The Reformation
 
Definition of insanity:
Without one shred of evidence for it a thing is defined as incontrovertible Truth and people are condemned, prosecuted, murdered for mocking it, criticizing it, ignoring it. 
 
I really don’t think the orthodox religious need trouble us further.  
 
So obscenely obviously contrived that this vomit has been deliberately forced on the western world once more.
 
Basically the mind of early man, the god is to be appeased, told how wonderful it is, if you submit totally to its supposed desires and so please it, it will do things for you like make the crops grow.  Basically a human ruler with the mind of a human ruler.  Why should an entity that created the universe have anything resembling a human mind?  Lo it did create quarks, fermions and even anti-protons (‘an antiproton consists of two up antiquarks and one down antiquark’ – did you know that, Blair?)
 
But then why should it have a human body?  The best bit is the multiverse defined by the sexual equipment of the human male  The Church is the Bride of Christ and the cosmos will be upended if there are women priests.  The magic book told them 4000 years ago mn is made in the image and likeness of God.
 
PANTHER -> Site news -> Check-list: Multiverse defined by sexual equipment of human male
by Ysabel Howard - Sunday, 13 November 2011, 09:14 PM

That is what it boiled and boils down to. Form not essence. The defining feature of the universe is not Love, Fear, Chaos, Order, Infinity, God or Nothingness but maleness. Does it not occur to them the multiverse is a little bigger, even a little more complicated, than their pricks? Among a great many other things, it is of course a profoundly geocentric notion, the view that anything in the multiverse is defined by ape-descendants on the third rock from the sun. I imagine primitive man was fantastically impressed with himself and could not conceive of power, The Good and finally the cosmos itself as other than male, to which Whole women, since we irritatingly enough existed at all, were either subsidiary, the servants of men, or opposed, as the embodiment of evil. Some of us have moved on. The 'evils' of feminism and gay rights in fact represent a move to wholeness, a healing of the wound.
As was said at the time in a mundane context: "Father, you don't know the time of day."
I fail to see how marrying a brilliant Radcliffe girl constitutes rebellion.
She's not some crazy hippie.
She's not many things.
What irks you most, that she's Catholic or poor?
- What attracts you most? - I'm leaving.
Don't go off half-cocked. I would only ask that you wait a bit.
Define "bit".
Finish Law School. If it's real, it'll stand the test of time.
It is real, but why should I put it through a test?
- I'm asking you. - You're commanding me!
If you marry her now, I'll not give you the time of day.
Father, you don't know the time of day
As the Dutch scholar Buijtendijk has said very impressively in his book on Woman, it is only at an embryonic stage of modern 'feminism' that it was naively supposed that equality for women had to mean doing all those things that men do. This, as he points out and demonstrates very conclusively, far from involving a true acknowledgement of the positive and unique contribution of women to humanity, was a last attempt to subject them to purely masculine criteria and, therefore, a way of admitting them to full humanity only through depriving them of their femininity. The true, and the only true, way to an equality with men, which will not prove destructive of their own integrity, is not their admission to a kind of bogus masculinity, but the admission of the unique importance of what they only can do and be. Their contribution to human existence is no less important or honourable than (though fundamentally different from) the masculine contribution.
More generally speaking, in the Old Testament already and in Judaism as well, the exclusion of women from the priesthood or the public teaching of doctrine, far from being linked with any diminished or impoverished idea of womanhood, went together with an esteem of women and a legal (and practical) situation for them in society which had no equivalent in antiquity, especially in the Greek-speaking world.
Such, then, is the Orthodox understanding of the ministerial priesthood. The priest is an icon of Christ; and since the incarnate Christ became not only man but a male—since, furthermore, in the order of nature the roles of male and female are not interchangeable—it is necessary that the priest should be male. Those Western Christians who do not in fact regard the priest as an icon of Christ are of course free to ordain women as ministers; they are not, however, creating women priests but dispensing with priesthood altogether.
