Time and Motion - paradox - Old masters and new contenders like Bertie Ahern

international | miscellaneous | opinion/analysis Thursday February 09, 2006 07:52 by Seán Ryan

The story continues......

This time I look at how to resolve paradox, how paradoxical ideas can be used to create propaganda. Fairly long article covering lots of ground, including science, philosophy and politics. A speech by Liz O'Donnell, on neutrality is torn asunder to illustrate propaganda and deceit. And an ideological difference between Fianna Fail and the PD's is finally discovered and discussed.

Many people ask when will we ever be able to time travel, the only answer being another question, could we ever stop even if we wanted to?

We will not be able to travel to the past however because this would set up a paradox. A paradox being a condition where reality and or common sense breaks down and contradicts itself.

For example what if you could travel into the past and kill your parents before they ever met. This would mean that you would never have existed to travel back in time in the first place and therefore your parents would have met and on and on, this is an example of a paradox.

Lets look at some other examples of paradoxes.

Lets talk of Zeno. This guy was around two and a half millennia give or take a century, before the birth of Einstein and Heisenberg and has done as much as either to introduce the world to Relativity and Uncertainty.

The first paradox is the paradox of movement.

Zeno said to imagine an arrow in flight. He said if you were to picture this flight by making a drawing of it every instant the arrow was in flight, in fact imagine somebody shooting a roll of film of the arrow in flight (yes I reckon Zeno all but invented moving pictures too), now look at the pictures closely, in none of the pictures is the arrow moving.

The arrow is at rest at any given instant of its flight, yet it is in a different place at every instant, where does movement come from?

Here's another of Zeno's paradoxes.

Imagine standing up and walking over to the television to turn it on. According to a very logical argument this is impossible.

To reach the TV you must go a certain distance and pass through a halfway point. If you consider this point to be a new starting position then you must again have to pass through another halfway point on your journey to the TV. If you consider this point the starting point you still have another half way point and so on and on. This is an infinite progression with you moving forward for each step of the progression. Surely a distance, that requires an infinite amount of movement that passes over an infinite set of points shall never be completed by what is finite personified? Oh my God and my favourite soap is on too.

In the language of my fellow Limerick men and women these are known as headfucks.

Let's look at the arrow paradox again. It seems the logic is quite hard to contradict and it probably is impossible. The way this paradox is defeated however is very interesting considering relativity wasn't formulated for another two and a half thousand years.

This argument can be defeated because it is based on presumptions and remember where presumptions get you. It is assumed that time can be chopped into an infinite set of absolute points and that in this particular paradox each instant lasts zero seconds. Now irregardless as to whether this progression can be infinite or not, it is easily concluded that no matter how many times you add zero together or multiply zero by any number that may even be infinite the answer will be zero, and since we know the whole event took longer than zero seconds we know that the assumption made must be bullshit, and is. There are no absolutes, no universal reference points. Relativity was even trying to assert itself five hundred odd years before Christ. Another way to look at this is at the reel of film again. The film is missing essential ingredients which are time and motion. If we add the time back into the pictures by moving them we again observe the arrow to move. Plus we also get the feeling that space and time have something very fundamental in common. Relativity roared to be seen.

The second paradox is nearly the same argument but this time we attempt to cut a line into an infinite set of smaller line segments. The assumption here being that this can be done. Now since nobody could ever prove this, short of doing it which would mean that we would have to last longer than eternity to see and have it proven to us and that they themselves would have to last longer than eternity to observe themselves do it. Since the assumption that one can last longer than eternity is crap, it can be seen that the original assumption itself is probably bullshit too.

I am not by any stretch of the imagination suggesting that Zeno came up with relativity, Zeno in fact believed in a universe with no movement, a very absolute universe; he believed all movement was illusion. Zeno and many like him however did open the gateway that allowed relativity to be recognised and for that matter uncertainty too.

Now lets look back at the homicidal time paradox the one that only an Irish court could successfully try.

There is really only one possible assumption here, being that it is possible to travel backwards in time. That is to say it is possible to change an event after it has occurred. Yes unless you can travel back in time you only get one go at changing the past and you must do this before it happens with the knowledge that you may not get the results you predict. It is with this image in mind that I draw your attention to what may be the closest thing in the universe to being absolute, the past. This gives us an understanding of why entropy must be. If we consider the past to be absolutely certain we must consider the future to be absolutely uncertain. This is to say uncertainty or chaos must always increase as the universe becomes older and becomes. Time is the most powerful force in the universe where and when you entered the event horizon of this continuum is uncertain, however you cannot ever go back. For anyone who disagrees here try to remember all the presents Santa will bring you this coming Christmas and compare and contrast this memory with the memory of the presents you got Last Christmas.

