Is Scientology a cult?
A young demonstrant got arrested in the UK this week. What did he do? He had a banner that said that "Scientology is no religion, it is a dangerous cult". Well, whats wrong with that? It is the truth.
Oh god, now i said it. Now they'll come for me.
Seriously, if any of you guys who know me can't get a hold of me in the next weeks, please call the cops and let them know I've been kidnapped. Or murdered. Or brainwashed.
Now, you might ask why Scientology is a dangerous cult, and you should - question everything is my motto. So let me tell you a little story about them:
When I studied religion in high school there was an assignment that meant we had to visit a church or other religious place and make an interveiw with a preist or other leader of that religion. Me and a friend choose, for reasons I can't remember, Scientology.
The Scientology church in Hässleholm, where I went to school, was an appartement right next to the cinema. So we went there and this guy in his 30s met us. He was very friendly, showed us in and we started asking questions. Now we were good students, we had tried to do our research and read up on scientology, but we'd found nothing, except that my mother at one point or another (she did some soul searching in her early 50s) bought one of their books. (I won't name it, then you'd just go out and buy the crap:). But that book was so confusing that we couldn't make much sence of it.
The guy told us the general stuff - some celebrities was in with them (he even had a silly board in the hallway with famous scientologists), the general goal of the members was to "rise" in "spiritual awareness" and very vague stuff like that. He told us about the different steps, but when we asked him about the specifics he wouldn't tell us because "one have to learn this in the correct order, or it would sound incomprehesible or even silly".
Then he wanted us to try one of their instruments that they use in their courses to achive greater minds. The thing is a regular current meter and the subject hold the two ends. The leader then asks questions and tries to interpet the readings on the meter. The guy said that he could tell if we lied with this thing, so we gave it a shot. Of course I always thought the opposite from the truth when he asked us to think of something - and I lied to him about wether or not his predictions were true or not. He didn't get anything right, of course.
Now, all well and done. We also learned that the courses that you have to take are very expensive and that there are very many of them. We did our report and all was well. The class, as I recall, had fun with our lying and tricking of the guy.
One thing struck me as odd, the guy told me that the founder was one Ron L Hubbard, and I thought that I had heard that name before. Of course, it turns out I had, I had read one of his earlier works, a low budget pulp sf book whos name I forget. Let me tell you, it is no good. (On a side note, he has written Battlefield Earth, filmed later with fellow scientologist John Travolta, that too was no good.)
Skip ahead a few years, a person who had gotten out of scientology sued the cult for money and thus all their materials became available as public material in court here in Sweden. Some students managed to read the material before scientologist litteraly occupied the building and took turns in checking out the material and read is, thus blocking all other intresents.
Those students published the material on the newly discovered internet, and I managed to download it, read it, and was completeley baffled. I mean it is just so stupid! But then again, I guess I didn't read it in the intended order...
Well, from what I remember, you can pretty much get the details from reading Hubbards sf works - there is a galactic empire, it has dumped it's criminals under the earth, then evolution happened and man came into the world. But the criminals, or their spirits, are escpaing and possesses us and makes us do bad things. When we do scientology courses we cleanse ourselves from them and thus become better people. When enough of us are clean enough we will become a part of the galactic empire and live happily ever after. It's really not that different from other belif systems if you ask me.
The problem, and what makes scientology a cult, is it's secrecy, it's overall goal of making money, it's hierarchical system and the methods they use to make people stay in line.
The amazing way of swedish governement
It is rather amazing, after a very slow start people are finally realizing the power of protest against the opressive rule of the Deomcratic republic of China during, before and after the Olympic Games are to be held there this year.
As you know it all started with the brave Tibetan munks, who it seems, got beaten down quiet rapidly. By then it had spread to many other parts of China (there are munks all over, and Buddism seems to be one of the few philosophical points of view that encourages political movements today). But nobody outside of China seemed to react very much.
Only with the symbolic torch traveling through eurpoe - London and Paris suddenly bursted out in a long over due manifestation. And our leaders, who are supposed to be guardians of morallity and so on and so forth, even they have begun to react: Prime minister of Britan will not attend the opening ceremony, nor the German equvivalent, Sarcoci in France, ever the brightest of the three, will not attend if Chinese governement doesen't improve their behaviour when it comes to human rights, and even the totally inapt IOK-chairman complained yesterday, reminding China about the promised they made when they got the Olympics a few years back.
