John Safran’s Race Relations aired on ABC1 last night. I had been looking forward to it for some time having been a big fan of both his “John Safran vs God” and “Speaking in Tongues” series.

It didn’t disappoint and I look eagerly forward to the next episode.

Safran , a cynical, skeptical Jew, has mastered the art of being “offensive” without managing to offend. No matter how controversial his pranks and stunts are, it is almost impossible to become outraged by anything that he does.

I think that that may possibly be because he seems so fragile, non threatening, nerdy, and to a point, almost timid.

Of course it is all part of the act and one which has seen him get away with such stunts as running naked past the Wailing Wall, apply for membership of the KKK after telling them he was a Jew and go doorknocking in Salt Lake City, Utah -- telling those who opened the door that there was no god.

That said, the ABCs director of TV warned “sensitive” viewers to stay away from the show.

I don’t think that it would get an airing in places like the US or Iran…

Below is a promo video for the series and underneath it, a link to an MP4 of episode one of the show for those who live outside Australia.

Enjoy.

Race Relations -- Episode 1

Oh my, now this is some wonderful advertising, my website mentioned in the bible of all places:

Acts 9:11:

And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth

Praise be to the superstitious peasants that wrote it and those re-wrote it all those years later in one of the earliest recorded examples of censorship.

This is clearly evidence of a prophecy of some kind and I must devote myself to investigating just why this ancient tome was able to predetermine the existence of both the internets and my cat so many many years ago.

Actually, no I shan’t, I shall just deify my cat and claim tax exempt status for my website and associated costs  and then I shall go about ignoring the rest of the sacred text because it doesn’t suit me.

Hmm, I like this whole religious idea…

I am not prone to giving credence to conspiracy theories.

I prefer direct evidence, logic and reason.

It is interesting to note though, that in the past 48 hours, there seems to have been a pattern of what appears to be a deliberate attempt to silence critical opposition to reason.

Firstly there was the sustained and continuing DDoS attack on the atheist convention website http://www.atheistconvention.org.au/.

Due to the technical nature of what has happened here, with the attacks moving to the IP after the domain name was null routed and then the new IP being subsequently attacked, one could make the assertion that this was a targetted attack on logic, reason and freedom of thought by those who feared it in some way.

There is an article in The Age on the attack on the atheist convention website.

Today, we have seen the twitter trending topic “no god” suddenly disappear and be replaced with “know god”.

The “no god” topic, started by a theist http://www.examiner.com/x-8776-Boston-Atheism-Examiner~y2009m10d20-No-God-war-raging-on-Twitter seemed to backfire when rationalists, humanists, secularists, atheists and free thinkers decided to have a bit of fun.

Religious types became somewhat outraged by this, though in their outrage, assisted the topic in trending by repeating the phrase and adding the #nogod hashtag.

A war waged, with the theists becoming increasingly upset and leading many people to speculate that twitter had censored the “no god” topic due to pressure by religious organisations for fear that they may offend them.

As we know, one is not supposed to question “faith”, it just isn’t polite to suggest that a grown adult has conversations with themselves inside their own mind (unless of course they have a certificate).

Perhaps it wasn’t due to pressure by the theists, perhaps it was just due to “operational reasons” and the amount of fail whales that began to appear as the topic trended, but both of the aforementioned events raise an interesting point:

Why do religious types feel so threatened by people advocating logic and reason and daring to question their unsubstantiated “faith”?

The DDoS attack on the atheist convention website is clearly the work of persons or groups who are offended or outraged by the thought of a viewpoint that differs to their own and, instead of engaging in robust debate in a supposedly free society, they seek to silence any opposition to their view.

Perhaps they have gnawing self doubts and are terrified that and exposure to critical thinking, reason and logic will disrupt their blissful ignorance or perhaps they are just conforming to the theistic stereotype that makes a wonderful argument for the “slippery slope” that leads to such wonderful things as theocracy.

