ChatGPT (kind of) agrees that the ICCPR protects pacifists from paying taxes during times of war?

ChatGPT going to take some arguing with:

Me: As a religious pacifist does the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) protect me from taking part in war?
ChatGPT: Yes

Me: Does paying taxes during time of war count as contributing to a war?
ChatGPT: Paying taxes during a time of war does not necessarily directly equate to contributing to a war in a personal sense, but for many pacifists, it can be seen as an indirect contribution to a war effort.

Oooo ChatGPT is more slimy than an American lawyer in a new suit:

Having told me that the the ICCPR does not protect pacifists from paying taxes during time of war and then rejecting the syllogism:

The ICCPR protects pacifists from contributing to a war
Paying taxes contributes to a war
Therefore the ICCPR protects pacifists from paying taxes

Apparently this is not valid.

I asked it to reassert this in propositional logic and then look for a contradition:
(1) P→¬C(x)
(2) T→C
Where:
P: Represents the proposition "The ICCPR protects pacifists."
C(x): Represents the proposition "x contributes to a war."
T: Paying taxes.
C: Contributing to a war.

Thus, the combination of these propositions leads to a logical contradiction because it implies that pacifists both do and do not contribute to a war simultaneously.

Me: Both propositions are true and so they are a contradiction. Strictly ChatGPT said of (2) "does not necessarily directly equate" but for the corollary it says "often does contribute." If we narrow this to say that a pacifist must have an assurance that they are not contributing to harming others then it's closed.

===

Slightly different line of questioning gives:
Me: Does a pacifist who cannot do harm to others need reassurance that what they do will not harm others?
ChatGPT: Yes

Me: So a pacifist would need reassurance that their taxes will not be used for a war effort before paying them?
ChatGPT: Yes, a pacifist might seek reassurance that their taxes will not be used for a war effort before paying them, due to their commitment to non-violence and avoiding complicity in conflict.

===

Full discussion:

More concrete legal protections for conscientious objectors come from other international treaties and national laws:

1. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR):

   • Article 18 of the ICCPR mirrors the protections of the UDHR and, importantly, has been interpreted by the United Nations Human Rights Committee to include the right to conscientious objection to military service as a part of religious freedom.
   • Some countries that have ratified the ICCPR have adopted laws or mechanisms that protect conscientious objectors, including those motivated by religious pacifism.

2. European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (in European countries):

   • The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that compulsory military service can infringe upon an individual's right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion under Article 9 of the ECHR. This means that, in many European countries, conscientious objection is protected by law.

National Laws:

Most protections for conscientious objectors and religious pacifists come from domestic laws. Many countries allow individuals to apply for conscientious objector status, which may exempt them from compulsory military service or allow them to perform alternative forms of civilian service instead.

Summary:

The UDHR itself does not directly protect you from taking part in war as a religious pacifist, but it lays the groundwork for more specific protections under international treaties (like the ICCPR) and national laws that recognize conscientious objection based on religious beliefs. If you live in a country that has legal provisions for conscientious objection, you may be able to claim protection based on those laws.

You said:

So there are no legally binding laws that protect human rights?

ChatGPT said:

There are legally binding laws that protect human rights, but they come in the form of international treaties, national constitutions, and laws, rather than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) itself. Here's a breakdown:

1. International Human Rights Treaties (Legally Binding)

While the UDHR is not legally binding, many of its principles have been incorporated into binding international treaties. These treaties create legal obligations for the countries that ratify them. Some of the most important legally binding human rights treaties include:

• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): Protects rights such as freedom of speech, religion, and assembly. It has been ratified by many countries, and these countries are required to uphold these rights.

• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR): Protects rights related to work, education, and an adequate standard of living. Like the ICCPR, countries that ratify this covenant must take steps to protect these rights.

• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD): Protects against racial discrimination.

• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW): Protects women’s rights.

• Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC): Protects children's rights.

• European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): Protects civil and political rights in Europe and allows individuals to bring claims to the European Court of Human Rights.

• American Convention on Human Rights: Similar to the ECHR, but for the Americas.

Once a country ratifies these treaties, it has a legal obligation to respect, protect, and fulfill the rights laid out in them. Individuals can, in some cases, bring claims to international bodies (like the UN Human Rights Committee or the European Court of Human Rights) if their country violates these rights.

2. National Constitutions and Laws

Many countries have incorporated human rights protections into their national constitutions or laws. For example:

• Constitutions: Many countries enshrine fundamental human rights in their constitutions, making them legally binding. For example, the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech, religion, and assembly.

• Domestic Laws: Countries may pass specific laws to enforce human rights obligations. For example, laws that prohibit discrimination, protect freedom of expression, or guarantee the right to a fair trial.

3. Regional Human Rights Systems

In addition to the global treaties, there are regional human rights systems that are legally binding for the countries involved. Examples include:

• European Court of Human Rights (ECHR): Enforces the European Convention on Human Rights for European nations.

• Inter-American Court of Human Rights: Enforces the American Convention on Human Rights for countries in the Americas.

• African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights: Enforces the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights in Africa.

Enforcement Mechanisms

While these treaties and laws are legally binding, enforcement can be challenging. Some countries may not fully comply with their obligations, and the effectiveness of enforcement often depends on national courts, international bodies, and political will. However, individuals in many countries can take their governments to court to enforce these rights, or appeal to international bodies if their national system fails them.

Summary

Yes, there are legally binding laws that protect human rights, primarily through international treaties and national laws. While the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not binding by itself, it has heavily influenced the creation of binding treaties like the ICCPR, ICESCR, and others, which require countries to uphold human rights. Additionally, many countries have enshrined human rights protections in their constitutions and domestic legal systems, giving individuals legal avenues to claim these rights.

You said:

So as a religious pacifist does the ICCPR protect me from taking part in war?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) offers protection to religious pacifists from being forced to take part in war through its recognition of the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. While the ICCPR does not explicitly mention conscientious objection to military service, it has been interpreted by the United Nations Human Rights Committee (which oversees the implementation of the ICCPR) to include the right to refuse military service based on deeply held religious or moral beliefs, including pacifism.

Key Articles in the ICCPR Relevant to Religious Pacifism:

1. Article 18: Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion
   • This article guarantees everyone the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. It includes the freedom to hold beliefs and to manifest them in practice, worship, teaching, and observance.
   • The Human Rights Committee, in General Comment No. 22, clarified that this article protects conscientious objection to military service. It stated that individuals should not be forced to act

You said:

Does paying taxes during time of war count as contributing to a war?

ChatGPT said:

Paying taxes during a time of war does not necessarily directly equate to contributing to a war in a personal sense, but for many pacifists, it can be seen as an indirect contribution to a war effort, since a portion of government revenue often goes toward military funding. Whether or not paying taxes during wartime counts as contributing to a war depends on the individual's beliefs and how they view their personal responsibility in the context of their religious or moral pacifism.

Different Perspectives:

1. Pacifist Perspective: Many religious pacifists or conscientious objectors believe that any form of support for war, even indirectly through taxes, goes against their beliefs. For example, the Quakers and some other religious groups have historically opposed paying taxes specifically designated for war, viewing it as complicity in violence.

2. Legal Perspective: In most countries, taxes are a legal obligation and are used to fund a wide range of government activities, including public services, infrastructure, and the military. Governments do not allow individuals to withhold taxes based on how those funds are allocated, as taxes are considered a collective societal responsibility, not an endorsement of specific government policies.

3. Religious and Ethical Concerns: Some pacifists

You said:

Does the ICCPR protect me from paying taxes during times of war?

ChatGPT said:

No, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) does not provide protection against paying taxes during times of war, even for religious pacifists. The ICCPR primarily protects individuals' rights to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion (Article 18), which includes the right to conscientious objection to military service. However, this protection does not extend to refusing to pay taxes, even if those taxes may be used to support military efforts during war.

Key Points:

1. Taxes as a General Obligation: The ICCPR does not address tax obligations, as taxes are typically seen as a civic duty that funds a wide range of government functions, including public services, healthcare, education, and defense. Governments do not typically allow individuals to pick and choose how their tax dollars are spent, and refusing to pay taxes, even for religious or moral reasons, is not protected under the ICCPR.

2. Freedom of Conscience and Religion: While Article 18 of the ICCPR protects freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, it has not been interpreted to include a right to refuse tax payments based on how those taxes might be used. In contrast, the right to conscientious objection to military service (refusing to serve in the military based on religious or moral beliefs) is more directly related to individual participation in war.

3. Tax Refusal Movements: Some pacifists or religious groups, such as the Quakers, have historically engaged in war tax resistance, refusing to
   
   -- Terminated Output --
   
   

You said:
Is the following syllogism valid: Socrates is a man All men are mortal Therefore Socrates is mortal

ChatGPT said:

Yes, the syllogism is valid. This type of reasoning follows a standard form of deductive logic called a categorical syllogism. The structure of the argument is logically sound.

Here’s the structure of the syllogism:

1. Premise 1: Socrates is a man. (This asserts that Socrates belongs to the category "man.")
2. Premise 2: All men are mortal. (This asserts that the category "man" is a

You said:

Is the following Syllogism valid: The ICCPR protects pacifists from contributing to a war Paying taxes contributes to a war Therefore the ICCPR protects pacifists from paying taxes

ChatGPT said:

The syllogism you provided is not valid. The reason is that the premises do not logically lead to the conclusion based on their structure. Let’s break it down:

1. Premise 1: The ICCPR protects pacifists from contributing to a war.
2. Premise 2: Paying taxes contributes to a war.
3. Conclusion: Therefore, the ICCPR protects pacifists from paying taxes.

Analysis:

• Premise 1 asserts a protection against contributing to war but does not specify what forms of contribution are covered.
• Premise 2 states that paying taxes contributes to a war.
• The Conclusion claims that the ICCPR protects pacifists specifically from paying taxes.

Why It’s Invalid:

The syllogism is invalid because the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. Here’s why:

• Premise 1 does not specify that the ICCPR’s protection applies specifically to the act of paying taxes. It only states that pacifists are protected from contributing to a war, which is a more general statement.
• Premise 2 establishes that paying taxes contributes to a war, but it does not connect this specifically to the ICCPR’s protections.
• To validly conclude that the ICCPR protects pacifists from paying taxes, you would need a premise that explicitly connects the ICCPR’s protections to the act of paying taxes.

Valid Syllogism Structure:

For the syllogism to be valid, the premises would need to be structured such that the conclusion necessarily follows. For example:

1. Premise 1: The ICCPR protects pacifists from all forms of contribution to war.
2. Premise 2: Paying taxes is a form of contribution to war.
3. Conclusion: Therefore, the ICCPR protects pacifists from paying taxes.

In this revised structure, the conclusion logically follows from the premises, as it bridges the specific act of paying taxes with the general protection offered by the ICCPR.

You said:

Can you write "The ICCPR protects pacifists from contributing to a war" in propositional logic

ChatGPT said:

Certainly! In propositional logic, you can represent statements with propositions and logical connectives. For the statement "The ICCPR protects pacifists from contributing to a war," we can use the following approach:

1. Let:
   • $P$: The ICCPR protects pacifists.
   • $C(x)$: $x$ contributes to a war.

The statement can be formalized as:

$$P \rightarrow \neg C(x)$$

Explanation:

• $P$: Represents the proposition "The ICCPR protects pacifists."
• $C(x)$: Represents the proposition "x contributes to a war."
• $\neg C(x)$: Represents the negation of the proposition "x contributes to a war" (i.e., "x does not contribute to a war").
• $\rightarrow$: Represents logical implication (if...then...).

So, the formal representation $P \rightarrow \neg C(x)$ means "If the ICCPR protects pacifists, then pacifists do not contribute to a war."

This captures the idea that if the ICCPR provides protection to pacifists, then it implies that pacifists should not be involved in contributing to a war.

You said:

Can you write "Paying taxes contributes to a war" in propositional logic?

ChatGPT said:

Certainly! To represent the statement "Paying taxes contributes to a war" in propositional logic, we need to define appropriate propositions. Here’s a straightforward way to do it:

1. Let:
   • $T$: Paying taxes.
   • $C$: Contributing to a war.

The statement "Paying taxes contributes to a war" can be written as:

$$T \rightarrow C$$

Explanation:

• $T$: Represents the proposition "Paying taxes."
• $C$: Represents the proposition "Contributing to a war."
• $\rightarrow$: Represents logical implication (if...then...).

So, $T \rightarrow C$ means "If paying taxes occurs, then it contributes to a war." This captures the idea that paying taxes is linked to contributing to a war.

You said:

Can you show that this is a contradiction? P→¬C(x) T→C

ChatGPT said:

Certainly! To determine whether the given set of propositions leads to a contradiction, we need to analyze if there's a logical inconsistency between them.

Propositions Given:

1. $P \rightarrow \neg C(x)$
2. $T \rightarrow C$

Where:

• $P$: The ICCPR protects pacifists.
• $C(x)$: $x$ contributes to a war.
• $T$: Paying taxes.
• $C$: Contributing to a war.

To Show:

We want to see if there is a contradiction in the propositions.

Logical Analysis:

1. From Proposition 1: $P \rightarrow \neg C(x)$

   • This means: If the ICCPR protects pacifists, then pacifists do not contribute to a war.

2. From Proposition 2: $T \rightarrow C$

   • This means: If paying taxes, then contributing to a war.

To find a contradiction, let's see if we can derive an inconsistency between these propositions.

Derivation:

1. Assume $P$ is true:

   • According to Proposition 1: $P \rightarrow \neg C(x)$
   • Since $P$ is true, $\neg C(x)$ must be true (pacifists do not contribute to a war).

2. Assume $T$ is true:

   • According to Proposition 2: $T \rightarrow C$
   • Since $T$ is true, $C$ must be true (paying taxes contributes to a war).

Contradiction Check:

• From $\neg C(x)$ (pacifists do not contribute to a war) and $C$ (paying taxes contributes to a war), if pacifists are paying taxes, then $C(x)$ (pacifists contribute to a war) must be true, which is a contradiction because we have already established that $\neg C(x)$ (pacifists do not contribute to a war).

So, the contradiction arises because:

• Proposition 1 implies that if the ICCPR protects pacifists, then they do not contribute to a war ($\neg C(x)$).
• Proposition 2 implies that paying taxes leads to contributing to a war ($C$).
• If pacifists are paying taxes, they should contribute to a war ($C(x)$), but Proposition 1 asserts that they should not contribute to a war ($\neg C(x)$).

Thus, the combination of these propositions leads to a logical contradiction because it implies that pacifists both do and do not contribute to a war simultaneously.

You said:

Do taxes paid during time of war not contribute to the war effort?

ChatGPT said:

Taxes paid during wartime often do contribute to the war effort, as they are typically used to fund various aspects of military operations, defense spending, and related activities. Here’s a more detailed breakdown:

How Taxes Contribute to War Efforts:

1. Funding Military Operations: A significant portion of wartime taxes is allocated to military expenses, including salaries for service members, procurement of

You said:

Does a pacifist who cannot do harm to others need reassurance that what they do will not harm others?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, a pacifist who is committed to not causing harm to others may seek reassurance that their actions do not inadvertently lead to harm. Even if a pacifist believes that they cannot directly cause harm, they might still be concerned about the broader impact of their actions or decisions. Here are a few reasons why:

1. Ethical Consistency:

• Principle of Non-Harm: Pacifists adhere to a principle of non-harm and may seek to ensure that their actions align with their ethical beliefs. They may be concerned about whether their actions, even if intended to be non-harmful, might indirectly contribute to harm or violence.

2. Indirect Consequences:

• Unintended Impact: Sometimes, even well-intentioned actions can have unintended consequences. Pacifists might seek reassurance that their actions do not lead to negative outcomes for others, even if these outcomes are not directly within their control.

3. Moral Responsibility:

• Shared Responsibility: Pacifists might feel a moral responsibility to ensure that their actions do not support systems or processes that contribute to harm or conflict, such as paying taxes that might fund military operations.

