Are semites victims of their own creation or are they orphans of a misconception, regarding their utopian hereditary background?,I wonder.I felt compelled to use the word, utopian because,the arabic translation of the word semite,refers to something noble and majestic.And to put in muchokomanian terms, a custodian of the heavens, with a privilege to report to God - the father directly,with no intercessors in-between.In direct audience with God,i meant.
Was Alfred Dreyfus a victim of circumstances in France? or was his case the bonfire that led to the spread of anti-semitism?.If so what role did Edouard Drumont play or was he merely a decoy in the conspiracy theories that led to the extermination of so many innocent souls?
Now bear with me, as i dismantle conspiracies of doom.
Having defeated France in the war of 1870, Otto Von Bismarck's predominant aim in foreign policy was to isolate France, thus unabling it to wage a war for the recovery of the lost province of Alsace Lorraine.He did this in a typical Bismarckian manner by signing the Dreikaiserbund treaty.This treaty consisted of Germany,Austria-Hungary and Russia.Since France was now in abject isolation,there was so much polarisation against the government,especially in Paris.Bismarck's policies were so sophisticated that the peace treaty with France included ,a triumphal entry into Paris.The resentment of the bandits/militia in Paris grew to such an extent that they took over the entire council and implimented a social democratic ideology - Paris commune,which only lasted two months,before being murdered by the goverment troops.
This culmination of events led to a conspiracy against the jews(semites).France had lost national pride - a defeat against Prussia,the near Coup De tat - by the national guard(Paris commune), and general public disapproval.
Alfred Dreyfus,who was charged with treason for allegedly disposing military secrets to the German Embassy,would have obviously been convicted using circumstancial evidence.His prominent visits to a Prussian suburb and being of a jewish origin,made him the probable suspect.Some native French soldiers found him arrogant because,he never bothered to learn French.
Thank Goodness Emile Zola,an Italian who adopted French naturalisation wrote a very provocative article Jaccuse,directly addressed to the head of the government.The birth of investigative journalism,meant Dreyfus would survive another day in court after being exonerated.My gut-feeling is, Zola did not act unanymously in exposing the flawed case outline against Dreyfus by the Martial court prosecution.George Clemencue,who later became the German leader might have instigated the move to propel his own political agenda.That's just the muchokomanian way of thinking.
I would be naive,if i were to assume that anti-semitism started with the Dreyfus affair!If you open your bible,to those who believe,you will see that Jesus himself rebuked the Jews,after they vehemently rejected him.Historically,when christianity became the state religion of Rome,in the 4th century jews became objects of religious and political oppression.Christians believed that Jesus was brutally murdered, through the insistance of the jews.Even Emperor Constantine 1,instituted several laws to supress 'God's chosen people'.
You might wanna visit http://www.davidicke.com for some mind-boggling conspiracy theories.Word of warning though, only aspiring philosophers should do so at their own risk - you might never see the world the way everyone sees it again.
Saturday, 10 October 2009
Thursday, 8 October 2009
Rightiousness exalts a nation,but sin is a reproach to any given people
The social contract that led to the codification of present day laws,may be the direct reason why some urge,whether we have the autonomy to control our own lives.Or conversely,do society impose what is socially acceptable.
We did not all ratify the laws and norms of the society we live in but are bound to morally behave in a socially acceptable way.I read an article three days ago in the Daily mail,about Simon Cowell's extravagant 50th birthday bash.Of course,all those who attended - under my assumption, would have been on the guest list and Max Mosley the F1 boss was one of them.
The author of the article wrote:
Despite the fact that guests of honour included the host's 84-year-old mother and a local vicar, the party's entertainment included exotic topless dancers, naked women gyrating behind a big screen, and a guest enjoying a good whipping on stage from a dominatrix.
But the highlight of the show was the appearance on stage of a giant replica of female genitalia, joined by two giant sex toys. What a jolly jape to humiliate every woman in the audience.
I'm only surprised disgraced Formula One boss Max Mosley wasn't there doing a turn.
As Journos,how far can we then go in naming a man who won a liable case against a newspaper publisher before?To what extent will the author and publisher justify that this is a fair comment?Can there be a legal writ against the paper,if Max Mosley decides to sue for defamation.
Or are we continuing to walk on quick sand again?
We did not all ratify the laws and norms of the society we live in but are bound to morally behave in a socially acceptable way.I read an article three days ago in the Daily mail,about Simon Cowell's extravagant 50th birthday bash.Of course,all those who attended - under my assumption, would have been on the guest list and Max Mosley the F1 boss was one of them.
