Things Fall Apart

African writers don't sell. This was the claim made by many publishing companies in 1958 when refusing Chinua Achebe's first novel, Things Fall Apart. Over the next fifty-five years, they would be proved conclusively wrong: Things Fall Apart has sold ten million copies in fifty languages. And judging by the coverage the book has been getting following the author's death earlier this year, one would assume it has been accepted as one of the greatest books of all time. In fact, this is not the case: many readers have criticised Achebe's writing style in particular, for its extreme simplicity. Personally, I loved this style and found that when he departed from it for more more elaborate description he was still successful, but I suppose this is a matter of taste.

The cover of the edition I read. Having finished it, I still don't know what the chicken head is supposed to mean..

If I had my own criticism, I'd say that the characters are all slightly static: none of them visibly evolve as the story progresses. But it is a simple tale and the only character that matters falls precisely because he refuses to change.

The things doing the titular falling apart are the African customs and indeed the villages' own gods and traditions, displaced by Christianity. Although the Western missionaries are not depicted as bringers of wisdom and true faith, they are not demonised as colonial oppressors. Instead this is an entirely balanced view of the coming of the white man: all the main characters are deeply flawed, and when they arrive the white characters are no different.

Chinua Achebe: 'the father of modern African literature' (though he hated this title, it is often used of him so I may as well include it)

Okonkwo, the protagonist, symbolises everything that was wrong with pre-colonial African society: his masculinity defines him to the extent that he is forced into conflict, first with his wives, then the missionaries, and finally his own tribe. Refusing to adapt to changing circumstances is ultimately Okonkwo's downfall: he values tradition for its own sake to the extent that he cannot give it up.

Although the novel is about much more than colonisation, it is this about which it had the most insight. Things Falls Apart reveals the more human reasons that people converted to Christianity: a rejection of tradition, the promise of better moral values and the beauty of the missionaries' message (JAFHR is quite keen on this video about evangelising through beauty in the Catholic Church). This makes far more sense than the history book reasoning that they were bribed into it with cheap trinkets.

It is this kind of delicate use of detail that vindicates Chinua's claim that only an African writer could do justice to the story he wanted to tell. It is undoubtedly a story that had to be told and more than selling well, this book has become a true classic and the quintessential African novel, despite its obvious Western influences.

Looking Back Forwards and Sideways

It has occurred to me that we've never adequately explained why there have been no posts on this blog for quite a while, despite having such a large number of people writing for it. In the past this has been attributed to exams which affect us all at the same time but this was never really the reason (I certainly found time to do plenty of other things in the weeks before exams, but perhaps I shouldn't have). Instead it is due to the structure of the blog itself lacking any purpose. We have no target audience, nor a central theme. Perhaps this shouldn't matter but without purpose there is no motivation for any of us to write anything on a regular basis. So will we ever return to the days when each person would write two posts a month? No, almost certainly not. Those were the halcyon days when  GCSEs were a faint bogeyman, not worth concerning oneself with at all and probably not particularly challenging. Naturally, our outlook has changed as these exams have come ever closer.

I do doubt also whether it is a good idea to have a general blog shared between a large number of people. In fact I'm sure it isn't. Sharing a blog is fine if its on a certain subject (like cooking or reviewing things) and having a blog with no particular subject is fine is its written by one person. Both can have some kind of focus; having neither a topic nor consistent author damns this blog always to have a limited quality and limited audience.

The bottom line is we might post things from time to time if we ever have the urge to write an essay or treatise on something but this place will never be quite as lively as it once was.

Random Questions that I've never known the answer to...

Please, enlighten me if you can:

1-Why doesn't superglue stick to its casing?
2-Why is it pronounced lef-tenant?
3-Why does the police siren pitch change after it's passed you?
4-Why do Americans say they speak English when they clearly don't?
5-Which arm rest is yours in a movie theatre?
6-Why are there life jackets under aeroplane seats instead of parachutes?
7-How do you get rid of stain remover?
8-How do snowplough workers get into work in the morning?
9-Can vegetarians eat animal crackers?
10-How come thaw and unthaw mean the same things?
11-Why does 6 times 9 equal 42 and is there any truth behind 42?
12-Why don't you ever see baby pigeons?
13-Why do we have accents?
14-What happens to the others if a synchronised swimmer drowns?
15-What came first-orange or orange?
16-Why don't fish get stomach cramps after eating?
17-Why is he called Donkey Kong when he's not a real donkey?
18-What's the opposite of opposite?
19-(For JAFHR) In France, when you ask for toast, do you instantly get French toast?

