'Night Flight reprise', from the self-produced album, Blue Jazz.
composed, produced, by, ed

edsbackalleyband - 'The Gloom'



music composed by, ed








The Indian Cure for Cancer




The problem with western medicine is much like the western mindset - set in western ways.  These people spent a few hundred years robbing countries across the world off their wealth for capitalist, and to some extent, popular gain, and at the same time placed their corporation at the helm of development in all respects.  The problem with that is that they are led by big corporations who find cures on the basis of what is most profitable, or footdrag their way through the search for cures so that profits from existing 'treatments' can be squeezed out for longer.

So, whilst we need western medicine, we also need to complement it with non-western alternatives to make the former more effective, or perhaps to do without it altogether.

all this so-called 'research' into cancer, cures for HIV, etc, etc, are funded by, or used to subsidise, big pharmaceutical companies who don't want cures for anything unless it translates to huge bucks. 


Don't forget, all these so-called 'research' into cancer, cures for HIV, etc, etc, are funded by, or used to subsidise, big pharmaceutical companies who don't want cures for anything unless it translates to huge bucks.  And as westerners are generally ignorant and tend to ignore, or demonise, anything of non-western origins, all their charities also tend to ignore non-western alternatives. 


That is when people like us have to step in to teach these poor white folk some commonsense.  I say 'commonsense' because commonsense, logically, is a function, or product, of knowing what is the right thing to do AFTER we have considered ALL available alternatives.  In that sense, the average westerner, who is pretty much ignorant about all other ways, isn't going to have much commonsense - quite like the chinese and americans as well.  And if we keep just following their lead, we are going to discard our culturally and historically induced knowledge and be left only with that which catches the white man's eye.  The pool of human imaginative, creative, and intellectual knowledge is greatly reduced because of it.  Music, the arts, intellectual perspectives, etc, etc, etc, will all be severely compromised and degenerate as it already is in the process of.

Getting back on topic, it has been found that countries where people consume about 200mg of turmeric a day have lower incidence of quite a few types of cancers including lung cancer (1 teaspoon of turmeric is equals to 5000mg.  India is a case in point.  There was one case of a Vicky Stewart of Britain who used turmeric to cure herself of stage 4 cancer.  But you don't hear about much research being done about it in the UK after that.  Why?  Well, i've explained that already above.

Instead of talking about having your traditional '5-a-day' which includes fruits and veg, perhaps they should consider how a simple teaspoon of turmeric might count as an additional 5-a-day all by itself.

But they aren't focusing on that because their idea of '5-a-day' is limited to what they are accustomed to eating instead of what is available to eat even it it isn't their custom to do so.


I'm not saying that eating Indian food, or turmeric is going to guarantee that one doesn't get cancer.  What i'm saying is that the overall proportion of people getting it is going to reduce.  Given that Britain has a cancer epidemic where 1 in 3 people get it, they should get their heads out of their sunday roast ovens and into some good Indian cookery books.  

Instead of talking about having your traditional '5-a-day' which includes fruits and veg, perhaps they should consider how a simple teaspoon of turmeric might count as an additional 5-a-day all by itself.  But they aren't focusing on that because their idea of '5-a-day' is limited to what they are accustomed to eating instead of what is available to eat even it it isn't their custom to do so. 

Anyway, when it comes to food, i prefer Indian food (I also like African food as well), with its rich spices and flavours - minus the negative stuff that indians tend to put in like too much salt and fatty oils like 'Ghee'.   If western food, amongst others, is 'as good as sex', then Indian food is like a prolonged orgasm.  You can quote the ed meister on that.

When i eat western or chinese food, it keeps me alive.  But when it comes to Indian food, as the sweat rolls down my shaven head, i FEEL alive. Well, it looks like Indian food might also increase your chances of being alive as well.  That said, i do borrow ideas from Chinese and Western cuisine as well, like spring onions, black pepper, herbs, amongst others.



ed






eds backalleyband - Taxi



composed, produced, by ed





eds backalleyband - An Ole Ghost Story



composed, produced, by ed






What will mobile phones in the future look like?




It will probably be like a Bluetooth headset with a phone built in. You just speak into it to tell it who to call, and be told who is calling whenever you receive a call.

Maybe solar powered, or powered by electrical impulses of the body. Right now we have watches, etc, that can read the electrical signals of the body, so they might find a way to harness this energy source. Something like how humans are used as batteries in the Matrix.