In our subconscious there are certain symbols and archetypes which are not invented but given. The same is true of the symbols revealed in Holy Scripture and used in Christian worship. We ‘prove’ these symbols; all we know is that God has set his (83) seal upon certain images and not upon others. We have been taught to say ‘Our Father who art in heaven’, and not ‘Our Mother who art in heaven’; the second person of the Holy Trinity is God the Son, not God the Daughter; Christ is the New Adam, not the New Eve; he is the Bridegroom and the Church is his Bride—the relationship cannot be reversed. These symbols are ‘given’, and they are absolutely fundamental.
On the contrary, if we were to substitute a Mother Goddess for God the Father, we would not simply be altering a piece of incidental imagery, but we would be replacing Christianity with a new kind of religion.(41) The male character of the Christian priesthood forms an integral element in this pattern of revealed, God-given symbolism which is not to be tampered with. Christ is the Bridegroom and the Church is his Bride: how can the living icon of the Bridegroom be other than a man?
This is what common sense will call "mystical". Exactly. The Church claims to be the bearer of a revelation. If that claim is false then we want not to make priestesses but to abolish priests. If it is true, then we should expect to find in the Church an element which unbelievers will call irrational and which believers will call supra-rational. There ought to be something in it opaque to our reason though not contrary to it - as the facts of sex and sense on the natural level are opaque. And that is the real issue. The Church of England can remain a church only if she retains this opaque element. If we abandon that, if we retain only what can be justified by standards of prudence and convenience at the bar of enlightened common sense, then we exchange revelation for that old wraith Natural Religion.
It is painful, being a man, to have to assert the privilege, or the burden, which Christianity lays upon my own sex. I am crushingly aware how inadequate most of us are, in our actual and historical individualities, to fill the place prepared for us. But it is an old saying in the army that you salute the uniform not the wearer. Only one wearing the masculine uniform can (provisionally, and till the Parousia) represent the Lord to the Church: for we are all, corporately and individually, feminine to Him. We men may often make very bad priests. That is because we are insufficiently masculine. It is no cure to call in those who are not masculine at all. A given man may make a very bad husband; you cannot mend matters by trying to reverse the roles. He may make a bad male partner in a dance. The cure for that is that men should more diligently attend dancing classes; not that the ballroom should henceforward ignore distinctions of sex and treat all dancers as neuter. That would, of course, be eminently sensible, civilized, and enlightened, but, once more, "not near so much like a Ball".
With the Church, we are farther in: for there we are dealing with male and female not merely as facts of nature but as the live and awful shadows of realities utterly beyond our control and largely beyond our direct knowledge. Or rather, we are not dealing with them but (as we shall soon learn if we meddle) they are dealing with us.
C.S. Lewis: Priestesses in the Church?
Man, Woman, and the Priesthood of Christ by Kallistos Ware from Man, Woman, and Priesthood, pp. 68-90, edited by Peter Moore, SPCK London, 1978.Christian Priesthood and Women by Louis Bouyer from Man, Woman, and Priesthood, pp. 63-67, edited by Peter Moore, SPCK London, 1978.!Screenplay of Love Story by Eric Segal

 
Why aren’t they told to play with their cocks on their own, not bother other people?
 
The whole thing is basically pathetic and revolting, a copy of an absolute despot in the Middle Ages.
Why are we being made to crawl to these intolerable apes who had of course dwindled to a niority fringe.  As I have so often said, none of this has anything to do with whether there is some – formation that could be designated ‘God’, it’s  the nature of that formation, all the nutjob primitive ape shit about what it likes and doesn’t like.  Small-minded ignorant primitive nutjobs, the whole lot of them.  The universe is of course defined as everything that is, was and will be, which must mean that it includes any other universes there are, which is a mite confusing, but even if there’s just one why would the instigator of all that is, was and will be give a flying fuck about what a small hairless ape on the third rock from the sun  eats or with whom it makes love.
 