And one last one that I'm dreading because JAFHR will be going on about it subsequently:

20-What happens when you die?

(There is also the question if God exists, but as we all know the realistic answer, there is no point in putting it in here.)

As always, JHWW-don't forget to comment

                                                              (My favourite cheese)

Android vs. iOS...

Or...

Okay, first thing to say is that there is no correct answer to this, so no hate comments (JAFHR).
Second, I'm not a techie so for those of you looking at the sophisticated stuff, sorry but you'll have to look elsewhere, hence...
Third, is that I will try to make this as simple as possible...

Android

Pros:

Wide variety of handsets
Generally chepaer than iOS (lowest prices can be even £30)
Widgets (extremely useful)
Removable battery and SD Card (don't actually know what the latter really is but have a fair idea)
Live wallpapers
Mobile Payment (again not sure what it really is)

Cons:

Android market is worse than iOS App Store
Harder to use than iOS
Doesn't have Siri
Only handset looks and feels better than most Android ones

Similarly,

iOS

Pros:

Has better apps than any others
Easier to use than Android
Has Siri
Touchscreen feels better (maybe just me)
Has cooler phone cases

Cons:

Far too expensive for something with similar features to Android
Battery not removable, and no SD Card slot
Only one handset
No widgets/Live wallpapers
Must sync with iTunes for music etc. (very confusing and not much use)
More likely to have it stolen by a thief

Result:

Well, it really depends. If you prefer ease of use, apps, and Siri (which is amazing), get iOS. If you prefer not getting ripped off, having more and better features that when used are very helpful, then get Android. If you just want a phone that functions as a phone, then get a brick phone.

Please feel free to comment below...

As always JHWW.

All Smurfs are Equal, but Some Smurfs are More Equal than Others

Comrades,
I shall presently deal with part of an issue that has become touchy in France. I dare say all my readers have heard of the Smurfs- the famed Comic-book Blue Dwarfs, so cute and harmless, and so popular in France. I also take it as self-obvious that my readers know the definition of Communism- I suppose I shouldn't take that for granted...Communism is the belief that goods should not be privately owned, but distributed equally by the state. It abolishes all money, and all differences between members of the society; and people work not because of personal gain but simply because they believe that's what they were born to do.

So, that definition in mind, I shall now proceed to explain how Pierre Peyo made his Smurfs Communist- I would ask you (not mentioning any names) to restrain your outrages and tutting contempt until you've heard me out.
I may begin by pointing out the all-are-equal part of the Smurfs. All wear the same clothing, sing the same songs, do the same work. Many and most of the comics talk about a Smurf who wants to be different, and learns that this is not in his best interest. Read  A Smurf unlike the Others,  the Smurfissime, The Reporter Smurf... Never will you find a Smurf whose difference makes him good. Smurfs do what they're best at, without any sort of choice- indeed, one comic book sees them swapping roles with a comrade- to devastating results.

But one Smurf rises above the others... the Grand Smurf, renamed Papa Smurf by English Translators, remains the only one allowed to pursue knowledge (read  Doctor Smurf, Reporter Smurf, the Smurf Apprentice,  and the Smurfs and the All-knowing Book) and the only one to have contact with the outside world. His authority is questioned only by those idiots who wish to rise above the society, and yet he is seen as equal to all his Smurfs (he eats in the same communal refectory, does the same work, and is subject to the same problems). A clear link can be drawn between him and Stalin, who- while in a position of grandiose power, was seen in the propaganda posters as equal to his brave workers and soldiers.

The way Smurf Village is run reminds me heavily of the USSR- There is no private property, but all fields and houses belong to everyone. Papa Smurf sometimes tells Smurfs to give something to someone else- food, toys, even a house- and no objections are made. Can you make the link between this and the Communist state?
Everyone works at the dam- unless their vocation in life is to work somewhere else- and no-one is paid in any way, but Smurfs simply live off Greedy Smurf's and Farmer Smurf's work. Despite maintaining the whole village, Greedy Smurf doesn't receive anything more- and no-one ever raises that subject.
Of the Smurfs with an identity, many and most can be identified to Marxist and Communist ideals. Handy Smurf is the epitome of the Communist Worker- his skills are called for in all the village, he is constantly at work and never questions anything, and he never complains about his gross overworking. Hefty Smurf is the enforcer of Smurf Village- whenever someone needs power they rely on him. This casts him out as a NKVD (KGB) agent.

