Illegal immigration explained (KIPPERS look away now)


In this groundbreaking ethnography, Ruben Andersson, a gifted anthropologist and journalist, travels along the clandestine migration trail from Senegal and Mali to the Spanish North African enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla. Through the voices of his informants, Andersson explores, viscerally and emphatically, how Europe s increasingly powerful border regime meets and interacts with its target the clandestine migrant. This vivid, rich work examines the subterranean migration flow from Africa to Europe, and shifts the focus from the illegal immigrants themselves to the vast industry built around their movements. This fascinating and accessible book is a must-read for anyone interested in the politics of international migration and the changing texture of global culture.

The points discussed in this award winning book include how many more non EU migrants come into the UK via plane than by boat, and, how the business is aimed at making money our of Africa’s poorest populations and not in preventing white migrants who populate the Romanian and Polish “Job thieving” myths.

It effectively makes the point that leaving the EU, the thing Farage claims will solve all our “problems”, will have zero effect on the illegal migrant numbers – merely making it much harder for Europeans, (including Brits who live and work in Europe, making Europe such an international trading capital) to legally cross UK borders.

Farage’s arguments are fairly easy to demolish using logic, argument and common sense, but of course, when the opponent responses are simply a series of sidesteps in a projection of self-hatred based fears such as homophobia, racist bigotry and sexism, then using logic and argument is as pointless as explaining the offside law to a rabid red setter.

The notion that Farage is defending the same principles as all our armed forces personnel who fought the 2nd world war is worse than laughable and is destroyed here. Fear of Europe is as irrational as fear of homosexuals, and the sooner the major politicians start playing up the advantages and benefits to this country and stop pandering to their own rabid wings of semi-Kippers, the better


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Gone and best forgotten?


This image is part of a standard campaign to support veterans in the USA. 

It touches a different nerve in me than the one intended…

I have helped support ex-servicemen’s PTSD groups, set one up even. I am anti-war, anti-anyone joining the armed services, but pro getting them the psychiatric help they need afterwards when that inevitable mind-messing thing has happened.

But this idea that we are “not prepared to be forgotten” is touching a different nerve. Of all the things to accept, and prepare for, the certainty that we will be forgotten is a good one. The polar opposite of this acceptance is part of the reach for immortality that is poisoning the well in this Post-Warhol world of fame sought for its own supposed merits.

A big step onto the degrading path of fame for nothing has been TV’s “Big brother” – where people were invited to be in a show that then created fame for simply existing as a voyeur’s object. Beyond the sad talent show entrants who cannot sing but feel they have a right to “Be on TV” there is a brief history of people going a disgusting step further. The man, who I won’t name, who shot John Lennon, had no insane grievance with the man – he just wanted to grab his fame by murderous association. I had an online argument with the film producer who made a film called, “The man who shot John Lennon” and he couldn’t see the argument at all – that he was as bad as that man and, like Yoko Ono, I wished him nothing but eternal failure in that mission.


I have had this argument with some reasonably intelligent people, that seeking fame for fame’s sake is not only a sad mission, it is a sick one.
The pilot who “wanted to ensure everyone remembered his name” deserves the same fate as John Lennon’s killer – to be forgotten as a sad talentless schmuck. The same applies to the “gone postal” gun-nut killers that the USA appears to breed and nurture, with the help of their naïve revenge and gun culture.

These people do not emerge from a clear blue sky, they are gaining the idea of fame as more worthy than life itself from the sickest side of mainstream culture.
Sure we can find mental health problems in these cases when we dig into them – but while many people who suffer from depression do, sadly, commit suicide, 99.9% of people with mental health problems do not, and especially do not decide to take people with them in some desperate attempt to win Satan’s Reality show.

