Why is Sunny Hundal a Neo-Con Lickspittle? 222

Sunny Hundal is pulling the Nick Cohen trick of claiming that “Lefties” who fail to applaud every action of Bush, Blair, Netanyahu and Obomber are actually supporting Osama Bin Laden’s cause.

The Taliban is an excrescence but it is not a spontaneous outpuring of human evil. Its roots lie in the devastation of Afghanistan by foreign invasion, first by the Soviets and then by the Americans, coupled with the failings of Pakistani society due in very large part to hideously corrupt governments and politically powerful military, aided and abetted by the West. The Taliban is, in short, as much a symptom as a cause of disaster.

Hundal is a sad figure. He asked me to join Liberal Conspiracy when it started, and I refused on the grounds it was going to be a vehicle for New Labour war criminals. It has become precisely that. Hundal’s basic decency has predictably been eroded as he was sucked in by the neo-con establishment. He joined New Labour and the Guardian and is now in the states working for the drone-killer President who has launched a campaign against free speech which has seen the prosecution of more whistleblowers under Obama than under all previous US presidents combined. Hundal recently helped the anti-whistleblower cause further by publishing a fawning “exclusive” interview with the odious Harriet Harman (Of course it’s exclusive – who the fuck other than sell-out Hundal wants to talk to Harman) repeatedly labeling Julian Assange as guilty of rape.

Hundal’s question “Why do lefties keep ignoring the threat of the taliban to Pakistanis” is a stupid slur. “Why is Sunny Hundal a neo-con lickspittle?” is a question worth discussion.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

222 thoughts on “Why is Sunny Hundal a Neo-Con Lickspittle?

1 6 7 8
  • nevermind

    Watched the video and the subset of the subset of the subset, the pay pal message afterwards, full of love and far from fearful…
    If chaos is not really chaos, but ordered disarray, and this ball of energy comes from nothing else as out of the a…hole/from underneath the armpit/ of another conscious level, quiet possibly that of two mice, then what on earth are we going to make of that?

    The answer to the question why? is because! The universe did exist, but nor in the form as it is apparent to us. Energy, as both of them agree, is a state of excitement that include multiple factors, energy cannot exist without interaction, as far as we know.

    hence, to finish this hypothetical debate about a hypotropic universe, consciously expanding forever….

    Or is it?
    Personally, I believe that the current expansion, from an exploding energy source, without a previous attraction, leading to the energy state in the first place, is highly unlikely.

    The universal theory is incomplete, but with the physical and conscientious understanding we developed so far, a pre big bang attraction is far more plausible. That it is not audible, no trace of it left, overwritten by the expanding energies, is also plausible.

    Sunny Hundal should be honoured to have this discussion here, when we should be baying at the spineless creature.

    shall watch part two when i’ve had more time for contemplation of, I found quiet normal, not at all ground breaking information.

  • nevermind

    And to get you really going, the universe is situated in the bottom left ventricle of a lung, currently expanding with the air being drawn in. As time does not matter in this simulation, in 500 million years, it will exhale and the universe will shrink and shrink and shrink.

    All that is bad will concentrate at the upper end a small ball of energy/flam will form and with a big rasp emerge from deep below before the lung breathes in again.

    It belongs to whatever you want it to belong to, a turtle is fine by me, but a frog is even better, more visual….

    Hope that cheered you all up.

  • Sunflower

    @Princess 🙂

    “The answer to the question why?”

    Dr. Campell suggests the universe is a virtual reality manifestation for us (small consciousness) by the big Consciousness to learn and develop love. Makes sense to me and coincides with the Vedic version.

    Incidentally, the Vedas describes the material manifestation (multiple universes) as emanating out of the pores of Maha-Vishnu as he exhales, existing for the duration of one breath and then when He inhales they are again withdrawn.

    Love is the Key.

  • thatcrab

    Those bogeyman bashing, true world order intuiting, virtual visionaries of transderivational torus talk and unmarkable quasisense -sure do keep regularing spamming this news source with preposterous and completely off-topic Bollocks.

  • Clark

    Half an hour into Bruce Lipton and Tom Campbell – Part ONE

    (Range = 0 to 1)

    Science: 0.05
    Feel-good New Agery: 0.95

    Warning: high in fat and sugar; habit-forming. Appeals to personal ego.

  • Scouse Billy

    Clark, I believe I said it might be wise to look up and have a grasp of their work first.

  • Clark

    OK, I’ve watched Part ONE.

    Early in the video, Tom Campbell seems to be trying to express some ideas which may be similar to some of my own, encountered through reflection upon quantum physics and relativity, and upon my own experience. But these things are very difficult to describe without being outrageously misleading.

    However, Campbell seems quite eager to be misleading. He makes outrageous claims about quantum physics and relativity being deducible from the assumption that consciousness is primary. I’m essentially certain that this is false; I’d have to see his working to change my opinion, and if such existed it would be all over the scientific literature; “new derivation of fundamental physics from first principles”. Nah, hasn’t happened. As for his claims about reality being “virtual”. Oh aye. Then, like many a charlatan, he suggests that his home-made religion offers a pathway to personal immortality. I object to this. Our actions have consequences, and this sort of mumbo-jumbo can be used by morally immature people to justify amoral and immoral behaviour, exhortations about “love” notwithstanding.

    Regarding Bruce Lipton; I recognise the advances in cell biology he is referring to, and yes, there was ground-breaking work that launched cell biology into new areas of scientific exploration. I very much doubt that those breakthroughs were primarily or even mostly attributable to Lipton. As soon as he gets to biological receptors being “antennae”, he launches off into wild and inaccurate speculation, never to return.

    The bit about “being in love” and “creating Heaven on Earth” is embarrassing. The urge to mate is one of the strongest biological drives we ever experience. This biologically generated ecstasy, the event in which our conscious decision making is most compromised by physical determinism, is being hawked as high spirituality. Sorry, this is out of order; vast swathes of humanity have inadequate access to contraception, and this recipe is likely to generate suffering far in excess of the initial pleasure.

    The stuff about emotions is immature and ill considered. It shows no understanding of the realities of living in environments that are less rich, comfortable and regulated than we take for granted.

    Sunflower and Scouse Billy, I consider it irresponsible of you to promote this stuff. It is the sort of thing that is very appealing to people like us of the rich minority, surrounded by our secure, comfortable life-styles that depend upon exploitation of a majority of the population of Earth. It is a luxury, the junk-food of thought.

    As for Lipton and Campbell, it looks to me like they’re trying to escape the demanding world of scientific discipline and get instead into the easy and highly paid Hippy-dippy lecture circuit. As Ingo pointed out, “PayPal, please click here”. For what service rendered, I ask myself? I’d much rather give some money to a street busker, who at least has to practice a skill.

  • Clark

    Scouse Billy and Sunflower, Thatcrab is right. The pseudoscience is spam, and if you post any more of it I’m going to delete it as off-topic.

    Tell you what, I’ll re-open comments on the Leave of Absence thread, and you can get on with it there. I might even join in occasionally. Is that a good compromise? I think that would probably be best. I’ll re-open comments, and look for your replies there. Comments there will close again automatically if no one posts for three days.

  • glenn

    [Mod/Clark: This comment has been moved to the Leave of Absence thread.

    MODERATION NOTICE: Please Post All Further Comments on the subject of alternative science / Universal Consciousness to the Leave of Absence Thread.

    A link is provided above.]

1 6 7 8

Comments are closed.