Blowjob Philosophy

Preface

I know what you’re thinking. I know precisely what you’re thinking my dear cultivated readers. You’re thinking: “This is it, last time I ever come here and read out what this degenerate wancker (who by the way is not getting any) has to say. Fuck him”, you’re thinking, and your immediate response is to turn back at once, faster than you can spell B-L-O-W J-O-B – never mind the Philosophy.

That taken out of the way, and although you’re almost completely spot on in your initial assumptions, I mean, I am, 110 percent degenerate, (there’s no denying it) ; I’m a wancker (but then again show me a man who claims not to be and I’ll show you either a eunuch or a liar); and I’m not getting any (who can blame me, after all, since my wife past away, I’ve only got one night stands to show for it, and as any shy person knows, you just don’t ask your partner to go down on you in your first and last fuck); but, I do, however, have something to say that might just as well be worth your time, dear XXI Century reader.

Let me assure you then, what you are about to read is a grave dissertation written on the apex of years and years continuously devoted to the task of applying Reason – reasonable argumentation – to the empirical study of the blowjob phenomena.

PS- After all, it’s only been a couple of months since my wife and her lesbian lover died. (Natural causes, so it reads)

A) First Thesis

A further understanding of the blowjob phenomena is quintessential to a further understanding of Human Kind and the ways by which Human Kind can attain happiness.

A.1) Terminological clarification

What do we exactly mean when we apply the composed word Blowjob? The word itself is strange and in want of enlightenment.

George Carlin says it’s actually a stupid word. The word blowjob is a euphemism – in his view. Carlin brings to light the incoherence of the physical and psychological act itself – and its written (spoken) representation.

In my view, Carlin is partially right. You don’t blow on a cock; you suck it, you lick it, you tease it, but you don’t blow on it; the word blowjob is plain and obviously stupid, and, what’s more, the subject of your blown up caresses might even get provoked into pneumonia or, what is worse, a virus. (Some scholars disagree with the last statement and I’m forced to concur: it’s been empirically proven that the probability of contracting AIDS from a blowjob is minimal).

Thus, for the sake of coherence and method, I shall refer to the blowjob as the Suckjob. The process by which man derives ultimate satisfaction, and love for woman sometimes arises.

Of course, there’s more involved in a blowjob, than mere sucking. Nevertheless, my distinction offers two advantages: firstly, 90 per cent of a good blowjob has to do with a good sucking; secondly, 90 per cent of its antonym has to do with a good licking. To be blunt and straight to the business at hand:

You suck cock

You lick pussy.

The terminological conclusion being, this essay will discuss the benefits of both the suckjob and the lickjob, combined, if you’d like to be euphemistical, in a Blowjob Philosophy.

B) Second Thesis

No human being will ever experience true intimate pleasure and complete peace of mind in life, unless the experience of a phenomenal blowjob (as clarified above) is
felt by the individual beings themselves; blowjobs are fundamental to the happiness and peace among human beings.

Do you know that story your parents told you about the prince and princess living happy ever after? Do you know why they were so happy ever after? (Please, don’t say ‘cause they were into blowjobs, or sixty-nines for that matter, even if you’re bright enough to know better).

Really, you don’t know why they were happy ever after, or do you?

One of the reasons that usually everybody tends to forget (the fate of all simple conclusions) – was ‘cause they were INTIMATE ever after.

B1) Terminological clarification

What does it mean to be intimate with someone? Tolstoy thinks of intimacy as a quality that belongs to those who are extremely close in a given period of their short life span, the case-study example in most of Tolstoi’s writings being the closeness between brother and sister.

I humbly disagree with Tolstoi. To put it bluntly, I love my sis and we’re intimate but there’s no absolute intimacy between us, ‘cause we don’t have sex, nor do we wish to have sex, primarily because we do not wish to destroy that fundamental parental link that binds us together.

Intimacy has to do with sex. Blowjobs have to do with sex, too.

The terminological conclusion is: INTIMACY is a state of life where an entity beyond, (one could think of Kant’s famous “hidden Nature’s intention”) is more powerful than you alone will ever be. Intimacy belongs to the realm of Philosophy, in the sense that it overlaps it; Intimacy is, strictly speaking, the action of belonging unconditionally to someone else, who in turn and unconditionally belongs to you too. Intimacy is pure carnal love.

C) Third thesis

There’s nothing more intimate than performing oral sex to your loved one.

C1) Terminological clarification

What does it mean to say that this or that person is “the loved one?” It is a matter of the greatest importance, since everybody in the world is on the look out for this particular goal, either you believe it or not.

The “loved one”, from Homer to Shakespeare, from Hamlet to Ulysses, has always been with us, in a subtle manner; it has been the leit-motif within the leit-motif of Human Kind’s history.

To discuss it is fairly like walking trough kick sand, but I’ll give it a go anyways; my past readings have thought me, no matter how much prejudice will guide us in this quest, such matter is not a simple matter at all.

To be intimate with a fellow lover, is to feel one’s boundaries under the shelter of one’s companion, is to be multiple as father is to mother and daughter is to great-great grand-mother without the existing parental relations; it is love in its most fabulous exuberance.

I believe the first writer to digress on the “loved one” was A. Camus.

Camus reconnected the debate when he reminded us of our basic loneliness – we are born alone and we die alone. It was him, who defined it in a more suitable fashion than most writers will ever do. The universal history of “the loved one” would be a mystical experience that would allow Human kind survival, by a method of falling in love.

In Camus view, the loved one is “the person whose footsteps are equally balanced with your own”, the loved one is the person who gives sense to existence; the loved one, alas, is the person who knows you better than you know yourself.

………………………………….

And so folks, before you go away with nothing but doubts in your minds, do yourselves a favour; when you get home tonight, embrace your intimate others and –

GET DOWN ON IT.

The meaning of life

Bastards

The political-diplomatic methods of the Iranian Government remind me more and more of those used by nazi Germany. The same is to say: provoke them (the enemy) further and further to see till what extent they are willing (or not) to call your bet and take a firm stance. If they aren't, then raise your call over and over again. No doubt, the West is to blame for the actual state of affairs. With western forces over-extended in the Iraqui fiasco, there's not much that can be done about Iran. Nevertheless, something must be done, sooner of later. I just hope not to late. Bastards.

