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

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-

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

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

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

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

The Pointlessness of Social Networks

Once more I greet thee, good sir.
PWN was going to publish some Social Network business (though he gave up), so I thought I'd tell you what my philosophy has to say on the matter.









































I seem to be just about the only person in my class who thinks that "Tweeting" or Facebook is a waste of time. Well, here goes; there is no point whatsoever in staying on a computer for hours, telling your friends that you are eating scrambled eggs. Yes, it has come to my attention that people who have really caught the Facebug want to stay on the computer, and so find nothing better to do than to pass the time by telling each other the most useless information ever found before on the web. They justify this with the simple statement that they want to keep in contact with their friends-most of which they meet daily. I think that computers and technology can be quite addicting.

You will probably say that I'm being too harsh? Well, maybe, but the simple fact remains that it is harder to look away from a flashing screen than a sheet of paper. I do not think that this is accidental; we all know that most money is made from computers through advertising, and, of course, it goes without saying that most advertising agents would love a machine which flashes advertising without the victim being able to look away.
Most advertising agents have studied psychology, and they use it to great extents, and a social network is of course a centre of human psychology; we are social animals, we like to keep contact with the rest of the pack, and so it would seem logical for our brains to get us all to want to go on these networks. Here, all those humans who cannot resist their brains are gathered, and so advertisers and other brain-controllers would logically center all their resources there, trying to brainwash you into wanting to buy shampoo online.
While we are on the topic of brainwashing and psychology, I would mention another aspect of the Social psychology; the Pack mentality. We all want the IPhone 4s, or whatever number we're on now, because it's the latest fashion, the latest Must. Why is this the case? Because someone else wants it. This is quite a hard instinct to overcome, and it is easy for companies to flood Facebook with

"I'm getting the iPad, it's so cool! Are you getting it?"

 Much of the time, it is the company which uses its psychologists to start a fashion.
There are those of you who probably say that you only use those networks to keep in contact with people on the other side of the world? Well, bear in mind what I say about how easy it is for people to get money off you on the web, and keep off it if you can. I know I'm using it right now to tell you, but I suppose, if we could use a magazine rather than a computer, I would certainly go for it.

Yours most sincerely,

-JAFHR-

Is Life an Illusion?

“The world is a stage and its men and women are merely its actors” William Shakespeare.

PWN - I believe that the world is in fact a video game, kinda like the Matrix.

JAFHR- What proof have you to state that the world is fake?

PWN - Ahm, well let’s not get bogged down in details here.

JAFHR- The French philosopher Descartes wrote that we cannot be sure of anything- “what if some evil genie was making me believe my hand is where it is?” He then realised that, in this world or another, two plus two will always equal four. Thus he set up the Cartesian School- a school of thinking which looks at things from a mathematical point of view. We can look at a circle, and be sure that it exists because it is possible to work out that it is a circle. We can now see that the world cannot be fake, for it is made up of maths.

PWN - Maths was built around the world, not the other way around.

JAFHR- Really? When you study circles, does the teacher bother about demonstrating that a perfect circle exists? As you said, let’s not get bogged down to details; a circle exists in theory, and a philosopher would argue that the world is a theory.

PWN - Could we get back to the point please?

JAFHR- Is this not the point?

PWN - Not really, can’t we just discuss the practical points of this before the philosophical implications?

JAFHR- What is this practical point, then?

PWN - Like... whether it would be possible to make a ‘dream world’. If you think of the improvements in video game graphics and immersion over the past ten years, is it not feasible, or even likely that in the future we will develop some kind of completely immersive game where we think the game is real. If that is the case, then it seems highly likely that we are already in the game. I’d like to point out now that I did not like the Matrix, but it is a good example of this.

JAFHR- Many theologians would say that the world is indeed a computer game, and the ‘Grand Engineer’ (in the words of Voltaire) is God.

PWN - That’s a very good point. If our world has been engineered, then does it matter?

JAFHR- It does not, however you would need to prove His existence.

PWN - Which is pretty much impossible. But if God is not necessarily perfect, then why doesn’t He blow stuff up and such, rather than act rather passively. Doesn’t He get bored? Or is that part of the human condition?

JAFHR- I think Christian, Jewish and Muslim theologies all agree that god is perfect, and, if you trust that he exists, you trust that he is perfect. In my memory, only one religion believes in a bad single god; a secretive tribe in an island off Mexico, the name of which escapes me. These people believed this because the conditions of the island were so dreadful; to them, he did indeed ‘blow stuff up’. This is possibly comparable to the game “Pocket God”, available on the Apple App store.

In most mythologies, there are many gods- they are like the many admins of this blog; there are some “good Gods” (me) and some “bad” gods (JHWW) who try to destroy what the good gods have made.In this scenario the bad gods are like enemy players in a Multi-player, or possibly the baddies in any respectable game. I personally believe that the gods are players just the same as we are, but that is another story. Whether we have a unique god or multiplayers, it is clear that, if the world is a computer game, it is clear that a certain someone has taken a great deal of care to make it so that we, the WoW players, could enjoy it in the fullest. If life is a computer game, does that make it any less real, then?

PWN - No,but onto a more practical point -  why would anyone want to convince us that we are in the real world when in fact we’re not? In the Matrix it’s because the real world is ruled by machines and they don’t want any humans messing up their stuff so they create this ‘Matrix’ thing, which is essentially a simulation of the year 2000 (the film is set in 2200 or something). Would they be exploiting us for money, or keeping us out of the way? Why not just drug or kill us?

JAFHR- If the 'Machines' you are talking about can be called gods-which by definition they are- then see my previous response to see why the gods do not "blow things up".I have just argued extensively that the world cannot be false - perhaps there is a bigger world out there,like at the end of every MIB film, but certainly nothing which we need to be aware of.

PWN - I suppose you are right. The bigger world is somewhat irrelevant if nothing we can do can allow us to experience it. On that note, I think we should end this discussion. Please leave your own opinion in the comments below.

JAFHR- Yes, indeed, good day.

-PWN-

-JAFHR-