Marijuana – Not a fan

I admit my experience with Marijuana/weed/ pot/ the herb/the ganja is a limited one. I myself have never had any intention to try it, or any reason to. I have always believed that it was a drug which has been protected by pseudo intellectuals and politicians who want to appeal to popular social media and the ever increasing youth populations of western civilisation. My opinion of Marijuana has nothing to do with popular opinion, government research but rather with Post-Gnosis: the ability to look and think for myself, which is certainly dying, God forbid that anyone thinks for themselves anymore.  

My opinion of Marijuana is that it makes those who smoke it boring, dull, inactive, slow and just generally stupid. There are arguments against this which usually consist of “Bro, when I’m baked it makes me think better” or something to that effect; the truth in it is that when these people get “baked” their mental abilities are not advanced but actually in fact slowed down, that explains why they sit on park benches laughing at the manner in which fungi grow up trees or something to that tedious level of general irrelevance. Conversations with the “High” are equally irritating, the drug makes those who smoke it go from a level of some articulateness (I admit often low from the example of some of my acquaintances) to absolute foolery. Something which is completely and absolutely destructive to individuals who seek to be able to communicate, these people are worse than drunkards who vomit, sing out of tune, heckle offence; the “High’s” go from normal conversation to “Heeeeeeey”. In that lengthened “heeeeeeey” you can hear after every syllable an amount of their original rationality and intellect seep out of one of their ears like puss seeping out of the male urethra after a very casual and bohemian lifestyle which has caught up on an old limp hippie.

The worst thing about Marijuana or rather those who choose to smoke it: is their general ignorance which allows them to get on the highest moral horse in which they can mount, all so that they can attempt to state how high and mighty their drug is. How it doesn’t kill as many people as alcohol or it doesn’t damage ones lungs as much as Tobacco (some claiming that Marijuana doesn’t damage ones lungs at all – cretins indeed, but not worthy of proper acknowledgement) These people I’m afraid can only simply be referred to as Cunts . Cunts with this stupid grandiose idea of them believing that they are better than that in which they are. At least the drunkard in the gutter admits that he is a shit, one of the lowest of the lows of our society. On the topic of these Cunts thinking that they are healthier because they primarily smoke Marijuana over Tobacco, with their invertebrate questions which are actually intended to be judgements, just perhaps lacking the spine to come out and make a judgement instead of hiding behind a question, like “Why don’t you put some Weed in the top of that pipe? Much Healthier than the shit you already have in”, which I always tend to respond with “Do you mix your marijuana with rolling Tobacco?” which is always responded with a shameful and quietened “Yes”. This highlights the prudent stupidity of the Marijuana moralist Cunt, they for the first time realise without me even making another statement that they are fucking wrong. That they are hypocrites and the very worst kind, the kind that hasn’t recognised it. Often there is the type of Cunt who refuses to acknowledge fact, sit in the dark sending links from hippie “studies” on how great Marijuana is. This kind of Cunt should only be mocked, they are lazy. They argue in a lazy manner, linking their argument to a third party and saying you are wrong because this person says so, he’s an expert. They fail to understand the well-known statement “You find one fucking expert to say one thing, I’ll get another fucking expert to say the complete fucking opposite”, simply not worthy of my time.

So to conclude on this blog on my dislike of Marijuana, I don’t like it. I don’t like many of those who take it; obviously there are several exceptions in this field, but I can definitely say I prefer them cannabis free. I look forward to the time when proper research is taken (not just for the adolescents) which can prove many of my opinions, which I know to be true, to be factually supported by science. That should help denigrate the Marijuana moralist Cunts, and allow them to go off and listen to Bob Marley alone without trying to pressure others into it.   

 

Nobel Peace Prize: redundant, repugnant and simply ridiculous

Yes it has reached that time when another Nobel Peace Prize has been given away to an individual or organisation that are considered creditable by a committee of cocks. This time the committee have awarded the prize to the ‘Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons’. Which I admit would be a challenge for me to attack, considering the use of chemical weapons is universally considered to be morally incomprehensible, even by myself. Despite this I think it would still be right for me to argue that the OCPCW receiving a prize of any form in relation to Syria is certainly premature, considering it is one, Unknown to the extent of which Chemical weapons have been used, and two, nobody has been legally held accountable for such war crimes, which as I have mentioned are not fully known. Yes they destroy the chemical weapon stockpiles themselves, but they do not attempt to legally attack those who have used them. I think in this case anyway we should not be thanking OCPCW for destroying Syrian chemical weapons, but rather Russia for placing diplomatic pressure on Syria for allowing this.