But what does prime minister Reinfeldt, Sweden, do in that situation? He definitivley closes the door, saying "We will defenitly attend the opening ceremony." And this in a country where there is a long tradition of fighting for human rights (not from his party, thats true, but still). It seems the liberal governement in Sweden is very eager to please the communist governement of China, now isn't that an odd turn of events?
As you know it all started with the brave Tibetan munks, who it seems, got beaten down quiet rapidly. By then it had spread to many other parts of China (there are munks all over, and Buddism seems to be one of the few philosophical points of view that encourages political movements today). But nobody outside of China seemed to react very much.
Only with the symbolic torch traveling through eurpoe - London and Paris suddenly bursted out in a long over due manifestation. And our leaders, who are supposed to be guardians of morallity and so on and so forth, even they have begun to react: Prime minister of Britan will not attend the opening ceremony, nor the German equvivalent, Sarcoci in France, ever the brightest of the three, will not attend if Chinese governement doesen't improve their behaviour when it comes to human rights, and even the totally inapt IOK-chairman complained yesterday, reminding China about the promised they made when they got the Olympics a few years back.
But what does prime minister Reinfeldt, Sweden, do in that situation? He definitivley closes the door, saying "We will defenitly attend the opening ceremony." And this in a country where there is a long tradition of fighting for human rights (not from his party, thats true, but still). It seems the liberal governement in Sweden is very eager to please the communist governement of China, now isn't that an odd turn of events?
Shall we play a game of pretend?
We could be heroes
What would you do if you suddenly were given the opportunity to rule the world for some time, say five years? What could you do? I know what I would try to do. One thing would be to put the lid in the chimneys of the world, so to speak, to severly lessen the CO2-outlet and to try and do something about global warming. If I, in my capacity as world ruler, would try to do such a thing, I can assure you that very large ammounts of people around the globe would protest, they would try to over throw me, they would wage wars against me, they would, in short, not do as I said. Only with a very large army could I depress these attempts at rebellion.
The same is true, but in a slightly lesser scale, of all nations, communities and other groupings of people, in order to actually change something on which a lot of other things are built you cannot simply change it, you have to get people to want to change it first, and then a slow but steady process begins, to adjust all the dependant system. Boring huh?
Anyway, this borders on the theories put forward by John Stuart Mill, the old 1700s brittish social/political philosopher and liberal spokesman, and he really ought to know, he learned classical greek by the time he was eight years old and studied logics by the time he was twelve. I'm not sure with what degree of success though, although he reportedly was a very intelligent man. He was of the opinion that every change in society should be to remedy a specific problem and that those changes should be made gradually.
This, however, is not what I mean. What I mean is that we, yes we, all of us, or rather each and every one of us, have the chance to change something we want to change. Not by being world rulers, or even leaders of men and women in general, but simply by making up our minds. Just imagine, we could be heroes. All of us.
Does it sound like a bad cliché? Probably, but to prove you wrong, check this out!
The same is true, but in a slightly lesser scale, of all nations, communities and other groupings of people, in order to actually change something on which a lot of other things are built you cannot simply change it, you have to get people to want to change it first, and then a slow but steady process begins, to adjust all the dependant system. Boring huh?
Anyway, this borders on the theories put forward by John Stuart Mill, the old 1700s brittish social/political philosopher and liberal spokesman, and he really ought to know, he learned classical greek by the time he was eight years old and studied logics by the time he was twelve. I'm not sure with what degree of success though, although he reportedly was a very intelligent man. He was of the opinion that every change in society should be to remedy a specific problem and that those changes should be made gradually.
This, however, is not what I mean. What I mean is that we, yes we, all of us, or rather each and every one of us, have the chance to change something we want to change. Not by being world rulers, or even leaders of men and women in general, but simply by making up our minds. Just imagine, we could be heroes. All of us.
Does it sound like a bad cliché? Probably, but to prove you wrong, check this out!
