
21 days in May
Please be aware this blog may be considered Illegal almost anywhere!

Keep Civilisation Civilised

A man was charged with attempted murder following a stabbing at Leytonstone tube station on Saturday evening; other charges may follow.

The video of the incident went viral, mostly, it seems, because of the statement made by an onlooker: "You ain't no Muslim, Bruv"

I was not there; I have seen only a bad smart-phone clip(above) on the news and subsequent reports (Article - The Standard.) so, first, my assumptions:
I may only assume the speaker of the viral phrase "You ain't no Muslim, Bruv" ...
a. was Muslim.
b. did not know the religiosity of the attacker prior to the incident.
c. assumed the religion of the attacker from the attacker's demeanour and actions.
Now, based only on the meagre evidence available, the attacker could easily have been an anti-war protester who had outgrown his trousers, so a couple of interesting aspects whizzed through my brain pan as I watched...
1: The onlooker jumped, fairly instantly, given the drama, to a conclusion akin to "if someone is attacking people in a terrorist fashion, it's likely to be a Muslim."
So, a Muslim onlooker, identified a Muslim as a Muslim by his violence, then informed this violent Muslim, and everyone else, "You ain't no Muslim, Bruv", which one may only assume is short for "my brother in Islam".
Is it just me or are there multiple layers of priceless but revealing irony in there?

2: I find it highly unlikely that any non-muslim onlooker would feel the need to deliver the defencive and deliberately distancing "He's not one of our gang!" meaning, which the phrase carries, however, if the onlooker had been non-Muslim, how many of that wider Muslim gang would have 'vocalised' outrage at the onlooker's clear assumption...
"Goatee-chinned, non-white, knife-wielding attacker?? It must be a Muslim!"?
Do you think there is any chance there would have been no cries of racism and islamaphobia from team Islam?
The most recent reports claim the attacker has mental health issues but this would in no way mitigate the assumptions made by the onlooker about the actions likely to be carried out by those of his team.

In the long history of struggle to keep civilisation civilised, can you think of a more intricately knotty problem for the governments and peoples of modern multicultural liberal democracies to untangle?
How does one plan for the future of rational society, maintain and run a a civil civilisation when it's packed with people who think pretending is a rational course of action?
Instead of pandering to the cravings of those raised to be dependent on religion, would it not be more rational and most likely a lot less bloody, to ask all those who are addicted to pretending, to just get clean?

This is one of the Too Many Questions
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Reckless Pretending

Whenever a religiously motivated terrorist commits an atrocity, have they acted alone? In a vacuum?
No? Then what does the social landscape from which they emerged look like?

In general, it looks like any other human environment...
  • All through their lives people around them have engaged in pretending God/Allah is important (As there's no proof of such, one may only pretend so.) and other equally ridiculous supernatural magical notions.
  • Almost every person they ever met inculcated a praise of god's plan, a fear of hell, a wish for paradise and belief that this life is not all there is.
  • Almost every person does this because of what they are taught by parent and tradition.
  • Largely these pretences are born of the promises of a book of fables.
With this in mind, below is list of points, written as if a believer is writing; the first two of which, I think, any good Christian, Muslim or other pretending type, would happily admit.
1. I am a happy, peaceful human. I live by the general principals - do unto others as you would have them do unto you / live and let live / do not judge before walking in their shoes.

2. I am religiously inclined - I believe in the immortality of person and the judgement of an eternal and perfect god.
Easy so far? Most humans who loosely consider themselves spiritual could admit to a version of the first two. And, I'm reasonably sure, barring any disagreements over the wording used, a great many believers could not legitimately deny...
3. I am fully versed in the text of the book and fully aware there are horrific commands to interfere with the rights of others, to the point of abuse or death, which are liberally strewn throughout. I choose to consider the text as peaceful and ignore the instructions I find abhorrent or outdated; justifying their apparent medieval immorality as "being written for a different time".

4. I consider myself an enlightened believer and would never choose to compromise my own personal morality by taking the commands to persecute too seriously.

5. I am fully aware that some people do not recognise the book for the "bit of harmless fun" it is, take it all too seriously and kill, persecute, shun, or show prejudice to, those whom the book deems sub-human for the fictional crimes of apostasy, blasphemy or other misdemeanour against its self-proclaimed supreme path.
Fair enough so far? Nothing there that any believer could truly deny, is there? Nothing more than what is obvious really, eh? We can go further, however, and while for many it will be the first time they have faced the truth of the next two points, some will recognise...
6. I am fully aware I'm not qualified to judge which of those, to whom I reveal the book's message, will react like me, following merely the spirit of the book and ignoring its immoral commands, and which will take its extremist, fundamentalist, radical, violent commands as the direct instructions of how the god wants them to act.

7. I fully understand the damage some who hear this message can do but, as I'm mercenary and a gambler, and I want to do all I can to secure my golden ticket to the promised paradise, I will do as the fable commands, share it with...
a. My child, relative, kin etc.
b. Any fellow human I meet.
c. All.
... and to hell with the consequences.
And a few of those whose radical need to draw others into this extremely unbelievable fantasy, will activate a monster...
8. Some time later, one of those to whom I spread the "good" word, one formerly unaware of the book's message, (This would include any baptised offspring) shows up on the news, having slaughtered dozens of those the book deems sub-human.
And then, I posit...
9. I find the police at my door.

10. I learn I'm to be prosecuted for reckless or public endangerment1 via the promotion of literature linked with stochastic terrorism.2

And so to the questions...
  • If one is partly responsible for any charity work funded by one's tithe, zakat or other religious taxes, should one not also bear some responsibility for any atrocities also funded thereby?
  • Given the trouble these fables engender within society, promotion of those notions as fact, simply so one can pretend paradise is a possible destination, is tantamount to "I'm just walking forward swinging my arms about; if someone gets hit it's not my fault!" and even if you are six that's unacceptably reckless behaviour, isn't it?
    Behaviour worthy of a scolding? Or maybe a lecture about intellectual integrity?
    And shouldn't such reckless pretending by adults be prosecuted?
  • Ultimately though, does the responsibility not lie with the lies within the book(s)?
    Should they not be classified as modes of communication for stochastic terrorism?

You can probably guess where I stand.

Finally, as a parting, possibly unanswerable thought...
As even religious books do not themselves exist in a vacuum, are we ever going to accept that responsibility for the actions of an individual lies with every human who has interacted with them since birth or shaped the environment in which the individual grew?

This is one of the Too Many Questions


Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Syria - to bomb or not to bomb

An Open letter to UK Members of Parliament and all in positions of power.

With a UK Parliament vote on bombing Daesh in Syria (a noteworthy distinction to "bombing Syria") looming I thought I'd offer my perspective...
So, to bomb or not? It's easier to bomb... So much easier, than looking at the real problems.
Much less embarrassing to slaughter innocents in the name of righteousness than to start a program of education...
It's wrong to teach your child to seek friends only from your own religion.
It's wrong to teach your child being gay is evil.
It's wrong to teach your child that they belong to a group of people who are more special than any other human group.
It's wrong to keep or trade slaves.
It's wrong to shun unbelievers.
It's wrong to impose your standards of faith on another but abhorrent to inflict it on your child.
It's wrong to expect any child of the UK to be brought up as if they were living in a different country(by way of imposing old country's culture)
It's wrong for every other mandatory medieval value and viewpoint imposed on the faithful by the same fantasy fiction from which Daesh directly draws its medieval death-cult narrative to be imposed on a child.
It's impossible to ignore the central cause of Daesh; The Qur'an's message of paradise for those who slay they who cause mischief in the land will always be a source of jihadis; while Islam exists unedited it will always generate those who desire its promised paradise. Let's be honest, the strict medieval sharia imposed by Saudi Arabia and the medieval Daesh are exactly the same sharia. And, by way of the same measure of honesty, it's impossible to convince an atheist that if she would just blow up innocent humans and herself up while saying "magic words" paradise awaits her.

Close faith schools; they are the absolute antithesis of integration. It is an unbelievable kowtowing to religious privilege that even one exists. This is not "Islamaphobia"; I would advocate similar ethical neutering of the equally vile and supremacist tomes, the Torah and New Testament. The most peaceful answer is to make religious practise an adult only activity. In very few generations the problem would be gone.

Unfortunately, as what people pretend happens after they die is so much more important than saving innocent lives, it will be so much easier for everyone who feels compelled to pretend in the supernatural, to unload TNT and watch the body count rise. Yeah, much less embarrassing. And, while the ways and mindset of pretending has everyone's balls in a sling, the mountains of flesh and lakes of blood sacrificed to this childish folly will roll on unending, staining our future with myriad blood feuds just as it has stained our past.