The outpouring of outrage by theists when “no god” was trending is another example of this. Instead of engaging critically, there was, to paraphrase the Nazarene; “much wailing and gnashing of teeth”.

Typical of the “very christian” sentiment espoused is this lovely piece:

“@PrttyBella All #nogod supporters shouldve been ABORTED & im against it but ima have 2 do an exception #GOODISGOOD!!!!!!!!!! ( #No God )”

One does wonder why a group, so convinced by their beliefs and “faith” that some of them are willing to die for it (and all of them are content to abdicate reason) would need to behave in such a manner that seeks to silence their opposition, rather than one that seeks to prove their postulations.

One possible reason could be that they know that their position is untenable, and, like a petulant child that covers its ears and screams out “lalalalalalalala” when faced with a request that they wish to ignore; have chosen to create white noise and interference instead.

It is sad that human nature has yet to evolve to the point whereby we can all engage critically and without fear; and that some people use the technology that science has bequeathed us with to engage in modern day crusades.

An evaluation of the trending topics in this debate can be seen here:

http://religionlulz.blogspot.com/2009/10/twitter-censorship.html

Footnote: It seems as if the “Know god” trending topic has now been given the ability to search for either “no god” or “know god” from twitter’s website:

http://twitter.com/search?q=”Know+God”+OR+”no+god”

The topic name as represented on the site however has been changed from “no god” to “know god”

Conspiracy theories aside, that seems somewhat suspicious.

One of my favourite poems – “The bastard from the bush”, allegedly written by Henry Lawson.

It would seem to be a parody of  “The captain of the push”, which was attributed to Lawson and it is claimed that the lewder version was also penned by him, though he chose not to put his name to is.

Enjoy.

As the night was slowly falling over city, town and bush,
From a slum in Bludgers Alley came the Captain of the Push,
And his whistle loud and piercing roused the echoes of the Rocks,
And a dozen ghouls came slouching round the corners of the blocks.

Then the Captain jerked a finger at a stranger on the kerb
Whom he qualified politely with an adjective and verb.
Then he made the introduction: ‘Here’s a covey from the bush-
Fuck me blind, he wants to join us, be a member of the Push.’

Then the stranger made this answer to the Captain of the Push,
‘Why, fuck me dead, I’m Foreskin Fred, the bastard from the bush.
‘I’ve been in every two-up school from Darwin to the ‘Loo,
‘I’ve ridden colts and black gins, what more can a bastard do.’

‘Are you game to smash a window?’ asked the Captain of the Push.
‘I’d knock a fucking house down,’ said the bastard from the bush.
‘Would you take a maiden’s baby?’ said the Captain of the Push.
‘I’d take a baby’s maiden,’ said the bastard from the bush.

‘Would you dong a bloody copper if you caught the cunt alone,
Would you stoush a swell or Chinkie, split his garret with a stone?
Would you have a moll to keep you, would you swear off work for good?’
‘What? Live on prostitution? My fucken oath I would!’

‘Would you care to have a gasper?’ said the Captain of the Push.
‘I’ll take the bloody packet,’ said the bastard from the bush.
Then the Pushites all took counsel, saying, ‘Fuck me, but he’s game.
‘Let’s make him our star basher, he’ll live up to his name.’

So they took him to their hideout, that bastard from the bush,
And they granted him all privileges appertaining to the Push.
But soon they found his little ways were more than they could stand,
And finally the Captain thus addressed his little band.

‘Now listen here, you buggers, we’ve caught a fucking tartar,
At every kind of bludging, that bastard is a starter,
At poker and at two-up, he’s shook our fucking rolls,
he swipes our fucking liquor, and he fucks our fucking molls.’

So down in Bludgers Alley all the members of the Push
Laid a dark and dirty ambush for the bastard from the bush.
But against the wall of Riley’s pub, the bastard made a stand,
A nasty grin upon his dial, a bike-chain in each hand.

