Prinz Landrew 'The Befuddled', Formerly/Formally of Tipton. Arse

Random Tiptonite of no Consequence

Shock-breaking news from the Kingdom of Tipton! Prinz Landrew has been stripped of the title/entitlement, Duke of Netherton North, and from now on will simply be addressed as Nonce Landrew. However, he will still retain the epithet, 'The Befuddled' when dining at 'Piazza Slop', Stewpony. This further development came forth following the discovery of a parchment documenting the alleged activities of the ponce, which were deemed unbecoming of his royal status. Read on and savour the events leading up to the fall of Landrew in addition to recent allegations bringing this saga to an incandescent, fiery climax.  

Several years ago, in an interview conducted in full view of the Tipton folk, Landrew faced questions and accusations concerning cavorting with girls barely past maidenhood. During the interrogation, Landrew denied ever meeting with such maids and made clear that a charcoal sketch showing him banging a wench on the cusp of puberty was not a true likeness, and he had no recollection of a famed portrait artist present at the proceedings. When asked about his association with Sir Godfrey 'The Bawdy', he stated he only visited Godfrey at his luxurious Dudley Castle apartments so he could pick up a misplaced cod piece. At the time, Godfrey had been indicted on several counts of: 'Procurring nubile maids, by the wagon full, at the princely sum of 50 groats a cord'. It was pointed out that all 12 meetings with the disgraced Godfrey had occurred whilst Godfrey was hosting one of his infamous 'Fuck /Fests/Feasts Akimbo'. The former prince strenuously denied ever being involved in the Fests, as it was way past his accustomed bedtime. When asked about the sweaty, greasy trail leading to the dungeon room, that allegedly had smelt 'regal', the prince replied that it could not have been him as his sebum-secreting glands had mysteriously vanished at a brothel in Tewkswbury decades before the supposed incident. 

A maiden who had allegedly serviced the young prince petitioned the High Court of the Land for redress. In response/nonce, Landrew declared he had never met the maiden, and to prove his innocence, the dowager queen, Lizbert 'The Ill Advised' decided to pay the impuning/impudent wench the princely sum of 500 groats and a town house on the 'Costa del Sol (Hola!). Recently, a scroll was unearthed documenting the alleged scurrilous behaviour of Landrew and a host of notables/nobles of the land. The king of Tipton, Karl III 'The Lech', was displeased with his brother as it bestirred the proles of the land and made them think more deeply about the role of the monarchy in general. This is particularly resonant with a populace fed up with a bunch of freeloading, untalented, entitled twats bestriding the land as if they own it (Cornwall excluded). Mayhap, the serfs will revolt and rise up in the land. Something had to be done to deflect the helots from scrutinising the royal house further, thus unearthing past and present indiscretions. Woden forbid that the peons find out about the activities of the deceased consort of the dead queen, Prinzz Phil Anderer. 

Not only will Landrew be stripped of his titles, but he will be evicted from his luxury castle accommodation, which he shares with a former flame-haired concubine. His punishment: the former prince will be banished to Portugal, where he will languish in an opulent castle next to a private beach. Here he will wither in disgraced exile with riches beyond count. Such a fitting end for the ex-royal wretch!    

Whence is justice?  

Notus Bene: After reading my nascent post, prior to publishing, my wife beseeched me to remove a sentence involving the poor woman at the centre of this insanity. On reflection, I realised that my dear wife had a point, and I had crossed the fine line between satire and poor taste. There is no doubt that there are occasions when my style transgresses the bounds of common decency. In this instance, removing the offending/offensive sentence does not detract from the thrust of this piece. Sadly, Mrs G found little peace and happiness in this life. If there is an afterlife, which I doubt, she is deserved of ultimate bliss and perhaps justice that she was denied in this life. 

    

Euthyphro Dilemma

Euthyphro Dilemma or Flaxen's Spouting Crap, as Usual

Rarely do I venture into the realm of human morality and ethics. Tis a murky area indeed, and morality systems proposed by so-called advanced nations have an air of fragility and, to my mind, are subject to political expediency.

Consider the following injunction: 'Thou shalt not kill'. A civilised society is supposedly defined by this moral law. Even societies not much above the savage recognise the importance of this universal code for members of the tribe, although its restriction may not apply to those who don't belong. With all that said, Homo Sapiens have an inordinate capacity for violent action. It could be argued that our ability to practise violence on others has been an evolutionary boon and has contributed to our success as a species. Wot no Neanderthals? But what about the genes- they still survive!