Smurf in Glasses- named  Brainy Smurf by the Translators. He constantly raises himself to a position of power equivalent to Papa Smurf while the latter is away, but his vanity and lack of wisdom make him a dictator or simply a twit. This is equivalent to Stalin's view of Trotsky- beware of those who want power, they probably aren't wise enough.

A few Smurfs represent non-communist ideas; Vanity Smurf is Marx's impression of a Bourgeois- constantly trying to make himself more popular at the expense of the Smurf Society; and the Smurfs with original ideas- the Finance Smurf, the Travelling Smurf, the Reporter Smurf- always have ideas going against Communist ideals; all these ideas fail.
This leads to the anti-Smurfs; Gargamel, and Azrael. Gargamel is obssessed with turning Smurfs into Gold, or making soup out of them to sell for a high price. His Evil sayings include 'I have a Machiavelical Idea', and 'I'll be rich! RICH, HAHAHAHA!' Gargamel epitomises the Evil Capitalist, making money-condemned by Communism- at the expense of others. His companion-the evil cat- is named after a Demon of Jewish and Islamic folklore. This not only brings to mind that the Russian Revolution was sponsored by Jewish Bankers and that Trotski, Lenin and Stalin all had Jewish parents; but also that Communist Russia was harsh on all religions ('Harsh' as in 'Concentration-camp harsh') and on Judaism in particular, eager to prove its independence from the Jewish bankers.

One could also point out that Gargamel's constant mistreatment of Azrael shows the Communist view of how hierarchical Capitalist business is flawed- the poor worker constantly beaten by Evil bosses.

I would end this incriminating post, dear friend, by urging you to realise that any book, cartoon and film worth anything has a meaning and a message- never take the object at face value, but question its purpose and its origins. Else you will find yourself drinking in the words of the Marxist Papa Smurf- for, as Aquinas said, 'The Devil's most potent trick is to make you think he's not there'.

Yours McCarthically,

JAFHR

The fastly approaching fifth anniversary of one of Britain's most noble institutions

The heroic, important, yet little-known organization of The Council of Ex-Muslims in Britain celebrates its fifth birthday this weekend. Those who have been lucky enough to get their hands on tickets for the anniversary party have a vast array of events to look forward to. In the space of one afternoon, they will be able to hear philospher A.C  Grayling, author of the seminal 'The Meaning of Things', lecturing, attend a talk by physicist Lawrence Krauss, and witness a whole whost of other people from singer/songwriter Shelley Segal to magician Neil Edwards to comedian Kate Smurthwaite make their own contributions to this important occasion. The driving force behind it all: a woman named Maryam Namazie. Born in Tehran, Maryam was forced to flee with her family when the 1979 Iranian revolution occured. After a time working in Sudan, where she established an undeground human rights network before her cover was blown, she came to Britain, where she has since been tirelessly campaigning against the clerical form of facism that is Sharia Law, the treatment of women in Islamic societies, political Islam, and for the rights of so-called 'apostates' who change their religion or choose to renounce it, as well as for one, secular law for all, that does not patronizingly endorse lower expectations for different groups in society, and promote tolerance and respect for so-called minority opinions and beliefs, rather than respect for human beings. 'Human beings are worthy of the highest respect, but not all opinions and beliefs are worthy of respect and tolerance. There are some who believe in fascism, white supremacy, the inferiority of women. Must they be respected?' Maryam argues. When politicians in Ottawa decided to allow Sharia to run parallel to the Canadian state justice system, claiming that if they were not established, the Muslim minority would be marginalised, Namazie responded. with fury. Why was it, she asked, that people on supposedly on the left were so keen to give 'precedence to cultural and religious norms, however reactionary, over the human being and her rights?' Why was it that they always pretended as if immigrants belonged to homogeneous blocks, and gave voice to 'the most reactionary segements' of immigrant communities, ignoring the fact that, simply because it was the culture of a few radical religous fanatics to say that it is acceptable for a woman to be beaten by her husband, and that gay people should be killed, it was certainly not the culture of the majority of people within those communities, of which women and homosexuals made up 53%. As the Observer's Nick Cohen argues:

Namazie is on the right side of the great intellectual struggle of our time between incompatible versions of liberalism. One follows the fine and necessary principle of tolerance, but ends up having to tolerate the oppression of women, say, or gays in foreign cultures while opposing misogyny and homophobia in its own. (Or 'liberalism for the liberals and cannibalism for the cannibals!' as philosopher Martin Hollis elegantly described the hypocrisy of the manoeuvre.) The alternative is to support universal human rights and believe that if the oppression of women is wrong, it is wrong everywhere.