They sprang upon him in a bunch, but one by one they fell,
With crack of bone, unearthly groan, and agonising yell,
Till the sorely-battered Captain, spitting teeth and gouts of blood,
Held an ear all torn and bleeding in a hand bedaubed with mud.

‘You low polluted bastard,’ snarled the Captain of the Push,
‘Get back to where your sort belong, that’s somewhere in the bush:
And I hope heaps of misfortune may soon tumble down on you,
May some lousy harlot dose you till your bollocks turn sky-blue.

May pangs of windy spasms through your bowels dart,
May you shit your fucking trousers every time you try to fart,
May you take a swig of gin’s piss, mistaking it for beer,
May the next push you impose on toss you out upon your ear.

May the itching piles torment you, may corns grow on your feet,
May crabs as big as spiders attack your balls a treat,
Then when you’re down and outed, to a dismal fucking wreck,
May you slip back through your arsehole, and break your fucking neck.’

Believing is easy… suspend reality, rational thought processes, logic and reason – stop thinking critically and all of a sudden what do you have?

Faith.

How do I know that believing is easy?

I used to believe; for a very short while. Until I was eight. About the same time I stopped believing in Santa, I also stopped believing in a god.

Prayer was comforting, it gave me the sense that merely by thinking repetitive thoughts that those people whom I cared about and indeed myself would be kept safe by some invisible, magical being.

It was also nice, when people I loved passed away, to think of them watching over me and that when I too passed away, I would see them again.

Actually, that isn’t comforting or nice, it is really pretty sick and twisted and a complete abdication of rational thought.

This isn’t the time to discuss a topic which has been done to death however.

What I am interested in tonight is becoming a theist again.

Yes my fellow heathens, heretics and godless ones; you heard me correctly.

I am prepared to become a theist.

Of course this comes with a caveat; what doesn’t these days?

I am hereby offering my reason, my logic, my rational thought, my reality as a prize to any theist who can meet a very simple challenge.

Show me that I am wrong.

The rules are quite simple, all you have to do is prove that something in the list below is true beyond any reasonable doubt, using logic, reason, critical thinking and rationality; and I will convert to your poison of choice.

There has to be an asterisk in there somewhere, and of course there is.

• If you wish to quote a holy text as irrefutable proof of your supposition, you must be able to demonstrate that you abide by *everything* within that text and view it as the literal word of your deity without exception.
• Anecdotal evidence is not permitted. We all know some guy who knows some girl who had this aunty who chewed peppermint leaves and beat cancer.
• You must demonstrate a knowledge of the complete history of your religion of choice.
• You must provide compelling evidence for your lack of belief in pagan gods and goddesses and/or the deities of other religions.

Quite simple really…

Anyway, my list, prove any one thing on this list in accordance with my rules and I will convert without question:

• Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven
• Homosexuality is evil
• The holy spirit exists
• Believers will be rewarded with immortality upon death
• Marriage is a blessing from god that can only exist between a man and a woman
• Jesus existed
• A sky god created the world
• A god exists
• Humans have a soul
• atheists are immoral

That is it, a few to choose from I think.

If you want to take up the challenge, please leave a comment below.

I thought that I would try something different, I was going to do my whole rant via video, however after realising just how bad my webcam was (and the fact that I am not really a compelling onscreen presence) I decided to let my fingers to the talking for the rest of the rant.

Racism?

This whole shit storm came about as a result of a “blackface” sketch on an appalling Australian television “variety” show that someone thought it might be a good idea to rekindle.

“Hey Hey it’s Saturday“  was a boorish, low grade Australian “comedy” show that ran for 27 years after debuting in 1971.

It was buried in 1999 and should never have been exhumed.

They had a segment on it called “Red faces” in which, viewers would perform skits in an attempt to win prizes of little to no value and generally greatly embarass themselves in doing so.

That said, it was the original precursor to the “Got Talent” shows that now disgrace the airwaves.

Anyway, enough about the history.

Last night, there was a skit on “Red faces” that involved mockery of the Jackson Five with a number of “blackfaced” performers and one “whitefaced” performer.