If you seek fame, at the very least you have an infantile delusion about what it might bring you, at worst you will waste years of your life developing shallowness instead of meaning. Those who have “achieved” fame through their talents as singers, actors, TV stars or whatever, tend to find out that widespread recognition is an unwelcome trap.
Every famous person has many stories of being confronted by fans on the street, full of praise for a film they starred in – except they didn’t. The fan has mistaken them for someone else “off of the Telly” and is disappointed that the signature isn’t what they expected…
Psychologists have long ago established the rationale behind seeking fame – the feeling of insufficient love received, the craving for attention that may somehow fill that yawning gap inside – but it cannot do that, especially when every fan so clearly fails to see and admire “You” but instead worships the shell of stardom in which you have successfully become trapped.

The realisation soon dawns on most famous folk, that not being able to eat in peace at a restaurant is a curse, and a curse that carries the real risk of the more dangerous fame seekers deciding that you are almost their property, and have a duty to bend to their desires of association. Hence the tendency to have only other famous faces as friends and hide behind locked gates and electric fences, success in the desire for fame leading directly to the desire to hide away.

If I were to be a “famous” writer, (perish the thought) I would want to avoid tours and pictures on book covers. I can think of nothing worse than having a famous face – unless it is being one of that large group of sad people who want to have a famous face, and be known after they die…
150 years from now that privilege should belong solely to my direct descendants – for they are my only real representation of immortality, that of the genes I have passed down from my ancestors. I am content with that.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Love: an idiot’s guide

old-couples1Recently I received some thanks for something I’d said to a forum-friend, 4,000 miles away, and I had forgotten what it was, “It saved my life” she said… wow, thank you.

What it was about was this – “what is love?” – the most frequently asked question entered into Google. A billion answers other than “Baby don’t hurt me” are also out there, maybe 10,000 that are actually helpful. My own, now extra validated, and as a divorced, then happily remarried, grandfather, goes along these lines:-

This is the name for that feeling you get that some call “Love at first sight”.
Sorry to deromanticise this stuff guys but while this feeling is lovely when reciprocated, it is much more of an instinctive recognition of something similar in another person than it is anything to do with love – though of course it may well be the opening of a door that then becomes love through your own joint efforts.

Cathexis can be the most exhilarating and frustrating thing – when unreciprocated it results in pages of forlorn diary entries and, these days, Forum/website postings –
I refer to the “Styles-step” beyond teenage fan worship of a pretty boy, – where the ring of fame distorts perceptions so as to render even cathexis a meaningless pop-tart of a meal.
There is no age limit on cathexis.eyelove
When you have been suffering and alone for a period of time and someone appears whose eyes meet yours and you feel they know and understand how you feel, the excitement and sense of bursting potential can be as overwhelming to a senior citizen as it is to a young student.

If you are part of the cultural west, and past the teenage years, you are most likely to have experienced this at least once. The statistics suggest that someone my age is likely to have had this experience at least five times.

So what do we learn from this experience?
It seems, “not a lot”.
We tend to throw caution to the wind, and if reciprocated for more than a fortnight or so we start talking about “soulmates” and fate, while worshipping walked-on-ground and imagining long lives of happy coupledom.
– when this is the case our bullshit sensors are always down.

Here’s a big question:
Do we have any control over this thing we call love?
Emphatically, YES.
I believe that cathexis is the thing that we do not control, but love is certainly something that we can, and must, if it is to be true and in any way lasting.
The question I usually get asked by the young at this unwelcome point in my lecture is,
“But how!?” 

It is a lesson my father tried to teach me called, “Burnt parsnips”, it took me until my second marriage to learn it.

Let us assume that you have managed to create a relationship of apparently loving contentment, the cathexis period is over, you are living together with someone, under no duress from a hostile culture or morality police.
honey Im homeIn my father’s day, it was told with him coming home from work to find his wife stressed out over baby care, housekeeping and chores, accompanied by the smell of laundry and burnt parsnips. To which his loving reaction was to ignore the (hated) smells, ignore his own stress from having also had a stressful day, ignore the more obvious solution-focused action that men choose by default… and say, “My darling, you are wonderful, I love you, despite and because of the burnt parsnips, and I always will”.

This may or may not have had an immediate calming effect on my mother’s stress levels, but what it did do was focus my father’s thoughts and feelings on what he knew deep inside was going to maintain his love for her.