You can never know when an event happened for certain. Therefore you could not travel back to an exact instant unless you like to gamble and get lucky, you therefore could only travel back to a relative time. You could try to travel back to before the time you wanted to get to and wait until the right time (remembering the many worlds theory here it is both important to know which universe you are in and which universe and when you want to travel to), but time for you would be perceived to be going forwards the whole time and to start going backwards would have to pass through an absolute zero point. Time would have to get slower and or just stop and then go in the opposite direction or again another bit of time lasting zero seconds, it would then have to slow down or just stop again and then start going in the right direction again. Ladies and gentlemen, we have another absolute in the building in fact we have two. Then again I'm assuming that time would have to stop maybe it wouldn't but how it reverses its motion without stopping who knows, but as long as there is an assumption in an argument its conclusions are not proven nor are they provable until the assumption is replaced or removed.

Believe it or not Einstein's theory of relativity forbids travelling back in time but allows for theoretical thingies called tachyons to travel backwards in time but not forwards (as do memories). Time travel seems to be limited to one direction only, entropy agrees for to travel back in time is to make the universe decrease in complexity over time. By this I mean if you travel back to kill your parents. You have made the universe more complex but since time shall go forwards and eventually come to the time where you left but shall never have existed from or at any point before it where you cease to exist, at this point the complexity is removed. Therefore the universe got less complex over time and disobeyed the fundamental second law of thermodynamics that is entropy.

A simpler way to see travelling back in time, as violating the law of entropy, is to imagine the amount of energy present in the universe at the exact time you wish to travel back to. The moment you appear, the energy that is you will be added to this figure. Entropy has been reversed, the universe just got hotter.

Now having said all this I'd like to talk of actually travelling trough time but this time travelling in the correct direction. If you remember the free trip we arranged earlier for the government on their near lightspeed journey orbitting the outer solar system. Anyhow we saw by this that everyone's clock ticks at a different pace. We seen that everyone's time is relative to themselves or in other words each has his own version of time. I also said that accelerating mass slowed time down. So time can definitely be messed with.

Here's an interesting idea. What if we could quantum tunnel to the outer reaches of the universe, we reckon the universe is about 17 billion years old therefore its radius is 17 billion light years (a light year is the distance light travels in a year) or more just to guarantee that we would have gone far enough (this presumes that one can go further than the light from the big bang has already travelled and is a pretty big assumption). We could then observe. Apparently to get something with a lot of mass to quantum tunnel you need to get shitloads of matter and shitloads of antimatter, the amount needed being determined by the mass to be moved and the distance it is to be tunnelled through. Anyway you get the matter and antimatter and smack them together. This should rip Space-time to bits in the following massive annihilation of particles, you then step through this rip and come out where you wanted to providing you got your calculations right. It is probably a bit more complex than this so please don't try it at home without following the instructions that are on the label. There are some interesting uses for this trick should we ever perfect it.

Say you missed Coronation Street and you forgot to set the video, no problem, you make your rip (vortex, wormhole, tunnel or what ever you want to call it) in Space-Time which opens up to somewhere off planet that will be further than the radio signals that make up your TV signal can have travelled (radio signals travel at the speed of light too), you then get your aerial and fuck it into the rip in Space-time (by the way you wont have to go beyond the universe this time either). Now if you've got your calculations right you can switch on and watch Corrie, by the way make sure the cable doesn't come out of the back of the TV and make sure to remember to keep the 'Rift' open until you retrieve the aerial again. Why not have a party and invite all your friends round for a real omnibus edition of Corrie and watch all the episodes ever aired back to back all you need to do is keep the rift moving to the appropriate places. Even better why not keep all your equipment that can receive a signal in the rift. Then when the dude comes around to demand to see your TV licence, tell the little cunt yes you do have all the equipment but that it is not in this country and is in fact well beyond the area the extortion covers, and of course you'd be delighted to show him where the stuff is, yes lots done but lots more to do.

So as you can see it is very theoretically possible to observe the past without introducing paradox even if we do need a bit of a rethink about splitting Space-time or indeed how to do it and I must admit sending the poor misguided TV licence inspector to the outer reaches of eternity would be wrong no matter how appealing it seems, the paradox is not reintroduced because one is not allowed to interact or interfere with what is being observed because one would be too far removed from the relative time and the relative location of the event itself, it is but the light from the event that we would be observing long after the actual event itself.

Some may think I've finally cracked, yes we knew you were nuts but now you have gone beyond even that.

Let me say this. Remember events and observers, observation always comes after the event. Every time you see something you see the past, you never experience the present (probably because it doesn't exist, being like zero seconds long). Tomorrow is always coming, yesterday is always going and now never was nor will it ever be. One could have fun in English class insisting there is no present and therefore having a present tense is irrelevant and misleading. Or even better, 'did you do your homework?'. 'Yes sir'. 'Where is it?' 'It isn't sir'.

