— Mark Rothko
— Lewis Carroll (via observando)
If I puke up this fried chicken and do a thousand sit-ups
maybe you’ll love me.
Maybe you’ll love me.
These are all the things you wish you could say
But cannot say
These are all the words best left unsaid
These are all the unforgotten thoughts
Best left internally expressed.
This here is the love unstated
You wish you could offer without fear.
This is the affection too strange to profess.
Unseen, underneath a pile of crackling, burning wood
there are embers –
desires for desires,
This is the text message draft unsent
This is the email deleted.
This is the letter burnt.
This is the sim card destroyed.
This is the new email address.
This is the vague memory of hope for something more.
This is another shit poem at 2:05am.
A child smiles.
A man looks into the mirror as he puts on his cap.
Maybe they do not know
Or perhaps it’s better not to give it too much thought.
My essay/article about the football captain, psychology and behavioural economics.
I was watching the film Deja Vu last night when my wife asked me, “Haven’t we seen this before?”
"No, you’re thinking of minority report," I replied.
Ten minutes later she asked the same question again.
I’m quite worried about her. I think she’s got early onset alzheimer’s because she keeps forgetting whether we’ve eaten and she quite often seems to have no idea what time it is.
I didn’t want to alarm her so I just responded by saying again, “No. You’re thinking of minority report.”
She paused for a moment. “Hmm… That’s weird. I feel like we’ve had this conversation before. What’s it called when you have that feeling?”
"Deja vu?" I asked.
"No. Minority report," she replied.
'Ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife' is only ironic if you’re asking for a knife to perform an emergency operation, and the patient is Uri Geller.
I read Robert Tulson’s opinion piece in The Spectator on my ‘achievements’ and long-term political output with the disappointment I have come to expect from reading his work. The factual basis was limited to a few quotes, taken out of context to the main works I was discussing, potentially leading to the understanding, for casual readers at least, that I am a devout supporter of totalitarian regimes, a holocaust denier, and care nothing about the death of civilians unless I believe it is caused from a policy of continuing western imperialism.
These are well-tread arguments which I have fully refuted in my responses, among many others, to criticism from Redrow, Lipstein, and Promm. I do not care to cover it in any more detail here, except to say that my response to these ridiculous allegations is in black and white if one cares to read them.
Tulson argues that I am “busy happily airbrushing history” and quickly moves on to highlight the “fallacious inaccuracies” of my article in The New York Times in June of 1962 about the illegal invasion of Pagulia that same year. His main criticism, as far as I can tell, is that I declared that the actions would lead to a severe restriction in food and medical aid to innocent civilians, leading to epidemic levels of famine and millions of deaths from starvation within 6 months.
How I can airbrush history when speculating on the future is beyond my comprehension, but so too is Tulson’s assertion that I “must have been slamming [my] desk with fists clenched that so few people died”. It is a thoroughly reprehensible accusation. I, more than most, was relieved that the outcome turned out to be nowhere near as severe as I had predicted (and I have stated as much in over five retrospective articles about the illegal invasion).
Not unexpectedly, Tulson then omits an inconvenient fact that, according to conservative estimates, at least 600 civilians died during the conflict. It is a travesty that so many people died needlessly from a war based on the consistently false rhetoric of liberating an oppressed people. A travesty that Tulson doesn’t care to mention in his apparent attempts to demonstrate the contempt I hold for human life.
As Tulson well knows, the position I held in my New York Times article was restricted to the information I had at the time. Far from putting forward arguments which he ludicrously declares as ‘fictitious manufacturing’ and ‘blatant manipulation of the truth’, my arguments were mainly based on the accounts of several leading human rights organisations and humanitarian field workers in the country, as well as the lessons we should have learned from the 1956 Polician occupation of Resdic, carried out under the extremely similar background of orientalism and imperialism. As Tinden Robertson famously said, “The most foolish people I have ever known are the ones who chastise those bitten by hindsight.”
Tulson then goes to extremely careful measures to ignore the outcomes I successfully predicted in that same article. As has been proven, my worrying prediction that the US involvement would strengthen the support for extremist terrorist organisations including Livika and Rasputa is demonstrably true. I argued at the time, that unless the US pulled out quickly, that outcome was a ‘certainty’. Bersnia’s Omar Bashid has not only stated in 1964 that “Livika are an important ally”, they have provided significant financial backing to their operations in the last three decades. It also evidently clear from the statements of Livika and Rasputa themselves, when they moved from a neutral position on the US in 1957 to a polemic position of the US being “one their greatest enemies” in 1968. Leading academics in middle-eastern politics have frequently argued that Livika would not have carried out their devastating attack on Bellhopper’s University Campus in 2002, killing 1000 people and injuring hundreds, if the US had not illegally occupied Pagulia in 1962. In fact, Livika’s leader, Verhad Kioplan, has even stated this in several recent speeches.
Tulson points to an article I wrote in 1995 referring to the justification provided by the US for their invasion of Rechnia in 1989 as “no more convincing than the rationale offered during Hitler’s invasion of Czechoslovakia”. Implicitly, he feels that I am referring to the US state as similar to Germany during Nazism, but nowhere in his piece does he offer a convincing argument why this is not an suitable analogy. I do not wish to dwell on this strand of argument other than to say that if one wishes to make an argument, it should at least be backed up by some supporting evidence. The fact that Tulson does not do this, is because there is no evidence available for him to do it.
His closing remarks referring me to a ‘self-professed intellectual’ are crude and unmerited. It is widely held in the academic community that I rarely refer to myself in superlatives. His attempts to undermine my authority by picking on the general present consensus to my earliest studies on the origins of thought should be embarrassing. He states that my theory of universal relativism is refuted by even the most devoted former colleagues and students. This is correct. It is also correct that it is not part of the current psychological or philosophical consensus. However, the need for Tulson to point this is out is a clear effort to undermine my political position by proxy. It is unfortunate that Tulson has to go down these muddy roads in order to attack me. It reeks of desperation and, importantly, it is also extremely misleading. He references, Carlson, who I worked with at Redbridge University (and whom I have tremendous respect for), suggesting that he has “proven [my] earlier works have limited value to the current field of psychology or philosophy of mind”. Once again, one only has to ask Carlson himself of his opinion of my earlier work. He said in an interview with The Guardian in 2006: “Without Golbred, I would never have reached even a tenth of the understanding I have of how the mind works today. Even if his earlier theories have now been partly refuted, one cannot underestimate the significant impact that it had in developing our current understanding on the origins of thought.”
Liberation of an oppressed people is an argument we have come to regularly expect when the US involves itself in any military action. This excuse is so common we can predict it before the government even offer it. But it is not a valid argument for breaching international law and committing human rights abuses. It has also consistently been proven to be patently untrue.
It is not surprising that Tulson dislikes me. I have long highlighted the true narrative of western led imperial invasions. Whereas Tulson has a long history of supporting human rights abuses and illegal wars in his unwilting support of US government intervention under the familiar guise and false narrative of liberation.
His dislike for me does not concern me, but his blatant misuse of my arguments and his inaccurate depiction of my work does.
No thought is truly original
Nice phrase, isn’t it? I’ve read enough rubbish and written enough of it myself to firmly believe this phrase. But, hold on, what about the person who first came up with that phrase? Wouldn’t they have rendered their point completely obsolete by virtue of its originality.
I reckon that whoever came up with the phrase literally blew their own mind. That’s why it’s never been attributed to anyone. Think about it; no one could recognise the deceased because their head had been blown to smithereens. It belongs to everyone like shit jokes and a false sense of freedom.
X is X [insert whatever word you please]
My friend, Tim Murphy, lived in Taiwan for over four years. I once asked him what the food was like and he said, “Well, you know. Food’s food.”
I know food is food. Saying something is the thing that it is, doesn’t tell us anything, so let’s stop pretending it does. Enough is enough. Even if you think it’s an attack on your liberty, I’m going to actively campaign to make the use of this sort of phrase illegal. Tough luck if you don’t like it. You know what they say, don’t you? The law is the law.
Boys will be boys
On first glance, you might think this phrase belongs in the same family as x is x, but it’s far worse.
If you use this phrase, you’re basically excusing someone from acting like a cunt on the basis of their gender.
A man acts like a cunt? “Boys will be boys.”
A woman acts like a cunt? “Why are you acting like a cunt?”
I think that they should change this phrase to: Don’t be a cunt, and especially don’t be one as an adult.
Two philosophers discuss the basic principles of nihilism and existentialism.
"Many people prescribe to being nihilist, but when it comes down to it, they are not. If they were true nihilists they surely would have killed themselves."
"Not at all. Killing oneself is not compatible with nihilism. Suicide is the ultimate act of existentialism. They have created purpose to their life in so much that ending it is a purpose. A nihilist sees no point to life, but conversely a nihilist sees no point to death either. A true nihilist would likely die of old age or untreated illness."
A Single Man (Soundtrack) - 16 And Just Like That