When I see my wife in the mornings it would be perfectly possible to focus on her imperfections, to see a little roll of fat here or a slightly grumpy face there, to remember the unwelcome thing she did yesterday, how her make-up remains splashed in the sink that I then clean…but I can also choose to look past those things to the deeply loving person, the one who has chosen to love me, who I have seen so much of before. It is almost as though this is the best purpose of our memories – and yet we choose to ignore it in favour of justifying some inner pessimism. Worse, we believe we have no control over this.

There are of course occasions on which this practice will fail – in trying to repair a failing marriage you may find the other partner has gone too far down the road to rejection for any amount of loving intent to win her/him back. If the other party has a level of neurosis or set of beliefs that prevent them from hearing and seeing your love – and this is most often attached to their lack of ability to love themselves as whole people – then you may have to accept the inevitable and part – for your own protection or to follow their determined course.
I sincerely believe that in my own case I failed to learn the lesson long enough and practice it early enough to assist my ex-wife from her own path of denial and self-hate. Having found the truth about second loves being not only possible but often better honed than was previously possible, I do not intend to make that mistake again.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

US friends: Is the Republican party racist?

We Brit liberals always jokedBushHaiti
about Dubya… 

He could hardly string a sentence together, his post-alcoholic faith in Jeezus and his dodgy approach to vacationing as a presidential mainstream occupation were hard to take – but one thing about him that many never comment on, was that…
he was NOT racist.

The evidence is there if you care to look but the reason I raise this is not to comment on Bush, but to illustrate the contrast with the current group of senators/presidential wannabes and their masters, media cheerleaders and moneymen in the corporations of America. There is no debate.

In The first election, a give away of a small size, but a significant one, by John McCain, (otherwise not so stupid), when he said, “That one”.
The Birther arguments – pursued by many as well as Donald Strumpet
The naming and attacks on Obamacare
The comments on Michelle Obama
The commentary on his “Sullen children”
The opposition to enacted bills 3 times more successful than their Republican counterparts
Their insistence on his responsibility for wrongs done by predecessors
Their treatment of his gamble on taking out Bin Laden
Their constant media attacks on anything he says, does, thinks, writes or breathes…
Racism – that is at the core of what powerful Republican voices now appear to believe – and they are encouraging their thick, fat, red state supporters to become more like the KKK with every stupid racist move they make.
The saddest part of this is that Republicans have an honourable history of support from Black people, with good reason, and this support was deserved right up until the Tea Party infected the thinking of the right…


Just compare the 60s reality

To this present day one….

As long as black people didn’t start demanding power as well as a lack of leg shackles, the Average Joe White man could hide a racist core set of fears away (along with fears of their own sexuality emerging as rampant homophobia) but once “they” (democracy) put a black man in the most powerful position in the US, it all came out to play.

So if you are a non-racist Republican voter, someone at ease with equal rights for all, pining for the days when yours was the party that believed in financial responsibility and true emancipation – I suggest you change your voting habit, because the reality of what Republicans in power means has changed for the worse, and you have been rejected by your GOP.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Just like Justin Bieber – I am but dust and ashes

No, I will not use his picture justin-bieber-look-alike
to get traffic.*

This Bieber guy gets so much fandom and publicity that he makes a great example of why “fame”, if anything, makes you more lightweight dust and ashes than its opposite…

I have heard that his twitter “mentions feed”, mostly consisting of, “I lUV U PLS FOLLO ME!”, flows past on his phone at a completely unreadable 50 miles an hour…
From this he might deduce that he is in some way one of the most important people on the planet. Many others are in this same fame club, and many, nay, MOST younger people in the west aspire to join that club, believing that this is not only the best measure of success but also a source of some version of happiness.
It’s not. It’s an inverse Groucho Marx club – in that it should reject all those who want to be a member.

Worse than that it is a club that cements your inability to be real in public in such a way that older celebrities have discovered is actually pretty damn horrible. I personally hate it when waiters ask,”How is your meal?”, even once, while I’m eating out – but having random strangers interrupt your juice laden private space to prod your pictorial company with a selfie stick…That is so very shudder -worthy.

