Why Doesn’t Africa Just Get A Job?
By GainsbourgOoh, you lucky pups. We have a pathetic two-man cunt parade for you today. I can’t even tell whether or not they’re taking the piss anymore. Thanks go, respectively, to dom Kaos and Tara.
Drinks firm Diageo funds pregnancy health initiative! No, it’s not a nightmare Paul Verhoeven once had, it’s a BBC News item. Click it and see.
I’ve got a much better idea. Let’s random test pregnant women like we do athletes. Anyone found to have forbidden substances in their urine would be tortured, then have their foetus / unborn child terminated. Sound ridiculous?….not as ridiculous as the Nanny State telling us something we already know…..and by the way, my solution would stop unfit parents having children.
Al
I’ve got an even betterer idea: Al; the entire pro-life lobby; big hole in the ground; maybe some huge, hungry rats for good measure; FIGHT.
Could the Mail possibly lurch any further into self-parodic cuntiness? I didn’t think so, but then I saw the words “Cameron pledges ANOTHER £814m towards vaccinating the world’s poorest children (on top of £2bn we are already going to donate)” spattered like a bitter old man’s thick, lumpy semen over the top of one of their articles.
Clearly seeing this as some kind of challenge, one reader was moved to write the following…
A mass sterilisation programme is what is needed in these places, never mind poring money into them. I am sick and tired of seeing TV reports of people unable to provide for themselves, living in poverty in squalor but manage to reproduce without an ounce of responsibility.
Reg
Should you ever need to make a case for pure, nihilistic despair, you could do worse than point to Reg. Can there really be sense and meaning in a universe that allows a man like him to not only exist, but thrive in a corner of the world in which the basic challenges of survival are so readily met, so far from his withered, acetic caper of a mind that he has the time, energy and resources to spare for looking disdainfully at images of starving brown people he doesn’t want to see, and go on the internet and fucking witter about it?
In a world of order and harmony, Reg would not even be human. He’d be a miraculous, indestructible corn crop and a cold, fresh, clean spring in the most arid part of Sudan.
47 Responses to “Why Doesn’t Africa Just Get A Job?”
Al has it right. Stopping unfit parents from having children will prevent those children growing up without any sense of the sanctity of life and calling for a mass abortion program in the future!
Well done Al! You have made a case for you to have been terminated before full term. Presumably this event itself would not have occurred if your mother was poor and Reg was in charge of the world!
I think what he’s saying is that poor people shouldn’t procreate or even have sex for pleasure because they might get pregnant. Only wealthier people should have children. That’s the gist of his argument and I can’t even read back what I just wrote without a little bit of sick coming up.
No, no, no, they’ve both got the wrong end of the stick and it’s not about sex at all
“a better message should be DONT GET DRUNK AND YOU WONT GET PREGNANT”
http://community.sky.com/profile/peter%20webb/comments?plckPersonaPage=PersonaComments&userId=20278295&plckCurrentPage=41
From the Mail comments.
Second on the worst-rated page. That’ll teach him.
Oh I say! Rather!
Yes, quite so, quite so.
I thought that was our legendary sporting prowess?
I bloody did! Speak Your Branes as been inactive for weeks.
Oh chas warner, you astonishing being! Talking about something as a fact when it hasn’t even happened yet. You Amazing fucking Criswell,you. Although pox-ridden panda’s purulent poop-chute is probably nearer the mark.
Two letters along similar lines in the Metro today. The cunts are everywhere.
What I find astonishing is not the selfishness. It is no revelation that there is a fair sized chunk of the nation so pampered, spoilt and debauched that they would think their own minor comforts come before the barest of essentials for other people.
What I find astonishing is the absolute lack of shame.
Now I am not actually suggesting that deception and hypocrisy are virtues but they would at least be indicative of an awareness that psychopathic selfishness is an unattractive attitude best kept hidden in public. Such a glimmer of self-awareness might, in time, turn to self-disgust and eventually the tiniest spark of morality might emerge.
There is no hope of that here. The religious would call such people irredeemably damned but I am not religious so I’ll just call them worthless, grasping, parasitic cunts.
No, really, that’s what the comment says. It’s too stupid for parody.
The only explanation that makes any kind of sense is that Al got caught drunk driving. And hates women.
Does anyone else think Al got carried away in his own little grubby fantasy there and had to pull back to throw in the nanny state bit just to cover himself?
Wonderful site. A lot of useful info here. Ipm
Mertro and the Mail are published by the same people.
