On the Beseige of the Planet Earth

 

Why humans die? Why should they die? This is a question  of the ordinary man, the philosopher and also the scientist.

There are reasons for man death, for example, attack by other living things such as beasts, or poisonous animals, and also very small or even microscopic and ultra microscopic creatures such as viruses.

Man also might be perished by the forces of nature, such as drowning or thunder, or exposure to extreme coldness or heat or earthquakes and so on.

If man survives all these he gradually becomes old and feeble and his body will not regenerate anymore and becomes degenerated and succumbs to death. The big question is here. Science knows why one stops growing in adolescence. There is a piece of information in genes that stops all creature to eat and grow larger in terms of their height. You can modify it and make a bigger hedgehog – as big as a sheep.

But there is no similar gene to tell, in particular, to humans to stop regeneration and thus to become old. There are theories that explains degeneracy of living things. I am interested to begin my discourse from that point.

First agent of aging is believed to be the cosmic rays. These are particles accelerated with high energies inside the furnace of stars in such enormous amounts that they pass the width of our galaxy in few seconds (in their own time frame). These particles have ionising effect; that is, they destroy chemical bounds and prevent creation of more complex molecules from bounding of simpler molecules. In other words they can destroy life, as the life is creation of drastically complex molecules.

Our earth has a shield against accelerating particles, otherwise, the solar winds never would allow any life to be created on the earth. In spite of this shielding, the cosmic rays can penetrate even deep inside the  mines on the earth. So they are one source of ionising and degenerating the living stuffs.

There is another important source of ionisation. All in the crust of our planet we have natural radioactive minerals scattered everywhere. They were second most important agent of aging until twenty century, perhaps even more effective than cosmic rays.

Pre-industrial societies had a role in destruction of earth by burning vast areas of natural forests and erosion of fertile lands which had an indirect effect on longevity of living things on the earth. Also confining men in cities and travel and trade helped proliferation of many disease among the humans.

Despite this and some limited but notable bad effects of industrialisation, up to the second world war we can deduce that these man made destructions always could be nullified with the healing forces imposed by nature as a counter-balance against the human mischiefs. Until second world war man could not overpower nature towards complete annihilation.

In the last month of the second world war, men exploded three nuclear bombs. This is different with all wars that human has done. A country in recent history could go and bomb another country. Devastation is limited to the point that bomb hits the target. That is all in terms of material and life.

When you bomb another country with nuclear explosives, you and your own citizen also get a portion of that devastation. US, first, tested that weapon on her own soil. Immediately all around the place became poisoned forever.

In an attempt to keep the deterrence of nuclear devices, some places in the US are more radioactive than the places in Japan they targeted with those atomic bombs. As if the US has bombed its own country many times with a nuke device.

The first five nations that developed this weapon ahead of other countries, for almost two decades tested them in open atmosphere or under the ocean water. They also built facilities to process the necessary radioactive material for the weapon or for the power stations running on a controlled nuclear reaction, with the same concept. In all of these operation large amounts of water is used for washing and cooling; also sooner or later everything becomes exposed to the fresh air from the atmosphere and pollutes the atmosphere.

As much I tried, I could not find certain estimates for the amount of pollution caused during the last sixty – seventy years after emergence of this weapon and invention of nuclear reactors.

They say everything is under control. This means prevention of falling these materials in the hands of undesirable people or in the hands of their enemies. Otherwise, nothing is under control. Pollution of the earth relentlessly is continuing.

If you shut down a coal power station, after three years vegetation grows everywhere and rust and mould  and other elements return the place back to the nature that we had twelve thousand years ago. Shutting it down reverses our actions in matter of years. In contrast, nature needs hundreds thousand years to clean the radioactive pollution and man cannot reverse it.

This is the first irreversible destruction we have done to ourselves and to our nature.

Hanford plutonium finishing plant July 2016

Date: November 14, 2018 

First published on: https://polemical.uk/politico/2022/11/14/on-beseige-of-the-planet-earth/

 

A Note on Birth of Jesus Christ

In the discussion on my previous post I made a comment on possibility of a pregnancy of a human woman without having a husband; a case that might happen similar to what historically has been said about Jesus Christ.

I clear my position that I do not have doubt about what the gospels have described about the birth of Jesus: that he is son of god and the fact that Mary conceived by intervention of Holy Spirit. What I say, is to refute what atheists know as impossibility of such a pregnancy.

See, if you look around yourself all the women give birth to only one child when pregnant. This is the most probable. Each woman releases one egg in each (lunar) period . When this egg becomes paired with a sperm, it shields itself from penetration of other sperms.

With all these machineries in place some eggs allow a second sperm and monozygotic or identical twins become created. Sometimes women release two eggs and pregnancy creates two children of the non-identical or dizygotic type. This is more frequent than the other one, around 1 to 2 percent of all the child births. Monozygotic amounts to just a fraction of this fraction.

God forbids a lot of anomalies can happen in this process such as conjoined twins. Babies with two heads etc. as we continue the probability decreases.

We have seen twins of two fathers conceived in time intervals within a day, one from an African father with dark skin one with a non-African father with lighter skin. The probability of such incident is absolutely miniscule.

I saw an orange almost as big as a melon and inside it there was an orange surrounding another full orange and that one surrounded another full orange. The fourth inner layer was almost as little as a glass marble but still an edible orange.

Then we have triplets with a chance of 1 in 4400 birth and then quadruplets and quintuplets still with slimmer chances and technology assisted conception has succeeded  even to give birth to eight children in an octuplet .

In the same way scientists have calculated a spontaneous conception accident with a probability of less than one over 750,000,000 (seven hundred fifty millions) of the fertile human females. (Probability does not mean that it happens; means that it is just probable.)

Many of such births have been left without attention and assumed as natural due to the environment and time of pregnancy.

There were similar stories before the time of Jesus Christ among different nations; for example, story of Diana among Romans who became conceived, when she was naked, by a shower of gold.

***

The next dispute recently has been created to alter the miraculous life of Jesus Christ, turning him into an ordinary man, is the arguments about his race.

All of us, we humans are from the same race; that is, human race; what about Jesus Christ? Was he from kryptonite? Definitely not. He came with the flesh of human and was suffered and tolerated pain to salvage man.

Now there are hidden agendas that tell people that he was not blond hair and fair skin as depicted in the pictures that Europeans have or imagine about him. They say he was dark skin and Middle Eastern or Semite and so on. They put finger on the recent studies of DNA and ethnology and electronic microscopes and such things.

As much I excavate (or better term scavenge) these studies I get nearer to the root of those who have these strings in their hands:  Antichrist and people similar to those who crucified Jesus Christ.

We have two answers for such allegations. First for believers: God created Christ the same way who created Adam. God was not short of DNA and Jesus Christ remains in the picture of Adam in any way that humans can imagine Him.

Even, it is not sure, as I heard from the vicar of my local church, that Mary was actual cousin of Elizabeth. At that time like modern days in many places including Middle East, very intimate friends and neighbours used to call each other aunt, uncle and cousins; especially when children were very young, and that would remain in the minds of those children.

Second, for those who are non-believer to religious stories: The places which were described as the birth place and growth of Christ were center of commerce and war between many nations, full of soldiers, tradesmen and mercers and sailors, and slaves from India, Central Asia, Africa and Europe up to Norse people. It was the time and place of wars, lootings, arsons and rape. Romans had recruits, slaves and administrators and soldiers from Germans, Cartages, Niobean, Gauls, Armenians and Bulgars and others. If one believes that a human has been the father of Christ, then any human from this population could be His father.

Date: April 4, 2018 

First published on: https://polemical.uk/religio/2018/04/04/a-note-on-birth-of-jesus-christ/ 

BBC, The EastEnders and Antichrist (3)

 

Some people, certain atheists for instance, believe and say that Jesus Christ even did not exist and New Testament and such character are imaginations of under-trodden and suppressed people.

Assume that this is correct. Still, something remains unclear. Why all the hostilities described against Jesus Christ are being repeated again as if he is still alive and is among us at this time.

Why such a big machine of mass media, in this sneaky, covert way tries to infame and vilify Him. Why it selects supposedly a Muslim to convey its concealed message. What Muslims attribute to Jesus Christ, is almost the same as Christians. Muslims call him “The Word” and “The Spirit” of God. They have no hostility with Christmas and the Easter. Until after the Second World War they did not live as the minority in a Christian society to grow grudge towards Christians and their festivities. There was not such a clash between them and Christians.

Very important point is that the Muslims they show in such occasions are actually “petro-Muslims” or more accurately “petrodollar-Muslims” created almost entirely after 1974 in the world. They have been created as escape goats as targets to divert the attention of the world towards creation of controlled chaos.

So it is not Muslims that run Hollywood. Hollywood boldly tries to humiliate the name of Jesus Christ. It is recently works to add an F-word between Jesus and Christ. Such attempts find their way in other outlets which are under control and full capitulation to Antichrist.

The same scenario repeats year after year near Christmas and the Easter. Some jokes about Jesus Christs and someone who becomes resurrected from the death.

This Easter 2018. I was in the kitchen preparing tea for some companions who were watching The Eastenders in the living room. I heard that one of the actors (Little Mo Morgan) shouting that Kat had died.

I immediately came back to room and told them, “It is fake. Later she comes back alive.” People became surprised asked me how did I know. I said that it was because it was near the Easter. Always someone fakes his death and will come back to life and all the community make fun of him and vilify him and the resurrected one is also an impostor.”

This year goes bolder than the previous years. When it became known that Kat was alive the reason causes all insults. Pieces of gospels are dotted among the dialogues such that when later people hear them somewhere else reminds them of Kat and Mo and other stupid acts out of these characters.

From a couple of weeks before The Easter we hear things about conning and fraud to fleece people and defraud them just for the sake of money.

It is clear that who wants to exonerate himself of crucifying Christ and projecting his own greed for the money by accusing Christ. Is not one of the attributes of Satan, the Antichrist, the accuser?

In the short clip I put here Kat Says (@Time 0:16), “I go to vic to break the good news —- that I am not dead” Emphasis and pause are by the actor.

Date: May 3, 2018 

First published on: https://polemical.uk/religio/2018/05/03/bbc-the-eastenders-and-antichrist-3/ 

BBC, The EastEnders and Antichrist (2)

 

In my previous notes, I commented on a set of episodes of the BBC's “The Eastenders” concluding to Christmas 2015 and continuation of those episodes to the months after that.

Before moving further I need to discuss some introductory propositions.

First of all, people who play the roles in movies TV series shows etc. are just actors who have memorised pieces of speech assigned to them. Their words are written by a writer that most of the time is just a litterateur not a specialist. A movie doctor is not a doctor. A movie vicar is not a vicar. A movie Muslim says things that the screen writer tells him to say.

In mentioned episodes, they talk about mental bipolar “disease” and its cure by taking some pills. There is nothing in intention of the writer about helping mentally ill. He wants to  cover the sublime message about the birth of Jesus Christ under a benevolent idea. Still, even this supposedly benevolent idea is from the point of view of the authority on mental illness. It is out of the scope of this article to enter detail of this statement. Just I tell you that it is against the idea of the majority of related professionals. For example British Society of Psychologists which incorporate fifty thousands of the professionals are not in favour of such things as pills. Therefore, the ideas that get injected into the minds of the average people are the ideas of the writer with no knowledge of mental illness and is expressed from the perspective of the most reactionary and paid-by-the-pharma specialists.

Second point is the Shabnam family and her self-claimed Islamic practice. She starts from a pre-marital sex with Kush, but she keeps her veil in front of her father and brother, in front of female friends, in front of mother of her husband and even her husband, while in Islam women are allowed to unveil at home and in front of women and certain other male intimates such as father and brother and obviously husband. In contrast pre-marital sex is not allowed.

Other thing is that Shabnam and her family show extreme outrage when they become informed of affairs of Kush with Stacy. In Islam it is said that Jealousy of wife towards affairs of her husband is the worst demeanour of a woman. While father of Shabnam admits everything, including pre-marital sex of her daughter, upon knowledge of the affairs without question and hesitation punches in the eye of his son in law as a symbol of his zeal.

Third point is using Shabnam to pass the message to Stacy telling her that she is in delusion and self-deceit because she (Stacy) wants psychologically encapsulate her guilt of cheating to her future husband and betraying her friend. Shabnam tells Stacy that Arthur is not son of God, that Arthur is just a bastard and a “sin” child, full stop. She is depressed and in delusion that she has given birth to the son of god. Her son would not be clean even after two thousand years; even if billions believe in contrary; the case is closed.

It remains to figure out why Shabnam, supposedly a Muslim should convey this message. I know a little to add. Idea of Muslims about Jesus Christ is almost equal to what they believe about their own prophet and according to many scholars even more. Mohammedans do not have the story of Joseph the Carpenter. But they believe Mary was virgin and conceived by God through intervention of Holy Spirit. If a Muslim doubt this he receives the same punishment that if he insult the prophet Mohamed.