If you disobey the supposed commands of the god, he will inflict terrible punishment on you and of course spastic monkeys do not lack lining up to punish you for him.  There’s even a special caste of spastic monkey who claims to have a hotline to the god and to know what you need to do to avoid such punishment, a nice little earner if ever there was one.  It’s all so primitive it’s sickening. 
 
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.
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
The social duty of religion and the right to religious freedom
2104 "All men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and his Church, and to embrace it and hold on to it as they come to know it."26 This duty derives from "the very dignity of the human person."27 It does not contradict a "sincere respect" for different religions which frequently "reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men,"28 nor the requirement of charity, which urges Christians "to treat with love, prudence and patience those who are in error or ignorance with regard to the faith."29
2105 The duty of offering God genuine worship concerns man both individually and socially. This is "the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ."30 By constantly evangelizing men, the Church works toward enabling them "to infuse the Christian spirit into the mentality and mores, laws and structures of the communities in which [they] live."31 The social duty of Christians is to respect and awaken in each man the love of the true and the good. It requires them to make known the worship of the one true religion which subsists in the Catholic and apostolic Church.32 Christians are called to be the light of the world. Thus, the Church shows forth the kingship of Christ over all creation and in particular over human societies.33
2106 "Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits."34 This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order. For this reason it "continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it."35
2107 "If because of the circumstances of a particular people special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional organization of a state, the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom must be recognized and respected as well."36
2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,37 but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right.38
2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a "public order" conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.39 The "due limits" which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order."40
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Catechism of the Catholic Church
 
Take another look at that last bit.  Means the more spastic monkeys there are in a country, the less liberty.
 
Looked at through a narrow lens, the guys of the Middle Ages were actually pretty amazing, let alone the guys of ancient Egypt, ancient India, ancient China, classical Greece and Rome.  They built palaces and castles and temples and cathedrals.  They knew how to grow, cook, preserve food.  They had brilliant art and literature.  Where permitted or to the extent permitted they had philosophy.  Find me a builder in England today who can build Canterbury Cathedral without benefit of software.  And everything in the Vatican’s garden was lovely so long as people and domestic animals alike could go on dying of readily treatable diseases, people could be slaves or might as well be, tortured, burned, just know your place.  So long as the human heart and the human mind only applied themselves to places they had permission to go.
 
Footnote, by the way societies were always abolishing slavery, in China, in Greece, in India, history is by no means clear-cut, there were always good men and evil ones.  The Timeline in Wikipedia is fascinating. 
 
Timeline of abolition of slavery and serfdom - Wikipedia
 
But in particular perhaps in 1102: The Council of London bans the slave trade:"Let no one dare hereafter to engage in the infamous business, prevalent in England, of selling men like animals.".[15][11]
 
What happened there then?
 
And so schism and wound to unity upset the apple-cart because perfectly ordinary people began to read the Word of God for themselves and decided it didn’t mean what the Pope said it meant.  Pause for hysterical panting, the Church of Rome of course being the only people able to interpret the Bible, because they were given certain keys, a convulsion of nutjob raving that alone should mean no-one is able to take them seriously.  The satanic invention that caused this was of course printing.
 
PANTHER -> Site news -> Thin end of the wedge, Father
by Ysabel Howard - Sunday, 18 December 2011, 12:09 AM
 
