everything, all fact, all reason, all light, all life.  The Balrogs are not to be upset, disquieted, perturbed.  Of course no demands may be made of them.  That would be absurd, the slaves making demands of their masters. Since the Balrogs are without flaw and of course omniscient, the idea of correcting them or educating them is absurd and impossible.
So they threw the Balrogs my medically vulnerable body, without a qualm or backward glance.
And so I  hobble about covered in little homunculi, Abraham, O’Mahony,Wilson, Sturridge, Black, Linch, Blair, Goldstone, Milburn, Naylor, Plucinski, Saunders, Rowley, McGuckin, Ardeshna, Whelan wrapped around my torso and legs, forever with me forcing their filthy animal selves on me. 
And I laugh because they are so ludicrous.  Really, you think crawling over my body leaving nasty itchy red blotches convinces me of your veracity and probity?
And I laugh because I still don’t give a fuck.
And because I actually feel rather good about myself.  I have not betrayed my country, my University, my self, soul.  I have not become a squirming pile of infected shit for sale to the highest bidder, dismissing all fact, all reason, all morality in the face of mad animals with clubs and money, a dirty little animal who says yes, o master, whatever you say o master, in you lies all truth, all good, o master, india-rubber man who bends in the middle and falls on his face to evil and calls it good, filth, all the way through, rotting flesh.
Anything you said, o master, only please don’t hurt my back.  The apes really expected me to cower and crawl. 
Expected and expect.
Filthy murdering vermin, the lot of them, just pure insufferable repulsive horrifying vermin.

Expected and expect.
Filthy murdering vermin, the lot of them.
They have no honour, no integrity, no principle, no ethics.  They care nothing about truth or justice or fact or reason.  As far as they’re concerned I’m a sack of potatoes that got in the way of their evil fascist traitor psychopath criminal thug cesspit of corruption, to be disposed of.
Except they like me screaming: a sentient bag of potatoes.  It makes them feel good, assures the pervert inadequate psychotic cunthead filth freaks  they’re controlling me, I am at their mercy, ,especially I’m sure Linch and his pervert mutt-pack of obscenity. 
You ridiculous ape Expect me to the run at the level of your obscene criminal harem of mental defectives, sick tards, makes you feel good, doesn’t it, get an erection, do you, only way you can get it up, destroying a woman.
Cold-blooded murderers, the whole filthy obscene repulsive lot of you.
And I’m bored, bored of course with you obscene fuck-ups, and also bored with what I shall dub Internet Identity Hysteria. 
I am bored with request for the passport I don’t have since I don’t go anywhere and the driving licence I also don’t have because I never learned to drive. 
I am bored with verification codes, particularly when the phone to which they will be sent is charging in the other room, and constant random intrusions on whatever I’m doing by Microsoft or Google telling me to enter my password or asking me if I want to do something I do not want to do, such as save my password or upgrade or this or bloody that.  Did I know that now I can?  Do I care?
Murderers, fucking dirty stinking psychopaths, freaks, sickos, left free to destroy me and no-one will lift a fucking finger against them.  No-one will lift a fucking finger to help me. No-one has ever bloody cared what happens to me.  Only filthy sickos and traitors matter.  Only the vile, horrifying, repulsive, obscene and filthy matter.  Just left to get more and more disabled while they jeered at me.   Why won't you cunthead filth help me, the fucking victim of these vermin, filthy, filthy, filthy obscene vermin.  Look at the fat ape Boden, the slobbering monster Saunders, the capering monkey Goldstone, the shit-filled baboon Linch, the butcher-boys Rowley and Naylor.