| 'BULL-SHIT' _______________ Note: It is traditional to use 'he', 'his', or a male form to represent humans. I am not a traditionalist. His or her is correct. However, for simplicity's sake, I will stick to the traditional; please bear with me. Please, as they say, excuse the french. The 'french' is lower-case; I have no problem with the French as a people; but my personal, positive, experiences are not part of this essay. I just said, 'as a people'. People are a product of the group amongst which they live. They are individuals as they were when conceived and born as such. Their (individual) proclivities are such that they wish to be themselves and (perhaps) live with others as or in a group. Notions of 'French', or 'English' or 'American' and so forth (with capital letters attached), are usually far from people's minds when they are in the business of personal survival. The notion of having capital letters attached because of their place of birth, requires people (if they so wish) to become part of what we call a 'nation'. Like me, many people may not choose to be part of a 'nation'. Now a 'nation' is a long way from an individual. It is therefore appended with a capital, viz. 'Nation'. So now, an individual, born in a certain country (any country) and who aspires to this notion, becomes a 'Frenchman' or an 'Englishman' or whatever. Given that there is agreement that a person's individualism is now to be incorporated (in my view, eroded) into a mass of individuals (i.e. a group), they then should/must bide by the notions of the group for their survival. Rules or 'laws' are set up to establish this. People lose their individuality, as such, and become part of a larger organisation upon whom they then are coerced in some way to rely on the Nation for their survival. In other words, they become part of a Nation. Man is a strange animal. If he were part of the 'ordinary' earth of animals, plants and so forth, he would be perfectly happy, chugging along and making the best of things. However, this, apparently was not to be so. Whatever a 'designer' of the universe you might choose (if any), made it sure that Man was to be different. The difference is called by various names, e.g. 'reasonable' and so forth (or he has 'will'). Man is a 'reasonable' animal, we are told (by whom?). The truth that we cannot define 'reasonable', except in individual wordage, causes the chaos within our ranks either as individuals or groups because the meaning is different for both individuals and groups. Individuals are really not part of this essay. Individuals will always be so. Within a group they may be tolerated but not often accepted since they are classed as 'outsiders' and not part of the collective (group). It is their independence from the group that gives the group itself a viability, as is my belief. The independent person can have truths about a group that the group does not have about itself, otherwise it would not be a group with a group mentality. I did a study of groups many years ago in the 1970's for my leading to a 'teaching degree'. That was 'bull-shit'. Every one of us teaches, every day. We do not need bits of paper (which is what it amounts to) to prove this, only the authority of our peers. Groups, have, as they say, a dynamic. With individualism gone to three or four winds, the group has now an identity (Nation), especially if we give it a name (some type of 'gang', which implies by definition, something negative, I believe). A name signifies importance to a lot of people, especially with a capital letter attached. French, English Katmandouish, American and so on and so on interminably. Groups therefore, need to elect, of have forced upon them, some person (oh, dear!) an individual who claims to be able to lead them in a battle for whatever it is that is flavour of the moment and claim their salvation from the harm of spurious others, who actually pose no threat to their survival as individuals or a group. Hang on, I've just said that the individual is lost in a group situation! What am I saying? An individual. No that's not correct. This person is not an individual. He is the product of the group's idea of an individual. In his own right he is not an individual since he has joined the group. Words are bull-shit. This person, (born of the group), is usually a person who realises, probably with the aiding and abetting of others of like mind, and with the power of personality (in a first instance) to sway the rest of the group to his way of thinking. His way, of course, is with the backing of his cohorts. It is not individual thinking but a sub-group of those upon he is presuming to load his power. His (their power of rhetoric (aka. 'bullshit')) and a probable means of power by way of some sort of force (paid for by the stealing of their money or goods) to fund their behaviours. Thus is born the 'ruler', sometimes called a 'leader', which I believe, is a misnomer. Now there are, of course, many types of 'ruler'. There are those who have the best interests of the group (or Nation, or whatever you want to call it), at heart and those who only have their personal ends to follow. This is not individual. These people are born of the group for one reason or another and they see an opening to use the group for their ends. Without the group, they would be totally lost because they could not survive as a true individual (who can and does survive without much recourse to others). Of the first type of ruler, the one who has the best interests of his group at heart, we know very little. Like individuals, they are chugging along quite nicely, thank you. Of the second type of ruler, we have a plethora. These are the people who use words more than most, who are empty vessels making loud bangs and those with little substance at all. Unfortunately, these people are the most dangerous. They are dangerous because they can apply knowledge of the most negative things to creating a nation of zombies. Since I remain an individual, I cannot understand the mentality of these people. What they see as an end (if they ever do) is beyond my understanding. However, in the meantime, they create havoc for the rest of the world (and the earth) and because there are differences in a nation because of geographical location and therefore the development of different race groups (via evolution), they seem to want to fight each other for possession of something, albeit a piece of ground or whatever. I do not believe that Man, as a whole, is a violent animal, probably the opposite. As individuals we are fine. When we become groups, with the group dynamic or mentality; that's when the trouble seems to start. It's not that groups are negative per se, it's that the group is exploited by a member(s) for his own ends and has the physical strength to carry out his 'will'. Leaders cannot survive on their own, since they are born of a group. Therefore, there are no born leaders, only born followers. If in a group, people see skills in a person that are necessary for their