Time Travel - Possible or Impossible? (Phase 1, Part 1 - Forwards or Backwards?)

Today, we often ask or wonder whether it is really possible to travel through the 4th dimension. We've all seen films, etc. where the plot is set some way off in the future, and inevitably from this there will be a scene about time travel. Many interpret a time travelling machine as a box of some sort, with buttons and a lever to take you to your specific date.

Yet is there any truth behind all this? Scientists and physicists often get into heated debates about such matters. But this is not why I'm here, so JAFHR, if you want a debate, then read no further.

The reason why I'm here then, is to explain my views of such matters. I have personally promised to JAFHR that when I build a time machine, he can have the first human go on it.

Anyway, back to my views then. First, and crucially, I deem it very nearly impossible to time-travel backwards, i.e. to the past. The very tiny part of me that thinks it is possible only thinks that we can go back for at most two or three seconds into the past. In my views, there are to ways to go back, but neither will be able to go back far enough. The first reason is this. It has been scientifically proven that time is affected by gravity. A clock capable of keeping time extremely accurately is also affected by this. So then if you put one clock underneath another, each exactly synced with each other, each atomic, and losing only nanoseconds of time in millions of years, the one underneath will be about a second behind the one on top after billions and billions of years. Then, this form of travelling backwards is practically useless as after waiting for so long, it is only possible to go back seconds.

The other form of travelling backwards involves a substance/thing/theorem that while has strong arguments to prove its existence, isn't actually something that we know and have seen for certain. As explained by Kjartan Poskitt- you may remember I dedicated a poem to him earlier-in his book about the galaxy, if you take a large clock, a man called Sid, and a black hole, it can explain the second way to time travel backwards. Here is the diagram explained:



                         

A Black Hole (supposedly)

 The arrows denote that Sid moves towards the black hole. Now there are three steps:

1: Stand well back from the black hole (this is why a large clock is needed)

A man called Sid holding a large clock

2: Tell Sid to walk towards the Black hole. You will see that as he walks towards it, the time gradually slows down, and comes to a halt when Sid is on the edge of the black hole.
3: Say goodbye to Sid forever...
 

Ehh?

That useful diagram over, perhaps now you can see that if we stop time by moving towards a black hole, there is definitely potential to somehow use this to go back in time, although it is more likely that we would go forward using this mode, as if you wait for a few minutes in the proximity of a black hole, then move outwards, then it is possible that when you go outwards, time will be ahead of you and thus it means going forward in time.

This then, hopefully brings me onto my main, most crucial point in that time travel is only possible forward. We've just seen here that in using the power that a black hole possesses, we can potentially move backwards, i.e. when we walk towards a black hole, we see what was there years ago. And as initially mentioned, this is hardly useful at all, unless we build a society directly identical to ours and visit it.

So because of this, it is really only easier to travel forwards and thus that is why I think that time travel forwards will be invented (hopefully by me) before time travel backwards. 

So now though, one question remains- how is it possible forwards then? Well one option is the black hole but if we get near enough to a black hole for time to be affected, we will already have been sucked into its core by its huge gravitational field. What happens after we get sucked in is anybody's guess but some believe that that could possibly be a way to time travel.

A more easier method though, is to use another means- one that is possible by all means, in that it has been done before, but not with humans. Naturally, as with all things associated with space and sci-fi, I'm talking about travelling at light speed. Some years back, scientists managed to send a beam of light from one corner of a room to another corner of the room. Whether this is possible with humans is still debatable, but many believe that one day this will happen, as do I, and only when this is possible is it possible to travel forwards in time, so hopefully somewhere in our generation. Let me explain:

Setting: 17th May 2022. 

JHWW has just invented a vehicle that travels at the speed of light. His best friend has just had a baby boy  and they are there to wave him off as he steps into his vehicle. All over the world this is being broadcasted, but still there is a look of utmost calm on JHWW's face. The videos do not follow JHWW inside his vehicle as JHWW has publicly stated that if anything goes wrong he wants nobody to know how he has built his vehicle in case somebody wants to replicate it and gets badly hurt. On a loudspeaker, JHWW counts down from ten to the time he presses the button. 9...8...7... The crowd are biting their nails, some are even fainting, but JHWW's calm voice spurs them on. 2...1... And just like that, the vehicle is gone...

End of Part 1...

Thank you all for reading, and remember all comments are welcome- unlike JAFHR I won't be looking to argue, instead I will respect any ideas you have, and may even incorporate them into Part 2 of Time travel: Possible or Impossible coming in mid- June 2012...

Until then,

-JHWW-

Why Lack of Free Will Proves the Existence of God

Free will is a difficult topic. There are three main opinions on the matter:

1) Free will exists as a separate entity to the brain - the soul. Only humans possess this and it is what separates them from animals.

2) Free will exists but is a part of the brain. Our actions are the result of decisions that we are making in some area of the brain.

3) Free will does not exist. Every decision we make, big or small, is the result of a combination of our inherited genetic code and external stimuli.

If the latter possibility is true, then we may assume that everything in inevitable, if people are only reacting as a result of the actions of others. Therefore, there is no such thing as probability, since everything can be predicted if we know the inputs. A dice roll, for example, can be predicted with 100% accuracy if one were to know the resistance of the air on the dice and the amount of energy put in. The amount of energy put in is not random either, as it can be predicted by the experiences and nature of the dice-roller. If things seem random on a quantum level that may only be because we do not understand all the input variables the determine an outcome on that scale.