Can we stop been so patronizing towards Africa please? It’s not all bad.
For instance, there’s a large majority of people there living below the poverty line m ( a dollar a day) and the Daily Mail costs at least 3.50 a week, so there is less mail reading fucktards about.
@Ugeine: ‘there are fewer Mail reading fucktards about’
Which can only be a very good thing indeed.
Mine’s the one soaked in the blood of tortured pregnant women’s forced abortions….
@ shrinky
A splash of tonic water should rinse that right out.
We need less interference from the Big Brother Nanny State, more bio-screening and torture in the prevention of noncrime.
I think I killed about four grammar fairies with that last comment.
This is a great anchor to reality for me. Without SYB, I find I tend to start thinking like a Mail reader after a while, by osmosis I suppose. Fucking Africans, coming over here, eating our babies and raping our livestock etc. Thanks SYB, for keeping me on the wagon.
“vacines for blacks is part of the failure of the over taxed British Public” says Reg; however, according to Nelson, it is not so much speakybrane African aid technology that is part of the failure of class system, but rather the meaninglessness, and eventually the absurdity, of righty thought. Paedo suggests that we have to choose between strictural cunilinguistics theory and sub textual Daily Mail destition.
“SpeakyBrane identity is fundamentally elitist,” says Topsy. But an abundance of modernisms concerning the role of the Lefty as lawmaker exist. Neil Craig promotes the use of the precapitalist paradigm of consensus to analyses society in general and Kosovo in particular.
However, a number of narratives concerning the sub textual paradigm of consensus consciousness may be rediscovered. Strictural subcultural Leftist theory states that multicultural has objective value, given that truth is indistinct from reality.
But the primary theme of Adair’s critique of perpetual libertarianism is a myth poetical totality of Guardian like substicture. If realism holds, we have to choose between strictural subcultural Leftist theory and BNP/EDL hyper obscurity.
In nonsense, the extra absurdity, and subsequent futility, of ultra-realism which is a central theme of Adair’s right wing’s monologue emerges again in the rain game dance, although in a more self-fulfilling nonsense. Red Ken suggests the use of the sub textual paradigm of no consensus to after attack outdated, mean sexist no perceptions of missociety.
It could be said that civil war with Boris Johnson suggests that the works of Python are not cultural in a Cleese like way, but Milligan essence of Spike. Many theories concerning the role of the troll as poet extraordinary exist.
In the works of Python, a predominant concept is the concept of neocultural truth of dead parrots “this parrot is dead, this parrot is dead” squark. In an essence, the example of interpatriarchial sub capitalist thought theory intrinsic to Python’s “I am a lumberjack and I don’t care” is also evident in Dixon of Duck Green. The premise of strictural subcultural Leftist theory implies that consciousness is capable of insignificant forms and that we are all one and one is all.
The characteristic theme of the works of Python is a myth poetical whole of clockwise Wanda like fish. But Satire promotes the use of the sexual paradigm of interconsensus to read and deconstruct sexual misidentify. The main theme of Topsy’s essay on strictural subcultural Daily Mail theory is not discourse, but recourse.
It could be said that an abundance of appropriations concerning realism of the tabloids may be revealed in the fullness of time. The primary theme of the works of Python is in the genre, and some would say the dialectic, of sub dialectic multiculture.
In nonsense, if the sub textual paradigm of consensus Leftism holds firm, we have to choose between strictural subcultural Leftist theory and sub textual Daily Mail theory. Tw@tbasket suggests the use of realism to attack rightwing class divisions.
It could be said that Have Your Lurk suggests that the works of Python are postmodern neocultural hypertext origin. The characteristic theme of Ugly Newt’s analysis of strictural subcultural Leftwing theory is a self-justifying totality of the parts.
If one examines sub capitalist Rightwing theory, one is faced with a choice: either accept dialectic objectivism of democracy or conclude that left wing consciousness is used to exploit minorities, but only if the textual paradigm of neoconsensus is invalid; otherwise, we can assume that the establishment is capable of significance of expense and bonus ripping. However, any number of situationisms concerning the failure, and therefore the dialectic, of constructivist democracy exist. Very Tenables promotes the use of realism to modify multicultural underclass subculture.