However, education will do nothing to eradicate the threat of those who have had their minds set against us and, while our liberal democracies exist, those educated by the frighteningly many theocratic sympathisers of Qur'anic inspiration to hate all that we are will be coming.
Take the fight to them by all means, limit collateral damage wherever you may, but equal resources must be allocated into countering the medieval supremacist narrative couched in peaceful garb that is the true legacy of all the Abrahamic religious doctrines. If you're gonna have a revenge tantrum and bomb the shit out of someone's uncle and auntie's neighbourhood, it's probably best to first educate their nephew and niece here, who may hold sympathy with the target's ideological foundation, or you will just be building an army within.

This is one of the Too Many Questions
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Faith Or Democracy

Oxford English dictionaries online defines religious faith as...
... but that seemingly simple definition is not so simple. If one investigates the meanings of the words in the definition, applying the meanings most suited to their purpose within the definition given for faith, it reveals much...
(1) An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
(1.2) Religious conviction.
OED - Belief.
(1) Relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.
OED - Spiritual.
(2.1)The quality of showing that one is firmly convinced of what one believes or says.
OED - Conviction.

(2) Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
OED - Faith
So, as I said, taking the most suitable components we arrive at...
Faith: : Strong acceptance that the doctrines of a religion are true, based on the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things, showing that one is firmly convinced of what one accepts as true, rather than by proof.
I think that's fair; if you think otherwise, let me know in the comments.
... Which is incredibly tangly and seemingly meaningless because of it, so let's attempt to untangle it...
"human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical" is a very convoluted way of saying "the immaterial part of ourselves", commonly known as mind, where feelings are registered. So, in the context of the definition...
Faith:: Accepting the doctrines of a religion as true, based on feelings, to show that one is firmly convinced of the religion's truth.
"to show one is firmly convinced of the religion's truth" is disturbing, isn't it? Is it just me or can you almost hear the screams of those tortured under inquisition? Does it not suggest oppression will befall those who do not sufficiently display adherence?
Anyway, it adds nothing to the first half of the sentence so...
Faith: Accepting the doctrines of a religion as true, based on feelings.
Which is just a longer way of saying ...
Faith: Accepting a doctrine as true because it makes one feel good.
Which means, when it comes down to it, it's merely...
Faith: Feeling a doctrine is true (because you like what it promises and/or fear what it threatens).
And, as far as I'm concerned, feeling a doctrine is true because it makes you feel good/bad, is of no more value than pretending.
Further though, if one views the definition of faith through a sensibly more suspicious lens it can be transposed into..
Faith: Submission to non-negotiable, doctrinal rules because doctrinal promises both please and terrify one.
If there was to be a replacement for a current dictionary definition of religious faith, I think this would be close to my preferred wording.
Or, to go a stage further, based on the textually evident behaviour of the scriptural figurehead of the faiths humans have created and, mostly...
Faith: Unconditional adherence to unproven, undemocratic authoritarian overlord's wishes for unconfirmed and deferred, discretionary reward.

Freedom, to me, seems inherently votey and faith, by this definition, is at best woolly wishes for the weak or intellectually inept and at worst capitulation to a despot.
Not for this Democrat.

What about you... faith or democracy?

This is one of the Too Many Questions
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Your Hate Crime Is Bigger Than My Hate Crime

The lady on the bus...
Hate crime Or frustration?

If one filters out the heart-racing, impassioned and under-educated, the rational translation of the tirade the lady on the bus delivers is...
"My dear ladies I find your disrespect for the hard won customs and practises of this country to be separatist and quite frankly supremacist. If you find our ways abhorrent I would request you take up residency in a country better suited to your political and philosophical preference."

