Japanese Sniper Convention

This is for my Uncle Charlie. May he rest in pieces

Welcome to the 75^th annual West Midland Japanese Sniper Convention. This year’s prestigious event is held in the beautiful picturesque town of ‘Tipton on Detritus’. Tipton, the ‘Beirut of the North’, moistly suppurates in the vale of the ‘Birmingham to Dudley’ Canal’. How appropriate then that this illustrious event should transpire in the town which remained a hub of Japanese sniper activity throughout the Second World War 

Opening Address 11.30pm – 12.30pm

The proceedings will be kicked off by an inaugural address by Emperor Hirohito’s grandson, Kendo Nagasaki. Kendo will reflect upon his grandfather’s love of ukiyo-e art and pride of being a war criminal. This will be followed by a light-hearted whimsical re-enactment, in mime, of the ‘Rape of Nanking – Special Bayonet Edition’. 

Lunch 12.30pm - 1.30pm In the Bushido Lounge

Following lunch, sponsored by Mr Khan of Mr Khan’s, botulism free burgers, the conference will veer courageously into developing practical skills. The following inventory will be scrupulously followed:
Programme

Day 1.

1.30pm – 2.30pm  The correct technique for be-heading captured Allied soldiers

3.30pm – 4.00pm  Why were Japanese tanks totally shite?

4.00pm – 4.30pm  Tea break Sticky pastries and assorted lard fancies supplied by Tipton’s premier lard rendering and glue factory

4.30pm – 5.00pm  How to overcome extreme myopia in the Japanese sniper

5.00pm – 5.30pm  How to hone your bayoneting skills prior to bayoneting Chinese babies.

Day 2.

Workshop

9.00am – 12.00pm 

Sgt First Class Udon Noodle and Lt Shinto Karate will perform a practical demonstration of the sniper’s art from the rooftop of the Tipton Convention Centre. The populous of Tipton will be the lucky recipients for the sniper’s ministrations. Casualties are expected to be light due to extremely poor marksmanship/eyesight. The newly formed, ‘Kamikaze Japanese Suicide Squad’ will then perform a demonstration of their skills by leaping off the 12-story building. 

Lunch 12.00pm – 1.00pm In the Katana Lounge

Delegates will partake in the local delicacy, ‘Faggots and Peas’. The faggots will be provided courtesy of Mr Khan’s rat rescue and resort for Tipton’s large displaced rodent community. 

1.00pm – 2.00pm ‘Beheading Extravaganza’  Continuing with the practical demonstration theme, two Japanese officers, Toshiaki Mukai and Tsuyoshi Noda will compete to see who can kill (with a sword) one hundred people first. 

The bold headline reads, "'Incredible Record' (in the Contest to Decapitate 100 People)—Mukai 106 – 105 Noda—Both 2nd Lieutenants Go Into Extra Innings"

2.00pm – 3.00pm  The Death March in Historical Perspective- did it really happen?

3.00pm – 4.00pm  How to Escape from War Crime Prosecution. Emperor Hirohito as an Exemplar

4.00pm – 5.00pm  The Esoteric Art of Bamboo Shoot Torture

Conference Dinner 7.00pm  To be held in the Shogun Suite

 Entertainment provided by the ‘Rhotacism Dancers’. They perform the ever popular: We velly velly solly fol wal climes- not lealy. 

Fugi fish to be supplied by Mr Khan’s ‘fish el a canal’ suppository range. Subsequent survivors will be treated to a low yield nuclear device el a Nagasaki. Nuff said.

For your further delectation.  http://flaxensaxon.blogspot.com/2016/06/japanese-sniper-academy-discovered-in.html  
http://flaxensaxon.blogspot.com/2015/10/japanese-sniper-found-on-mars.html
http://flaxensaxon.blogspot.com/2015/06/japanese-sniper-unearthed-in-tipton.html
http://flaxensaxon.blogspot.com/2014/06/japanese-sniper-found-on-roof-of-dudley.html

I was a Gaucho on the Pampas

Life is replete with opportunities, mostly long past. I remember the time I could have dated one of two pretty girls, but I prevaricated and lost both (truly I was Buridan's Ass. arse). If I had my time over again I would have gone out with both and developed impeccable time keeping and stamina. What has this story got to do with today’s post? Absolutely nothing at all, I happen to be in a wistful mood.