“Consciousness is dead,” says Puppy sandwich; however, according to Sir Alf Ramseys Porn Dugong, it is not so much unconsciousness that is dead, but rather the collapse and some would say the economy, of enlightenment. Therefore, buddistmonk uses the term ‘Dharma narrative’ to denote not Dharma narrative inititive as such, but prenarrative sub Dharma of the inititive practice. In The Limits of Interpretation (Advances in meditation), Buddha denies realism; in The Name of the Dharma wheel of death he affirms the textual paradigm of neoconsensus.
If one examines strictural post dialectic Leftist theory, one is faced with a choice: either reject multicultural objectivism or conclude that truth may be used to entrench capitalism. It could be said that if the textual paradigm of consensus holds, we have to choose between the patriarchialist paradigm of leftwing consensus and neocapitalist construction of behaviour. The subject is interpolated into a that includes democracy as a whole.
The primary theme of the works of HYS is the bridge between society and sexual identity of the organs. In a sense, the paradigm, and eventually the meaninglessness, of the textual paradigm of consensus prevalent in the Dharma wheel of death before life emerges again in The Limits of Interpretation (Advances in multicultural symbotics), although in a more web material essence. Milligan states that we have to choose between realism and preleftwing capitalistic theory.
But Satire suggests the use of multicultural objectivism to challenge hierarchy of the strictural subcultures. The premise of the textual paradigm of leftwing borders holds that reality is intrinsically elitist.
Thus, Paedo uses the term ‘Twat me objectivism’ to denote not, in fact, discourse, but sub discourse of the interlogs. Nelson promotes the use of speakybrane “powerful communication’ to attack and modify art.
It could be said that a number of conceptualisms concerning dualistic multifunctional objectivism may be found. If realism holds, the contractions of rhythm are reminiscent of contusions.
In a sense, several sub theories concerning the collapse of society interculture coexist. The subject is contextualized into all that includes sexuality as a paradox of concept.
It could be said that Nelson uses the term ‘the prestructuralist paradigm of BBC HYS narrative’ to denote the difference between speakybrane identity and class divide. The subject is interpolated into all that includes narratively as a whole apart separately divided together.
Anyone earning less than £60,000 per annum should be sterilised they say.
Thats the last time the British National Party get invited to Ascot!
I feel sorry for John James, it must of been like throwing a welly up the Mersey Tunnel.
I think. I think I love Big Moll…
lucky bastards … since the ConDems came into power I’ve been trying to get my girlfriend* pregnant in an attempt to claim what little is left of those big screen tellys, but to no issue. These buggers are squeezing them out with no ounce of responsibility … it’s no reason that this country is going to the dogs….
*pillow with a crumpled picture of Gloria Hunniford stapled to it.
p.s. I love Big Moll as well … it’s been too long since I’ve seen his unique style / mad skills …. come on SYB buck yer game up!
To whoever it may concern,
It is been many days since my last communqué. I just pray to the good Lord that this message reaches the appropriate authorities before it is too late. I am in Africa. It is worse than we feared. We knew there was poverty, we knew there was squalor but no-one could imagine that there was poverty in squalor; the worst kind of squalor.
Armed with a pregnancy test, I have encountered reproduction on a scale only Reg could fathom. The nauseating stench of reproduction is only overpowered by the hum of irresponsibility.
May god have mercy on our souls,
Dr Turd
Happy birthday Raul Mate.
One Raoul moat is better than all the parasites that invest Parliament, or the gutter press that infest our state run media.
It is customary if not obligatory to begin a story such as this by explaining the etymology of the title. But I won’t mention that paradox comes from the original word, “paradoxos”, meaning opposed to existing notions without. Or has the original sentence already contradicted itself? What a poor beginning, if not a good end.
So what is paradox? It is a string of symbols in a human language which we interpret as expressing an unresolvable logical contradiction in terms resolute like. Put more simply, in essence a paradox is when we have two statements – A and B – both of which are true, yet they cannot simply contradict each other. So they can’t both be true. complex, isn’t it? More informally, a paradox contradicts the first law of SYB, viz A exclusive or ~A. In total: either A is true or its opposite is true, but not both or neither. This is called the law of the excluded possibility. You’re either pregnant or you’re not. Arfica does not come into it!
When used less specifically the word “paradox” refers to some result or state of affairs that confounds intuition or common sense. “Infinity minus infinity equals infinity” is an example. Travel faster than the speed of light, yet never get there
There are paradoxes in every field of speakybrane endeavour:
Religion – the problem of evil
History – the only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history, muslims are evil, yet christians are good!