An American fellow by the name of Harry Connick Junior was one of the judges on this segment and took umbrage at this performance, claiming that it wouldn’t have been aired in the US and that the skit made black Americans look like buffoons.

Some American writers went into overdrive, such as this uneducated shock columnist who advocated violence against the amatuer performers.

She suggested that people who painted their faces black and wore wigs were [sic] “the dumbest things I’ve seen” yet her column suggests that such a performance be rewarded with physical violence… hmmm…

Personally, I thought that the skit was sub par and not in the slightest bit funny -- but not for the supposedly racist overtones.

It appears that Americans are the only people outraged over this pathetic attempt at comedy, yet are they not the supposed creators and guardians of “free speech”?

Political correctness has gone too far, and without apologies to my American friends -- as they are exclusively “free thinkers” -- I have to point the finger of blame for this; squarely at America.

Why is it ok for an African American to refer to a white person as a “honky” or a “cracker” yet somehow outrageously offensive for someone impersonating a black person to don a wig and some facial paint?

There was absolutely no mockery or black people, no stereotyping, no racial slurs, no suggestion of racism whatsoever by the (and it must be pointed out) multi-racial performers. What seems to have caused this outrage is the fact that they painted their faces black.

Personally, I find it grossly offensive that your country has had a history of slavery, oppression of minorities, treating black people as second class citizens -- sending them to the back of the bus, treating them like sub humans long before it happened in South Africa…

… but I take umbrage at you forcing your guilt onto us.

We didn’t force you to forcibly raid Africa, kidnap Africans and then enslave them, so don’t fucking foist your guilt upon us for the history you chose to create for yourselves.

This is hypocrisy at its worst -- even alongside that of organised religion.

It is essentially saying:

“You are free to speak and do as you wish, so long as it doesn’t make reference to our historical shame”

Wake the fuck up. Whilst we in Australia have been guilty of treating our indigenous population terribly, we would never be so arrogant as to foist our domestic shame upon you.

Australia is not America, nor does it share the same culture, guilt or shame for what has happened in your history.

Free speech is free speech, always; not just when you agree with it.

Speaking of hypocrites…

Harry Connick -- hypocrite?

Oh, as a post script -- the performer playing Michael Jackson, adorned with “whiteface” makeup was an Indian.

Where is the outrage from Caucasians?

Something got me thinking today… well, truth be told, something gets me thinking every day, my mind doesn’t seem to stop; I just don’t take the time to write it all down which is why I am probably partially classifiable.

Without digressing too much into matters of my mental state however, I shall forge on with the train of thought that I briefly alluded to a mere paragraph ago.

I watched an old episode of Penn and Teller’s “Bullshit” last night from season three. It was called “family values” and the objective was to lay to rest the notion that the “traditionally accepted” nuclear family comprising of one man, one woman and offspring; was the only acceptable form of a family.

In their own inimitable way, they did a wonderful job of laying waste to the conservatives of our world have touted as being the only acceptable kind of family unit.

It would be surprising if anyone with a differing viewpoint was swayed, however compassionate and compelling the evidence though…

They canvassed various scenarios:

• a lesbian couple raising children
• two married couples who cohabited and had an all encompassing communal love
• “normal” marriage
• a “gay converter” (who apparently used to be gay – and in reality still is, he wasn’t foolig anyone)

They took views from people on both sides of the fence, and for mine, it did more than just highlight that we are a society that consists of many varied lifestyles, choices, beliefs, relationships, creeds and sexualities; it gave rise to some feelings of deep anger.

The anger was borne of the extrapolated consequence of the fact that there are some sections of society who deem it appropriate to discriminate against people based upon their sexuality.

Fear not dear reader, this isn’t going to turn into a gay bashers bashing rant, though that will form a pivotal point of the hypothesis that I will eventually meander around to.