But what about the nature of a person? Surely that is at least partially random? Well, no. If we were aware of the exact properties of each sperm cell and all the possible dangers it would face, then it would be easy enough to deduce the genes that would be present in a zygote. I say it would be easy, but that is only because of the nature of the being which knows all, the being which must have been present to initiate the birth of the universe. 

If one starts from the beginning - before the universe - there is nothing. Then, something happens. But how? Is it random? It can't be, probability does not exist. God must have created the universe and what He did to create it determined everything from its beginning to its end.

I am not saying that I believe this argument to be true, I merely found it superficially and partially convincing. It does not explain what separates us from animals, and there surely is something as JAFHR will attest.. I may speak more about the matter later, and how it links in to the Fall of Man and how we came to have free will. Until then, farewell.

-PWN-

Remembering Sarkozy

This is dedicated to the best pictures of Sarkozy's time in politics.

As A young Lawyer

At wedding, 2009

At his election, 2007

Merkel and Sarkozy, 2009

At Copenhagen Chaos, 2009

At Lisbon, 2010

With the Brits at election, 2010

At the Last Stand, 2012

Having Conceded defeat, 2012, 'One of the most dignified speeches seen for fifty years'.

'A Born President'...

'Most sincere president seen for fifty years...'

'In the force, size matters not...'

FAREWELL VIEILLE BRANCHE
AUFWIEDERSEHEN
On ne t'oubliera pas de sitot.

The French People Have Made Their Choice

President Francois 'The Squid' Hollande

Last Sunday at eight o'clock, as I watched the French news channel TF1 in an anguished prolonged silence, I saw the goose-like face of Francois Hollande flash across a screen in Place de la Bastille. The turbulent crowds of militant Socialist teenagers erupted into cheers, while I fell into a chair, and stared.

I can't deny that we've all been expecting this- throughout this campaign, Hollande has been working on the crowds' psychology and feelings, and everything about his campaigning won him partisans not through reasoned argument but through sentimentality.

Hollande's victory was due to the economic crisis in which we find ourselves; the people found jobs lacking and harsh rules (as in 'no-stupid-spending' harsh) imposed on them to prevent national catastrophe; and, rather than grit their teeth and go through it telling themselves it's in the country's best interest, they did the human thing- they moaned that things could somehow be better, that Sarkozy should somehow have somehow magicked the crisis away. They didn't recognize that Sarkozy had done amazingly and stopped the country from sinking to Greek depths when everything was pointing that way; to recognize that requires intelligence, and, while an individual may possess that, a crowd, a collective mind, is nothing more than a stupid, ravening, selfish primal beast. What Hollande did was to take advantage of that primal beast; it was already thinking that things had to get better if a change was made, and Hollande filled that hope with empty promises- he said that he would be giving away land for free, stabilize the price of petrol by paying the excess, remove France from the austerity treaty , and many other heavenly joys- overall, he has promised a non-restricted paradise, where one can borrow money without ever thinking about paying it back, and where everything is at its cheapest. And who is to pay for all this? Steal from the Rich, give to the poor... problem is, there aren't enough rich people in France to pay off all this mad planning, so the lower classes are probably going to be taxed just as excessively in the end. No wonder this plan prevailed, in a world of harebrained, selfish, materialistic  poverty, when the opposing plan is one of self-sacrifice in order to help the country in the long run...

Hollande didn't just win by promising the people what they wanted; the crowds don't just want their selfish needs satisfied, they want them justified. Hollande posed an ethically pleasing image- he almost made himself cry during his speeches, in order to look like a caring, passionate man (rumours concerning onion peelings have yet to be confirmed). He even put music along some of his speeches. He made the crowds feel justified- the rich are but parasites, you deserve their money (he didn't use those exact terms, but he did say very similar things). I don't really see how this is ethically correct, but the crowds lapped it up, as they always have since the Revolution.

Then there's the banker-bashing business. That term doesn't exist in French, because no-one there doesn't banker-bash. This has been compared to the Jewish persecution in 1930-40s Germany; the crowds blame the following three for the crisis:

1. Sarkozy- because he was leader at the time, and imposed 'harsh' rules.
2. Bankers- because economy is doing badly, and bankers are hands-and-feet in economy.
3. the Higher classes- the jealous 'Its-Not-Fair' argument, which fails to notice the fact that rich people work harder to earn more- the crowds, who have never tried this and enjoy living off benefits (which are incidentally going to rise dramatically at higher class expense) fail to understand the concept of more work = more cash, or the fact that money doesn't fall into peoples' laps.

(Numbers 2 and 3 overlap each other, because of the Bonus idea.)

Number two was the one under which Jews were once classified, because Jews were better at financing.

Hollande has taken advantage of Number 2 as well as the two others- his campaigning was aimed towards the crippling of independent financial power. Stupid idea if ever I saw one, for reasons I don't even need to mention.

