h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

That young man who lost himself in Iraq. He came back whole bodied, but the government will not help him in his illness, which is all inside. Makes me wanna go down to the local recruitment office with a flame thrower.

aspergers, autism, schizophrenia, lithium depacote, genius, beauty, mathematics
game theory

penury, plethora, prerogative pangloss

thanks for that!

Erm, but this is just a journal entry, doesn't this thing have curtains? Oh well, it's not a diary, it's just a place for jotting stuff down. Now I know what Indie was talking about lo those many posts ago.
russ look, it's Haley's comet!

I am so very confused....Maybe i should drink to clear the veil of confuddleness

It P*SSES me off what the big guy always seems to want to walk away from his reasponsibility - 20 years after Bopal & Union Carbide are still avoiding their obligations as well...

Gordon,
I saw a television program
interviews with young men, who couldn't get aid now they're back home, for one
hedging mother-fooking reason or another;

in harm's way and now never out of it...
botherin about how exactly damaged they are, and in what way. I don't know that there's more greed and indifference to human suffering now than there ever was before,
but it is SYSTEMATIZED now.

The way the world works these days it may just end up like the monster that devours everything leaving only itself, and so it eats itself...

H. G. Wells commented several times on how, while he agreed with Darwinism, he certainly thought that man may have been the last 'building block' in evolution - how man is no longer necessarily going to advance and progress and how we may be putting measures in place (accidentally) which will see us unable to evolve to meet the demands of a society we have created.

I am sure I am as 'advanced' and 'developed' as the next man, perhaps moreso (look at that ape we have as leader of the world) but I struggle to see an aspect of our current life which is easy to accept, easy to agree with, easy to adhere to.

I think Humans are in a regressional state and until we remove these so-called 'leaders' and replace them with people who do not care about money and power and threats and imposing fear and barbaric policies and saying-one-thing-and-doing-another and removing-colin-powell-and-replacing-him-with-condoleeza-rice (well, they're both black aren't they) and having a country whose motto is 'if you aint with us your against us' we shall live unhappy and die unhappy.

It totally appalls me with the new band-aid single for example. I mean, starvation 20 years on? What was all the fuss in '84 about then? We clearly did f**k all in terms of helping because they are where they were twenty years later. Why don't 'patrons' like Bono put their hand in their exceptionally large pocket and produce a few filthy dollar bills (the culprit in the first place) and start actually making a difference?

At the minute it seems to me that people like Bono seem to carry the message 'YOU make a difference' when it should be the people who get rich off us who should.

A politician can charge the country for his cars, his houses, his penthouses, his country retreats, his personal nuclear bunker and his mistresses but he cannot put his hand into the state to find money for a man who went to war to defend the double-edged principles?!

It makes me sick. It sounds childish to say (but no more childish than a resusal of aid) but I honestly, seriously genuinely hope that all leaders of the world die in a fire and they are replaced by people who are honest, serious and genuine.

Thank you.

BLAST I have to go to lunch and want to respond to this as well just got lost on Logicus' infinitely interesting picture pages H2G2

I had been doing so well this morning and now I want to talk on here;
steady on; I HATE scheduled lives.. grrrrrrrrrwwwwwwwwwwoooooowwwwwl.

Pardon, be back soon. Fecking little treadmill, scoff scoff, talk to meself, stomp feet, eat Chinese, get back here soon as I can.

But then we'd just have another set of 'leaders of the world', wouldn't we? I just wonder how you get to the very top without being fiercely ambitious, whatever system is used, although I'll concede most democracies are seriously flawed. The trouble is, as long as 'ordinary people' vote, and cleverer or more determined people know how to persuade them, we will always have that type of person in power, with the temptation to serve those who really got them there. Anyway, wasn't this a private note-book? Sorry.

Back from lunch:
Yes, as long as there "has to be" a "leader" (I'm putting these phrases in quotes because they are not absolute ideas even though we've been taught they are)
it will be an alpha sort; it takes dogged determination and that fierce ambition you spoke of Roy.
I wonder if any of you have read "The Chalice and the Blade"; I read it so long ago it's a dim memory; but it addressed how this paradigm we have goin 'ere has reached it's logical conclusion.
It is a dog-eat-dog paradigm; it is about power over others. the funny thing is, if one has no power over oneself, no self-control, then the excercise of getting and keeping power over others is a constant losing battle fueled by fear and greed. So, fear and greed have to be inculcated in the general populace and dressed up to look like patriotism, compassion etc. "1984" indeed with its double speak which must infiltrate everything from soup to nuts. Even religion and sex and motherhood and fer God's sake probably even Dirt must be seen other than as they really are.
Yes, Gordon, if this snake crawls along this way it will ultimately eat itself; but the airth may be strong enough (look at me doubting it) to withstand the, erm, convulsions as humanity gets real.

Nearly time for tea: But does that necessarily mean that the inculcation is calculated, conspiratorial? Or just that it's inevitable in some kind of Darwinian way - like a kind of convergent evolution to fit the circumstances. (I know evolution isn't inevitable in the sense of being directed, but hopefully you follow).

I haven't read 'The Chalice and the Blade', so maybe it answers that question, but after all, the systems we have now have developed over generations, hundreds of them if we accept a kind of continuity exists through historic and geographic distance. Hard to believe that there is some kind of elite calculatedly treading down the downtrodden masses over all that time. I'm guessing it exists because it more or less works, and is as accidental as any other evolved organism.

Phew, some thinking going on today. I need a lie-down.

http://www.partnershipway.org/html/subpages/previews/chalicepreview3.htm

this is just so you can see what it's about. Erm, don't suppose you have time to read back as far as the dawn of civilisation. This is why I need a patrone!!!