However, the church authorities feared that trouble might follow if people without education tried to read and understand the Bible for themselves, and they prohibited Bible-reading by any but the clergy. Punishments were sometimes severe.
When the Norman French conquered England in 1066, they also took over the English church, and required the use of the Latin Bible. Over the centuries, the language of the invaders and the Saxon and other languages spoken by the conquered inhabitants of Britain began to blend together, forming the basis of modern English.
One of the first to realise the importance of the new English language was the controversial religious activist, John Wycliffe. Wycliffe organised a band of "poor priests", much as St Francis had, to live simply and to give the message of Christ to the ordinary people in a way that they could understand. These "Lollards", as many called them, travelled all over England preaching in homes, at crossroads, and in fields, and ministering to the spiritual needs of the people.
Wycliffe soon came to realise that people needed a Bible in English, and set out to provide one. With the aid of Nicholas de Hereford and some others, he completed a first translation into English, based on the Latin Vulgate, in 1383. In the following year, immediately after Wycliffe’s death, a revision was made, and circulated through the country by the Lollards. About two hundred manuscripts of the Wycliffite versions still survive, mostly from the early 15th century, which indicates a high level of demand. Although a single copy cost a sum equivalent to the wages of a labourer working for 2000 days, these texts were eagerly sought, even only single pages. One man gave a whole load of hay, which would have given him much of his year’s income, for the few pages containing the Epistle of James. However, the church authorities feared that trouble might follow if people without education tried to read and understand the Bible for themselves, and they prohibited Bible-reading by any but the clergy. Punishments were sometimes severe.
First English Bible, 1383

PANTHER -> Site news -> Crisis-point
by Ysabel Howard - Sunday, 18 December 2011, 12:10 AM

 
Luther and the German Bible, AD 1522-34

A number of translations of the Bible into the local (vernacular) languages had appeared in different countries of Europe during the 14th and 15th centuries. For example, a translation of the Bible into German had been made in the middle of the 14th century, and it had even been printed at Strasbourg in 1466, but the language was clumsy and difficult to understand, and it was based (like Wycliffe’s translation into English) on the Vulgate text. By the beginning of the 16th century, some scholars were growing dissatisfied with the Vulgate, and they preferred to base their translations on texts in the original languages. Many church leaders saw this as a challenge to their authority, as the Vulgate text was the accepted Bible of the European church of the day.
A translation of the Bible into German from the original languages played a significant part in Martin Luther’s efforts to reform the church. Luther finished a German translation of the New Testament in 1522 and of the whole Bible in 1534. For the first time in Western Europe since Jerome’s day, a translation into the vernacular had been based, not on a Latin translation (the Vulgate), but on Hebrew and Greek texts. Despite some changes in spelling and punctuation, Luther’s Bible has remained the standard text of German Protestants, and it also had a considerable influence on later English translations.

 
PANTHER -> Site news -> The rot sets in
by Ysabel Howard - Sunday, 18 December 2011, 12:12 AM

 
First printed Bible, 1486
Up until this time, even books as large as the Bible were still written out by hand. This took a lot of time and effort; in addition, the pages were often very beautifully decorated, so books were very expensive and not easily obtained. (To view an example of these books, please click here or search the British Library for Lindisfarne Gospels.)
However, this was about to change.

By the middle of the 15th century, there were some efforts being made in continental Europe to find a quicker way to produce books. This was stimulated in part by increasing trade with China where books were already being printed by the woodblock technique. The first person to succeed in printing whole books from metal type was Johannes Gutenberg, who was born in Mainz.
It took Gutenberg many years to solve the considerable problems. He had to work out a satisfactory alloy of various metals, so that the type would continue to print clearly and cleanly over a whole print run; he also needed to find a practical mould for the letters, and suitable ink and paper. Developing this process was costly, and he had to borrow quite heavily; as a result, he often appeared in court, and the court records are our main source of information on Gutenberg’s invention.
Gutenberg began by printing several small Latin grammars and materials on single sheets. The Latin Bible was the first work of substantial size to be printed. This vast undertaking occupied him from 1450 to 1456. The investment of effort, time and money does not seem to have made Gutenberg and his partners wealthy, but others soon capitalised on his invention. The new process did not immediately result in more accurate copies. Indeed, it was a long time before a printed book, even a Bible, was as accurately transcribed as a copied one; the printed book was also much less decorative than the copied one. However, a printer could do as much in one day as a copyist could do in a year, so for the first time in Europe it was possible to develop a "mass" market (among the literate) for the printed word.