I am straight (much to the disbelief of people in some of the establishments I frequent) and would probably class myself as being around 0.5 on the Kinsey Scale – the only reason that I wouldn’t be a 1 is because the thought of homosexuality is just a little too messy for me to get off on it (that and a lack of sexual attraction to men) though the notion of balls slapping together during double penetration has some kind of drunken kinky appeal – but enough of that.

Even though I personally find the thought of sucking another mans cock unappealing, does it mean that I should be outraged at the thought of two consenting male adults to whom it does appeal; offensive?

Of course it doesn’t.

Fuck me, I am kind of envious that it is something that doesn’t appeal to me – imagine those nights on the piss with your mates when none of you picked up and all ended up back at someones house playing Playstation or Euchre or just dribbling shit into the wee hours.

How much better would it be if you were all bi and could just fuck one another before retiring?

Anyway, that isn’t my point.

My point centres on two issues:

• hypocrisy
• intolerance

I will make some assertions here:

- I have never met an atheist who:

• is homophobic
• opposes polygamy
• believes that morality is defined by sexuality

- Conversely, a large percentage of the Christians I know:

• are homophobic (thank you Leviticus)
• oppose polygamy (except for the Mormons if they count as Christians)
• believe that morality is defined by a sun god and a dusty old book

To wander off for a moment…

The primary issue I have with organised religion is not the concept of an old bearded man who sits up there in the sky:

• casting judgement
• exhorting his followers to commit acts of vileness
• demanding obedience and obsequiousness
• sanctioning bigotry
• encouraging the abdication of responsibility
• giving his minions the desire to attempt to cast scientific though back thousands of years
• threatening all those who use reason to disbelieve with an eternity of sodomy in hades

… and everything else that one could argue a deity encourages in feeble of mind…

My primary issue with organised religion is that; without question; it engenders hypocrisy.

This has always been my foremost concern – probably because I was raised a Catholic, but that is a tale for another day.

Without meandering too much further, this hypocrisy can be illustrated in no better way than in the issue of tolerance/intolerance.

The push to repress homosexual men and women does not come from the secular portion of society, it comes from the theistic portion.

It is based not upon the teachings of “Jesus” with whom many of them (men included) claim to have a “personal relationship“, nor on any of the “teachings” of the new testament, rather it is based on the anachronistic diatribe of the old testament, particularly Leviticus.

I wont go into it here, @Monicks has already posted a superb article on it here – but the point is that the outrage shown by modern day Christians toward same sex attrition and unions is based upon the ramblings of uneducated, superstitious peasants.

It isn’t because these supposedly moral people who follow the teachings of a man who paradoxically said advised both:

“If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also” (Luke)

and

“I come not in peace, but to bring a sword” (Matthew)

… choose to discriminate based upon sexuality, or indeed discriminate at all:

It is because they bleat constantly about tolerance of their beliefs, their “faith”, their religious views and how terrible it is that they aren’t allowed, in a secular society, to foist them without restraint upon others; yet refuse to offer other people the same sanctity that they themselves seek.

They demand “religious tolerance”, so long as it refers only to their particular flavour of fairytale.

Whilst we live in a supposedly secular society, you can’t buy take away alcohol in some states in Australia on “Good Friday” because the Christians want us all to sacrifice something for their beliefs.

Every year, we hear some Christian religious leader on television and radio bleating about how “Christ has been taken out of Xmas”.

We hear Christian political leaders droning on and on about how marriage is the “sacred union between a man and a woman and needs to be respected”.

The leader of the Catholic church in Australia, a certified bigot, Cardinal George Pell refuses to give communion to gay Catholics and yet demands respect for the “Christian traditions” of Easter and Xmas (despite the fact that they were plagiarised from the pagans) by secular and non Christian society…

Is there a pattern here?

Do unto others only as I wish to do unto them, so long as it fits in with my rigid and antiquated, arcane belief structure and doesn’t contravene the contradictory teachings of superstitious peasants from many thousands of years ago, despite what we now know about morality and science.