Sick tired and waiting
Time crawls, so much to do, yet I do nothing. People passing by like shadows, no place to rest my eyes and no escape.
Will there be serenity?
Will there be serenity?
Rediscovery
I have spent a lot of time lateley correcting papers, which, to be hornest, isn't my favourite ting to do in the world. Still, it usually gives me a good excuse to listen to music, and to play games that doesen't need my complete attention all the time.
Two old dear things have I rediscovered this time: The beautifully terrifying music of Delerium, particulary the album Stone Tower, and the old but still very good game Fallout.
Not bad for 50 papers.
Two old dear things have I rediscovered this time: The beautifully terrifying music of Delerium, particulary the album Stone Tower, and the old but still very good game Fallout.
Not bad for 50 papers.
Objects in space
I tried, between shouting about some upcoming party, theories about costumes for said party, the endless discussions about christmas and som movie analysis, to explain something of the theory of Perspectivism today. I had only very mild sucess I belive, so I'll give it a try here instead:
The whole thing starts with Schopenhauer, the man with the crazy hair, as can be seen here. His theory of 'the world as will' starts with stating that Kants idealism in many ways is a good theory, and gives him (Kant) credit for establishing beyond doubt that the world around us (humans) truly exists. Schopenhauer then points out a few things about this theory:
Anyway, Schopenhauer then proceeds to try to explain why we are never satisfied. He claims that since we misstake the impressions as being actual objects we start wanting them (our will is directed towards them), we belive that once we get them we will be happy. But once we do get them, there appears other objects or impressions that we will towards, and so on. The only escape from this is to accept that the objects are only impressions and that they stem from us rather than from the world, and thus they are not something we can resonably will towards. The way to minimize unhappiness then, is to live with as little of these objects around us, to be askets. This is, however, a futile way that can only minimize, it may be a way away from total unhappiness, but it does not lead to happiness.
Nietzsche
Nietzsche, the man with the moustache, studied Schopenhauer and was immensley facinated by Wagner. He stated, as a modification to Schopenhauer, that we are not controlled by a 'will to live' as much as by a 'will to power'. Nietzsche says that life is secondary to power in that the reason for us to want to live is so that we can keep and expand our power. The reason we have to assume that this is indeed our ultimate goal, he says, is that it explains our actions better than other such goals (such as will to happiness or will to be good or other such goals).
Now, in nature, says Nietzsche, those stronger (in a broad sence of the word) will erradicate the weaker ones. Note that he does not say what sort of strength will prevail, it could, depending on the situation be intelligence, physical strength, strength of will and so on. This, he says, is the natural order of things, it is the way things were before religion interfered with the way of things. Religion imposes upon humankind, according to Nietzsche, a moral for slaves and is a pestilence since it counters humankinds striving force for power.
Nietzsche belived that we have an unique opportunity to rid ourselves of this slave moral due to the progress of industry and science. In effect, he claimed, science has killed god. We strive for power, and in that create our own destinies. This is a thought that in some ways is very similar to the fundamental thought of the existentialists, that existence for humans comes before essence. If we rid ourselves from the slave moral we will develop, by our freedom of will and our strife for power into a new state of evolution, the infamous 'Ubermench'. This part of his theory was later on missinterpreted by the nazis and we all know how that went.
Perspectivism
This, then, finally leads us into the whole point of this little text, Perspectivism. This is in some ways a middle ground between the rationalist idea of objectivity and the sceptics idea of subjectivism. Nietzsche meant something like this:
Humans can't not have impressions, they form our world view very fundamentally, and as such they are objective, that is, we can't imagine them not being true, and since they only exist because of us they are therefore true. In another sence, we, as individuals may very well not have the same impressions at all, or not even similar.
For all you who think that this is a silly idea, it does not have to mean that if we all look on the same ball we see different things, it may instead be as simple as two persons living under completely different circumstances. Imagine, if you will, that you meet a pygme who has lead his whole life in the rain forest living in tune with nature, deciding things collectivley with his tribe - how many things would you agree on concerning what is important, what the world is and so on? Not so many, I would imagine.
So in that sence our impressions are very much a private thing, they are subjective. But who can say who has the better view of the world, the pygme or you? Noone, says Nietzsche, they are both equally valid. They can coexist without problem, they both are objective, in a subjective sort of way.
This is Perspectivism then, the idea that even though we have some objective sence of the world, it is not the only objective sence of the world. I think it is a rather beautiful idea.
The whole thing starts with Schopenhauer, the man with the crazy hair, as can be seen here. His theory of 'the world as will' starts with stating that Kants idealism in many ways is a good theory, and gives him (Kant) credit for establishing beyond doubt that the world around us (humans) truly exists. Schopenhauer then points out a few things about this theory:
- It also states beyond doubt that the objects of the world are totally unknown, and indeed unknowable to us
- In spite of this Kant attributes at least one thing to these objects of the world: they give us impressions
- Kants theory also makes it obvious that the only way we ever can gain knowledge is by impressions (i.e. the empirical way)
- To say about the objects that the send us impressions is to say something which we can not say since we can never know anything about the objects themselves. All we know about are impressions of objects.
- All we know, then, is: We have impressions and those impressions are the only source of our knowledge. Therefore what we call objects are indeed impressions, i.e. the objects could not exist without us perciving them.
Anyway, Schopenhauer then proceeds to try to explain why we are never satisfied. He claims that since we misstake the impressions as being actual objects we start wanting them (our will is directed towards them), we belive that once we get them we will be happy. But once we do get them, there appears other objects or impressions that we will towards, and so on. The only escape from this is to accept that the objects are only impressions and that they stem from us rather than from the world, and thus they are not something we can resonably will towards. The way to minimize unhappiness then, is to live with as little of these objects around us, to be askets. This is, however, a futile way that can only minimize, it may be a way away from total unhappiness, but it does not lead to happiness.
Nietzsche
Nietzsche, the man with the moustache, studied Schopenhauer and was immensley facinated by Wagner. He stated, as a modification to Schopenhauer, that we are not controlled by a 'will to live' as much as by a 'will to power'. Nietzsche says that life is secondary to power in that the reason for us to want to live is so that we can keep and expand our power. The reason we have to assume that this is indeed our ultimate goal, he says, is that it explains our actions better than other such goals (such as will to happiness or will to be good or other such goals).
Now, in nature, says Nietzsche, those stronger (in a broad sence of the word) will erradicate the weaker ones. Note that he does not say what sort of strength will prevail, it could, depending on the situation be intelligence, physical strength, strength of will and so on. This, he says, is the natural order of things, it is the way things were before religion interfered with the way of things. Religion imposes upon humankind, according to Nietzsche, a moral for slaves and is a pestilence since it counters humankinds striving force for power.
Nietzsche belived that we have an unique opportunity to rid ourselves of this slave moral due to the progress of industry and science. In effect, he claimed, science has killed god. We strive for power, and in that create our own destinies. This is a thought that in some ways is very similar to the fundamental thought of the existentialists, that existence for humans comes before essence. If we rid ourselves from the slave moral we will develop, by our freedom of will and our strife for power into a new state of evolution, the infamous 'Ubermench'. This part of his theory was later on missinterpreted by the nazis and we all know how that went.
Perspectivism
This, then, finally leads us into the whole point of this little text, Perspectivism. This is in some ways a middle ground between the rationalist idea of objectivity and the sceptics idea of subjectivism. Nietzsche meant something like this:
Humans can't not have impressions, they form our world view very fundamentally, and as such they are objective, that is, we can't imagine them not being true, and since they only exist because of us they are therefore true. In another sence, we, as individuals may very well not have the same impressions at all, or not even similar.
For all you who think that this is a silly idea, it does not have to mean that if we all look on the same ball we see different things, it may instead be as simple as two persons living under completely different circumstances. Imagine, if you will, that you meet a pygme who has lead his whole life in the rain forest living in tune with nature, deciding things collectivley with his tribe - how many things would you agree on concerning what is important, what the world is and so on? Not so many, I would imagine.
So in that sence our impressions are very much a private thing, they are subjective. But who can say who has the better view of the world, the pygme or you? Noone, says Nietzsche, they are both equally valid. They can coexist without problem, they both are objective, in a subjective sort of way.
This is Perspectivism then, the idea that even though we have some objective sence of the world, it is not the only objective sence of the world. I think it is a rather beautiful idea.
CO2
They finally managed to get a deal in Bali. I'm very surprised. This challenges my whole outlook on the world, perhaps everyone isn't a bastard? But no, that can't be it. It would have been it if they'd done this 20 years ago, but now? Now it's just egocetered survival instinct.
No matter. They did make a deal, though it sure is a watered out one. Of all nations the United States seem to be the one with least survival instincts, which is hardly surprising since it is also the nation with most fanatics in the world. So they stopped the deal from containing actual percentages that we in the old industrialised world should cut our outlet of CO2 with. They obviously don't care about the future.
But there are other candidates to the title of least survival oriented nation. China and India for instance. These countries fall in the general category of "Under-developed" countries, alongside Bangladesh, Somalia and countries that really belong to the third world due to the explotation of them from the colonists and world wide inustries like Coca Cola Company. Yet their part in the CO2 problem is very large indeed, and will soon be bigger than that of the US and european countries. They talk of historical debt, that is a suspicious concept indeed.
Do europe have a historical debt? It is true that we have a history of not caring what our industries do. It is true that from a historical standpoint we and the US have let a very very large portion of the now present CO2 out into the atmosphere. But a debt? Ok, if it implies that we did it, so we have to make it go away, then I'm there, but if it implies, as it does when you listen to the negotiators from China, that they (China and India) should be allowed to increase their CO2 outlet however much they want, then I do not agree at all.
Analogy: I kill someone, does that give everybody else the right to kill as many as I did? No, but it leads to my getting a punishment. I let out 1 ton of CO2, does that give everybody else the right to let out 1 ton of CO2? No, but it is my responisbility to stop what I'm doing and try to plant as many trees as I can to help reduce the damage I caused.
Again though, they did make a deal out of necessity, and maby the will actually stick to it and save the world. But probably not...
No matter. They did make a deal, though it sure is a watered out one. Of all nations the United States seem to be the one with least survival instincts, which is hardly surprising since it is also the nation with most fanatics in the world. So they stopped the deal from containing actual percentages that we in the old industrialised world should cut our outlet of CO2 with. They obviously don't care about the future.
But there are other candidates to the title of least survival oriented nation. China and India for instance. These countries fall in the general category of "Under-developed" countries, alongside Bangladesh, Somalia and countries that really belong to the third world due to the explotation of them from the colonists and world wide inustries like Coca Cola Company. Yet their part in the CO2 problem is very large indeed, and will soon be bigger than that of the US and european countries. They talk of historical debt, that is a suspicious concept indeed.
Do europe have a historical debt? It is true that we have a history of not caring what our industries do. It is true that from a historical standpoint we and the US have let a very very large portion of the now present CO2 out into the atmosphere. But a debt? Ok, if it implies that we did it, so we have to make it go away, then I'm there, but if it implies, as it does when you listen to the negotiators from China, that they (China and India) should be allowed to increase their CO2 outlet however much they want, then I do not agree at all.
Analogy: I kill someone, does that give everybody else the right to kill as many as I did? No, but it leads to my getting a punishment. I let out 1 ton of CO2, does that give everybody else the right to let out 1 ton of CO2? No, but it is my responisbility to stop what I'm doing and try to plant as many trees as I can to help reduce the damage I caused.
Again though, they did make a deal out of necessity, and maby the will actually stick to it and save the world. But probably not...
Pretentious?
Someone told me this blog seemed pretentious, or was it serious? Well in any case, this is one of the few people that I actually showed it to, so I should probably stop this right away, right? Who on earth wants to be percived as pretentious and serious?
That said, I won't stop (yes, impossible projects is my hallmark). This will never be the place to go if you want a daily update of some sort, if you do want that, watch the three minute news or read the bulletins the evening papers put out. This is in fact a serious page! No really, I'm serious. Things here might take a little more time, they may also be a bit harder to read than one row paragraphs, they will seem pretentious. It's the whole point. If I wanted to read light hearted stuff, the net is crammed with that already, there would be no need for this site.
I don't expect a lot of readers - they way the Internet works is largley based on daily updates that are read in under two minutes - but that doesen't really matter. I do this for myself, in fact I like to read my own stuff. Yes, that is correct. I am self righteous in addition to serious and pretentious!
So, whats the point of theese ramblings? The net is, to an alarming degree, not serious. I want more good content on the net. I try to put good stuff here instead of "often stuff". There is very little stuff for the sake of stuff here. The person that told me this seemed serious and pretentious actually have one of the most serious and pretentious sites I know of, and I like it a lot. Society, in some majority kind of meaning of the word, is very afraid of seriousness.
Yes, all of the above, but mostly the last point. Also, I hope the negotiations in Bali goes well.
That said, I won't stop (yes, impossible projects is my hallmark). This will never be the place to go if you want a daily update of some sort, if you do want that, watch the three minute news or read the bulletins the evening papers put out. This is in fact a serious page! No really, I'm serious. Things here might take a little more time, they may also be a bit harder to read than one row paragraphs, they will seem pretentious. It's the whole point. If I wanted to read light hearted stuff, the net is crammed with that already, there would be no need for this site.
I don't expect a lot of readers - they way the Internet works is largley based on daily updates that are read in under two minutes - but that doesen't really matter. I do this for myself, in fact I like to read my own stuff. Yes, that is correct. I am self righteous in addition to serious and pretentious!
So, whats the point of theese ramblings? The net is, to an alarming degree, not serious. I want more good content on the net. I try to put good stuff here instead of "often stuff". There is very little stuff for the sake of stuff here. The person that told me this seemed serious and pretentious actually have one of the most serious and pretentious sites I know of, and I like it a lot. Society, in some majority kind of meaning of the word, is very afraid of seriousness.
Yes, all of the above, but mostly the last point. Also, I hope the negotiations in Bali goes well.
Midnight
Midnight. Darkness. I remember the blue neonlights flashing by, the all night cafés, the truck stops. Autobahn by night, an old cliché.
What does it all mean?
What does it all mean?
Words are tricky
A mass murderer may very well talk in a polite, well mannered way, he may talk about the importance of human rights, he may tell everyody what would be morally right to do in any given situation. He may be nice looking, he may dress well, he may seem to be a perfectly ordinary man.
He may even become a member of a political party, do a lot of work there and become their leader, he may participate in debattes, he may be elected prime minister. When he is, he may still use exactly any words he chooses, including love, tolerance, rightousness. We can never know what he truly is, and no matter what words he uses, we may never know what he really means.
Just as you can never truly mean what I mean by these words.
The only protection any of us can ever hope to have against this, the only remedy we can really count on is our ability to make up our own minds. We can never know what anyone mean with their words, but we can listen to them and decide what we mean by them.
The only way any of us are going to keep that ability though is by constantly honing, tuining, practice it, and the only way we are going to be able to do that is if we live in a society that allows people to freely express their opinions.
This is why free speach and the open society is important, not because we need freedom of the press, not because it is democratic, not because we should be able to attack others religious belifs.
We have democracy because it is the best way we have thought of yet to garantee our freedom of speach, we have freedom of the press to help us train our ability to decide for ourselves, and we reserve the right to mock any religion or ethos since it is a biproduct of allowing the memebers of our society to think truly critical and free.
He may even become a member of a political party, do a lot of work there and become their leader, he may participate in debattes, he may be elected prime minister. When he is, he may still use exactly any words he chooses, including love, tolerance, rightousness. We can never know what he truly is, and no matter what words he uses, we may never know what he really means.
Just as you can never truly mean what I mean by these words.
The only protection any of us can ever hope to have against this, the only remedy we can really count on is our ability to make up our own minds. We can never know what anyone mean with their words, but we can listen to them and decide what we mean by them.
The only way any of us are going to keep that ability though is by constantly honing, tuining, practice it, and the only way we are going to be able to do that is if we live in a society that allows people to freely express their opinions.
This is why free speach and the open society is important, not because we need freedom of the press, not because it is democratic, not because we should be able to attack others religious belifs.
We have democracy because it is the best way we have thought of yet to garantee our freedom of speach, we have freedom of the press to help us train our ability to decide for ourselves, and we reserve the right to mock any religion or ethos since it is a biproduct of allowing the memebers of our society to think truly critical and free.
The girl in the woods
Since I'm not productive workwise for a while I started, finally, writing again!
I decieded to do it pulp-style, with no preconception, a minmum of planning. Michael Moorcock wrote some of the best stuff I've read, novels, in less than a week, so if he can I can. I amazed myself with my speed, so far I guess I have 45 or so odd pages (the aim is somewhere between 150 and 200), and they are not bad at all as far as I am concerned!
I am, of course, not the right person to decide this, so I try to portion it out to one friend and my wife, but as always it is hard to get people to read on demand. Anxiously I await their response, and somehow I seem to be unable to continue before I get their critique. What an odd thing that is...
The story is set in the imaginary world of Irea, or a seriously revised version thereof. This is a world I have been creating on and off since the mid 80s, and it has gone through a lot of different stages, some more juvenile than others, no doubt. This particular version revolves around a great empire on the verge of destruction. I am interested in the lack of insight the people living in such empires have when it comes to the state of their world.
The Romans, for instance, never thought that their empire would fall, the Byzantines thought of themselves largly as the rulers of the world, and oddly enough as Romans, for a long time. Todays historians write the death of the empire long before any of the people living in it, and people not living in it but jelously watching it from the outside ever thought it possible that it would fall.
I wonder what great empires there are today that are on the verge of destruction...
I decieded to do it pulp-style, with no preconception, a minmum of planning. Michael Moorcock wrote some of the best stuff I've read, novels, in less than a week, so if he can I can. I amazed myself with my speed, so far I guess I have 45 or so odd pages (the aim is somewhere between 150 and 200), and they are not bad at all as far as I am concerned!
I am, of course, not the right person to decide this, so I try to portion it out to one friend and my wife, but as always it is hard to get people to read on demand. Anxiously I await their response, and somehow I seem to be unable to continue before I get their critique. What an odd thing that is...
The story is set in the imaginary world of Irea, or a seriously revised version thereof. This is a world I have been creating on and off since the mid 80s, and it has gone through a lot of different stages, some more juvenile than others, no doubt. This particular version revolves around a great empire on the verge of destruction. I am interested in the lack of insight the people living in such empires have when it comes to the state of their world.
The Romans, for instance, never thought that their empire would fall, the Byzantines thought of themselves largly as the rulers of the world, and oddly enough as Romans, for a long time. Todays historians write the death of the empire long before any of the people living in it, and people not living in it but jelously watching it from the outside ever thought it possible that it would fall.
I wonder what great empires there are today that are on the verge of destruction...
Mindburn
This night is killing me. My body is tired like never before from using it in new and unusual ways. The pain lingers even though it shouldn't. That makes my head hurt too, and i grow unfocused. My eyes hurt. My neck too from lying too long in the same fixed position. I don't trust my knee, so I have to keep lying here, which makes my neck even stiffer and probably doesen't do anything good for my headache either.
You would think I could sleep, but no, my mind is racing, not allowing me to use it for anyting constructive, I feel like someone with insomnia or on drugs. There is no sleep, no peace, just pain.
I'm going to start writing, pulp style.
You would think I could sleep, but no, my mind is racing, not allowing me to use it for anyting constructive, I feel like someone with insomnia or on drugs. There is no sleep, no peace, just pain.
I'm going to start writing, pulp style.
The test
Disclaimer! The below piece does not expresss any of my views!!! I simply want to see if the governement really is listening. It will be fun to see how many agnecies mail me. Oh, and to see if some extremists also mail me.
This is my free speech corner, don't mess with it! I have an extremists belif in free speech!
This is my free speech corner, don't mess with it! I have an extremists belif in free speech!
Lynch mobs, death squads, babies being born without brains...
Communism rules! George Bush is a wanker! IB-scandal IB-scandal. Extremism sucks! Fuck Al-Qaida! Fuck Ulf Ekman! Planning a robbery. Planing a robbery. More women priests! Less Priests! Let the west feel the wrath of our terror! This is the white mans magic. FBI CIA SÄPO. Governement intelligence is on the down. Lets bomb something! Why? It's in the good book.
Chaos is the future and beyond is freedom!
Chaos is the future and beyond is freedom!