Wow if the present does not exist then when or where the fuck am I? Even more so a headfuck, if I cannot exist now, how can I prove I exist? I think (providing I don't just receive and process thoughts and providing I actually exist to be able to think) therefore I was and I might be, but I am not.

Anyway enough of the ancient headfucks, let's talk of some of the new ones.

We have lots done but lots yet to do.

Good old Bertie 'Zeno' Ahern.

Let's try this statement with some different words substituting for the word, 'lots', each time.

We have nothing done but nothing yet to do.

We have everything done but everything yet to do.

We have anything done but anything yet to do.

We have something done but something yet to do.

We have teflon done but teflon yet to do.

It is therefore very apparent that 'Zeno', didn't mean that each 'lots', was of the same magnitude.

It is my opinion that the second 'lots', is vast relative to the first 'lots'.

It is also therefore very apparent, that this is a very misleading statement, as it presumes to self congratulate and that the population at large will assume the two 'lots' to be of similar magnitude.

We don't really call this type of headfuck a paradox because it isn't really self-contradictory. We call it propaganda; the contradiction is caused to occur in the receiver.

Allow me to re-translate it back into English.

We will not specifically tell you how much or what we did as you really wouldn't be pleased. However we being the truthful squeaky-clean individuals we are will admit that we have a non-determined amount to do, now go back to chewing the cud and smile. No wonder the clown Ronald Mc. Donald loves you, for you are the worker, the customer and the meat.

Next headfuck, good old military neutrality.

First of all let me point out that this is not enshrined in our constitution. It is but a policy that's been handed down that allows our government to take any particular stance in any particular conflict in a very non-particular type of way. Getting confused? Excellent, wait till I talk about the policy itself.

To be frank I'm not a particularly neutral person, I mean for every conflict that has occurred whilst I've been alive I have come to very definite conclusions as to who was right and as to who was wrong. However a lot of my friends did the same but had chosen opposite sides to what I had chosen. So even though I am not neutral nor will I ever be, Ireland must and does have a neutrality clause in the constitution, civil wars are kind of illegal. Yes nobody must start a civil war. For to actually participate in a war that we are not threatened, bombed or butchered into, is to have a potential civil war. I mean it is bloody obvious from the start of the constitution that we should be living in harmony with each other, after all as an individual, if I feel strongly enough I can leave the country and fight whichever corner I choose. Any form of picking sides and participating in foreign conflicts, by government, by its nature pits Irishman against Irishman. I may add the fact that the protesters who were arrested at Shannon airport were not a sizeable proportion of the Irish population is irrelevant, the government must stop making stupid decisions that criminalize ordinarily productive citizens who in fact never lose their sense of loyalty to this country, just for the wanting to look good in front of their American betters. Again another example of where we are treated as inferior by those who are obviously inferior and nowhere near equal to the task of governing this country.

Anyway lets look at militarily neutral. Militarily infers army. Army neutral. Doesn't sound too hot does it? Imagine we were attacked and the army remained neutral. Ok so that mustn't be quite it then. Maybe because they are not at war they are neutral?

The government then smothers the terms a bit. What they mean is that we will not commit any troops to any combat, in favour of one side or the other (although the government committed troops to Shannon to aid the American war effort against Irish citizens who were obviously not on the same side as the Americans), even though any citizen may do this, the only limitation being he may have to give up his nationality. However the government may decide who the wrongdoer in the conflict is, before or whilst it's going on, which is efficient and incredible considering they can't sort anything out in this country. Yup we might even support one side in the conflict in every other way other than giving them Irish troops. Does the government not spasm dance in and out, frivolously putting the nationality of the government itself on the line each time? And from my point of view, booting it out well beyond what is Irish.

They cannot even stay within their own terms of neutrality within Ireland. How dare they say that they can decide the rights and the wrongs of a conflict outside Ireland. And how dare they turn my country into a field of battle and commit troops against my countrymen!

Let me quote article 39 of our constitution here.

Treason shall consist only in levying war against the
State, or assisting any State or person or inciting or
conspiring with any person to levy war against the
State, or attempting by force of arms or other violent
means to overthrow the organs of government
established by this Constitution, or taking part or being
concerned in or inciting or conspiring with any person to
make or to take part or be concerned in any such
attempt.

I don't presume or assume to be intelligent enough, to consider myself an expert on my constitution. Nor do I know how many citizens of the state, that the government, on behalf of its American betters, would have to point guns at to constitute treason. But I say without doubt or reservation that they approach it.

So militarily means can give support to one side during a conflict whilst neutral means not to take sides in any fashion.