If you manage to gain an overview of the world of humanity in all its ghastly glory, you can see that it mostly consists of groups of people whose fun and sense of purpose come from remarkably few other people with whom they are in contact. There are millions of these, separate, groups. Of the billions of people alive on the planet fewer than 0.0000001% will ever have any clue who you are, or were – and Bieber-like fame ironically proves this.

People always say they “Want to leave their mark on the world”, all well and good if that ambition is about societal change for the better…though most learn the hard way that the laws of unintended consequences and one’s own ego make for almost universal failure in this field.
Is your ambition to die with millions grieving, not because you have died, but because a fictional persona that you have seen created about you, and distorted entirely beyond your control, is gone?
If it is then you may not be as disappointed with fame as real people who become famous are.
If the flashing of cameras and people bellowing for signatures when they don’t recognise your name will keep you thrilled, then fame maybe IS for you.
But once your tiny sojourn on this world is over, you will still be the same unknown dust and ashes as the peasant in the Gambia – who may have had a happier life for just being loved by their family,
for who they really were.


*This look-a-like wants fame, even if its via adopting the persona of some fiction more shallow than they are…



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Two imagined parallel interviews: Al Qaeda & Charlie Hebdo

StephaneRIP Stéphane Charbonnier – 1967 – 2015
Long live freedom of speech

Following the latest murderous assault upon Western publishers of cartoons …that appear to be beyond controversial to some elements of the international fraternity of humankind…Bob Bracket, special correspondent, tried to tease out the logic behind both side’s actions:

Firstly, with a spokesperson from the magazine, Charlie Hebdo:

BB: “Let me express my sympathy at the tragic loss of life at your offices, can I begin by asking, why do you think this happened?”

CH: “Well, as you know, we are in the business of satirising all organisations and powerful bodies that we feel say ridiculous things – and do irrational things – this is our mission as a satirical but serious paper.”

BB: “The foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, publicly criticised your magazine’s actions after the ‘Sharia Hebdo‘ edition, asking: ‘Is it really sensible or intelligent to pour fuel on the fire?’ – are these deaths really worth carrying on this mission against Islamic symbols and so on?”

CH: “The whole point of freedom of speech and the laws, which we have to protect, is that they must include the freedom to offend. Short of shouting “FIRE” in a  crowded theatre, we believe anyone should be free to say whatever they like in any public forum”

BB: “I presume you mean, within the law, which if course includes slander and libel.”

CH: “Yes, you will remember we were sued for “Defamation”,  two French Muslim organisations, the Great Mosque of Paris and the Union of Islamic Organisations of France, took a lawsuit against us for “public insults against a group of people because they belong to a religion”. But the courts found that we were attacking ideas, not those people and so we were well within the law”

BB: “That was in 2007 and I believe the court ruled that freedom of speech was not without its limitations?”.

CH: “True – The judges said in finding us not guilty of libel/defamation: Freedom of expression may be restricted if “it is exercised in a manner which is gratuitously offensive to others without contributing in any way to a public debate which may encourage the progress of humankind”. I ask you, what is gratuitously offensive in this world and what helps humankind progress… Murdering people who beat your false logic in court, or defending free speech?”

BB: “Thank you, I turn now to Mr Ali Akhbar (name changed to protect the guilty) and put to you that last point:
Surely murdering people who attack your ideas in words is against all the guidance of your holy prophet?”

AA: “Alu-ah Akhbar!”

BB: “Sorry, Mr Aluaha Akhbar…”

AA: “NO, GOD is the greatest, I am Ali”

BB: “Well Ali certainly was the greatest in my lifetime but back to the point:
Murdering people. It’s not good is it?”

AA: “Those who insult the prophet must be put to death, it says so in our holy law and we are but the messengers of Allah doing his holy work”

BB: “Well, we could go into great debates about the essential meanings of the Qu’ran, including the overriding instruction to be merciful that many states with the largest populations of Muslims find to be a truth, but…”


BB: “Yes – you made that point already, my question is:- How does killing some French cartoonists increase the chances of the successful spread of your religion across the world, when it is clear that killing only brings about more killing?”.