Last weekend we had a visit from an ex-colleague. The trip from where we used to live to our new place is about 2 hours so it is not unusual to have visitations from old friends and colleagues. Dr Mugumbo (for it is she) mentioned that an old neighbour of hers was ensconced but not 6 leagues away and owned a small holding containing a coterie of farm animals. Nothing particularly remarkable in that, you say. After all Flaxen you are a resident of rural New Zealand and no doubt a shining pillock of the community. It transpires that said neighbour has a neutered male Alpaca on the property which is surplus to requirements and is available free to a good new home. Would I be interested in taking on said Alpaca? My forehead creased in thoughtful appraisal. A rivulet of sweat emerged upon my well-formed brow and meandered with senseless abandon across a forehead lined with age, humour and wisdom. Before you ask, I was performing a head stand at the time.

To be honest, I know very little about these animals apart from the fact that they are originally from South America and that they are related to Camels. In thoughtful repose I entered my well-appointed study and searched for the relevant tome on my bookshelf. And there it was in resplendent glory: ‘All you need to know about Alpacas but were too Drunk to Comprehend’. Instead after much fruitless contemplation I decided to Gogle the subject instead. Here is the profit of my labour, in no particular order:

1.  Alpacas spit when pissed off, just like their cousins, Llamas. Generally, this is reserved for their own kind, just keep out the line of fire.

2. They tend to poo in the same place, thus making a huge steaming shit mound.

3.  Alpacas were domesticated by the Incas more than 6,000 years ago and raised for their exquisite fleece. Due to its quality, alpaca fibre was reserved exclusively for the elite and nobility.

4. Alpacas were not reared for their carrying abilities, unlike Llamas, due to their gracile habitus, but prized for their fine exquisite fleece. 

5. They were introduced into Tipton in 1900 during the great pig pud and ferret wobbling depression. No shit, Flaxen.

6. These critters are tough and can survive in extreme habitats.

7. They eat grass and shrubberies, dats it.

8. Did I mention that they are tough? Anyway, they require little shelter regardless of ambient conditions.

9. They are dead cute.

10. They get fleeced once a year. Everyone else gets fleeced by the gov’nent all the time…    

We decided to visit the Alpaca on a cold, windy, wet Spring day. Ted seemed curious when we approached his paddock although he maintained a wary and respectful distance. I was struck by his air of melancholy undoubtedly due to his solitude. Alpacas require company with their own kind and therefore I would need to look for another Alpaca to keep him content. Luckily, a neighbour has a neutered female which she would also give up for the esteemed fee of nowt, including delivery. Why should I be festooned by such beneficence?  Perhaps fate, in all its majesty, has determined my future? And my future looks very Alpacy (not a real word). 

Ted and friend are to be delivered next Wednesday. Both animals are on a 2-week approval. Seems like a plan. If it all goes tits up I can harvest the buggers for their meat. Only kidding, I’m an animal lover at heart, except dem pesky rabbits. Wat’s up Doc? 

  

The Madness of Crowds

So here it is at last. After a creative hiatus I’ve managed to find the inspiration and energy to write. Periodic enervation is a curse upon my soul and a sad interlude of dejection which denudes hope. 

In my previous post I alluded to a sequel where I would advance a few mustered thoughts concerning the underlining psychology and motivation, at least according to the musings of my fevered and disjointed neural connections, as to why certain people are drawn to conspiracies and pseudoscience.

Previously I introduced the concept of why people believe in a flat Earth in spite of the evidence. I suggested that this was not a simple question but I didn’t go into detail with regard to my reasoning. The flat Earth delusion is an extreme example. Other delusions appear more popular, such as deniers of the moon landings and antivaccer advocates. Again, the evidence in favour of man going to the moon and vaccinations not causing autism is overwhelming. So why do people refuse to accept good empirical evidence and continue to believe in madness? And then there is the attraction of pseudoscientific theories and practices such as alternative medicine and astrology- why? Answers to any complex human motivation is going to involve intricate and multi-layered explanations.

There are undoubtedly uneducated folk out there without the mental wherewithall to process information in a critical coherent manner and thus are prone to whims and disinformation (aka fuck wits). That said, there is a reasonable core of folk who appear remarkably lucid, in spite of their weird beliefs, at least on the superficial level. And reading through the various ‘alternative forums’ I certainly gained an impression that a substantial number of contributors were able to engage in logical thought processes.