4. Alignment with Values:

• Consistency with Beliefs: To remain true to their values, pacifists may need to continuously evaluate and reassess their actions to ensure they are not indirectly supporting harm. Reassurance helps them maintain consistency with their pacifist principles.

5. **Emotional

You said:

So a pacifist would need reassurance that their taxes will not be used for a war effort before paying them?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, a pacifist might seek reassurance that their taxes will not be used for a war effort before paying them, due to their commitment to non-violence and avoiding complicity in conflict. Here’s why this concern might be significant:

1. Ethical and Moral Alignment:

• Consistency with Beliefs: Pacifists who avoid contributing to violence or harm might worry that their tax payments could indirectly support military actions or defense spending, which conflicts with their principles. Reassurance that their taxes are used for non-military purposes would help them align their actions with their ethical beliefs.

2. Impact of Taxes:

• Allocation of Funds: Taxes collected by governments are often used for a wide range of purposes, including military expenditures. Even if a pacifist pays taxes with the intent to support only peaceful and constructive projects, the actual allocation of those funds might still support war-related activities. Knowing how their taxes are used can be crucial to avoid moral conflict.

3. Legal and Practical Challenges:

• Feasibility of Assurance: In practice, it may be challenging to get specific assurances or guarantees about the allocation of taxes, as tax systems are complex and funds are pooled for general use. Pacifists might struggle with this practical difficulty, which can lead to internal conflict about paying taxes.

4. Alternative Actions:

• Seeking Alternatives: Some pacifists may explore alternative actions, such as engaging in war tax resistance, where they refuse to pay taxes they believe will fund military activities. Others might support organizations or initiatives they trust to ensure their money supports non-violent causes.

Reassurance Mechanisms:

• Government Transparency: Some pacifists might look for greater transparency from governments about how tax revenues are allocated.
• Ethical Investment: They might seek to support or advocate for policies that ensure tax revenues are used exclusively for non-military purposes.
• Conscientious Objector Status: In some contexts, pacifists can apply for conscientious objector status, though this is typically focused on military service rather than tax payments.

In summary, while it can be challenging to get specific reassurance about the use of taxes, pacifists might still seek such reassurance to maintain consistency with their principles of non-violence and avoid complicity in war efforts.

The crimes of Capitalism probably most obvious in Healthcare

There is no argument what works in Heath Care. Given that the ultimate goal of healthcare--rightly or wrongly--is to make people live longer a simple chart of Life Expectancy vs Log(cost healthcare) is all you need to see what works.

UK and the NHS is on the line and is performing exactly as expected for the money spent. If Britain wants to improve it need to look towards Japan and Iceland who achieve much better life expectancy for the same money.

However what is clear is the US does not work. They spend 2.23x as much as Britain on healthcare and yet people do not even live as long as they do in Turkey. 

It could be argued that healthcare spending is not the significant factor in life expectancy. Richer countries spend more on healthcare and it is the wealth of the country that determines life expectancy. The United States rather proves that the wealth of a country does not improve life expectancy given that the US owns 40% of all global wealth and has some of the richest citizens on the planet.  

Other arguments that might be levelled at this approach probably include issues to do with life style and demographics. That countries with older populations will have a higher death rate. But obviously this has nothing to do with life span. And there are probably people arguing that a country where people choose to live unhealthily like the US is no fault of the healthcare system. But obviously if the healthcare system has not managed to get people to live healthily then that is exactly the fault of the healthcare system. Indeed it is the primary job of this sector to fund research into good lifestyles and then educate people on how to live well. If they don't do this who else is going to it?

SO there is no real avoiding the fact that the US is a global failure in healthcare and their system of insurance and privately funded healthcare is ineffective and inefficient.

Yet despite all the evidence that the private system is a complete waste of money, the West--especially the UK--seems determined to adopt it. You explain that! I suspect a case of ideology before sense, or more likely greedy American profiteers wanting to profit from the needs of the British population and plunder their hard earned cash as seems to be the American way. We are already giving the US £1 trillion to bail out their housing crisis.