 
How did the scuzzy boys matter, Blair, creatures essentially Stone Age Man with a coat of paint on him, freaks left behind by history who went out with flint axes jabbering there’s something wrong with the rest of us?   Of what conceivable relevance to C20th England were the representatives of a couple of sexually diseased fascist monkey death cults of obedience, and of what fucking relevance to the mostly sane majority?  The mostly sane and at that point mostly identifying as Anglican majority, identifying with the Church of England founded in 1534, an event, Blair may recall, followed by 150 years or so of the Pope desperately trying to get back on top until finally kicked out in 1688.
 
PANTHER -> Site news -> Hey, kids, we get to eat roast aurochs
by Ysabel Howard - Wednesday, 22 February 2012, 11:43 PM

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?
Edit | Delete
See this post in context

PANTHER -> Site news -> Check-list: Now, about the wheel...
by Ysabel Howard - Wednesday, 22 February 2012, 11:42 PM

Mind sits anterior to data, etc. Doc, if you do not know the relationship between a molecule and changing, questioning, creating, then the honest response is to say so. I don't know the relationship either. That's for you biologist chappies to discover. That a free and functioning mind can be annulled by fear is old news and indeed observable but to say no-one has one is pathetic. Ah, what is mind? Never matter. But by Christ its absence too is observable.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is as much as to say that the war between the lame-brained and intelligence, creativity, imagination which is NOT 'merely' the creation of works of art but which is without which nothing, the ability to see how things could be different around this joint, to see things which are not there, but could be, visualize that fallen tree as a pair of wheels (offend against the gods), has been going on since the first members of homo sapiens stood on their hind legs, and one said oh, but it is raining, therefore we shall get wet, and the other said fuck that for a game of soldiers, I'm going to build a shelter. Imagination look at what things are, takes them apart and puts the pieces together in a different order, adds new pieces, jettisons superfluous pieces, makes things different. Imagination does not practise given ‘skills to benefit the economy’. Imagination looks at how things are done and finds different, better ways of doing them,
Here is a nice little picture of Sumerians with wheels (about 2600 BC). They invented writing too. An interesting people.

So why has this Bobbles creature not been sectioned or prosecuted.  That of course assumes he is in England or some other place theoretically governed by law. 
 
They’re all insolently obscenely repulsively evil, no excuse for any of them.  Ain’t yer gotta do what yer told, ape filth, ain’t  yer just.  They’re not human. Completely unreachable by human means, impervious to love, impervious to mind, impervious to all fact and reason.  Like foul perversions of dolls, aren’t you filth, with skeletal faces and a button in your stomachs that is pressed with the result that in a staccato whine you sputter, nothing can be said, nothing can be done, the Holy Church is not to be traduced, Islam is not to be offended.  Everyone obeys the Pope and all the rest of what is basically a tape recording.  Human bodies are not required.  These are just recordings placed among the trees, completely separate from sentient life. 
 
Just throw them my body and my life, that’ll keep them happy.  Just throw the slobbering slavering animals, the ravers, my body and my life.  They like tearing apart a woman’s body.  It pleases the god. They have pleased the god.  The god has been fed.  One of the points of the Jesus story of course is that the god doesn’t have to be fed any more but the Holy Roman Church never wanted any part of that.
 
To refuse to give me help and support, to refuse to acknowledge anything untoward has happened
 
Equals
 
It is absolutely fine and there can be no possible need for comment or action that a woman who has had major spinal surgery, who has a metal rod in my back, was repeatedly abused in a general office in a major London hospital, with therefore multiple spectators, such that I became crippled, also with multiple spectators, to all of whom therefore violence against women is completely normal. 
 
Equals
 
Democracy is of no importance whatever.  It has been decided that it is to be abandoned and replaced by the rule of sexually perverted criminals to whom the law means nothing; the rule of law is of no importance whatever; it is preposterous to think anyone will bother about what happens to a woman.
 