The author of the article wrote:
Despite the fact that guests of honour included the host's 84-year-old mother and a local vicar, the party's entertainment included exotic topless dancers, naked women gyrating behind a big screen, and a guest enjoying a good whipping on stage from a dominatrix.
But the highlight of the show was the appearance on stage of a giant replica of female genitalia, joined by two giant sex toys. What a jolly jape to humiliate every woman in the audience.
I'm only surprised disgraced Formula One boss Max Mosley wasn't there doing a turn.
As Journos,how far can we then go in naming a man who won a liable case against a newspaper publisher before?To what extent will the author and publisher justify that this is a fair comment?Can there be a legal writ against the paper,if Max Mosley decides to sue for defamation.
Or are we continuing to walk on quick sand again?
Monday, 5 October 2009
HORRIE.COM
Sometimes life is not worth all the fuss,that is associated with it.But some things are worth the fuss associated with them.As i strayed on the net for a moment,i came across the revered Horrie site and the time spent on it was great whilst it lasted, to say the least.
The site is so customised to such an extend that,you are tempted to believe that it's a marketing or business site.The massive New York city boulevards and the landmark towering office and residential buildings give the site such a cosmetic background.This is what i would boldly refer to as,the Horrie show,nevermind that i later renamed it the Horror show,after failing to get any links to Horrie's favourite blogs.
The site is unequivocally infested with the author's professional background and left me wondering why the queen has not yet found the audacity to knight him - Sir Horrie to be precise.Essentially the man's cv is true testimony that he is no gatecrasher or novice to the career path we have all chosen.
However,i would probably have preferred to see links with snippets of the author's books.
All in all the site is something worth a visit.
The site is so customised to such an extend that,you are tempted to believe that it's a marketing or business site.The massive New York city boulevards and the landmark towering office and residential buildings give the site such a cosmetic background.This is what i would boldly refer to as,the Horrie show,nevermind that i later renamed it the Horror show,after failing to get any links to Horrie's favourite blogs.
The site is unequivocally infested with the author's professional background and left me wondering why the queen has not yet found the audacity to knight him - Sir Horrie to be precise.Essentially the man's cv is true testimony that he is no gatecrasher or novice to the career path we have all chosen.
However,i would probably have preferred to see links with snippets of the author's books.
All in all the site is something worth a visit.
The death of mainstream newspaper vending
As much as,i have so much sympathy for the sometimes vulnerable and destitute newspaper vendors - it is time to raise our eyebrows ,as journos and see where the world of new media is leading us to.Or can i blame the recent announcement,that The London Evening standard newspaper is gonna be free for all - to its acquisition by a former KGB Russian billionaire.Or is it due to the mediascape which has been deviously changing the course and dynamics of how we in the media used to conventionally do things.
Surely,the newspaper vendors will soon be out of sight and journos might be in for a rude awakening. The apparent unmitigated reason for disposing The London Evening standard newspaper,is due to a marketing gimmirck by the Russian. To boost circulation, so we are told. And the enormous production costs will apparently be paid for by the somehow ambitious advertisers.
In principle, all newspapers might follow suit ,but what are the probable repurcations to such a move, especially to journalists and vendors alike?If i were to be pragmatic then,i suppose that move will leave many of us out of mainstream media. The internet is being blamed for the shift in the way, media corporations operate but will relying on advertising revenue only be the panacea to this dilemma. I wonder.
Will have to wait and see where technology is driving our illustrious profession!But the future for vendors and journos look gloom and this somehow takes the gloss off our profession.That's just my view
Surely,the newspaper vendors will soon be out of sight and journos might be in for a rude awakening. The apparent unmitigated reason for disposing The London Evening standard newspaper,is due to a marketing gimmirck by the Russian. To boost circulation, so we are told. And the enormous production costs will apparently be paid for by the somehow ambitious advertisers.
In principle, all newspapers might follow suit ,but what are the probable repurcations to such a move, especially to journalists and vendors alike?If i were to be pragmatic then,i suppose that move will leave many of us out of mainstream media. The internet is being blamed for the shift in the way, media corporations operate but will relying on advertising revenue only be the panacea to this dilemma. I wonder.
