Let there be light....

Part One

Energy is infinite. It is only as it 'descends', taking on the guise of gross material form, that it appears otherwise. Here, in its material form, it presents as apparently discrete separate entities, like trees, animals, tables, human beings. It is here that it undergoes that process referred to in Buddhism as birth, old age, sickness, and death. Or communicated more mythologically in Hinduism by its three great gods of creation (Brahma), preservation(Vishnu) and destruction(Shiva). It is here, in our gross material forms, that we experience the illusion of energy shortage.

Imagine if I were able to somehow tap into that never-ending reservoir of infinite energy. And if I could translate that energy into something practical, something usable. I produced a little device which drew upon that reservoir of infinite energy and made its content freely available for human use. It would be a little device which could be fitted into every household and provide all their energy needs. Wouldn't that be wonderful?

Do you imagine that such a game-changing invention would be welcomed? I don't think so. Just visualise the scenario. Everybody able to provide for their own reasonable needs. Living off-grid is easy, is the norm. The population is more self-sufficient, less dependent on the system, the establishment, the state, all of those things. The individual is more able to simply get on with their life. What a nightmare this would be....

There are, of course, the energy giants, be they in oil, gas, wind, or solar. They would come up with objection upon objection to the device, which would ruin their source of great wealth and worldly influence. Institutions, be they governments or non-democratic organisations such as the EU and the UN, would be unswervingly on the side of the energy giants. Individual practical freedom is anathema to such institutions, which depend on scarifying notions such as scarcity in order to exert their control over people.

And then there would be the faux greenies, the environmental lobbies, the climate alarmists. They would hate my invention with more venom than anyone. They too rely upon scare-city for their manipulative power over people. Most of them do not wish for abundance in human life. They see the 'western way of life' as bad, wrong, sinful. They do not want human beings to have a plentiful enjoyable life at all. They demand penance for our sins; guilt to be our prime motivator. They are our modern-day fanatical puritans, with an ideology befitting a death cult. In short, they wouldn't be pressing for Greta Thunberg to be displaced as 'Time' magazine's person of the year by me with my humanity-and-the-environment-saving little device.

In truth, if I came up with such an invention, I would be ridiculed, irrational objections would flow freely, and I would probably be 'disappeared', as all-too often happens to people who have become inconvenient.

Part Two

Anybody serious about solving the 'energy crisis' would see that the current direction is hopeless. If I wanted to improve things for human beings, I would go for a total moratorium on wind farms, solar panels, all the other inefficient useless garbage hyped to be ameliorating the planet. Instead, all that money would go into seriously researching the many ideas, devices, and proto-devices that individuals have been coming up with for decades. People searching for low-cost or free energy systems: real solutions. There are plenty of them out there, but they never get a look-in - for reasons that are obvious. It just ain't gonna happen

Looking at things from a different angle, however, from a rather deeper viewpoint of life-as-consciousness, we may suggest that what human beings have got, in terms of energy options, is actually entirely appropriate. In fact it could be no other way. The messy, imperfect, finite, resources at our disposal are perfectly congruent with the state of being of the vast majority of human beings, which too is messy, imperfect, and finite. It is not metaphysically possible for such a species to embrace a dimension of energy which is vastly superior in all respects.

Put bluntly: the species as a whole ain't ready for it.

The same, I reluctantly feel, is the case with individual health. Take cancer. From the bits and pieces I have dipped into, I am confident that there exist far more effective and less painful cures for cancer than those currently on offer. 'Chop it out, burn it out, or poison it' is the motto for the practice in orthodox medicine. It is crude and brutal; sometimes it works, to the extent of giving the sufferer a satisfactorily prolonged span of life, but that is it. In the UK, it was made illegal in 1939 to make any claim for cancer cure outside of chemo, radio, and surgery. To this day, people are occasionally prosecuted for making claims. The official rubric is that the law exists in order to protect unwitting victims from charlatans, but that's not the main thing. It's a closed shop, a self-created monopoly, on 'cure' and on the physics and metaphysics of human life.

Part Three

Buried amongst the pile of pre-election words and manifestos is something about Boris Johnson intending to put a decent load of dosh into research about nuclear fusion. The idea is that this might turn out to be an efficient and effective, reliable and clean, source of energy for humanity in the future. I was heartened to read this; it is a step in the right direction. Although nuclear fusion would still entail the mobilisation of large multinational interests, it would be an immense improvement on what the 'green lobby' continues to push onto the public, in one of the greatest deceptions in our lifetime.

'Efficient and effective; reliable and clean': wind is none of these. There is no way that wind turbines can power the human planet: they simply do not produce enough energy. And when the wind fails to blow, they won't even heat a kettle. While humanity may need to eke out its existence within the waveband of the imperfect, the finite and the decaying, it does not automatically 'deserve' to be pushed to the veritable bottom of the pile with this trash, this fraudulent deception.

In more conspiratorial moments, it is tempting to see the promotion of wind as a deliberate attempt to maintain humanity in a state of scarcity - a state which engenders fear and insecurity, and which makes people easy to manipulate. Wind's hopelessness is one of its greatest attractions to those who enjoy power over others.

As for wind being 'green', 'clean', 'environmentally friendly': more total bullshit. Check out the production of some of the components to a typical turbine: areas laid to polluted waste in China, for example. And are they friendly to wildlife, something which most eco-folk hold dear to their heart, I believe? In the video linked below, Tom Harris discusses estimates from the Spanish Ornithological Society. In a 2013 study, they estimated that the number of bats and birds killed annually by turbines in Spain (they like windfarms in Spain) exceeds six million. Yes, you are reading this properly. Over six million.

Now, I accept that casualties from wind turbines are unverified and unverifiable, and this figure could be way off, or unrepresentative; the detractors will come up with their excuses and objections. But the numbers will almost certainly be way above wind industry estimates. And while birds generally get chopped up by the rotating blades, bats tend to get caught in the low pressure area created behind the blades, and as a result of the pressure difference, their lungs explode.

This is all horrendous, yet wind farms are incessantly promoted as 'good' for the environment. You rarely hear about this, do you? Funny, that. And you never come across television and mainstream eco-celebrities protesting about this. They will merrily lend their voice to some safe or trendy eco-concern. But when it comes to a point of view outside the politically righteous box, they will utter not a peep. Concerned not to lose their reputation and their job, I suppose. Fair-weather eco folk. Understandable but unimpressive. They most likely have one eye on what happened to the recently-deceased David Bellamy after he dismissed global warming as nonsense. Expressing personal opinion was not a good career move. That's the choice sometimes: your truth or your money. Take your pick.

Further links: William (Bill) Bengston's work on healing through energy is fascinating, should this area be of any interest. His book 'The Energy Cure' is an easy and good read, and there are plenty of videos out there.

For a relatively reasonable and good-natured presentation on energy for lighting and heating the house, you could check out Tom Harris here:    http://bit.ly/2tj7E0Z

Keep warm and bright, and all best wishes for 2020 and beyond!            

Learning from the Nazis

Part One: Who Were the Germans?

It's a funny thing, really. How little we know, or think to wonder, or are encouraged to discover. Take the Germans in the 1930s. There are, I suppose, reports and studies out there somewhere. But next-to nothing is said in the context of our everyday knowledge.

I'm not talking about the chiefs, the big boys: Hitler, Goebbels, Goring, and the rest. There's libraries full of work on them. Neither am I talking about the political manoeuvres which took place in 1930s Germany, leading to the establishment of the totalitarian state. No. I'm talking about the actual Germans, real people, ordinary people. Herr Manfred, the baker from Leipzig. Frau Monika from somewhere in the Ruhr - housewife and part-time secretary. Who were they? What was their life? How did they come to be who they came to be? How did they come to be part of Hitler's thing? Maybe we don't hear about it because the truth is all too revealing; too uncomfortable, too close to the bone.

I have not known very many Germans during my life. Even while teaching English language, I met few German students. Plenty from neighbouring countries: Poland, the Czech Republic and places further east. Numerous students from Latin America, especially Brazil. A steady stream of Japanese, South Korean, and increasingly Chinese. Maybe Germans learnt English well enough during their state education, and had no need to visit England to get the language.

I went to Germany recently, just briefly, to Cologne for a wedding. I have had a few German friends in passing over the years. My experience of Germans that I have seen and known has been overwhelmingly positive. They have been courteous, friendly, decent, and generally 'civilised' people. I find much to admire in them, and see their historical culture as outstandingly rich, having contributed much to what is best in western civilisation. So it is curious to know all this, and realise that the grandparents and great grandparents of today's Germans were German youth, quite possibly Hitler youth, in the 1930s.

Does this not strike you as curious? Should we not know a little about what was, and is, going on? Was it just a wayward generation of sadists and psychopaths, human butchers who have once more been succeeded by 'normal' people? I think not.