I’m going to backtrack somewhat (a digression perhaps?). Even the most critical of us have to invoke an element of intellectual ‘trust’. We cannot fully apply our critical facility and spend time independently reviewing available evidence to all novel propositions. As we are not immortal we indulge in an intellectual short cut which for want of a better phrase I’ll call epistemological trust. However, the prudent seeker of knowledge does not indulge his/her trust in everyone or everything. If I want to examine the world of plumbing I would approach an experienced plumber and if I want to learn about Cosmology I would solicit a Professor of Cosmology. What I would not do is take heed of the pontifications of a Hollywood celebrity concerning the dangers of vaccination. To do so would represent the height of intellectual folly. We need to exercise wisdom in choosing our spokesperson. Furthermore, it is important to integrate our newfound knowledge into our existing background of knowledge. Is our new knowledge consistent with what we already know? If not, a critical review of our knowledge base and/or our newfound knowledge is warranted. Sounds sensible doesn’t? I’ve outlined a process that many sensible folk use, often without conscious effort, in their everyday education. I’m using this rather lengthy introduction to support the thrust of my thesis of why rational people believe irrational concepts. 

There are people drawn to alternative propositions and pseudoscience due to a lack of trust in authority and mainstream science. While I think a degree of mistrust is healthy when we consider Government proclamations and intentions, mainstream respectable science should not be approached in this way (I would say that, wouldn’t I?). And why would I say such a thing? Science is a process, a process with checks and balances. If something cannot be independently repeated then it is not worthy of inclusion into the canon of scientific knowledge. This an important distinction to be considered when we contrast science and non-scientific topics such as politics. Scientists can lie but unlike politicians they are always found out, eventually. Healthy scepticism is good in all realms of our endeavour but excessive or total scepticism leads to paranoia and unhappiness. 

Pseudoscience wallows in the hypotheses of true science however, unlike science the hypotheses are not subject to scientific rigour. Thus, pseudoscientists gather data, often ‘cherry picked’ to fulfil their expected notion, but they do not apply the scientific methodology to test their hypotheses- if they did they would be found wanting. In a way it is similar to theology where the answer is already ‘known’ and data is only considered if it fits preconceived dogma. Pseudoscientists are then happy to pass on their findings to a population already primed by their psychological makeup to accept non-mainstream ideas. The so-called facts put forth can seem convincing to someone not formally versed in the scientific process. They are happy to bask in intellectual dissonance and steep themselves in indulgent crapulence with total unmitigated aplomb (steady Flaxen).  

And then there is the internet. We live in unprecedented times when it comes to information. We can access multiple, nay thousands, of interpretations of phenomena, just take your pick. However, information is not of equal quality and this is where we need to engage our critical faculty. This is clearly beyond some folk and some appear to be happy to be led by the nose without too much contemplation or appreciation. Science works and provides answers but often those answers are counter-intuitive or down right repellent. But fear not, because ‘out there’ there will be a crack pot theory that is bound to fit in with all your heart felt convictions.  

I’m going to finish here, not because I’ve exhausted the topic. Indeed, I could witter on in this refrain for another 10,000 words. I’m finishing because people don’t want to read a thesis on a blog, and rightly so, and I’m aware that if I continue too long I’ll lose the few readers I already have. Perhaps a mini-series is in order. Let’s see. 

Too many projects, not enough inclination to finish them.     

  

Flatness is on the Rise

Believe it or not, but there are folk who inhabit this spherical world who earnestly contend that the Earth is flat. Not only that, the trend appears to be gaining in popularity to the extent that ‘Flat Earth’ conventions are being held in the United States on a regular basis. There is an oft cherished and erroneous belief that late Medieval Europeans believed in a flat Earth. This is certainly not the case. In fact, the ancient Greeks had conclusively shown that our world is round by simple trigonometry. Also, the ancient Greeks observed lunar eclipses and correctly deduced that the curved shadow of the Earth falling upon the moon indicated a spherical Earth. There is no doubt that unenlightened folk living in unenlightened times considered the Earth to be flat. This notion would be based on intuition and the flat appearance of the terrain to a naive observer. Furthermore, many religious beliefs, according to their Scriptures, and including Christianity, held the view of a flat Earth, steady and fixed. Even today, folk who should know better, take Scriptures as absolute truth and are loath to consider religious writings in their historical and cultural setting.