Of course the government still could not stay within these very broad parameters. Maintaining a foreign army in Shannon airport would have been against the constitution unless this army was under the direct control and jurisdiction of the Oireachtas. So in order to maintain an army i.e. pay its airport fees, or even act as a host to it, the Irish government must consider itself to be the supreme commander of the American army and that the American army is misguided in their belief that George Bush is their Commander in Chief.

Again only an Irish court and government could and would make judgement of the assumption as to whether one can be militarily neutral or not.

Yes the good old militarily neutrality policy is a headfuck of the highest order in that it is both a paradox and it is pure and utter propaganda in that it takes away from the spirit of our constitution. Let me quote the preamble in our Constitution, which occurs even before the first article.

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,

We, the people of Eire,

Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,

Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation,

And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,

Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

This is more than just wishful thinking; this is the spirit of the constitution.

Unity is to be restored, any act that is a favour and particularly a reprehensible one like helping inflict war on a nation that said it didn't want to fight, will cause the opposite of unity. And is raping the spirit of my constitution.

Many will point out that I do not believe in God. So what? I believe those who gave all to win our independence did. This was their right, as are my beliefs mine. These people were thanking God for deliverance, which again was their right, then they set forth the spirit of the constitution, they said it was to be a constitution of unity and concord with all, which is my right.

Allow me to quote some shit from the smart arsed Liz O Donnell of the progressive Democrats who opposed Sinn Fein's proposed ammendment to article 29 of our constitution.

19th February 2003
Statement by Liz O'Donnell T.D on the Twenty-Seventh Amendment of the Constitution Bill.

(Everything in brackets are my responses to some of the shite quoted.)

A Ceann Comhairle, I oppose this bill.

The Constitution of 1937 for the first time gave full effect to the conduct of our foreign policy as a sovereign, independent, democratic State. It was with considerable wisdom and foresight that we committed ourselves then in Article 29 to the pacific settlement of international disputes and international law as the rule for our conduct with other states. (Foresight? This was already outlined in the preamble in the constitution. It is also a pity that the attack on Iraq was not sanctioned by international law and was therefore not lawful. Of course it is also fair to say that this did not make it unlawful either, but to support America amidst this spinelessness and indecision was very immoral not to mention to point out that the concept and authority of international law is at this time totally and utterly bullshit.)

This was a statement of fundamental policy that was courageous and determined on the part of a people, who had so recently endured desperate loss of life in a World War, a War of Independence and a Civil War. (We don't like war? Or condone it?)

Our commitment was for the peaceful settlement of conflict and the rule of international law, something quite different to neutrality as a political or even military concept. (You forgot sexually neutral and electrically neutral. Now That I added in the missing types of neutrality how can you say we are militarily neutral, and yet still say something quite different to neutrality as a political or even a military concept? And exactly in what way are we neutral? This is quite a faux pax Liz, Mary needs to have a chat with you.)

The constitutional principle guiding our foreign policy pre-dates neutrality. (?) It predates the Second World War, the founding of the United Nations, NATO, the Warsaw Pact, the Non-Aligned Movement, the entire Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall. It is enduring and sustainable across many years and throughout many circumstances. (True except for the first bit, and a lie after that but true in that it is accurate but a lie in its actual practice, in that we treated neither Iraq nor America according to this guiding principle, nor did we treat either party in accordance to international law.)

The policy of neutrality followed two years after Bunreacht na hEireann was approved. It was a policy, as we know, that was made in response to specific national and international circumstances of 1939. The principled stance had been taken earlier in 1937. The pragmatic response at the outbreak of the second world war was neutrality. And neutrality was implemented in a pragmatic way to secure our interests during and after the War. (How the fuck does one implement not doing something such as not getting involved in a war? An example of a true leader indeed, inaction can and will be implemented.)

When we stood back from joining NATO, it was because the government of the time believed this was incompatible with partition on our island, not because neutrality was a fundamental principle. (Very ambiguous Liz. Is neutrality or is it not a fundamental principal? For example allow me to quote another muppet from the same day you spouted this tripe: STATEMENT BY MR. MICHAEL SMITH, T.D, MINISTER FOR DEFENCE, PRIVATE MEMBERS BUSINESS PROPOSED TWENTY FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITIUTION (NEUTRALITY) DÁIL ÉIREANN, 19th FEBRUARY 2003

.... Irish neutrality became practically possible with the return by Britain of the Treaty posts in 1938. Neutrality has since then been a policy adopted by successive Governments. It has as its core defining characteristic the non-membership of military alliances.) (Could it be that I have finally found an ideological difference between Fine Fail and the PD's that even they haven't spotted? Also his reference to treaty posts, I believe he meant ports. These were the military bases that Britain had held onto in Ireland. De Valera secured their return before the outbreak of World War 2, as Mr. Smith has pointed out this allowed neutrality to become possible. Surely the facilitation of another foreign military power must again remove the possibility of being neutral. Anyway lets go back to Liz again).