"Mrs Tough Guy"

Hillary Clinton... Next US President? After her landslide victory Wednesday morning, I wouldn't be surprised if, in 2008, for the first time in History, a woman gets to call the shots at the White House.

Fake Media stories

In most western universities Media research tends to focus solely on the negative effects of Media on Society. And more so in the case of gender. It is fashionable to say Media contributes to gender inequality. In this essay I will demonstrate that not only the statement is false but also that the opposite is true: Media contributes to and generates gender equality.

Media demons? Hell no!

In all shapes and varieties Media is overwhelmingly present in Contemporary Societies. Human beings living in Western Countries are daily exposed to an enormous amount of Media content. In the late 20th Century, the emergence of new Media, such as the internet and the blogosphere, has increased this phenomenon even more. Since Media is everywhere and is virtually inescapable from, it must have an impact on Society, namely in the issue of gender representation. However, to determine if these effects are of a positive or a negative nature remains at best an elusive question.

The claim that Media contributes to gender inequality, though appealing, is not as clear cut as it could seem to a less critical eye. In the matter of gender as, for instance, in the matter of violence, it is virtually impossible to determine Media effects on Society, though most scholars consider these effects to be of a negative nature. These scholars follow the footsteps of theorists like Adorno, who considered that mass media has a deceitful power over consumers. Adorno thought that by giving the audience what they have been trained to want, the culture industry could encourage conformity. What is more, Adorno claimed that audiences were at the mercy of producers: “Because we’ve never really had anything different, we want more and more of the same. The customer is not king, as the culture industry would have us believe, not its subject but its object.” (Adorno, 1991: 85). Nevertheless, just because a whole set of researchers, more or less conservative in their approach, have gone to work in order to prove the bad effects of the Media upon Society, selectively picking their case studies examples, that does not necessarily mean that they are right.

These scholars think and would have us believe that their findings are not only true but should also be regarded the touchstone of Media and Gender Studies. Generally, scholars which focus on the negative effects of the Media are the offspring of Postmodernism, in the sense that they only see darkness and deceptions in Media Representations. Their conceptual working framework is embedded in pessimism and in a detachment from every day life affairs. Even if their insights were to prove correct, they lack a somewhat important feature: practical utility.

Commonly speaking, the Radical Postmodern approach blames producers for depicting women in a bad light; producers ultimately wish to sell cosmetic products, household appliances and high-heel shoes and therefore they use Media in order to induce women to conform to well establish gender roles, which these researchers consider negative.

Nevertheless, even it that was to prove correct, it would be redundant. Why? In a word: Capitalism. Radical approaches consider that Media shapes society more than anything else. Their analyses, however, even if true, could not change the system itself, and therefore not only this approach can be charged with paternalism but also with redundancy.

Radicals do not consider the other side of the Media equation, the fact that media reflects society, and that this cannot be discarded. The two sides of the Media equation then virtually make it impossible the establishment of a trustworthy media effects theory. On the whole, when someone says that media representations contribute to generate gender inequality, what is being implied is that media producers are bad people. Terrible people who are willing to do everything for money, even generate horribly twisted representations of gender. But this leads nowhere, except if you are aiming at restraining Media; harnessing producers to what you think are politically correct approaches on gender.

What is more, this approach tends to dispose of an important feature of any serious Media analysis: the fact that the main gold of media tycoons has not to do with controlling society but with generating profits. Mainstream Media, apart from state controlled TV, Newspapers and radios, is a business as any other. Like all businesses it has to please customers. Now, if you are moving against what audiences wish to see, read, listen, and so on, you will most surely alienate your audience and, ergo, be put out of business.

Radical approaches claim Media generates gender inequality because they wish to sell their products and by generating such effects they will be successful. The conclusion is either, a) for radicals people are plain stupid and they fall for it constantly, or b) radicals are wrong, Media gives audiences what audiences want, when they want it and not before; because Media has to sell and cannot go against society, consumers.

Another important aspect has to do with the way in which audiences perceive Media representations. One cannot deny that with the emergence of the Mass Media in the 20th Century the balance between representations of men and women was clearly un-equal: there have always been more men on screen, radio, TV, newspapers and so on than women. Also, it seems fairly obvious that during the fifties, sixties, seventies and even eighties, women’s representations in the Media would seem to us, contemporary Media consumers, quite conservative and negative.

Women would most likely be fit for nothing except cook, be dramatically saved by men, be beautiful but not really intelligent. They would either be romantic, futile, vain creatures or they would be more or less elaborate variations of the Femme fatale stereotype. For us today this is common sense knowledge, and yet we take this as proof to assert that Media generates gender inequality. Because we consider Media stereotypes of previous decades a representation of values that we could not subscribe today, we assume that in those days Media fed the public with twisted representations of gender. Yet, we fail to realise that maybe these representations, which for us would seem old-fashioned, might have been thought of as perfectly normal for audiences of past decades. We look at cinema, or TV of the fifties and early sixties and most of what we see is man and women interacting in an extremely traditional way and we conclude that media was responsible for the maintenance of a traditional status-quo in gender relations.

However, immediately one can see that this conclusion presents several problems. Firstly, “any media text, regardless of its manifest stereotypical character, can be interpreted against the grain of its dominant discourse. Media texts are polysemic, that is, they carry multiple meanings that do not produce a single, dominant discourse.” (Van Zonnen, 1995:322). Media texts, being polysemic, are perceived in several different ways, and where some may see gender inequality others can see quite the opposite.

What is more, media texts are in many cases ambiguous and research aiming at establishing gender inequality tends to overlook it: “Research on stereotypes rarely acknowledges such divergences and ambivalences; it represents gender discourse in the media as if it is as solid and impervious as a concrete wall, and therewith reproduces the very phenomenon it wants to question – the dichotomous and hierarchical nature of gender”. (Van Zonnen, 1995: 320, 321).
Secondly, when we consider past representations of gender in Media, the conclusion we reach is based on our assumption that Media influences Society more than reflects it, but what if we are wrong in our approach? What if Media, at least mainstream media, operates more on the level of reflecting society rather than influencing it? Maybe what happens most of the time is that Media, being a business, cannot go against the moral codes of a given period, and if so Media will reflect those moral patterns more than attempt to change them.