So will Hollande actually stick to these crowd-inciting policies, or will he admit to them being empty vessels of naive hope? Several right-wing politicians have talked of the 'Waking up with a Hangover' effect, which they say is due to happen within one year-or two; the idea is that the crowds were 'drunk' on these foolish ideals, and, when they call naively for Hollande to fulfill his promises, the realization of their impossibility will cause a rapid back-down-to-earth effect not dissimilar to the splashing of cold water on a drunkard's face. The world-renown financial adviser Reuters is already predicting a U-turn in Hollande's politics within the next two years, simply because of their lack of realism.

Farewell to he who fought for France...

So we leave France in a dreary state -poor Sarkozy, who quite honestly did his brilliant best, is to be ousted from his office by 15th of May, in five days, to leave space for the materialistic Francois 'the Squid' Hollande, whose promises are just about as false as his surgically engineered smile. A grim time for the Republic, who may not lift her head for another twenty years.

Yours in politics,

JAFHR

That Which Makes Us Human

Greetings to All Ye Fellow Readers.
This post deals with a philosophical idea which came to me a couple of weeks ago; as this blog is the mediator of my philosophy, I make it my duty to propagate the idea. Well. here goes...
There are many subjects at school which are deemed by many and most to be utterly useless. History, Latin, some branches of mathematics, creative writing, and, of course, philosophy, are all included in this long list. Many would have us drop these subjects, ban them from school, and forget them. According to them, the point of school is to teach us how to attain jobs, and how to survive in society.
It would appear that animals are just as practical as these fine thinkers; it would never cross a cat's mind to study its ancestors' history, and a whale would never take up poetry. Cats may play with balls of yarn and iPads, but this is to trigger hunting instincts, which will be useful later on in life. A whale may sing melodiously and a spider may spin works of art, but this is for nutrition or reproduction only. What I would conclude from this is that an animal is not capable interested by something which does not help it to survive.
If this is the case, it is because evolution sees no point whatsoever in something that does not help the animal to survive, and so does not make the cat capable of studying history of its own free will. Try teaching your cat about the Feline Revolution of 1832, and see what happens.
And yet... following this train of thought, humans should never have even thought of studying history. It would seem that humans are unique among animals, in the sense that we are the only ones upon which evolution has committed a mistake- we have the capability of enjoying history.
Science probably has a good explanation for this- maybe it is just a byproduct of bigger brains, for example- but this does not change anything to the fact that what makes us different from animals is this miraculous faculty which was never, scientifically speaking, meant to happen.
So here we are- an animal's main aim is to survive, and to pass on its genes. A human does not live only to survive, but because there are things to live for, things which are only useful because they entertain him. Thus, I can state that the useless things in life are what give life meaning, and those who are only interested by something that helps them to survive are those who do not understand or enjoy life.
Bear in mind that this post is simplistic- the love of uselessness is not the only difference between us and animals, nor is it the sole meaning of life.

Respects,

 

JAFHR

Hi Again

Apologies for not posting for ages, I simply could not be bothered. I'll just give you an update on what's going on that interests me in the entertainment industry (since no one else on this blog seems to cover entertainment):

- Avengers Assemble isn't terrible.

- Call of Duty Black Ops II is showing innovation (although I have no doubt that Treyarch will double back on its promises and deliver something bland).

- Dishonored is casing a stir, and rightfully so. Again, I have to be cynical and doubt that it will be all that great. However, I've never been right before.

- I've invented a new word. It's absolutely gegassitous.

Now that I've got that out of the way I can get back to pretending to be academic and clever in my posts.

PWN

FRENCH ELECTIONS 2012- Review of Candidates

I will attempt to make this post unbiased, however I am not always able to control my repulsion towards the Left.---JAFHR.

Sunday 22 April 2012- First round of the French Presidential Elections.

Right Wing                                                   Blue

Based on: Liberty; Tradition & the Legacy of the Past; upholding the valours of the Republic, creating a sustainable government in which all may profit, and in which the past is respected, the present is dealt with efficiently, and the future is prepared.

Left Wing                                                     Red

Based on: Equality; Poverty, and the Needs of the Present; creating a country in which all differences are abolished and wealth is taken from those who earn it to be distributed among the lower classes, and to solve present problems. 

• Candidates:

Nicholas Sarkozy, right-wing (moderate), 27% chances of winning. 

Francois Hollande, left-wing (socialist), 27% chances of winning.

Marine Le Pen, right-wing (National Front), 16% chances of winning. 

Jean-Luc Melenchon, left-wing (Trotskist), 14% chances of winning. 

Francois Bayrou, centre, 10.5% chances of winning.

Eva Joly, left-wing (Green Socialist), 3% chances of winning. 

Nicholas Dupont-Aignan, left-wing (moderate), 1.5% chances of winning. 

Phillipe Poutou, left-wing (Anti-capitalist), 1% chances of winning.

Nathalie Arthaud, left wing (Communist, the 'Workers' Struggle party'), 0.5 % chances of winning

Jacques Cheminade, left-wing (socialist), 0% chances of winning.

Policies of each Candidate- and a commentary of each:

SARKOZY

Slogan: La France Forte- A Strong France.