Having said this, why a Muslim is bringing the sublime message to Stacy. The short answer is this. “OK, you want a fight about Jesus Christ then fight with the escape goats that we inject into your European Christian societies. Leave us safe in our Elisiums. We do not change our judgement we made on the birth of Jesus Christ 2000 years ago and nothing can clean him and his mother from the sin.”

People are Christians and generations after generations have had that belief deep inside their souls. They feel the insult. They have been gagged with the political correctness. Everything is allowed to be asserted in this society except their own values. Inside, they are on fire. When they feel it, then they look  to see whose mouth is insulting them. Then they become hostile to one who is not actually believer to that idea, but is only a paid presenter.

Some might think that I was too cynical to interpret the innocent story about promotion of mental health awareness in this way. It is not true. I regret that I cannot expand all the details of this psychological satanic war right now. But I hope that I can. Satan does not understand Time. It is not a temporal being like humans. It continues its war even after 2000 years.

I would stop if I had not noticed further manipulations of public in another contest. In continuation of the story line we get to the story of Vincent Hubbard, his mother Claudette Hubbard and Patrick Trueman. Stacy gradually fades up from the scene, but because of her contribution she received a trophy – a TV award in the real world. The storyline gradually dissolve on the Vincent and his mother sometime before the Easter.

Ms Hubbard has killed her own husband and has buried him under the pavement of a street where they used to live at the time that Vincent was a child. She thencefore has accused Mr Phil Mitchel of that crime, filling the heart of her child with hatred towards Phil.

Gradually Vincent becomes doubtful to this narrative until he could elicit the truth from the mother and hears her confession. At night, he took the mother to the basement of his house where builders (during the day) were redeveloping the place. He tries to strangle her mother but a friend of Ms Hubbard, Patrick comes in the house and at the top of the cellar staircase asks Vincent to leave the mother alone. Mother walks up to the place that Patrick is standing. There Vincent tells Patrick why he was trying to kill his mother and what the crime of his mother was. Now Vincent became angry of his female friend and while they were arguing, Patrick pushes Ms Hubbard down the staircase.

Ms. Hubbard falls down dead on the floor. Two men become abet to each other crime. Patrick escapes from the arena. Vincent stays and buries the mother in a shallow grave under the yet unbuilt floor.

Next day Vincent decides to visit the basement again to figure out something else, but he notices that the builders has covered the entire floor with a layer of concrete. Upon inquiry from the builders he learns that the builders have not noticed anything. He becomes relieved a bit.

Days pass and focus of the story is on the two men discussing the situation, accusing each other, quarrelling about informing the police and if it has been a misfortunate accident or deliberate crime.

People are sure that Ms. Hubbard due to her original sin has been killed by her loved one or such and buried without doubt.

Suddenly with a surprise, Patrick believes that he has seen his dead friend, Claudette Hubbard, somewhere in Albert Square, from the land of the Dead from the underworld back to this world of the mortals.

He could not believe what he has seen. He closes his eyes, he covers his face with his hands. He turns his face to see if she is there, but she cannot be seen again. She disappears. Patrick sees her another time in another corner and as if a spectre, she flows out of his sight again.

Patrick meets Vincent, tells him that he believes that he has seen Vincent’s mother. Vincent tries to convince him that he is sure that builders have covered Claudette with a layer of concrete and it is impossible to return from the death and from the grave to this world. But Patrick is absolutely sure that he has not been drunk or under influence and certainly has seen Ms Hubbard twice.

At this point Vincent looks convinced and says, “Ah, as if she has been resurrected back to life.” This is just the Easter day episode and gives its message clearly enough. Ms. Hubbard suffered for her crime by falling from the steps and buried in a shallow grave but did not receive any serious fatal blow and saved herself and came back to her habitual living place after few days. This is nothing unusual that people considered dead come back to life. There is nothing sacred in it. This is the message of The EastEnders just on the eve of Easter day.

Date: April 24, 2018

First Published on: https://polemical.uk/religio/2018/04/24/bbc-the-eastenders-and-antichrist-2/

BBC, The EastEnders and Antichrist (1)

---

This blog defines itself as “On the Definition of Morality.”I hope to expand on this description over time. To do so, I must observe and sample various expressions of morality as presented by modern society. These samples often appear in contemporary media—through writing and performing arts. As the saying goes, I enjoy uncovering the structure behind these expressions: the framework that supports these moral narratives. I’m curious to analyse whether these structures aim to improve humanity or lead it astray.

I reserve the right to edit this article to improve its semantics and grammar, though the core idea will remain unchanged.