I wholly condemn the abhorrent and abusive implication of violence but her method of delivery owes more to education or lack thereof.
The message is born of frustration; of perceiving that they who were the object of her tirade are disrespecting the country in which they reside, and of hearing over and over from politicians how "we", who truly value this island must accept the interlopers inherent disrespect. The underlying cause was the insertion, not integration, of medieval cultures (1)which do not wish to integrate into a fully formed modern secular society.
While the media and police will likely focus on the direct disrespect perpetrated on the victims and possibly label it a hate-crime, they will likely once again utterly ignore the fact that she did not act in a vacuum; the underlying cause of the lady's outburst was not the lady but the tacit disrespect inherent in brandishing the idolised icons of a supremacist and arguably fascist ideology in the face of the free.
How is wearing the garb of a cult, whose principles are wholly in opposition to our culture's hard won freedoms not advertising a hatred of our culture? How is it not an insult to the memories of all who fell to defend us from fascism? How is it not a hate crime in and of itself?

(1) Please note the distinction "which do not wish to integrate": I fully understand there are former members of these cultures of medieval thought who have thrown off their incarceration and embraced the more rational "couldn't give a monkey's about religion" mentality, more commonly found on this island.

This is one of the Too Many Questions
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Suicide by Compassion

A short while ago the world was gripped by an outbreak of a deadly disease in Africa. Ebola was chasing people to a bloody death left and right, and the pain and suffering streamed to our screens daily. Fortunately the tide of the deadly plague was stemmed and the world relaxed.
What if the plague had become so out of control that hundreds of thousands of people decided the terror and fear and chance of death was so great and so imminent that another country would be more safe and secure? What would have happened? Would those potential plague carriers have been allowed to travel across multiple borders? Offered welcome, regardless of their infection status, in the heart of a mostly healthy different continent?
One would assume there would be armed checkpoints, mandatory testing for the disease and one would further assume testing would include those who are not sick but carriers.
Would anyone question the sense of protecting the healthy from the infected, even if many thousands died waiting to be tested?
I think we'd all agree that proper quarantine measures are good sense; a necessary imposition for protection. And, in a time of good health, most of those suffering under the quarantine would also agree it's a necessary measure.
It's an easy decision to impose a quarantine when the disease is as obvious as Ebola, so clearly a threat, but what about when the disease is not so visible, not physically based but psychological?
What about if the disease is not running rife but only carried by those who have been brought up to tolerate the deformities it inflicts?

I am speaking of course of the ISIS ideological plague that is the current scourge of a big chunk of desert and jungle. The ISIS ideological plague spreads similarly to a biological virus, by finding suitable hosts in which to grow and causing the death of those who do not succumb to its pathology.
Should those who carry such a plague not be quarantined and tested to make sure they will not deliberately or accidentally infect those not previously afflicted with its symptoms?
I understand that those inflicted with similar diseases do not recognise those who carry the ISIS plague, as carriers of a plague, however, those of us who are rational should be encouraging quarantine of these poor befuddled victims of that vile contagion in order to protect the most common casualties of the plague: freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of action.
With protection of these highest held freedoms of humanity in mind I offer the 'ISIS plague carrier's self-identification test' so that victims can recognise their affliction.
The test can be taken by any who follow a dogma of supernatural coercion and I urge all who pretend in god(s) or spirits etc to take it.
If enough people take it and do so honestly and with honour, the freethinking areas of the world may still avoid suicide by compassion.

So, why is the no quarantine?
I suspect it's because to the majority of Europeans who are pretenders in god, those who pretend in god are all lovely peaceful bunnies.
I further suspect they'd have a different opinion if they stood on the oppressed and abused non-believer's rational side of the argument.
This is one of the Too Many Questions
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

All About Peace

So they, the sycophants of the various brands of pretendsies, each claim "MY religion is peaceful" but on the evidence below... Not so much, eh?

So, ALL about peace?
Seems to me seeking to impose one supremacist brand as a monopoly all across the globe is not an act of peace, it's the act of those who want global war forever.

This is one of the Too Many Questions
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Your Country Hates You

There has always been two Britains.

The law of the land permits that which the book does not
and prohibits that which the book promotes.

As many Brits, I'm an 'unbeliever';



I would like something to change.

To the cobweb ridden establishment,

So the question here is...
Or, better yet, purge the fable entirely?

This is one of the Too Many Questions
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Freedom Formula

Ancient method
prevents any human becoming a religious extremist.

Now available
Ten part process, handed down from before recorded time,
completely eradicates any possibility of religious extremism.