Now as I continue I think it is noteworthy to mention that OCPCW are a good organisation. It is also noteworthy to mention that the Nobel Peace Prize is ill-fitting on them.  The Nobel Peace Prize had started off with noble origins, rewarding those who have strived and succeeded for a greater goal of peace, most definitely via peaceful action than that of violent action. Yet the Nobel Committee have nominated and awarded members who do not live up to this category such as: Henry Kissinger (1973), Teresa of Calcutta (1979), Nelson Mandela (1993), Al Gore (2007) Barack Obama (2009) and European Union (2012). Let alone absurd nominations such as Joseph Stalin who was nominated twice in 1945 and 1948.Which has thus resulted in me saying that the prize is now redundant, repugnant and simply ridiculous

To some people my list of names mentioned may be considered “controversial” so I shall aim to tackle this in a series of short statements, evidence and sources. Henry Kissinger was responsible for War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity and crimes against international law; which include political assassination, kidnap and torture. Taking place in nations from Vietnam, Bangladesh, Indochina, Timor, Chile and Cyprus (C Hitchens ‘Trial of Henry Kissinger’). Henry Kissinger’s list of crimes are just far too long to talk about in any detail, nor should it be considered controversial since the source in which I have mentioned was a bestseller, which resulted in Henry Kissinger being banned from travelling to France, which confirms its legitimacy, if entering the borders he will be arrested for such crimes listed and face a trial similar to that of the Nazis in Nuremburg, and rightfully so also. In the words of a great hero of mine and the author of the 'Trial of Henry Kissinger' Christopher Hitchens: “Henry Kissinger should have the door shut in his face by every decent person and should be shamed, ostracized, and excluded”.

Teresa of Calcutta or Mother Teresa who was a “Fundamentalist, a fanatic and a Fraud”; responsible for “untold misery, pain and was proud of it”. She had taken money from Mafia mobster Dictators in Haiti, and herself provided money for political murders in Central America. Refused to give any of her patients any form of pain medication other than paracetamol at the most extreme case. She believed that the “love of God” was enough, yet when she herself was ill, she allowed herself to have the best healthcare that the Italian system can provide (CH4 ‘Hells Angel’ and C Hitchens ‘The Missionary Position’) a true hypocrite and a fraud.

Now onto one of the most widely accepted “statesman” of the modern world, praised by Hollywood and by pretty much everyone in the west, from recently deceased singers such as Amy Winehouse to the BBC and all other news sources. I hold a slightly different opinion to that of the Populists. I see Nelson Mandela as a member and then leader of the African National Congress or ANC, the political party that were responsible for Massacres, murders and torture. Mandela actually pleaded guilty to signing off on 156 acts of public violence in his trial. Let alone after destroying the evil apartheid system and becoming president, he befriended and even financially supporting numerous African dictators and their equally evil dictatorships based on similar racist principles to that of the Apartheid system. Though I will state that one could argue despite these crimes, that he did have the support of the nation, as he was elected as President from 1994-1999, he also destroyed the Apartheid system. Though the destruction of the Apartheid system is a ridiculous reason for gaining the Peace Prize, unless the actions of those involved were in themselves peaceful: which they were not. Many would frown at the idea of Stalin winning the Peace Prize in 1945 or 1948 due to him being a brutal dictator who also had partook in war crimes during the Second World War. Yet Nelson Mandela also has such blood on his hands, at a much lesser extent and scale I admit, but if anyone looks at him in greater detail they will see that he isn’t the saviour in which he is marketed as.

 Al Gore was nominated for the environmental reasons not for Peace, so short and simple, just isn't worthy of its own paragraph. Barrack Obama was given the prize after spending less than a year in office, after having not achieved anything. Seeing the Obama Administration now in office at the latter half of his presidency, I think it would be hard to argue how ridiculous that decision was, Obama has kept with George W. Bush’s use of Drone strikes. He has wire tapped his own Citizens in the name of “Safety” and attempted to start a war in Syria. It is clear that he certainly did not live up to expectations of “Change We Need”.

The European Union on the other hand is one of the most insulting winners in the existence of the Nobel Peace Prize. The European Union’s figurehead policy the Euro is failing, resulting in huge unemployment across Europe as well as internal confrontations of many nations and the rise of extremes, Example being Greece and France with the rise of Fascist popularity, which is in relation to the EU’s failed multi-cultural programs. It was obvious that the EU certainly could not have won the Nobel Economics award, so don’t give them the Nobel Peace Prize, one that they certainly can’t claim.