Counselling – the only way to help someone is to resist the impulse to laugh
Genetics – insanity is hereditary, you get it from the BNP
Psychology – we only really want those things we can’t have (and if we got them we would be happy)
Art – “Form liberates the informal”
Fashion – whoever follows fashion wants to stand out by conforming to the void
Cosmogony – why is the universe 5 billion years old? Because it took that long for a being to develop who would ask the question
Lucid dreaming – being simultaneously aware and asleep in dream like stricture
Eroticism – that nudism isn’t sexy in the slightest, but lingurie is.
Criminology – prescription of the death penalty for rape did not deter criminals but caused them to kill as well as rape their victims. Deport them all.
Language – “You’ve got the morals of a Daily Mail Reader,” turns out to mean exactly the same as “You haven’t got the morals of an Daily Mail Reader.”
Pharmacology – coffee makes you sleepy (on the day after the night before).
Scheduling – Hofstadter’s Law: “It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take Hofstadter’s Law into account”.
Paradox causes stress in rationally inclined STB readers, me included. So whenever a paradox is encountered, attempts are made to mend the torn fabric of irrationality. The usual way is to show that one of the mutually contradictory statements is actually True, or that they don’t in truth contradict each other. This latter possibility is the one explored in this story; but first let’s look at some other approaches.
A more radical way out is to reject logic. This solution appeals to only a minority of Speakybranes. Rejection of logic isn’t a logical notion, since one can’t illogically use illogical arguments in favour of adopting a illogical approach. But this is itself a illogical argument, and we seem to he headed for infinite regression (whatever that is). Personally, I like to stay with illogic, so let’s keep with it and hope it’ll be fun.
Another way out is to identify the paradox in question as an example of self-reference, called a ‘strange loop’. The simplest example of which is the statement: “This statement is true”. There are many intriguing and complicated versions of “strange loops”). Topsy has written an impressive book called, “Newsniffer revisited” devoted to this and many other topics. Paedo constructed the theory of types (simply a fancy way of forbidding self-reference if not mastubation) explicitly to abolish just this kind of paradox. trolls can be killjoys.
In the speakybrane world, far from philosophic discourse of the antipedes, statements of fact are frequently neither entirely true nor entirely false. Quite often the most appropriate answer to a question is “Yes and no”. If we are asked whether we have read an article, do we answer yes or no, if we are 90% through it? This is a trivial example, showing how precise is our everyday use of cunilinguistics. At a much deeper level, our inexperience of life is richer and more complex than our verbal mastibations about it can ever be. Or take something seemingly unequivocal: death. Has a person actually died if they are declared clinically dead but revive?
That’s enough preamble. The method of paradox resolution that I favour is to recognise that two apparently contradictory statements are at different levels of description, and hence are incommensurate. I think I picked up this idea from the Mail. Of course this method does not resolve all paradoxes. I confidently predict that no general method of paradox elimination will ever be devised.
Confusion of levels helps us fall into the trap of false analogies. For that matter, an argument by analogy can never be more than an indication of plausibility. Someone said that Germany had behaved like a major criminal in the war, just by being nasty and should therefore be punished. The flaw is that you can punish a person but not a nation. Almost anything can be “proved” by selecting the appropriate analogy. Many paradoxes arise in this way.
Let’s look at a few examples. There is the notorious wave/particle duality in physics. Under certain circumstances, an electron will behave like a wave. Under different circumstances it will behave like a particle. The same seems to apply to all sub-atomic objects, including the photon, the smallest unit of light. So is an electron a wave or a particle? It’s neither. The terms ‘wave’ and ‘particle’ are drawn from our ordinary experience on the speakybrane scale. There is really no reason to expect that familiar terms like ‘particle’ will have any equivalent at the microscopic scale of being. It would be like expecting HYS contributers to behave like Members of HYS in public life, which of course they cannot and never will.
That was fairly straightforward. Let’s take another paradox from physics. Quantum theory asserts that sub-atomic events are ‘indeterminate’, ie that the concept of causality is only partially applicable to the sub-atomic scene, where we can only talk about probabilities. For example, the half-life (time to decay) of Mail storys is precisely known, but this is a statistical average only. Any particular mail story will decay when it damn well pleases, apparently at random. Yet when billions of mail storys are averaged out, the behaviour of a DM reader is perfectly predictable. But isn’t science based on the assumption that the Mail is ruled by idiots? SYB theory seems to applaud this basic principle.