1. Avoid baptism or any other religious branding.
2. Remove all religious text books from the home.
3. Do not visit any place of religious worship for the purpose of worship.
4. Do not teach the child to worship.
5. On the event of the death of a family member, loved one or friend, do not tell the child "they have gone to a better place" or "are with the angels" the child will accept they are gone; there's no need for that injection of fantasy.
6. Make it clear that the notion of 'immortal soul' is an utterly unsubstantiated wish.
7. Make it clear that never once in the history of all our discovery has that which we once thought natural, actually turned out to be supernatural.
8. Explain that All proponents of magic are merely tricksters and charlatans using a technique called Cold Reading, which is designed to rest money from you.
9. Explain that at the heart of the religious texts' and spiritual charlatans' ability to manipulate a person, is that person's own erroneous belief in immortal soul.
10. Explain that those who pretend they have this magical core are permanently susceptible to being manipulated into believe anything; even to the hideously corrupt extreme of wholeheartedly 'knowing' that killing another human because that human thinks differently is the most righteous thing a human can do!

For best results begin the method before any of the purveyors of magical thinking have cast their brand of spell over them. If you can prevent the child from ever learning to pretend they have an immortal soul, this ancient remedy guarantees the child will never become a religious extremist and may even avoid the seemingly inevitable supremacist attitude, which is the most common consequence for they who pretend in these magical concepts.

Deprogramming an adult religious sycophant who has already learned to pretend in immortal soul is more difficult because it depends on the sycophant's ability to assimilate a new way of viewing ancient trusted fables, which the sycophant may have relied upon to inform numerous life choices. As a consequence the adult religious sycophant must, in every case, find the will to choose to deprogramme themselves by accepting that the new information, supersedes the old. This more difficult process is not guaranteed because it is so heavily dependent on the adult religious sycophant having retained some semblance of a mind, which is still open.

1 Ask the religious sycophant in question "what is at the core of your beliefs?" Most will erroneously offer "God" in answer.
2. Explain that while 'god' is at the core of their religious text it's not the core of belief, and instead is only a symptom of the emotional desire which is at the core.
3. Explain that the core of most faiths is the pretence that humans have an immortal component, which allows the survival of biological death.
4. Illustrate by explaining that Heaven and Hell ONLY have meaning to those who pretend they have an immortal soul. And by extension God and Satan also have no meaning. The fable of the immortal soul, is the foundation of all supernatural pretending. They will likely sense the truth in the logic and deflect, claiming their book promotes otherwise and their book is true because it says it is.
5. Explain that it is not possible to judge the truth of a text by reading the text alone. Properly structured and unbiased investigation and experimentation is an absolute necessity in confirming the truth of a text.
6. Explain that as all the religious texts are written with immortal soul as an a priori accepted fact, it is immortal soul that must be investigated before anything any of the books' claims for that 'spiritual core' has even the potential for meaning.
7. Ask the religious sycophant in question to prove to you, without referencing their favourite fable's rule book, that human consciousness can remain an intact personality after biological death.
8. Ask the religious sycophant in question to prove to you, without referencing their favourite fable's rule book, that there is sufficient reason to assume human consciousness is not generated by the biology in which it evidently emerges.
9. If they cannot prove these but still proclaim "I have an immortal soul" explain they they are choosing to be dishonest.
10. Explain that, with the level of evidence for 'immortal soul', the only honest claim one can legitimately make is "I like the idea of immortal soul so much that I choose to pretend it is a fact."
11. Make it clear choosing to pretend one's wish is a fact, in no way moves the notion of the wish out of the 'unsubstantiated hypothesis' category.
12. Urge the religious sycophant to admit, for the good of their mental health and for the sake of society, in an homage to honesty, that when they say "I believe", what they are actually doing is pretending.

If the adult religious sycophant is so indoctrinated that they keep pretending after the above steps have been taken, there is nothing further you can do to inform them of their erroneous thought processes.

It is suggested that all those who fail to accept that they merely like to pretend they have, or are, an immortal soul, should be monitored for signs of supremacist hatred.
Use your best judgement to discern if you should distance yourself from what maybe an extremely dangerous magical thinker. It is highly likely that such a person, with such a disability, may go full warrior-of-god and inflict what they pretend are righteous acts against those whom their pretending ways inform the now psychotic sycophant are unrighteous.

All hate speech should be reported to the authorities.

So the question here is...
The Abrahamic texts are cram packed full of supremacist hate speech, it's arguably their raison d'être, so why have those texts not been hauled in front of the bench for hate speech?