Equals
An intelligent educated free democratic and intellectually, emotionally, sexually and physically independent woman is now fair game, marked for elimination
 
 I have ideas in my head and thoughts about them.  That this is clearly criminal to a dirty animal, impervious to all fact, reason, morality, unreachable by human means, a vicious dribbling criminal who should never have been allowed anywhere near power
 
Ah, so a grotesque monstrous obscene traitor criminal who is probably the bumptious smirking brute Boden is going to sue me if anyone helps me?  The word for that is blackmail; if it is not left free to attempt to destroy me one way, it will attempt to do so in another.

But what does it think it's going to sue me for?   I mean, what have I done apart from identify evident criminals?  How farcically absurd is the dirty old bitch?  Does it stick out its pigeon chest and claim it will sue me for saying one of its precious chicks is illiterate?  As previous, which is of course what anyone threatened by these spastic vermin should say: what you’re really objecting to is my being well read, my being sane, my living in the real world full of different ideas:

So come on, sue me for Plato, sue me for Homer, sue for Sophocles, sue me for Euripides, sue me for Xenophanes, Xenophon, Thucydides, Ovid, sue me for Marx, especially, sue me for Lenin, sue me for Engels, sue me for Dante, Petrarch, Boccaccio, sue me for Paine, Voltaire, Diderot, Montesquieu, Racine, Corneille, Baudelaire, Zola, Balzac, Sartre, Camus, Giradoux, Prevert, sue me for Rumi, Hafiz, ibn Arabi, Khayyam, sue me for Buddha, for Lao-Tze, for the Vedas, sue me for Byron, Shelley, Shakespeare, Chaucer, Auden, Wilde, Sitwell, Spender, Eliot,  Sue me for Tolstoy, for Tolkien, for Stephen Donaldson, Julian May, TH White,  Salman Rushdie, Nicholas Montsarrat, Rumer Goden, Len Deighton, JK Rowling, and thousands of others, sue me especially for Schrodinger, Einstein. Tell you what,  ape, sue me for having the temerity to point out we live in a quantum universe or universes not the universe as depicted by your monkey-shit religion. Sue me for pointing out e = mc2. Sue me for having studied English, French, German, Italian and Latin grammar, come on you dirty illiterate ignorant animal, you know you ain’t having that. Sue me for not being a sly, sordid, dirty, cowardly liar, a squalid cockroach that creeps around behind closed doors.  You certainly ain’t having that.
Sue me for having read a thousand books you’ve never heard of, and starting from somewhere different to your  lame empty narrow stupid irrational brain.  That ain’t allowed, is it, cos you got Troof. Sue me for being educated when you are ignorant and ineducable, which is what your hysteria amounts to.  Sue me for being intelligent, which is what your hysteria amounts to.   Of course no educated person is going to think what the ignorant think.  Labour has a solution!  Exterminate the educated.  This of course was basically the solution of both Hitler and Stalin. The reality of the society I which they dwell and in which people possess hundreds of different ideas, many directly opposed to their own, offends them and is a threat.  Labour’s cute solution is that everyone else must cede.
 
Do look at the strutting mongs, everyone.  There is nothing between their ears except  what they’ve been fed down the tit, this they reite mindlessly, being as intellectually incapable, animal, as unable to examine or anaylys what in their own head as they re uncapable of analysing what is in anyone else’s head, zombies etc.  Intellectually and morally void animals who of course butcher and murder to order
 
So of course as I have so often said, the smelly animals at UCH don’t matter.  What matter are the vermin in Westminster content to sit back and watch me being butchered and destroyed, wouldn’t dream of lifting a fucking dinger to help and support me.   I’m only a woman.  How can it matter what happens to a woman?  In the world of Stone Age man I’m obviously a freak.  I pretend to be an intellectual, obviously silly, I haven’t married and had lots of children, and anyway I’m a whore for having had a sex life,  Nobody cares what happens to whores.  Of course I’m thrown on the scrapheap to rot and die. Welcome to Blair’s world. 