Thirdly, is it really possible to establish a verifiable link between Media representations and their impact on the social body? Will people absolutely conform to the values and moral codes that Media presents, and be guided in their behaviour by them?

This last problem has been identified among others by David Gauntlett. In an essay on the Media Effects Model, Gauntlett points out that: “It has become something of a cliché to observe that despite many decades of research and hundreds of studies, the connections between people's consumption of the mass media and their subsequent behaviour have remained persistently elusive.” (Gauntlett: 1998). Even if his essay concentrates basically on the relationship between Media and violence, Gauntlett’s conclusions can be applied to the relationship of Media and Gender; the argument being that, if in the matter of violence there still remains to be proven a link between Media representations and behavioural patterns, it logically follows that the same applies to gender representations and gender related behaviours. On the other hand, Gauntlett also notes that most thinkers of the Postmodernist school have what he refers to as “a backwards approach” when they consider the effects of Media on Society; “The 'media effects' approach, in this sense, comes at the problem backwards, by starting with the media and then trying to lasso connections from there on to social beings, rather than the other way around.” (Gauntlett: 1998).

Another problem that Gauntlett sharply addresses in his study has to do with the logistical impossibility of establishing a complete body of evidence to the Media effects theory: “Since careful sociological studies of media effects require amounts of time and money which limit their abundance, they are heavily outnumbered by simpler studies which are usually characterised by elements of artificiality … This view is taken to extremes by researchers and campaigners whose work brings them into regular contact with the supposedly corrupting material, but who are unconcerned for their own well-being as they implicitly 'know' that the effects will only be on 'other people'.” (Gauntlett: 1998).

Moreover, researchers see Media as corrupting the social body, of which apparently they are the elite, since Media is not corrupting them. They will write, for instance, about television viewers as people without critical faculties, with no selective skills: “Most viewers watch by the clock and either do not know what they will watch when they turn on the set, or follow established routines rather than choose each program as they would choose a book, a movie or an article” (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan & Signorielli, 1986: 19).

Unsurprisingly, researchers trying to establish a relation between Media and gender will almost always focus on Advertising, and mostly on adverts that can be seen on mainstream TV. Advertising is considered by theorists from the Radical school as the ultimate example of producers cultivating anxieties and fears in order to sell their products. This, they claim, is especially highlighted by adverts related with fashion, light food and cosmetics. Germaine Greer claims:

Every women knows that, regardless of her other achievements, she is a failure if she is not beautiful … The UK beauty industry takes £8.9 billion a year out of women’s pockets … Pre teens cosmetics are relatively cheap but within a few years more sophisticated marketing will have persuaded the most level-headed woman to throw money away on alchemical preparations … anything real or phony that might fend off her imminent collapse into hideous decrepitude”. (Greer, 1999: 19, 23)

Though true this may be, Greer fails to see that in modern advertising it are not only women that have to look good, perfect. Increasingly, men also have: “Today, men are also expected to spend time in the gym, working to develop ‘tight, toned’ bodies” (Gauntlett: 2002, 78). It is true enough that beauty ideals set by Advertising do put a huge pressure on people to spend a lot of time and money worrying about their physical attributes and appearances. This can be considered as a not very positive ideal, in the sense that one might think of it as a superficial and shallow approach on life. Nevertheless, increasingly, one cannot think of it as a distinctive mark of gender inequality. Quite the opposite. In modern 21 Century advertising the trend is for men to be as well-toned as women. The pressure is on men as it is on women, as Antony Cortese asserts:

Baudrillard [in Seduction, 1990] states that only women are seducers, but empirical evidence on advertising suggests otherwise. Men, too, are seducers, a male version of the perfect provocateur. The ideal man is young, handsome, clean-cut, perfect and sexually alluring
(Cortese, 1999: 58.)

To summarize, there are several ways in which the relationship between Media and Gender can be approached. However, it seems extremely difficult to establish a direct link between Media representations of Gender and actual social behaviours. Those who advocate such a thesis disregard the active role of audiences, fail to see that media texts are polysemic and cannot establish a definite empiric body of evidence to support their claims. Moreover, it seems that they are paternalistic towards audiences and would wish to have a say in what Media representations should be like, as if they know better what is good for the public.

More than taking into consideration that Media contributes to gender inequality, other thinkers claim that Media reflects the state of moral affairs in Society at a given period more than anything else. This claim is based on three assumptions: a) Media is a business as any other, must sell, and therefore should respect the moral codes of a given period if it wishes to be successful. b) Recent Media content, even if operating in unprecedented consumerist logic, shows more signs of representing gender equality than inequality. c) Audiences are not passive; they construct their gender representations in active ways, from several sources, of which Media is but one.

In my view, instead of influencing society or being influenced by it, most often Media moves along with society, not against it. It is only when society is ripe for change that Media represents those changes, and not before. Nevertheless, in a diachronic analysis of Western Culture, one is forced to admit that gender representations have changed dramatically with the advent of Modern Media. With Media, gender representations that had remained almost the same for hundreds of years were radically altered in the matter of less than a Century. We need just to take into consideration the roles of man and women in the Victorian period and compare them with present ones. So little had changed from the Middle Ages to the Victorian period: Man was still the virile provider, woman was still the passive, obedient housewife. In the 20 Century everything changed radically. The Mass Media, with its polysemic meanings and contents surely had a very important part in those changes.

Bibliography

Adorno, Theodor W. (1991) The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture, London: Routledge.

Cortese, Anthony J. (1999) Provocateur: Images of Women and Minorities in Advertising, Lanham, Maryland: Owman & Littlefiend.

