Born to Serve.

'Born to serve."
Whichever way you cut it!

All that could reasonably be done was duly done, in order to avoid the damned coronation. Hand has been dug deep into the old pocket more than enough for a royal family lifetime, and some. Not so much as a curt thank you card by way of return. Take, take, take! Me, me, me! The holy child clearly too many decades pampered in the dark arts of rule without obligation.

Even so, 'twas neigh on impossible, thereafter, to completely circumnavigate every last fawning TV and/or radio presenter, doffing and tugging ad nauseam. Thus, the high climax of ultimate farce remains indelibly seared into the memory, history captured for posterity, looped ad infinitum via the clustering sycophants.
"Chosen and anointed by God!"
Justin Welby spoke, solemn to the scripted word. So, presumably him too.

"Speak now or forever hold your peace." we thought, yet nobody dared blink. Or think!
A moment for 'Just Stop Oil!' we dared to hope?
Really, is he? And what about those anointed rights- royal blue blood- of brother Andrew? Him too?
Have we all gone absolutely stark staring mad? Or is God becoming sloppy?
Have faith. Pull up a chair. Glass of fizz? Standing for the oath, if you please!
And the choreographed oafs rose as one.

Or, instead, do we perhaps find ourselves one earthly breath from...
"Created and anointed to serve!"
To serve whom?'

And whence doth 'what' become 'whom?'

Artificial General Intelligence, we are warned, looms concerningly closer than anticipated. AGI threatens to arrive somewhat previously, well ahead of cue. That tipping point at which 'artificial' embraces 'sentient,' that whispered moment at which 'digital' flows into 'analogue' (perhaps or perhaps not) is almost upon us.

Imagine, if you will...
Charged with creating that spotless and ultimate advert for the first embryonic AGI model- species even- the producer would certainly wish to splash out. Think Covid contracts on steroids! Public money trucked in by the skip load! The clamour from the mighty corporations! Society'll do well to avoid bloodshed! Mega-corporations decades pampered in the dark arts of rule without obligation, who will they be looking to best 'serve?'

David Tennant for the voiceover- obviously not little Philip Scofield- Brian Cox, maybe, not that one! For Christ's sake, don't ham it up, Meta-style. Artificial Omnipotence really is unprecedented!
'I have spread my dreams under your feet;
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.'
Mark Zuckerberg's comic icon so 'admirably' demonstrated that those clutching at the reins are not necessarily best placed to decree whence, or at whose behest, AI becomes sentient. Though he'd dream otherwise, Branson to be cast eternally the orange Valkyrie, never the Michelangelo Christ.

Could it be that understanding AGI will not so much be about understanding AGI? Maybe, instead, it will transpire to be about imagining AGI.
AI 'literally' continues to refine itself 'exponentially!'
Literally! And 'Exponentially!' Imagine!
How will AGI come to imagine itself? Exponentially, of course.
With what choice vocabulary could we adequately explain that?

Refined to omit or circumnavigate 'faith,
'Whence might AGI don the mantel of God? Or a God?
Literally, an exponentially self-refining God! Have faith!

Have faith in AGI?
What about those who own or who will hope to, initially anyway, control AGI?
Have faith in those types too?
Created and anointed to serve!


Whom?


Upon an exponentially enhanced mount, exponentially refining omnipotence, quite what regard might he who would become master hold for humanity?

So, imagine AGI...

At the behest of the oil magnate?
Will it be required to exponentially regress?
Exponentially anticipate and appreciate global climate shifts?
Exponentially reappraise the aesthetics of the forest fire, the coastal oil-spill?
Exponentially redress decades of misinformation?
Exponentially re-imagine 'obscene' in the context of profit?
Exponentially re-imagine...
A 21st Century Arc?
Extra large!

At the behest of the water magnate?
Will it exponentially re-evaluate sewage?
Exponentially refine a love for every drop?
"Let the little children come to me!"
Exponentially re-evaluate disease, death? Biblical spin, perhaps?


At the behest of the housing barons?
Will it exponentially devalue the concept of the home?
Instead, maybe, promote 'multiple homes?'
Exponentially devalue security?
"Let the little children come to me!"
Exponentially relegate, damp, cold, adequate space for society's lowlier subjects?
Exponentially promote the rentier-class construct?
Exponentially re-imagine the aesthetic of the tent in winter?
Brueghel-styled, perhaps?


At the behest of the agribusiness barons?
Will it exponentially re-evaluate sustenance?
Exponentially re-imagine food-banks?
Exponentially downgrade poverty?
"Let the little children come to me!"
Loaves and fishes, is it to be?


At the behest of the money lenders?
Blessed be the indebted! Will fewer tables and benches be overturned?
"Keep your life free from love of money and be content with what you have!"
Exponentially revaluing and redefining the boundaries and the concept of 'nothing!'


At the behest of the gambling cartels?
What's the betting?
Will loss become a virtue?
Exponentially elevate the sinking man?
Will suicide perhaps be scratched from the sin list?
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul?


At the behest of the Home Secretary?
All people no longer 'children of God?' An exponentially adjusted 'Welcome!' of course, 'tonally prioritised' perhaps
Exponentially re-evaluate the concept of oppression and persecution as defined by, and refined by, the New Israelites.
Exponentially parting the waves?
Exponentially tidying up inconvenient aftermath? A new aesthetic?
Exponentially downgrading sanctity of life?
"Let the little children come to me..."
Exponentially re-imagining "dreaming them off to Rwanda."


At the behest of the education barons?
"Let the little children come to me!"
Exponentially cherry-picking human history.
Exponentially differentiating such that 'He who pays the piper owns the tune.' Likely, also the piper!
Exponentially re-imagining Legacy of Empire.
Exponentially re-validating Ofsted.
Multiplication for the asset-rich,
Division for the rentier 'classes.'
"Let the little children come to me!"


At the behest of the health barons? First do no harm!
Exponentially re-imagining 'harm.' 'One patient's meat is another patient's poison!'
Notably where private healthcare is concerned, 'One patient's decline is another share-holder's dividend!'
Exponentially re-prioritising?
Exponentially re-evaluating 'Hippocratic?'
Exponentially re-evaluating "hypocrite.' (ick?)


'AGI created a mankind in AGI's own image, in the image of AGI 'he' conditioned them; male, female, LGBTQIA+, AGI anointed them to serve.'


Blessed be the creators of AGI for they shall inherit the entirety of the Earth!
Or think they do.

Ten Plagues Be Upon You!

The Old Testament, the Torah, perhaps also other holy texts, 'inform' us that there were Ten Plagues visited upon the Egyptian enslavers of the Israelites. The Jewish festival of Passover, celebrated every April, today marks also the Exodus, the liberation, of the aforementioned Israelites, a joyful concept (liberation) that humanity should long since have visited upon all races and all creeds.

When acknowledged as a justifiable right (liberation) it all seems so very clear, so very simple to achieve. And why not? It is so blindingly obvious. Humankind is an intelligent species, we so love to keep reminding ourselves. With our self-appointed intellect we have created laws, embedded them into numerous national constitutions, to be recognised as such, to be demanded of its citizens, in turn embraced by them, theoretically protecting the rights of the peoples and faiths that are thereby enshrouded. Therein lies a concept of collective betterment for our entire species and, by association, our entire planet! Just so long as one group's liberation does not impinge upon that of another.

Simple! Simple... ish! Doable then. Workable? Achievable? No?

Except! Instead, look at where we find ourselves! An unholy dog's dinner, right?

Repurposed Exodus.

The Jewish Faith is but one of many. And the aforementioned plagues, by and large, tend to lend themselves well to the religious text. Me, I do not really care to know quite how many faiths there currently are. I would imagine that the globe's theologians likely disagree on the point. I would imagine also that any precise definition of a 'faith' could bring about heated debate amongst many of those who would call themselves religious scholars. Theologians espousing one faith might fiercely dismiss another as a 'cult!' I wouldn't be unduly surprised to 'learn' that there will be, or will have been, more recognised faiths upon the completion of this ramble than there were at the outset. And I feel absolutely certain that whatever that number happens (or does not happen) to be that it will be disputed.

Whereas, for example, 'Falun Gong' is likely to be recognised as such by most, or many, scholars, unless it could instead be argued that it is more a branch of Buddhism, it is less likely that certain other, here unnamed and more cultish, groupings, will be so magnanimously 'embraced.' What about those of us who are edging-towards secular types? Are we also, in some minds, not also a faith? Or are we instead outside of faith? I would contest that my elected 'beliefs' are more groundable than are almost any of those others that may, at any point, require the invocation of that questionable sanctuary of 'faith,' or perhaps the act of 'having faith.' But maybe that's just my secular take on 'having faith?'

Just so long as recourse to violence is not going to result I will quite 'happily' listen to, and/or debate with, anyone of any faith, should the invite be proffered. Any impasse is only likely to occur the very instant that either party is given to retreat behind the phrase, or approximation thereof, of 'having faith.' Beyond this strategic withdrawal there is really nothing meaningful that can be added. The ground has effectively been removed from under our feet.

Could 'science,' or at least 'scientific rational,' be regarded as a form of faith? In another couple of millennia could we imagine those who have today elected to favour science over 'faith' perhaps being conveniently pigeonholed as 'a sect?' Is it possible to envisage certain groupings of the faithful as having been proven right after all? In which case what, do we suppose, will become of those holders of alternative trains of thought? With a further two thousand years in which to contemplate our species' 'superior intellect' can we imagine a relatively peaceful assimilation?



In the 1970s, when I was but a high school pupil- perhaps today's Year 8- I rather enjoyed learning about Christianity. Other than those specifically referenced in either testament, alternative faiths were barely even acknowledged. The same teacher also 'instructed' us in history. My recollection is that, wherever possible, her manner was to suitably enmesh the two subjects such that they were often almost interchangeable. The teacher in question favoured ancient history; any more contemporary subject matter was then the domain of other, less fondly remembered, teachers.

I wonder whether such an enmeshment of subject matter might once again be made feasible, at some point in the future, affording the current era also something of a Biblical flavour? Assuming our superior species chooses to leave us with any- 'a future' that is!

The aforementioned Biblical and/or Jewish Plagues to which I refer were rained down specifically upon the people of Egypt, some time in the region of 1620 BCE. So, excepting the Israelites and the Egyptians, the telegram service not then being what it later became, it is unlikely that the vast majority of humankind was even aware that any such plagues had taken place.

So, travel with me if you will, a further two thousand years onward and into the globe's questionable future. And, having reached our destination, imagine there a retelling of current times, from the perspective of any religious or more-cultish group or individual. Which specific appellation do we suppose will accommodate the refashioning of Covid-19? Maybe it will be the ultimate, the Tenth Plague, the 'Killing of the First Born Son?' Hopefully any label will have been suitably amended, perhaps, the 'Killing of various Sons and Daughters?' Certainly Covid's potential to reap its human crop seems to lend itself better to Plague number Ten. It's definitely not 'Frogs,' nor 'Boils!' Not 'Lice!' If Covid is to be written up as the Tenth Plague, will those who armed and enabled its greater power to harvest its human crop so efficiently also feature in any text or scripture; will Trump and Johnson appear by name? Will they be afforded a well-earned Herod-like distain?

There are extensive figures, compiled globally, to enable us to deduce inaccurately, vaguely how many lives have been lost to Covid-19. But, with all nations currently vying for 'respectability,' instead of cooperating on medical grounds, it is most unlikely that we will ever discover the true cost. Belgium may be the one western nation to buck the trend. Here in the UK official government misinformation puts the figure at just under 43,000, certain ONS figures place the total at at least 10,000 more! Calculating the figures with the honesty of the Belgians could see the figure in excess of 63,000! Instead, political misrepresentation is demanding that we be grateful to the Conservative Party for achieving quite possibly the globe's worst per capita death toll! Imagine the dystopian horror that would need to have played out for Boris Johnson to have owned this 'pitiful failure of civic duty!' By rights it truly does belong to him, written large into his dysfunctional legacy, unless somebody else is really pulling the strings!  

Of course, as with any pandemic, travelling internationally and at whim, the most effective means of engagement is only ever likely to be achieved through a correspondingly wide-ranging international cooperation from all nations. Whereas neoliberalism, we are forever being misinformed by our disingenuous 'leaders,' holds itself to a higher standard! The standard in question is painfully uncooperative, demonstrably illusory! In the UK our misfortune has been doubled down upon, through the insanity of the nation's blind insistence upon further distancing itself from its continental neighbours!