The truth is more uncomfortable. Put simply, the Germans were had. They were had by an ideology, a primarily racial ideology, which was superimposed upon people with plenty to feel miffed about in the hardships they had suffered as a result of their treatment by various other European national authorities following the First World War. They were had. And in exactly the same way people are still being had today. Ordinary folk. Exactly the same way.

Part Two: Don't Panic

Deception is the name of the game, with subsequent manipulation through playing upon people's emotions. It takes place primarily through the medium of belief systems, of ideology. This is the archontic principle at work, if you want to think in that way. To employ Gnostic terminology, infection by ideology leads the individual or the mass group deeper and deeper into error, until this eventually morphs into something else: 'evil' it may be called; or we could equally talk of 'madness'.

In the case of the Germans, the ideological virus revolved around the racial superiority of the Aryan peoples. Today's mass manipulators may be less physically brutal, but their influence is scarcely less brutalising. And today's manipulation seems to take two main forms: climate alarmism and politically correct 'thinking'.

Climate. Let's take a whistle-stop tour of the process of ideation through recent time.

Notion one: climate change. Can't argue with that one. Flux is the way that things work in this universe, so climate change is a no-brainer. Climate changes, always has done, always will.

A few minute's homework reveals that sometimes it changes slowly, sometimes quickly, dramatically, even. So when older people declare with fear and apprehension that "We don't get winters like we used to", this is not a statement about fossil fuels - they have been conditioned to think so, though - but a statement about inevitability, and one with which one can sit totally at ease.

Notion two: global warming induced by human activity. A bit of basic Buddhist philosophy comes in handy here. Everything is connected, we are told; everything affects everything else. Hence, another no-brainer: human activity will affect the climate. So will the activity of slugs. As for the 'warming' bit, there is most likely some degree of warming effect. Most people who have studied it properly will agree on this. But by how much, I suggest, is impossible to know.

'Climate change' and 'global warming' clearly failed to freak out enough people. Then someone came up with a solution: 'climate emergency'. Reason now goes out the window. The aim becomes to panic and terrify enough people, especially impressionable young people, to allow the archons full access to their confused minds. Hysteria would become the norm, as people completely lost their mind.

'Emergency' is a word that I would use for big earthquakes and severe heart attacks. This is the kind of infarction that the pushers of climate emergency are trying to induce. Suddenly everyone is declaring climate emergency; most of these people know next-to-nothing about the reality of the situation.

There is a video clip somewhere of Ursula von der Leyen. You may or may not know who she is. You should do. She is the new European Commissioner, and one of the most powerful and influential people in Europe. One of her first acts was to preside over a meeting where 'climate emergency' is declared  for Europe. She can be seen gleefully announcing the results of the vote.

If you watch some climate emergency fanatics, they have indeed been rendered mad. They speak, not from their own mind, but from somewhere else. They have been subjected to such an emotional onslaught that they have collapsed as rational beings altogether. They have been taken over by an idea, by a delusion. A delusion that tells them that the situation is so grave, so serious, so urgent, that whatever is needed to remedy it has to be done, even if that means destroying democracy, running other people's lives for them, and so on.

Part Three: Careful What You Say

And then we have the virus of political correctness. This works by latching onto well-meaning but vague and unexamined feelings of fairness, equality, and justice, then twisting them mercilessly until they become the exact opposite of what the person having these ideas thinks they are. It homes in on various groups of people, which are called 'minorities', and which need special attention because they are always getting exploited.

This virus is essentially a thought-control virus. Through its proper application, anybody who happens to disagree with you can be publicly humiliated, silenced, or otherwise dealt with. This virus has been known to ruin families, livelihoods, reputations. It is especially used these days to get people who you disagree with thrown off major social media platforms.

Since you probably can't deal with them through rational means, this is extremely effective. If you can manage to sling an ad hominem insult at a person ending in '...ist' or '....phobe' you've likely got them wrapped up. You can even call them a Nazi.  Whether they really are one of these '....ist' or '....phobe' people is not relevant: there will be enough people out there who have been infected by the same virus, or are too afraid to speak up in case they are likewise accused, that the tactic is likely to succeed.

Like climate emergency, political correctness can manifest as a kind of madness. People under its dark spell become demented, incapable of proper thinking. Recently I had the misfortune to watch ten minutes of an 'interview' by Andrew Marr of Boris Johnson. It wasn't an interview at all, but consisted of an uncontrollably livid Marr interrupting and shouting down Johnson whenever he tried to answer a question. It was unwise behaviour for a person who has already experienced a stroke, I thought. Anyhow….

At one point Marr brought up a quotation that the Prime Minister had made, many years ago I suppose, in which he commented on how the Koran is not necessarily the book of peace that some people make it out to be. Marr then demonstrated the mad deception of political correctness by insinuating that therefore Johnson was being Islamophobic. Commenting on, or criticising, the Koran is not Islamophobia, which is a prejudice, a preconceived bias, against Islam. No, it's simply an opinion. But this is how it works, the confusion, the conflation. It's how you try to get the Prime Minister to appear as a nasty intolerant bigot. It's how the madness aims to shut up critics, and usher in a state far worse than anything conceived in '1984'.

As an aside: Quoting what somebody has said, probably years ago, to condemn them, is a low trick, one that we shouldn't fall for. Anybody worth their salt has said many things in their life, and if they are a normal fallible human being these things are not always consistent. You can do it with almost everybody. I wouldn't normally stoop so low, but hey it's winter and dark, so here goes....

Let's quote Andrew Marr back at himself. Here's what he had to say, quoted in David Sedgwick's book on the BBC: "And the final answer, frankly, is the vigorous use of state power to coerce and repress ….. I firmly believe that repression can be a great, civilising instrument for good. Stamp hard on certain 'natural beliefs' for long enough and you can almost kill them off."

Nice guy, that Andrew.

Part Four: Don't be Fooled

So what have we seen on this little ramble through the madness and deception of human beings? Well, that's what we have seen. Humans are susceptible to being had, to being deceived, especially through the medium of ideologies and belief systems. Through these they are rendered crazy, they are like putty in the hands of the unscrupulous. This is true in modern times just as it was in 1930s Germany. The methods are the same. It's a large part of how the world 'works' (or malfunctions).

There is one more thing. I am reminded of what Don Juan says to Carlos Castaneda about the flyers, his mind-warping equivalent of the archons, the agents of deception. "The predators' mind is baroque, contradictory, morose, filled with the fear of being discovered any minute now." And this is the nub - or at least one nub. Nazi ideology, climate panic, political correctness: they are all built on lies, untruths, or occasional half-truths at best. They are not real; they are fabricated deceptions, and their makers live in constant fear of being found out. That's why they're so keen to police the internet, it's touch-and-go for them.

And a lie requires extraordinary energy to be maintained. Just imagine how much effort goes into keeping these deceptions alive, every day, it's completely relentless. In the worlds of politics, bureaucracies international, national, and local, the media, the schools. It needs constant input of energy, to keep the lies going. An untruth is an untruth, and it cannot sustain itself forever against the fragments of intelligence remaining among human beings. In the end it cannot win, it cannot win....

Photos: Top: Weekly market at Freiburg, Germany, 1930 (alamy stock photo)
             Centre: Glasgow in 20 years time according to modern theories
             Bottom: Ursula von der Leye                

And a couple of video clips to go along with the writing. First up, Naomi Seibt. Unlike St Greta, she is a smart girl, a good model for young people in her independent and intelligent thinking. We could do with a few more young people like Naomi. Second is another great presentation from Tony Heller. Here he demonstrates one way in which data fraud, misleading and manipulating people under the guise of 'science', takes place.
 
www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8dXpe1Pp6Q

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8455KEDitpU  

Another Week in the Vortex....

Part One: Ever Been Had?

It was not one of my more glorious moments. With the festive season fast approaching, I decided I might bring cheer to family and friends by producing some home-made Christmas cards. Being a topical, on-the-ball kind of guy, I thought I would choose as subject of my creations the divine child herself, Greta Thunberg. I would find a scary picture of her - not difficult - and frame it with the immortal words from Handel and Isaiah "For Unto Us a Child Is Born". I could just see my friends sitting down to their Christmas nut roast and Christmas pudding with vegan custard, all the while gazing in adoration at our new young modern saviour.

By now I was on a roll. At the local branch of Waterstones I spied a pile of slim volumes by the till: 'Greta Thunberg: Nobody is too small to make a difference". I would enchant my friends with my own Christmas gift, a sequel: "Greta: Nobody is too small to be a nuisance".

That night I had a dream. I was in conversation with Gordon Brown - remember him? I had never dreamed of Gordon Brown before, but here we were, discussing all manner of subject. Near the end he paused, looked me straight in the eye and, summoning his finest Scottish gravitas, uttered the words "Greta Thunberg is evil. She wants to rule the world."

How many people still go along with the Greta guff, I do not know. Anybody who does so must live a life of extreme denial. The credibility of this little evangelist is currently roughly zero. You don't have to be a mastermind to check out a few background details. Her parents, her relatives going back a little further. Her group, her 'team'. These are not ordinary Swedes pursuing ordinary pursuits....