A coherent society demands that its citizens go forth and kill others on occasion. Thus, the 'shall not kill' rule becomes void in times of war. A special class of countrymen, 'Warriors', are expected to take the life of, but not necessarily restricted to, the Warriors of the groups deemed 'The Enemy'. At its most fundamental, war is about killing. Killing members of group B is a means utilised by group A to impose its will on group B, and vice versa. We can attempt to civilise war through treaties, mutually agreed restrictions on violence between protagonists and political side steps. Still, ultimately, war is about killing- how can it be otherwise?

The above is my way of introducing the Euthyphro Dilemma. If humans (and by extension, nations) are morally dubious, how do we match up to our supposed deity? Surely, divine morality is sublime, perfect, and a model for us mere mortals to follow. The dilemma with the funny foreign Greek name comes from Plato's dialogue, where Socrates discusses divine morality with a fellow called Euthyphro. What follows is a question from the good Socrates. This question has engaged the best minds (what a bloody waste) over the millennia, and its resolution has proved stubbornly elusive for theists. The question: “Is something good because the gods command it, or do the gods command it because it is good?”. The question is easy to frame, like many profound questions. On first acquaintance, mayhap it is a simple conundrum; however, the implications are intricately bound and raise difficulties concerning morality and the ultimate nature of God. Let's dig a bit deeper.

The question presents a choice between two horns of a dilemma.

Thorny Horn Number 1.

Consider this: If something happens to be good because the gods deem it so, then all morality is due to the gods' decree. Thus, an act of kindness is not 'kind' because the concept of 'kindness' is good in itself, but good because of divine will. The problem arises because, if we accept this view, then morality becomes arbitrary. If god commands that human torture is good, then torture must be good. This, no doubt, will conflict with our internal notion of goodness, unless we are a homicidal maniac. But if we accept god's will as the source of all morality, we must accept this adjudication as good. If so, have we become homicidal maniacs or incredibly pious? If we follow gods edict, then the truth, 'god is good' becomes a tautology and is devoid of informational content. And what does this say about god's ultimate nature, and is this god worthy of serious consideration and worship?*

Horny Thorn Number 2.

It's time to address the second half of Socrates' question. If 'good' is apparent and independent of the divine, then objective morality is manifest and subject to reason and experience. Divine will has no influence on morality. All well and good, and as a consequence, we shall exalt! This view is in line with how we want morality to be. It gives meaning to objective morality and soothes our worried brow. We cannot rely on the deity to provide guidance in the realm of morals and ethics. But not so fast, Flaxen. The thinking theologian (an oxymoron surely) is confronted by a problem, especially if he/she accepts the precepts of Thomas Aquinas, as this solution restricts the Christian notion of god's omnipotence. If morality does not rely on god's power, then god is subject to limits, which limits Divine Sovereignty.  This is a very uncomfortable conclusion for the Christian who ponders beyond simple liturgy and the preacher's insipid sermon on a wet Sunday morning.

Theologians, even the dumb ones, are never short on words and resolving contradictions, at least to their satisfaction; tis their life's work. One approach is to rely on Thomas Aquinas and his use/misuse of Aristotelian metaphysics. Accordingly, moral truths are integral to the natural order created by god. God's evident involvement can be revealed through reason (sic). Simply, we have a meld of god's authority with moral reality. Theology and reality are never a good mix, and even dense Thomist metaphysics are of little use. 

Another route popular with theologians is to note that the nature of god is inherently good. Therefore, god does not randomly impose what is good. As god's character is perfect, it follows that what he commands expresses his immaculately good character. The dilemma is supposedly bypassed by placing morality within god's essence rather than his will. This approach will only appear convincing to the student well drenched in Aristotelian metaphysics; I'm not such a student. Bollocks in, bollocks out.

Most folk do not find theologians' attempts to avoid the moral dilemmas, as previously stated, particularly compelling. Platonic and Aristotelian metaphysics are clearly acting behind the scenes to force and shore up reconciliation between god's perfectitude and the real world. The attempt appears archaic, and dare I say it, silly, as it is based on teachings superseded by modern philosophical systems. Folk, with a modern scientific/technological education, are at a loss to comprehend concepts such as 'essence', including myself. The arguments smack of sophistry and acadaemic cleverness for its own sake. Tis ultimately dependent on Thomist philosophy proposed 800 years ago. A philosophical system discarded by all except Catholic scholars.

To all my readers, this discussion on so-called 'Morals' seems to devolve/dissolve into the void of esoteric nonsense. This is, of course, my unlearned opinion, so take it as you will. A cadre of very clever acadaemics has devoted their careers to considering some of the finer points of what it means to be a moral person. As said in the introduction, I struggle with attempts to formalise a code of morals and ethics. As humans, we all have our own 'morality' based on our cultural milieu, guidance from our parents/elders/teachers and our intuition. Socrates' sharp question on morality's dichotomy is not a dilemma for the atheist. The dilemma is only for devotees of supernatural deities possessing superlative qualities. 

Unrelatedly, my writing has been criticised for using unnecessary ellipsis. I am guilty as charged, me Lord...

* The answer is NO

Darwin II

A tad unfair, as Darwin was too 'ill' to attend the debate

Several months ago, I wrote a post introducing Darwin's revolutionary concept of species change through the mechanism of natural selection. This post set the scene for a future series examining the impact of ideas put forth by learned predecessors on Darwin's well-favoured noggin and theory. Let us not take away Darwin's brilliant insight; however, others before him had made discoveries that influenced Darwin's thought processes, culminating in his remarkable theory. But before launching into a survey of the Great Men who had come before, I would like to briefly examine the impact the publication of 'Origins' had on staid, musty but rocksure British Victorian society, with emphasis on the scientific and theological community.

Darwin was forced to rush the publication of his seminal book, 'The Origin of Species,' against his natural inclination. Darwin had been sitting and ruminating on his theory for years, only to be awoken from his somnolent revery of procrastination by the news that a fellow naturalist, Alfred Russel Wallace, had devised a similar evolutionary theory. 

From our modern perspective, it is difficult to understand the impact that Darwin's theory had on Victorian society as a whole and specifically on the scientific and religious establishment. Today, we are the recipients of technological advancements beyond measure. And the improvement continues to accelerate to the extent that new and major innovations are commonplace. In a way, we are inured to the wonderful march of modernisation and expect all at the touch of a button or a swipe of a screen. This is not to say that the 19th century was static in theory and technological development. However, the pace of advancement, though marvellous for its time, was a snail's track compared to those of the 20th and the first 25 years of this century.    

Religion and science have been in conflict in the Western Arena for the past 500 years. Theologians were in no doubt about the challenge the march of scientific thought posed to the carefully constructed edifice of Catholicism. An edifice defined by dogma and infallible doctrinal fiction manufactured after centuries of conclaves, conflicts and blood. And yet it survived for centuries, together with a jewel-encrusted Pope- what would the baby Jesus say? With the rise of Protestantism initiated in the early 16th century, Catholicism had weathered its greatest threat. Catholicism survived, battered, but the Nicene creed and associated Greek philosophy remained. Christianity, however, was no longer unified under one doctrinal banner. Christian thought was now up for grabs, and independently minded men could interpret scripture according to their wit and religious inclination; this, no doubt, assured their position in Hell. The Protestants can go to Hell; Catholics were secure under their carapace of spiritual certainty, and Heaven, punctuated by a stint in Purgatory, was an absolute truth. That said, science posed a threat to Protestantism and Catholicism alike. Unlike religion, science was a process put forth by observation and experimentation. It was not static, but subject to change and improvement. In contrast, religious thought is exact and exacting. It is based on revelation from God and faith. Neither revelation nor faith is a path to knowledge. When did religious thought produce a longer-lasting light bulb?   

Back to Darwin: Following the publication of the 'Origins', the most obvious problem for theologians of the time was that the theory provided a naturalistic explanation for natural complexity. Before Darwin, free thinkers faced the problem of giving a non-divine explanation for the manifest complexity of the natural world. An 18th-century theologian, Paley, neatly summed up the issue in his watch analogy. Consider the following scenario: If, upon wandering a wind-swept abandoned shopping mall in Tipton, you find a stolen watch, you would immediately note its complexity, even if you had never seen such a timepiece (It's Tipton, remember). The intricacy of the mechanism leads you to conclude that this item must have had a maker; in this case, a human artificer. By extrapolation (note: not logic), the complexity of the Natural World is an evident truth. Even the simplest bacterium is a highly sophisticated biological/biochemical machine. How can such intricate complexity arise naturally? Just as a complex machine, a watch, has a maker, Nature, in all its elements, guises and majesty, is surely constructed by the ultimate artificer that many call God. This argument proved highly persuasive, even before Paley's mechanistic exposition. Intuitively, it works, although it fails if confronted by cold, hard logic; but only logicians will be convinced by this argument. Regardless, the theological argument from complexity is highly compelling from a visceral perspective. However, it does not necessarily support the Christian conception of their deity and the associated theological construct and dogma. Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection provided an elegant naturalistic mechanism for generating complexity from simplicity over vast intervals of time—supernatural intervention was not required.

Darwin's theory immediately impacted the scientific community, and the reception was undeniably and almost universally positive. This apparently simple model, at least on first acquaintance, provided a compelling, and dare I say it, exquisite solution to the ultimate problem. At last, science had closed the last gap available to theology. The Great Question had been resolved, at least to the satisfaction of the scientific community,  and religious folk had nowhere to retreat except to their narrow world of irrationality.  

The initial reaction from the theological community was disbelief. However, once the implication of Darwin's book was fully digested, thoughtful theologians realised the severe challenge evolutionary theory posed to their conception of Divine Providence and miraculous Creation. The situation was grandly reviewed during a series of lectures at Oxford University in June 1860. The focus of the debate was: Evolution versus Creationism. Two individuals dominated the scene: Thomas Huxley (an undergraduate) and Bishop Samuel Wilberforce. Sadly, no transcript of the proceedings was kept, and we have to rely on letters and accounts of the debate from those present. The highlight of the meeting unfolded when the good Bishop, 'Ol Soapy Sam', asked: "If Huxley was descended from an ape from his grandfather or grandmother"? This cheap jibe should not have been part of a serious intellectual debate. However, it was meant to sway the audience through tawdry sentiment and to pander to Victorian sensibilities concerning the superiority of Humankind in comparison to the rest of the 'Animal Kingdom'. Although we don't have the exact words of Huxley's rebuttal, a popular report provides the following: "A man has no reason to be ashamed of having an ape for his grandfather. If there were an ancestor whom I should feel shame in recalling, it would be a MAN, a man of restless and versatile intellect, who, not content with an success in his own sphere of activity, plunges into scientific questions with which he has no real acquaintance, only to obscure them by an aimless rhetoric, and distract the attention of his hearers from the real point at issue by eloquent digresions, and skilled appeals to religious prejudice". What a wonderful reply to the Bishop's cheap shot! In response, a lady in the audience fainted. Please note, this is the only comment I'm prepared to make regarding Darwinian theory's effect on Victorian society. Please do not be disappointed. I have neither the inclination, time, nor space in this post to pontificate further. Take the lady's 'touch of the vapours' as a metaphor for the impact on genteel Victorian mores. Either that, or you can blame it on wearing a bustle in the June heat. Did Huxley utter these exact words? Probably not. Nevertheless, we have other reports of the incident, and the gist of what was said is eloquently represented by the above. The rebuttal was harsh, fair and intellectually compelling/telling. 

Today, with our gift of historical insight, we can easily state that the Evolutionists carried the day. However, contemporary accounts give a more balanced and nuanced view. Apparently, victory was ascribed to the side as decided by the writer's personal prejudice, at the time, generally not by the intellectual weight of the argument.     

Within ten years of the Huxley/Wilburforce debate, Evolutionary Theory had been accepted as mainstream and part of the biological canon. It was a theory that everyone could understand, or so they thought. Even biologists of the time did not fully grasp its mechanism or implications. Even Huxley, the man who doggedly advocated for its acceptance, was a better debater than he was at understanding the underlying theory. But that did not really matter. For Huxley, Evolution was the perfect vehicle for undermining Natural Theology and replacing it with Science.  

Tis enough- I must desist as I'm starting to wibble on akimbo. The following post(s) will concern the notables who inspired Darwin. Nuff said, for now.

Paradise Lost (Again)

Close Enough

On the 23rd September 2025, it had been predicted by Pastor Joshua Mugumbo (sic), a prophet/profit resident of South Africa, that the Rapture would definitely occur. There was no doubt about his prophecy. The 23rd marked the day when the faithful in Christ would be whisked skyward in accordance with Christian lore. On this day, Christians believed that because of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, they would receive atonement for their sins and therefore be cleansed of all venal iniquities. Thus, the true believer would leave behind their earthly, and undoubtedly filthy, vestments/raiments, defy gravity, and ascend to meet their saviour in the clouds.

The 23rd of September marked the 'Feast of Trumpets', a celebration of the Jewish New Year—a clear sign of the Rapture's inception. Folks drenched in obdurate stubbornness (double positive) and pride, and those who do not recognise the sovereignty of the Saviour, will be left behind. Atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, Gypos akimbo and sundry dark folk will not participate in Jesus' manifest mercy and benevolence. They will be left in the mire and crapulence that defines those who wilfully refused to embrace Jesus' gift of eternal love. There was only one path to eternal bliss, and that was through Jesus. All other religions and beliefs were distractions put forth by Satan to misdirect and to fool the unwary. 