Gauntlett, David. (1998) Ten things wrong with the effects model [Electronic Version]. Retrieved March, 18, 2006, from http://www.theory.org.uk/david/effects.htm

Gauntlett, David (2002) Media Gender and Identity , London: Routledge

Gerbner, George; Gross, Larry; Morgan, Michael, & Signorielli, Nancy (1986), 'Living with Television: The Dynamics of the Cultivation Process', in Bryant, Jennings, & Zillmann, Dolf, eds, Perspectives on Media Effects, Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Greer, Germaine (1999) The Whole Woman, London: Doubleday.

Van Zoonen, Liesbet (1995) ‘Gender, Representation, and the Media’ in John Downing, Ali Mohammadi, Annabelle Sreberny-Mohammadi, eds Questioning the Media: a critical introduction, 2th Edtion,, London: Sage Publications

Enlightenment reborn

Even with all the uncertainties that lurk around us, things should and can only get better, because if they get worse we will be in a very tight spot. Photo by Promenade du Feu.

Make over

This blog is in need of a serious make over if we wish to continue with this project...

Fresh cat

Photo from here

Priests and thieves

Hope you enjoy this clip I got you. In a way, it's about church, better yet about non-believers.

Welcome to the jungle

Somewhere, in Africa, someone is dying ahead of Time as I write this.

Thought of the day

- Some people see things that are and ask, Why? Some people dream of things that never were and ask, Why not? Some people have to go to work and don't have time for all that. -

George Carlin

Reality in a cartoon.

Miracle, she walks!

This one, you just have to read.

European revolutions

On the 25 of April 1974 in a small country half forgotten in the western tip of Europe a military coup took place exactly 32 years ago. Known as the Carnation Revolution, it overthrown a paternalistic dictatorship that had ruled the country for more than 40 years. The Carnation Revolution brought Democracy to Portugal and signalled times of change for the whole of Europe.

A few months later, in July 1974, in Greece, a military dictatorship was brought to an end and democracy was introduced in the country that many consider to be the cradle of western civilization.

In 1978, Portugal neighbouring country, Spain, also got rid of a dictatorship (although not in the revolutionary fashion). When we look at the History of the Iberian Peninsula over the last 400 years, the fates of both nations have been almost parallel: when some major shift happens in one of these countries it is bound to have strong repercussions in the other.

Today, it is relatively easy to say that the Carnation Revolution was a somewhat ordinary event, in the sense that if it that failed another would have followed swiftly, given that the dictatorial regime was by then completely inefficient and corrupt.

Some 12 years ago I had an informal conversation with Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho, (photo) the captain who organized the coup and director of operations in that faithful 25 of April. Among other things, Otelo told me that it had been “an exemplary revolutionary action, because there weren’t any casualties”. He was clearly proud of that, and personally I think the Carnation Revolution is one of the most beautiful and poetic revolutionary moments ever to take place.

Nuclear gear up

For several months now the price of oil has been galloping up until today it reached a new high. If it keeps going up, and stays up consistently for one or two years, there will be no other solution than to speed nuclear power projects all over the globe and especially the US and Britain.

This presents several advantages. Namely cheap fuel and independence from Middle East oil producing countries. On the other hand, last generation nuclear power plants are virtually "melt-down" proof in normal circumstances. The other major advantage of nuclear power is that it is "clean" when compared to oil. This means that a shift to Nuclear might be the solution to Global Warming. And a chance for big business too.

You just wait and see. In twenty years time our energy (in the West) will be generated primarily by nuclear power.

The only options available to stop it from happening reside in strong conservationist policies and in a decided push to renewable energy sources. However, those cost money and don't seem to be profitable. Welcome to the future.

No dice, we're back

I’ve been bloguing for several months now, been giving the issue of bloguing a lot of thought and still haven’t managed to come across with the appropriated answer to question number one: what is it to blog?

In a way, I suppose that’s because bloguing is one of the most creative and individual experiments anyone can undertake in our day and Age. Above all, blogs are means to express creativeness, and creativeness is always an individual process, be it expressed in a team blog or not.

Even people who blog once a month, even people who blog for their close friends, relatives, or merely themselves; even people whose brains aren’t, how can I drop it, “creative”, people engage in a lonesome activity of creative imagination; blogs need content and it doesn’t come out of thin air.

Bloguing forces the bloguer to think on his own in order to get acceptance, recognition, from himself, others or both. There’s a dual dimension .at work in bloguing: individualism competes with a sense of belonging to a communion of shared interests, tastes, feelings, etc.

Bloguing can be highly addictive, which means that it might have a somehow distasteful impact in the lives of individuals; or, of course, quite the opposite.

There is also the minor consideration that bloguing can turn, well, frustrating, especially when you take it vainly enough and consequently desire a wider audience.

But Bloguing might just as well be a Revolution in the way citizens communicate.

It is of capital importance that we realise the overgrowing significance of Mediated communication in Western Societies. Where is it leading us, as citizens?

Increasingly, our communication time is spent more and more in front of a computer, managing our every day life needs and wishes from a keyboard. This fact alone means a radical change in what we are, not only as individuals, but also as Society.

It might be argued that communication has always been mediated, one way or the other. Take the example of mediated communication made flesh by Churches and clergymen, all over the World, and in almost all periods of Human existence, between Man and God.

Nonetheless, the fact remains that Church still plays the role of mediator and now it can do so via internet. It’s a mediation inside of a mediation, an example of where our future might be headed. In a broad sense, if you’d like it, a blue pill kind of reality, as pictured in The Matrix.

Already, there is talk of an on-line society, community, life. On-line life, can you believe it?

When I was a young lad, and this is not nostalgia, my grandfather used to take us boys into native Nature, give us rides in Wisdom and Chess, and teach us the pleasures of exquisite food. Among several other deliciously palatable things, such as drinking black coffee in long sips while enjoying the flavour of fresh ink from a newspaper. He thought us about men and women. He brought happiness, knowledge and the bug of reasoning to our young lives.

Anyway, I’ve developed across the years a very sceptical personality. I think that bloguing is great fun. It takes me places I’ve never been before. It makes feel good. Hell, I even meet people in real life that I’ve known previously from bloguing. And I like to publish my work, call me vain.

This brings me to the pointed edge of this no dice post. Good things are meant to last. Enlightenment was and is a good thing. To reclaim it is a different matter altogether. Not easy, but worthwhile. Meantime, sabotaging Arnie’s words, we’re back, and will modestly chip in.

PostScript – No dice is a reference to a character in one of Frank Gruber’s detective novels, in the series that features Johnny Fletcher and Sam Cragg.

Photo taken from here.

Have a nice day

A gift from London

Hey folks

Back from my blitz journey to London I wanted to give you all a gift. However, these days the currency for Enlightenment is worth less and less and so this is the best thing I could get you.

Love,

Eejit.

What's mainstream journalism?

O Land Whose Beacon Lights!

Life holds that dearer than itself, and men have thrown
God's gift down, and a rarer gift the world has known;
Yet they who fight for right and truth in open fray
May question well the fearful truth, grim war's relay.

O land whose beacon lights the flood of years, storm-tossed,
Stain not that tide with needless blood, lest all be lost!
Let not your beacon, dull with shame, withdraw its light,
Your sons, apostate, sign their name, Oppression's might,

Nor sons of those who gave their lives for liberty
Give theirs to swell a nation's loot beyond the sea,
And rest in alien soil that never can be ours,
Whatever the decrees of war or earthly powers.

When everything else fails, I use Poetry. Written by Julia E. Goodwin some hundred years ago. Inspired by the Philippine-American War. Beautiful Poetry. Read it and let your american friends read it too.

We lost

Thousands have died. A country is destroyed. Hate and Fundamentalism rise everyday. Our western society is on the verge of totalitarianism. The real political winner so far? Iran. At least you'd have thought there had been a degree of rationality in the decision to wage war. You'd have pondered they had a political rational strategy that would somehow justify their mass murdering. Nope. It was a matter of faith. Of God.

Enlightenment defeated.

Haute cuisine...

Mr. Orange: What happens if the manager won't give you the diamonds?
Mr. White: When you're dealing with a store like this, they're insured up the ass. They're not supposed to give you any resistance whatsoever. If you get a customer, or an employee, who thinks he's Charles Bronson, take the butt of your gun and smash their nose in. Everybody jumps. He falls down screaming, blood squirts out of his nose, nobody says fucking shit after that. You might get some bitch talk shit to you, but give her a look like you're gonna smash her in the face next, watch her shut the fuck up. Now if it's a manager, that's a different story. Managers know better than to fuck around, so if you get one that's giving you static, he probably thinks he's a real cowboy, so you gotta break that son of a bitch in two. If you wanna know something and he won't tell you, cut off one of his fingers. The little one. Then tell him his thumb's next. After that he'll tell you if he wears ladies underwear. I'm hungry. Let's get a taco.

Me too, burgers anyone?

Back in business

Vincent ... "When you come pulling in here, did you notice a sign on the front of my house that said dead nigger storage?"
Jules ... "Jimmy, you know I didn't see no shit."
Vincent ... "Did you notice a sign in the front of my house that said dead nigger storage?"
Jules ... "No, I didn't."
Vincent ... "You know why you didn't see that sign?"
Jules ... "Why?"
Vincent ... "Cause it ain't there, cause storing dead fucking niggers ain't my fucking business, that's why?"

And you, what's not your business?

I miss these guys...

Paul Cicero: Listen, I aint gonna get fucked like Gribbs, understand. Gribbs is 70 years old and the fuckin guy's gonna die in prison, I don't need that. So I'm warning everybody, EVERYBODY. It could be my son, it could be anybody. Gribbs got 20 years just for saying hello to some fuck who was sneaking behind his back selling junk, I don't need that, aint gonna happen to me, you understand.

Henry Hill: Uh huh.

Paul Cicero: You know that you're only out early because I got you a job. I don't need this heat, understand that.

Henry Hill: Uh huh.

Paul Cicero: And you see anybody fucking around with this shit you're going to tell me right. Henry Hill: Yeah.

Paul Cicero: [slaps him] That means anybody!

Henry Hill: Alright.

Paul Cicero: Yeah?

Henry Hill: Yeah, of course.

And we all know what happen then, don't we?

You "honest" again?

What does it take for a "historian" to change his mind about the Holocaust in a matter of a few days? A prison sentence, maybe?

God, religion, Islam

I'm completely against religious approaches on life. I consider that religious beliefs sprung from fear and not from love. Because we are mortal and can't make sense of life, we create this reassuring idea of God. We are so desperately afraid of the big unknown - death - that we turn to the idea of God.

It gives sense - meaning - to our life. However, this is an irrational and dogmatic meaning. There's nothing in life that objectively points to the existence of God, apart from the fact that so many people have faith on him.

It’s dogmatic because it rules out other interpretations of the World and of life. For instance, mine:

There’s no purpose in life rather than being alive. One day I will die and that will be it. I will become a non-existence. A nothing. Believers in God can’t accept this interpretation because it’s an inconceivable one. No purpose? You die and that’s it? For believers there’s more to life than life. Again, because they are afraid. I’m also afraid of the unknown, especially since nobody has ever returned to tell him what it is like. But, as long as I’m among the living I’ll do my best not only for me but also for my fellow brothers and sisters. I know, I’m being irrational but I have faith in Human kind. At least I have some evidence of its existence and, albeit Human kind seems so bound on its own destruction, being a member I must try to do my best.

And what is more, I just hope you are right and there is a God after all.

Of course, if we can’t prove that God exists, we cannot prove that he does not exist, either. Nevertheless, statistically, his existence is highly improbable. But why should this be a matter of such concern?

I will give you some reasons.

Those who don't believe in God are either fools to be left alone or, in a more extreme version, infidels that should be hunt down.

More people have been killed in the name of God than for anything else.

Now, one of the religions I abhor the most is Islam. Because not only it comes with moral precepts but also with a full judicial code, the Sharia.

The Sharia code implies several things, from which I've selected merely two.

First: The fate of Women.

Second: The fate of gays.

Interesting, is it not?

Thought of the day...