The evolving and pragmatic policy of neutrality, like the Constitutional precept of the pacific settlement of disputes, has enjoyed the widespread support of the Irish people - with the notable exception of Sinn Fein. (And more so by the government who supposedly are honour bound to also obey this constitutional precept, or would Liz like to argue how the war waged on Iraq was done in a pacific way? Again even Liz has pointed out that the pacific settlement of disputes precedes and supercedes our supposed neutrality policy.)

Sixty-six years ago in this House, Sean T. O Ceallaigh said it was his opinion that it was "absolutely undeniable, that there is nothing since the Free State was founded, in which the people have taken a deeper interest than in this Constitution." This is still the case. Debates on our Constitution have always provoked great interest, precisely because it is our constitution, the basic law to which we give allegiance and which supercedes all other laws. (This is where Liz hangs herself and the government, by admitting the constitution supercedes all other laws and that she and they and we owe allegiance to the constitution and yet nobody can argue that the Iraqi's were dealt with in a pacific fashion or indeed that the protestors in Shannon were dealt with in a pacific fashion.)

But Sinn Fein held themselves superior to the new Constitution, to Dáil Éireann, and to the State. They contributed nothing 66 years ago to the construction of our Constitution and have contributed very little indeed since 1937, not least in their Bill today. What mattered to Sinn Fein back then, and what still seem inordinately important to them, is their ideology and its paraphernalia, the self-styled Army Convention, the Army Council and so on. (Jaysus Gerry you don't look a day over 40, and as for you Liz you couldn't be more than 60. Besides anyone who brings a bill to change or amend the constitution should do so to improve upon it and thus actually be superior to it, I believe this is what my ancestors wanted for us too, furthermore Sinn Fein founded and cultivated Eamon De Valera whose handwriting more than any others covers our Constitution. As for the PD's are they not a party who rebelled against the party created by De Valera? And furthermore Liz, Dev started a civil war in this country because he would not accept either the oath of allegiance or the partitioning of the state despite the vast majority of Irish people voting to accept the treaty in 1922, I suppose he would applaud not listening to the collective will of the Irish, but I reckon he'd be really pissed off about the idea of making a sovereign nation subject to foreign rule and law.)

The initiation of this Bill to amend the Constitution by Sinn Fein has raised a few eyebrows. The same party has for years, and with great ferocity, sought to subvert the 1937 Constitution and all it stands for, including Article 29. They worked actively against the policy of neutrality by collaborating with the Nazi regime against the State and the Government of Ireland, as well as against the democratic Allied forces. (Shit or get off the pot or better yet move away from the shit altogether Liz and admit we were part of the Allied forces and helped Germans when it suited us too. For instance Allied soldiers who ended up on Irish soil during the war were mostly sent back to the Allies and most German soldiers who ended up in Ireland ended up as detainees. I may further add that not so long ago Charlie Haughey who was not a member of Sinn Fein at any time, recently lent his island Inis Fichalaun to some former Nazi soldiers who got marooned there during World War II. Additionally our own coastguard who have at no time admitted to being under the control of Sinn Fein, often traded with German U-boats who were waiting and hiding in order to ambush Allied Forces and convoys.)

Latterly, they pursued their alleged commitment to international peace by arms deals in the Libyan desert, and in fostering fraternal links with ETA terrorists in a fellow EU member state. Their claimed commitment to the de-militarisation of Europe apparently excludes the tons of Semtex in republican hands. Their claimed commitment to the rule of law does not extend to co-operating with police investigations into the Omagh atrocity. (This is hardly fair Liz. Since Sinn Fein are part of the government of the North they should represent the views of those who elected them and be allowed to be part of the lawmaking process before becoming subject to it. I may further add that your own party is evolved from, or more accurately is a mutation of, Sinn Fein and once held strongly to these beliefs also.) We all know that their alleged belief in neutrality allowed republicans to shoot members of our legitimate Defence Forces and Garda Siochana. (Just like we know that the fact we removed the death penalty didn't stop the Gardaí visiting wanton carnage on John Carthy.)

Since the Second World War, the policy of neutrality has been tested and stretched by many people, but never so cynically hi-jacked as by today's Sinn Fein under the guise of peace-loving neutrality. (Even the guise of peace-loving neutrality is better than this stretching you have admitted to being part of.)

In 1937, Sinn Fein ignored the will of the people when they approved the Constitution. (Aw come on Liz, poor ole Gerry is being depicted a bastard whether he's for the constitution or against it, he just cannot win. It's a pity one could not look at oneself in a similar light.) In their Bill today, they also ignore the referendum we held as recently as last October in which the Irish people voted to amend the Constitution so as to reserve to themselves the power to decide whether or not Ireland would enter a common European defence (As you yourself ignored the previous referendum which this one was used to destroy. I see and agree as to where Gerry is coming from here.)

