Any consensus as to when it ended though?

"Sexual intercourse began
In nineteen sixty-three."

PHILIP LARKIN.

Discussion about issues brought up the poem that this is from:

Do we have a consensus as to when it ended?
My vote is somewhere between '97 and '01....

"BLAME" entry from "A Dictionary of Green Ideas"

Another extract from one of my favourite books of all time.

From "A Dictionary of Green Ideas" by John Button (1988).

"
Blame
[13c. L. blasphemare, to reproach, blaspheme]

The belief that someone has deliberately and maliciously done something to hurt you or others, and should therefore accept the guilt of that action and (frequently) that they should be punished for it. Many green-thinkers make the distinction between "fault" and RESPONSIBILITY, preferring the latter with its positive and powerful connotations. Some go even further, seeing blame as totally futile and unnecessary: "Every single human being at every moment of the past, if the entire situation is taken into account, has always done the very best he or she could do, and so deserves neither blame nor reproach" (Harvey Jackins, 1983). This approach stresses that we are all responsible for what happens in the world, and that much behaviour - whether it be the atrocities of the Third Reich or a sexual assault on a child - which is commonly seen as "evil" or "criminal", while reprehensible cannot be blamed on any one individual. It is OPPRESSION, not innate "fault", that lead people to inhuman behaviour. At the same time, to deny fault is not to deny responsibility - Adolf Hitler was uniquely responsible for his actions, as is the man who assaults a child, as we all are. Such antisocial behaviour cannot be tolerated, but it is only understanding and the fulfilment of basic needs that will help a person to change, not punishment and revenge. In a green and oppression-free society, however, there must always be the space to make individual mistakes, mistakes which are important lessons and which do not deserve blame: "I have the right to make mistakes" (Anne Dickson, 1982). Blame is the perfect way of not dealing with your own FEELINGS, and in a society where feelings are denied it is hardly surprising that blame is so rampant. Blame frequently results from the PROJECTION of ANGER, FEAR and FRUSTRATION, and the confusion between blame and responsibility is so rife in our society that even the most aware of people often prefer to blame anything and anybody rather than acknowledge their own feelings, their own responsibility, and their own power. The blame can even be couched in apparently RIGHT ON political terms, designed to prove the rightness of the blamer and the inevitable guilt of the blamed. When the denial of responsibility joins force with the denial of feelings, the result is VICTIM-blaming, a pernicious aspect of OPPRESSION particularly apparent in the rising tide of VIOLENCE against women. Thus prostitutes are fined, not their clients; rape survivors are told it was their own fault for being out at night.
"

[Words in capitals refer to other entries]

-----

Don't know how much I agree with it but it deserves a hearing.

Article by Tom Leonard

There is a piece available on-line called



"ON THE MASS BOMBING OF IRAQ AND KUWAIT,COMMONLY KNOWN AS "THE GULF WAR"

with

Leonard's Shorter Catechism

or

"And now would you please welcome St Augustine of Hippo, who's come along this evening to talk about The Concept of the Just Fuel-Air-Explosive Bomb."


It is available here:



http://www.tomleonard.co.uk/other_publications/mass_bombing-catechism.shtml

http://leonarduk.com/tom/other_publications/mass_bombing-catechism.shtml

-----



A quote from it, referring to media coverage surrounding the war, is:



"It is just another twist in the story of anti-Semitism: people tend to forget that both the Arabic and the Jewish peoples are Semitic."


-----

I saw and heard of examples of (Anti-Arab) anti-Semitism in England leading up to and during the so-called "war" of 1991.

e.g. "Never trust an A-rab". etc.


-----

"The Zimbabwe Comparison"

In all the welter of coverage about Iraq it might be helpful to make "the Zimbabwe comparison".
Say it was 1991 and that Mugabe had been in power for some time with US backing. Imagine that he had killed a great many people in his own country, suppressed opposition, then invaded a small neighbour.
Would you not be staggered if the response to this was massive and sustained bombing of Harare and the whole of Zimbabwe by the US and England?
If in response to this the US and England bombed, starved and destroyed Zimbabwe and its people for 12 years killing many people, and leaving its regime intact, then invaded and occupied Zimbabwe for 5 years and refused to leave, stole its natural resources and continued to bomb and attack parts of the country, what would you think?
You would think that the US and England were commiting terrible crimes.
What makes this different from what was done in Iraq?
Nothing at all.
The reason for the assault on Iraq is anti-Semitism.
Saddam Hussein was nothing more than a (not coincidentally Arab) bogeyman for propaganda purposes, and he was used to justify the 17 year and continuing anti-Semitic assault on Iraq.

In the 1990s Clintstone needed someone to bomb after all....

---

Or another comparison would be:
What if China and Japan bombed and destroyed Zimbabwe for 17 years.
Would there not be serious censure from the international community?

Freedom For England!

Citizen Sofa's statement on "World Filosofy Day"!

On UNESCO World Filosofy Day - as a professed filosofer - and I have no idea what one is - I would like people to perhaps consider how differently it was regarded during periods of the past.

It certainly was not just a difficult, remote, technical, irrelevant academic school and university subject!...

It was a often a part of everyday life for many ordinary people!

It was seen as something to help people in general continue to live and deal with the human conidition!

TAKE PLATO NOT POISON!

www.loumarinoff.com

Impossible is nothing.

Franciscanism as a response to the beginnings of capitalism.

This is a "ramble" on the subject of Franciscanism and its role as a reaction against the beginnings of capitalism in the 1300s.