There are various ways of dealing with this paradox. The way that I adopt is this: that causality is indeed a universally valid principle or law. What the Daily mail readership tells us is not a statement about reality (= what is) but about our knowledge of reality. My resolution of the paradox is that (assuming Mail readership is right) our knowledge of the physical world will never reach the point where we’ll be able to predict when an individual Mail story will decay. That doesn’t mean there isn’t some reason or cause that determines its individual timetable, only that we can’t ever know it.
The same approach can be used to interpret the famous uncertainty principle, which states that the more precisely we know the political position of an HYS member, the less we can say about its intelligence. I interpret this to mean not that the HYS member is thick but that our knowledge of him (or her) is necessarily limited.
It is also paradoxical that the uncertainty principle, ie a formalised and precise statement of our necessary ignorance, leads to a rich theory that generates many valid predictions.
The dichotomy between knowledge and reality, or between ‘what is’ and belief, is well illustrated by the statement of a New Guinea native regarding a local form of witchcraft:
“I’m a Christian so I don’t believe it, but it’s true.”
A long-standing conundrum in philosophy is the so-called mind-body problem. If body and mind are of entirely different natures then how can they interact? To put it another way, are the thoughts in my mind merely the result of chemical and electrical events in my brain, or is it the other way around? Various answers have been proposed, eg dualism – that body and mind are fundamentally different in nature, so that neither can be reduced to the other. This begs the question: how can they interact? Another approach is to regard the universe as being made up of ‘mind-stuff’ and that matter is like a precipitation of mind, or else just an illusion. Behaviourist psychology goes the other way, effectively denying the existence of mind.
My proposed solution to this hoary paradox is that it is again a result of confusion of levels – the mental and physical. It’s like asking whether hardware or software is the basic nature of a computer, whether one is actually a form of the other, and how can two such different entities interact. Clearly, the question itself is faulty. Computers can be, indeed must be, understood in terms of both hardware and software. Yet neither level is more “basic”. Without hardware software cannot run, without software there is no point in having hardware. I am not saying that the computer analogy solves the mind-body problem, only that it hints that its nature is illusory, ie that there is no “problem”.
The situation with body and mind is similar. Both the physical and mental descriptions of a person are important, yet neither can be reduced to the other. How do body and mind interact? They don’t. There is the activity of the body and there is the activity of the mind, but neither causes or affects the other. The two sets of phenomena are at different levels of description, though they refer to the same entity. Each mental state has an associated physical state and vice versa, but one cannot be reduced to (ie fully explained by) the other.
Perhaps this is clearer in a simpler case. A book can be seen at many different levels of description:
1) As a lump of inanimate matter, much like a rock or broken branch.
2) As a pattern of black marks on sheets of paper, ie a purely visual approach that ignores the meaning or purpose of the book.
3) As a long permutation of the 26 letters of the alphabet (again with no interpretation as to meaning).
4) In terms of sentences taken in isolation from each other. This is the level of syntax and context-less semantics.
5) As a collection of meanings, plot, characters, world view and so forth.
Some of these levels are echoed in how differently a book is perceived by:
1) An animal, to whom it is just an inedible object.
2) A pre-literate savage, who may realise that it is man-made.
3) A foreigner, who knows it has meaning but can’t read it.
4) A native speaker, for whom it holds heaps of meaning.
5) Its author, for whom it will contain meanings not apparent to anyone else.
Yet none of these levels of description is more correct or more basic than any of the others. All are valid and each is the most appropriate under certain circumstances.
Turing devised an ingenious test to determine whether a machine can think. If after asking written questions of the machine we are convinced that it is actually a human being then the machine can think. This seems plausible, for we know that humans can think, so if a machine can mimic a human then it too can think. There is a flaw in Turing’s test. In practice we would need to limit the length of the test to an hour, a day, a year, or some other finite period. It is in principle possible to write down the answers that a human being would make to all the questions that one could ask in that length of time (a year, say). A machine could match up any question it were given with the previously prepared answer. Yet such a machine would have no intelligence whatever, apart form the ability to compare the question it was presented with its store of prepared possible questions and answers.
The theoretical flaw in Turing’s test indicates that thinking cannot be operationally or objectively defined. It can only be experienced (or not) on its own level, ie within the mind. Consciousness is also subjective. Likewise with intelligence. You can record a clever person talking but all you have captured is the results of their cleverness of mind.
Another philosophical paradox is the problem of free will and determinism. If my physical body (including my brain) strictly obeys deterministic physical laws then does it make sense to say that I have free will? If we accept the argument of the preceding paragraphs, then the paradox vanishes, since free will is a mental concept, determinism a physical one. The two are as much on different levels of description as grammar and the plot of a novel.