AA: “We have seen laid out, God’s law, and people can now see that those who disobey this law will suffer the ultimate punishment, Allah Akhbar!”

BB:”This punishment of death seems to have been going on massively, over many centuries, in many forms, including those who hold only slightly different beliefs to your own – which are what exactly, Wahabist?”

AA: “We Are Sunni – the one true form of Islam, The Shia were founded by squabbling warlords who wished to pervert the message of Allah”

BB: “Did your father abuse you as a child? I ask because your logic is so clearly biased towards revenging imaginary wrongs and killing people that one wonders if…”

– interview suddenly ends there ~ Editor

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Ched Evans affair illustrates our rape law’s idiocy.

ched evansNo one has had a rational come back in my campaign to eliminate the law of rape…
plenty of casual irate dismissals, ironically illustrating my point rather well, but no rational argument against it.

Ched Evans is a convicted rapist – the circumstances of his offence make it very clear to me that there is a massive educational job at hand, teaching young men what is abuse and what is not, and why forms of abuse require graded punishment to fit the crime. His encouraged attempts to move smoothly back into his highly paid, high profile, role are achieving the opposite of this necessary education.

He (among many others) clearly fails to understand the meaning of “consent” Both his supporters and critics fail to understand the reason the law fails all of us and encourages bad misogynistic attitudes.
As it stands, the law of rape is irrational and an emotive trigger that prevents rational discussion on the better, more 21st century, approach to what the law should be.

In my campaigns to change this law to favour justice for victims over defence counsel odds of success, few have realised that rape is a law about damaging (male) property – akin to theft, and in other cultures it is more explicitly the “theft of the father’s honour”.

The key points:

Rape, in law, has to be committed with a penis. (a broken bottle, fist or dildo of any sort cannot form part of the crime of rape)
Rape is a part of the burglary law. (In that entering a property with intent to rape is as much burglary as entering with intent to steal)

This ancient property based law of rape has become such a farce that it has the net effect of further shaming, humiliating and destroying any victim, who, as the only witness in most cases, is now subject to self-defending attackers being allowed to destroy their fragile integrity in a court room.
Is it at all surprising that 90% of victims would never consider pressing charges?
The fairly recent introduction of equality of men as potential rape victims has further muddied the waters rather than created a better law. The weapon of domination having to be a penis is a matter still not addressed. It is ridiculous that an anal assault with a bottle is not classifiable as a similarly heavy duty attack when you take on board the effect upon a victim.
But of course the criminal justice system is concerned with crimes against the state, what happens to the victim has very little place in deciding the nature of the law.

Ched Evans “fans” have managed to terrorise the victim in his case, forcing her to move and change her name to avoid their illegal – but most likely unprosecutable – harassment of her. The lad/gang culture is part of the problem here but it lies much deeper in cultural misogyny as well.

His compulsory rehabilitation (he is out under licence) should include repeated abject apologies for his crime, and working with women and other young men to radically alter their attitudes to women – which will take at least 5 more years. This should continue until everyone who saw themselves as a fan is humbled into understanding what the horror of sexual assault means.

When we have a law that does not include “rape”, but instead has “sexual assault with exacerbating factors”: – degrees of degradation, abuse and violence being the triggers that extend a jail sentence, then perhaps we can begin to get some successful prosecutions. We might also see a welcome reduction in the stigma victims suffer, and better education programmes. The current lack of emotional intelligence that dominates chauvinistic culture inevitably scuppers justice when the concept of rape is on the table.

Ched Evans was found guilty – of a law that shows the guilt of a patriarchal society unable to conceive of what a victim of assault suffers.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Why Cricket?

lords batsThe worldwide trending #Putoutyourbats – which, as I write, is still gaining 5 posts a second in my twitter feed – makes me cry.

Why, cricket? why are so many grown men and women in the UK and far afield flooding out their emotions as if the death of a cricketer, who most barely knew of, is a major bereavement?

