Like all these things, it depends on who's asking the question.
Apparently in French Schools, the pupils are taught to answer "Let's Discuss ..." -type-open questions objectively.
"Giving an impartial, balanced response ..."
Yet in every school there is the imposition – on the individual – of the corridor walls; those set in first instance by the teachers – and then in reflection and sometimes projection by the individual, their class mates and teachers – as to the safe-boundaries of, the corridor walls.
We see it in all walks of life, politics and journalism.
We don't have a migrant crisis; what we have is the consequences of war, and a potential resource.
I suspect we will soon have a housing and resource crisis though, at least double that of our current incapacity, and growing geometrically at yearly to two yearly centres.
This is all well known. It is not difficult to consider oneself a refugee in one's own country, or indeed, to see the potential in others.
My knowledge of Poland is scarce. I have a History qualification; an "O" Level; we never covered it, her, him, Poland. Obviously [1], with the omnipresence of WW2 in British culture, I am aware that the Third Reich lusted first after their neighbour's geology, their fossil-fuels, the Silesian, to fund their War-machine.
I have read biographies of Rosa Luxemburg also.
If successful in my application, I should think it would be interesting to visit a place where:
I understand the job on offer is a three month initial contract, no strings attached, £6,000 for accommodation and travel expenses.
I'm not interested in the money at first instance – as long as it covers my costs. I should be interested in planning a route with yourselves and the executors; I picture the reopening of the silk-roads, with either Israel or Switzerland at the epicentre; Competing currencies; apropos, spheres of influences.
Materially this will correspond to pipe-lines, razor-wire and suffering. Should you wish to send a camera man, I'd appreciate the company – at the beginning of the journey at least – if only to have some cunt to talk to, who shares a point of access.
I don't go abroad much. I have flown and, reading your invitation to treat, I am aware that I should make it clear that I have the necessary documentation, by current protocols, and that I am British and/or Irish. [1]
I do and I am mais j'accuse:
I read the headlines of quite a few periodicals on a daily basis, and noticed on 28 November and 1 March of this year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was quoted as using the term divorce in relation to the notion of Brexit. Also I have heard a front bencher mention that in their opinion a two year period would be required before we sorted out the furniture, so to speak.
Now I'm not sure of the time frames, and I'm not knocking marriage per se, but what I would say is this: It is possible to remain friends following a divorce; not always easy, yet possible.
I have read the headlines of quite a few periodicals on a daily basis for many years now, and I – as should be clear from above – view migration as a by-product of war, and war as one method of economic distribution.
I found it noticeable, watching the recent Syria debate in parliament how folk from many established parties wished to continue further with industrialised warfare and wonder how this slaughter shall ever end. The reason why I mention this is if the vote concerned a divorce from this current mode of being, I should think I might register [3].
I am a graduate of both Physics and Law, and the jury is currently out as to whether I am a graduate of Civil Engineering. Law I studied following Civil Engineering with the intention of becoming qualified in both. It is an old adage that the closer one gets to the money the richer one will be, – for instance: how many accountants go bang? – and I intended to work in arbitration, conciliation, and demand enough of a salary to keep me squeaky clean from bribery: Clean business.
It is a mask; a shield: i hide stuff but I dont tend to lie. [ ]
How can one give authority to another which one can not give to oneself? Answers on a postcard please, in as few as words as possible.
Excuse me if I deal with process; asking why is like folding paper – one can do it only so many times if one is seeking an ultimate [ ] truth – even with aluminium foil.
On a previous draft of this article, I introduced prayer two chapters above and footnotes elsewhere unfinished. I contend one feels more inclined to give over authority to others, when one feels – and perhaps actually is – in no position to argue.
Is this a good or a bad thing? I suppose it's a matter of trust, or lack of it. Take my view about the pole on EMU membership; why bother? I heard a journalist give the following answer to this question recently, although they were being asked something entirely different:
"Because some people like to vote!"
Obviously I appreciate the liberal sentiment.
And to give trust to another to impose a tariff. What's that all about? Is this where we're at, a tariff war?
Perhaps we should take a sideways step: War is a competition for resources at first instance and, in recent times at least, usually for what folk want and their overlapping needs. Consider the migrant crisis: I've contended above how this may prove to have positive outcomes. That is not to say that I'd wish it on my worse enemy, so to speak:
Let alone the impositions of the secret state; the platonic guardians.
I have in mind a Spoiler Alert for TV: Adverts; loud and keep you from sleeping.
I should imagine if I had drawn the post card above on a political chat show I would have been rebuked in some fashion and had it pointed out to me how I should feel sorry for the plight of the migrants and been made well aware of the example de jour.
I wonder if comments such as this are a form of prayer; a prayer derived from preying on another's apparent difference with the intention of effecting some collective goal [ ] – rather than affecting some sort of temporary position [ ]?
Perhaps I am not cynical enough? i suspect that I am though from other statements I've made. It is rather that I attach blame, – if indeed blame is the right word – not at first instance to the individual, but rather on to their environment. That is not to say I don't think there aren't an whole multitude of behaviours developed which don't even meet the needs of the individual, let alone contribute to the general weal – I smoke for instance. I know worse habits; – I don't smoke to make enemies; it's no excuse though I know.
To change inertia requires looking past clichéd instant wins. For instance neither Bin Laden, Hussein, Gaddafi, Ahmadinejad, Assad, Putin, Netanyahu nor Margaret Thatcher for that matter, were nor are the new Hitler, and Hitler himself I'd say, was a product of his environment.
I have a Physics degree, yet the kids these days appear to know more about Physics than me. I haven't invented a machine which would allow me to travel to whenever – and necessarily – to wherever I should have to be in space to match the coordinates of the whenever I wanted to visit, and necessarily effect. I'd be talking about it if I had. Yet being brought up in the British culture I have often idled many hours imagining how useful it might be to end – before it began – all the suffering experienced in WW2. I don't think I am alone in this fantasy. It is a negotiation. I don't really mind the telly. I have a problem with witnessing suffering – even that of suffering-past – and have put resources in to imagining a final solution for Hitler.
As I have I done for Judas, to be quite honest, Actually, the last statement is a lie. To be kind on my self, it is a false fact and a true fiction; by this I mean: I haven't imagined under taking martial combat with Judas, like I did as a kid, in a do or die fashion against Hitler for example; committing the honourable sacrifice, clichéd and symbolised by November's paper poppies. Rather it is a thought-extension of the machine I haven't invented, and one of the whens that have keep me at it in its contemplation:
I am not over religion certainly. I've read around the subject. Judas for instance, – via his shockingly harsh environment of up bringing and because it was his job apparently – could have got the drop on me in a knife fight without a doubt.
No I don't think I'd start there. Given I could get past using this machine to satisfy my own selfish interests, and, in contemplation of the good book, I think I'd start at Genesis, but not until the seventh day. I mean I'd like to watch Creation obviously but would be worried about messing things up in the other six days if only by being a witness, for we effect what we witness and I wouldn't want to fuck with Creation given we have a working thesis. On the seventh day though, ladeda, jobs done, world's a goodun.
I have imagined rebuke obviously. I think it should be very difficult to imagine meeting with an whole creator and not feel like one should be exposed to some ultimate rebuke – some sort of formative and palliative feedback. Like, "How come you've only just turned up when the works are substantially completed?"
I'd have to play it by hear. What I'd really like to say, at least as an opening introduction, is this:
I do not blame God, the gods, etc., for the multifaried wrongness in the world; I tend to blame men. []
And with respect to the Abrahamic traditions, and the release from the slavery of our, its, material conditions – at least on a periodic basis – and how the notion of soul as grown, I would say this: