Novelist. Author of APSARAS and tales from the beautiful Saigh Valley. First person to quantify spiritual values.

Total Pageviews

Sunday 27 November 2016

An Imam speaks

This Sunday morning the BBC paraded an Iman to discuss the papers on their news program. I didn't catch the name but I doubt it would have made a difference if I did. He was dressed in tradition Islamic outfit of jalabiyah and taqiyah (knitted pill box type hat). He was jolly and appeared to be the sort of man to fit into UK life; a man whose company I might enjoy.
It was an ideal scenario in which to seek some answers to questions those of us who watch these topical programs wished the presenters would ask. The imam chose an article about Aleppo and asked why the airborne West didn't use their technology to drop food, water and medicine to the beleaguered citizens, presumably instead of dropping bombs. No reference to possible Islamic involvement, let alone responsibility.
At this point the presenter should have asked why not call on wealthy Saudi Arabia or the Emirates to help with humanitarian aid. Was it not surreal that the Muslims should seek largely Christian aid whilst secretly hoping the jihadists would crucify the lot of them.
Me? I'm a more thinking person, me. I shouted my philosophic question at the screen; where is God when all this is happening? Where is the Lord of Mercy, the Giver of Mercy when women and children are being killed indiscriminately? I doubt the imam would have answered because his faith forbids him posing these questions because to do so is to question the truth of the Qu'ran, an offence punishable by death. I would have liked to have put it to him that the world's wars involved relatively few Ennuits, Scandinavians, South Sea Islanders or people from Malta. I would have liked to ask the Imam why  it was the followers of the religion of Peace, the Muslims, who were responsible for almost all today's terrorism.
But no! The Beeb wouldn't want to ask an awkward question in case it offended a minority, albeit an increasingly militant and isolationist tribe, hell bent on doing God's will by killing Christians, Jews and non-believers. Oh! and yes, the Beeb for being so WEAK.
These questions must be asked and answered-soon, methinks.

Saturday 19 November 2016

The people fight back

It started with Brexit; the pundits and pollsters got it wrong because they failed to recognise the emergence of a class of people, basically honest, patriotic, hard working with a strong sense of justice despite having no university education. The Liberal left scoff at these people, regarding them at best as irrelevant but mostly ignorant because they don't share a world vision of multiculturism, gender equality and a rule of law dictated by human rights.
Their view of this class of people was reinforced when Trump an (Independant?) Republican succeeded in beating Clinton to the presidency of the United States. Such was the disbelief that followed the result, there was much public wailing and gnashing of teeth before a second phase of delusional denial chased around the globe. Now the EU 'remainers' are pushing for a rerun of the referendum despite economic data supporting the view that the UK will be better off out. Nor do these people see the eventual collapse of their flagship attempt for Utopia as other European Countries eventually pull out due to a disillusioned public fed up with the elite skimming off huge payments and pensions while the ordinary folk of Greece, for example, are made to grovel for handouts. I don't suppose the plight of these people is permitted to destroy the atmosphere at dinner parties of Guardian readers and the like.
They were at it again at the weekend, berating the normally sympathetic BBC for allowing political commentator, Andrew Marr to interview right wing French politician, Marine Le Pen, without biting her head off. Her stance on immigration and Islam upsets their vision of a world order where everybody is hopefully at peace whilst they reap the full benefits of the political classes paid for by the plebs, often with their lives.  To even suggest that world peace is threatened by the spread of Islam is unpardonable by these people, usually describing their opponents as fascists. It doesn't matter that no people have been killed by fascist Le Pen whilst the forces of Islam have slaughtered thousands and made hundreds of thousands homeless, it is Le Pen who needs to be stopped spreading the words on every decent French person's lips.
Now, it seems that Archbishop Welby has at last spoken up by arguing that religious leaders must take responsible for acts of terrorism perpetrated by members of their religion. It is, he says, no good Muslims arguing that ISIS are not followers of Islam when it is palpably clear that they are and their clear intent was to subjugate the world to their way of life. It needed to be said and repeated until decent people have their fears recognised and acted upon. We mustn't fear to offend, not least when tackling the Liberal lefties, left for too long to exercise their stupid world view on those who just wish to mind their own business with the expectation that they will be well and justly governed.

Friday 18 November 2016

The hubris of the academic elite

I have been watching a series of films entitled the 'Pyramid Code', an attempt to shake the accepted tenets held by the established Egyptologists including the Egyptian department of antiquities. As with any new ideas, across many disciplines, these views are being vigorously resisted  by those whose position and status are threatened by new revelations. None more so than in the field of Egyptology. I remember a similar situation when the author musician, David Rohl published his work, 'A Test of Time' and had it it made into a film shown on television, it was received by the academics with the same enthusiasm as a bucket of vomit, particularly an oxbridge professor called Kitchen, despite Rohl's arguments being both plausible and well made.
The 'Pyramid Code' presented by Carmen Boulter, a professor at the University of Calgary, seeks to demonstrate that the pyramids of Egypt, in particular, were originally built very much earlier than supposed; up to 40,000 bce as opposed to 2400 bce. They further suggest that they were not originally built as tombs but as sources of energy, tapping into the power of water and electromagnetic fields then available.
The series relies heavily on archaeoastronomic evidence, pinpointing the position of stars and galaxies in the distant past but the most compelling evidence for the earlier date, however, is the locations of the twenty-three pyramids that form this 'Band of Peace'. Their positions mirror the course of the river Nile suggesting that these monumental structures were positioned alonside the waterway connected by short causeways. Although evidence of the causeways exist, and the ancient riverbed identified, the river is now eight miles distant.
Principle witness in the series and most credible was an elderly Egyptian archaeologist, Abd'El Hakim Awyan, an indigenous 'wisdom keeper'. His input struck me as being the most important and compelling, pointing to an older, more technological civilization that existed in Egypt well before the dynastic periods, perhaps dating to that era identified by the Mayans and their 'long' year (26000 years) as the 'Golden Age'.
There is surely little doubt that the sphinx at least was built when rainfall was common in the area and the western desert a fertile plain. But when did the river Nile flow past these pyramids?

The films, principally about the pyramids, also touch on the civilisation that built them in the first place their advanced technology, medicine and brain functions including an awareness of consciousness. Hakim Awyan's talk on the physiology of the scarab beetle and its significance in ancient Egyption understanding was particularly enlightening. This aspect of the films was of particular interest to me as I have proposed a definition of consciousness based on my own hypothesis regarding the temporal machinations of the brain. Again my views on this, the wider implications for time and cosmology in generally will meet with the same reaction as the aforesaid bucket with the established orthodoxy. It is the price we pay for daring to challenge the established view.