Will have to wait and see where technology is driving our illustrious profession!But the future for vendors and journos look gloom and this somehow takes the gloss off our profession.That's just my view
Thursday, 1 October 2009
WHEN I CEASE TO BREATHE
One day when i cease to breathe,take me away to a place i will see the sun nomore,a place of peace and tranquility: Such a rhetorical thought from an addicted born again christian.But hold on ,at least for now.I am just hoping against the hope that Minerva,the virgin roman God of wisdom will reveal,the secret of what lies ahead - life after death.Is there any existence beyond the phantom and imaginary 'Gods'?,that we have come to accept and embrace,yet there is nothing empirical to prove the mythical world beyond our sight.
Existence in this moment, is the only reality.Interestingly,reality contains everything that exists,but existence is only a subset of what is real.Therefore nothing unreal exists.Western philosophical idealists like Hegel,somehow approved the notion that,in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.And the earth was without form and full of darkness.In essence,i suppose this was derived from oral tradition,where religious beliefs were passed on from generation to generation - in a quest to understand the supernatural.
Typically Philosophical materialists believed that in the beginning there was matter - these assumptions were purely based on empirical and scientific evidence.Theocracy tells us that the world is merely 2009years after the death of christ,yet human endevour using scientific methods suggest that ,the world has been in existence for millions of years.If i may bring Hegel back into this phenomena,his arguments are concurrent with biblical suggestions that,all man are immortal - thus succumb to the death of the flesh and the spirit gets reunited with the creator.
Of course,Hegel's arguments did not go unchallenged.Even though Karl Marx enthused on emulating Hegel,he noted that there were fundamental differences in how things are seen pertaining to the world we live in.To clarify an event is(for Hegel no other than) to explain it in terms of logical necessity - the world comes to self consciousness and man rests in God.Whilst Marx felt compelled to radically assume the world revolved around the material state of things.Afterall Marx might have tried to develop his theories using propaganda by denouncing Hegel's earlier philosophical approach.
So does love make the world go round or does the world make love go round?Food for thought!
The mere reason,we keep visiting relics like the gravesites of our beloved one's,is a norm which is synonymous with the religious whitewash that pre-existed.Thus we will die clueless,of whether there is a heaven for the 'innocent' souls.
I suppose God lives in the sun - anyone who tries to go near it using scientific instruments will melt to death,anyone who looks direct into the sun will fall blind,and without the sun,the entire world will freeze to death.Interestingly,the moon itself does not have any light but the light it possesses, is a reflection from the sun.
Existence in this moment, is the only reality.Interestingly,reality contains everything that exists,but existence is only a subset of what is real.Therefore nothing unreal exists.Western philosophical idealists like Hegel,somehow approved the notion that,in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.And the earth was without form and full of darkness.In essence,i suppose this was derived from oral tradition,where religious beliefs were passed on from generation to generation - in a quest to understand the supernatural.
Typically Philosophical materialists believed that in the beginning there was matter - these assumptions were purely based on empirical and scientific evidence.Theocracy tells us that the world is merely 2009years after the death of christ,yet human endevour using scientific methods suggest that ,the world has been in existence for millions of years.If i may bring Hegel back into this phenomena,his arguments are concurrent with biblical suggestions that,all man are immortal - thus succumb to the death of the flesh and the spirit gets reunited with the creator.
Of course,Hegel's arguments did not go unchallenged.Even though Karl Marx enthused on emulating Hegel,he noted that there were fundamental differences in how things are seen pertaining to the world we live in.To clarify an event is(for Hegel no other than) to explain it in terms of logical necessity - the world comes to self consciousness and man rests in God.Whilst Marx felt compelled to radically assume the world revolved around the material state of things.Afterall Marx might have tried to develop his theories using propaganda by denouncing Hegel's earlier philosophical approach.
So does love make the world go round or does the world make love go round?Food for thought!
The mere reason,we keep visiting relics like the gravesites of our beloved one's,is a norm which is synonymous with the religious whitewash that pre-existed.Thus we will die clueless,of whether there is a heaven for the 'innocent' souls.
I suppose God lives in the sun - anyone who tries to go near it using scientific instruments will melt to death,anyone who looks direct into the sun will fall blind,and without the sun,the entire world will freeze to death.Interestingly,the moon itself does not have any light but the light it possesses, is a reflection from the sun.
Tuesday, 5 May 2009
Depleted Labour party confusing electolate!!!