survival , they will elect a someone or two to perhaps guide them. This is democracy. This is the first type of ruler. In the case of a group where a person has not been elected because of his skills but has taken over the group by some means, then this is not democracy. However, the second seems to prevail. The so-called leader (and his cohorts) then manipulate the group and afterwards pretend that this is democracy. The group is given one or two (or none) options whom to elect. The option differences are minimal. They are certainly not connected to the survival of the group (or part of it) if it doesn't suit them. Hence the beginnings of National bull-shit. Bull-shit is lies, pure and simple. More than that, though, it is embellishments of some truths, perhaps, which make the bull-shit sound plausible. Because large populations (Nations) are so far spread, it becomes increasingly more difficult to establish a total rule. If a population is large enough and spread far and wide enough, then sub-groups form within the main core. Sub-groups then establish their own identity and leaders, where necessary. This creates diversions and divisions of the main politic. There may evolve leaders better suited to his job (and possibly, of course, ones who are more benevolent to their clients). However, the 'big boss', does not like this state of affairs. He no longer has total control over his minions (he can't, remember, bear to be alone, otherwise he can't survive, his only method of survival is to have his mates around him. If they perchance dissent, he has them done away with). Thus emerges the notion of using Man's best weapon, fear. Fear is primal; there is little we can do to allay fears except by accumulating data which can lead to a knowledge of truths. Some data and knowledge we cannot have, or have not the wherewithal to understand it. We think that, having seen the devastating effects of a nuclear bomb blast (the worst bomb we can imagine, so far), that we have seen devastation. A nuclear bomb may kill and maim hundreds of thousands of souls. A word of fear can kill or maim millions of people. This is the effect that the un-benevolent leader wants. But nothing is happening enough to produce this fear. So he contrives it, using bull-shit. Events like September the 11th in America (I forgot which year, it's unimportant, apparently) were not the first to get people to rally round the Nation (i.e. Leader). However, this event was bull-shit, par excellence. It was engineered by the America Leader, his cohorts and no-one else. The fact that most of the deaths were needless did not worry the Leader of that country. What's a few deaths of one's own group to the majesty of power? ('I'm not sure of why I want to do this, I'm not very clever, only dangerous to my group and all others'). It had been done before and will be done again (unless we realise it and stop it). Fear of 'terrorist' attack/s then brought the country to its knees, praying for some salvation for their 'sins'. They got it. An attack on an innocent country that had nothing to do with the bull-shit that led to its demise. Then, following closely on the heels of their pre-organised, original terrorist attack on an innocent group of people, they followed through with their terrorist attack on an innocent country (never mind what was going on internally). These same people then invent another scare, that of a disease of which there was no know cure (ha! ha!) and an escalation of bull-shit that further brings the World these people have invented, to its knees fearing the worst. Goodness, if you can't see past these moronic leaders, get some spectacles...buy a pair get a pair free (not the rose-tinted ones). Despite all the killing (which can never be redeemed), the Leader then proclaims victory for his version of democracy (read, totalitarianism). This Nation believes it is the Policeman of the World, bringing liberation, peace and harmony. Bull-shit, yet again. As we all know, policemen are paid by the Leader (from the money they have extracted from the population under penalty of some pretty harsh treatment) to do his bidding. The same with the Armed Forces. 'If I can pay a large enough force, I can rule the World'; that's their motto. 'I think I will call this the Right of Might. That's enough capital letters to give me support.' Beware the Word, it might be the last you hear. Do you want to die from bull-shit? You will probably not die by a bomb but by your fear of it. You will still die from bull-shit. Do not be afraid; that's what those who deem to control you want. Life is a risk from pre-conception. If it weren't a risk, we wouldn't be here now. As I've most often said, fear drives Man. It has, according to the language we use, a negative and positive side. Fear makes us survive but it also makes us vulnerable. It makes us vulnerable because we understand something of it. We can and are, as Shakespeare said: 'Frighted by false fire.' (Hamlet) Every day we take a risk. We never know when we will 'Shuffle off this mortal coil'. (Hamlet) What's the point of worrying (the feeling of fear)? Go about your life as you would, without listening to the World, but listen to the earth, it speaks louder and clearer than the World and has the truths. What we must not do, is to believe what we are told without examining the data. By this, I mean examining as much data as we can get hold of ourselves, not that which is presented to us through media (data merchants) which are owned by the Leader. There is plenty of data available that has more truths than the corporate media. It's our responsibility to ourselves ultimately, then our closest. We've been 'brain-washed' into believing the printed word (and now the visual word). The two are not necessarily complimentary, compatible, nor even go together, if it suits a leader. We should look for proof; that is, we should look for truths, as individuals. This is the scientific method: to try to disprove, not to prove. That way, we get to truths; there's never an Ultimate Truth (of anything else that is Ultimate); that was one of Plato's follies. Do not join groups if you don't feel it correct to. If you do, that's your choice as an individual and you must accept the consequences. Examine all data before you do anything. If you are too lazy, that's your choice also and the consequences are yours. I was born in England. That makes me English, yes? No. I am english, that makes me an individual. None of the following is selfish (that's a 'leader's' word) I am a way and a truth. I fear the earth and will survive because of it, because I am positive. I believe in myself first (and therefore others). I refuse to be made sad by those with whom I don't agree. I refuse to listen to those I believe offer me nothing but sadness. I refuse to believe in the fear made upon me by those who deem to control me. Nationalism breeds war. Flag-wavers and those singing Nationalist songs are sad people, they do not allow a mind of their own. |
| Return to CONTENTS page |