Aims:

• Globalization- to increase France's external trade, communication, diplomacy and general involvement. Seems quite vague but realistic- no great sums of money involved.
• Safety from the negative side of Globalization- to restrict immigration, by ensuring that anyone who does not know French language and the valours of French Democracy cannot settle in France. A good idea considering recent problems, but risky to public image.
• Safety- to direct more money towards 'The Forces of order'- Police Forces. Vague, but the only problem I foresee is increased tax.
• Preservation of French Identity- To make anti-French propaganda illegal- a good idea, but could be interpreted as an assault to freedom of speech.
• Familial rights- to preserve the lessening of taxes for families, and to increase teachers' salary. First part- fine by me, though any lessening of taxes in one direction means an increase of taxes in another. Second part: I have found that most teachers in Britain and France are socialist, and this may simply be an attempt to befriend them.
• Fiscal Justice: To abolish a whole range of fiscal frauds and cheats which permit some to cheat the government. This includes 'Capped retirements' and 'Golden parachutes'.
• Poverty: To lower Social charges for those who receive no more than 1400 euro/month. Charitable, but risky; would result in a tax increase,
• Education: to create more teaching jobs for children who need special (clinical) treatment.
• Lone Parents: To create an agency, the aim of which is to help lone parents. This ranges from physical aid to lowering taxes. Costly.
• Transportation: To improve the public transport in rural France. Costly, so there may well be an increase in taxes...
• Debt: to invest with the money given by taxes, so as to quickly and efficiently pay off debt. Interesting idea- never tried before, could just work...
• Overall impression: As Sarkozy has already put most of his other plans into operation, he does not have much more to promise. The program seems feasible, and the taxation seems just, although his stance towards immigration does not help his public image.

HOLLANDE

Slogan: Le Changement C'est Maintenant- Change is for Now.
Aims:

• To create a government-owned bank, so as to control the financial situation. Seems to me quite an odd idea, as this would just cost the government more money and cripple the already-existing banking industry.
• To modulate a number of taxes- in particular, the Society Tax. This is to 'Cut some Slack' for small businesses. Seems to me that this would cripple France's Overseas business opportunities.
• Steal From the Rich: to impose a massive 'Fortune tax' for those who gain more than €1,000,000 /year, and taxing any 'Unconventional profiting' at 75%... The new government would need a lot of taxes to pay off its massive ideas; this money will be gained off those who earn more money.
• Give to the Poor: The State will freely give its lands to social housing projects. This is probably never going to happen- there would be a resulting befuddlement of housing prices, and a dramatic raise of taxes (for wealthy people only).
• Slowly lowering the Nuclear energy from 75% to 50%. This would likewise increase Energy taxes to unprecedented levels; Hollande is probably saying this to strengthen his alliance with the Greens.
• Massive taxation of financial transactions, and restricting speculation in private banks- to lessen the power of financial industry. A growing percentage of France works in finance- to cripple finance may not be good for the unemployment rate.
• Hollande promises that the economy will be stabilized by 2017- the year he is to (?) leave office. Interesting timing...
• To renegotiate the Austerity treaty in order to let countries grow. How a higher debt can make a country rich, I have yet to discover...
• Somehow Hollande promises to stabilise the prices of oil, natural gas, water and medication- the only way to do this would be for the state to pay the surplus, which would mean an extra tax...
• More Jobs- To create 150000 jobs for 'Less qualified youths'. This will probably involve much bin-cleaning and other lowly governmental jobs; where will their salary come from? Taxes, taxes...
• To ameliorate schooling; by spending more money on teachers' training, and to create 6000 more teaching jobs. Nothing really different from Sarkozy's plans, but the tax problem is still an issue.
• Discrimination: to 'fight Antisemitism and racism as strongly as resources permit us' (not mentioning any methods); a 'Handicap screen' will be added to each law (strange idea, which many handicapped may feel is separating them from society); and all couples will henceforth be allowed to marry and adopt (which is a complete reversal of the Constitution, an will be very unpopular).
• Police work: Much of the budget will be going into the reformation of the police and the justice system, which will be made independent. (How on earth is that going to work?)
• Finally, Hollande talks of the befriending of the Southern bank of the Mediterranean, and the Arab countries (no plans for the resulting immigration...). He also talks of ending the Afghanistan war by 2013- so we lose our relationship with USA, to ally with Arabia. Charming.

Overall impression: Hollande's plans seem very, very expensive. the money is to come from taxes- Hollande talks of giving free lands, but we will in fact have paid for them in taxes- and Hollande intends most of these astronomical prices to be payed by the higher classes, those who have worked harder to earn their success. There are not enough successes in France to pay for these expensive schemes, thus eventually it will fall to the lower classes to pay for the extravagant plans of an irresponsible government. Not a good idea to vote in that direction.

LEPEN

Slogan: Oui, la France; Approve of France
Aims:

• Independence- to end certain treaties with Europe and America, in order to retain financial and military independence; to only fight wars when France is at stake. Doesn't seem a good idea to alienate all our allies...
• Security- to create 150000 more police jobs, and to create 'the true meaning of Zero Tolerance.' The police business seems quite expensive, though Marine mentions that these jobs did once exist in Chirac's time (thus she would not be creating but re-instituting), and the reason they were removed were not financial- if Chirac could afford more police, why not her?
• Immigration-  to get rid of all illegal immigration and to drastically decrease legal immigration; to remove all  temptation to migrate, and to instigate a 'National job priority' for French workers. This could all be seen as discrimination, especially the last bit- yet, if we don't delve into ethics, it would be a good idea- we would feel a short demographical plunge and a befuddlement of prices, but the country would come out the richer within three years' time. The only problem is the reaction of other countries.
• Secularism- to remove all traces of religion from the government and from the law- "freedom of belief is guaranteed, but the principles of the Republic (secularism) are non-negotiable." It would appear that Marine is talking about Islam. After all, she is only enforcing a ready-made law.
• Financial markets- to 'End the Dictatorship' of financial markets, by installing a stronger government. Doesn't really mean anything.
• Family- to create a lessening of taxes for parents. Typical- forgets to mention that the taxes will have to come from another direction...
• School culture- to change the scholar program, in order to cultivate our children in the way of the country's history, and moral principles. This would bring us into the world of philosophy, which is not fit for this particular post.
• To improve housing. A simple yet costly plan, which, once again, evokes the shadow of taxation.

Overall impression: The lack of economic plans seems a major drawback, and Le Pen's hostility towards the rest of the world seems unlikely to gain her many partisans.

MELENCHON

Slogan: Prenez le Pouvoir; Take Hold of Power.

Aims

• Finance: Banning of all speculation. Never going to work- much more likely that speculation will be taxed excessively. 
• Creation of a public bank, to control debt. As with Hollande, this is not likely to work.
• To free France from all EU treaties and contracts- effectively leaving the EU. Bad for finance and disastrous for diplomacy...
• Repose- only allowed to work 35 hours/week, forced to have two days off every week. Disastrous on all counts, from individuals to economy.
• Salaries- Minimum salary increased to €1700, and plans to get this in operation for the whole of Europe, to stop 'Unfair competition'. Bad for finance, disastrous considering that no other country would agree- especially after the breaking of the Lisbon treaty.
• Religion: Stopping all government expense on religious needs & buildings. This is done in the name of secularism, but to me it has crossed the line to atheism.
• Eco-friendly: to get rid of carbonic energy (EXPENSIVE); to introduce more renewable energy (EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE), and to reduce nuclear energy (POINTLESS).
• To make life-sustaining energy and water free. Firstly, this will make a heavy load of taxes. Secondly, how does one define 'Life-sustaining'?
• Health- to reimburse 100% of health costs. This is already (more or less) in operation, but only accessible to French citizens; since Melenchon wishes to redefine French Citizenship and allow anyone to claim it, this would mean a massive increase in health taxes.

I was not able to uncover much more, as most of Melenchon's programme contains fruitless waffling, like 'supporting peasant agriculture'.

Overall Impression: Generally unrealistic. Most of this ignores the devastating economic/tax effects, or the fact that other countries would intervene.

Yours in Politics,

Your friend,

JAFHR

The French Elections

Good Day to All.
As I am French, I will be spending the best part of these troubled weeks talking about the Elections. Just thought you ought to know. Consider it a series.
Good Day,

JAFHR

FRENCH ELECTIONS 2012- First Round Results.

Hollande: 28.5%

MORE than polls predicted. As I have previously discoursed, this is not good for France; yet it is just as I expected, considering the psychology used in Hollande's campaign.

Sarkozy: 26.1%

LESS than polls predicted. Not bad considering LePen's followers, yet this is the first incumbent president who has ever lost in a first round. Cause for worry.

LePen: 18.5%

MORE than polls predicted. An unexpectedly powerful political figure- where will her voters now go? Many express the opinion of 'Anything but Sarkozy', while others may be true Right-wingers... In her speech she did not mention backing anyone up, which is distressful but to be expected- she cannot support left-wing, but she can't support someone whom she has been criticising for five years.

Melenchon: 11.5%

LESS than polls predicted. Melenchon's speech was all about defeating Sarkozy, not supporting Hollande. We have already seen that Melenchon works by destruction, not construction.

Bayrou: 8.5%

LESS than polls predicted. Will make his intentions public in the next few days, it is however unlikely that he will support Sarkozy.

Joly: 3%

LESS than expected.

Dupont-Aignan: 1.5%

LESS than expected.

Nathalie Arthaud: 0.7%

MORE than expected.

Philipe Poutou: 0.5%

LESS than expected.

Francois Cheminade: 0.3%

MORE than expected.




-JAFHR-

A Busy Day

Greetings; 'tis I, JAFHR.
I have a few announcements to make.

• I have a couple of websites to advertise:

1. I have just made a blog, named thefolkloristslair.blogspot.com, which is a repertoire of my arcane folkloric knowledge;
2. Catholicfire.blogspot.com, which I strongly recommend for religious nuts like me.
3. leblognadel.over-blog.com, which I include as a sort of joke as it's in French. It's the blog of Gilles William Goldnadel, a politician whom I frequently quote from.

• Secondly, I would like to present my brother, whom you will know as Pimbear. Pimbear is fond of Horror stories and other cool pieces of literature (he mentions H.P.Lovecraft and Tolkien); he is also fond of bears, and, although he is not going to sound as mad as I am, he has the potential.

• Lastly, I would warn you all that JHWW is going to be back and blogging by Easter. He probably doesn't know when that is, so you have time to BRACE YOURSELVES!

Beware the Cheeseman...

Cordially,

Pimbear

JAFHR

Syncretism

Good Day.