It was when I saw the book that I realised: Greta has become a brand, a bit like Nike or Kentucky Fried Chicken. People think she's a good sale. I don't know how true that is, and I take a certain dark delight in reading about the increasing number of cases of 'Get Woke, Go Broke' in the business world. 'Woke' is 100% Orwellian newspeak. People who are 'woke' are in reality deeply asleep.

For a different take on 'climate change', from outside the globalist bubble, visit:

realclimatescience.com

Part Two: Who is the Problem?

And then there is Prince Andrew. And Emily Maitlis. I watched about four minutes of the interview: enough to get the drift, which was as expected.

The aftermath has been a near-unanimity in the lamestream media, of criticism and general pulling-to-pieces of the Prince. Any such solidarity amongst the criminals of media immediately attracts suspicion, but there we go. The question remains, though: who is the problem? Prince Andrew or Emily Maitlis? Who is the problem, really? And the answer turns out to be: Emily Maitlis.

It's not necessarily Emily Maitlis the person, though I wouldn't wish to have dinner with her. It's the web, the matrix, rotten to the core with the BBC a bitter black pip near the middle, of which she is one small but effective part. Concerns about David Icke-ian royal reptilian bloodlines aside, Prince Andrew would seem a bit of a sideshow to the overall 'programme' of modern times. Maitlis, on the other hand, is right in there, promulgating the stinking agenda to the masses.

Dig a little deeper, and they are revealed as players for the same team. Prince Andrew is probably dimly aware of this; Maitlis, on the other, has been well-trained within a little box, and will not know. Instead, she will wag her pen at you repeatedly should you make such a suggestion.

It's a funny thing, the Epstein case. Actually, it's not very funny at all. It unwinds in precisely the way that things do in the puritan-flecked control matrix which holds northern Europe and North America in its thrall. Epstein's real crime was that he was caught, and with nothing much left to lose, he was liable to spill all sorts of beans. Completely dispensable, a wealthy pimp for the rich and infamous, that's all.

And his 'suicide'? Andrew and Maitlis both referred to his 'suicide' as if it were a given fact, on the principle of 'tell a lie frequently enough, and it becomes a truth in the minds of sufficient people.' Epstein's suicide is about as likely as is Scotland winning the next football World Cup. For some uncanny reason, the word 'scapegoat' comes to mind. Even Prince Andrew has become a bit of a scapegoat. Turn somebody into a really bad guy - particularly easy when they have conveniently just dropped dead - and the rest of the stink can get on with their lives as if nothing ever really happened.

Part Three: the Burning House

"Flee the burning building, just leave. The whole world is a burning world, with everyone trying to keep their beliefs carefully in place as they cannot see the flames around them...….. Just go."

We've all been there. A new quote saying the same old thing in just-so-slightly different a way. "Yeah, yeah, yeah" you sigh wearily. "OK. Er, shall we have a cup of tea?"

You've come across the same sentiment forty nine times. It sounds nice and true, but water off a duck's back. Then you encounter it for the fiftieth time, and your world proceeds to collapse.

Such was the case with the quotation above, from one of my 'kundalini-energy' sources. The writer had been spoken to thus by a voice, I would say; he terms it his essential energy speaking. I'd come across the image long ago, and had read this piece on his website before. But I revisited, and suddenly, unexpectedly, it hit me.

Fleeing the burning building may well be the name of the game, but I have a propensity for leaving a couple of toes in the fire. Something in me is reluctant to really leave, as if there remains a vestigial belief that the fire is where it's at, where the real action is. The doubt also arises in my mind as to how to relate to the burning building if you have truly left it; an illogical doubt, since that question can only be answered once you have succeeded in escaping, when all will reveal itself organically.

A couple of mornings afterwards I awoke in an unusual mood (for me, anyway). Everything seemed rather amusing, like a bizarre game, or a comi-grotesque theatre intended to fool me, but which was not succeeding at this moment. The antics of the building's inhabitants - Maitlis, Andrew, Democrats, Republicans, Donald Tusk, St Greta, you name them - failed to touch me, aside from arousing a faintly amused quizzical response. It was as if I was able to watch the matrix, the control system, the agenda, call it what you will, from outside, and see it for what it is. A false construct, aimed at soul entrapment. Yes, it needs to be fled, for your very life. "Just go."  

Photo: Eyeballs Studio        

Reptilians and the Like: the Verdict

Part One

There are plenty of people who go in for crime and criminals. They like nothing better than to curl up of a damp late autumn evening in front of the fire with a murder mystery, or a good old-fashioned whodunnit.

I fail to count myself as one of this number. I am surrounded by enough nefariousness as it is, in the 'normal' world, without going to seek it out still more. There is, however, one - and one only - story of crime which provides, for me, unyielding fascination. Operation Julie.

'Operation Julie' is the name given to what was then the biggest drug bust in the history of the UK. It involved multiple regional police forces engaging in an unprecedented co-operative venture. Following several years of undercover operations, involving surveillance, fact-gathering, and the rest, they swooped in tandem. "At exactly 5am on 26 March 1977, over 800 police officers drawn from 16 police forces and 6 regional crime squads raided 83 locations in England and Wales." (Albion Dreaming, Andy Roberts).

The object of this massive police operation was not a ring of heroin traffickers, or dealers of any other lethal drug, responsible for scores of early deaths and the ruin of far more lives and families. No. It was bunch of psychedelic enthusiasts, some of whom were idealistically motivated in the belief that their product might help make the world a better place. A telling reality: we see clearly who the true enemies of the established order are....

One thing which has always struck me when reading about the Operation Julie sting is how the entire thing was organised. "The (police) team quickly worked out the distribution chain was set up on the lines of a terrorist cell, which meant that each person in the chain only knew the one below and above him or her." (Andy Roberts again).

This is the way that a criminal organisation, or any organisation dedicated to secrecy as to its workings, will work. You are a tiny cog in a big machine arranged in a pyramidic hierarchical fashion. And that's all you know; the rest remains secret.

This was certainly true when it came to Operation Julie acid. I was one of the thousands of people in the mid-1970s who had the fortune to partake, and to feel that life was indeed better as a result. History has demonstrated that Operation Julie LSD was exceptional in quality; we didn't just imagine it. But where it all came from, nobody knew. There were vague rumours, but that is all. The microdots and pyramids just turned up as if by magic, one day in town or in the middle of a free festival.

So if a bunch of psychedelic chemists and distributors could set themselves up in this way, and move vast amounts of acid around the globe clandestinely for a number of years, imagine how anybody of real criminal mind could establish themselves. They won't be giving away their identities or whereabouts easily at all.

Which brings us to reptilians. And archons. And any other kind of non-human entity that may be purported to have an unwelcome hand in human affairs. If psychedelic chemists could keep their whereabouts secret through a pyramid structure, imagine how easy that is for those with proper criminal intent. Reptilians, Illuminati, and the rest. It's a common objection, isn't it? 'I have never seen a reptilian. They have never shown themselves to me. I have never seen one, therefore they don't exist.'

The thing is that, were reptilians to be surreptitiously dabbling in human affairs, they would hardly be likely to announce their existence to all and sundry. Not exactly a clever move. They may indeed be showing up on Question Time with Fiona Bruce, but they won't be telling you, or her, that. 'Hello, I am a reptilian, and I am controlling your lives without your realising it.' No, it wouldn't work. Nefarious activity needs to take place behind the scenes, and in disguise. What's more, announce yourself as a reptilian and you won't get an invite back from the BBC.

So this point of view is as ridiculous as that of people who claim that homeopathy doesn't work because they can't see how it can work. Or medical professionals, who assert that kundalini doesn't exist, because they can't measure it with their instruments. It says more about their own limited perceptions and personal hubris than anything very objective.

I shall take a similar approach to the notion that humans are essentially farmed by non-human, other dimensional, ultra-terrestrial beings. The purpose being to feed off the energy created by their delusional minds. Just as we live on organic material, so do these beings live on energy of a different frequency, specifically mental energy which is not in tune with reality. It sounds crazy and impossible, I know. Beyond our belief. But then, should you tell a cow what its purpose is, and its fate, it will give you one of those bemused bovine looks and just say "C'mon dude, you gotta be kidding."

Moo.....

Part Two

Reptilians are not the same as archons. Reptilians and annunaki are near the top of the tree, the apex of human affairs. They are to be considered as masters, if not of the universe, then of the universe of humans. Archons, on the other hand, are minions. They are in the service of the Demiurge, the false god, according to some of the Gnostic tracts. The Demiurge is the one who pretends to be the big boss, the creator of all; but he isn't. The task of the archons is to confuse and confound ordinary humanity, so that it remains divorced from its true nature, and continues to  believe in the lies perpetuated by the false god.

Archons are not masters of the universe, but they are masters of mindfuck. They are able to get inside the minds of human beings and lead them away from authenticity, from the signal of clear, direct reality, if you will. Deception and simulation are two of their most effective strategies; conversely, one of the prime tasks of the serious spiritual aspirant is to counter the infective influence of the archons. 'To be authentic' means 'to be free of the archons'.

Human consciousness appears to manifest in three distinctive modes. First up, borrowing from the Buddhist tradition then twisting a little, is the nirvanic mode. Consciousness as pure, infinite, untrammelled. Loving, blissful, beyond concepts, the bell and vajra in unison, Shiva and Shakti in eternal embrace, the One and the Two as inseparable.

Second, there is samsaric consciousness. Based in ignorance, delusion, stubbornly dualistic. It may manifest in everyday silliness, petty jealousies, trivial preferences and attachments. Or it may show itself in far more serious matters: abuse and misuse, assaults, thefts, rapes, murders, and a catalogue of other harmful behaviours.

Exoteric Buddhism describes pretty well these nirvanic and samsaric modes and trends; there is, however, a third mode which, to my knowledge, it falls silent upon. This is archontic consciousness.

While arguably a part of samsara, nevertheless archontic consciousness comes laden with a very distinct flavour to its delusion and madness. It exists outside/above/beyond/below the everyday samsaric mind. It is the root of what we may term real evilness, which may result in mass tortures, genocide, the real extremes of horror, especially collective horror.

The essence of archontic consciousness is to be found in fixed belief systems, rigidly-held dogmas, ideologies. It is these which fuel the great horrors of history - as well as 'causes' which may be held up as good and virtuous, while in reality they serve to turn humans into robotic slaves (think 'globalism', pseudo-egalitarianism, global climate emergency, for starters....).

The archontic infection is designed to distance the human being from its uniqueness, its magic and wonder, its spiritual possibilities. It is intended to keep us blind, to maintain us in the dark. It doesn't matter whether the ideology is 'good' or 'bad', totally delusional or based in some kind of truth. The important thing is that it is ideology, which distracts from seeing things as they truly are.

With a little practice, you can recognise the archontic infection as it manifests in human affairs. Being ideology, applicable to all, it will typically present itself in the form of some type of 'collectivity': a universal belief or truth. The person taken over by the archontic infection will talk - or very often rant and rave - in a way which does not really come from themself. It is not their own voice speaking; it is as if they have been taken over.

The archontic consciousness can be detected at work in some of the more extreme Extinction Rebellion people as they spread hysteria about the imminent demise of all life on the Planet. It is not their own mind speaking; it is something else, which has got inside them. It is as if they have been taken over by a foreign entity, or foreign installation, as Castaneda described the phenomenon. You can also see it in some arch anti-Brexit Remainers. Something has taken them over; they have become mad.

Part Three

And the verdict: I don't know. I write about many things, express many ideas, on this blog, but there are not an awful lot of things which I truly know.

I tend to be more doubtful about the reptilians and similar. The mythology of the annunaki is part of Sumerian creation mythology. Whether these ancient people intended it to be taken literally, or whether they even thought in terms of 'fact versus fiction' at all, is suspect. I give more credibility to archon theory. Gnostics were, or at least some of them were, authentic visionaries and mystics, well-versed in other dimensional realities. Their notions about the archons do at least point up the incredible anomaly at work within the world of human affairs, the anomaly that Don Juan expresses so clearly in a quote reprinted below. And it is an anomaly highlighted suspiciously rarely in the so-called learned works of human cultures and civilisations.

The archons can be taken literally, or they can be read as metaphors. Even if understood metaphorically, the effect is similar, and devastating. They represent the 'foreign installation', that of fixed beliefs, ideologies (in modern times, think 'political correctness' and 'climate alarmism' as examples), which make people ugly, dangerous, and crazy.

Some of the best and most powerful writing on archon-type entities comes from Carlos Castaneda, in his final book, 'The Active Side of Infinity', which also ranks among his finest. In the chapter 'Mud Shadows', Don Juan describes with devastating clarity and precision to the hapless and increasingly terrified Carlos the activity of the flyers. These are inorganic beings who have much in common with the archons as envisaged by some of the ancient Gnostics. I close with a few quotes about the flyers from the voice of Don Juan:

"They (the sorcerers of ancient Mexico) discovered that we have a companion for life. We have a predator that came from the depths of the cosmos and took over the rule of our lives. Human beings are its prisoners. The predator is our lord and master. It has rendered us docile, helpless. If we want to protest, it suppresses our protest. If we want to act independently, it demands that we don't do so."

"They took over because we are food for them...… Just as we rear chickens in chicken coops, gallineros, the predators rear us in human coops, humaneros. Therefore, their food is always available to them."

"I want to appeal to your analytical mind..... Think for a moment, and tell me how you would explain the contradiction between the intelligence of man the engineer and the stupidity of his systems of beliefs, our ideas of good and evil, our social mores."

"They gave us their mind! Do you hear me? The predators gave us their mind, which becomes our mind. The predators' mind is baroque, contradictory, morose, filled with the fear of being discovered any minute now."

That's it for now. Time for a cup of tea...….          

         

Pathos from Sweden, Something Else from Canada

It's over a fortnight old now, before the UK general election announcement. But I like this snippet from Stefan in Sweden. It takes a burly Swedish guy to express the pathos that is part of the Brexit tragi-theatre, at least for some of us. He does a leading film dude a disservice by mistakenly calling UK former PM 'James Cameron', but for the rest.... I like Stefan's little pieces: he is clear, straightforward, and honest. I may or may not agree with every detail of what he says, but he comes from a place of love and honour, I feel. He also expresses something which escapes most folk, it seems. Brexit hasn't happened because 'They can't let it happen.' A difficult truth for some.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGu6aKPOtSo

Then there are those 11000 scientists who signed a 'report' saying that we're all gonna die in a big inferno very very very soon, unless more is done to police the globe and stop all those carbon emissions. Fortunately, there are a few people around who take the care to see what is really happening beneath all this bullshit lying propaganda. Quite a humourous bit of reporting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs3ZPGLPiss

I shall actually get round to writing something of my own soonish. On one of our favourite topics….

As If We Didn't Already Know...

Ottmar Edenhofer. Check him out on Wikipedia; he's the kind of guy it's good to know is around. He gets around a lot, an awful lot. He's a climate dude, a big important climate dude. Co-chair of an IPCC working group on climate change mitigation 2008-2015, lead author of the UN IPCC's 4th Assessment Report (2007) among plenty of other very important functions. Here he is being interviewed back in 2010:

"Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major theme of globalization...… But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy …… One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore....."

Remember, folks, this is not Pale Green Conspiracy Nutcase speaking. It is a major official player in the climate change thing. The purpose of climate policy is not saving the planet; it's redistribution of wealth. And this was nine years ago. Imagine how these folk are thinking today.....

The thing with global warming catastrophists like St Greta and Extinction Rebellion is this. They think they're such shit-hot radical rebellion types, while they are not. Instead, they are hard core Establishment. Complete. Total. More Establishment than Boris Johnson. More Establishment than even some middle-ranking EU functionaries. They are one with the status quo as it projects its own image through time.

The UN is delighted to have such enthusiastic foot soldiers out there, spreading the creed. 'Celebrities' queue up to say good things about St Greta. The majority of politicians seem to think these are the voices of hope for the future. The lamestream media is generally favourable towards the patron saint of polar bears (who are actually doing very nicely, by the way) and the antics of Extinction Rebellion, a few extreme acts like climbing on top of tube trains aside. If this isn't Establishment, I don't know what is.

To further the point, imagine how different the reception would be if people were peacefully and lawfully protesting about some other topic. Mass immigration, for example. Or if it was a two-week long Festival of Straight Pride. No sirree, it wouldn't be treated with kid gloves in the same kind of way. Not at all.

This is a great dupe, and one of the clever ways that the System gets what it wants. It preys upon those of questionable psychological development, those who lead unexamined lives, or are just too silly or lazy to look beyond the surface of things. Such folk are easily fooled into doing stuff that is exactly the opposite of what they think it is. We've been over this on the blog before, but it's important in terms of trying to get a grip on the madness that takes place out there.

I was reading recently an interview with somebody talking about their experience of kundalini arising. This is a woman who does not ramble all around the houses, as I am wont to do, getting lost in the process. Her words are few, pointed, direct, right to the heart of things. No bullshit here. In response to the question 'What was your initial awakening experience like?', this is part of what she had to say: "..... I started questioning everything..... Then the anger came, when I found out that everything was a lie."

I wish I could write with such courage, such economy and precision, such freedom from caring what anyone else might think. 'Then the anger came, when I found out that everything was a lie.' Everything was a lie. The words return time and again, to haunt me. You see, she is correct. It is only a cleansed and fearless mind that sees this. My own purification remains incomplete. I am work in progress. So let it be.

Dilemma of a saint:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMNMDQdUTwk    

       

The Kiss of Death

It was inevitably the kiss of death. No sooner had I announced in amazement that Red Ice had so far
escaped being banned by YouTube, than it was..... banned by YouTube. Why any of us bother with YouTube any more beats me. We are like desperate rats hanging on to the rotting hulk of a ship.

Eternal Returns

Part One

It's ten years since I first tentatively picked up a corner of the carpet and took a peek at what was lurking underneath. Ten years since reality began to rudely dawn: that what was presented as 'truth', as 'reality', as 'news', was not in fact truth or reality at all. Ten years since that edifice of naïve trust and belief began to shake and crumble. The process of reduction to dust continues to this day.

One of the major figures in what I divined to be 'alternative media' at the time was David Icke. Ridiculed by his former employer the BBC, along with the rest of mainstream media, David rode the wave, refusing to cow to their cackles of derision, refusing to be bullied into a mental breakdown or  quietly disappearing into a corner. Instead, he courageously rose like a phoenix of truth.

I read and listened to some of David's work during those halcyon years, before proceeding to forget all about him, pretty much so anyway. Until just recently when, for reasons I've forgotten, I found myself once more listening to him as he talked about truth, reality, control systems, energy, agendas, reptilians; you know, David Icke stuff. He remains a clear and fearless speaker, and has many instructive things to say. What is astonishing is how, ten years ago, most of what he talked about seemed extreme, really minority, stuff. Now, much of it is pretty normal fayre.

Here, in a five-minute clip, he presents more to chew on than many people manage in an entire lifetime. Mainly about how homeopathy and the rest of the universe work....
    
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3A1Z9dR5XI

Part Two

Another familar port-of-call in those heady early days was Red Ice Creations. 'We present, you decide' was their motto, as they put on a veritable feast of interviews on deep history and archaeology, free energy research, alternative medicine and health, the origins of humankind, and mysticism and bigger-picture stuff of every shape and size. I became acquainted with the work of Neil Kramer and John Lash among others, two prime influences, courtesy of Red Ice. All under the affable yet watchful eye of Henrik Palmgren.

Then, one day, something happened. 'We present, you decide' was discarded in favour of 'We present, and we have decided too'. Red Ice became overwhelmingly devoted to one theme, and one theme pretty much alone. The creeping threat of rampant globalism, along with the corresponding destruction of European cultures through indiscriminate invasion-like immigration, repressive political correctness, and other strategies. The headlines on the Red Ice website were full of the latest news on this stuff. It made for depressing reading, worse than the Daily Telegraph. Mystics and metaphysics - the real big picture - was gone, replaced by story after story on political toxicity. It was a turn off; so I duly turned off.

A good deal of the change seemed to coincide with the arrival on the Red Ice scene of Lana Lokteff, Henrik's wife. In contrast to Henrik's easy-going demeanour, Lana came over as very sharp, with a distinctive confrontational us-against-them stance. Her shrill intoning would give me a headache; another reason to turn off.

I maintain some reservations about the modern-day Red Ice. Nevertheless, not all is bad, and I submit that they are doing plenty of good work. Lana has improved her presenting style no end, in my view. I often enjoy her regular shortish presentations: witty, cutting, to-the-point. How Red Ice have managed to avoid getting chucked off YouTube with some of their content I do not know, but there they still are.

Here is a recent and typical Lana clip. For the record, once again: I do not follow Red Ice closely, and don't know everything they present at all; I do not necessarily go along with everything they say; I have not bought one of Lana's t-shirts; she is undoubtedly and sadly correct about being picked out and targeted for her political stance. A t-shirt boasting 'Come on in, Whoever you are' would get very different treatment.
   
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET258ROr9Wg

Hot Air and the Unexamined Life

Part One

When I was seventeen years old the world was a terrible place. Not my personal life or my immediate environment, which were not too bad at all. No. I'm talking about the big world, the wide world, out there. It was full of wars, and of violence in general. It was overrun with horrible people: vicious, ruthless, uncaring, manipulative. Everywhere I looked was greed, greed, greed. The environment was being destroyed by avaricious capitalists. Wickedness was the hallmark of life in 1970.

I felt desperate. Desperate to do something - anything - to improve things. I heard about 'ahimsa', harmlessness, and tried to put it into practice. I wanted to live a life that was pure, in order to counter the gross impurity that I saw and felt all around me.

I became a vegan. Now, being vegan in 1970 was not so simple as it has become in 2019. Nevertheless, I did it. Not only did I become vegan, I paid careful attention to the quantity of food that I was consuming, not wishing to exploit the Earth an iota more than was possible.

I began to feel very pure, not just psychologically but energetically and physically as well. Spots disappeared, greasy skin cleared up as if by miracle. I said goodbye to sluggish bowels. I felt light, clear, and pure, pure, pure. I was having none of the contaminated life that surrounded me.

The thing was, though, that I was starving myself to angelic death. Never exactly a fattie, I lost weight alarmingly as I carried out my carefully measured diet, compensating for consumeristic greed and avarice of the outside world. It took my mother breaking down in fits of anguished tears at the state that I had fallen into to bring me to my senses. I started stuffing myself with food suitable for a high metabolism teenage male again. I have lived to tell the tale.

This story is true. And, as a result, I am able to understand the mentality of some anorexic people well. More to the point here, I can see into and right through the neuroses which characterise many of our modern-day 'climate activists'. For them, too, the world and its people are terrible. Wanton destruction is the typical behaviour of older generations, which consist largely of psychopaths and Earth haters. Climate activists - 'Extinction Rebellion' ideologues in particular - need to compensate. Fuelled by anger and anxiety, their response to an extreme situation requires an equal opposite extreme. The world is going up in flames, and you bastards are the cause. What did Saint Greta say at the UN just a few days ago? "How dare you?"

The thing is, I got over it. I saw that things weren't quite like that. The problem was about 'me' as much as it was any world out there. If I wanted to make a difference, I had to get my own act together first: take responsibility for my own life, my own mind, my own consciousness. All of which most of these screaming enraged activists have singularly failed to do. It is, after all, easier to blame someone else....

And then there's 'The Psychedelic Society'. I've always considered it a misnomer, since psychedelics don't generally take to being organised into societies with rules and regulations. Anyhow, there they are. The Edinburgh branch (which seems to have now disappeared) organised a really good talk by Graham Hancock a few years back, but for the rest...… The Psychedelic Society are very big on, enthusiastic about, 'Extinction Rebellion', the vanguard of climate change activism. They are gearing up for another season of out-on-the-streets, socking-it-to-'em, in October. It's funny, really. Their founder, in particular, is known for his espousal of non-dual philosophy. But they don't seem to have quite connected the dots. This climate change activism is based in extreme dualistic thinking, serious polarising. It's 'us versus them' writ large. Confrontational, with no attempt at understanding 'them', whoever they actually are.

Well, I suppose it's proof that psychedelics don't lead to automatic enlightenment after all. Anyhow, I've unsubscribed.

Part Two

'The unexamined life is not worth living'. It's a quote from some time back gleaned from Neil Kramer. I can't recall whether it's an original, or whether he got it from someone else. I suppose it doesn't matter much. It's the message that counts.

The unexamined life is not worth living.

There will be exceptions, but in general it's this. It seems to me that climate change activism is populated by seriously unexamined lives. Despite their faux revolutionary fervour, despite their belief in their own superiority, they are playing the mainstream game, that of kneejerk unconsciousness. You see, there is another layer of conditioning that shapes them, and of which they appear gloriously unaware:

They are our new evangelical Christians.

That climate change is the new religion, and that its most fervent devotees act like cult members, is a view bandied about with increasing frequency nowadays. I think we can be more specific than that. Much of the behaviour and attitude of the cult members is a direct hand-me-down from a certain type of Protestant/Puritan conditioning that remains characteristic of much of Europe north of the Alps and parts of North America - precisely the regions where the new religion takes root most strongly.

I am no expert, and I'm going to do no more than throw out a few ideas, with some dots to be connected. But the overall conclusion is that, while Christianity in on the wane in these places, both in terms of numbers and of cultural and political influence, its legacy continues in the form of a pattern of social conditioning which manifests in the unexamined lives of climate change fanatics and Extinction Rebellion members.

A few easy ones to get going. Dogmatic evangelism, intolerance. Climate change activists tend to be extremely intolerant of those who differ. Someone like me will be considered a heretic. Burning at the stake is no longer in vogue, although some of them might consider this a deserving end for Pale Green Vortex man. So shouting down, calling nasty, emotionally-loaded names ('climate denier'), and silencing will have to do. It is all justified, you see, since I am effectively damning the Planet to extinction with my attitudes.

Then there is a certain moralism, and a distinctive moral superiority. Self-righteousness and moral indignation are the flavour of the day. We are the righteous, the pure in heart, and all you carbon-spewing monsters are for hell: this is what comes across. 'Saving the world' strikes me as another distinctive Protestant attitude. I don't think that people from other cultures normally think in terms of saving the world. It is northern European, northern American. There were folk in the 1960s and 70s alternative societies who talked in these terms; I never did it myself. It's ridiculous. I can't save the world, and neither can Extinction Rebellion.    

Apocalypse Now. End-of-world scenarios, the end of the world is nigh. The Book of Revelation writ large as cities topple into the ocean and the earth burns, burns, burns. You could imagine St Greta out there preaching fear and dread, scaring the wits out of the ordinary people, four hundred years ago. Meanwhile, it is worth noting that none of the apocalyptic panic predictions have yet come to pass. The polar bears are doing very nicely, it seems. Walruses don't topple off cliffs due to climate change; they've been doing it for ages. There are still little islands in the Pacific. New York has not been washed away. The apocalyptic panic is all manipulative bullshit, shameful, really.

And we are left with our saint fit for the modern age, little Greta. 'It's the science' she tells us. I don't think she really knows much about science; we share this in common, at least! In our post-enlightenment age of scientific rationalism (not so scientific or rational, actually, but let's leave that) it is fitting that a religion for the masses should come with a scientific gloss, though that's all it is. Check this: Greta has been declared the successor to Jesus Christ by the Church of Sweden. I kid not; this is true, it happened last December.

If you haven't seen it, and have the stomach, you might look at Greta Thunberg's address to the UN just recently. I find it disturbing. She is being exploited by very dark beings, who couldn't give a toss about her well-being. She is angry, fearful, despairing, and unbalanced. About to crack. It is child abuse. And is it only me who finds disturbing the sight of all these children out protesting, when they are not of the age to evaluate anything much. Adults who encourage this, be they politicians, teachers, or local authority bureaucrats, are twisted and distorted in my view. This is true indoctrination of young people through fear and anxiety.

Interestingly, even some UN official has admitted that the climate change thing is not primarily about the climate: it's about redistribution of wealth. And in case anyone begins to wonder whether this is a noble cause worth supporting, think again. Redistribution programmes exist not because of infinite compassion for poor people in Bolivia and Nigeria. They exist because of a globalist imperative. Globalism comes into being only when significant discrepancies, differences, between peoples are eradicated. Rich people here, poor people there: that's not globalism. All should be reduced to automaton-like mediocrity before we can usher in the One World dream.....

         

The Goose is Getting Fat...

Yes indeed, folks. Christmas is just around the corner, and we are well advised to be prepared. Fortunately, buying Christmas presents has been made a whole lot easier this year, thanks to the arrival on the market of a perfect gift. It is exactly what your woke friends will absolutely love (and I trust that your friends are all completely woke people). It is a new board game. Based upon the original, famous, and hopelessly outdated game of 'Monopoly', and created by the same company, it is a new and improved version. It is called 'Ms Monopoly'.

There are a few new improved rules to the game. You see, the girls get more money to start with than the boys. And the same when you pass 'Go': £240 for the little ladies, while the young men get a mere £200. Something to do with the gender pay gap, apparently. And there's no more of that property-buying stuff. Instead, you get to invest in inventions made by women, or in charities, or somesuch (I confess to not having invested in this game, so am hazy on one or two details).

It sounds like a great game, guaranteed to give young Jimmie a Christmas to remember, getting thrashed time and time again by little sis. "Come on, son. Man up. Generational karma payback time. Stop crying."

Yes, family relations will never be the same after a Christmas with Ms Monopoly. Gender conflict will be healed. A new dawn will be upon us.

Really, have you ever come across such ridiculous stuff? By the way, I am not making it up, it's all out there. You can even check out Stefan's take on it below (about two minutes in).

May I be the first of the season to wish you a happy Christmas!    

https://www.bitchute.com/video/S2kg2O3Jj_Y/

Another Dawn, Another Day

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pgq8VbZYIKE

I like listening to Stefan, with his bits and pieces from Sweden about 'the news'. He expresses things clearly and concisely, in an English more perfect than that of many native speakers. He seems possessed of a dry, laconic sense of humour which will see me chuckling out loud. And there is a sense of spaciousness surrounding whatever he says. The truth is invariably simple enough; abstruse philosophical or abstract discourses often miss the point, or are smokescreens, intended to obscure the reality, which is staring us in the face all the time, should we only dare to look.


Out of the unique debacle that is Brexit, some good things have emerged. Above all, some people, or groups of people, have been forced to show their true face. It is not a pretty face, in fact it is mangled and scarred. It is something that I hope the British populace will not forget in a hurry. Things have become very transparent, who people really are. What their priorities are.

Specifically, I mean those politicians with their buddies in the worlds of media, big business, and the legal profession, who have demonstrated their real feelings about democracy. When it comes to getting your way, democracy is nothing more than an obstacle, an inconvenience. It's their dirty little secret, that they've been able to keep hidden all this time, until now. 'The liberal elite' is the term sometimes used to describe this group of ugly people.

The truth, once again, is quite simple. The result of the referendum on the EU was perfectly clear: 'We want out. Thanks, Dave, for giving us the chance to give our opinion.' And that's it. No conditions, no qualifiers, no sub-clauses. Nothing about deals or no-deals; about what Donald Tusk and his accomplices think about it all; about doing it when the signs of the zodiac are right, or only on a Tuesday when the sun is shining in Bucharest. No, nothing like that at all.

Cue plotting and planning, scheming, wheeling and dealing, conniving and conspiring, the likes of which would raise the eyebrows of even Iago. It has been, in my view, vulgar and ugly in the extreme. Nothing is too low for the liberal elites when they are in danger of losing a battle, when they can't have their way. A truly awful state of affairs brought about by truly awful people, it transpires. And all laid out for everyone to see.


'Parliament versus the people' is one slogan being bandied about at the moment. At root, it seems to be more about a philosophy of life, a dogma, an ideology, believed in fervently, and clung to desperately by that 'liberal elite'. It is called globalism.

Globalism has two main types of adherent. There are the well-intentioned but naïve and badly-informed; people who haven't thought deeply enough, and haven't done their homework. 'We are modern progressive people' they will chime. 'We live in one world. Boundaries and borders are bad. Differences are delusion. We are all one, all the same really. Think globally, act globally.' And then there are the heavy-duty globalists, the hard core. These are scheming and nefarious. They promote and thrive on undemocratic circumstances, happy to live in unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy, such as characterises the EU, if it serves their own higher purpose. They seem to love control, to need the intoxication of evermore power to feed their habit. Without it they feel as dead.

Believe global, and many things automatically fall into place. National identities need to go, obviously. This is especially true in Europe and North America, whose cultures have shaped so much of the wicked modern world, and which continue to hold on to some vestige of pesky notions such as the value of the individual, and the worth of self-determination.

So a mixing of different peoples, different cultures, is the obvious way to go, if you believe in globalism as the great good, for whatever reason. We don't need to resort to Illuminati conspiracies to see how all this comes about. It's just logic. Muslims from poor countries are particularly good mixing ingredients, fodder for the globalist liberal elite's agenda. Their cultures are generally pretty different to those of their newfound hosts, and they are tend not to be very keen on assimilation. Some of them are highly dogmatic, and openly hostile to western values, so can create maximum disruption and nuisance value. And once they have done their job as foot-soldiers for the globalist cause, they are easily dealt with. A glance around the world demonstrates the propensity of some Muslims for infighting, violent sectarianism. It will not be tricky to goad them into self-destruction when the need arises.

'Redistribution of wealth' is another natural consequence of the globalist mindset. Never mind whether you have actually earned the money yourself. You see, we're all one and the same. Each one an identikit blob like everyone else. It's the globalist wet dream. Uniformity makes for easy government, free of trouble makers.

Did someone mention carbon taxes, carbon credits, when wealth redistribution came up? How dare you! It's all about saving the planet.....

In the meantime, the UK Prime Minister has just announced the suspension of Parliament. Maybe he can keep it going for ever. I think it's a great idea. The guy has got a serious job to do: Brexit. And there's no way he can do it surrounded by an army of frenzied sharks, baying for blood and going crazy with new schemes to create problems for him every day. Yes, indeed, most of them should be given a one-way ticket out of Westminster, with 'traitor' stamped on it. The UK will be a better place without them.

'Nuff said....              

Half a Million Strong

Part One: On Yasgur's Farm

'"Three Days of Peace and Music,"' says Pauline, reading from the press release. 'A rock festival in the Catskills - sound like fun?'
'Sounds like pure hell.'
'Well, you're going.'

Thus begins Patricia Kennealy-Morrison's unorthodox take on the Woodstock Festival of August 1969. She was there, eventually and reluctantly, in her capacity as jazz-and-rock music journalist.

It sounds like hell to me as well. Too much like Waterloo Station at rush hour. I was sixteen when Woodstock took place, and taking a keen interest in all things 'alternative'. A few years down the line and I would be a counterculture hero myself, but in very different vein. I never wished I was at Woodstock.

Much has been made of the event by the mainstream media on this, its fiftieth anniversary. Organisations like the BBC appear to thoroughly approve; and why shouldn't they? 'Three days of music and peace' is the mantra churned out about Woodstock. In truth, I suggest that it posed little real threat to the established order. It is understandable that the 'love and peace and rock music' theme seemed vaguely revolutionary within the context of late '60s USA, with Vietnam, riots about race and war, and the rest; that stereotyped story is well-known. But most people who were really serious about creating a viable alternative were not in attendance. They were away, doing their thing....

The media's enthusiasm for Woodstock should instantly arouse suspicion: what's in it for them? Scratch  beneath the surface, and it's not difficult to see. With a little subterfuge, twisting, and distortion, the stereotyped memes of the Woodstock culture elegantly morph into much of what the modern mainstream holds as closest to its deeply-corrupted heart. Put in a different way: Woodstock has become hardcore establishment.

Love, peace; oneness; caring, sharing: who wouldn't want to be part of that? The problem is that it's all too easily taken up by vested interests who have little love for peace, really, and is simply used to further their own ends. Plenty of present-day Woodstock-lookalike dudes will show an uninformed enthusiasm for globalism. Sounds like oneness, doesn't it? Caring for one another. The thing is that globalism is anything but. 'Oneness' properly understood is an individual experience, possibly the result of decades of disciplined spiritual practice, sometimes more serendipitously the consequence of ingesting consciousness-altering substances. It highlights the unity and interconnectness underlying manifold experience. Globalism, in contrast, is a collective political stance, a recipe for the masses. It does not promote enlightened experience of the individual. It promotes uniformity, anonymity, sameness, the human identikit robot. A seething mass of sub-human soup, overseen by a small, unaccountable 'elite'. Not 'love and peace' in the slightest.

And what about national borders? Well, oneness and caring for everyone else; borders must be bad, mustn't they, creating divisions between people. Wrong again. As in the life of the individual, the social human being requires borders, boundaries. It is well-known that a human being without a sense of their boundaries, and/or too open to every influence from the world around them (over-sensitive), will struggle to function healthily, and to define a sense of personal identity. Similarly with groups of people. They need boundaries, they need a sense of social identity; remove them, and their integrity will be destroyed (which is the idea, when it comes to open-borders globalism).

Part Two: Snakes in the Garden

And then there is nature, the environment as it is abstractly called nowadays. "We've got to get ourselves back to the garden" intoned Crosby, Stills, and Nash, in their iconic anthem to the festival.
This 'garden' comes with a hint of ambiguity. Maybe it's the Garden of Eden, the paradise before the fall. The original place of primal innocence. But 'the garden' also suggests countryside, nature, back-to-the-land, all primary themes in the Woodstock sentiment.

I'm all for nature, and dealing with the issues related to it: plastics, pollution, decimation of rainforests and other habitats for personal profit. Trashing of nature for housing, and wind and solar energy. Toxic practices in over-industrialised agriculture. These are all real, tangible problems which demand urgent attention - and against which practical action is perfectly feasible. But environmental politics, the bastard offspring of Woodstock's garden worship, hasn't adopted any of these as its prime focus. Instead, it had decided to whip up mass-hysteria about the one 'environmental' issue which is more nebulous, controversial, uncertain, and which nobody actually understands: human-induced climate change or global warming; or, since this doesn't seem to scare people enough, climate emergency.

The politics surrounding this has become increasingly that of histrionics, departing from both rationality and nature (it is mainly promoted by people living in big cities). There is little honour and integrity involved. Instead, it is a crude but effective manipulation of the Woodstock instinct that alienation from the natural world is a bad thing. Climate change hysteria is a key ingredient in the globalist programme rolled out by not-very-nice people. Greta Thunberg may be the divine love child of the unthinking sector of the Woodstock generation, and an extremely irritating one, but I fear for her future.

Not enough people who consider themselves liberal, intelligent, caring, and generally right-on, have woken up to some harsh realities. That there are people out there who don't care if you are left or right, black or white, up or down, nice or nasty. Some will be outright sociopaths or psychopaths; others will be less extreme, but only too willing to cast aside any sense of morality, of democracy, of freedoms to speak and act for the individual, in the service of their own agendas. 'We need to do this in the name of the greater good': hear this phrase, and immediately go on red alert.

Whatever, you are easy meat for manipulation of your own feelings and attitudes, if you are not awake to what can happen on deeper levels. You don't need a PhD in parapolitics (you won't find one anyway), but you do require a good instinct for the games that take place beneath the surface of things. A bit of basic education in such things. If not, you will likely end up as part of the legacy of Woodstock, the twisted anthem for 'progressives' of today. Your nice feelings mangled and manipulated into service to those who will feign to care, all the while furthering their own programmes and agendas. The elites, the deep state, empire, the control system. They have many names, and we know they are out there...… Don't be a blind pseudo-hippie activist. Look out.

Footnote#1: Patricia

Patricia Kennealy (Morrison)'s account of the Woodstock festival is singularly dispassionate, and compassionate. She was there, and she was not seduced by the hype. She feels uncomfortable as she sits in the comfort of the rain-proof Pavilion provided for her and her fellow journalists, music promoters and rock stars, guzzling Moet and whatever else might be on offer; outside, meanwhile, the unwashed youth, the foot soldiers of the revolution, are cold, wet, and hungry. She feels troubled when she looks at some of the kids there: ".... kids who haven't got faces yet, kids filled up with drugs they don't know how to make proper use of, and only take them because they think it's required of them, because they want to be hip and cool and accepted...."

Some Doors aficionados really don't like Patricia at all. She is the 'pagan priestess' who underwent a pagan marriage, or handfasting ceremony, with Jim Morrison. Some consider her Jim story, 'Strange Days', to be a product of neurotic fantasy. Some details may be off-course, I do not know. But there is an overall ring of authenticity about some of her writing, at least. Incisive and intelligent, her view into the rock music world of the time is a good read. Her story is, above all else, on a theme increasingly rare nowadays, that of undying love.

Footnote#2: Love and Peace

Love and peace never really did it for me. In 1967, when California's Summer of Love sent its gentle ripples across the Atlantic to our fair shores, I saw the cowbells and flowers, but remained unconvinced. Spaced-out smiles on hippies dancing and blowing bubbles was all very well, and some of the music was great. But it all came over as a bit vapid, vacuous. I couldn't put my finger on it, but even to my fourteen-year-old mind something was missing.

Midsummer, and the Beatles released their own anthem to the year's happenings: 'All You Need Is Love'. John Lennon had reputedly been tripping on acid non-stop for the past two years, which sounded interesting. But if this was the best he could come up with after all that time, I wasn't impressed.

Then the Beatles went to India and teamed up with the Maharishi. You knew this was a mistake, just by looking at the photos, and all a bit silly. vapid and vacuous again. It was then that I gave up on the Fab Four. There had been a time when they were truly inspirational to a new teenager, but no more.

My mind drifted off elsewhere, and eventually came upon some kind of solution. The Doors. Jim Morrison, mainly. Nothing vapid here. Unlike the Beatles, and Woodstock a bit later on, he was perceived as a real threat by the powers-that-were, and he paid the ultimate price.

Twenty years after all that, I was finally able to give a name to what had been so patently missing, and what Morrison possessed in abundance: 'Shadow'.

Footnote#3: Greta

As I write this piece, our young saviouress is mid-Atlantic, on her boat en route to some extremely important climate change conference in the USA. This is well-known. What is less well-known - strangely, the mainstream has omitted to mention this part of the story - is the logistics involved in all of this. Greta, of course, is on the boat because she is against air travel, as it is contributing to global warming. We do, however, have the captain of her boat, who will need to get back to Europe from the USA - which he will do by plane. In addition, a team is required to go from Europe to the USA to bring back the boat. They will do so - yep, you got it - by plane. In other words, far more air travel is involved in all this than if Greta had done the reasonable thing, and just got herself a low-profile, economy class flight from Sweden to USA. But no. In other words again, it's a publicity stunt, and a feel-good trip for our pigtailed heroine.

Yes, Greta is very irritating. But maybe we shouldn't be too hard on her. Being famous so young can be tricky: ask Martina Hingis or Jennifer Capriati. And they actually possessed rare talent, unlike Greta.

I haven't followed the Greta story very much. I have other things to do. But it is likely far deeper, darker, and more complex than most people would like to think. I mean, what's it about? Really. There will be people behind the whole weird narrative of elevating her to saintly status. And we have some of mainstream media's obscene fawning over her. What's in it for all these questionable entities? Is it a shaming of older people, that they haven't done enough to save the planet, so we need a schoolgirl to show us all up as the irresponsible good-for-nothings that we are? The more time passes, the more I feel that there is something very sick about using a girl in this way, for whatever purpose. Some comments on a YouTube presentation I watched recently likened the phenomenon to child abuse. I think they have  a point.

In the meantime, don't be surprised if things don't end well for Greta. On the other hand, maybe she will be appointed Big Chief at the UN, and single-handedly save us all from the impending flames of hell. It is being suggested that she may receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Should anyone be in doubt as to the real meaning of this accolade, then here is final proof.

