Halal Meat

More than a billion humans swear by the ritual slaughter of animals for consumption: a ritual once practiced by the awakened, now mimicked by the un-awakened. To examine this I need to address ritual per se. This I have done in my book, ‘Mischievous Mystic’.

Histrionics indicate that humans have a tendency to seek pedestal-like superiority, when in fact they are aiming for nobility. They confuse the two. As I state in my quotes, ‘superiority and nobility are two qualities and cannot mix; nor can a comparison be drawn between them.’

Thus, Hebrews, while living under yet aiming to escape their imprisonment from Egyptians, formulated their own creed to identify and separate themselves from the ruling citizens. Their containment lifestyle (with its rigid curtailment of self-determination) may be compared with African slavery and with the third class citizenship of non-Europeans plying their trade in European governed lands whilst retaining their own lifestyle.

Slavery, as practiced by the English in particular, and the Europeans in general, was extreme psychopathic hatred based on these peoples versions of rightness and Godliness. A dark-skinned Turk brought religious and spiritual specialty to the islands of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. He is revered as the saint of England. He, like that other very dark-skinned individual revered and addressed affectionately as Jesus of Nazareth, has over the course of time and numerous artful depictions been increasingly relieved of his indigenous tint to the point of now having Caucasian skin.

The slavery of the Old Age in the non-European arena was not based on a similar inhumane, barbaric relationship. Slaves were a sign of wealth. They were valued and prized. They were treated with respect though they remained citizen-less. The right of belonging including the right to buy land was denied them. They were denied all formal education. This did not mean their inner awakening was quashed, rescinded or controlled. Many an advanced theorist was a slave and gave his awakening to the surrounding world via his ‘owner’. The owner enjoyed the applause but it was the slave who supplied the information and the teaching. Slaves also knew they had power and if they chose to disobey en masse then the dominant society could not function. It was the hopelessness derived from lack of weapons that maintained the status quo. Thus, the status of Hebrews under the Egyptians is not in fact at all comparable to the African and Aboriginal slavery of the European era. One was predicated on human value and worth while the other was evil.

Older society revered life, whether animal or human. If an animal had to be sacrificed to appease the Gods then this was carried out following a strict set of rites and ritual prayers. Not just anyone could or would dare to kill an animal as done by current humans. The elders knew that life slaughtered for whatever reason had a price. The murderer has to take birth as that animal and live lifetimes in that social pool fearing predators and seeking prey for their own survival. It is a self-sustaining cycle from which the only way forward is to practice care and protection of others, especially of one’s prey. One then advances to their next life cycle as an herbivore, again fearing predators. From a herbivore one eventually rebirths as a domestic animal. Finally, after countless more births they advance into a human life cycle.

This cycle was, and is, well known to the awakened. They guide people away from meat consumption, as whoever eats meat has agreed to be born into that species for lifetimes. A top predator cannot take human birth at all. It must suffer the agony of being an herbivore and a victim until it has the opportunity to be born as a human.

Thus, sacrificing an animal, which in itself is a very potent, viral and powerful instrument of bargain, is an action that beseeches a calmer and more peaceful life pattern. It was only conducted by the very advanced seers of old society. No one in his or her right mind would kill or ‘sacrifice’ an animal whilst knowing the ramifications of such a deed.

The actual theory of sacrifice is very complex, and a set of responsibilities has to be accepted by the killer. Prayers are offered where you, the killer, are sacrificing yourself and are willing to be born into the species you are about to sacrifice, as an appeasement. The Hebrew sacrifice followed this model. However, ritual killing has now transformed into a commercial enterprise.

Moslims – to be accurate about this they were not called Moslim at that time, but were a caravan community willing to merge into any ritual model that favoured their circumstances and trade; but let’s stick with addressing them as Moslims, to give them their original English spelling. Moslims mimicked the cultivated-but-not-indigenous practices Hebrews brought with them out of Egypt. As in any first world country (I address non-industrial, non-technical countries as First World and technological/industrial countries as Third World countries), Moslims were intrigued and willingly followed and mimicked anything the technological country had to offer. For example, I as a Sikh visiting such environments am studied to ascertain what can be mimicked, which they term in their minds as ‘progression’. So, Moslims mimicked the new settlers, the Jews, as those new settlers had lived their life in the very advanced, cultured society called Egypt. Egypt, we have to remember, was the ethno-cultural centre of the surrounding area. Caravan communities looked up to anything Egyptian. Thus, when a rite/ritual conducted under strict guidelines was used in tandem with solemn prayer by the most awakened within the New Settler community, the Caravan community took that as a new teaching. They, in turn, passed on this new practice during their travels. The ritual of a slow slaughter was deemed sophisticated and advanced.

However, the slaughter of an animal was rare practice. It was an offering. A trade-off, whereby I, the killer of this animal, am sacrificing myself into this animal’s life-line and accept that this animal takes birth as a human in my place. Humans in those times would seldom eat animals and if they did then they would eat a naturally dead animal. No human wanted to be born as a non-human animal.

If the Moslims of today have an ounce of self-worth and common-sense, they would jettison their mimicry of the (adopted but not native) tradition of a society and culture which they are hell-bent on removing from Palestine.

But rigidity is rigidity. Shallowness is shallowness. And ignorance is bliss.

And so, I like my predecessors am a note on a flute, drowned by the hurricane of arrogance encased in ignorance. What I say will be ignored. And humans will kill not only animals but humans, and they will destroy this planet we all call home.

Genderocide

The recent debate (January 2014) in the UK press sensationalizing abortion within ‘certain cultures’ is part and parcel of the time-honoured debate flagged up every decade.

The rights and wrongs of the matter I intend to leave as a matter of private discussion between consenting adults in conjunction with the views of their extended families.

But someone has to be blamed for the debacle.

The fault lies fairly and squarely with the male-dominated, female-supported, rites and ritual brigade. Look around you and point to one world religious body dominated by women, run by women, for the female mentality and psyche. Not a single one exists. In each of these self-applauding vestiges of God, we find men running the show, declaring that ‘abstinence’ is Godliness. Yeh right. What next, hidden away from prying eyes, self-pleasure, conducted hidden in closets off the cloisters is a private matter, which that voyeur God only enjoys watching? And how about defecating? Is that not impurity of a God state they claim to uphold? Why is passing urine and defecating an acceptable Godly performance, but self-pleasure, which is equally an emotional-neuro-chemically urge ungodly?

Globally, the problem of gender-selective abortions is a male problem and a male problem alone.

If technology has moved forward enough for gender selection at birth to take place, then what precisely is wrong with that? After all, cyber-organs and limbs are already a reality. Why is a cyber-limb an acceptable possibility yet the same advance in technology bringing us closer to gender selection is somehow ‘the Devil in practice’. Hypocrites.

If families, in ‘certain cultures’ want sons only, then let them have only sons, (and this used to be equally true for the European race too, where every advantage was sought to ensure one had a son over a daughter). Let them spend their hard-earned money creating a biased environment whereby they only have sons. Fantastic. This way another of the global red-herrings will have to gain respect too: male homosexuality. After all, given the dearth of women, these men will have to realign their sexual needs and find comfort in the arms of other men. An instance where a pain in the rear becomes a welcoming passing pleasure dome… two birds, one stone…no?

After all, it has been all those caped crusaders in their ornate magnificent headquarters of holier-than-holy faith shines of ‘spiritual enclaves’ who have masterminded this holier-than-thou ‘male-only God pleasing wonderment’ where only men are allowed entry and ‘women the unclean’ remain outsiders. Wow, what a reality, and not a warped mind in sight.

Which begs the question: why is God not openly decreed gay? After all, let’s face it, it is only socially inept men, the old farts with their barrel bellies who are ‘advanced’ enough to enter heaven. Sod women (Devils advocate here)…if the men from these enclaves had a chance liaison with a woman just what are the chances that they may be inclined to do with her that which they do behind closed doors among themselves…but the point is that women, according to this configuration, will never enter heaven.

And yet without women, these pious privies to Godliness would never take birth. So what does that make women? Devil’s creation of course.

Fits in well, this argument does, with the deluded ‘men-only God-Club’.

So, now the men in our morally high-handed religious establishment who are against abortions, but deem that heaven is a men-only club, are being total hypocrites in declaring abortion as against the will of God.

What bloody God?