This was the most recent way we dealt with the issue of defence and military neutrality. The Government brought forward the proposal on European defence having listened to the people's concerns in the first Nice referendum. We had a protracted, democratic debate. All sides had their chance (As they had the first time round too. It's just as well you didn't consider the collective will of the people to be the final say on the matter deciding that all sides should have another chance and another one, ad infinitum until the government had its way.)

The opponents of Nice claimed last October that a Yes vote still allowed the Government to enter a non-European defence arrangement, such as NATO. This spurious argument was well-aired. It was well-refuted too. The people made up their minds in favour of the constutional amendment and did not accept the conspiratorial claims about other defence pacts. (If the argument were so spurious why was the Seville Declaration required? Surely if it were so well refuted the Seville Declaration would not have been needed. To suggest these arguments were spurious is to say the Seville Declaration was spurious as it wasn't really needed and further if it were not needed, neither was a second referendum.)

The result of that referendum is that our policy is a consistent whole, at each level. Constitutionally, we have never wavered in our fundamental commitment to the peaceful settlement of disputes and the rule of international law. (Iraq, Afghanistan and the cold war but to mention very few, were conflicts not settled peacefully and we also supported America each time, who, is neither an example of, nor the maker of international law. And come to think of it I can think of no dispute settled peacefully in the 20th century.) We maintain the power of Dail Eireann to decide case by case on each deployment of Irish defence forces outside the State. The Government exercises day to day responsibility over defence and foreign policy. The people themselves have the power to decide directly on entering any automatic defence commitment in a European defence.

None of this implies pacifism. None of it implies moral ambivalence. None of it implies inaction in the face of abuses of human rights or threats to international security. (First bit of sense you have made Liz, dead right, we'll get right in there, and help perpetrate these abuses of human life, and threats to international security.) None of it means we are politically neutral.

There is no part of our Constitutional or political tradition which means we cannot agree with our partners in the EU and with the UN Security Council that the threat of war is valid to achieve compliance with international law, and that the use of military force is a valid last resort. (Try reading the preamble to the constitution again Liz. You might see that it specifies 'other nations' meaning all nations, we must seek peace with them all and fuck what Europe or anyone else has to say. Their collective opinion is irrelevant to the spirit of the constitution and particularly so when it disagrees with this spirit. Plus since the constitution spells it out in no uncertain terms that peace is to be our goal with our fellow human beings. To speak of war as a last valid resort, without specifying exactly what constitutes a clear and present danger, is but to bullshit and waffle. War is the last action regardless as to what has preceded it and is the last valid or otherwise resort anyway. But other than self-preservation, to support a war or fight one is not valid in terms of seeking peace)

It is no part of our foreign policy tradition that we would make ourselves unable to agree with, and actively support, the United Nations Secretary General when he articulates these very points. (Again Liz we are a sovereign nation and we can do as we please, and screw your tradition.)

We recognise that our commitment to international law means we are bound to uphold and vindicate that law. Neutrality does not mean we should neuter ourselves in upholding international law. (You neuter yourself politically when you uphold any supposed law that acts in a way that disagrees with the spirit of our constitution or traditional values.) When the Security Council and international law is being defied, as Iraq has done since 1991, then we should play our part in whatever way we can to uphold international law. (Again Liz you owe allegiance to the constitution and to us, you don't owe anyone else squat. And read later about Israel, Iraq's neighbour defying the same international law, for a much longer time too, and I'll bet you don't possess the balls to suggest we condone invading them too.)

But what this Bill would do is introduce passivity, pacifism and impotence into Ireland's ability to uphold the international law that is at the centre of our foreign policy and of our constitutional commitments. (Two out of three aint bad and I reckon unlike Liz that these two items are the foundation stones in our neutrality policy and that they have been present since its inception.)

We have a representative, responsible and directly elected government, charged to act in the national interest in the foreign policy of the State. (Nope. You are charged with acting within the bounds of the constitution, which decides and supercedes, subsequent national policy and foreign policy. Also the national interest is the constitution, not some vague hallucinatory bullshit ideology that makes you think that you decide the national interest.)

But by this Bill, Sinn Fein would shackle the State and the Government's legitimate management of our security and our international obligations. They would undermine our ability to act in support of our constitutional commitments. Such a disabling of our democratic institutions and of our constitutional principles has obvious parallels with the republican movement's failed attempt to subvert the State by violence over many years. How ironic that what Sinn Fein failed to achieve by violence, they now seek to achieve by law. (Are you saying that violence is right or wrong?)