Winston Churchill once said,Politics is not like war because in war you are shot once and die forever - but in Politics you are shot once and you resurrect with a vengeance several times.This subjective statement epitomises Gordon Brown's plight and leadership squabbles that has of late haunted the labour party.I have always supported labour parties because they are historically based on the ethos of revolution.From Zambia's Fredrick Chiluba,Zimbabwe's Morgan Tsvangirai and South Africa's Peter Marais(even though his policies are a model of the repressive apartheid government).
The recent revolt and conspiracy against Gordon Brown leaves me wondering whether the ridiculed leader is heading for an involuntary exit from 10 downing street.Are we close to an internal regicide and mutiny?
Who manages the affairs of the labour party and who leads the labour party?Help me,i am confused.Leadership is a process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task.
And management is the act of getting people to accomplish desired goals.This leaves me in the horns of a dilemma and in such an intricate confused situation.Holding all other things constant - ceteris paribas in latin: whats the difference between leadership and management?Is Gordon Brown the leader who manages the affairs of the labour party or what?
It is so disturbing to come to the realisation that the Prime Minister - an individual with the royal prerogative can be savaged by the media and his own MPs alike - such is the democracy in England.This man surely hasn't been given enough time to settle.Remember that he inherited a war in Iraq and Afghanistan,the global economic melt down was looming and the image of Britain all over the world was not at its best.Yes he was chancellor,under Tony Blair but did he have a direct influence on the policies of his predecessor?Marginally yes but that's not the benchmark to judge his ultimate credentials.
Of course,David Cameron is convincing when he talks but i am not convinced.It was such a privilege to watch Alan Shearer on a BBC match of the day programme,giving opinions on how teams and coaches should be playing - what formation would suite which team?Now he is in the fray at New castle - for record sake,one draw and three defeats.
The labour party should resolve their internal squabbles without our knowledge.How will they expect us(if i was british) to vote for them if there is inhouse fighting.
It's time to put differences aside and plan how best to defeat the opposition.
Labour for life!
The recent revolt and conspiracy against Gordon Brown leaves me wondering whether the ridiculed leader is heading for an involuntary exit from 10 downing street.Are we close to an internal regicide and mutiny?
Who manages the affairs of the labour party and who leads the labour party?Help me,i am confused.Leadership is a process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task.
And management is the act of getting people to accomplish desired goals.This leaves me in the horns of a dilemma and in such an intricate confused situation.Holding all other things constant - ceteris paribas in latin: whats the difference between leadership and management?Is Gordon Brown the leader who manages the affairs of the labour party or what?
It is so disturbing to come to the realisation that the Prime Minister - an individual with the royal prerogative can be savaged by the media and his own MPs alike - such is the democracy in England.This man surely hasn't been given enough time to settle.Remember that he inherited a war in Iraq and Afghanistan,the global economic melt down was looming and the image of Britain all over the world was not at its best.Yes he was chancellor,under Tony Blair but did he have a direct influence on the policies of his predecessor?Marginally yes but that's not the benchmark to judge his ultimate credentials.
Of course,David Cameron is convincing when he talks but i am not convinced.It was such a privilege to watch Alan Shearer on a BBC match of the day programme,giving opinions on how teams and coaches should be playing - what formation would suite which team?Now he is in the fray at New castle - for record sake,one draw and three defeats.
The labour party should resolve their internal squabbles without our knowledge.How will they expect us(if i was british) to vote for them if there is inhouse fighting.
It's time to put differences aside and plan how best to defeat the opposition.
Labour for life!
Monday, 4 May 2009
Why obey the law anyway?
Robert Putman argued that increasing individualism had led to a decline in political participation and activity in community organisations,thereby undermining good governance.In tandem,Ronald Dworkin had previously argued that the duty to obey the law from an 'associative'obligation;in short,that the duty of obedience to the state extends out of the obligations each individual bears towards family and friends and is therefore natural and not reliant on any overt consent.
For Dworkin community is based on shared concern for others,yet in contrast Arnold Muchoko can ask,(is political or community participation a pre-requisite for 'good governance'?)Is obedience to the state only justified via such participation or is obedience based on a different conception of the relationship between the state and the individual?
Sometimes political philosohpy does my heading!One day when i return to my beloved motherland,i will surely not philosophise every political thought - because the political arena is so much infested with bandits who exterminate whoever has an abstract thought.So for that reason, i am out of politics - but my research goes on.