*

On another note, when it comes to 'powering the system' as in The Matrix, people are already being used as batteries by the capitalist corporations as advertising, films, other social media, the tablet - which is basically a mass consumer-device designed to generate profit and reduce thought - is already determining people's every move and impulse for the purpose of maintaining elite control and economic ascendency.  How else do you think Facebook, amongst others, can be worth as much as it is?

Human volition is now centrally located outside of your immediate physical vicinity. 

So the Matrix is here. 



ed





Singaporeans upset about Indonesian naming ships after their ‘heroes’? Why?



Indonesian military officers have pulled out of a Singapore aerospace show amid a row over the controversial naming of a naval warship.

Indonesia angered its neighbour by naming the new ship after two marines who carried out a bombing which killed three people in Singapore in 1965.

Singapore's second minister for defence said he was "disappointed" with Indonesia's naming decision.
Jakarta defended the move saying it was customary to name vessels after heroes.
- bbc


In conversation,


Ed: I don't see what the fuss is about. The chinese fascist government of singapore had no problem erecting a statue of mass-murdering chinese premiere, Deng Xiao Ping in singapore.

And anyway, the attack was on Malaysia, not singapore - as singapore was a part of Malaysia then. So this issue is actually a non-issue. The singapore government is just trying to flex its paltry muscles regionally. Silly fellas.


Kelvin Leong: while I may not agree 100% with the way my government handled the fall out and disagreement with Indonesia over this incident, I find your sense of history and logic in need of some review.

You are saying that because Singapore was part of Malaysia when the war against Indonesia happened, therefore Singaporeans have no right to be angry at the bombing carried out in our city against civilians during that war? Let's say that Argentina and the UK declare war on each other, and Argentina sends soldiers to infiltrate the streets of London and bomb a shopping mall. Can I say that because England is part of the United Kingdom, and because the war with Argentina is with the UK and not England, therefore the English people and London as well have no right to be angry?

Let's say that Argentina and the UK declare war on each other, and Argentina sends soldiers to infiltrate the streets of London and bomb a shopping mall. Can I say that because England is part of the United Kingdom, and because the war with Argentina is with the UK and not England, therefore the English people and London as well have no right to be angry?

Furthermore, are you aware that this particular bombing incident in Singapore was not a military engagement between the respective soldiers of both warring sides, but that the Indonesian marines infiltrated Singapore disguised as civilians to kill our civilians? This is clearly an act of state sponsored terrorism, the hurt still lingering in the relatives of the dead victims. I find it shocking that you think this crime is a non-issue.

Regarding your point about China. I am not a fan of the Chinese government and in fact, I am a staunch critic because I read alot about Chinese history and I am aware of the atrocities committed during the Cultural Revolution. But to describe Deng Xiaoping as a mass murderer is grossly inaccurate. Most of the mass murder happened during Mao Zedong's era, and even Deng himself was a victim, his own son losing both his legs escaping from Mao's red guards. But Deng would rise back to power after Mao's death and reverse the damages inflicted by Mao on China.

I don't agree with everything that Deng did, nor do I admire him. But I can understand why he is so respected by many ethnic Chinese around the world because he dared to reverse what Mao implemented and even openly criticize his flawed policies. In fact, he is largely responsible for the opening up of China and its subsequent prosperity. Your view of him needs to be more fair and just.



Ed: Sure Kelvin, singaporeans can get angry about it, but they can only get angry about it as malaysians.

Your logic about Argentina and the UK is flawed and completely irrelevant. If the English got angry, it would make sense, because they are being attacked themselves, and they are the centre of authority for the UK.

Singapore is taking up this issue as an INDEPENDENT state at present where they were just a part of another state when they were attacked during the confrontation.  Hence, there is no logical reason why they should be taking it personally now.  This is just an effort to nationalistically rally the people around singapore by making an issue where there is none.

Singapore is taking up this issue as an INDEPENDENT state at present where they were just a part of another state when they were attacked during the confrontation.  Hence, there is no logical reason why they should be taking it personally now.  This is just an effort to nationalistically rally the people around singapore by making an issue where there is none.  By the way, i'm not saying that what Indonesia did with the 'confrontation' or the bombing was right.  In fact, i think it wrong.  However, the issue here is whether singapore should take it personally.

