I was invited to be on the Murnaghan programme on Sky News this morning – which I always find a great deal more intelligent than the Andrew Marr alternative on the BBC. I declined because I did not want to get up and get a 7.30am train from Ramsgate on a Sunday morning. I had a meeting until 11.30pm last night planning a conference on human rights in Balochistan [I still tend to say Baluchistan], and I have a newly crowned tooth that seems not to want to settle down. But I am still worried by my own lack of energy, which is uncharacteristic. Is this old age?
I also have some serious work to do on my Burnes book, and next week I shall be staying in London to be in the British Library reading room for every second of its opening hours. So there may be a bit of a posting hiatus. I have in mind a short post on an important subject on which I suspect that 99% of my readership – including the regular dissident commenters – will strongly disagree with me.
This is a peculiarly introspective post, perhaps because my tooth is hurting, but I seem to have this curmudgeonly spirit which wishes to react to the huge popularity of this blog by posting something genuinely held but unpopular; a genuine view but one I don’t normally trumpet. The base thought seems to be “You wouldn’t like me if you really knew me”.
Similarly when I wrote Murder in Samarkand I was being hailed as a hero by quite a lot of people for my refusal to go along with the whole neo-con disaster of illegal wars, extraordinary rendition and severe attacks on civil liberties, sacrificing my fast track diplomatic career as a result. My reaction to putative hero worship was to publish in Murder in Samarkand not just the political facts, but an exposure of my own worst and most unpleasant behaviour in my private life.
I am in a very poor position to judge, but I believe the result rather by accident turned out artistically compelling, if you don’t want to read the book you can get a good idea of that by clicking on David Tennant in the top right of this blog and listening to him playing me in David Hare’s radio adaptation.
Anyway, that’s enough musing. You won’t like my next post, whenever it comes. Promise.
@Clark “My friend is restricting free will. She refuses to discuss the matter with me, because I wish her to think about what could happen if her alternative approach doesn’t work (see my last two links). She is restricting my free will, by blocking communication.”
Now, this is a tricky part. In principle you may impose your free will on yourself, provided you in the process take into consideration to reasonably avoid harming others in the process.
But to say that she denies you your free will by not agreeing to listen to you is not logical. When it comes to her life it’s her free will that takes priority, regardless of how much good advice you have to give.
This is something everyone that brings up children goes through to a lesser or higher degree as the children turns into adults becoming responsible for their own lives, starting to do things that we think is totally wrong.
Communication relies on trust and force never creates trust. I can put a gun to your head and say “love me” and you would likely say “I love you”, but would you mean it?
The paradigm you describe is the basic foundation for many of today’s societies where politicians believe they “know” what’s best for ordinary people and creates laws that in detail regulate their lives according to the politicians understanding of how a life should be lived.
What this practically does is that it disempowers people, it removes the responsibility from the individual to the state, and it creates powerless zombies. When it comes to geo-politics this is done by design. It’s much easier to control a herd of powerless sheeps.
In interpersonal relationships, if we take your example, will you after she agrees to listen to you and comply with your will, manage her decisions for the remaining of her life? Or just in those areas where you know better than her?
Wouldn’t it be better to respect her as an individual trying to see the world from her perspective and to create a foundation for communication? From a practical point of view that would increase your chances to influence her.
Jon, I’d rather you told Scouse Billy to fuck off rather than me. If you don’t mind.
No. I take it back.
Scouse Billy, if you don’t know her story, go and look it up before you post links to misleading videos. She had the lump removed. I’ve encountered her story before.
Yes, I know the dangers of chemotherapy and radiotherapy. They are probably over-prescribed. The situation in the US is worse than in Europe. Why? Probably, greater corporate influence. Funnily enough, I’m probably more familiar with this stuff than you are.
@Clark – “Jemand, what I can try to do is convince anyone, just one more person would help, to check their facts before spreading disinformation. To try to prevent this happening over and over again.”