Cameron............................................ Data

Freedom of Speech & terrorism

David Irving, the "historian", is serving a three year sentence in an Austrian jail for denying the Holocaust. And I completely agree. I think that Mr Irving, like Mr Hamza, is an intellectual terrorist and that terrorists should be locked up. Nevertheless, I've noticed lately that, probably due to my poor rule of the English language, everything I say is used against me in a variety of more or less fallacious ways. Therefore, to corroborate what I think, I'll let an intelligent woman do the talking:

"On the other hand, martyred poultry is infinitely more palatable than a martyred David Irving, chicken though the man most certainly is. Faced with the alarming, and to him staggeringly incomprehensible, prospect of a jail sentence, he immediately recanted. He was no Holocaust denier, he told the court. He might have been once and he was pleading guilty to that but he wasn't any more because he'd come across papers of Alfred Eichmann in 1991 and they'd changed his mind. His position was no longer the one he'd taken in 1989 when he'd made the speeches for which he was on trial. If anything proved him to be a bare-faced liar in the face of incontrovertible evidence, his defence did.

The judge and jury put him away for three years and immediately there was an outcry. First, his right to free speech had been transgressed; second, the incarceration would turn him into a martyr. The prevailing view was that the man was a pathetic buffoon and to jail him would give him a status that made him more dangerous than he had any right to be. Consigning him to obscurity would be a fitter punishment.

But how can this be right? He might be mad and he might be a buffoon, but Irving is an academic terrorist: a gifted historian who has chosen to record a perverted view of world events presumably to ferment racial and religious hatred. When did we start saying the best way to deal with fermenters of hatred was to ridicule them? Irving may look ridiculous now, but as a historian he knows only too well the power of the shadow of doubt he's chosen to cast."

So says Barbara Toner.

I wonder why?

Enligtenment in danger

For denying that the Holocaust ever took place, for saying that there were no gas chambers in Auschwitz, "historian" David Irving was sentenced to three years imprisonment in Austria. Irving pleaded guilty saying that, since 1989, when he proclaimed his absurd "historical" sentences, he had learned a lot and no longer thought as he did then.

Guess what Mr Irving; in 1989 there was already lots of evidence for the Holocaust. Actually, evidence for the Holocaust dates back to the late forties, you had just to read the files of the Nuremberg trial. Instead you chose not to. You chose to deny the Holocaust. Serves you right this sentence, Mr Irving, I hope you enjoy your time in an Austrian prison.

Meanwhile, some wancker or other immediately came to Irving's rescue. You see, some arseholes dare to say something like this: "We have to re-think Freedom of Speech. If we allow the publishing of cartoons offensive to the prophet Mohamed, then this jail sentence should have not been passed."

Can you believe it? Some people have the nerve to compare a proven fact (The Holocaust) with a matter of faith (the divinity or not of prophets). It’s been sixty years since the Nuremberg Trial. If someone told me, twenty years ago, that anyone could deny the Holocaust and that would be ok, I would dismiss such an utterance as an irrationality. As it seems, today irrationality is taking the upper hand. Apparently, not only in Iran, but also in the West.

It drags on and on...

When will this shit stop?

May the force...

Be with the quail...

Jarhead...

Welcome to the quail...

If you want blood...

You quail it...

Moral dilemma

What shall I do when I read something like this? Fuck it, I've got better things to do on a Friday.

The path to Fascism- Take II

As you all know, in Italy the president thinks of himself as being similar to Christ. What you don’t know is that in the same country, apparently, Christ’s image belongs in the school room.

It's "educational" so they say.

In public, republican schools, in Italy, the image of Christ has an "educational value". Those who don’t like it, i.e. atheists, agnostics and the followers of all other religions can go a file a complain to the Devil.

This is not a joke. It’s a rule of Law.


Now, I ask you, is Italy going down the Fascist path again or what?

Want a fag? Have some vichy...

In a year or so a photo like this will become a memory of a long gone time, when people socialized round a few pints, in a traditional English pub, while they had a fag. I can remember when English pubs used to smell of old fashioned beer and cigarette smoke. Those days will be over soon. No more ashtrays in pubs.

This is fine. A nice measure. As someone said: “I don’t mind that I can no longer have a fag with me pint when I go to the pub. It’s ok, ‘cause pretty soon they’ll only be serving mineral water in pubs.”

Indeed. A great measure. I just hope that, somewhere in the future, they don’t barge into my house, paid for with my own money, shouting: “You are under arrest! It’s illegal to smoke indoors!”

Dangers of web-journals

There’s a growing debate in the United States and other Western countries about privacy and privacy rights. Basically, this has to do with the so called war on terror. Western governments say that our e-mails, our phone conversations and so on, could/should be under scrutiny. They claim that’s the best way to fight terrorists. Security agencies could/should, be allowed to eavesdrop on our personal lives.

This is a powerful argument, although a fallacious one. It reads pretty much like this: if you don’t have anything to hide, then you shouldn’t mind that we listen to your conversations and read your mail.

It’s a fallacious argument because everyone has something to hide, including governments. If anything else, one might be a political opponent of the government and one might not be pleased if one’s political strategies are under scrutiny from the very same government.

The problem is that neo-cons will resort to another deadly argument: people, namely bloguers and other web surfers, just can’t wait to tell the world about themselves and their lives. They literally put themselves on display before a live audience. Now this has several dangers, as you can read here.

But the greatest danger is that our right to privacy will one day end.

Loose cannon

The Daily Show with Jon Steward said it best:
On Monday night one of the show's correspondents, Rob Corddry, introduced as a "vice-presidential firearms mishap analyst," said that "according to the best intelligence available, there were quail hidden in the brush," and "everyone believed there were quail in the brush," and "while the quail turned out to be a 78-year-old man, even knowing that today, Mr. Cheney insists he would still have shot Mr. Whittington in the face."

(there was a bit of double-posting and plagiarism on this post, apologies all 'round...)

The Love bug...

It's Valentine's day! The day for all lovers and sweet hearts of the World! But...is it? Well, some people might be in for a suprise, especially if they receive e-cards today....

On the road to enrichement

Breaking news.