It was pointed out by Richard J Evans, professor of modern history at Cambridge, that if you take the relativist position to its conclusion and believe there's no such thing as truth and all cultures are equally valid, you have no weapons to fight the Holocaust denier or Ku Klux Klansmen. He's right. Many slave traders would have been offended by the idea that a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work, was wrong. Many men would have been offended by the idea that women should have a right so basic as the right to be treated as an equal human being, or the right to vote. Should the abolitionists and the suffragettes therefore have kept silent, for fear of being 'disrespectful' or 'offending' other people's 'equally valid points of view'? Of course they should not have. If they had, we would still be living in a moral and political dark age. In Britain in the 21st century, there is a culture of fear. We are afraid of voicing critiques of religion, for fear of offending the views of minorities. After witnessing what happened to Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Salman Rushdie when they refused to keep quiet, our comedians shy away from satirizing Islam, and people are afraid to even draw cartoons or write novels, for fear of the consequences. This has got to stop, because if it does not, we will not be able to bring the help that liberal Muslims, gays, feminists, progressives and trade unionists so desparately need. This is why we need organizations like 'Council for Ex-Muslims in Britain'. Britons across the land, all of them former Muslims, many of whom live in fear and recieve death threats from Islamists simply for renouncing their faith, have organized into a group, and are constantly campaiging and acting, and they will not be silenced. As Nick Cohen argues, they represent 'the gulf between liberal apologists and those who really want equality...the gulf between the two is unbridgeable'. The Council for Ex-Muslims, and organizations like it, need our help, because the only society worth living in is one where we can give or take offence. Religion is just an idea, like any other idea, espoused by someone who claims to have recieved a message from God. 'It is not surrounded by an electric wire fence called "respect", that none of us can cross' argues journalist Johann Hari. Do you support the rights of people to not be offended? Or do you support a free society devoid of censorship, with equality for women, for gays, for athiests and for free thinkers? You cannot, quite simply, support both.

An introduction

As per request, I shall be devoting this post to an explanation of who I am and what my contribution to this blog will consist of. I am a highly-opinionated fourteen year old finally fulfilling his life-long ambition to be a blogger. As you will discover soon enough when I begin to use this space as a means of espousing them, I possess a veritable plethora of views, and on any issue political, economic, social or cultural, rest assured I will have an opinion on it of some sort. Some of you, I am sure, will be wanting to know where I place myself on the political spectrum. There is no easy answer to this question. I have never labelled myself, nor do I consider it helpful to do so; 'leftist', 'conservative', 'libertarian' and the like are all fairly lazy terms, and anyway, I dislike the idea of my self-styled contrarianism being reduced to pure liberalism or pure conservatism. Although I believe one should always be wary of making statements or defending opinions purely for the sake of being controversial, I like to think of myself as someone who enjoys holding positions which run contrary to those of the so-called 'consensus' or the so-called 'majority', no matter how many enemies it makes him. I think the sentiment expressed by the motto of the Royal Society: 'nullius in verba' (take no man's word for it), is appropriate here. I also like to quote the journalist Christopher Hitchens, of whom I have always been a great admirer, who said:
My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim my right to have it defended against any majority, any consensus, anywhere, anyplace, anytime. Anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, wait in line and kiss my ass.

Above all, I want to use The Opinionated Internet to fuel debate and discussion, and get people talking about the issues that matter. What follows are just some of the topics that might crop up now and again within my blog posts: Republicanism, drug legalization, LGBT equality, feminism, grassroots democracy, interventionism, free trade, economic liberalism, the conflict between religion and freedom of thought, multiculturalism, the history of science and the philosophy of race. I may also be posting the odd review, and sometimes will provide links to articles and videos which I have enjoyed or found interesting enough to want to share with others.

Here is some of what I love: arguments, debating, public speaking, long walks in the English countryside, tea, the films of Michael Haneke, Abbas Kiarostami and Joel and Ethan Coen, the writings of William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Evelyn Waugh, P.G Wodehouse, Aldous Huxley and George Orwell, the life and work of Christopher Hitchens, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Douglas Murray, Nick Cohen, Maryam Namazie, Richard Dawkins, Salman Rushdie and Peter Tatchell, modern art, brutalism, minimalism and the art and culture of London.