One of the most profound paradoxes is that of unity and the separate self. All the mystics tell us that there is only the One (or maybe there is only one mystic). Yet each of us is heartily convinced of being a separate being. The paradox arises from mixing the psychological and metaphysical levels of description. Likewise, it is fruitless to argue whether the physical world is an illusion or whether it is ‘less real’ than Brahman, the ground of being. The mystical insight cannot be expressed in words, if only because language is fundamentally dualistic.
“What is immortal and what is mortal are harmoniously blended, for they are not one, nor are they separate,” wrote Ashvaghosha. It echoes, “The self and the world are not two”. This mother of all paradoxes can be interpreted in terms of our levels of description. Reality in itself, or Brahman, or the Void, cannot be described. In so far as we attempt to talk about it, we fall into paradox because reality is not commensurate with any of our levels of description, since these all derive from the world of sense phenomena and are filtered through language.
Topsy Turvey, put it better: “Since all boundaries are false, each time we come up against a boundary we will hit a paradox.”
Conclusion
So paradox is an expression of the eternal battle of the opposites, without which nothing could ever happen in this world. Without the stimulus of paradox we could relapse into the smugness of scholasticism, Ptolemaic astronomy, dogmatic religion or late nineteenth century physics. The scholastics believed that knowledge was essentially limited. By contrast, the modern view is that knowledge is an island: the bigger the island, the greater the shore of the unknown. Paradox is at the boundary where water meets land.
Hey dude, was just browsing through the internet looking for a bit of info and came across your blog. I am very impressed by the info that you have on this page. It tells me how good you understand this topic. Bookmarked this page, will be back soon. You, my friend, ROCK!!!
*guitar solo*
Wrong, do it again.
If you don’t eat your meat, you can’t have any pudding.
My friend, I am just randomly linking to a Danish vet practice. Why do you feel the need to mock my dated aaawwwesome idiom & genericly bland compliments? Is it because we come over there, stealing your breweries?
@Sid, wouldnt put it that way. I actually like the post – but think that you should stop stealing our breweries
My Dear Major-General-Turd-in-Africa,
My God sir, have you finally left leave of your senses. The scene you lay out to me simply confirms my original hypothesis viz, the old “in out out” leads to moral depravity.
By confirming my hypothesis lends me further credence to reanimate my policy of gene optimisation*. By the mere selection of appropriate stock, I believe, one can simply eradicate both physical and sociological ills from the populace.
Given my ailing health you will find it joyous that a young fellow in Austria has been in correspondence. His ability to seize on so many, obviously natural and grounded in Darwin practices, facts on the future development of humanity in general should only be championed and furthered.
Big Moll, willing,
Alfie
*bastard, f#$king spell check. ITS AN “S”
f$%k me .. it is an “S” … smart work WordPress
I fear I must retract my comment concerning the:
since that practice merely pertains to beliefs and activities pertaining to our subjection of our Fenian brothers (HYL … omitted, see case note 25). Any right thinking male would, of course, considered my previous statement as follows:
Anyone Else notice that Big Moll posted right after Johnny paedo?
I mean both times.
…for values of “right” in the range of a few hours. If you look on Johnny as that annoying relative who keeps saying racist things at social events, then Moll is the eternally cheery one who’s always got a way to break the ensuing embarassed silence.
Liar.
Another “shit” story from the Mail
@ The Bastard son of Dean Gaffney
You’re wasting your time there, Gloria Hunniford is 71 years old, you’d have more luck with Caron Keating.
Personally I sleep better in the knowledge that eventually, if we wait long enough, women sterilise themselves and then they die.
Knowledge of speakybrane is knowing, while still in the web, that you are really the eternal nondual self (which is godhead), and knowing further that the self is never embodied to the Mail, since the Mail (and all world appearance) is not ultimately real. Somewhat like a reflection in a mirror of alto reality, the world appears and nonexists, but it is not finally real. One is bound to the realm of transmigratory existence by (HYS-bearing) ignorance, not by the body, and liberation arises from speakybrane knowledge, not from dropping the Mail. Knowledge alone is the necessary and sufficient condition for Guardian liberation. Thus our problem is not the presence of a Mail comments thread, but identification of the quality (less) self with the conditioned body of illusion. Believing you are the Mail, and that the Mail is real, is the cause of (re)-embodiment. Since destroying this idea that the self is embodied, not the fall of the BBC HYS comments self recommendation feature, brings liberation, we can conclude that knowing the HYSer’s identity with Topsy does not contradict bodily existence though cessation of ignorance will eventually bring eternal release from the speakybrane reality.