Well, you might have already thought about people trying to "participate in evolution". Gak. For one thing, this idea that humanity progresses up or further or summat; and that the smartest or best of breed (blue ribbon, anyone) leads the civilization through evolution to achieve the best for the most is patently indefensible. I think. Shite, I'm out of my depth here but only because I'm at work; I just get thinkin about something good and the dratted phone rings.
Conspiracy? Try instead the idea that never before have so many people been plugged into an over riding, what's that thingy, hegemony.
I mean it's like fibre optics. Yeah fibres are great because you can link up alot more people and push alot more information through these tiny threads. That's great as long as it works. But when it breaks, that just means aloooooooot more people are connected to a now disfunctioning grid.
There may not be a conspiracy but we are more interdependant in ways that our ancestors would have thought were Crippling. So it takes less actual people to harm so much more. eh, well. Hope that tea is good Roy. Darjeeling?ow my head

Yes, 'best of breed' only works when there's a constriction, a mass extinction event, and then the 'best' is not necessarily what might be expected. It might be smaller and needing less food for example, or sightless and living underground... anyway, I agree that it's unlikely it can be 'led' in that way, and if it could, it's certainly not defensible if it leads in species terms, to an artificial reduction of the gene pool. Actually, I think it just can't happen, but it's a plausable excuse for greed and oppression by a few. So. Food now please.

my thoughts, or gut impressions.
"leader of the world"
Nope who ever RedmonT had in mind when making this point who ever they might be they are only is a leader to those who want to be led.


.Does the begger on the street corner on Bopal even know who is the head of india ,let alone vote for them.

or the worker in the paddi feilds of china, the
aborigani in the heart of australia, no like many others the earth, and the elements are
the tings that compell how they live and die.

there are so many ,places in the world that need food and skills more than money is why 20 years on ,people are still starving,perhaps better if the money was printed on rice paper

would be far better if an alternative to money was adophted in the western world because lets face it, a vast majority of the world dont use money, money is a tool of
fools, unlike wheat or salt
(very early gold like substence)

the dark ages had a lot of good points, thousands of little leaders, money then for
those that have become polititions and the like of.
lets have another think, naw make it a drink

I would love to live in a naive, dream world in which I felt that I was the governor of my own destiny, and that what i thought really mattered to the world, and that I could make decisions for myself and that I could pretty much do what I want. However, there is a man called George W. Bush (he hates the jnr you know) who, whether we like it or not is the leader of the world. Believe me, in saying this, it doesn't mean I like the fact or embrace it in any way, the simple fact is if you are not with Bush then you are against Bush and being against America is the worst position any country can find theirselves in.

Surely we must all agree on this point? I didn't want to go to war, I am british, the british went to war. What kind of democracy is that?

You may say that Bush is my leader only if I want to be led. How absurd?! If I am an Anarchist that doesn't mean I live in a state of Anarchy. Bush/Blair are our leaders whether we want them to be or not. I'll prove it:

"I don't want to be led by Bush or Blair...."

Nope, still led by Bush or Blair. Worth a try though.

You may say a poor man on the street doesn't know the president of India and doesn't vote for him. I agree. However, he is still led by the president of India whether he wants to be or not.

Imagine being Russian under Stalin. Do you really think a Russian could turn round and refuse to be led by him? He WAS led by him whether he wanted or not.

Do you think the Jews of Nazi germany wanted to be led by Hitler? I don't, and yet, they certainly WERE led by him: he saw the execution of six million of them.

In an ideal world what I wanted would go, but, alas, it doesn't work like that. You must get real. The World is Governed by George Bush ultimately. If he wants something then he will get it. Who will fight him? Who will challenge him? Who CAN challenge him? Nobody, absolutely nobody.

If I deny being led by the leader of our country, then I deny the dire state of life and if I deny that, how can I possibly try and fix that problem? GETTING REAL is surely the first step.

WHAT BUSH/AMERICA SAYS GOES.

Oooo Redmont, it's a little early for me to be getting into this kind of conversation. But, I'll give it a try, tempted as I am by your sincerity.
Of course we all participate in the larger patterns of history; I don't think anyone on this thread was denying that. But freedom from and redress of tyranny must begin in the individual consciousness; I suspect this is what you mean by "getting real".
I don't think it is a denial of reality to say that "George Bush does not govern me". I participate in the same world destiny he does, and of course I don't deny the fact that for some bizarre reason he has a great deal of influence at this time. But believe me my dear, there are some invisible tatters of my personal reality which he DOES NOT govern. An example far more noble and intense is Nelson Mandela. When he was in prison, still he evidently kept some part of himself free; he was not crushed, he was not used up, his understanding of freedom was not snuffed out.
WHAT BUSH SAYS goes for some time; we are all in a paroxysm of his saying and going; but he does not rule all my inner being, else ....
(oops, gotta go on break due to my strictly regimented lifestyle, which I rebel against on some very very fine, yet not useless, level).
Good morning RedmonT et al!
Lynda
"The only Bush I trust is my own"
saying nicked from a bumper sticker

Dear Lynda I'm shocked!
I would say that this conversation could go very deep - I would refer you to the words of the great czech scientist and poet - Miroslav Holub "Only the virus remained above it all". Puts us all in perspective.

Hey Straymate,
BTW I got reaaaallly lost on some threads you posted..for which I thank you.....
ah yes the mighty virus. I LOVE the microscopic beasties on whom we all depend; we all depend on these tiny rhinoceroses and nematodes and microorganisms that if they ever change their mind it'll be alot sadder than a cry in your beer mah gurl done me wrooong soong. Yes. G.W. doesn't control NATURE. He is pilferring from her and pumching her full of holes and smearin oil on Her, but he is not controlling Her!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!