I am constantly evolving, editing and improving the ramble itself as I write this. It is similar to the way that I used to compose essays at university. And it is facilitated by computer technology. Please bear with me and enjoy it!

One reason for the evolution of Franciscanism in Northern Italy and the rest of Western Europe, was that it was a response to the beginnings of mercantile capitalism in the 1300s.

As feudalism evolved towards its inevitable end, the Franciscan emphasis on Christian poverty was part of a reaction against the excesses of what could be seen to be coming to replace it - capitalism and the rule of money!

Hopefully, the anti-capitalist strand in Chrisitianity - and in its various movements including Franciscanism and monasticism in general - can help us gain insights into what we should "do instead" as full blown capitalism also inevitably unravels. Or evolves into something more friendly to humans and our world.

What do I mean by capitalism?

The rule of money and wealth. The belief in constant consumption and cosumerism. The belief in Wage Slavery.
The belief that everything must "make a profit" or perish. The belief that humans must "earn their keep" or perish!
A belief that it is acceptable to run a society according to the principle that individuals should "look after No.1" and take care of themsevles as individuals, having no concern for the collectivity.

These tenets are not moral. Even atheists would not consider these as moral bases for a society!
A blast from the past! A blast of wisdom!

These are the kinds of beliefs and principles that make Cristianity and capitalism clearly very incompatible.

The USA - a very Cristian place - in profession and in reality - rightly gives people their individual freedom and then they can chose to "love their fellow" as they see fit. Or not - as the case may be.

Governments should never and can never enforce religious belief or practice

Neither should a government necessarily enforce a socio-economic system!
And this is why I tend towards some kind of anarchism - as do so many Americans!

(I like the United States of America by the way! The greatest Republic in the world!
And yes you are all stars come what may! And I hope you don't receive too many extra stripes!)

Franciscans in the 1300s renounced money and property completely - if they aren't the same thing.
This was in accordance with the Gospel - as they saw it.
There were disputations as to the extent to which such renunciation should be compromised by the practicalities of life. These disputations are characterized fictitiously in the novel "In  the Name of the Rose" by Umberto Eco.

Our disputations today should not necessarily focus on the total principled renunciation of money and property, and the like. These are not necessarily necessary or feasible!
Indeed people don't discuss such ideas. It is extremely rare to hear such things discussed.
But still capitalism is very much in need of radical reappraisal in so many ways. The Christian anti-capitalist perspective is very much needed in this!

So as our capitalist civilisation necessarily unravels we can take some clues as to what to replace it with from the reaction to it at the place and time where it emerged - medieval Italy,

PAX ET BONUM! (Peace and Good!)

John Gray book.

I am reading "Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia" by John Gray.

Quite interesting.

Interesting first sentence:

"Modern politics is a chapter in the history of religion."
Bit of a generalization.

Another interesting sentence in the middle of the book:

"Deception has been integral at every stage of the Iraq war."

He seems very pessimistic and cynical in the modern sense of the word.

Good Quote!

“All reduction of people to objects, all imposition of labels and patterns to which they must conform, all segregation can lead only to destruction.”

Maureen Duffy, British Poet.

That Good Old Elusive Kenneth Clark Quote

"I believe it is essential to civilisation that a good balance is maintained
between the female and the male principle."

PARAFRASE of

Kenneth Clark in

about Chapter 2 or 3 of the book version of

"Civilisation", 1969.

Maybe this balance is hard to find. The quote is still very great as is the book.

Art History sometimes throws up quotes as useful as any other discipline........

There is no Hell.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment."

Bertrand Russell, Filosofa, Scolar and Saint, in "Why I Am Not A Christian".

Veracity and kindliness are the principles Bertrand says are the basis of his morality in this excellent little book!.......

It is dispiriting and blacly hilarius to note the extent to which eternal pain, torture and hellfire are still preached and promised to some with such serious vigor by even the most loving evangelical Cristians!

Catch up! The place CANNOT exist anyway - no matter what anyone at all has said! ........

Iraq

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Hicks, the great American filosofer, was one of the few to tell the truth about the Gulf "War" of 1991.

Which did actually happen by the way, Monsieur Beaudriyard.

If Jean Baudrillard was a philosopher, then so was Bill Hicks.

Great American Filosofer and Comedian, Bill Hicks, On the Gulf War:

So, first of all – this needs to be said – there never was a war. “How can you say that Bill?” Well… a war is when TWO armies are fighting… …so you see it right there… we can all agree… wasn’t exactly a war. 

I guess the most amazing thing about the war is obviously the disparity of casualties: Iraq – 150 THOUSAND casualties, USA… 79! Ha ha ha!!! Let’s go through those numbers again, ah, they’re a little baffling at first glance; Iraq – 150 thousand, USA… 79, 79! 79? Does that mean that if we had sent over 80 guys, we still would have won that fucking thing?....

People have bugged me in the States, people said: “Hey, the war made us feel better about ourselves” “Really?” Who are these people with such low self-esteem, …they need a war to feel better about themselves? I saw them on the news waving their flags. Can I recommend that instead of a war to feel better about yourselves, perhaps… …sit-ups, maybe a fruit-cup, six to eight glasses of water a day. I’m not telling you how to live, I’m just recommending a perhaps better way to feel better about yourself. And we can avoid the conflagration, ha, ha, ha… Merely a suggestion. Take a tip?

BILL HICKS in "RELENTLESS"(1992).

The 20-year long assault on Iraq - principally by the USA and the UK - was an anti-Semitic genocide.
A genocide that the cultures of the USA and the UK have barely got close to facing up to and recognizing.

Empire....