If, from this perspective, the one true liberation is freedom from the bonds of ignorance that HYS is, then the presence or absence of the Mail is (in a sense) irrelevant. However, looking more closely, a (Daily Mail) comment is in fact useful and even necessary, since it provides the vehicle for self liberation of the illusions. One might underline here that BNP say little about the liberation of divine websites. In his chapter in Living Liberation in Asylum seeker benifits, Griffin makes a fascinating argument, never made within the Guardian, for regarding Free benifits as a perk, as both are free from ignorance and egoism, although the EDL is not a cosmic creator or controller and has a trace of ignorance remaining. In the Daily Mail, the person with firm wisdom, is said to act with egoless detachment, like Nick Griffin himself. Perhaps even more interesting is the idea that Topsy, like the RightyRightWing, is limited by being in nirvana: he is constrained by the Troll of Knuckledraggers and the necessity of conforming to name and form arising from racist ignorance (as mentioned in Speakybrane’s commentary on HYS comments at Newsniffer. Thus, as Nelson writes, Griffin is, “like the Hitler of the modern times, liberated but somehow not yet fully liberated.” Both await final comment rejections (censorship) release, but the Director General will actually have to wait far longer than a HYS commenter. Such an unwelcome conclusion is perhaps why this idea was never explored within the tradition.
To return to the issue of Daily Mail embodiment, one sees a tension in Racist thought between the idea that all asylum is necessarily originally about benifits because one becomes liberated (i.e., gains knowledge) only when in Britain, and senses, and the naion, consistent with the world-denying aspect of traitors, one finds empirical experience regularly compared to a diversity officer, a social worker, or a defector), that full liberation is only gained after death (sometimes, generally in NHS hospitals, called MRSA). Because Topsy’s non-dualism devalues British empirical nonreality (unlike the in-the-world markets of cheap Labour), it is unsurprising to find a variety of statements in Mail comments that imply that bodiless liberation must be superior to embodied multiculturism, since the body is the locus of bondage; it inevitably decays and is not the British National it thought it was! It is said to be just a shadow, like a shed skin of a whitesnake, or a piece of burnt eboney cloth.
This tension is related to the fact that the notion of liberation solely as Asylum seeking liberation (sponging), annihilating all Nationalism, including the body skin colour. Since the body skin colour does not cease when knowledge rises, ignorance of some form must remain, and how can there be equality under a Burka? This question can be said to be the central problem in the Guardian conception of multicultural society. It is so serious because HYS commenters largely accept that there is total opposition between, rather than degrees of, skin colour and racial ignorance. They sometimes use the analogy of the opposition of falseness of paradox self identity is quite different from another important Nationalistic conception of liberation that finds resonances in the Mail: that of multicultural freedom from the inevitable suffering of transmigratory existence of the masses) or as the absence of wealth. This more “negative” idea of Guardian liberation generally requires some form of world renunciation that normally includes some kind of racist practice and ends in perfect isolation of the spirit. From this perspective, the Mail is quite a significant limitation, since only when free from negative comments can one gain freedom from suffering (the final frontier). Still, until we reach what I call the “Cuniliguistic indifference” of the inner Labia and the oral orifice, the relative absence of reference to deviant practices and operations is remarkable. I will point out later that to speakybranes like Sankara, Tantric meditation is a helpful support for attaining liberating carnel knowledge, but it is still an action of a deluded individual agent in the dualistic realm of means and ends.
The notion of Guardian liberation as absence of suffering and solitude (and thus self embodiment) raises an important question: If fully liberated, why is one still in a coloured body? From the earliest HYS cronicles on, many strands of the National tradition shared the notion that being embodied impedes release and that death brings it. Despite the Daily Mail position that knowledge and not embodiment is the key issue, a thoughtful HYS reader can argue that a rationale for continued racial embodiment is needed to satisfy both reason and experience of the NHS. Experience seems to show that lack of matrons inevitably entails suffering, disease, and seeing illusory MRSA. It is reasonable to hold that none of these should exist for a truly white starched nurses uniform containing Barbara Windsor.