And this God, where is this elusive symphony serial plagiarizer of the very tenants of muggery, who has declared, and that too only to the high-brow religious elite, that abortion is against His will. Mass killing of other animal species, and of other humans in the name of one type of God who speaks through this other flock, in a different language, in tandem with a different rite, is somehow an acceptable activity, but heaven help us when abortion is mentioned?

Of course, the holier-than-thou educated, right-wing brigade wheel out the tried and tested argument: the embryo has no choice, it is defenseless. As if the massacre of humans already existing in the world is innocent! Why? Because these humans defecate outside a womb?

The whole argument is led and conducted by the type of individuals who claim they recently participated in an orgy, but when asked for greater details, admit that they masturbated with their other hand for a change.

If that meat meal on your western table is an acceptable ‘murder’ that you eat, when all along you have a vast array of non-animal food to eat, then what is wrong with the selective murder of an embryo if the gender does not fit the family’s bill?

The crass beauty of the western attitude to speak through its backside, on each and every subject, as if it is the only reality, is as stupid as saying that an orgasm is a standard experience. No doubt, one day the white-coat-wearing idiots from the scientific world will define for the rest of the motley crew what passes for a standard orgasm…only for it to be changed a few ‘scientific studies’ later.

Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that ‘other cultures’ work as a collective unit of decision-making. From buying casual items of furniture to the bigger questions, each and every family member is consulted. But once again, I am speaking at cross purposes. Let’s clarify the basic ground rules first.

In the west, you have ‘me’ and ‘mine’. Where ‘me’ is you and ‘mine’ is your partner. The ‘me’ precludes kids. They are an extra add-on. Then comes the rest of the family. The ‘other culture’ view is where ‘me’ means partner, kids, parents, siblings and their kids, from both sides. Thus, the ‘me’ of the other culture is way more complicated than the ‘me’ of the race European thought.

In the other culture, seldom is anything done without input from the collective ‘me’: from furnishing and clothing, to schooling, careers and marriages. Thus, the combined collective can appear as a pressure cooker system from the outside, and yet when you ask those who are ostracised from such a collective they all would welcome a return to it. The collective is enormously supporting. Which means, rank antagonistic individuality cannot function in such a set up, leading such a person to announce to the outsider that life within the collective is harsh and choiceless. Yes, the collective can only function if all concerned co-operate and co-drive its mechanism. But to claim that the collective is an absolutist and draconian state is not true.

What is true, and I will state this until I go blue in the face, is that the collective does not appeal to all. It, like any mechanism, has individuals who cannot function for whatever period of time within the mindscape of the collective. And all collectives have different degrees of what passes for normal. Guys, we are humans, and thus we are organic. We have not all succumbed, as yet, to becoming clones of the State with chips in our heads to control our thoughts and expectations. Thus, as organic beings we are going to be different. That difference is accommodated in the collective.

If, within a collective, all that is desired is male offspring, then let them have this. One day those sons will scour the earth seeking a female from their own cultural norm, and guess what? They will not find enough females to support their particular morality and cultural practice. Their collective, as has happened in the past and will do so again in the future, will automatically die out.

The world I come from accepts, as a first truth, that it is women whom men cannot be born nor survive without, and not the other way around.

Guys, pressures within the collective cannot be examined as if the ethos of its inclusive culture is identical to the so-called individual of the western world. And in any case, where is this western individual who functions as an independent individual at any given time? Each and every western individual has to cooperate within the set regime of the state collective. In old age, it is the state collective that looks after the individual. Even from finding a partner to birthing a child, the western individual is interwoven with a collective. The collective is the state collective. So, explain to me what is the advantage of the clinical and uncaring state collective as opposed to the collective of the ‘other culture’?

There are no easy choices in this debate. But if fault exists then it lies in the enclaves of those holier-than-thou emissaries of the men-only God clubs where male gay sex is practiced, but women via whom these very hypocrites took birth are somehow undesirable.

Shame on you.

For it is you, with your frosty religiosity who states that woman was made from the rib of a man, or indeed that woman is the undersole of a man’s footwear, and that beating a wife is a man’s right. Why then take the moral high road when a female embryo is terminated, and blame the entire shite on the syndrome of ‘other cultural’.

You, the elite kite flyers from the religious fraternity, are to be blamed for this misogyny. Now, pat yourselves on your back and rightly claim in the murder of a female embryo that you have done a Godly deed. Brownie, nay blood, points you have indeed earned, please collect as you pass Go.