Most Deputies will agree with me that the best contribution that Sinn Fein can make to peace in Ireland, and peace internationally, is to get on with decommissioning republican guns and Semtex; as envisaged by the Good Friday Agreement; to co-operate with legitimate police forces; and to participate in policing in Northern Ireland, and to discontinue their dubious international networks and activities. (Do you now think you have the right to dictate policy to other parties? Who are you to decide what Sinn Fein should or should not do? You who cannot write even a simple statement about neutrality in which you do not contradict and belie yourself and I.)

Most people would agree that Sinn Fein has some nerve lecturing constitutional parties in Dáil Éireann on neutrality and peace. (Do you think you know most people? I think most people would see you as being full of shit Liz.)

All of us have welcomed the Republican movement's embrace of democracy; (And threw lots of shit at the same time.) its move from the margins to the center of Government in Northern Ireland. That is what the peace process is all about. (Read what you said two paragraphs back you idiot.) They have brought all of the energy, which sustained 30 years of war, into their political activities. And good luck to them. This is, I believe, the first Bill that Sinn Fein have sought to enact under the Irish Constitution. (Since you at least admitted they were in a war you should also note they were not defeated and hence the peace talks, surely they have a right to judge and offer terms of their own.) This is a welcome and overdue recognition of the legitimacy of this state, of our parliament and of the Irish Constitution. (Taking part in the election process is a recognition of the legitimacy of the state. Becoming yes men for the government, is not a recognition of the legitimacy of the state, and is in fact repugnant to the constitution.) Such a pity that their first effort is a masterpiece of irony. (Pity or not this still does not deny them the right to bring such a bill or would you deny them this right too? It's pretty ignorant of you to consider other elected representatives of this state to be enemies of the state and not see yourself as also a potential enemy, because you are disagreeing with the democratic process yourself to be talking shite like irony, it matters not, because they are officially elected representatives of this country and if you cannot see or accept this you should begin to be able to see why I think you are unfit to judge the rights or wrongs of any external conflict.)

Bye Liz and I hope the door does smack you, hard in the arse on the way out.

A classic example of attacking the person, and not the idea. I may add this type of shit slinging is not conducive to peaceful settlement and is a fundamental betrayal of diplomacy itself. Of course, I not being a diplomat, reserve the right to attack both the ideas, or lack thereof, and the muppet who repressed or expressed them.

The next headfuck is simple propaganda and not really a paradox even though some of the assumptions made are utter bullshit. It is however so obviously false that it must be considered a joke rather than a paradox, I speak of social welfare of course and having already said more than enough will say no more, please!

Next headfuck, let's call this one a middle aged headfuck. Yes the good old divine mystery is a paradox, it's propaganda, and it's the biggest joke ever told.

Divine implies God or Godlike, which in turn implies no mysteries. So a divine mystery is a no mystery, mystery. Again you have to hand it to the church, nobody writes like them.

Ok so maybe they meant we could never understand a divine being. I get it. But do they? I mean here they are telling you about a being they themselves have told you that cannot be known or understood by you. I mean shit or get off the pot. I mean even if the pope were infallible, by his religion's terms of reference the normal sheep will never understand God, yet the church's sole reason apparently for existing is to show you, you who will never understand, the divine pathways. Now there's a job with a future. Like I said there's nobody like the church. Yes the church are perfectly willing to subdivide time for the rest of eternity and even then you wont understand.

Here's a spooky headfuck at a distance. Is there life after death? How about this, is there death before life? And if so when did you die. (Please don't go all reincarnation and all that other stuff this is not my point). How about rephrasing it a bit to illustrate my point. Is there death before existence? Is there death after existence? At which point (another absolute zero point) does existence end and death begin? We began somewhere and sometime before we were complex enough to be hydrogen, we have become more complex and must always continue to do so. Even if there is the end of time somewhere, we shall exist up until it occurs and even then death could not last more than zero seconds. Entropy to the rescue again. The terms life and death are but different labels we stick on existence, of who's supposed beginning and imagined end we do not comprehend.

Here's a headfuck especially for the government. Since we had a referendum that allowed a group of self confessed Irish citizens and Irish recognised citizens too, to divorce themselves from the state, does this imply that any other group within the state has the same rights via the same change to our Constitution on articles two and three, or is it that some Irish citizens have a completely different set or rights? To make the headfuck even more fun could the new nation successfully sue this state over the patent on calling one's nation Ireland? I'd like to bet it could, because I believe this state has been in violation of this state's patent and its implications pending and supposedly amending, for a hell of a long time now.