Here is some of what I try to fight against: deception of the public, denial, censorship, theocratic encroachment on a free society, religious fundamentalism, misuse of belief, bigotry of all stripes, narrow mindedness, human rights abuses, totalitarianism, excuse-making and extremism.

I am hugely excited to now be a part of the Opinionated Internet blog. If you have any suggestions, criticisms, queries or complaints, do not hesitate to get in touch. I would love to hear from you.

MS

From White Racism to Anti-White Racism- Part 1: Clarification

IMPORTANT: Before continuing, it is important to know that when I say that a certain race shows more dangerous racism, I do not want to generalize- I only mean that more members of a certain race are racist, but the vast majority of that race will still be peaceable people. I happen to have friends from all of the said races.

Greetings.

This is a criticism of one of the worst predicaments of the 21st century. I am talking of racism- how this civilization sees it, how they think to prevent it, and how they promote it. I will deal with this in four stages, spread across two posts:

• In This Post:
• I shall clarify the definition of racism.
• Secondly, I shall demonstrate the various instances of racism in our society- and evaluate which racism is more potent/ dangerous.
• In the Next Post:
• I shall outline the present response to racism
• I shall evaluate how reasonable the response can be termed, and establish the phrase 'Anti-racism'.
• Finally (and this may take up an entire post) I shall state the reasons for this anti-racism.

If you abide with me without blindly shutting out arguments or failing to comment your [dis]agreements, I hope to change the way you think about racism.

So, what is racism? This, I feel, needs clearing up, as I have heard many garbled definitions. Indeed, many in our community (you included?) are in the sad delusion that racism is 'a white guy not being cool to a black guy'. Most dictionaries will give the definition:

racism or racialism  (ˈreɪsɪzəm, ˈreɪʃəˌlɪzəm)
— n
1. the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others
2. abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief.

Someone who is of a different race does not necessarily have different traits; people seem to think that aggressiveness towards foreigners is somehow more acceptable than aggressiveness towards a different colour of skin, yet I cannot think how the word 'frog' used towards a French person is anything other than racial discrimination to the same extent as 'nigger'. Thus, for this essay I shall redefine the term 'race' as a different culture.


The following will be classified as racist attitudes:

• judging someone based on their homeland/race, using stereotypes e.g. He is Jewish-he is not to be trusted with money.
• Alienating someone and excluding him/her on account of their racial traits.
• Physical abuse towards a member of another race.

So far, so good... moving on;


Races in Our Society (a brief list):

• White
• (Jewish)
• Indian (Pakistani included)
• Arab
• Black
• Asian (Chinese/Japanese/Korean/Cambodian Peninsula)
• (Native Americans? not mentioned here, but important in America.)
• Different religions- play an important role in racism.

Various racisms present in our society: 

A Brief List


(Do note that 'our society' means Britain, with references to France.)

To record every single type of racism would be impossible, so here you will only find the most active/relevant in our society. White figures in most/all of these, since our civilization is white.

• White hatred of Black- not uncommon, but heavily sanctioned, because of its long history and politicisation. physical demonstrations are now very rare, and this racism is more prominent in the form of snide remarks in certain classroom (i.e immature) environments, as well as excluding Black immigrants in certain rural areas, notably Lancashire and Alsace. Since this is the most drastically frowned-upon racism the offender rarely goes unpunished. Although in Britain this racism is almost dead, we are told that the southern states of the USA still harbour it, while it is physically active in South Africa.

• Black hatred of White- Far more common than opposite; physical demonstrations are often reported in France and Britain (usually slums of big cities; 16 th Parisian district and Whitechapel, London are known to be susceptible). USA also has major problems. These physical demonstrations come in the form of roving bands, especially on big occasions such as New Year's Eve when police are occupied. These roving bands are usually associated with criminal activities and not racism, but occasionally, witnesses hear vague insults aimed at whites. These links show of these many incidents. In some areas, one sees a very definite correlation between the White-hatred-of Black and the Black-hatred-of-White; this particularly occurs in areas like Scandinavia, where the culture is a very traditional/religious one, and where immigration is less controlled. The immigrants here apparently attempt to impose their own culture, inciting the ire of the inhabitants. It would appear that Black-hatred-of-White passes with comparative impunity, as we commonly hear phrases such as 'All Whites are racist' and there is even a religion, Rastafarianism, which accuses the White race of just about every sin conceivable, while glorifying the Black race. Similar ideas can be found in some Islamic branches- but more on that later.