Many believed Pasty Mugumbo, especially in the US. TikTok videos appeared warning of impending doom. True believers began to give up their acquisitions. Cars, money and even houses were given away. What good were these chatels when one had achieved the sublime and was now resident with Jesus in paradise? Folk gathered in groups on the allotted day and waited with joy in their hearts, as on this day they would be embraced in the bosom of the Lord. Some worried that if they stayed inside, they would hit their head on the ceiling as they shot skywards, so they went outside, ensuring there was no potential obstacle preventing vertical egress.

As the allotted day approached, fundamental Christians were driven into a righteous religious fervour. When the 23rd came, they prayed mightily and waited to be taken.

Aftermath: Pastor Joshua Mugumbo was interviewed on the 25th on a Podcast (CENTTWINZ TV). During this time, he droned on about bugger all, casting out verbal diarrhoea in ritual abundance. However, no apology was forthcoming for his failed prophecy. Instead, he doubled down and simply revised the date, a common ploy of all failed Rapture prophets. God's calendar was based on the now-defunct Julian calendar, initiated by the great Julius Caesar. Today, we use the Gregorian calendar. According to Gregorian chronology, there is a 13-day difference between these calendars. Thus, the date of the Rapture has now been revised to the 7th or possibly the 8th of October. This is all very convenient, but there is a flaw in Joshua's cunning plan. When the Rapture fails to manifest on the allotted date, those adherents, still left adhering to primitive bollocks, will be left mightily disconcerted and possibly disconbobulated. There might even be a little gnashing of teeth. I'll get the popcorn.

These Rapture events are occurring at ever-increasing time intervals. I recall the late Harold Camping's prediction of Doomsday and the supposed impending aerial elevation/salvation of the faithful few. *At the time, I penned a verse of doggerel to mark this inauspicious happening. Again, he attracted followers who fervently believed in his brand of insanity. In particular, I remember one fella who was a true believer. He was so sure of the event that he had spent all his savings on billboards proclaiming the coming lofty event/ascent. These large adverts appeared throughout New York, heralding impending doom for those foolhardy enough not to believe. As he stood in Times Square to await the event prophesied to occur at precisely 6pm on 21st May 2021, he clutched his small bible in both hands with a fierce ferocity. The large digital clock in the square revealed the appointed time, and the unbelieving heathens, some in festive garb, who had gathered to partake of the carnival atmosphere, vented a large cheer as if of one voice. Our lone hero looked lost and confused. This was his chance of salvation- now lost. An escape from his miserable mortal existence did not happen. He quietly muttered, "I don't understand". A pitiful low cry hardly discerned through the raucous laughter and derision. As for Mr Camping: He went silent, but not for long... Like all failed prophets, he stated that he had miscalculated and then announced that the true date of the Apocalypse was, in fact, a day in October 2021. Many of Camping's adherents became disillusioned after the May debacle, especially those who had dispensed of their worldly goods, stopped paying rent, and gave up their employment. A few diehards (our lonely hero, mayhap?) stayed on to witness the final death knell of Camping's delusion in October. Camping died a confused and embittered man on the 15th December 2013 at the age of 92.

                                    *You made your predictions quite categorical,

Date and year were virtually undeniable.

Except your pontifications were completely unreliable,

And your followers were left bewildered, high and dryable.                

                         

                         

I am truly confused. How, in this day and age of scientific achievements and wonderments, do we still have folk in supposedly 'sophisticated' Western countries who continue to believe in these silly, primitive, nonsensical beliefs? And let's be honest: When we talk of Western countries, we're talking about the USA. This could not happen in my adopted country of New Zealand. But before I become too smug and enter the realm of intellectual superiority, I must admit that New Zealand has its own brand of insanity, termed 'Maori Science'. But worry not, gentle reader, I will devote a post to this concept in the future.

Fundamental Christianity has had, and still has, a detrimental influence on American politics, education, and science. This is a vast topic, and the controversy concerning the teaching of Evolution in schools has been a century-long battle for it to be accepted universally throughout the US. The fundamental lobby has fought hard, and often deviously, to include the teaching of 'Intelligent Design/ Creation Science' as a viable scientific alternative to evolutionary theory. We see a stain/strain of anti-intellectual poison that seeps throughout certain sectors of American society, resulting in the uncritical acceptance of Biblical babble as alternative truth. Belief in Evolution as a valid scientific theory hovers around 50% of the US population. The rest of the population seems happy to believe that God is the answer. I rest my case, for now.