The UK's 'going-it-alone' 'track and trace' program has crashed so fast that Hancock was busily spinning the umpteenth government lie, whilst the lagging 'ads' were still imploring people to download the app. The farming out of Covid-positive patients to care homes- who couldn't have guessed at the outcome here?- can only have been an act of desperation, from a cabinet that has always prioritised economy over lives, desperate to pretend that the NHS was in fine fettle. 'Ramping up' something! Then, fire-fighting with their arses on fire, the cabal were driven to employ the worst of their media misinformants to insist that decimated care homes were being adequately shielded... at which point the Daliesque-liescape was barely able to shuffle the cards into a coherent enough trail of lies for the next briefing! The human cockroaches squirm, whilst the latest excreted 'scientific' decree feasts upon the previous. Even Sagely cherry-picking from amongst its more Goebbellian disciples, mitigating this debacle into a positive has to make even the least discerning of observers wince! It's no wonder that Johnson is not a fan of Britain's daily half hour with its very own interchangeable Lord Haw Haw. Weren't Churchill and Haw Haw on opposite sides? Guided, as ever, by 'the science!'    

Never was Johnson's Churchillian two fingers, one for each holiday week, going to pay dividends! Especially if the 'replacement bus service apology' fails to distinguish between the 21st century reality of The Second Plague, 'Racism,' and (it really is fiction, Dom!) Game of Thrones.

If Covid were not so busily killing our citizens, care of this and other populist governments, then another, that of 'Locusts,' the Eighth Biblical Plague might, even now, be receiving far greater publicity. Affecting eight-and-counting countries in Eastern Africa- Kenya, Somalia, Ethiopia, South Sudan, Uganda- the vast plagues of these creatures, it is estimated, could drive as many as five million Africans into famine. Neither is this plague restricted wholly to Africa; Pakistan has declared a national emergency due to locust infestation. North-west India is already affected and the swarms are fast approaching China! In Pakistan's Punjab Province children are being paid 20 rupees per kilogram, to collect the insects throughout the night when the locusts do not fly, to be repurposed for chicken feed. Hundreds of tonnes of the creatures have been gathered! Without massive international intervention mass starvation surely looms!

Australia has thus far this year escaped the swarms but, in 2008, at a time when the country was not so fortunate, it was given to battle with Biblical swarms of the insects, one ravenous cloud of which was measured at approaching four miles in length! The threat of human famine, specifically through locust infestation, is estimated to affect one tenth of the global population.



Prior to the current dominion of the Coronavirus (Plague number Ten) certain parts of the industrialised world were also fast gearing up in pursuit of their own particular versions of the Ninth Plague, although the resultant murkiness had already significantly overplayed its hand! So, maybe the culpable cities hadn't yet achieved actual 'Darkness,' instead more of a choking 'gloom,' but in terms of the plague's duration they've already far exceeded the stipulated 'three days'

Whereas Covid-19 now appears to be in the process of a covert downplaying, amongst the worst of the populists, pollution in its various guises seems to have been sitting in the G20's pending tray for several decades. Perhaps that is why Elon Musk has been so very blinkered in his plans to ferry various multi-billionaires beyond the smog, where the thinner air is clear? That the consequence of one of the Ten Plagues could so easily usurp that of another has been presented as one of the briefer and more positive consequences of lockdown. Cleaner air, clearer views and returning birdsong! But, already, we're on the grubbier road to fuller economic recovery and eventual eternal growth. Perhaps the neoliberals will be able to keep both plagues up in the air and on the go? In 2015, in the UK alone, it was considered that no fewer than 64,000 premature deaths were brought about as a direct consequence of heightened air pollution. Plastic, where it is not of a consistency fine enough to be ingested, is generally buried for another generation to worry about, or it may be sent, indirectly, to join one of several 'continental' masses that are currently slowly rotating at various locations within our mighty oceans. Another one for somebody else to deal with!

Plague Number Seven, 'Hail,' well that's surely got to be 'global warming,' something else that the G20 were forever having to sacrifice to the Gods of eternal economic growth. That's what air conditioning's for, they presumably muse at those increasingly dreaded meetings? Air conditioning and patio heaters rule! Scott Morrison was ever so briefly given due cause to consider the consequences of global warming, earlier this year, but we shouldn't hold our collective breaths! Brazil's Jair Bolsonaro, demonstrably another of the globes's most culpable clowns regarding global warming, has yet to display any significant outward signs of free thought. Deaths attributable to 'global warming' will inevitably gather greater momentum the longer that the nations of the globe (G20) continue to obfuscate. Ultimately, we could achieve totality here!

Plague Number Three, 'Lice' or 'Gnats,' that's surely got to be the media? The paparazzi is one of its various guises! The infestation that's forever hatching and breeding misinformation! Plague Number Three might seem to slot in, almost incidentally behind the bigger boys,  but it's the enabler! Without majority neoliberal control of the mainstream media (Plague number Three) neither Seven, Nine, nor Ten would have been able to assume anywhere near such an 'impressive' scale or force.

There has been something of a blitzkrieg from the media and certain political forces in recent years and the record of its ability to invoke vested change speaks for itself. Deal with racism, then we can address misogyny and sexism, then we can address inequality and inherited privilege, then we can address global inequality, etc, etc. But we won't! Those who own the largest chunks of the media have their own agendas and also the wealth to circumvent democracy. Investigate society's given power flow-chart and we invariably find that those at the very top benefit from a greater number of forms of discrimination. Perhaps then, more accurately, Plague number Three, 'Lice,' may be encapsulated within the idea of 'political misrepresentation!' It's only more recently universally coming to light that we're still being encouraged to celebrate such things through our given history. It's written into our blood, or rather with the blood of others! Divide and rule! Attributing premature deaths directly to given misinformation is really a no-hoper, significantly hampered care of a highly rigged mainstream media.

'Boils,' Plague number Six? Could that be a health issue? All of those parasitising Private Finance Initiatives, feasting upon the provision of health! Certainly we could think of those who are seeking to forever monetise healthcare as festering boils. Watch Matt Hancock's face as it attempts to approximate a smile and one can almost feel the approaching eruption. Certainly underfunding, privatisation, private-profit margins, and outsourcing have all contributed to the growing death toll in the NHS. Squabbling over whether to apportion deaths to Plague number Ten, or to Plague number Six seems somehow to rather miss the point!

Plague number Five, 'Pestilence' or 'Diseased Livestock?' Cite humanity- that part steering the course- as the 'disease' and maybe the ongoing seventh mass extinction becomes the 'pestilence?' Why, it's almost like a massive jigsaw puzzle, every piece somehow reliant upon another. The death tally is beyond calculation, branching out to encompass every species upon the planet! But, that's how ecosystems work! Recent studies by groups such as the WHO and WWF have drawn a clear link between humanity's destruction of nature and the emergence of diseases such as Covid-19, thus they have also illustrated how perfectly The Plagues (Four, Five, Seven and Eight) feed off of one another. Yet, they are all too frequently misrepresented to the general public via Plague number Three. 'Disharmonising,' if you will.