• White hatred of Arab- Very common in France, where most of the immigration is Arabic, and Arabs are seen as stealing jobs. Another, far more common example of this racism in France is the stereotyped Arab- a hardened hoodlum and thief; this is not altogether unfounded (indeed many and most immigrants now conform to this stereotype quite happily), but it does make life a lot harder for those immigrants who choose to live honestly. In Britain, this type of racism is virtually unheard of, because of Britain's lack of communication with the Arabic counties. It is also needless to say that an Arab is the embodiment of Islam, and so incites much suspicion (especially from rural areas, where strangers are always shunned, even if they come from the nearest town).

• Arab hatred of White- This is, quite frankly, the type of racism that incites its opposite. A lot of modern Rapping (that is to say, street music) bears racist slander, and both Black and Arab races monopolise the violent aggression contained therein. I shall include but a smattering of these, both from Britain and translated from France:

Swing by on the pale guy. . . . break him in the neck. . . . the guerrilla with the poison tip. . . . shaking pinky up on a dull-ass ice-pick . . . this is Lench Mob. . . . devil, what you want to do; when you see the boot, knew your head is hoohoo...

That’s what I wanna be 
All over the white world 
Yes they’ll remember me 
Don’t look at me as an innocent bystander 
Because I’ll scare you after dark ... 

As We Move across to France, it gets a lot harsher...

And if my hatred decreases

It's cause the Whites are all dead...

"Bang! In your teeth / I'm talking to you white boy / I f**k your government / Tell me / 'Why so much hate?" / With dirty breath...

Go ahead, release the pitts, break the windows,
Don't care, it's the cops there anyway,This is U.N.I.T.Y., nigga, rebeu, babtou, Tway   [nicknames for various races in France]
But if we want to control Paris, you know it will be all together 

Here it is the pitts are dropped,
cities are crap, the windows are broken,
The cops are lynched, well, it relieves,
Paris must [some very rude word for burning, with no equivalent in English]
Tonight Le Pen to death, We restart the guillotine, worst than in Djibouti...

Well, I think that more or less proves my point concerning rap. In France (and England to a lesser extent) the immigrants are mostly nationalistic/ psycho-religious and from underdeveloped countries and backgrounds; although not all branches of Islam sport psycho-religious tendencies, the ones most common in France are solely based on brainwashing and blind hatred. Thus it is understandable that Arabic immigrants are seen suspiciously in France, considering the fact that the immigrants are often inherently anti-white, and- in the case of the youths- the epitome of anarchy, violence and lack of self-control.

• White hatred of Asian- Not a threat at all, either in Britain or France. Asians are usually well-integrated, and the only complaints heard about them is the fact that they are stealing jobs, or maths awards. Anti-Asian remarks can of course be heard in immature environments, but this is by no means serious.
• Asian hatred of White- Similarly, no threat at all. Asian immigrants are the most integrated, and the only racism heard from them is internal (i.e Japanese vs Chinese).

• White hatred of Indian- Here it is crucial to separate the Indians (who are just as integrated as the Asians) from the Pakistani, who, in Britain, are almost the equivalent of the Arabs in France. Thus we constantly have complaints of 'Pakis' stealing all the jobs, and throwing a slow monopoly over everything- for instance, one taxi-driver complained that the East-end accent had changed from Cockney to Pakistani. There is little or no anti-Pakistani violence recorded.
• Indian hatred of White- Again, no problem posed by the Indians. The Pakistani, however, compose the main roving bands in the slums of London; certainly. these are far more controlled and minor than in France, but doubts are cast as to whether this would be continuous after a year or so of socialist rule. Otherwise, the verbal abuse directed by Pakistani at whites is enough to contend with the rap I have published above.