Thomas hobbes once argued that the individual must obey the state due to the obligations arising from a pre-historical social contract without further demands for active political participation.So the duty to obey the state was the result of a social contract,i suppose.In the state of nature,men were free but also subject to intense violence and competition - just imagine the english civil war(which led to the execution of Charles 1).So by deciding to join together to form the state,men could avoid such competition and violence, in return for the protection,they promised obedience to the state.In Hobbes' eyes there was no requirement of continuing active participation in politics underlying individual obedience, instead via the social contract, agreed in pre-historic,an individual is bound to obey the state.
I guess theology and religion also contributed extensively to the reasons why men found it imperative to live in solidarity and form sovereign states.This brings me part of the theory of Charles Darwin survival of the fittest this time ignore through natural selection.If it wasn't for the precedents of the social contract this world would have been a mess and i mean it.Survival of the fittest would have been the order of the day.The world would have been grossly over-populated through sex without consent, and all anti-social activities that you can dream of would have been prevalent.Thank goodness the bible, the quran and pre-historic social contracts redeemed us all.
Now to mess around,and try to act belligerent - the state has the autonomy to prosecute and convict.That's the reason why Britain has around 88 000 convicts - at least one is assured of a play station,telly and laptop inside the so called British prisons.Conversely prisons like the Black beach(Malabo - Equatorial Guinea),Sun City(South Africa) and Chikurubi Maximum(Zimbabwe)are some of the most notorius in the world.This reminds me of a Briton, who led a group of mercentaries to Equatorial Guinea,in a bid to try a coup de tat on President Teodore obiang Nguema.Unfortunately his attempts were thwarted before his mission could be accomplished - sadly now he languishes in solitary confinement,one meal a day and a wall dripping with condensed water to look at for life.Such conditions are the ones that prompted fugitives like Stephen Chidumo to make maiden escapes from Chikurubi Maximum in Zimbabwe, and Annanias Mathe(houdini) from Maximum security prison C max in Pretoria(South Africa).
So there is every reason why we should obey the law - nevermind human rights.
http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/
For Dworkin community is based on shared concern for others,yet in contrast Arnold Muchoko can ask,(is political or community participation a pre-requisite for 'good governance'?)Is obedience to the state only justified via such participation or is obedience based on a different conception of the relationship between the state and the individual?
Sometimes political philosohpy does my heading!One day when i return to my beloved motherland,i will surely not philosophise every political thought - because the political arena is so much infested with bandits who exterminate whoever has an abstract thought.So for that reason, i am out of politics - but my research goes on.
Thomas hobbes once argued that the individual must obey the state due to the obligations arising from a pre-historical social contract without further demands for active political participation.So the duty to obey the state was the result of a social contract,i suppose.In the state of nature,men were free but also subject to intense violence and competition - just imagine the english civil war(which led to the execution of Charles 1).So by deciding to join together to form the state,men could avoid such competition and violence, in return for the protection,they promised obedience to the state.In Hobbes' eyes there was no requirement of continuing active participation in politics underlying individual obedience, instead via the social contract, agreed in pre-historic,an individual is bound to obey the state.
I guess theology and religion also contributed extensively to the reasons why men found it imperative to live in solidarity and form sovereign states.This brings me part of the theory of Charles Darwin survival of the fittest this time ignore through natural selection.If it wasn't for the precedents of the social contract this world would have been a mess and i mean it.Survival of the fittest would have been the order of the day.The world would have been grossly over-populated through sex without consent, and all anti-social activities that you can dream of would have been prevalent.Thank goodness the bible, the quran and pre-historic social contracts redeemed us all.
Now to mess around,and try to act belligerent - the state has the autonomy to prosecute and convict.That's the reason why Britain has around 88 000 convicts - at least one is assured of a play station,telly and laptop inside the so called British prisons.Conversely prisons like the Black beach(Malabo - Equatorial Guinea),Sun City(South Africa) and Chikurubi Maximum(Zimbabwe)are some of the most notorius in the world.This reminds me of a Briton, who led a group of mercentaries to Equatorial Guinea,in a bid to try a coup de tat on President Teodore obiang Nguema.Unfortunately his attempts were thwarted before his mission could be accomplished - sadly now he languishes in solitary confinement,one meal a day and a wall dripping with condensed water to look at for life.Such conditions are the ones that prompted fugitives like Stephen Chidumo to make maiden escapes from Chikurubi Maximum in Zimbabwe, and Annanias Mathe(houdini) from Maximum security prison C max in Pretoria(South Africa).
So there is every reason why we should obey the law - nevermind human rights.
http://journalism.winchester.ac.uk/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