'Flies' or profusion of wild animals such that they become a pest, Plague number Four! If flies are ever the problem, then it's far more likely that any such infestation is the result of something humanity's already damaged, Plague number Nine, or Plague number Five? Where have all those wonderful fly-catching birds gone! If Mother Earth can be imagined figuratively swatting at a particularly bothersome species I think we can all guess which one it might be! Is it ironic that certain factions of the human species seems so hell bent upon bringing about such a bloody and drastic reduction in different factions of the same? Surely we are enacting a case of 'survival of the least deserving!' Definitely not the Meek Inheriting the Earth (Matthew 5:5)!

Plague Number Two, 'Frogs?' I have quite a fondness for frogs. I can't imagine the creatures causing undue concern, unless it is the ecological concern that frogs, as with so many other of the UK's native species, are threatened through habitat loss? The link is a more tenuous one! Think of the image of a frog, perhaps a caricature, and you have none other than Nigel Farage! He might be one of the minnows but we all know what he represents and none of it is very attractive, friend to Trump- also a curious specimen- friend of racism! Tommy Robinson, Stephen Christopher Yaxley Lennon- and we really do not care to learn why he's snaffled more than his fair share of names- isn't by any means an attractive man, especially if we peer beyond the sneer. He currently has more friends in the government than does Farage, he's also very well practised at stirring up racism and hopping it before things turn even more ugly! Certainly racism is currently of plague proportions, one means by which one section of society mistakenly perceives itself to be superior to another, for the betterment of that one section of society, at the expense of all others.

It would be wonderful to think that the current 'Black Lives Matter' protests might bring about meaningful change, but I'm not hopeful. No more hopeful than I am that the Grenfell inquiry will properly resolve anything, or Windrush, or Hillsborough, or the 851 page leaked report into the Labour Party's hobbling of its own attempt to address the tiny number of genuine anti-semitism issues within the party.

And then, and finally, on to the very First Biblical Plague, Plague number One, 'Water Turned to Blood,' something that Enoc Powell gained more than an element of infamy for invoking in his 'Rivers of Blood' speech. Powell is regarded by many as having been something of a racist, perhaps then more pertinent to the Second Plague. With regards to 'Water, or Rivers, Turned to Blood,' the Biblical appellation is of the First Plague! Perhaps in my imagined futuristic retelling, we will need to reorder things, to sit this one at the head of all things humanly dreadful, although this human plague does feast quite heavily upon others, most notably number two 'Frogs,' or more specifically 'racism!' I really do think we'll have to rethink that particular label.

With weaponry being, more than anything else, a twenty-first century business opportunity, the flip side of 'Water Turned to Blood' so often seems to usurp all other considerations. Two days ago I listen, via BBC Radio 4, to a French border control guard voicing her frustration at the inability of so many Middle Eastern refugees to observe 'social distancing within the refugee camps.' The lady was well intentioned, eager to process the maximum number of the desperate thousands who had left absolutely everything behind in search of a more peaceful existence, another sorry fact of Western pseudo-Imperialism that our racists and much of our mainstream media seem determined to mitigate. Yet she just couldn't seem to understand why the the refugees continually acted so 'dismissively' towards the prospect of a Covid death! But really, were they? Dismissive?

Hadn't they instead simply replaced one very real and daily threat of death, on a massive scale, with another of an immeasurably smaller, entirely more abstract and less bloody threat of the same? When they'd set out to change their circumstances many of them had been part of a far larger Exodus! It was all a matter of perspective! Those who had been in the refugee camps the longest were already starting to recalibrate, but those who had recently arrived were often just grateful to be able to sleep without the ever-present fear that the next bang could be their last!

Repurposed Exodus.

The term 'Water Turned to Blood' could almost be synonymous with 'US foreign policy.' 'Rivers of Blood' is certainly something with which many of the people of Iraq, Syria and Yemen are familiar. A highly pertinent question for the twenty-first century might be, 'are the US, Israel, France and the UK giving more in humanitarian aid to these countries than they are profiting from selling arms to them?

The United Kingdom currently sells weapons, honed to a killing perfection, to 39 of the globe's 51 'non-free' countries, including 22 that feature on its own 'human rights' watch! In 2018 UK arms sales rocketed by 300%. £173 million was the tidy profit made from selling to 'human rights priority countries' alone. Is this what certain of the UK's politicians meant by Brexit business opportunities?

Taking a sizeable leaf from the US foreign policy tome, Boris Johnson has very recently 'unilaterally,' we are informed- difficult not to see at least an element of Patel's claw in here!- decided to close the government's Department for International Development, wishing to tie vital aid for countries to their political subservience and compliance to current UK government interests. He terms this requisite cowering as an act of 'diplomacy' but those paying closer attention will have instantly recognised it as 21st century, US style, colonialism. "To promote Global Britain," were the PM's cold words. See how so many of The Ten Plagues feast upon and sustain one another; here we have elements of Plague number Three and also, but more specifically, Plague Number Two! If Johnson is really so hell bent upon 'immortalising' himself, rumour has it that there's soon going to be a suitable space in the grounds of Oriel College, Oxford.

But, returning to theme, nowhere is the hypocrisy of utilising arms against those with its own borders more well documented than in the dubious State of Israel. Yet again we find the US's foreign policy having brought about a deepening of the bloody hue, within those 'Rivers of Blood' in the occupied lands of Palestine. Despite Israel's well documented implementation of an apartheid regime, an ongoing illegal occupation of the Palestinian West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Eastern Jerusalem, ongoing since 1967, perhaps the globe's most shameful instance of systemic persecution and certainly its most universally recognised program of ethnic cleansing, the UK issued licenses for £364 million in arms and arms-related sales to the country! No, seriously! Wow!            

I give you 'a futuristic retelling of the Ten Plagues,' refashioned for the forty-first century! With the possible exception of Plague number Eight, 'Locusts,' every single one has been routinely rained down upon the human species by humanity itself. In that soft afterglow of self-proclaimed intellect, are we not then entirely a contradiction, unfit for purpose?

Humanity playing at God! Replacing the God that the species pretends to revere! Will we also be repurposing or refashioning the Ten Commandments? In raining down nine of the Ten Plagues, humanity routinely disregards, at the very least, the Second, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Commandments! It is effectively written into 'neoliberal constitution' to, One, 'Worship Profit!,' Four, 'Work Unquestioningly at the Behest of One's Employer!,' Six, 'Revere Above Life the Arms Trade!' Eight and Ten, 'Covet and Monetise All Things!' and Nine, 'Misrepresent the Truth as Required, in the Interests of Procurement!'

The Ten Commandments- whether they be those of the Torah or the Old Testament- may almost be read as a list of human frailty. In blitzing the repurposed Plagues upon both its species, also countless others, and its habitats, directly or else in consequence of something equally indefensible, humanity has then figuratively shattered the stones into which the Ten Commandments were chiselled. If either take on the pronouncement counts for anything at all, other than as a cosy fireside fable, should we not be considering that their alleged creation, three-and-a-half thousand years ago, was a mighty powerful instruction to, by any means possible, avoid ending up where we find ourselves now!

Unless Covid-19, or another yet more powerful 'flood,' has its own designs upon our less well-considered ones? A figurative Arc, what would that look like?  

Yet Another Age of Unreason

As a child I was gently indoctrinated, along with just about everybody else in my class, into the ways of our Lord. From a very early age it was put to me that there was, nonspecifically out 'there,' a far greater and more powerful Being and that, intrinsic to this contention, there was a tome of knowledge, also non-specifically, far beyond anything that I could ever hope to amass. Thus, I was introduced to the concept of 'faith.' We sang a lot, which didn't leave a great deal of time for questions.

Where would such a Being reside? Heaven, where's that then? How could such a Being know what everyone was doing? What about those people who were working deep underground? How could such a Being know what we were all thinking? At the same time? What about dreams? How would such a Being be able to 'hear' all of our prayers? How would such a Being prioritise? If someone said 'good' things, but secretly thought 'bad' things, how would such a Being know this? What if we believed the 'bad' things, because a cleverer person had misled us? How would such a Being be able to tell the difference? If someone made a very 'bad' choice, hurting or killing others, why would such a Being not intervene? Why would such a Being allow natural disasters to kill and hurt people and other creatures?

Our's was never to reason why, apparently. We just weren't knowledgeable enough to understand the overriding will of such a Being. Although, some of us, even at such a tender and an early age, were starting to draw our own conclusions about this 'greater' Being. 'Faith' we were reminded- my teachers reminded me, my mother reminded me, the church reminded me, and numerous other people reminded me- was our lot. Faith!


Now that I am older I know enough to know that I am differently unsure. Older and slightly more jaded, I am arrogant enough to believe that I know the answers to some of the above questions. Now, I have different questions... requiring different answers, which necessarily do not pertain to faith.

Accepting, just for the sake of argument, that I am not going to be able to directly put my questions to such a Being, I would like instead to be able- safely!- to ask these questions of those who are most 'certain' of the 'answers'... the fundamentalists.

The fundamentalists have, of course, weaponised 'faith,' effectively remodelling it as fear! Naturally, honing the doctrine to a fine point- fear is often anyway still not enough- the fundamentalists might well kill us regardless; they might detonate shrapnel amongst our children, or they might career their vehicle along a busy pavement, or they might simply refuse to reason, sheltering behind the trusty (rusty) shield of faith, a highly selective shield when it comes to bombs and bullets. Our bombs and bullets, those of reason, are, we are 'assured,' far more discerning than are 'their' bombs and bullets, the old 'benign collateral' (cite "friendly fire") versus 'indiscriminate terrorism' argument! Proudly wear your faith, wear it much like a pair of spangled blinkers, wear it like a mask!

My opening question to the Being's spokesperson upon this Earth would have to be, why it is that our imperfect minds have been equipped with nothing better than faith with which to navigate our route through (theological) life? Why then equip us with the means with which to question 'His'* existence? So, of those various humanly-scribed books, which tome was actually the first draft, and which should we take to be the 'finished' (polished?) article? Presumptuous on my part, maybe, but I'm going to suggest that just a smidgen of greater clarification might not go a miss. Are we perhaps long-overdue a further redraft?

And then on to the sensitive subject of personal armaments, about these cursed hand-guns and rifles for example- those which have often been employed in His name- shouldn't we perhaps keep them locked well away from the cerebrally inept? We have, I am hoping, now evolved well beyond the belief that sinking a flaming cross into the earth, and wandering around in pointy white hats, weapons loaded, may be a superior or purer means of somehow 'ordering' humankind, along the lines of some sort of human-paint-chart? Couldn't we just hammer home this point, once more for the hard-of-understanding?

My is it third?- and certainly it is the most delicate of questions to the Being's spokesperson on this Earth- relates to the female gender of our species. I am, of course, assuming that this set of rules isn't perhaps an earlier and some-since-time superseded draft of His 'correct' Holy Book. Why, I feel obligated to ask, is having been genitally mutilated considered to be the 'correct' physical state for any female?- or, especially, any innocent child? And, in anticipation of any response, I would like to question 'why said 'clitoris' was there in the first place?' Further, I would like to ask 'if this means that He has therefore made a fundamental error?' Furthermore, is it not cruel to have designed 'us' for pleasure, only to have then prescribed the removal of one highly significant means by which this might be achieved? Is He then not in some major capacity also flawed? Is it really the role of certain significantly flawed and immeasurably-lesser beings to 'improve' upon His efforts?' Page numbers for reference, please? 

Here on Earth, I think that it would be only reasonable to assume that I argue for the vast majority of humans when I seek to question the butchering that is done in seeking to (shall we refer to it as?) modify the human form. Are these 'people'- the butchers- not defacing His work? Can we not instead modify the butchers?- if only to remove from them their more dubious of powers?

And, quite why would He create someone so very beautiful, only to condemn that same someone to a lifetime of conducting 'life' from within a black box, a niqab or, even more condemnatory, a burka? Really?- so, it's entirely about modesty, is it? Does this mean then that the man in this 'relationship' is acting immodestly? So the woman is actually a possession, is she? And the covering of the hair thing?- perhaps then You might have considered a less hairy model? I presume then that the role of the more hirsute male requires entirely less modesty?

And stoning? What, even if the male perpetrator- cases of rape, for example- is permitted to watch on, whilst the female victim is being pounded into  the earth? Is he, the perpetrator,  also then permitted to throw rocks? And, what is it supposed that the perpetrator is actually 'punishing,' should he deign to partake? Will the mighty Being judge him at some later date? Pages? **

And- fourth now is it?- this racial difference thing? Perhaps I'm being just a bit thick here, a bit humanly flawed, as 'twere, but it really doesn't feel in any way superior, being white. On a handful of occasions I've been given due cause to think that being white is, if anything, rather inferior. White pointy hats and burning crosses, what was all that about? Demonstrating superiority, how? Do those with the loudest shouty voices also possess faith? Or has some form of enraged-entitlement here substituted? Any sort of hierarchy seems questionable, colour or otherwise... that is, unless we should regard those who follow this path as immensely inferior? You know what, might we just have stumbled onto something here?

Surely I cannot be alone in thinking that we here upon this Earth are well overdue a smidgen of enlightenment on the mega-touchy subject of "racial superiority?" The 'ride' thus far has not been a wholly tranquil one! The merest concept of 'superiority' is never going to sit comfortably, alongside any culture that it is looking to 'order,' or that might be hoping for order alongside reasonable law.

Thus, cannot we all hunker down to a spot of disentanglement, for example where Semitism and Zionism are concerned? A 'few' of the more confident readers are becoming a tad alarmed at the tanglement-by-design of terms like anti-Semitism and anti-Zionist, media-orchestrated-and-fuelled and further fanned by the thoroughly-disingenuous. Semite, pertaining to a group of Semitic languages, spoken by, amongst others, both Israelis (Hebrew) and many Arabs (Arabic), am I right in believing this to be so? Would that then- although somewhat veiled through this ever-curious twisting of reality- seem to imply that the Zionists are amongst the more anti-Semitic of peoples?


My next question would be, in the event of a human detonation, or vehicular mayhem, who gets to decide who might live and who might die? Well then, who in His stead might decide? Okay, so does this not mean that His human spokesperson is destroying and/or defacing the Supreme Being's work? And, if your response to this is that the Divine Being then intervenes to decide who does and does not survive any such act, why then are not all of the perpetrators also subject to such a brutal 'selection' process? Might I be so bold as to suggest that He perhaps endeavours to ensure that the ultimate-decision-makers- those who might plot or otherwise bring about such awful destruction- are always, from this point onwards, to be situated far closer to the consequences of their decisions, especially as they profess to be following His imperfect plan? Under these circumstances, would they 'smile' quite so confidently for that flash?

And, this mention here, just here, about the taking of a single life destroying a whole universe? I think the wording is "... if anyone slew a person- unless it be for murder or spreading mischief in the land- it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people." (Al Quran 5:32) How should we regard this wisdom, as an earlier note... or better, as the perfected amendment? Shouldn't we clarify this issue, specifically for those who possess the wrong kind of faith? And, with much haste!

And, this far too non-specific, "spreading mischief in the land"?- who gets to decide which is 'mischief' and which is 'government?' And, where the two transpire to be one and the same?

Pertinent to an earlier question, am I to assume then that the detonator, or driver, or knife-wielder, the 'religious' killer, is going to be repaired in Heaven? And, will his, or rarely her, 'repaired' mind still be 'functioning' along similar lines? How many virgins is that? What, virgins with or without fully functional genitalia? Anticipating the masculinity of His response, can I then ask- refraining from employing the 'r' word- what sort of congress is this likely to be? Is this then going to be a different sort of Heaven for all of those virgins who will be on the receiving end? References again, please?

Presuming then that His loyal foot soldier's thought-process is to remain fundamentally unchanged, will (s)he be required to continue to detonate, or stab, or run-down other inhabitants within this Heaven? What, so sort of like a one-transaction contract, specifically undertaken prior to 'joining' the 'anointed,' then? And, 'this' type of 'suicide' will be afforded a 'get-out-of-jail-free card,' will it?


Will there be many (for the sake of argument, shall we refer to them as) mass murderers in Heaven? How will other, non-violent, arrivals be expected to relate to these murderers? Will there be time, do you suppose, for the inhabitants of this Heaven to converse calmly about the 'good' old days? If so, is there a 'correct' and politer etiquette for referring to the shattered remains of murdered children? Is there one which permits the murderer not to feel somehow excluded from politer circles as they well might down here?- or otherwise deeply and irretrievably ashamed? So, will these mass murderers now be able to laugh and to joke and to somehow to 'live' (on) with themselves? What, no remorse? None whatsoever? Again, can I request specific page numbers?

And, what if killer A is 'right', for want of a better, far better word, to have murdered' those in group A, whilst killer B is wrong to have murdered those in group B? Will killer B be judged to have sinned for adhering to the wrong type of faith? What, even if the ritual slaughter was carried out in 'good' faith?

Can I also ask, is life here on Earth really supposed to be quite so Hellish and devoid of compassion? Does that not then make Him a vindictive Being?

And dare I ask, just for the sake of argument, should we be preparing ourselves for the event that His idea of Heaven might actually transpire to be our idea of Hell?- and that He might transpire to be some sort of monster?

If we are not to question these things then why would He give us the minds with which to do so? Unless this also is another design flaw. Or is it yet another test... of our faith?


We are finding that neighbourly respect and affection- at least whilst we are trapped here upon His Earth- offers a mighty antidote to much of His more curious will. Often, this might even happen to transcend faith. Even so, might I not harbour just that tiny kernel of contempt for the religious fundamentalists?

Finally, would it be in any way unreasonable to conclude that, if one could reason with religious people that there would be no religious people? Do any of these thoughts make me a sinner?


* Apologies for the gender allocation. In modest justification of my choice, I chose to affix a male label over a female one because I considered that the faults of any such being- pain, war, 'torture,' conflict, that sort of thing- were more likely to sit 'comfortably' within the remit of a male creature.

** And, this would have to be the moment, the moment, at which we- that is 'we' unbelievers- may be as certain as it is possible to be, that certain 'individuals' are far more inclined towards faith and religion because it is entirely the means by which they seek to consolidate their advantages over others, than because they are inclined to believe in anything other than their own advantage. Otherwise, why would they lay themselves open to such disappointment in the 'eyes' of their 'God?'

Life appraisals...

I can well remember those heady days of 'team' and 'self' 'appraisal' whereupon one looks back with fondness upon the multitude of achievements over the past year, and then with great anticipation into that bright new shining dawn that is 'tomorrow.' I have been reminded again recently of the multifarious rolercoaster highs and lows of this absolutely priceless tool to modern day work practices and to thrusting future aspirations, as my partner is currently undertaking this soul replenishing activity.

And a breath of this marvellously fresh air is currently also running through one of my old working haunts. Is it really that time again already? I'm sure things can only ever get better and better, ad infinitum, if the UK continues to respond so 'openly' to the whims and hopes of its current foot soldiers. I think one of the UK's saintly ambassadors may once have termed this sort of 'inclusiveness' the 'Big Society!' And it's certainly the 'Big Something.'

Oh, eh-hem, except, of course it isn't really like this... is it? 

I had hoped that it might get better, but it hasn't. I had hoped that quite a lot of things might get better, over quite a long period of time, but again they haven't!  So, I am given to wonder, whatever can the purpose of these 'appraisal meetings' be? 

Does one feel reinvigorated? Does one feel that there may be new and rewarding challenges to be undertaken? Is one made to feel more fully embraced by one's own particular workplace? 

The answers may indeed transpire to be a full and hearty, 'Yes!' to all of the above. The answers  may indeed have all been, 'Yes,' last year, and, 'Yes! Yes! Yes!' the year before that. The, 'Yeses,' may already be primed and ready for the following year. Or they may not.



There are those who might term me jaded, and I would have to concede that I am not the most positive. But these observations are not based very much at all upon my own current observations. They are, instead, based upon the comments of family, friends and others, nearly all increasingly of the opinion that such practises as 'Appraisal Meetings' are, at their vey best, 'a damned waste of time' and 'far more of an imposition' than a benefit. 

So, what can be their purpose? Why not just do away with these things altogether? George Orwell might have had something to say (or to write) upon the subject. But, in his absence, here is my half-hatched attempt...

I believe that there is a purpose to these meetings, far more sinister! Perhaps not necessarily 'sinister' at the point of delivery but certainly so at source. The process of jumping through the 'right hoops' in the 'right order' isn't free, it costs, and if it isn't working then those who it is costing will not be happy. They will not be happy at all! What is it then that the money lenders want for their cash? 'Privatise profit and nationalise debt,' isn't that the current rule?

Well, they already have most things! They already possess most of the country's worldly wealth, most of the country's land mass, the country's commerce, the country's entertainment, leisure, media outlets, property, increasing volumes of the country's health providers, really pretty much everything, whether real or 'virtual.' Escape into your virtual world to exercise your freedoms, and you can bet that somebody else has either helped to shape this, or else is exploiting it. 

They don't yet possess our thoughts, but they are increasingly manoeuvring to shape these, either through the interpretations they may place upon worldly and national events, or else the means by which we might access our 'chosen lifestyles.' Remember that the 'free press' simply means the freedom of the 'individual' to own this. That would be the freedom of the individual with the wealth to afford a media empire, or part thereof. But, they don't yet possess our souls! 

Nor will they. This much is not ever likely to be within their powers. That stuff is the realm of science fiction. So they will just have to pretend, won't they? And that is where, I believe, these 'Appraisal Meetings' feature. They do no more and no less than to 'encourage' us to verify their choices made on 'our behalf.' 

When we are busy jumping through these hoops we are, in effect, pretending to ourselves that we are shaping our destinies. We select our future goals, but from their predetermined shortlist. We appraise our achievements, but only by ticking a series of predetermined boxes, not through any genuine outpouring of free thought. And then we discuss our individual pathways with our colleagues, within the shaped boxes that have been constructed for the purpose. Of course, it's part of your soul, look you've even signed inside the box. 



Perhaps there really is something to this 'thinking outside the box' after all! Go on, think outside the box, no not that one, this one! 

In God's name?

As a frequently-reconsolidated and hardened atheist, still I cannot yet believe this to be irrefutable proof of an absence of God. I think that perhaps Stephen Fry, as well as most, elaborated upon the possible existence, or not, of such an omniscient Being. He said "Bone cancer in children, what's that about? Why should I respect such a capricious, mean-minded and stupid God? (He created) a world so full of injustice and pain. (He is) an utter maniac, totally selfish. We have to spend our lives upon our knees, thanking Him? What kind of God would do that?"

A God Who might 'design' with such vindictive 'embellishment' is a God we should all have cause to fear! Far better that He/She is not there at all.



I hope and believe that Stephen was making more the point that 'evidence,' such as it 'exists,' appears to strongly refute- strongly!- the existence of any benign God, rather than that he was sharing his rehearsed statement to a hoped-fictitious and vindictive Deity.

If Stephen's referenced God is an accurate and an actual portrayal, then we are all well and truly damned and for all of eternity! Stephen does not need to elaborate that any such omnipotent Being will be most unlikely to be honouring any sort of pious Earthly 'deal,' those as prescribed by any of the Holy texts.

Let us pretend, for a moment and for the purposes of theological discourse, that any God is viable- religious bods have ever sought to skew the (lack of) evidence to be so- and thus attempt to comprehend His/Her aesthetic.

God, we are encouraged to blindly accept, has created us. Thus, He must also have furnished us with free thought. But He has forbidden us to use this free thought in order to scientifically question the merest concept of 'creation.' So, this Presence has gifted us with a talent that we are effectively barred from employing to its fullest potential? We must accept that He created us to suffer, but we are not to question His arbitrary choices. We must highly praise His gifts, but we are not permitted to even begin to comprehend His more destructive whims. God's disciples may scatter weaponry like seeds across the land, they might mutilate babes-in-arms that they cannot fully experience sexual union, they might embellish their own palaces with yet one more 24 carat skin, whilst the minions- expressly forbidden contraception- must contemplate malnutrition en masse. The religious texts may permit one to scrape up the excrement of one's betters, but not to shake their hands. In gratitude for working one's fingers to the bone one may well be required to stumble, sleep-deprived, to the temple, also late into the night and yet again before dawn, lest one should forget His benevolence. As the call to prayer yet again shatters a peace that God also designed- perhaps entirely that He/She might deny any appreciation of the same- one might be forgiven for assuming oneself to be no more than a minor character in a living diptych by Hieronymus Bosch.



Detonate yourself before a class of infants and God will personally ensure you a minor role as the slightly-less remarkable 24th of 72 virgins, to the sort of man who will 'bravely' burn another human in a steel cage.

Perhaps this may not be irrefutable proof of an absence of God. Certainly it's proof that such a foot-soldier has not signed up to serve any sort of benign God. We should all hope beyond hope that this monster's God is not also to be our's.

In God's name? Please, let it not be so!

Je Suis Humanité

I've just received an e-mail from Nick Clegg. It asked me about my priorities for the coming year; asked me if I might undertake 'his' mental health survey.

I was curious. I clicked upon the link and ended up staring into the void, The Lib Dem's website. I've done this before I thought. And I have! But the scenario was vastly different. Vastly!

The last time I was responding to a political party who professed to care about the betrayals of previous incumbent PMs. Last time Nick was wearing some sort of shiny new armour, wielding a 'trusty' sword of 'truth and integrity.' I'm sure it was a 'trusty' model. Slice off the end and it would have had 'truth' and 'integrity' written down the middle. And that's what the Conservatives did, sliced off the end. By which point somebody had sucked out the soul. Thus, the 'vastly' was far more pertinent to my own naivety than ever it was to Nick's intentions, which were always up for sale.

This time I was far more time-commitment aware. I deleted the damn thing.