I was always told, “Never try to explain cricket to the unbeliever”.  Well, that was mainly referring to the rules, which of course remain unexplainable to all but players, but I shall endeavour to explain why this sporting death is somehow different from others.

“What do they know of cricket who only cricket know?”

CLR James was quoted by John Arlott in answer to those who recognised his worldly wisdom as well as his encyclopaedic cricketing knowledge, and he eloquently summed up why he loved the game. My view is based on my “nearly fatal” experience.

I took up cricket for the 2nd time at the age of 25 – bowling for St James, the local Sunday league and midweek evening matches in Cardiff. The camaraderie was better than any I felt when playing football and there was that marvellous first game when I took 3 wickets and an amazing catch to earn my permanent  place in the side. We never wanted to take it too seriously and were often deliberately losing a couple of games to avoid being promoted to the first division where it was treated as a matter of life and death.

It shouldn’t be a matter of life and death, no sport should, but motor sports, mountaineering, and several others have seen more deaths than cricket, which has had a few at all levels. In one game we had a member of the opposition who loudly made loud sexist comments at a woman jogging around the boundary edge, he was also a loud and arrogant mouth on the field as we batted.
It came his turn to bat and I got plenty of, but didn’t need any, advice from my team-mates to “Let him have your fastest”.

As it happened I found a great spot just short of a length with real zip, and, our midweek pitches being of the poor quality they were, this ball happened to rear up and smack the batsman right under the sternum. He staggered backwards and fell onto his stumps, “HOWZAT!” the whole team shouted with glee…

As it turned out he was helped off the field with only a bruise for his trouble, and I felt no guilt whatsoever, indeed I happily accepted the massive kudos I got from my friends for silencing him. However, had he ducked, and turned his eyes away from that ball, he could, just as easily and freakishly as Philip Hughes, have caught a fatal blow. How would I be feeling now, had that happened those 30 years ago?

Perhaps the love of the game that unites players and fans alike is the knowledge that serious competition in cricket is a matter of importance, but that we are all respectful of this tribal interaction as a way of bonding whilst encouraging individual excellence. The pleasure of taking the final wicket to win a game is immense but the main pleasure was merely taking the field – the cliché of the green expanse and the sound of willow on leather is further enhanced when you have heard the thunder of the paceman coming up behind you as you prepare to back up the facing batsman – (or are the umpire). The thrill of out-thinking an opponent so he makes a wrong move to fall into your trap is immense… but the longer games gave me a sense of both tranquillity and excitement that cannot be matched in any other sport.

I feel for Sean Abbot – and all those who have put out their bats, literally or metaphorically, as we have what is almost a Princess Diana moment, not in this case for a mass celebrated individual – but for what that individual represented. This is what we see in this great fellowship of the game. #putoutyourbats.



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Prostate cancer and sex – not a joking matter

The latest news headlines are a lazy male sub-editor’s dream :sex headline


prostate cancer story

Oddly, none of the news I can Google includes links to the, so called, serious study.

The nuts and bolts of it seem to suggest that virgins have double the average risk, while sleeping with lots of women – but not men, which also increases the risk – significantly reduces the risk of getting the disease.

All the many newspaper articles then go on to say what appears to be the drift of the press release – that the theory is that this is about increased number of ejaculations…
immediately I spot the (most obvious) flaw in this research.

This was a survey conducted via interview. With men.
It is true that in interviews you can show that 70% of men masturbate and 30% lie.  i.e. all men masturbate, including virgins. (the figure for women is apparently more like 52% – 48% ), and seeing as masturbation is statistically more likely to end in ejaculation, then that theory is blown straight out of the water since virgins might well have a better chance of survival than macho women chasing dickheads with potency problems…

What would be interesting would be if this research was done more thoroughly and compared with the already established facts about promiscuity and disease. is an increased number of partners somehow creating a better immunity through cellular transfer – such as happens in reverse for women with their risk of cervical cancer going up dependent on the number of women their partner has had sex with…
Similarly, having multiple partners works out badly for chlamydia, HIV, herpes, gonorrhoea, syphilis, – all of which favour virginity very much more strongly over promiscuity than this tabloid headlined study suggests the opposite…

My only advice for fellow men over 55 is:
be happy with a wife, or on your own, but… – if you are having any difficulty peeing – go to the doctor and get the finger up the bum check… no need to die for having missed out on this simple pleasure…




Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The dilution “joke” is worse than Jim Davidson: boring

dawkinsHow many jokes on Twitter do I see about Homeopathy?
– maybe a hundred a month?
There are some powerful leaders in this field: Tim Minchin, Dara O’Briain, virtually every stand up comic ever…
and what do these jokes consist of? – “it’s so weak it can’t possibly work”

Well that applies to the joke – much more than the treatment.
Maybe one or two of these people have bothered to dig deeper into how succussion makes for a mysterious, but measurable, “Quantum effect” (for want of a better description) but in the main, no… they are basing their cheap jibes on what they have read other hostile reductionists say… or Tim Minchin’s Storm (which is fun)
and have comfortably agreed with the dogma on the basis of the ever dangerous phenomenon of  the obedience to authority, or conformity tendency 

I have my own critique of the large number of “alternate” therapists and their jumping unquestioningly to conclusions based on bogus papers and results – (the crystal healing astrologists leave me cold), – just as I have a similar critique of “Accepted medicine” doing the same thing.

Sometimes, the falacious arguments that Minchin and others use are the same ones they attack, when in the mood –
The idea that medicine that has been found to work is “scientifically proven to work” – that is a dangerous statement, Mr Minchin – seeing as there is a very long list of “scientifically proven” treatments that have later been dismissed as wrong, as retrospectively based on bad science, – normally after many people have been killed by or badly affected by such treatments…
Then, of course, there is ECT – (Electro-Convulsive Therapy) still used, (successfully 50% of the time) for extreme depression and yet scientifically unproven, with an unknown rationale, yet extremely dangerous to cognitive function…
No jokes about ECT and western medicine, you masters of comedy?
– why not?
And the placebo issue, not even wondered about as amazing?
No mention of how revealed placebo knee cartilage surgery – where the cut is made under anaesthetic but no real surgery undertaken -sometimes works. ?

We (me included) joke about Dawkins’ arrogance on Twitter – yet not his deliberate obfuscation and denial of genuinely scientific testing that doesn’t suit his, and the wider conformist, mechanistic, reductionist worldview.
He lied repeatedly about Rupert Sheldrake‘s excellent and independently repeated experiments showing, “Dogs can know when their masters are on their way home”, because it didn’t suit his reductionist dogma.
And Sheldrake’s Ted talk was removed for a long while because it frightened way too many scientists who hate to be challenged where it matters (the possible loss of their funding sourced from other mechanistic fundamentalists).

Rupert dares to point out how many scientific “facts” are no such thing – So before you decide to “joke” about homeopathy (whose worst exponents are indeed worthy of ridicule) try and see which of these common dogmas you wrongly accept as given:-

1. Everything is essentially mechanical. Dogs, for example, are complex mechanisms, rather than living organisms with goals of their own. Even people are machines, ‘lumbering robots’, in Richard Dawkins’s vivid phrase, with brains that are like genetically programmed computers.

2. All matter is unconscious. It has no inner life or subjectivity or point of view. Even human consciousness is an illusion produced by the material activities of brains.

3. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same (with the exception of the Big Bang, when all the matter and energy of the universe suddenly appeared),

4. The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at the beginning, and they will stay the same for ever.

5. Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction.

6. All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic material, DNA, and in other material structures.

7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains. When you look at a tree, the image of the tree you are seeing is not ‘out there’, where it seems to be, but inside your brain.

8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death.

9. Unexplained phenomena like telepathy are illusory.

10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.

To understand exactly how these are demonstrably false – you would need to read The Science Delusion (available at some good bookshops) – or watch the Ted Talk above, or this longer talk by genuinely exploratory scientist, Rupert Sheldrake, who talks about the new science we need, free from dogma…

Come on scientists! – your comments are welcomed.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment