1
04723BLR.LIL Page
Bliar Slanders l960s Martyrs: News Update.
Ms. Minerva Miniskirt is gratified at being reappointed Press Officer of the Free Colombian Trade Federation in place of her mother, Ms.Minerva Miniskirt. Nevertheless Ms Minerva Minskirt has never even heard of WMDs and if she saw one wouldn't know it was a WMD. She therefore neither believes that WMDs exist or that they do not exist nor that they might exis nor that it is possible to pretend that they exist. Therefore as far as Ms Miniskirt is concerned WMDs are a void or a misprint for DMDs, Dubya-Miniskirt Detonators, with which, no doubt, you are familiar.
Readers of the Mad Monk's Memoirs on and
with Press Circulars on and
will be aware that the objective is a subset of the subjective. But, then, we have no way of telling which is which - so it may be that, as every fule know, the subjective is a subset of the objective. The Mad Monk tells us, however, that the relevant distinction is between fact, potential and void. That pigs fly or that President Bliar is always right is a fact. That fairies do not exist is potential. They might exist or exist as an idea. But WMDs are void. Upon this is based the Mad Monk's Nobel Prize winning model of human society, personality and cognition - the Golden Egg or Magic Onion.
The cover of the New Scientist magazine, recently received at the Isle de Belsize on the Poncho Bolero Drug Submarine, tells us that nothing exists until it is measured. Ms. Cartesia Wittgenstein, Professor of Moral Science at the Institut of Pommie Studies at Delmonte University on Montmandie on the Isle de Belsize, tells us that this has been true since John Locke, in the seventh century, wrote his Essay on Human Understanding. In our view, Mr Locke wrote an extraordinarily long essay for someone who believes that nothing exists.
"Maybe so!", says Professor George Orton, Professor of Psychology at the Institut des Etudes Pommies, "Maybe not! It could be that prior to John Locke somebody had noticed this fact obvious to every child. But if the child was not rapidly educated it would have been cured of its delusion by being thrown into the loonie bin or being burnt at the stake as a witch.. and nobody thereafter would be aware that child had ever existed. Everyone knew that the truth was what was pronounced by society, by the Pope, the Expert, by President Bliar (except during the tea break) or by the barrel of a gun.
We do not know what it says inside the New Scientist. But probably it tells us that before Quantum Mechanics nobody supposed that microcosmic systems behave differently from macrocosm.
"Maybe so!", says Professor George Orton, Professor of Psychology at the Institut de Pommie Studies at Delmonte University on Montmandie on the Isle de Belsize, "Maybe not! Maybe somebody prior to Quantum Mechanics noticed the fact obvious to every child that groups obey rules and are more predictable than isolated individualistic persons. But if that child was not rapidly educated it would have been psychiatrised or burnt as a witch. It's delusion would have been cured and nobody thereafter would have known about it. Everyone knew that somebody had misled the world into believing in WMDs, somebody who needed to be blamed and incinerated. It was certainly not true that it was obvious to everyone on earth that there was no proof of the existence of WMDs but that everyone was too scared of everyone else to say so openly.
What John Locke decided was that Rene Descartes first measures himself and discovers that he is one Rene Descartes Unit. Then he measures Mme. Descartes and discovers that she is one Mme. Descartes Unit. Possibly prior to that he had performed another measurement of a potential or imagined Mme. Decartes. But it is not true that if he had not done so Mme. Descartes did not previously exist or that, as far as Digger Hogan in Australia was concerned, Mme. Descartes did not exist. In Australia nobody had ever heard of Mme. Descartes and, therefore, they did not suppose she did not exist. Non-existence is a form of existence. In Australia, Mme. Descartes was not non-existent, but void. If you like, the Australian Mme Decartes was an empty set, not the set limited to zero.
"Go to the ant, thou sluggard!", we are told. "Consider her ways and wise!". Ecclesiastes has little to say about the wisdom of ants. But we will ask the ant nevertheless.
Mr. Johannes Kepler, Scientific Advisor to the International Joan of Arc Office, draws attention to the Kinetic Theory of Gases. This probably precedes Quantum Mechanics. It appears in the Mad Monk's Memoirs. So it is bound to do so. The scientist or theorist sees himself viewing an entire system - a universe cut off from surrounds, a universe surrounded by void, not by potential WMDs. This entire universe obeys the laws of conservation of energy, momentum, mass and so forth. Unless these quantities are interdependent, can be converted into one another or are moieties of the same quantity (three equivalent hypotheses), this is bound to be true. A universe is one universe unit and if it gets smaller it remains one universe unit and remains the same size. We understand that the chap with the black eye and wheelchair is shortly going to say something about this. According to the scientist who is looking at the system as a whole like an outside god, the individual particles also all obey the rules. But does he really know? Is he inside the system taking a measurement (and if he was doing so, how does he know that the measurement does not change the measured quantities? It is bound to, isn't it?).
Ants live in their own ant universe and ant universities. They are all well acquainted with the laws of architecture discovered by Isaac Newtant. Except for the males, who are educated at Public Schools. It is well known, for instance, that for 37.2% of the time the ether materialises into droplets of water. These possess a geocentripetal propulsion P= c + kh, where c and k are constants and the h is the distance from the point of materialisation. dP/dh is k, the velocipede, 100k being a centipede. The sum of all the velocipedes in the ant entire universe always, at any time, equals the same constant - approximately ten billion millipedes. However the same is also true locally in so far as when local metamorphosis of the ether occurs, then over the entire area of materialisation, over the duration of the entire metaphorphosic episode, the summation of ks remains constant. However, how is the ant to know whether the properties of the universe as a whole determine the local behaviour or whether the universe is merely the summation of local episodes? The local metamorphosis may, as it were, take its share of the total constant universal k, but it might also be that local ks are randomly distributed in a such a way that the chance occurrences add up to the constant universal k, just as the random heads and tails of the textbook coin add up to universal totals with the number of heads equalling the number of tails. It is still believed in RU betting shops that if the coin turns up tails, the chances are that next time it will turn up heads - even though Michael Faraday has shown that if lightening strikes once it will probably strike in the same place again. That is why people ensure their houses by putting up lightning conducters instead of by striking them with lightening.
Just as it is impossible to distinguish which is objective and subjective or for those unfamiliar with the Mad Monk's discoveries to tell correctly which is the truth and which is Munchausen, the Mad Monk tells us that Sigmund Freud, as he is perceived by his readers, confuses 'conscious' with 'unconscious'. This is because communication is a socialised process. A social system is a machine with its own algorithm or program entirely cut off from the universe outside. The 'homophobic' or 'cosmophobic' barrier which encloses the system is surrounded not by 'potential' but by void. The system cannot 'recognise' what is outside but converts it to some stereotyped predetermined component which belongs to the machine. The ant within its own universe cannot be aware that this is happening or of the processes which effect the conversion. The Mad Monk explains the mechanisms that establish iatrogenic or sociogenic diseases such as AIDS, lycanthropy or witchcraft, all of which have the same characteristics and which maybe adorned even with the same words or 'bologny'. Similarly The Mad Monk explains why the official story is always the Munchausen and the person accused by the Expert is always innocent. The social system, which is an unconscious machine, suppresses consciousness, or its attributes such as love, intelligence, objective observation and free will (a concept explained by the Mad Monk). The human personality is exactly similar - with mechanised unconscious 'authoritarian' personalities - of which the person has several, all roles which also exist in the societal machine - arranged in a hierarchy - which suppress the conscious or 'creative' personality which is possessed by all.
In the Mad Monk's terminology what belongs to society is 'sociocrime' whereas what belongs to the objective universe or is outside the cosmophobic/homophobic barrier is 'psychocrime'. The sociocriminal who wishes to rob a bank obtains leave to do so by paying the fine in advance to one of President Bliar's army of itinerant tax collectors. If he does not have a credit card and unlimited funds, however, the would-be robber is unable to gain permission, is a psychocriminal unfit for working class employment. He must be converted into a 'schizophrenic', a low status sociocriminal, rather like a doctor, and become the work object of some sociocriminal. All societal reactions are such operations on work objects which obey the two laws of heterosexualism - money passes from man to woman (or up hierarchy) and treatment passes from woman to man (or down hierarchy). This 'work' eliminates the potential that from society's 'point of view' does not exist, or rather, is a void, and substitutes the predetermined societal reality. The succesful bank robber is a sociocriminal because because society rewards him for being a sociocriminal. The psychocriminal, who is Not One of Us, however, gains no such reward and therefore retains the inborn capacities that belong to consciousness.
The Mad Monk discusses also what he calls 'Blasphemy Laws'. These are edicts transgression of which is declared psychocriminal, such as belief that there are three persons in one God rather than three gods in one Person, belief in inheritance of acquired characteristics or belief in the existence of the homosexual family. The reader will have gathered by now that if these were not sociocrimes compulsory within society there would be no language for them. It would be impossible to say that they do not exist or are forbidden. They would just be, as the General Medical Council puts it: 'Your condition. Take the treatment'. In fact Isaac Newton was not a psychocriminal because he was an Unitarian but because he put science above societal authority. Scientists are OK so long as they are not scientists but pontificating experts who transmit truth rather than what might be. Evolution is OK so long as it is not evolutionism, which says that the ruling classes or fittest are on the way out, but neodarwinism which glorifies the bully and allocates him with permanent dominance. Homosexuals are OK so long as there is no love between them, they bugger each other in accordance with the societal laws of heterosexualism, worship drug companies and run to doctors to be injected with lethal cytotoxic drugs. The Blasphemy Law does not state what is forbidden but what society imposes in its place.