As for 'terrorism', according to your definition, the resistance movement against apartheid in South Africa, or the Nazis, would be considered 'terrorists' as well. I'd be careful in bandying about the 'T' word with reference to those who don civilian outfits and attack civilians as that frequently allows states to commit greater evil with or without military outfits on civilians and otherwise - as the u.s. has done time and again.

So Deng isn't a mass-murderer because he didn't kill as many as Mao. You're joking right.

According to your logic, Hitler should be respected for his being able to address the humiliation Germany suffered after the treaty of Versailles and one should be 'fair and just' and not make a fuss over the millions of Jews he killed.

As for his 'opening up of China' and subsequent 'prosperity', all this is about is opening up local labour for foreign exploitation.

You are probably one of those who thinks that the ends justifies the means. I think your Lee Kuan Yew thought similarly in his praises for Deng's Tiananmen massacre, which to you isn't a big problem because it isn't as bad as Mao.


Kelvin Leong: you completely miss the point when you said that England is the center of authority , therefore granting them the right to feel angry about a war against a wider UK. Suppose the act of terrorism by Argentina happened not in England but in a shopping mall in Wales or Scotland, does that mean that when a Welsh or Scottish becomes angry at Argentina for the particular bombing incident in their hometown, they are wrong to do so because only England and the UK have the right to tell them when to be angry?

Are you also saying that the relatives of the victims have no right to be angry because they are technically Singaporeans now and no longer Malaysians? What kind of logic is that?

Singapore was part of another state when the war happened, that much is true and although many of our own troops were brutally killed while fighting the Indonesians in present day Malaysia territory, Singaporeans do not complain because ultimately those were acts of war between two powers.

What we are angry at however, is that the bombing act was carried out as a despicable act targeted against innocent civilian Singaporeans who had nothing to do with the conflict directly. Your examples of Nelson Mandela is flawed and cannot be compared to exonerate Indonesia's act of terrorism. Tell me, did Mandela ever kill any innocent white civilian at all?

What we are angry at however, is that the bombing act was carried out as a despicable act targeted against innocent civilian Singaporeans who had nothing to do with the conflict directly. Your examples of Nelson Mandela is flawed and cannot be compared to exonerate Indonesia's act of terrorism. Tell me, did Mandela ever kill any innocent white civilian at all?

And another difference between Mandela and Indonesia is that while the former was then an oppressed group fighting to free South Africa from Apartheid, Indonesia was then the dominant military power and the largest country in Southeast Asia trying to oppress Malaysia and Brunei into becoming part of its empire which we were then very unwilling to. To achieve its aims, Indonesia was then prepared to wage war as well as conduct terrorist acts to scare us into submission. How can you compare a large bully with a people's hero like Mandela?

Regarding Deng Xiaoping, believe me when I said I am a staunch critic of him and I did say I do not agree with many of what he did. But I cannot deny the fact that he was the key figure who reversed the destruction by Mao and made China a powerful country.

Using Hitler as an example to imply that I support him is an extreme and illogical twist. While Deng's crackdown on Chinese students during the Tiananmen remains a regrettable incident, one which I am a strong critic of, I do not think it is fair to compare him next to Hitler simply because of the scale in which damage was done in both cases. You take a condemned mass murderer who killed millions of Jews to compare alongside with Deng's killing of a thousand students; this cannot be said to be a fair assessment of Deng.

Furthermore, while Hitler is remembered for bringing about much hardship to the German people in the form of endless wars and eventual ruins, Deng is remembered by the vast majority of Chinese for saving them from economic ruins and vastly improving their standard of living. Who are you to tell the Chinese people that they should not feel grateful to Deng?

You seem to demand perfection for every leader. But none of the great leaders in history have ever been able to avoid committing any wrong doing. Which is why we need to take a more objective and fair review of each leader in the context of history. It is unjust to zoom in on Deng's Tiananmen incident alone to justify that he is on par with one of the greatest mass murderer in history; that is a myopic and unscholarly, even childish view point.


Ed: If the bombing took place in Scotland, and Scotland was a part of the UK. Then the Scottish can be angry about it though not take it personally unless they identify with the UK as a whole. But if they become an independent nation thereafter, then they can't take it personally.

Putting it simply, If i was part of a gang and get shot because of gang warfare, then i wouldn't take it personally. And if i was to leave the gang thereafter, and see the guys who shot me, i'd appreciate the fact that they did so because of my membership of the gang previously. That is only logical.

In answer to your question. Yes, Mandela did kill white civilians. He was part of 'UmKhonto we Sizwe', or 'Spear of the Nation' which was the armed militant wing of the African National Congress.