The rise of modern science in the West has provided numerous proofs for the spherical Earth. And if you are not convinced by the stunning photos obtained from space then nothing will convince you. The vast majority of mankind appear convinced. I’ll not relate the many arguments supplied by flat Earthers for their propositions and the plethora of counter-refutations. Given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, why is it that the flat-Earth fraternity continues to prosper? This is essentially a psychological question and strictly speaking lies outside the scientific domain. In spite of the evidence, folk choose not to believe. Motivated by religious fundamentalism, pseudoscience or a conspiracy theory mentality flat Earthers seem able to meld irrational concepts into a rational (for them at least) patchwork of ‘reality’. It is too simplistic a notion to state that believers are dumb crazies- this will not do. Indeed, many appear to apply their view of ‘rationality’ consistently and with a fair amount of admirable creativity.    

Therefore, we come back to the fundamental question, why? Like a host of psychological phenomena, the answer is not going to be pure or simple. In fact, we should ask why certain people are drawn to a conspiracy and anti-establishment mentality. This is going to be the topic of my next thrilling and hugely informative post: ‘The Madness of Crowds’. Stay tuned and be amazed!    

  

Tin Foil Hats and Zombies

Have you ever worried about psychotronic radiation impinging on your noddle? Or worse still having your own psychotronic radiation being syphoned off from your noddle by nefarious forces? How about protection from micro-radiation emitting Zombies trying to soften up your grey matter prior to feasting? I’m sure we have all felt the need to protect our precious brains from various government agencies. As for Zombies, it would be folly to allow our brains to become softened and rendered friable during a Zombie apocalypse. The answer is simple- wear tin foil hats. If fashioned with shiny surfaces facing out you will never have to worry about psychotronic radiation again. And remember, a single roll of tin foil will protect the whole family. Wear your tin hat with pride. Undoubtedly the naysayers and scoffers will be the first to succumb to brain cooking rays from the Zombies. Have a guess whose brains the Zombies will yearn to possess the most? What type of brain do you think Zombies prefer? A brain unsullied by par-cooking or one that has already experienced mind-numbing basting? I think we all know the answer to that question. Luckily the video below illustrates how to construct the perfect tin foil hat to protect you and your family from mind robbing and brain grilling radiation. If you want to be inconspicuous and not garner attention from ‘Zombie fodder’ while you sashay and promenade down Tipton High Street then simply line your favourite titfa with tin foil. Wibble, wibble, arse bollocks.

Watch and weep and learn how to prevent your brain from becoming mouth-wateringly edible to the undead.

     

Retirement: Akimbo

 It has been two months since I retired and moved to my smallholding in the Wairarapa with my wife and two extremely useless and pampered dogs. I haven’t settled into a routine yet, but a pattern seems to be emerging. The alarm insinuates at 9.00am. I have the vague feeling that I should be getting up and engaging in something useful. I briefly emerge from my cosy, warm cocoon to brew a cup of tea and then it’s back to bed. I turn on the computer and begin to write. I’m happy to engage in this activity until about 11.00am after which I rise for a leisurely breakfast. If the weather is kind I break my fast on the patio with a second cup of tea. Then the day begins.

As we are new to the property there is much to do but there is no incentive for haste. The garden requires attention. With 2.5 acres of lawn, the mowing is not a simple job and occupies most of the day using the ageing ride on mower which came with the property. Other gardening chores can take priority. For instance, we have already planted fruit trees, potatoes and onions in the vegetable plot. Tomatoes, carrots and lettuce have taken root in the greenhouse.

Gardening does not happen every day and when it does I try to balance the activity with other physical endeavours. As a matter of preference, I like to spend time in the barn where I indulge my new-found love for carpentry. I confess I’m not a gifted woodworker and have never considered myself skilled or dextrous when it comes to practical work but I persevere. I’ve completed a 6-foot workbench with vice and attached sander; built several archery targets, a shave horse; a ten bow wall mounted archery rack and I’m engaged in two separate bow projects.

I’ve plenty of space to shoot and try to practise with the bow on days when it's not raining. I have already met several likeminded archers and when the weather turns dry and hot in late spring I’ll organise and host a BBQ and target shoot.

On a perplexing note, the local blackbird has taken exception to his reflection in our windows and if not shooed away will spend his day tapping and crapping on the window and patio; no doubt defending his territory from the phantasm interloper and rival. I did consider shooting the annoying little bugger with my newly acquired rifle but my wife has softened my heart with her entreaties to desist. I’ll wait until she embarks on one of her day-long shopping trips to the ‘big city’. Tis a different story with regard to the rabbits. The property contains several warrens and the bold little bunnies can be seen hopping about the lawns during the day. However, dusk is the time when they emerge in force. Patience and a rifle fitted with a scope herald the time of slaughter. Rabbit is a tasty addition to the pot especially if you get them young enough. A tasty reminder of when I used to go a rabbiting with my dour, taciturn granddad, as a lad. Go Shagger! Arse.