May you rot in Hell...

Christians of the World…Unite!

The blasphemous Berlusconi has offended you all! He now says he is “just like Jesus”. This sacrilegious deed cannot go without punishment. The heretic Berlusconi mocks your most sacred beliefs.

Christians of the Word! Unite! Take to the streets and make your righteous anger and exasperation reverberate throughout all corners of the Globe! Make the heathen Berlusconi pay for his foul feat; Show him that nobody scorns at the consecrated image of your treasured Christ. Christians of the World, show no mercy, show the World just how you deal with offence…

Miracle! Jesus is back!

Do you know why here, at back to enlightenment, we are all sick of politics? Why we are gradually turning away from political debate or political analysis?

Why increasingly we turn to Poetry, to Philosophy, to Friendship for real inspiration and guidance?

You do not? Well, it is because international politics, in general, turned into a tragic and pathetic comedy. Do not believe me? Ok, go and check what the new Jesus has to say about it…

Tought of the day...

Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.











Napoleon Bonaparte

Great Are The Myths

Great Are The Myths

by Walt Whitman

GREAT are the myths--I too delight in them;
Great are Adam and Eve--I too look back and accept them;
Great the risen and fallen nations, and their poets, women, sages,
inventors, rulers, warriors, and priests.
Great is Liberty! great is Equality! I am their follower;
Helmsmen of nations, choose your craft! where you sail, I sail,
I weather it out with you, or sink with you.

Great is Youth--equally great is Old Age--great are the Day
and Night;
Great is Wealth--great is Poverty--great is Expression--great
is Silence.

Youth, large, lusty, loving--Youth, full of grace, force,
fascination!
Do you know that Old Age may come after you, with equal grace, force,
fascination?

Day, full-blown and splendid--Day of the immense sun, action,
ambition, laughter,
The Night follows close, with millions of suns, and sleep, and
restoring darkness.

Wealth, with the flush hand, fine clothes, hospitality;
But then the Soul's wealth, which is candor, knowledge, pride,
enfolding love;
(Who goes for men and women showing Poverty richer than wealth?)

Expression of speech! in what is written or said, forget not that
Silence is also expressive,
That anguish as hot as the hottest, and contempt as cold as the
coldest, may be without words.

Great is the Earth, and the way it became what it is;
Do you imagine it has stopt at this? the increase abandon'd?
Understand then that it goes as far onward from this,
as this is from the times when it lay in covering waters and gases,
before man had appear'd.

Great is the quality of Truth in man;
The quality of truth in man supports itself through all changes,
It is inevitably in the man--he and it are in love, and never leave
each other.

The truth in man is no dictum, it is vital as eyesight;
If there be any Soul, there is truth--if there be man or woman
there is truth--if there be physical or moral, there is truth;
If there be equilibrium or volition, there is truth--if there
be things at all upon the earth, there is truth.

O truth of the earth! I am determin'd to press my way toward you;
Sound your voice! I scale mountains, or dive in the sea after you.

Great is Language--it is the mightiest of the sciences,
It is the fulness, color, form, diversity of the earth, and of men
and women, and of all qualities and processes;
It is greater than wealth--it is greater than buildings, ships,
religions, paintings, music.

Great is the English speech--what speech is so great as the English?
Great is the English brood--what brood has so vast a destiny as the
English?
It is the mother of the brood that must rule the earth with the new
rule;
The new rule shall rule as the Soul rules, and as the love, justice,
equality in the Soul rule.

Great is Law--great are the few old land-marks of the law,
They are the same in all times, and shall not be disturb'd.

Great is Justice!
Justice is not settled by legislators and laws--it is in the Soul;
It cannot be varied by statutes, any more than love, pride, the
attraction of gravity, can;
It is immutable--it does not depend on majorities--majorities or what
not, come at last before the same passionless and exact
tribunal.

For justice are the grand natural lawyers, and perfect judges--is it
in their Souls;
It is well assorted--they have not studied for nothing--the great
includes the less;
They rule on the highest grounds--they oversee all eras, states,
administrations.

The perfect judge fears nothing--he could go front to front before
God;
Before the perfect judge all shall stand back--life and death shall
stand back--heaven and hell shall stand back.

Great is Life, real and mystical, wherever and whoever;
Great is Death--sure as life holds all parts together, Death holds
all parts together.

Has Life much purport?--Ah, Death has the greatest purport.

Thought of the day...

Fine words and an insinuating appearance are seldom associated with true virtue.

Things that are done, it is needless to speak about...things that are past, it is needless to blame.

The superior man is satisfied and composed; the mean man is always full of distress.


Confucius

The crown & veil

The following words I picked in a website, where the role of women in Islam is depicted in a very favourable light. Hitherto, my source is extremely disputable. Anyway, this are the words:

"The Islam's respect to the women is crowned with the Hijab, the veil, considered by a lot of anti-Muslims a symbol of women's oppression and servitude. God ordered Muslim women to wear the veil (to cover the whole of their body except their face and their hands) to protect them..The Qur'an makes it clear through many verses that the veil obligatory and not an option for Muslim women (as some misleading information state)."O Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (jalabib) close round them (when they go abroad)..."The Qur'an also shows how essential the veil is for modesty. Modesty is prescribed to protect women from molestation. Thus, the only purpose of the veil in Islam is protection. The Islamic veil is not a sign of man's authority over the woman, nor is it a sign of the woman's subjection to the man, on the contrary it shows respect and care for the woman. "

Right. See this? You know what this is? It's a fallacie, that's what.

Women need to be modest for their protection... Protection from whom?

The veil is not a sign of subjection to the man... Of course not, if one is ordered to hide one's face and body, this person it not subjected at all. This person is a very defiant person.

For Allah’s sake!..

Democracy & Enlightenment

By the end of the 19th Century Nietzsche proclaimed: “there are no truths, merely interpretations”. He also asserted: “everything is fair and unfair and in both cases justifiable.” In two single strokes Nietzsche thought he had managed to throw Enlightenment values into the trash bin of history. Fortunately, not everybody believed in what he was saying and many realised that although his “proclamations” had some value they were still fallacies.