Clark, no one can prevent this from happening 100%, the problem of foolishness is here forever – we can only try to mitigate it. And the job Craig, you and Jon are doing on this blog fighting stupidity and ignorance is a whole lot more than what most people do. Give yourself a break.
I hope you can find some kind of peace with your friend.
Sunflower, free will is not something that we have, it is something that we develop. Consider, you are free to paint a picture, but do you have the ability to paint what you see in your mind? Free will doesn’t come out of nowhere.
From Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life
Clark, apart from trying to be a “wise-guy”, I do feel your pain, don’t doubt that. And yes, I’m trying to learn, some days are more successful than others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk_Radio_(film)
Has anyone seen this film? It’s brilliant. While the setting is talkback radio, it reminds me of this blog and that of Jack Marx, Australian journalist and blogger. I was a belated contributor to the comments section of his blog.
Yes, Clark, she had the lump removed but refused a masectomy.
Her full interview is here and right near the start explains that you cannot cut cancer out because the underlying cause remains (and I would add there is always the risk of metastasis).
The only reason I posted the testimony of a patient of Dr Simoncini earlier, was because he has claimed “99% success” in breast cancer treatment. I think he has an interesting paradigm and extraordinary claims – and remember he is a qualified oncologist that was distressed by the abject failure of conventional tratments in the paediatric-oncology ward where he watched children suffering and dying.
missing link referred to above:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DYhyCu3DQY&feature=related
Clark, I agree to that Monthy Python quote, the soul is “brought into existence by a process of guided self-observation” . I just believe the soul is eternal and brought into existence means that we actually become aware of it.
“In my world view, honesty is one of the highest virtues.” Yes, the world needs more of that.
@Scouse Billy
You can throw sticks (links) and others will amazingly run and fetch them. But not me. To me, you are a text book internet phenomenon, sort of similar to how biologists see fruit flies. Don’t let that discourage you. Without you Billy, good reason and sound judgement would have no reference point.
Scouse Billy, for you, again:
Isn’t it said that other people are the mirror of the soul?
Whenever you post something that you haven’t looked into and checked, you may end up deceiving people, or at least wasting away hours of their lives. You really should have learned that by now. You should be able to see why people have been highly critical of you on this thread.
The trivia you are distracted by is your need to “win” the argument, or at least to induce doubt regarding the counter-argument. Emotional audit is called for; you need to assess the feelings that motivate you to behave this way. This will take time, reflection, introspection. After that, you may have the necessary resources to look into the global heating and cancer treatment arguments. No matter what the truth is in these matters, you have clearly demonstrated to many others (if not to yourself) that as yet, you lack the necessary personal resources to do so.
Lots of good advice here, but how to apply?
I remember two seemingly disconnected metaphors. Take what you will from them.
Two things;
In the Movie Phenomenon, John Travolta is enamored with a young woman with a past. He tries to make contact, but no interest. She makes willow furniture. He has a business and offers to display her work. They don’t sell. He keeps buying them, and hiding them in his house. A friend of his overhears others besmirching Travolta’s character while having beers. The friend chimes in; ‘ Fred, you still with your wife?’ “No” he replies. ” I thought not. Maybe you shoulda bought her chairs. That’s a smart thing, I think”
2nd-In the book ‘Be Here Now’ then, Richard Alpert travels to India to find himself, and encounters a Guru of some substance. He is quite impressed by the Teacher, and after a few weeks has to go the city to update his passport. While there he stops to eat at a vegetarian restaurant and feasts on the repast with gusto. But, he somehow feels the guilt from his pleasure as he finishes a vegan cookie and hides it from view as he eats. Upon his return he still has that guilt plaguing him and he buys a bag or oranges as a gift to the Guru. Upon seeing Alpert, the Teacher literally runs to Alpert, grabs the bag and begins stuffing orange after orange into his mouth, peels and all, until they are gone. With an overwhelming visage of love on his face, dripping with juice, he looks at Alpert and says; “Did you enjoy the cookie?”
Jemand, yes, Our Billy lacks self discipline, without which free will is rather moot.
I have to go now. When Ben announced that yesterday, Billy returned Ben’s accusation of narcissism. Personally, I think it is simply polite to announce ones exit from an ongoing conversation.
I will catch up with this thread later. Ben, sorry I that I still haven’t replied to your e-mail. I prioritised the conversation here. I expect you can see why I did that.
Best wishes to all.
Subject : Surveillance and the Feminist state.
https://soupyone.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/craig-murray-naomi-wolf-and-rape-anonymity/
Clark: “The trivia you are distracted by is your need to “win” the argument, or at least to induce doubt regarding the counter-argument.”
Interesting thesis – but I can assure you I don’t do trivia: the issues I raise I consider to affect all of us, particularly your good self, often the first to repeat and/or defend conventional “wisdom”.
As for winning an argument… my goodness I left that long ago but I am happy to post information that upsets some peope and in some cases adopt that position for the purposes of debate. Essentially, however, I think a free society should scrutinise very carefully the “mainstream” doctrines of governments, institutions and industries.
As to conspiacies, Gore Vidal once said America runs on conspiracies, what is a political party if not a onspiracy?
Anyway I will leave it there and bid you all well.
Take it easy, Clark. See you when you get back.
Actually, Clark, it was Ben prefacing his departure with “Sorry,” that gave rise to my tongue in cheek reference to narcissism – see the “nuance”? 😉
Scouse Billy, thank you so much for recommending a killer to “treat” my oldest friend.
http://www.123hjemmeside.dk/cancer_is_not_a_fungus/21160738
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3847028#post3847028
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=113061
Wikipedia in Italian:
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tullio_Simoncini
Google translation:
With 33 thirty three references.
Are you going to apologise, Scouse Billy?
Are you going to mend your ways and in future check on the things you claim to be factual?
Sunflower,
Zoologist,
Cryptonym,
What do you think of all this? Do you believe that crappy film that Scouse Billy linked to, or do you think I could be right, and it’s full of nonsense? Which of us do you consider more trustworthy?
I want to raise another issue now. When I got angry, people told me to calm down or get away from this blog.
Anger is one of the human emotions and it is as important as any of the others. It is not, as so many Hippy / New Age idiots maintain, a “negative” emotion. It is part of our evolutionary heritage. It evolved because it helps us to survive and prosper. It is a protection system and a deterrent.
My anger today was entirely justifiable. It was right and proper. Anger is there to deter abuse, dishonesty, etc.
So lets have a little poll. Who thinks Billy should apologise to me? Who thinks I should apologise to Billy for getting angry at him? Possible answers include one, the other, both, and neither. If you choose “both”, who should apologise first?
Clark: Don’t be daft. SB is wannabe cult leader – he’s not going to admit to having ever, in his life, having as much as put on an odd pair of socks, let alone posted something factually incorrect.
Whatever the less rationally based posters (like Zoologist) might think, we’ve proved what’s necessary on this thread. It’s been a tough ride, but if we don’t know where we respectively stand at the end of it, we never will.
The Only thing Scouse Bully could do to really cap it off, is to insist smoking is totally ok, lung cancer has nothing to do with tobacco, and the tobacco industry is a desperately persecuted scapegoat for general atmospheric pollution, while they’re marketing a perfectly safe product.
Billy has already revealed himself. He gets off on pissing folks off. His apology will accomplish nothing. You have nothing to apologize for Clark. He will disappear as soon as the attention he craves is withdrawn.
Cheers
Ben Franklin: Do you think that’s all there is to it? Attention seeking, such as a particularly whiny infant, or a not very bright kind who just has to be obstinate to get attention?
Just in case the point isn’t obvious here – no apologies are needed from you, Clark, and SB is not capable of producing one.
Glenn; “Attention seeking, such as a particularly whiny infant, or a not very bright kind who just has to be obstinate to get attention?”
Yeah.
@Clark – “Anger is one of the human emotions and it is as important as any of the others … It evolved because it helps us to survive and prosper.”