The example I discuss here drew my attention for reasons I’ll explain shortly. It comes from the BBC soap opera EastEnders, specifically an episode aired in December 2015.

---

Storyline Overview:

Stacey (rather conveniently) becomes pregnant after a one-night stand with Kush.

The complication arises from the fact that Stacey is in a committed relationship—living under the same roof and deeply in love with Martin. Meanwhile, Kush is either married or close to marrying Shabnam, with whom he also shares a deep emotional bond. If memory serves, Shabnam is also pregnant by Kush.

Stacey and Martin are loosely portrayed as Christians, while Kush and Shabnam are presumably Muslim.

As is typical in soap operas, the story involves concealment, dishonesty, and the eventual revelation of secrets—often through accidental overhearing or dramatic confessions.

---

Months pass, and the story approaches Christmas. The community begins planning a Nativity play featuring the children of Walford, to be performed at the local community centre.

However, Linda’s mother (wife of the pub owner) proposes a more modern alternative. She finds the Nativity outdated and boring, suggesting instead a musical performance at the Queen Vic pub.

Several voices oppose her idea, advocating for the traditional Nativity. The most vocal is Dot Cotton, a devout churchgoer who can recite Bible verses at just the right moment.

To resolve the disagreement, a vote is held in the pub (presumably not considered a decision “under the influence”). Dot Cotton wins the poll, and the community agrees to support a proper Nativity play performed by the children. Linda’s mother, accepting the result graciously, volunteers to direct the auditions, coaching, and final performance.

---

Modern version of Madonna and Child

 As time passes, Stacey’s secret—her entanglement in a love triangle with Martin and Kush, and her connection to Shabnam (not Elizabeth, as I jumped ahead)—becomes the central focus of the BBC’s popular soap opera just before Christmas.
Meanwhile, Stacey’s mental health deteriorates. She has a history of bipolar disorder and is not consistently taking her medication. In one scene, when asked who the father of her unborn child is, she replies, “God is the Father of the child.” The camera dissolves to Kush’s face, filled with regret and sorrow, knowing the child is actually his. Stacey continues to draw attention from her community and the show’s fans with her long, erratic speeches and emotional outbursts.
Where does Stacey deliver her child? You guessed it.
Everyone—including Stacey and Martin—attends the children’s Nativity play. In the middle of the performance, Stacey goes into labour. Crucially, she is moved to the stage, decorated to resemble a stable. There, she gives birth. The audience clears the stage, leaving Stacey resting in the arms of “Joseph the carpenter” (that is, Martin), her head on his shoulder, both gazing down at the newborn boy in her arms.
The symbolism is unmistakable. The Child—with a capital C—is the product of a one-night stand, born of betrayal and deception. Yet Martin, unaware of the truth, is euphoric, believing he’s become a father earlier than expected and preparing to marry Stacey.
But the show doesn’t stop there. It presses on until even the least attentive viewer begins to subconsciously swap the “truth” of this soap opera with the story of Jesus Christ. How?
Stacey returns home with her newborn son and Martin. But her bipolar disorder flares, and she relapses. She begins to believe her child has enemies and suffers from postnatal depression. Nurses, doctors, neighbours, and Martin all agree she needs treatment.
Her delusions deepen. She believes her sibling is Satan and tries to protect her son from imagined threats. No one can convince her that Arthur—the name she gives her son—is safe.
In a dramatic climax, Stacey takes Arthur to the roof of the Queen Vic pub. Thunder roars, lightning flashes, rain lashes down, and wind howls. She climbs aloft, seeking closeness to God, offering Arthur in prayer, hoping he remains pure despite her sins. She crosses her heart and declares Arthur is the Son of God.
Mental health professionals arrive and promise her that if she accepts treatment, she and her son will remain “clean.”
And if you still haven’t grasped the message, Shabnam arrives to spell it out. She tells Stacey she knows about the affair with Kush. She explains that Stacey’s guilt—betraying Martin, deceiving her best friend Shabnam—has led her to deny reality and become delusional, believing her child is divine.
The message is clear: only a mentally ill woman, driven by impulsive desire and guilt, would claim her child is the Son of God. The show implies that the “real truth” behind the Nativity is this.
But there’s a deeper puzzle—one for the inquisitive mind. What is Shabnam’s role in helping deliver the child and, more subtly, delivering the producers’ message in this Christmas sequence?
I’ll explore that in the next article. This storyline continues, echoing through future episodes, even into the denial of Easter, repeating in new forms year after year.

Date: March 29, 2018