A particularly evil vile smooth lie is probably that they were going to help me, always going to help me, never actually did or do.  I have been so frightened and so desperate and screamed I needed help.  You could say I got an answer, being jeered at, sneered at, by the smirking gloating sniggering obscenities of Linch's foul mutt-pack of depraved degraded degenerate animal-women.  Sure, you were going to help me, vermin.  Oh dear, was my funeral last week.  Cunts. That those disgusting filthy subhumans were upheld and protected, kept in positions of power is just one foul obscenity among so many.

Think it a big joke did they, the scuzzy boys, physically abusing a medically vulnerable woman.  Where’s my sense of humour?  Boys must have their fun.  It’s creatures like Blair that make one want to believe in that hell of theirs.
 
There were indeed always intelligent people  Some of them were female.
 
HELL, OBJECTIVELY SPEAKING
 
"The fires of hell are the Light of God as perceived by those who reject it." (St Catherine of Genoa) I haven't been able to trace this on-line. I noted it down somewhere in my complex intellectual past. Please contact me if you know the source, or for that matter if you think it a shoddy translation.
 
It can be argued (means I'm going to argue it) that the various mythologies of the after-life put in what Susan Howatch in her delicious saga of the Church of England in the twentieth century calls 'old-fashioned picture-language' the proposition that after death you simply continue to be what you have chosen to be in life, only you're no longer able to change your mind, to attempt to make it comprehensible to the multitude. By doing so these mythologies introduce 'doer' and 'done-to' and so corrupt what simply is.
 
God does not damn you. You damn yourself. Classic Catholic theology holds that right up to the moment of death one may repent and save oneself from hell, no matter how numerous one's sins, how vile one's existence. This is of course arbitrary and one may demand what change of state means that one may no longer choose after death; one of the ground-rules here is that a live soul has free will and a dead soul does not.
 
If we return now to the inscription over the Gates of Hell in the Inferno
Giustizia mosse il mio alto fattore: fecemi la divina podestate, la somma sapienza e 'l primo amore. Justice moved my high maker Divine power made me The profoundest wisdom and the first love.
 
Right, so God sat there and thought ah-hah! Justice, wisdom and love demand I create a place of ever-lasting torment. It only makes sense within its own frame of reference, that of continued existence after death, in terms of the supremacy of human choice.
 
Suppose you are a racist and something that others find delightful, tender, good and even holy, a mixed-race couple evidently besotted with each other, for instance, makes your skin crawl. That is your choice and an eternity surrounded by mixed-race couples besotted with each other would constitute eternal torment. No-one is doing anything to you. No-one is paying the slightest attention to you. You experience what is as scourging by demons, gnawing by Cerberus, fiery rain, you name it, all metaphors for your crawling skin and screaming mind.
 
Hmm, the worst thing that can happen to them is actually probably modern England, surrounded by mixed race mixed orientation couples deeply in love, pagans, humanists, atheists, Buddhists, Taoists or for that matter Pentacostalists, Baptists, Lutherans, all happily advancing their own take on this life business, the millions of people who are bit of this, of that and of the other, that bit from Buddha, that bit from astrophysics, that bit from evolution, that bit from Jesus. 
 
Because probably the worst thing that has happened to them is people don’t feel they have to accept the whole package.  A belief-system is a collection of propositions someone has insisted all fit together, even though they don’t, and people have seen through it and decided they can take the bits they like.
 