Quite true. Isn’t it amazing how clueless people are about the origins and function of emotions? I think the problem is related to our inability to come to terms with the truth of our animal heritage and survival and reproduction as the primary evolutionary drivers. Emotions seem to be divided into two types – attractive (positive) and repelling (negative). And for each emotion, there seems to be an opposite.
Anger is an emotion that overcomes fear. It is negative in the sense that it drives us to violently reject or attack that thing that we fear, be it a natural threat like a bear or an abstract threat like an odious ideology. In this case, Clark is simultaneously afraid of the damage caused by the spread of fraudulent medical treatments, and also of sounding abusive on a blog where he encourages intelligent debate. Anger overcomes these fears.
Hatred is also an emotion, the opposite of love. It is also a negative one in the sense that it causes us to stay away from and shun anything that we distrust as being harmful. We hate bad people, bad habits, bad places and bad ideas. Yet those who practice political correctness are now attacking us for having these negative emotions as if they are unnatural faults. I say fuck those PC wankers. All emotions are natural and vital to motivate us. Without emotions, there is no drive to do anything. But they do need to be kept in check by the rational mind.
As for the subject of apologies, does anyone really want a forced apology? Or do they seek someone’s humiliation?
Jemand, absolutely, I seek Scouse Billy’s humiliation. Should I not? His arrogance is… I’m missing a superlative. Billy needs to come down a peg or several. He needs to understand, to stand beneath. He needs to understand something, anything. He currently estimates his opinions to be above just about everyone else’s. Humility is indeed called for, on Billy’s part. I’m actually doing him a favour.
Billy posted:
When it is pointed out that she had the cancer cut out, he ignores this and returns:
She does not “reveal” that; she merely asserts it. But Billy continues:
Who? Me? Billy gets nothing wrong:
Explanation? No, just more assertion. But Billy is all for it. then Billy posted this:
when five minutes with Google would have demolished every claim in that paragraph.
I seriously believe that apologising would do Billy good. That’s why we have apology, like we have anger.
@Clark
There’s no good that can come from trying to force something from Billy. He’s not the same kind of internet bunny as Goran, or Goran’s legion of fans. Billy is a fruit fly trapped in a bubble of self-delusion. May I suggest the best kind of approach is a low energy response including sometimes ignoring him. I’m not sure how many visitors here would actually be influenced by his peddling of junk ideas. And the more energy that you spend on Billy, the less energy you have to spend on slapping down trolls who DO have influence.
I recommend seeing the Oliver Stone film ‘Talk Radio’ to put things in perspective.
@Clark “What do you think of all this? Do you believe that crappy film that Scouse Billy linked to, or do you think I could be right, and it’s full of nonsense? Which of us do you consider more trustworthy?”
Going to make two posts in my answer to you. The first is a quote by Stephen Covey’s 7 Habits:
Look at the word responsibility — “response-ability” — the ability to choose your response. Highly proactive people recognize that responsibility.
They do not blame circumstances, conditions, or conditioning for their behavior. Their behavior is a product of their own conscious choice, based on values, rather than a product of their conditions, based on feeling.
Because we are, by nature, proactive, if our lives are a function of conditioning and conditions, it is because we have, by conscious decision or by default, chosen to empower those things to control us.
In making such a choice, we become reactive. Reactive people are often affected by their physical environment. If the weather is good, they feel good. If it isn’t, it affects their attitude and their performance. Proactive people can carry their own weather with them. Whether it rains or shines makes no difference to them. They are value driven; and if their value is to produce good quality work, it isn’t a function of whether the weather is conducive to it or not.
Reactive people are also affected by their social environment, by the “social weather.” When people treat them well, they feel well; when people don’t, they become defensive or protective. Reactive people build their emotional lives around the behavior of others, empowering the weaknesses of other people to control them.
The ability to subordinate an impulse to a value is the essence of the proactive person. Reactive people are driven by feelings, by circumstances, by conditions, by their environment. Proactive people are driven by values — carefully thought about, selected and internalized values.