Does anyone else smell religious privilege?

This is one of the Too Many Questions
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Revealing Revelation

Someone raised a point about Revelation this week, so I thought I'd take a refresher and started reading.
Before I got to the end of verse 2 I noticed something or, rather, something came into focus so, if you'll permit me...
let's take a look through a lens with a religious tint on it...
The Bible - King James Version.

Look the same as always? Not noticing any difference?
That's because of the fairly universal saturation of Abrahamic teachings.
Whether we like it or not, almost everyone's lenses have had a coat of religious tint, all added without our permission of course!
Okay, so, let's take the tint off...

Revelation 1:1 The fictionalised representation of the end of the world of the feature fictional character, which the feature fictional character's fictional father gave unto the feature fictional character, to show unto the feature fictional character's fictional groupies, things which must shortly(1) come to pass(2), and the feature fictional character sent(3) and signified by a fictional flying extra unto the feature fictional character's fictional groupie:
1:2 Who bare record(4) of the fictional word of the feature fictional character's fictional father, and of the fictional testimony(5) of the feature fictional character, and of all things that the feature fictional character's fictional groupie saw(6).

(1) Nondescript time parameter; open ended predictions are not predictions.
(2) in the fictional world of the story.
(3) "Sent"?? Imagined dad to imagined son to imaginer of the whole tale... The actual distance of travel is?
(4) "Record"?? For the transcription of a monologue on the apocalyptic end of the world delivered by the feature fictional character to a lesser fictional character in the form of a dream(it had winged humans), one may only suppose "record" is a little... grand?
(5) "Testimony"?? This is a report of what was said in a dream; it cannot legitimately be called testimony. The ONLY witness was asleep(winged humans). It is, at best, the remembered portions of a dream; the result, as Scrooge so instantly surmises in "A Christmas Carol", of dodgy crumbs of cheese perhaps?
(6) "Saw"?? Imagined is all we can say for sure.

And that's just the first two verses!
Anyway, I think, the point is, beware:
Sometimes one does not realise the extent to which a culturally, historical belief in fantasy has surreptitiously furnished one's lenses with a religious tint.

In this instance, what is hailed as 'revelation from the divine' is nothing more than a half remembered dream by a character in a book.
So onto the rest of the chapter.

On full reading one of course discovers the details of this tale of an imagined end of the world but if you break the tale down to its bare bones, strip all the colourful threats, promises, magic and monsters from the fable, you get the disturbing tale of an extremely powerful father who is furious at the failure of his latest madcap experiment(7) and how he inflicts his vengeance, in a tantrum of epic proportions, on the sentient lab animals for what he perceives as their part in the failure of that experiment. And, because his son played a leading role in that failure, the wrathful dad makes his poor, peace-loving, hippy of an only son slaughter each and every sentient being, personally. And all because dear ol' dad was disappointed that the experiment didn't turn out the way the he wanted!
Now there's a being with anger management issues who takes no responsibility for his own shortcomings!
I suggest pops needs therapy - possibly electric shock treatment!
I have a mains outlet and a couple of Crocodile clips if anyone has cabling of sufficient capacity.
(7) "I'll imprison all the creatures of freewill who ever existed as slaves to my experiment, and get them to choose, of their own freewill, to be thankful for their imprisonment. Muaha-ha-ha-ha!"
Scholars are divided as to the number of additional "ha's"
so I've gone with a middle-of-the-road insane to avoid offending either wing of extremists.
I think, with just the three "ha's" it's sinister without being too panto,
but add more to your taste, if you wish.

In conclusion I feel the reader of Revelation can be sure of only one thing; the author, whoever that was, had wide experience of mythological tales and possibly more than one opium trip!

So to the question...
How is it that even one who is atheist from birth knows not only the the names of these fictional characters, who are of value only to those who pretend them real, but also, often, the complexities of the interplay between the characters and the tale as is depicted in the book?
To which I feel the answer is...
Paying no mind or heed to the human right to SELF determination most governments support the widespread social inculcation of fantasy fiction.

But I would like to live a society SO secular that a child could be raised without ever hearing even a word that anyone held any of the fables as truth, and live out their lives in an absence of the effects of those addicted to religious literature but, while religion exists, its sycophants will prohibit this.(8)

So then the further question seems...
How can that be legal?
Why is my right to live free of religious influence less important than their right to spout it or wear religious garb, which is offensive to me?
This is one of the Too Many Questions

(8) For a wider exploration of this read Grasping Free Reality
If you want to read more about the religious tint check out Your Point Is Not valid.
Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,

Je Suis Charlie

I was so sad to hear this week that once again ancient fable had reached a bony hand from the distant past and destroyed some of the very best of our present. It moved me to write something in tribute to my fellow free speech artists, so brutally slaughtered by the medieval mindset.
I hope it's worthy of them.

Note found:

Left by the not religious extremist terrorists.

Today we slaughtered the wicked.
We did this because religion is of no importance to us.
The promises made in the Qur'an stating quite clearly that heavenly eternity is awaiting those who are martyred as soldiers of the Prophet had no bearing on our holy actions.
The existence of the Qur'an and Muslim religion was not in any way a motive for our actions and has no bearing on what we have accomplished, which was in no way carried out in the name of our, Prophet, lord or god.
The corrupt, western, puppet media will no doubt claim that when we were slaughtering all those peaceful cartoonists, we "had all just gone mad" or "had previously suffered mental issues" or "were not true representatives of Islam", all of which are in some part true. However, the constant daily brainwashing we have received, detailing the awesome power the brutally intolerant god of Islam has over us, has not had any effect on us and we do not feel like the slaves of his holy will or the sword of his divine arm, and no other Muslim has ever suggested to us that we could or should feel like such.
My equally non-spiritual and completely religiously unaffiliated comrade in arms and I, who have never even visited a mosque or recited even one line of the Qur'an, may have been reported screaming Allahu Akbar(god is great) whilst slaughtering our victims, of completely indiscriminate religious denominations because religion doesn't matter to us, however, we have merely always had a great interest in killing cartoonists while shouting the completely different and utterly unrelated "All has who hack bar". The similarity to the Muslim lucky charm is completely coincidental.
We were not prompted to destroy the blasphemous unbelievers by the Qur'an.
Our need to kill infidels is for completely different, independent, personal, private reasons and we were always destined to sally forth and hack at the necks of the unrighteous, to purge the world of the unclean, even if we had never been introduced to the idea that god hates everyone but Muslims.
We just can't put our fingers on what set us on our path to our extremist supremacist attitudes but we came, entirely on our own, to the conclusion that we are better than everyone who is not like us and, further, we are in accord that it had nothing whatever to do with the inherently extremist and supremacist nature of the Qur'an. I'd further like to add that the actions of theocratic nation states who brutalise their citizens for engaging in free speech in no way endorses our actions and our actions were not inspired by those theocracies.
The vile, rude and blasphemous depictions of our beloved Prophet penned by our victims were not offensive to us in any way. Just as we have never been educated, trained or indoctrinated to believe that the Muslim path is supreme, above all other false, fake, inferior paths, we have never been educated, trained or indoctrinated, by any book or schooling, to be offended by paintings or drawings of our Prophet. The cartoonists' scribblings were not the reason for our attack. As I said and, as I'm sure the fearful, decadent, corrupt western media, politicians and moderate Muslims will no doubt attempt to have you believe, the ideology, which so many millions espouse as perfect, true words, was not even close to a factor in our actions and we just went simultaneously insane. It is my fully reasoned opinion that you should believe them; this way the Qur'an will, once again, take none of the blame and continue to irresponsibly raise those who eventually go insane and commit atrocities... but not for the Prophet or for the reward of paradise! No way! We would never believe in any of that religious guff; our souls wouldn't let us!
Peace and see you in the martyrs paradise (but only if you are a Muslim who Allah judges worthy).
Allahu Akbar

The peaceful are constantly abused, maimed and, as most recently, slaughtered, and ALL because and ONLY because our civilization continues to spawn adults who prefer to pretend!

Each and every believer is, in part, responsible for this massacre.
How many more will have to die
as the consequence of their ancient bedtime story
before they holster their faith?

This is one of the Too Many Questions

To all those directly or indirectly brought to grief by the Charlie Hebdo atrocity, Peace and love.

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,


If you enjoy what you read here
you will also enjoy my novel
21 days in May

Please be aware this blog may be considered Illegal almost anywhere!

Too Many Questions - Headlines