In the first case, if the sentence is to be true, i.e. “there are no truths” then the sentence would contradict itself because there would be the “truth” of non-existing truths. It follows that the sentence is false, there are “truths”. Of course how we interpret them is a different matter altogether. In the second case, Nietzsche is also in the wrong: nothing can be one thing and its opposite at the same time; there cannot be a “night-day” any more than there can be a “living-death”, unless we are talking about fiction novels like “1984” or horror movies like “Zombies”.

However, Nietzsche’s proclamations brought relativism into the search for truth and they made us aware that, sometimes, “arguments” can be used to justify the unjustifiable. Relativism is a useful tool if used with moderation. By accepting that there are different ways by which the world can be perceived and different interpretations to where “truth” actually lies, not only we think critically but in addition with tolerance. The problem about relativism is when it becomes the absolute value, i.e. “there are no truths”. True enough that there are no absolute “truths”. Concepts, because they are a product of the human mind, change in time and from human to human.

Take the concept of Democracy as an example: in Ancient Greece it meant something quite different from what it means today. For one thing women and slaves were excluded from democratic process. For another, the scale on which Democracy was set into practise (small city state) meant that most of citizens had their say; by active participation they influenced the entire democratic process.

Today, Democracy is different in many ways, but I shall stick to these two aspects. In most western democratic states women can vote and slavery has long been abolished, curiously, as a result of the putting to practice Enlightenment values. In modern Democracy citizens no longer have a direct participation in the “making” of Democracy; how could that happen if now we have democracies with millions of citizens instead of the handful there were in the city states of Ancient Greece?

In modern democracies, citizens, by voting, delegate power to a small number of people for a given period of time. What this illustrates is that the concept of Democracy changes in time. And what is more it changes in space: European democracies are quite different from US Democracy; Democracy in Portugal is somewhat different to Spanish Democracy and so on. Should we infer then, since we cannot accurately define Democracy, it does not exist? Not even the most stubborn of post modernist thinkers, such as Derrida or Foucault, would dare to claim it; it would be a completely absurd utterance.

Democracy is self-evident and the fact that we cannot present a complete, absolute definition makes no difference. In a Democratic State there is no official religion, people can go where they please, talk to whom they please about what they please or not; it is only asked of them they do it under the rule of Law. Therefore, they cannot preach hate, they cannot preach violence. Or should not, at least.

But Democracy is not static. We, the people, must work to improve Democray. The totalitarian temptation is strong in all of us, and we must fight it off, sometimes on a daily basis.

Ever since the Renaissance, throughout the Enlightenment and to date, we can trail a path of progress in western societies. This progress was acheived and consolidated because a body of values emerged in the Enlightenmet. Those values were absent in other parts of the World, namely the islamic world. And because of that our society is more open, tolerant - "better" - than islamic-based societies.

However, the issue at stake here is a return to elemental values, a turn from post-modern relativism. There are “truths” that are better than others: The values of Enlightenment are better. Freedom, Democracy, Equality, Fraternity, Tolerance - must prevail. These are not merely empty words, they are values, and they are better than other values.

In the given example of Democracy, the issue, instead of being “we cannot say what it is” or “it doesn’t work well” or “I do not care because they will do as they please” must be: “How do we make it better?”

Thought of the week...

I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. That is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant.


Martin Luther King Jr

All hot about cartoons

The big news in the global media is the row over the Danish cartoons poking fun at Islam. I have so far not seen the pics of shame and to be honest I am not that curious. From what I heard it seems rather banal banter and I can predict confidently that on seeing the cartoons I won’t be shocked. But then again, I am not a Muslim, why should I be shocked? Here lies an important point, for atheist Europeans they may seem innocuous but it is obvious they are not if you are of a Muslim faith.

The protests began not with the first publication of the cartoons as illustration to a book on Islam, but only when they were reprinted in a newspaper soon after. Following the scandal, all over Europe the liberal and conservative press hoisted the flag of freedom of speech and once again reprinted the cartoons, even giving them first page coverage. For their European readers in pics in themselves were a non-event, what mattered was the scandal - the cavalier disregard of what the culturally distant other, the Muslims might feel; always done in the noble name of freedom. It was the abuse that sold newspapers.

It is freedom of speech to have the means to draw these cartoons and publish them. It is insult to repeatedly publish them, over and over again, once you know they might offend. Over a score of days the Middle East has shown its outrage in the streets. The voices of discontentment are not the usual suspects- i.e. Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine. This time anger runs from North Africa to the friendly Arabs of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The Muslim faithful have understood the affront.

If this was a battle over the ills of religion I might even have supported the provocation, but done for the sake of dividing the world in religious hatred, it does us no good.

Thought of the night...

Because philosophy arises from awe, a philosopher is bound in his way to be a lover of myths and poetic fables. Poets and philosophers are alike in being big with wonder.
Thomas Aquinas

Blogued out

Our society is so embedded with individualism that often isn’t easy to find people with whom one can talk, debate, share information and be creative. Bloguing changes all that.

There are several reasons why I think bloguing is important but I will give only two.

Firstly, in the blogosphere we get access to real information, and not the crap mainstream media feeds us. In the blogosphere not only we get relevant information ignored by mainstream media, but also analysis; relevant insights to what mainstream media sells as innocuous, "innocent" events. In addition, bloguing subverts the traditional relations between producers and audiences, because the bloguer is simultaneously audience and producer. This alone is an extremely relevant fact, that was absent from life until just a few years.

Secondly, I’m a natural born explorer. The blogosphere is important because I can meet so many different people and acquire so many different “takes” on such a variety of issues.

Yesterday, again embarking on a journey where no bloguer had gone before, from Penis and Vaginas Amplifiers to Cat food & Louis the brain Killer, I came across with Rebecca's Pocket.

Although I disagree with some of what this bloguer has to say, I think her words on Bloguing Ethics should be read.

Thought of the day...

I'll come no more behind your scenes, David; for the silk stockings and white bosoms of your actresses excite my amorous propensities. Samuel Johnson

Mind the… Gap