Monthly Archives: December 2017

Nil Subject.

The thing about being covert is that there’s no pretending that there is going to be some great reward once your covers been blown. Because your cover can never be blown; if you blow your cover then you’ve lost, and any reward that you might have thought that you have gotten comes in the form of death, prison or it’s living equivalent: poor compensation, a weak restitution of empty symbols and magical fantasy… religious pomp and circumstance…

No; when you are in a covert operation you are fully immersed, fully engaged. In this situation there is no doubts, no second thoughts, no second chances….

It is the most authentic being that one can be, because you’re all in no matter what.

This is how we were. We did it. That’s all that matters.

– Pete Smithers. 2008.

The Fallacy of Belief: modernity and its tells.

This guys seems to do a pretty good job of laying out some flaws in Christian thinking.

via The Ridiculousness of some Christian Arguments — Christianity Simplified


Notice that his argument is being made against claims of another theorist in the debate.

One should ask how it is possible that he can move from the specific theoretical claim made by another person to the actualities of occurrence in the world.

This should really be the debate.

I have to laugh at his arguments because they are so good and so true; I am not denying his rebuttal for Christianity. I wish I could have heard the other guys too though.

The real issue, or the issue of the real, doesn’t have anything to do with who made the stronger points. As I have said elsewhere, there is no argument that can change what I believe about God because I have no belief. And those, including this dude we hear, who is placing his whole being upon his ability to make claims about what people believe, is himself a believer, and can just as well have his beliefs changed upon a good argument. As well as all those others who believe in the power of human thought as a divinely inspired tool.

The plain fact is that millions of children will die every day regardless of what anyone believes. This is a fact. It has only to do with belief in as much as people have beliefs that frame how the world is supposed to be. Just like Doctor Coolness Smooth Sam in the video. Can he offer a different belief that does not consider why or how these children die that prevents them from dying? Science? Rationality?Lets hear some moral arguments about these beliefs, huh?

Is it any less moral for him to participate in this debate while a 17 year old junkie just overdosed and died 3 blocks away because of such arguments against Christianity (such as Sam’s) that told him not to do into the church that day because Christianity is a stupid superstition, than it is that people buried children in post holes? Is Sam any less responsible than the post-hole diggers?

Oh yeah; for the debate he is. This is an entirely different situation…

Lets get a little real here. OK Sam.

And lets put the most significant feature of his oh so great anti-Christian argument: Shall we mention that this debate, is taking place in a Christian institution, that the manner by which he is making his name, his holier-then-thou white guy suave, is through the idea of Christianity? By virtue of Christianity he gets to make a living (in this moment at least) Shall we ask where  and how his clothes were made, how much money he spent in it?

I am fairly confident that if he was so offended by the beliefs and activities of Christians that he could make a better moral statement by not having theoretical discussion in an institution that makes claim to The Mother of God in its namesake, Notre Dame.

Lets face it: His corcern and passion for morality is an act. It is a strict performance that argues itself as substantial through its own implicit assertion of power: We call this privilege. He doesn’t have anymore concern for the millions of children dying in the name of Christianity than he does for the lint in his pocket. He whole purpose is to make name for himself on the substance of substance-less claims. Despite Christianity being a narcissistic belief, he should more look at himself and his own mode of operation.

Hes a sham. The debate is a sham. Sam Harris does not care about the children; he cares about the debate. Thats all. He is arguing for his own religious belief that is supposedly more moral than that of the “superstition” of Christianity.

It was a debate that has no more substance than the one I have in my head over what shampoo I should use today.

Should I wear my $24 socks that have a picture of Einstein on them, or my $15 socks that absorb moisture so well?

Maybe its Einstein today. Im feeling on top of the world.

Ah modernity. The perfect world.

Oh. Not also to mention that people do not hold beliefs based in what arguments can be made. The whole methodology that sees itself in a unitive category is itself is based in a type of thinking that at best we should call disorganized and at least largely unreflective.

In short, I think the discussion about the existence of God and various theological justifications, in as much as there are indeed people who feel that such discussions are important, nevertheless, are evidence or part of a kind of thinking that upholds qualifiers for existence that are of a different kind or of a different order than thinking that considers what is true.

Here is an example of how we could begin to distinguish types of philosophy. And which types are good for which areas of problem.

Here we thus have the need to make notice of offence, accept it not as a negation of it, to thereby be able to discuss true aspects of what humanity does. Not what is ‘more true’ to thereby propose to eliminate it as an incorrect appropriation of what is effectively transcendent knowledge, but an approach to truth that takes examples of belief as true situations not to be discounted, but only left to those who see it as important. To hence locate facts of humanity. Not so much as an ironic analysis of primitive belief, but merely ‘belief’ as a religious term, the use of which located an effective religious structure.

Religion: that state characterized by a supported organization that does not reflect upon itself, except through diversionary tactics which avoid its own inherent disorganized conceptual foundations.

I see dead people.

I think I’m just going to write posts when I’m walking my dog, because then I can just voice dictate and it’s time that I’m just absorbing the nothing-but-utter full- Ness of the universe anyways.

Have you ever thought about what it means to be dead? And I’m saying this in the context of running into someone you haven’t seen in many years, and you guys start talking about friends you knew in the past, and then your friend says “oh, Joe is dead”. ?

What exactly is that indicating?

It seems to me that regardless of what religion a person might have or no religion that a person might have or absence of believe or atheism or full Ness of believe or the world is consciousness or the world is what we make of it, It seems that when we say such a statement like “Joe’s da it seems that when we say such a statement like “Joe’s dead”, that we step from the world of actual things into some sort of world that is beyond the context of what we’re really talking about.

It seems to me that regardless of the situation that’s going on when I’m talking to my friend “Joe” is not dead. He’s got to be something else. I mean think of what the word “dead” is referring to. If the definition of “dad” means to no longer live, then we have to ask what life is, and then I think it brings to mind this cadaver that sitting in a casket in a ground or perhaps has been cremated. But then we have to ask what we mean when we say that body is dead. We probably also have to ask is what it is it about that body that is identified as Joe that is also now dead.

I’m not making any conclusions here because only the people that like to think about things will even take the minute or two that it takes to read these few paragraphs and then perhaps salve some sort of adjustment upon their perception of reality and the words and language they use. But mostly nothing will ever occurred. A lot of people won’t even care to think about these things, and even the people that might want to think about these things won’t change the phrase they use when they say “Joe is dead”.

It seems to me that by the use of that simple statement even the atheist is upholding a certain kind of religious faith.

The Spirit is a Bone: Enlightenment means the realization that you are not enlightened.

” Modern thought would ever prevent us from having an orgasm. Modern thought could be said to be the perpetuation of foreplay, the roller coaster of almost and the re-settling into changing positions.

It does this for the purpose of maintaining a faith that the ultimate culmination will bring a change. But as everyone knows, once you’ve achieved orgasm you yourself are still laying there the same person indeed with the same person that you begun to lay with.

Modernity does not want you to know that you’re passionate culminating purpose will achieve nothing more than what you already have. It is no coincidence that effective contraception modes came up in the modern context.”

Who said that??

– “… But this is not a depressing end; only those who have never achieved orgasm will see that as indicating depressive end. What becomes all the more exciting isthen to terms with just what technology is exactly. But everyone loves playing video games and snap chatting and Facebooking too much to really care about what technology really is, so in the end, again, we end up with what we started with. ”

– would you shut up please.


Lie For Your Love: The Modern Method.

Tell me about your love, baby, and Ill pretend that you don’t care.

Spill for me your heart out and Ill drink from your despair.

Come to me with all your pain and sorrow.

If you think its bad today, wait for tomorrow.

You’re so clean.

But It don’t mean nothing.

Its just about the stories that we all must bring.

If you’re living today, well, it aint worth dying.

But, if you got some love — well,

aint it worth lying for your love?

You got to

lie for your love.

The truth just aint enough, you got to get down

and play the game,

though it might seem insane.

The truth might be tough

until you got to lie for your love.

Did I say lie?

I meant lay.

You got to go if you want to stay.

You got to get hurt if you want to pray.

You got to bring on the night to bring on the day.

You got to come to believe through pain and sorrow.

If you think thats bad

then just wait for tomorrow.

You’re so clean.

But it don’t mean nothing.

Just tout the stories you bring.

Live for today – it aint worth dying.

You got some love,

aint it worth lying for your love?

The Covert Sound Philosophy. c.2015-2017 Lance Allan Kair