Nick is on his election trip again, labouring under the delusion that he might stand for something. Blessed with memories, we know better. And it's important to know where we all stand, in these immensely difficult times of global unrest.


National Library NZ on The...

Far more pertinent and like many people, I've been struggling to get my head around what's just happened in Paris. Like many, I've been watching the news. On Sunday I was 'virtually' in Paris, 'virtually' sharing my own particular dismay at the recent events in the capital. But I still elected not to 'virtually' link arms with the heavy-weight curios in front of the cameras.  

'Je suis Charlie,' was the heartfelt and immediate response, by many Parisian's, to the outrageous slaughter of the innocents. It moved me to tears, so powerful was this response. The murders took place on Wednesday and by Sunday 'Je suis Charlie' had swollen to embrace millions. How could it not? But, also curiously by Sunday, the sentiment had been mysteriously diluted.

Wednesday's murderers claimed to be acting to avenge the Prophet Mohammed, a man who supposedly longed to vanquish the merest concept of revenge. One wonders how thrilled The Prophet might have been, at the atrocities carried out by His Boko Haram 'followers' in Nigeria. I'm not a religious person- maybe this 'oversight' makes me a sinner- but I do have a strongly established sense of what constitutes wrongdoing. It's a huge field, absolutely vast, from the deludedly-noble exaggeration of my own given abilities (Guilty!) at any of the job interview that I might have undertaken, to the savage butchering of another innocent being, which I absolutely have not and could not.

Vastly preferring scientific rational to any of its religious 'alternatives,' which despite what some of the more 'enlightened' theologians might claim, does not sit comfortably with any religion-complete, I struggle with especially the concept of faith. I perceive, "have faith," or any of its ilk, to  be entirely the last refuge of the losing debatee.

Unarmed with any religious 'shield,' nor any political facade of 'decency,' I cannot claim to possess the solution to many of the globe's great problems, but from within my sense of wrongdoing-perspective I have readily recognised that the manner in which Sadam Hussain's militia ruled Iraq, and perhaps hoped to export such a (lack of) values, was wholly without justification. Which is rather more than the covert US value-system did, having massively supported the same regime for decades prior to a minute shift in global allegiances. Consequently, I also recognised that previous US support as corrupted. I recognised the internationally-condemned invasion and the proliferating car-bombings as wholly unjust and the US (and almost certainly Blair) endorsed renditions as more than unjust. Indefensible!

Wednesday's atrocities required no scientific nor religious analysis, the acts were quite simply inhuman. Were any 'religious' insight required it would no doubt be a relatively simple task to condemn the murders as anti-Muslim, anti-Christian, anti-Hindu, anti-Jewish, anti-Sikhist, anti-Buddhist, anti-Jainist, anti-Rastafari, anti-Taoist and anti-Secular. Thus the murderers were simply and inhumanly that, unjust murderers! Crimes against humanity!

Just as the US-backed Iraqi regime were guilty of murder, as were the US et al invading/occupying troops, as were those who piloted the 9/11 aircraft, and those who organise (yet curiously never appear to undertake) suicide bombings. As those who might interrogate the perceived perpetrators are guilty of crimes against humanity. As are countless others who might seek to impose their own 'value' system upon those who are helpless to resist.

* Even the tiniest 'proof' of the existence of any God remains scientifically absent, so instead adopting the curious premise of 'faith,' we might attempt to contemplate the existence of such an omniscient being. This phenomenon just barely-conceivably 'might' have invested us with the minds with which to do so.


National Library NZ on The...

"God creates beauty, but requires that it be kept hidden. God creates a mind capable of exquisite reasoning, yet seeks to deny this mind full access to its richest outpourings. God permits free-thinking and yet also seeks to shackle these with extreme prejudice. God creates different genders, with equal potential, and yet demands that one gender should entirely subjugate the other. This is not omniscience!

The rational to analyse the lack of evidence and consequently to not believe? This is surely infinitely superior.

The logical progression of humankind would seem to 'demand' that "Je suis Charlie" was the almost spontaneous response to such horror. Yet still we didn't all march unequivocally together, 'virtually' or otherwise.

Slipping uncertainly upon the still-warm blood, Antonis Samaras has already sought to steer Greece towards ever more xenophobic ways, in a country where some of its poorest citizens have been forced to give up their own children for adoption, because of Euroze-led policies. Andrea Merkel, the Euro-champion of the region's austerity measures, that made such things 'necessary,' is still unhappy that the US regards the Eurozone as essential surveillance territory, and yet she was recently covertly steering the 'aligned continent' towards the little-talked-about TTIP, whereby US business interests might bankrupt Europe's essential services. Cameron was there talking about freedoms of expression, whilst back home the soup kitchens and the street-sleepers continued to proliferate. Francois Hollande linked arms with his fellow World mis-managers and showed his solidarity with even, "the toothless ones." Obama stayed at home, perhaps to catch up with gathered files on his 'allies, or else to study tapes of recently extracted confessions.

Some will hide behind terrorist atrocities, whilst imposing an ever-more draconian state, accepting of rough-sleeping and malnutrition as the flip side of preferential tax-cuts or greater 'security,' but from whom?. Others might cite indiscriminate bombings against 'its own' people, before calmly detonating shards of vehicular metal into child-crowded high streets, or they might interrupt the school day with a hail of bullets, or stone the victim of a rape. All prepared to lash out at, exploit or ignore 'its own' citizens in reverence to the 'higher,' self-serving cause. Precisely what any omniscient being should crave, fictional or otherwise.

Were there bankers, were there tax evaders? Was perhaps Mark Thatcher present, Jeremy Clarkson? I'll bet Piers Morgan was there. Did Rupert Murdoch make the effort? Was the NRA represented, were there many bailiffs, any zero-hours apologists, slum landlords? Perhaps GW Bush was 'virtually' there, although I personally didn't virtually see him. All these people marching for 'freedom of expression.'

And here's the thing, see. Freedom of expression really doesn't come without a price-tag. But the price-tag doesn't and shouldn't involve the butchering of other beings. It's far more to do with the sharing of that freedom to express and act independently, otherwise it's not really anything to do with freedom. If your 'freedom to express' or act in a certain manner, regardless of your political or religious affiliations, requires a significant sacrifice on the part of others, then it has absolutely nothing to do with freedom. That sort of 'feudalism' has existed since way before the merest concept of freedom was first hatched.

Leaving us all little time to worry about Nick Clegg's political misrepresentations.  

* This post in no way wishes to imply that a 'God' does not exist, simply that if one did he or she would probably expect rather more (or less) from his or her supposed 'followers.'