An Open University discourse, repeated again on TV, informs us that 'Einstein was wrong!'. The Mad Monk is in good psychocriminal company. When attending an Open University Quantum Mechanics Summer School in l981 the gathering adorned themselves with T-shirts saying 'Roland was wrong!' (The Mad Monk is known in the RU by this name, that of a General who invented the Pyrrhic Defeat centuries before Dunkerque}. The argument was essentially the same. According to Neils Bohr, or it may have been Sven Goran Erikson, when Rene Descartes enters the pub the first woman he meets will either be Mme Descartes or Margaret Thatcher. This is an old Scandinavian legend. Piers Mandelsson meets either a Prince or a Frog. The chances are 50: 50. Erikson says that prior to his entering the pub the woman is a cloud of ether who is neither Margaret Thatcher or Mme Descartes. Not so in his mind but in objective reality. Only through his measuring her does the ether metamophose into Mme Descartes. The Mad Monk claims that is just a fifty fifty chance - as the textbook upturned coin remains until the punter examines it. The coin however has been turned up heads all along.
We are back surely in the pre-Locke days when scientists were burnt as witches? John Locke, surely, tells us that we couldn't possibly know whether or not the premeasurement ether was Mme Descartes, but that it makes no difference to anything. The two theories are equivalent. But Professor Cartesia Wittgenstein tells us that it is not that easy. The test of the theory is whether after M. Descartes has met her the newly identified Mme Descartes can, as he nips to the toilet, revert to ether, go to another pub, be measured by Denis Thatcher and turn out to be Margaret. This would have to be done in the absence of the societal conversion to the preconceived object mentioned previously. Miss Lila po Lune, Professor of Social History at the Institut de Pommie Studies, says however that this is 'bloody stupid'. How are we to know whether the two gentlemen met the same cloud of ether? One possibility is that there is a third neutral observer who watches the entire process. But then he has made an initial measurement and according to quantum mechanics, as he sees it, once the ether is Mme. Descartes she cannot change back. The alternative is for Rene and Denis to compare notes. But then that surely makes them collectively a single observer .. and again the change is impossible. In any case, Lila points out, retrospective history, or psychiatric history as it is called, is always invention made up to conform with current consensus dogma. But then Mme Descartes was ab initio a cloud of ether and it is easier surely for Mme. Descartes to be Margaret Thatcher than to be a cloud of ether.
Quantum theorists say that if there are two clouds, then one has to change into Margaret Thatcher and the other into Mme Descartes. This we suspected. However if both clouds go their own way and one becomes Mme Descartes and shortly thereafter the other cloud becomes, as it must. Margaret Thatcher, it does not follow, as some have claimed, that the two clouds possess telepathic communication. It follows that one all along was Mme Descartes and one was Margaret Thatcher but until we found out we did not know which was which.
So much for psychocriminals such as Einstein and the Mad Monk who bear inferior genes and are always wrong. We suggested in connection with a would-be sociocriminal, Professor Freud, that communication was the hallmark of sociocriminality. So Ronald Reagan, we are told, was the Great Communicator. He what? Whom was he communicating to? Big Brother addicts? This is a case of the retrospective adjustment of history of which Lila po Lune speaks - an adjustment made to glorify the reincarnation of Reagan/Thatcher, President Blair of the Royaumes Unies.
But President Bliar, surely, really is the Great Communicator. Nobody could listen to President Bliar without being convinced. Or so it used to be. But recently his slip has been showing under his miniskirt. Some say this incipient Alzheimer's disease is due to Mandelsson Deficiency. President Bliar told us that Ken Livingstone was an Old Laeba Stalwart such as had kept New Laeba out of office for thirteen years of proxy postal votes - which it didn't, because New Laeba was then called New Tory. This is rubbish. Lila tells us, which the President has picked up word for word from newspaper propaganda. Then President Bliar told us that US troops had found mobile phones of destruction in Iraq. This he again picked up from newspaper propaganda - and even the newspapers admitted that the Americans had not yet even looked at the mobile phones and that as far as any one knew - yes, they might be mobile phones but they might also be penguins, unicorns or Mme Descartes.
But now President Bliar has proved the point with an atrocity to end all atrocities. President Bliar, who swells the exchequer's coffers by selling licences to commit crimes, Lila po Lune tells us, now says that the R.U. is full of drunken Big Brother addicts because they are imitating the youth of the l960s. This is why they chose to born instead during the l980s when nobody heard any other ideology from on top other than that taking justifies having.