So what conclusions can be pulled from this? It would appear that, although the White race has the longest history and the biggest reputation for racism, White racism is no longer an issue (little or no violence recorded in the past 50 years) in MEDCs- with a few exceptions, which are being pressurized into non existence- for example, the mass murderer Andres Breivik's case is being taken so seriously by the Norwegian government that they have built a new court, just for his court-case (which is doomed for him anyway).
While White racism is in a terminal state, anti-white racism is radically increasing with the number of immigrants. It would seem (and I am not trying to insult anyone but merely making a factual observation) that most violent racism comes from Muslim countries. This may simply come from their underdevelopment (but that excuse is pretty short-lived when one looks at India- still an LEDC, but remarkably behaved- or the sudden advance of Arabia in terms of economy). Or perhaps, for some reason, the psychotic Muslims are the ones who choose to immigrate? Unlikely, but possible...
Whatever the case, we can now set up this chain of dangerous racism:

1. Arab     )
2. Pakistani)all three types of racism are quite close
3. Black    ) 
4. White (far behind, though only recently achieved this)
5. Asian & Indian

For a lengthy analysis of our society's response towards racism, please read my next post.

Yours in sociology-

JAFHR

A Deeper Look at Justin Beiber

Before you stare at shock at this title and whisper things such as 'Good grief, how fickle. Bring back JAFHR's excellent views on philosophy, iTech's fascinating rants about aeroplanes and JHWW's... what does he write about? But anyway, we don't want to listen to this uncultured idiot's views about people who I'm sorry I ever heard of.'

And this would be a perfectly valid view to have, but I implore you to continue reading because there's something deeper behind the superficial nature of this 'artist'. I would also like to point out that 'a deeper look' does not involve... okay, never mind.

Bieber in New York in 2009

Basically, Justin Bieber is an internationally Canadian successful pop singer. Don't blame Canada, though, he's really as American as South Korea. Most people concentrate on the two things that I think are the least relevant to this post about Bieber: his singing ability and public image. These things though, are relevant to his fame and, to a lesser extent, popularity, so I see it as necessary to cover them briefly, Firstly, Bieber can sing. No matter what you hear his critics say, he gets the notes right and technically the only thing wrong with his voice is that it lacks the emotional depth of a better singer, Adele for instance. This problem could, however, be put down to poor lyrics, but I'll get to that later. The latter aspect of Bieber that people often draw attention to is his public image, which I won't get into too much. To his fans, he is exactly the kind of bland, unintimidating boyfriend every bland American teenager dreams of. To his haters (a group with which I do not associate myself, I might point out), he is a despicable challenge not only to his industry but to his entire gender and thus he has been labelled as many things, starting with the least vulgarity at 'gay' and ending with... well, we shan't get into that.

A shot from Bieber's hit song Boyfriend

Now, the interesting stuff. JAFHR has been going on for a while about materialism, and in Bieber I see his point. His songs, while they could be called love songs, are not about love. I know neither his fans nor haters do, but look at his lyrics. His two most popular song, Baby and Boyfriend, are as materialist as a Texan in a toy store. Baby contains the phrase 'I'll buy you anything', Boyfriend includes the line early on 'I've got some money that I'd really like to blow', while the music video shows him in a series of impossibly shiny cars on an impossibly sunny day singing to several (yes, several) impossibly attractive women. One of the cars he is driving is clearly a Ford Mustang, which is not exactly fitting considering his effeminate image and the fact that the Mustang was mocked even by Top Gear for its overt, arrogant masculinity, but makes a large amount of sense when you consider the ratio between Ford's advertising budget and Bieber's record label's artistic integrity. I'd put it at about 100,000,000 : 0.

An example of the extent of 'Bieber fever'

But what has this got to do with materialism, I hear you philosophy junkies cry. Well, if Bieber can get to the top by being incredibly bland and by pointlessly referencing Starbucks and other equally detestable companies in his songs, then surely this is reflective of our society, and it shines a harsh, damning light. Wait, I hear you cry, you would-be defender of true music, I hate Justin Bieber and so do many people. In fact we threatened to kill him multiple times. Perhaps, but does that really make it any better? I mean, thousands of young males are getting incensed over someone who should really be ignored completely if one wanted him to go away, then doesn't that shine an even harsher light? Hatred is just as bad a response as love in this case, if not worse, partially because no one hates Justin Bieber because of his music. Admittedly, many dislike his music, but often the reason is jealousy that this uninteresting, boylike adolescent should capture the hearts of so many teenage girls.

Justin Bieber isn't Justin Bieber's fault, he's our fault.

-PWN-

While researching this post PWN listened to Justin Bieber's Baby an unhealthy number of times, resulting in a catastrophic collapse of his already poor musical taste. He is currently recovering and will hopefully be fit enough to start writing a post about Frankenstein in a few days.

Beggin' yer Pardon

Dear all,

Begging your pardon for our recent apathy, we were all revising for the exams.

The Team.

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