Today I shall be explaining something which most people do not realise about religion. Most people are likely to think that, when a religion colonises a country, it gets rid of all traces of previous religions. Right? Well, not quite. This is a demonstration of why this is not the case.

My most obvious example is Scandinavia. Picture yourself as a Christian missionary, sent to Oslo to found a church with nothing but a sack of beans (provisions) and a few fellow churchmen. Many people in the 21st century like to say that missionaries converted people by force. Well, here is a sample of Viking mythology:

• Odin- god of war strategy.
• Thor- god of fighting.
• Loki- another strategist.
• Bragi- wartime poet.
• Niord- god of the navy, and of wartime provisions.

Maybe I am stretching it a bit, but my point is that Scandinavia was very much centred on war.

It was about the fiercest, most powerful nation in Northern Europe, and its empire stretched from Greenland to Russia, passing through Scotland, Yorkshire, Normandy, and even Spain and Lombardy, plus one short glimpse of Manhattan. Each and every peasant in this hard land knew how to use a weapon, if only a pitchfork. So how on earth are you, a 'geekish' young priest (meaning you know how to read) , supposed to convert them by force?

So, how are you going to convert them? Firstly, you need to gain their trust. To do that, you need to know their beliefs and customs. So, you learn of the Norse mythology, and the knowledge turns out to be very useful...

The Christian God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and so on-right? Well, the Norse gods, along with most polytheistic gods, are not omnipotent- they are sinful, and their powers are limited, and many are mortal. So you use the Christian idea of angels; angels are messengers of God, right? So you say that the Pagan gods were in fact sent by God to 'prepare the way' for Christianity. The gods are in fact angels; messengers. That way, you haven't contradicted the pagans, but you have added to their store of knowledge (or so they feel). With the vikings, this was particularly effective, as the y believed that all their gods were to die one day, at the Ragnarok. The missionaries said that Ragnarok had already come, and that, once the gods had died, God had taken over the rule of the world.

With this wonderful tactic- agreeing with the native beliefs, yet getting your own religion across- many religions flourished. Islam, for example, made its way into Africa and Persia by agreeing with the native communities on certain counts- for example, Islam talks of Djinns, nature spirits which actually came from Persia. Various strands of Buddhism believe in various deities- Shinto Buddhism, for example, or Greater-Vehicle Buddhism- and they all say that the 'gods' are in fact a greater level of reincarnation, or creatures which help you reach Nirvana.

In conclusion, you deserve to be lied at if you believe that religions are always at each others' throats. This tactic of agreement is named Syncretism; I thought you may want to be aware of it, after that post on Buddhism I made.

Greatest respects,

Your friend,

JAFHR

My Precious Soliloquy - Smeagol

My Precious...

It's mine... my own... my precious...

So bright... So beautiful... it's shining, glinting so brightlike...

But here, where we's so far away from the Yellow face, where does it gets its lights?

The Yellow face... too bright, leering at us, teasing us... Teasing we can't climb our way free, like it does, the nasty Yellow face... too high, too teasing... like nasty elves...  bright eyes... Precious doesn't tease... precious helps, helps bring us high like bright Yellow face... precious understands... too hard to be high like yellow face... better to eat what precious finds us... precious is kind... fishes and goblinses and ratses... precious finds food... so bright... so beautiful.

The noises, precious! What's the noises?

Nothing, my love... just goblinses, goblinses hurrying down tunnels, with dwarves and stings... Stings... They drove us away with stings, precious, when we finds you... my birthday... my birthday present... mine... the other one, he couldn't have it, it was mine, my birthday, my own, he couldn't have it...

Goblinses is awfully noisy, precious...

A fish, precious, in the pool... look how it wriggles... catch a fish... so juicy sweet... 

Sweet, my love? What is juicy sweet? We is never heard of juicy sweet before...

Yes, precious... we just hears of it in bright land, land of Yellow face...

Yellow? What  is yellow, my love?We is never heard of nasty word before...

Yellow is a colours, precious...

Colour, my love? What colours is there but blacks and greys and muddy browns? There is no bright lands, my love, no yellow face. There is just the Precious... My precious... So bright... So beautiful... look at it, my love... so perfectly round...
It's Mine!

JAFHR

The Absence of a Twerp

Dear All,
JHWW has asked me to tell you that his absence in the past few weeks is due to his 'abstaining from Blogging', his Lenten resolution. Sadly, he will soon be back and active. 'Brace yourselves' says he...

JAFHR

Beware the Cheeseman...

A Rant on Buddhism

Good morrow to thee once more.

Today, I shall be discussing a train of thought which holds much sway on modern Western philosophers; I am talking, of course, about Buddhism.

It has come to my attention that those in my immediate vicinity know little or nothing about Buddhism, and so resort to the crude stereotype of the sage, nature-loving Tibetan monk. People tend to throw around the word 'deep', not really knowing what it means themselves.

Perhaps I should seize this opportunity to give a lecture on human nature; we are fascinated by the unknown, the new, that which is out of the mundane. We are always inspired and enchanted by anything straying from ordinary life; we subconsciously assume that anywhere and anything has to be better than our own lives.
So, since we are easily seduced by anything new to us, it is little wonder that this enchanting new philosophy from the Far-East makes us dream not only is it conveniently exotic, but it is also advanced and deep enough to enchant those members of our community with a brain.
Those who know almost nothing of Buddhism are quite ready to believe that anyone leading a Buddhist life is wise and peaceful and whatnot, while someone who studies the subject is enchanted by the finesse of Buddhist thinking- the 'Way of  the Middle' or the 'Noble Truths' are 'deep' enough to captivate the philosopher who views them with the eye of a Westerner.


This fascination for the unknown also works the other way; Christianity has been in Europe too long, and people have lost interest in it. The press dramatically emphasizes anything which is wrong with the church, knowing that the people will just go with what they say, and thousands of unbalanced arguments are hauled against the Pope each day.
There is also the matter of the Crusades; people often say that the Church is evil, because it ordered that war. People then turn, dewy-eyed, to Buddhism, seeing the facade of peaceful meditation.


Yet what do we uncover, if the shroud of mysticism is taken off? We find that Buddhism slaughtered its way into Mongolia; we find that its arrival in Japan caused several decades of civil war, and bereaved the Emperor of most of his power; we find that many Chinese and Japanese emperors and leaders were assassinated or  executed because they did not follow Buddhism to the letter; we find that, contrary to popular belief, Buddhist meditation is no more or less mystical than Christian prayer. Nay, Buddhism is not an innocent as some would have us think.


Having said this, it is true that certain Buddhist ideas are 'deep' indeed; yet they are not one-of-a-kind. Most Buddhist principles-like "Desire is the cause of all suffering", for example- have also been discovered by Greek philosophers. The aforementioned statement is the fundamental truth of Stoicism as well as Buddhism; if one is going to become engrossed with such ideas, why go any further than Greece? Germany has also produced a recent spout of excellent philosophers, and so, for that matter, has France. And Jesus himself is quite a match for Buddha, and I may go so far as to say that they have much in common. Both supported charity, both taught their followers how to reach a peaceful light after death- whether Nirvana or Heaven- and both went through periods of starvation, self-denial and other sufferings. Christianity and Buddhism also have much in common.
My point is, we have much wisdom on our own turf, there is no
need to go snatching some off others. 
I would finish off by telling you the sad anecdote which brought me to write this;  I met a very odd fellow, who sometimes used the names of different religions as adjectives. According to him, 'Muslim' means good, 'Jewish' means isolated... refraining myself from commenting, I asked him what 'Christian' meant; he said it meant 'Bad'. I had already guessed what Buddhism meant, but I asked him anyway; guess what? 'Deep'. I asked him what Taoism meant; he said he didn't know what it was, but as soon as I told him it was Chinese, he told me it also meant 'Deep'. If he'd known anything about Taoism, he'd know that Lao Tzeu would have wished him to abide by the religion of his country.


I have published the conversation which ensued, as it seems essential to include opposing opinions.


PWN- This is one of the most poorly considered and biased posts I have ever seen. You are arguing against a viewpoint which is not held by any anymore. Your allegations against the press are completely unfounded, as is what you say about the Pope. You said that Christianity has been around for too long, with people no longer taking an interest. Buddhasim has been around for hundreds more years, and all your criticisms of it are from at least half a millennium ago. Christianity is far more likely to have stolen frm Buddhist Philosphy rather than the other way round and Christianity and Islam cause more violence today than Buddhism. What makes Buddhism important is its appeal to people who would otherwise be atheist or agnostic. It gives people who cannot believe in a god a spiritual side and you're acting as if it's a bad thing. Christianity is not comparable to Budhisim, they both compliment each other; rather than stealing or contradicting as you imply. There is no need to choose between them, their philosophies are fundamentally based on the same principles of morality and altruism. What is the point of criticizing a religion in this way? Budhisim has reached a higher level of
My apologies for not finishing my post, my iPad glitched out. Perhaps it's for the best; I would never have finished otherwise.


JAFHR- Poorly considered? Look at your own arguments; for example, who said anything about stealing ideas? And your understanding of Asian beliefs seems rather crude, perhaps because you only know of Buddhism through teachers. The most interesting thing about them is that many and most Asians find a way to follow more than one religion. Take Japan for instance- Shintoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism, all melted into one culture! When Christianity reached Asia, the priests used Buddhist principles, and compared them to Christian ideas; all those in China and Japan who followed Christianity treated it just as they had once treated Buddhism- they called heaven 'Nirvana', and called God 'The Tao', or 'The Great Mandarin', or 'The Hidden Kami'. The two religions are compatible.
I do NOT imply anything like stealing or contradicting. I take my philosophical sources from all over the world, as you should know by now; I find that Buddhist philosophy sometimes helps to understand Christian ideas, just as science does sometimes. There is much wisdom in the orient, of that I have no doubt; what I am criticizing is the fact that people forget the wisdom on our home turf. I stand by my point about Asian philosophers wanting people to follow the religion of their home land- an idea of tradition which I have echoed in my Summary, which you have obviously not read.
People who study the inner workings of Buddhism will find that the notion of a God is prominent indeed; Taoism, a philosophy adopted by Buddhism, worships the essence of the universe itself (this, in European, is called a 'God') as a deity. Beyond that, there are many types of Buddhism, most of which recognize the existence of Gods, but class them as 'lesser beings' or incarnations,compared to the greater being- some call it the Tao, some call it Death, and some (me included, sort of) call it God. If you read my Summary you will see that I agree with all of the above.
Christianity causes more suffering than Buddhism, you say? Let me remove the ridiculous 'Time' argument out of the way; how about the invasion of China by Japan, in WW2? Granted, that was not an entirely Buddhist action, but more sparked by Shinto-nationalism. Well then, Shimabara? Guiyang? Mitoshima? Each a massacre of Christians, each in the past three-or-four hundred years. Buddhism has no hold of any country right now- officially, China is strictly atheist; Japan emphasizes its Shintoist side; and Buddhism has left India. It is hardly fair to say that Buddhism is more peaceful. I might add that the Chinese revolution was sparked when a dangerous branch of Tao-Buddhism met Communism. Then we see that Buddhism was actually banned from Communist China; didn't you say that China was not bored of Buddhism? I am sure that banning Christianity in England would provoke a wave of fervour.


I shall publish two posts following this, to deal with your last points. I look forward to batting down more.

Hoping you understand,

Your good friend, 

JAFHR

Video Games Violence isn't that Bad or: How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love Blood and Gore

Please bear in mind that all information given in this post is relevant to the UK only. For information about the age rating system in other countries, please consult this website.

First-person shooter season is over and not only does this mean that EA and Activision have stopped releasing games, it's also given a bunch of people some time to get really rather annoyed. No, it is not the thousands of disappointed fans, shocked to discover that the latest Brawl of Duty: Modern Gorefare game is not quite as new as they had expected it to be, instead, it is those most humble of creatures: parents. They have been shocked as they see the huge amounts of violence in these games, and take to the streets to protest. Sort-of. I would join these protesters and write a long post about how needless violence in games is and all that, but someone else already did that. And they had lots of sciencey stuff in their's, so I can't really compete.

Instead, I shall try to put the arguments of the other side, so often expressed in language that is filled with so much profanity that it is difficult to agree with the ****s. So it is with a slight amount of regret that I dive into my three reasons why people should stop worrying and learn to love blood and gore:

1) The Age Rating System

It is mainly parents who complain about violence in video games. If a game has an age rating which is older than the person who is attempting to purchase it (as long as it is rated by the Entertainment Software Rating Board, not Pan European Game Information which has no legal power inside the UK), then any decent member of retail staff would refuse to sell it to them. If a child is able to buy and play video game of which the parent is unaware then I would blame that on the parent. Does your seven-year-old need to know your credit card number? Really?

2) Violence Exists

The above statement is a fact; violence exists. So isn't it more important to tackle actual violence rather than objecting to events that never really happen or directly harm anyone? However, as the anti-video-game-violence-I-love-hyphens-protester would say, video game violence contributes to real-world violence. But does it? Well... maybe a bit. Despite this, most violence is caused by desperation. Desperation is caused by poverty, poverty is caused by unemployment, unemployment is caused by a lack of jobs and a lack of jobs is caused by the decline of companies. So by campaigning against video games (and therefore the companies that make them), aiming to send them into bankruptcy, aren't anti-video-game-violence-I-love-hyphens-protesters causing real world violence at least as much as the games they hate so very much?

3) The Army

The idea that more people are complaining about video game violence than the existence of the army seems rather strange. There are two reasons why this is happening: firstly, video games are quite an easy target, as they are big companies which are often seen as exploiting the average consumer through over-pricing and suchlike; secondly, significantly more families have directly experienced Call of Duty than front-line combat. An irony that is often pointed out is that one can serve in the army at seventeen, while Call of Duty is rated eighteen-plus. Furthermore, in Northern Africa children are actually being forced to fight by people like Joseph Kony, while here in Europe we're making all this fuss about children playing games which simulate combat (normally in a highly unrealistic manner). Does that make sense to you?


I end with a quote for Hunter S. Thompson (I think that fact that I'm quoting from a man who shot himself aged sixty-seven proves the point I made at the beginning that violence in video games is something to be avoided, but I stand by its relevance nonetheless):


'I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me.'

-PWN-

iFAQ: History

What colour were the dinosaurs?

The fact is, we don't know. There are a few isolated cases where scientists have managed to work out exactly what colour dinosaurs were but for monsters like the Tyrannosaurus Rex, they can only guess. It would probably be a shade of green or brown to provide camouflage, which may sound stupid because Tyrannosauruses were so big they couldn't hide but it did make a difference while hunting, albeit a very small one.

 What was the biggest battle ever?

The biggest recorded battle in English history was the Battle of Towton where one tenth of the English population participated. That is a massive amount of people, however you look at it. It took place in 1461 during the Wars of the Roses and resulted in about 7,000 casualties. The biggest battle ever was probably the Battle of Kursk between the Nazi Germans in World War II and the Russians. It involved about two million soldiers. It took place in Kursk, Russia, in the summer of 1943.

When was the Automobile Invented?

That depends on your definition of 'automobile'. The Ford Model T is the most famous of all the motoring firsts, as the first car to be produced by mass manufacture. The Ford was produced first in 1908, but was only mass manufactured from 1911. Most people would credit Karl Benz with inventing the automobile as we know it in 1885 with the Benz Motorwagen. As early as 1335, the Italian engineer Guido da Vigevano

 designed (and supposedly built) a vehicle that moved using wind power, but this was more of a boat than a car. 

-PWN-