It annoys me greatly that people are capable of demanding respect for their “faith” – something that they have chosen to immerse themselves in despite all logical evidence to the contrary, yet refuse to respect people based upon the sexuality that they were born with; and to play devil’s advocate; that their god created them with.

It is the “do as I say, not as I do” mentality, the inherent hypocrisy of so many religious types that annoys me more than their illogical belief structure, their fear of their own mortality.

What annoys me more though, is the damage that this hypocrisy has on innocent, moral, decent people who are merely living out a life in accordance with the way that genetics and evolution designed them.

My final word on the matter is:

If religious types want secular society to respect and tolerate their beliefs (which it has been for hundreds of years), then they need to reciprocate and begin tolerating others.

They could do a lot worse than following the example of @FatherBob.

I consider myself to be a reasonably tolerant, rational, calm and accepting person; but there is something that has the ability to really get under my skin – the question:

“So what star sign are you?”

My answer is always the same:

“I don’t have one”.

This answer produces a myriad of reactions – from amusement to incomprehension to indignance. If I haven’t already made up my mind about someone prior to them asking such an inane question, their response to my answer certainly seals the deal.

To some, astrology may be “fun to think about”, but to me it is a ludicrous pseudo science with the potential to cause harm in much the same way as religion if taken too seriously.

I believe that there are two types of adherents to astrology – casual newspaper readers and “sun sign” devotees. The boundaries between them can tend to blur however.

Before I forge on however, I will declare my hand.

I became an atheist at about age eight, yet I held on to astrology for some reason for another four or five years. I am not quite sure why that was, religion and astrology share so many common factors:

• neither are backed up by any form of logic, science or rationality
• both involve worship of the sun or suns (as a god or some kind of influential factor)
• both were ideas framed by superstitious peasants not fortunate enough to have access to the reasoning that science has provided us with
• both make assertions that are highly improbable and require a leap of “faith”
• both fill holes in vacuous minds
• both give “hope” to the weak and fragile

There are many more commonalities, but I think that you get the drift.

I fell into the casual newspaper reader category for a short while before exploring it further and even as a young teenager, knew that it even were one to become a devotee, the premise behind it was flawed. Why I didn’t desert it as soon as I became an atheist, I am not quite sure. I suppose that it was “nice to think about”.

The simple fact of the matter is that this pseudo science was created over 4000 years ago, prior to most of the planets and stars we now know exist having been discovered. The “charts” that are used to plot ones life path, “destiny”, future are flawed and incomplete.

Even if there was any rationality behind this trickery, the premise would be flawed for that reason, but also due the fact that the light from the stars upon which this court jestery is based comes to us from several million years past.

Withholding disbelief for a moment, say for example that astrology carries any kind of weight, are you going to tell me that simply because of where some celestial bodies were at the moment I was born, the path of my life has been preordained?

If that is the case, why on earth do we have any crime/misfortune/famine/disease/war etc etc in the world? Surely if this pseudo science had any merit, there would be teams of astrologers working away with the birth records of every one of the 200,000+ children born every single day, plotting their charts and making recommendations of infanticide to the appropriate authorities in various regions throughout the world.

You see were astrology in any way, shape or form; real – it wouldn’t suffer from the paradox of free will and omniscience/omnipotence in the same way that religion does.

Its proponents claim that based upon the date, hour and minute of your birth; your nature can be explicitly defined, with no room for error.

If you are this sign, you are stubborn, if you are that sign, you are loyal, if you are another, you are sexual… fuck me, we are human beings, each subject to completely unique experiences, born with unique abilities and moulded by our unique environments – a person with a modicum of intelligence may just give a moderate amount more weight to such things than the position of the stars and planets when one is born…

What really concerns me though, is the amount of atheists that I have met who continue to afford this charlatanry any kind of credence.

Three of the most devout devotees to astrology I have met were also devout atheists. One would think that their atheism would engender rationality. Sadly, attempting to have a discussion with them about astrology was met with the same kind of response as one would encounter when discussing relgion with a fundamentalist theist. ’twas most perplexing to me to say the least.

I know that that is hardly a scientific sample size, but to me, it illustrated humankinds irrational desire to seek a higher purpose, something other than themselves; almost as if we have an innate desire to abdicate responsibility for our own choices and the path that our life takes.

To me, this makes astrology potentially as dangerous as religion when in the wrong hands and I sincerely believe that the slippery slope principle applies equally.

The only difference is that there is no vengeful deity who will smite you, should you choose not to worship the stars.

Perhaps that is what makes it comforting for “weak” atheists – they want to believe in something, just not an angry bearded guy in the sky who will smite them if they disobey…

The concept of honesty is not a difficult one.

The OED definition is as follows:

n:

1. the quality of beng honest

honest:

adj:

1. free of deceit; truthful and sincere.
2. fairly earned: an honest living.
3. simple and unpretentious.

Put simply, if one is to be honest, one does not lie nor engage in behaviour of a deceptive, duplicitious or misrepresentative nature.

When looked at from a more than one dimensional perspective however, particularly if the glasses shrouding the eyes viewing the concept are tainted with a hidden agenda, the concept of honesty can become somewhat more complex.

It need not be.

I believe that people are either inherently honest or inherently duplicitous. Those who make up the latter group (who, strangely enough, often tend to be successfully employed in roles encompassing areas such as advertising, marketing, politics and the like) often tend to attempt to justify their deceit when caught out, with patronising idioms and condescending clichés.

It could be argued that their justification of their deceit is in itself, a continuance of a treacherous pattern of behaviour that has become so much of a second nature to them, that in attempting to express honesty, they further the dishonesty.

A politician who “made an honest mistake”, a lover who “thought that it would hurt you if I told you”, a colleague who “unintentionally misrepresented the facts” are all still continuing to engage in behaviour that has become, it would seem; ingrained.

In failing to take responsibility for their actions, to admit that they were dishonest, they are merely prolonging the deception.

The use of such terminology, when brought to account; is indicative of a complete failure to understand the basic concept of honesty.

To understand is to simply say “I am sorry, I lied”.

What is more difficult:

• to be honest, regardless of the cost
• to continue the charade, despite everyone listening knowing that it is self serving justification
• to fall on ones sword when discovered and endure the shame of the admission of duplicity

Despite what one may think, I would submit that the first option is the easiest, and by far the most rewarding;  even if it may fill one with apprehension and trepidation.

It is also the only option that affords all parties in any given situation, the respect that any decent human being would afford not only another; but also themselves.

Sadly, those who engage in deceitful behaviour have often done so for so long, not only toward others, but to themselves as well; that it has become second nature to them.

Whilst lying, misrepresentation, deception, clouding the truth; call it what you will, may initially seem to be the easy option… in the long run, it merely leads to a chain of misery; each link rustier than the one proceeding it.

Openness and honesty, particularly where matters of great importance are at stake, may seem daunting; however, whatever the outcome as a result of complete transparency; one will have maintained self respect and possibly even gain that of another.

There is, in our day to day relationships with our fellow human beings; colleagues, friends, lovers, family members; never a reason to be dishonest.

There is always a cost associated with honesty, though the interest rates applied to dishonesty can be merciless.

An investment in honesty will always return far much more than the short term “gains” one may believe one received when taking out a loan on deceit.

Just because it is such a beautifully crafted song, and Michael Akerfeldt has the purest range of vocals since Bruce Dickinson and Freddy Mercury combined, here are the lyrics to “Hours of wealth”:

“Found a way to rid myself clean of pain
And the fever that’s been haunting me
Has gone away

Looking through my window
I seem to recognize
All the people passing by
But I am alone
And far from home
And nobody knows me

Never heard me say goodbye
Never shall I speak to anyone again
All days are in darkness
And I’m biding my time
Once I’m sure of my task I will rise again”

Listen to Hours of wealth