We want to talk about love and death and reality and illusion, time and timelessness, fear and love,
self and other, about life the universe and everything in the terms these things actually exist, the
terms of physics and biology, not the terms set by desert tribesmen, about the principles that inform
the human condition, of course we want to talk about the human condition, thinking life always has
and always will, and we'll take ideas from anywhere on the planet, and they want to talk about how
women priests offend God. God wants your meat killed in a certain way, is obsessed with what you
wear and even more obsessed with what you do in bed and with whom. God is absolutely certain only men can represent him. Most of all perhaps God really hates any indication he didn't know what he was talking about.Intellectual, emotional and moral inadequates for whom the only ideas in the world are those for which there is no justification and which may not be challenged and who seek to suppress anything they don't like by force, who despise language and reason and understand only power; such are religion's chosen, such are those the churches support. There are more interesting things in the universe to discuss, there really are, than what are clearly the fixations of the petty, the narrow, the control-freak. Do these people think of nothing else besides how they can inflict their beastly little selves on others? Religion routinely supports the petty, the narrow, the mindless, the fascist among its own and condemns the thinking among its own. Why should we think they have anything to say to intelligent people? We can read for ourselves and even think. They seem to think they're talking to mediaeval peasants
 
Behold the Creed: I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. And in Jesus
Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered
under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell [don't get me on the
Harrowing of Hell, I love it, sort of re-run of all that Rude and Unnecessary turning over of tables on
a cosmic scale]; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on
the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the
dead. Sure, guys, sure. Since people who enquire into these things tend to be honest people, they
cannot sign up.
 
That does not deter the priests; they got Troof and what's wrong with us is we haven't and since we
don't consider not having a closed mind wrong, the hell with 'em. The sordid creatures called
politicians have somehow made the Vatican the representative of that which was previously
Christendom. Suddenly the Vatican, a sexually and religiously supremacist state mentally in the
Middle Ages which no-one sane would let near a plural society, is supposed to be important to
England. Yer what?
 
Why are we being dragged down into the world of Stone Age criminals insistent the ravings they have invented trump man-made law?
 
ABOVE THE LAW?
 
Great goodness, no, they are the law. They decree. The purpose of the law is to be the instrument of their will.  It is unthinkable to them they be subject to the law.  The law to them in short is exactly what Marx and Engels said it was, an instrument of oppression.   The law to the sick animal exists solely to silence dissent and keep the rebellious serfs in order, enable him or her to continue being a disgusting criminal in peace.
 
Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.
Marx and Engels:  The Manifesto of the Communist Party
 
(Should I put that in terms  even anyone as stupid as a politician of the Left can understand?  A lad or lass who has caused trouble at’ mill is prosecuted with lots of big important-sounding words, the full majesty of the law, sedition, but that against which he or she has protested is ignored, let alone criticized, corrected or of course criminal charges brought against it.)
 
This, what is the term, I’m honestly not sure but think it might be status quo ante, is what the beyond hilarious fascist fake Left falls over itself to demand.
 
Any ludicrous ramblings about a free and democratic society and equality before the law are dismissed as excuses for disobedience. Because they are raving fucking mad. It is inconceivable to them they be prosecuted: they have simply done what is right and just and necessary and best.
 
Best for whom?  Blair’s bank balance?  Their private patients from Saudi and the Gulf?  The future of British women?
 
Abuses by King John caused a revolt by nobles who compelled him to execute this recognition of rights for both noblemen and ordinary Englishmen. It established the principle that no one, including the king or a lawmaker, is above the law.
http://www.constitution.org/eng/magnacar.htm
Is some part of that unclear?
39. No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.
40. To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.
How about that?
 
63. Wherefore we will and firmly order that the English Church be free, and that the men in our kingdom have and hold all the aforesaid liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably, freely and quietly, fully and wholly, for themselves and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all respects and in all places forever, as is aforesaid. An oath, moreover, has been taken, as well on our part as on the art of the barons, that all these conditions aforesaid shall be kept in good faith and without evil intent.
http://www.constitution.org/eng/magnacar.htm
Magna Carta, 1215
 
Hmm, this has possibilities.  Have I been disseiseed?  In the broader sense.  Have I been in some way destroyed?  My mobility has been.  Has right or justice been refused me?  Defo.
 
How about I sue the Blair Government under Magna Carta?

Why on earth are we being bothered by these creatures? Just check politicians’ bank balances.