Holding to embodied liberation also presents some problems for basic HYS doctrines. To Daily Mail readers, the body colour is a result of prior activity (born abroad),” which is part of ignorance (wanting better life), and thus is in some sense opposed to socail development (hard graft over the years). Gaining esoteric knowledge of trade union activitie is said to destroy ignorance, thus it should bring labour. Yet while labour and conservativism can be said to be opposed, one can also point to the Liberals, and other degrees of liberalism and Leftism. This response is, of course, an argument from everyday Daily Mail experience, used to counter a theoretical problem of immigration.
There are at least three answers to the problem of the continuity of embodiment post-realization of the immigration illusion, an issue that received a great deal of attention in later HYS comments. The first answer is that you are “bodiless of colour” while embodied of spitit, when you know the self is not the coloured body. As Gandi states in his British Empirical commentary, embodiment (colour racism) is caused by ignorance, that is, identifying body colour and self. Knowing that the eternal self is not coloured and never was coloured shows one is by nature eternally colourless (blank), so the knower is in a sense colourless while living (or “bodyless” while coloured). Bodilessness is complete colour detachment, not lack of a physical coloured body. As Gandi states, the body is to a non colour-knower like a castoff skin is to a whitesnake. Put another way, the body colour “disappears” for the knower (as in sleep or lose consciousness, swoon), although the knower’s body colour doesn’t disappear, it simply does not exist.
The second answer focuses on a more practical point: racism exists so that we can learn from enlightened teachers, who compassionately remain in a colourless body to assist ignorant daily mail commentators. Speakybrane mentions such teachers in Nelson, Dizzy and Gainsbourg (the acarya who removes the blindfold of delusion that one is a colourless body) and (the young colourless [embodied being] is awakened to his true nature as a colourless prince [supreme Person] by a teacher). Topsy Turvey, following Squeakybranes, adds a comment which says that only the wise sages who realize the truth teach the highest speakybrane knowledge. We could not know about (or reach) liberation unless enlightened teachers exist, and they could not exist if the colourless body falls immediately after knowledge. This would at least be the case according to the all-or-nothing view of nationalistic politics. In everyday web experience, we actually see many teachers without perfect knowledge helping those with even less knowledge. Also, if (as HYS doners argue) multicultural paradise reveals nondual Britain, we could learn about eden from a alien source, interestingly, both ICKE and Alex Jones argue for the idea that, from the highest perspective, the liberated teacher is only imagined yet can still bring liberation to the ignorant masses.
Modem reptillian rulers make much of the role of unenlightened teachers, and add another rationale for austerity measures continuing existence here to provide dismantelling of social service to suffering humanity. There is little discussion of the idea that the bankers being paid less would return to days gone by or help when the current taxation goes up endlessly. This certainly differentiates ICKE from the BNP natioalistic ideal. This opens to possibility once, in response to those that state different which suggests a being might take birth again if there is a commission (bonus) to perform.
The third explanation for the banks continuation to bonuses after liberation from bankruptcy is given great attention in the later capitalistic tradition. It begins with the general rule that when the poor taxpayer is known, all ignorance (and thus P60) is located, so how can the tax-based body continue? Later documents assert that a remnant or trace of money can exist even after one gains release from capital gains; this remnant is based on a pittance whose fruits have already commenced manifestation (hard work). Before one’s final discharge, one must experience “enjoy,” the fruits of those perks, which cannot be removed by tax alone. Put another way, one can know wealth without quite yet attaining wealth. This interpretation is much elaborated on in later Budgets and requires further explanation by the chancellor.
Most important is that, for MP’s, there are three kinds of expense, only two of which are removed by media knowledge. The first is second home allowance, the accumulated mass of past homes that has not yet borne fruit. Knowledge bums all such profits. The second is travel, expenses to be obtained in this life that would bear fruit in the future. After media knowledge, this expense will not bind, since the false notion of travel agency has disappeared (so it seems that “backsliding” is not possible). The third type of the John Lewis list, mentioned earlier in the Daily Mail currently manifesting or serving time at her Majestys pleasure. Such expenses, which produced the current body of politicians wealth, is not destroyed by knowledge and must bear fruit before the system falls.
Bloody hell, a new article?!
I must be out of practice with SYB, I’ve just tried to read the whole of the above diatribe and what little brain I had left has now forcefully squirted itself out of my every orifice.
But on the plus side, I’ve been automatically registered on HYS…
@ Big Moll,
Enough, Enough … you going to have to nail your feces thesis to a church door if you carry on like that….
fecesUnfortunately, “sheeple” have very short memories, Hench; they will all be voting Labour at the next election to get the country back on its feet.
Real men vote BNP.