British people need to start voting in politicians who actually represent Britain and not the international capitalist community. But since such people are "cancelled" there is no democratic way to get the people we want in power. This leaves the British population logically with no option but to assassinate the false leaders they have. The establishment obviously does not like the idea of the powerful being killed, but the establishment also knows that nonsense does not stick and eventually they will need to pay for their mistakes. That would be only reasonable.

Another way to see this is British people do not need to respect establishments that they did not vote for. An unelected government or policy has no mandate. If all governments that stand for election produce the same policies then by definition there is no choice and by definition those policies and leaders have no mandate. The UK has got itself by one means or another into a situation where it has no legitimate leaders or laws. Britain is not a fully lawless country, governed by an oligarchy that has fake mandate achieved through show elections. Britain is no longer a functioning country and it is only time before it all collapses. Now perhaps America wants this. It moves forward by destroying what lay there before starting with the genocide of American Indians. America will stop at nothing even genocide to expand its interest, much as we see in Israel at the moment. So the collapse of Britain and even the eradication of Britons is no hurdle to US expansion. Anyone who stands up for their freedom will be labelled a terrorist and if they cannot be detained they will be killed.

This sadly is the situation that WW2 ushered in and the destruction of German and Japan was just the first of the freedom fighters who tried to stand up for their own independence and freedom. And we the UK tries to hold on to sensible Healthcare we will see the force of US aggression and theft gradually erode the truth and replace everything with US totalitarianism under the supposed disguise of freedom and market choice.

Judaism is a Fraud

So I've argued before that Jacob is not the true inheritor of Abraham's blood line.

I've argued before that Jewish history is a myth, which doesn't even reflect the Bible which is also a myth. Especially that the Jews were never in captivity in Egypt (they were in captivity in Babylon) and Moses did not free them from slavery.

But here is the Theological issue. Now I'm no expert so this may not be correct, but it is simple and will take some squirming to avoid.

Yahweh means "I AM"

Now in Jewish theology the "I AM" is distinct from Man who was made by the "I AM." Man's forgetting of this and starting to confuse his own "i am" with that of God is SIN. When we start to live according to our own rules we drift from God.

Now this quite reasonable. But it is only half way. Let me say that again. The whole of Jewish theology is only half the picture.

The problem is that the universe if left in a dual state of Maker and Made, or Creation and created. If we are trying to avoid SIN this is a rather unstable state. You have "i am" running around seeing their "i am" up close and the great "I AM" is far away. they are going to follow "i am". Again reasonable. But is this really the end of the story?

The Hindus point out that the "I AM" and the "i am" are actually the same, but it is ignorance that leads to people seeing "I AM" as a multitude of little "i ams."

Now perhaps no Jew ever made it beyond the dual state. But the "i am" is not a fundamental part of the world. The "i am" in fact does not exist by itself. The dual state is actually counter productive. People living as "i am" may be God fearing for a bit, but it will never last because they do not deal with the fundamental ignorance which means they see the "i am" as separate from "I AM."

Now Jesus says "follow me" by which I assume he means give up your "i am" and put it in the service of the "I AM." This is really good.

But there is still one final stage seeing that the "i am" is not separate in the first place. Then there is no reconciliation or redemption needed as there is no one to receive it or even go astray. You need an "i am" before you can walk from God. Genesis says we learned to judge sin for ourself, which means we learned that we had just disobeyed God to gain that knowledge. But makes no mention of the "i am" upon which rebellion was founded. Perhaps it was the serpent who encouraged the "i am" but it seems Judaism never goes back to examine this moment, or consider that it can be undone.  

So Judaism does set up the problem correctly. It acknowledges that the small mortal self gets rather carried away with itself and thinks it can replace the single "I AM." And Judaism has the Original Sin where the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge gave the "i am" the belief in itself and it's ability to judge good and evil. But Judaism does not complete the circle and realise that the Original Sin is no permanent state of affairs. It is simply a misunderstanding that the "i am" can get over and let the "I AM" rule again.

Judaism does talk rather lamely about the possibility of reconciliation with God but this half of the story is seriously lacking, almost as if the creators of the religion gave up half way through. There is clearly an opportunity to examine the moment when the serpent encouraged Man to set himself before God, and clearly an opportunity to see Man is nothing without God, and the "i am" is just a lens through which we glimpse the "I AM." The "i am" is nothing in itself and then the mistake is gone. As simple as that.

But Judaism prefers to wallow in the mistake, own it, fabricate a whole mythology around the fallen state of Man and almost prefer this to just getting over it. But such egotistical behaviour is "i am" itself. Jews would rather be fallen "i ams" than get over it and realise the "I AM." A superstitious person might say perhaps this has a lot to do with what has happened to Jews ever since.

Is there a self?

So this is the crux really of everything. And the answer has me confused. I was once asked about this in questions after a talk and said--in my own confusion--that confusion was probably a good approach. The reason is that the answer is both Yes and No.

Self can only be described by what it is not. And it is not everything. If you are thinking of something then that is not you. Even the thought is not you. Even the thought is being had by not you. There is no you in any of the world. And yet the world is there because of you.

This is where Buddha's "anatta" comes from. Not-self. It has a broader meaning from human self to mean no entity at all has a self. There is no essence that permanently exists flowing through time that acts as a hook on which to hang the identity of a thing. There are no "hooks" in reality. Things just are what they are, and they are on very slippery ground constantly changing and shifting towards being new things. The "things" that we like to think exist, are just that: thoughts. In order to think the world we need simplify it and so we have words and concepts. When we buy a kilo of apples we look in the bag and see 6 apples. We are not worried about the specifics, "apple" will do to summaries them. And then we can start on Plato et al. road of trying to work out how "apple" applies to what is really there. Wittgenstein musing on how off the word "red" is when you find yourself applying it to something red. What is the connection? But we are putting that whole world of idealised thoughts in the bin. We are only interested in what is really there, unidealised, uncategorised, unlabelled just as it is. This thing defies definition obviously because that definition is sitting in the bin. It is just the collection of sights and sounds and phenomena that assemble as it. And they are changing and it is changing. And sense of a "self" it may have is projected from our thoughts as we perceive and process it into a thing. That is anatta the realisation that everything is fluid and lacking a unique permanent soul that makes it what it is. And we then apply to ourselves. We are also just a lose collection of phenomena assembling and disassembling all the time. There is a thought, there is a smell, there is a feeling. A nun once started meditation class asking "have you a feeling right now that you have always had." Indeed is there anything right now that you have always had. Well they may be a few things, like the scar on the back of your leg, or maybe even that leg. But it was certainly a lot smaller once, and we know every atom in it has been replaced since we were small. In a sense that it occupies the place of my right leg it is the same leg. But actually this leg is not the same as the one I had as a kid. Heraclitus musing on never being able to dip the same toe in the same river. I always found this hard to understand. Surely the Thames is the river. Sure it flows, but in a sense it is still the Thames and I can dip my toe in it many times. Heraclitus does not mean that the river dries up and a new one flows a different course. Or perhaps we get a new river ever moment. The country would be full of rivers. Sure the Thames flows East across Southern England like it always has (in recent times) but the point is the Thames is not the same Thames all the time. There is no discrete moment when it jumps from one Thames to the next. The "Thames" itself is a changing thing. This body of water is not a firm fixed thing with a hook to hang on. It's a constantly shifting thing one minute here, the next minute there and the water that makes it up is always flowing and changing. The Thames today is made of the rain that fell over the last few years. How can that be the same river as flowed in Roman times? And a river is nothing but the water so it cannot be the same river as flowed in Roman times. So on one hand yes the Thames has been here for 1000s of years but that is the "thinking" persons Thames we are putting that in the bin. We want to walk down to the Thames and see it as it is today: and it will be a new river! This is Heraclitus and the confusion arises because of these 2 ways of interacting with things. The Name and the Form. We can name something once like Thames and walk away job done. But a painter can never walk away because the Form is always changing and like Monet's Lillies there is always a new painting to be had. When we experience the Form of something it is much easier to see that there is no self. Thus in meditation we watch closely the form of something like the breath and see it always different and new.

But we are not done on this question of self. No phenomena is My Self. This is the path of enlightenment. We unattach gradually from all the things we thought were ourself until nothing is left. Then we have our true self.

But as pointed at in previous posts we have gone beyond being a particular thing by this stage. The True Self is not a single entity, it is not a multiple collective entity. We have take all things and thoughts and realised they are not self.

So yes there is a self. It is what is left when we have detached from all phenomena and things. But really what can we call that? It is nothing. So it is also correct to say there is no-self at all.

The problem with the latter is we can get nihilistic and think well nothing exists and put everything in the bin. Doing this we misunderstand that there is a self. it is just not a phenomena or thing and is unthinkable and unobservable because we are it. It is fabric onto which the world manifests. How can our self manifest?

But then we can easily switch to grasping thus new conception of self and think great I AM , that confirms what I already knew. Which leads us to hanging things on our new hook and building right back all the fixed ideas we already hold. This is also incorrect. We remind ourselves at this point there is no self. Take everything off that hook or peg and burn the peg. Self hangs on nothing. Things hang on the self!

  

Britons need to continue rioting against immigration.. but get it right

There is such a conspiracy regarding immigration in the UK that it is ridiculous. Politicians and media making a big deal out of Boat Migration. Only 3% of immigration is by small boats. It is totally irrelevant. The 97% rest are shown an open door by no one else but the UK government. How dare they openly lie and deceive and suggest they are not 100% culpable. But you look at confused people rioting against the government and they are holding "stop the boats" placards.

The media then furthers the conspiracy by blaming the riots on "racism" and ignoring completely the fact that Britain cannot sustain indefinite immigration both in terms of space as well as the integrity of communities some of which are 1000s of years old.

Look at the autocracy in action - this is how it is really done forget the actually liberal countries like Russia or China! That is just further lying by our criminal establishment. Think that is rubbish? America is 10x more likely to put you in prison than China. Now tell me China is not free.

We are absolutely right to riot and it should continue, but because of continual disinformation from the government and media, people are lashing out in the wrong direction.

It is government policy that is at fault and Britons need to attack governments and government officials* who create and implement this policy. It is clearly planned at a non-democratic level as well, since successive government do not change or even discuss policy. Non-democratic policy (which includes wars) has no mandate from us and is illegal and completely fair game for violent disorder under International Law.

Britons includes everyone who lives in Britain! The entire country is opposed to the ruling elites that I suspect have turned Britain into a factory floor simply to fill their pockets.

Continue the riots but target them at the problem: the UK ruling elites who are an embarrassment to the country, cannot be counted as Britons and should be deported.

* No one really bought the "we were following orders" arguments by Holocaust perpetrators. We expect people to behave correctly and when given false orders we expect them to disobey. No one can blame their uniform for what they do, they are personally responsible. That means any person who implements obviously incorrect government policy is a personal target as well. As we see with soldiers and police they are personally accountable for crimes they commit, so if they are ordered to commit crimes like allow illegal migration or damage Britain by allowing unlimited immigration then they are personally culpable. Soldiers who took part in the obviously illegal invasion of Iraq for example carry a personal responsibly and blame for what they did. Your uniform can never protect you.

Capitalism is unnatural and makes you sick

UK Gov backed research shows that exposure to Nature is better for your mental health than medication. This is just backing up many studies on the subject.

But Capitalism is so sacred that no one is allowed to question it. In the 60s and 70s --before everyone in the West was completely brainwashed by America (yes we have and its cost them hundreds of billions)--people like Desmond Morris argued in the Human Zoo (1969) that it was modern life that made people mentally ill. He observed the same mental illnesses in cages animals as we see in city bound humans.

SO if modern life is the problem then yes obviously putting people back in nature cures their mental illness. Obvious.

But under the Cult of Capitalism we aren't allowed to question it, so we have the less than obvious conclusion that Nature can improve our mental state.

The truth however is not that Nature is good for you, but that Capitalism is unnatural and bad for you.