Here's a pretty mental headfuck. I don't want to mock this too much however as I totally agree as to its necessity. I speak of the Anglo-Irish agreement again. I just want to know if when Sin Fein someday take the reins of Irish government, will we have to de-commission and disband the Irish republic's army? Although I suppose they being neutral and all it wont make much difference. It might even stop them pointing guns at Irish citizens, hurry on Gerry. At the very least I feel with Gerry Adams that no Irish man should point a gun at another Irishman without his life being at stake. All others bar the Greens and some very notable independents have been only too willing to point guns at Irish citizens to make their opinions law. It could point them at you next. Will you change your mind at gunpoint?

This is another trick the government learnt from the church, good old recant or die. Of course the government have updated a bit what with automatic weapons, batons and drugs. But the message stays the same.

I want to know why we subdivide time into a never-ending line of zero's each whom we place in government expecting them to amount to something. We ourselves have become a paradox, and this time the questionable assumption is very patently obvious from all perspectives. Now do you see how sacred a vote is? The vote is both our only moral and legal defence to these people now that our media has deserted us, by this I mean our newspapers, I beg of you to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that he or she whom you vote for represents you and your views and always learn from the past, you probably cannot change yesterday and if you could, we wouldn't notice, but you most certainly can and will change tomorrow and the amount of uncertainty is up to you, and we shall notice.

This brings me to the final headfuck, which is the oldie and the goldie, the paradox of the liar.

This statement is a lie.

Is the above statement truthful?

If the statement is correct then the statement is a lie.

If the statement is a lie then it is true and is thus lying again.

Now if I go a bit further I can add a bit to prove any bullshit statement to be true.

For instance:

I am God and this statement is a lie.

Ok let's look at it.

I am God is a lie. Therefore I was telling a lie and the statement is true.

I am God is the truth. I am God and was thus telling a lie when I said the statement was a lie, which means the statement is true.

I'm not even going to begin to go into the mathematical or philosophical arguments against this paradox or indeed the ethical issues that suggest I should not be the one Almighty.

I'm going to ask you to take a leap of faith if that be what is needed and trust that there are no absolutes and therefore one cannot assume to tell an absolute lie or the absolute truth, yes every statement is in a superposition of states that are both truth and lie all at once, they are both opinion and experience they are belief, faith and calculation. Whether the statement is true, false or total bullshit is up to you after you have observed it, I may add that your observation can and will change it. And the complexity and diversity of the universe shall increase.

May I suggest that the next time the government want to headfuck us through the use of paradox or propaganda that they use the liar's paradox, for example?

We haven't done anything and this statement is a lie, and we have nothing to do and this is another lie.

Or maybe Zeno's infinite distance paradox?

We shall go half way to doing anything about fixing our health service. Then we shall start again from there. We shall again go half way to doing anything and have to start again and so on and so on. Yes we're not there yet but we're getting there. Forever. A policy with a bright future if you can get it swallowed.

Or how about?

We shall try to fail. We will succeed.

Or maybe.

Irish sovereignty is subject to international law.

Oops, sorry ye already used that one.

Or better still, how about removing some of the headfucks within society?

Innocent until proven guilty could become innocent and guilty.

The guardians of the peace could actually keep the peace and not disturb it and or find pastimes that are more rewarding than preventing others from keeping it.

Power to the people could actually mean, 'to' and not, 'from'.

My government could become mine and not theirs.

Irish life could reflect the wills of the people of Ireland in accordance with our own genius and traditions and not those solely of government, big business and foreigners. Again don't get me wrong I have no beef with individuals foreign or otherwise, regardless as to their opinions which they are entitled to, but I still believe we have more of a right to choose how to live than they have the right to presume to tell us, or to force us how to live.

We trawl the bottoms of the oceans of the world, for supposed investments, that seek to reap the harvest from us the moment they are sown and to continue to reap for eternity just like any other bottom feeder. Show me a man who invests not to profit and I'll show you a relative fool. We may have had a Celtic Tiger, but we have not profited, why should we expect to do so in the future, we who are property to be invested in, but not good enough ourselves to invest or invest on behalf of. We were never partners in the investments; the investments were payment for our lives and for our heritage.

If material possessions were your dream, why do you not have it already? Society has been free a long time has it not?

If necessities like food and shelter are your dreams, why do you not have them? Society has been free a long time?

If being safe is your dream, why are you not? Surely society has been free long enough?

If being accepted even though you believe different is your dream, why are you not? Surely society is not free at your expense is it?

Free has a legal definition, I say society's usage of free is anything but close to legal.

We have invented and discovered wonders enough that all could be content yet we are still like the middle ages, where there is no sense of personal rights. The shape of society has not changed despite its progression in knowledge.

We are made from clay, from the same clay we make homes, food, we make more of each other, we make bicycles, cars, trains, airplanes and computers, all from clay. It's easy and there's plenty. Therefore clay is not the reason people don't have what they want. Resources my arse. We do not have our desires because of the way society malfunctions.

Sláinte,
Sean Ryan