In relation, i am not comparing Mandela's anti-Apartheid movement with Indonesia.  The focus was on the idea of terrorism.  You stated that because they were targeting civilians and were dressed like civilians, they were terrorists.  Hence, the example of Mandela or the resistence movement against the Nazis becomes relevant.  Make up your mind.  Are you talking about the tactics that makes terrorism 'terrorism', or who has the right to be a terrorist on the basis of their fighting a bully.  You seem to swing from one to the other.

As for civilians, logically, there is no real distinction between civilians, and the military and government in a political democracy.  To make such distinctions only serves to enable their elected government do as they please, and for the government to use said civilians as a shield of purported innocence in the face of retaliation.

As for civilians, logically, there is no real distinction between civilians, and the military and government in a political democracy.  To make such distinctions only serves to enable their elected government do as they please, and for the government to use said civilians as a shield of purported innocence in the face of retaliation.  'Civilians' need to get more responsible and ensure that their governments are their representatives and not as an excuse to profit from what the government does whilst disclaiming any responsibility for their actions.  If you want to talk about 'terrorism', a good example of terrorism is when America tossed 2 atomic bombs on the Japanese at a time when there was no political democracy there.  Those civilians have a greater claim to being 'innocent'.  Logically speaking that is.

As for 'terrorism', i don't bother with terms such as those.  America has killed civilians in many regions via embargoes if not 'terrorists' dressed as civilians.  So they, along with other western states, have sought to define 'terror' and 'terrorism' in ways that basically excludes the means by which they do worse than what 'terrorists' do in civies.

I'm not comparing Deng to Hitler. Hitler was used as an analogy, and hence, the point about who was the greater evil is irrelevant.

I don't demand perfection from leaders. I demand that people don't discount their imperfections because of their achievements, especially if the former has evil consequences. Other than that, what they do in their private lives is their business.

if singaporeans want to be pissed off about this because there isn't anything good on the telly, i'd suggest they go re-merger with Malaysia and then they can get their knickers in a twist over it.....as Malaysians. 

The chinese people can be 'grateful' to Deng if they want. But that just shows that they aren't very bright or humanely conscious - which they aren't given the millennia old oppressive circumstances they have been taught to accept as the norm. The point about 'who am i to say they shouldn't' is silly. It is only reason that matters.

People like you are scary. You actually think that it is alright to kill thousands of people to maintain your own power so long as you can deliver wealth to the people. Typically chinese that.  I wonder how you'd feel if it is your child, your mum, and dad, whom were run over by the tanks.

Thanks to people like you, it is no wonder both china and singapore has governments that piss on human rights and buy their way out by delivering some wealth to the majority despite the evils minorities have to suffer. Singapore's racist 'ethnic/cultural cleansing' via pro-chinese policies against the non-chinese is a good case in point.

As for this issue, considering the influx of new foreigners into singapore, and the granting of citizenship to many - particularly those of Chinese origin - i suppose that this issue has been stoked so as to instill in these new foreigners and locals (old foreigners, except the Malays whom are the natives) a sense of patriotic 'oneness'.  The elite always tend to use such situations to bring about such nationalistic unity every now and then.  And it seems especially the case at a time when the government feels the need to create unity between said new foreigners and locals.  What better way to strengthen the 'us' than to do so in the face of an annoying other right.

However, if singaporeans want to be pissed off about this because there isn't anything good on the telly, i'd suggest they go re-merger with Malaysia and then they can get their knickers in a twist over it.....as Malaysians. 




ed




How Racism begat Anti-Communism in America.....thoughts




The american, or white american, fear and hatred of communism during the McCarthy era (see video below) was significantly founded on the coinciding fear and hatred of 'niggers' and anyone who challenged the white supremacism of white americans. 

Communism was all about equality and caring for the disadvantaged as much as the advantaged and ensuring that not only do people have the freedom of opportunity, but the opportunity to access the resources required to enjoy that freedom.  



For the whites to consider communism was akin to relinquishing their dominance over the non-whites, which, in turn, was how the whites contended with exploitation by the elite themselves.


However, as many white americans were already well-versed in the art of racist discrimination, given their record of killing the natives and shuffling those that remained into reservations; confining Mexicans to Barios; and enslaving the blacks or treating them as 2nd class citizens, it was only natural that they would baulk in the face of an ideology that extolled the universal brother and sisterhood of all people.  For the whites to consider communism was akin to relinquishing their dominance over the non-whites, which, in turn, was how they contended with exploitation by the elite themselves.  This made capitalism more palatable, but finally delivered just about all of them, regardless of colour, on a plate.