So to conclude the Nobel Peace Prize is certainly redundant, repugnant and simply ridiculous. It’s about time that we stop listening to the Nobel Committee in Norway. It’s a Prize that has been dirtied by shameful nominations since late 40s; has since been ruined by countless poor winners. To those who I have yet to convince on this topic, I challenge you to seek disputation of my claims, to argue my points. I believe that the evidence and statements in which I have provided should be more than satisfactory to prove the futility and ignorance of the Nobel Peace Prize, it has failed to do what it was set up to do reward those worth rewarding in the goal and aim for peace. Thus being redundant, repugnant and simply ridiculous.  

Fulham Opera’s Siegfried: Personal thoughts

A great deal of very informed reviewers, and well, normal people who quite frankly know much more than I on the topic of Wagner, Opera, work, money and amount of people required to set up a Wagnerian opera; have stated that Fulham Opera’s Der Ring des Nibelungen is “audacious”, “big hearted” and “heroic”. I’m afraid they have rather badly understated this dauntless challenge. They have badly understated the manner in which Fulham Opera had brought this small part of this Epic Saga to their most glorious audience. 

To compare Fulham Opera to that of the Homeric Epics; Naked Odysseus approaching the fair maiden Nausicaa like a lion armed only with a moderately small  branch to conceal his manhood. For that is Fulham Opera, the bravery needed to put such an opera on with such new and ambitious aims in itself can often lead to negativity; example being the almost annual artistic controversy of Bayreuth. I do not believe that a Wagnerian Opera has ever been performed to an audience with a single piano, a french horn and a flute. When I had heard of this setup and saw the positive reviews I was intrigued to see how this could possibly work. Wagner is renown for having some of the largest orchestras. How could three individuals pull off a role which is for such a large orchestra?

Then I decided to go and find out for myself. The acoustics of the church hall certainly provided everything which was necessary to spread the Wagnerian tonality to the extent of consuming my very soul. The most impressive example of the hall acoustics was for me the calls of the Woodbird, It certainly felt that the sound was traveling through us across the Germanic Forest and back to hit us a second time, never had “sound wave” been such a relevant term to the experience which had bequeathed those fortunate enough to attend on Tuesday.

With the performance of Fulham Opera’s Siegfried it has killed the once famous reputation of Wagnerian Operas having physically repulsive beings to represent those who are supposed to be “Über-Attractive”. Never has this been more true than for the title role of Siegfried. The Royal Opera Performance which I went to in 2012 featured Stefan Vinke who physically is not an ideal Siegfried, I myself believed him to look somewhat like a 13^th century tavern keeper with his ample “beer-Belly”. This certainly can’t be said for Phillip Modinos a man who is so fitting for the title role of Siegfried, seemed like one of the very few operatic singers who is capable of pulling of the action which is required as part of the epic battle between Siegfried and Fafnir, so often in this opera do you see a pompously obese man waving a sword around like child playing with a kite, finally at last we have seen a Siegfried which looks believable holding a sword. To conclude Phillip Modinos was certainly deserving of all the “Bravo’s” which were bestowed towards him on that fine evening.  Though the whole cast is noticeable for their excellent performance.

Now I wish to speak on the negative parts of the production. That was the costume of Erda and the prop’s of the Ring and the ghastly Tarnhelm.  I question how Rhonda Browne was able to give one of the greatest and emotional performances of the night, which was rewarded with many “bravo’s”, looking like the Vicar of Dibley on a drunken toga themed Hen Night. That abysmal costume combined with the all-powerful Ring (which looked like it came from a fairy princess costume set) killed a very small part of me. Then I saw the Tarnhelm… A Beige Baseball cap with strange shiny balls placed onto it. Whoever was responsible for that idea needs to walk into his/her glass door at some speed multiple times, that is not a Helmet of any sort let alone the Tarnhelm, the helmet which has the power to turn one into a Dragon. Siegfried is a part of the “RING CYCLE” therefore there needs to be a ring worth fighting for. The All-powerful ring which was featured did not look like it had the power to rule the World, but rather possess the power to maybe rule my neighbours tree house.  

To conclude Fulham Opera did a fantastic performance of Siegfried which was worth my ticket price. The costume was generally good, I certainly enjoyed the Amish theme and that of Wotan's Eye, the work done by the cast, Ben Woodard and those two people on the instruments were fantastic. For goodness sake get yourselves a proper Ring and Tarnhelm. Opera is all about the spectacle, the pizzazz. When I go to an Opera I want to be taken out of this sluggish and extremely dull world and be transported into a new one. This performance of Siegfried did that up until after Fafner is slain and Siegfried is carrying these shattering excuses of the Ring and the Tarnhelm.