Ontological Argument

There have been a number of arguments put forth purportedly proving the existence of God. The avowed aim is to demonstrate that a belief in God is a rational belief and thus prove the existence of a supernatural deity. Many of these arguments have an ancient pedigree. They coalesced in the mind of the 13^th century Christian apologetic, Thomas Aquinas. For it is he who set about presenting the various arguments in a systematic way in his book, “Summa Theologiae”. It is interesting to note that the whole edifice of the Catholic church is bound together by Thomistic philosophy. It has a lot to say about Catholicism that its philosophic base is founded upon a discredited Medieval philosophical system. The innate conservatism of the Catholic church is typified by its insistence upon notions which are antique and non-scientific. Nonetheless, even if these arguments were successful, which they are not, it would only ‘prove’ the existence of a supernatural entity. In no way would it demonstrate the Christian God with all of its associated superlative characteristics. Indeed, if the thesis could be shown to be true it would be totally consistent with a plurality of gods and therefore would not necessarily support the concept of the monotheistic God espoused in the Bible.  

The argument I would like to present is called the ‘Ontological Argument’. This was not a thesis which found favour with Aquinas. Of all the arguments put forward in support of God(s), the ontological argument is the only one which has a supposed appeal to pure reason and logic. It should be noted that if all the premises of the argument could be shown to be logically sound then the conclusion must be true. That said, let us examine the posited proof as originally proposed by the 11th-century Italian cleric, Anselm:

1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).

2. God exists as an idea in the mind.

3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality, is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.

4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).

5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.).

6. Therefore, God exists.

Please note: Anselm’s argument has been reworked and repackaged in modern times, but the basic tenets of Anselm’s refrain remain, unsullied. Therefore, for simplicity sake, I have stuck with the original and simplistic formulation. 

There is much to understand here and it is worth reading the proposition several times to baste in its nuances and full implications. As for the rebuttal, I’ll try to keep any counter-arguments relatively simple and avoid the more technically complex refutations (Immanuel Kant was a real pissant and very rarely stable). The ontological argument received adverse criticism in its own time. Gaunilo, a contemporary monk of Anselm, argued that this form of reasoning could be used to conjure into existence all manner of none existent things. Instead of God Gaunilo substituted the concept of the greatest possible island. His implication is that Anselm’s argument could be utilised to prove the existence of anything, even green Pixies with the surname, Mugumbo. 

You may think Gaunilo’s counter rather trivial and obvious, but there are other serious philosophical objections based on fallacy and reason, as mentioned below.

The argument raises the problem of the ‘equivocation fallacy’. It can be admitted that a word may have several meanings. Thus, in Anselm’s first premise we have a conceptual god who exists only in the mind. However, in a later premise, Anselm states that God exists in reality. Surely the concept of God in the mind and the real existence of God are not the same thing. The second fallacy committed is termed, ‘begging the question’. Begging the question refers to a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion. Following on from this argument, and approaching from a different tack, consider this: the ontological argument is based upon the assertion that necessary existence is greater than contingent existence. To explain: contingent existence is something which can be imagined in the mind but does not exist in reality, a unicorn would be an example, while necessary existence is something which can be held in the mind but also exists in reality. A horse in this context would be a good example. The proposal that necessary existence is greater than contingent existence is taken as given by proponents of the ontological argument. Why this is the case is rarely explained. On what basis is ‘necessary’ greater than ‘contingency’? There does not appear to be an objective definition of ‘greatness’ and therefore subjectivity rules. Why is existence a great making property? A formal definition is required- but is it possible to objectively define 'greatness'.

Immanuel Kant, the 19th-century German philosopher criticised the argument on the basis of ‘existence is not a predicate’. Er, yes. Kant’s refutation is highly technical and will not be dissected further. That said, many philosophers consider Kant’s counter-argument the most effective.

So, there you have it. Are you convinced that the ontological argument is a pile of wombat dung or is it a valid proposal for the existence of supernatural deities?  Discuss.

Gentle reader, I’m sure it has not gone unnoticed that my posts of late have been very sensible. I blame my new medication which is playing havoc with my creative flow. After much deliberation with my psychiatrist, Prof Mugumbo and several voices in my head, it has been deemed necessary, nay imperative, that I should revert to my previous medication- you have been warned.