So when you see americans deriding communism in their movies, or condemning people as ‘commies’, you can appreciate that this revulsion has its antecedents in their allegiance to white supremacy and class exploitation.  And you can begin to understand why America still plays the fascist in its relationship with other states globally; why they dropped 2 atom bombs on the Japanese; why they were appalled at being attacked on 11/9 whilst not flinching at having killed close to half a million children in Iraq through embargoes in the decade preceding 11/9.  Class dominance, racism, and fascism makes up the unholy trinity that governs the american mind and the vaunted 'American Way'.

Class dominance, racism, and fascism makes up the unholy trinity that governs the american mind and the vaunted 'American Way'.

However, the white americans just played into the hands of the bourgeois elite by being forced to accept class exploitation so that they could maintain their supremacy over the non-whites.  Or one could say that being accustomed to discriminating and exploiting the blacks, natives, Mexicans, chinese, amongst others, they were morally disabled from taking issue with the capitalists.


In time, the whites were made to accept the 'coloureds' and others, and learnt to express their trained penchant for a system of class exploitation through a class system regardless of race, colour, creed and gender. But the class system remained, and remains.



Well, they finally got themselves a black president, but only because he supports, like almost all americans, the exploitation of wo/man by wo/man. In that sense, this 'nigger' has become a 'house nigger'.  And communism has been relegated to undesirable history because the current system worked in accommodating equality between the races, albeit not equality per se.



ed









Winter Olympics Gay Propaganda Ban. Good.




“Russian President Vladimir Putin has said homosexuals will be welcome in Sochi for the Olympics but warned them against spreading "gay propaganda".

Gay rights campaigners around the world have called for a boycott of the Winter Olympics in protest at Russia's controversial new legislation, which was passed in June.” - bbc

Ah good.  



Not that Putin standpoint is good in itself, but its good to see such opposition to what is promoted as the acceptable norm in the west so as to provoke the rest of us into taking a step back from accepting everything that the west says is ok.

...the rest of the world just mindlessly adopting the western view of things, reduces the intellectual, aesthetic, and perspectival ocean of humanity to nothing but a drip from the incontinent loins of the west, 'gay' or otherwise.

I wouldn't fully trust anyone who speaks from one point of view without the consideration of others.  The west might consider the perspectives of their own people, but they've never considered the perspectives borne of the cultures of the rest of the world.  And given their assumed cultural ascendancy with their success in subjugating the rest of the world through colonialism and getting everyone to join in with their nationalistic, capitalistic view of things, their approach in many things can now be seen as one-sided, arrogant, and plausibly fascist. 

Their celeb-worship, heathenism, hedonism, their vulgar and shallow pop culture, their media, their increasingly asinine sit-coms and films (especially america and britain), Hollywood, et cetera, et cetera, and the rest of the world just mindlessly adopting the western view of things, reduces the intellectual, aesthetic, and perspectival ocean of humanity to nothing but a drip from the incontinent loins of the west, 'gay' or otherwise.

The west can be right some of the time, but it is important to remember that they can be wrong some of the time as well.  But in order to discern one from the other, we need to take on board perspectives from all cultures, and purposed for the detection what’s right, as opposed to what’s familiar to the people who’ve grown in accordance with what they are accustomed to regionally rather than what is available globally.

...the recognition of a right does not have to be paired with the recognition that it is natural or normal, however pervasive.  That doesn’t make me a ‘homophone’.  That makes me objective.

And this is more so the case given the west's self-centredness, and the rest of the world just abiding by their cultural and perspectival dictates instead of considering how their own non-western perspectives might enrich, refine or even justify the rejection of that which appeals to the appetites of their ethnocentric and inward-looking counterparts in the west.

As for this homosexual thing.  I’m not going to deny anyone the right of doing unto their same-sex neighbour that which is traditionally done between opposite sexes.  But the recognition of a right does not have to be paired with the recognition that it is natural or normal, however pervasive.  That doesn’t make me a ‘homophone’.  That makes me objective.


ed




Bob James, 'Angela'. Theme from 'Taxi' The Rat Pack - Dean, Sammy, and Sinatra

Recent Articles Recent Comments
Blogger Template by Clairvo