The thing is: on climate change we don't know. Nobody knows. Nobody. Don't be conned into thinking otherwise, that's my advice, not that anybody asked for it. Planetary climate can indeed change, rapidly and radically, both heating and cooling in next-to no time. It has happened before, without the aid of humankind, and can happen again. It's simply part of living on this planet: everything's a bit uncertain.

Footnote#4: The Garden

Actually, there has been substantial progress in reclaiming the garden in recent decades. In some areas, at least. Some things are being preserved, some things are being conserved.

I am thinking especially of some of the cities. Far cleaner, less polluted, quieter, less traffic, healthier in general, with the return of wildlife to urban areas. Some animals, in fact, seek refuge in the city from the 'countryside', where industrial farming poisons them and people try to shoot them with guns. In the city, no predators.

I was recently in Newcastle, a good example. 'Grim' and 'grime' are words which would once have been automatically coupled with this city, along with the other urban conglomerations adjacent. No longer. The central areas of Newcastle are a pleasure to stroll around, and to be in generally (this is probably not the case on a Friday evening....). Lots of money has been put into the place, and the riverside and city centre have been impressively transformed.

Inverness centre, in sad contrast, is a bit of a dump. It was a dump when I moved here fourteen years ago and, despite a little tweaking here and there, it remains a dump. The place survives largely because coachloads of tourists are disgorged onto its shabby streets for a few hours, where they spend a fistful of money on Highland souvenirs, before heading off to the Isle of Skye later in the day. Meanwhile, the outskirts of Inverness continue to spread relentlessly outwards in an urban sprawl that could be anywhere in the UK.

Inverness notwithstanding, some of urban Britain gives cause for optimism. Something which appears to pass Extinction Rebellion by.
                   

                 

Identity and Hate: Notes to a Diary

Part One

Dear Diary:

A number of things have piqued my interest of late - all a bit separate, but all connected in some way or another. Firstly, those unsolicited enquiries about whether I am right-wing. My response: I have no label - it took long enough to shed the label 'Buddhist', and I'm not going to take on any other label in a hurry, especially a highly charged political one. And how the question itself was curious: what might make me right-wing in anyone's eyes anyhow? And the fact that I didn't know what 'right wing' and 'left wing' signified, nowadays, and maybe for ever. If these terms mean anything at all, that meaning has changed radically over the past twenty or thirty years.

And then there was a comment from a friend of mine about how, referring to a Hillman quote that I used, he preferred 'fairness' to 'profit', and clearly felt that these were descriptive of left and right wing respectively. And how I felt this was not really the case, not now in 2019.

This, dear diary, is my meander through the highways and byways of my mind, consequent to these initial little puzzles.

Part Two

'Politics': it's changed. A decade ago, and when this blog first started up, it was pretty much a non-starter. Nothing to say. In the UK, there was only one political party: LibLabCon, as it was sometimes called. A few details were different, but the underlying belief systems, the ideology, were pretty much identical.

Who came and went? I barely recall their spectral images. Miliband, Brown, Cameron; Clegg, May. In Scotland, we also had the SNP and Salmond. But though these ghostly personages were pretty good at slinging mud at one another if expected, they were all signed up to an identical vision of the world: globalism and all that it implies, including a blind devotion to 'multiculturalism' (whatever that may mean) and the strictures of political correctness. This was what it was all about, and if that meant subservience of local (eg national) interests to those of supranational concerns, so be it.

Democracy under LibLabCon offered no choice. The sham is well described in a quote from Naom Chomsky. "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." I talked about it in terms of 'apples and pears'. You go into a fruit shop, and they tell you that they sell fruit. You have a choice: you can have apples or pears. That's all very well. But if you ask for a mango, they will tell you that you can't have a mango. Ask for an apricot, and you'll be told  not to be ridiculous, apricots don't exist. Ask for a strawberry and the cops will be knocking on the door at 5 in the morning to take you away.

Then, as if by a miracle, two things happened that were not on the agenda at all - Trump and Brexit -, and all hell was let loose. It was as if the owner of the fruit shop went in to open up one day, and found all his nice neat trays of tasteless Golden Delicious on the floor, and a bunch of unwelcome new fruit doing a tango on the shelves. A gooseberry, maybe. A classical English fruit, common in my youth but almost an endangered species nowadays. Sour and prickly if you treat it carelessly, but sweet and tasty if cooked properly.

In the UK, LibLabCon with their buddies in the media went apeshit, as did their equivalents in the USA. For twenty years they had had everything their own way; suddenly spanners were in the works, and they showed their true colours. They were not good losers, and tried every trick in the book, democratic or undemocratic, honest or underhand, to stop the Trump-and-Brexit party pooping.

But with these new developments, politics suddenly and clearly became relevant again to the likes of me. What had been the case for a while was now thrown into full and inescapable relief. What politics was really about, in the UK, USA, and Europe north of the Alps at least (it possibly remains less so in many nations elsewhere). Money - 'fairness or profit' - is a marginal concern in the political world of today. The new politics is not about economics; it is about what can be termed 'culture'.

Part Three

Let's return, dear diary, to James Hillman's statement of 'more fairness, less profit' as characterising the left-wing. On examination, it's not very clever at all. First up, it's a false dichotomy: you can have both fairness (whatever you decide that vague term may mean) and profit simultaneously. In fact, you need some profit in order to have anything to be fair with. This has been the problem for various communistic regimes over the years: 'we'd be fair, but we haven't got any money to be fair with'.

What's more, profit is not the prerogative of the right nowadays. In the USA it's super clear. The various big tech companies make enormous profits, as well as exercising enormous influence and power. But they are all paid-up supporters of the Democrats, who by American standards might constitute the more left wing. Conversely, the 'far right' Trump has the support of many of the poorer folk in the country.

The 'left' and 'right' of the past are unrecognisable today. Thirty years ago, if you were anti-censorship, pro-free speech as a priority for a civilised society, it would be the left to whom you would turn. No more. The left - as in certain factions of Labour in the UK, and elements in the Democratic Party in the USA - are highly censorious in approach. Freedom of expression is fine, provided your 'free speech' does not go against the political programme - Chomsky again. If you are politically incorrect, your freedom will be precarious, and likely be curtailed - it happens on a daily basis. Personal freedom comes a poor second to the Big Agenda. Thus, any upholder of freedom of speech finds themselves curiously lumped in with folk who are, in groupthink terms, named 'conservative', 'right'. If you want kindred spirits for freedom of speech, you need to turn to Sargon of Akkad, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Morrissey.  

But, to reiterate: economics is not the lynchpin of politics any longer. That went out twenty years ago. Maybe economics should feature more focally. Who would have thought, twenty five years ago, that Britain would have food banks, for crissake? And that's a development that has occurred, not under the devious authority of right-wing governments, but those of the centre and centre-left (so-called).

What is important these days, dear diary, is identity politics. Political correctness. Globalism. They all go together, by the way. This is what the headlines are full of, day after day. Racist tweets, sexist Facebook posts, Islamophobe politicians, LGBT rights, you name it. If you want to destroy your reputation, your livelihood, your career, in one fell swoop, all you need is one little misconstrued sentence on Facebook, and BBC and the Guardian will gleefully pick it up and crucify you publicly. It's their mission. They love it. And why not? That's what it's all about today.

Part Four

So, Diary, we've finally got there. Identity and politics. In truth, how did we get here in the first place? Take a step back, and you'll see what a bizarre, unreal juncture we have indeed arrived at.

The politics of identity. Political correctness (they go hand-in-hand). I've put time in recently. Videos. Books. Articles. Mulling things over, allowing things to sink in. Listening, learning. Turns out that it's not really a politics of universal love and peace after all. The opposite, in fact. Politics of Identity is the politics of never-ending conflict. The politics of hate.

There was a time when championing certain groups of people was sorely needed. Fifty, sixty years ago, discrimination based upon colour of skin, gender, race, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, was real. It is a triumph that such prejudices have been largely removed by now, certainly socially and legally. There are, I'm sure, bits of tweaking here and there which could still be done. But, speaking generally, the battles have been fought and won, and society is all the better for it (remember, oh Diary, I am focussing on the UK and the USA here). In fact, minority groups are sometimes legislated for advantageously today.

But instead of rejoicing and moving on, 'getting a life' as the saying goes, our minority group activists have hung in there, like limpets on the side of a hull, hardening their position and morphing into something altogether more sinister. What was once (I assumed, anyway) a pragmatic movement for 'equal rights' is now an ideology, an entire way of interpreting the world of human affairs. People are now no longer unique, marvellous individuals. They are identified according to their group: straight, gay, transgender, black, white, Hispanic, abled, disabled, Muslim, Christian. You name it, you're part of a group with its own group interests. And your group will be pitted endlessly against other groups, which will create an interminable cycle of bad feeling.

All of this is unnecessary. In Britain, most people rub along together more-or-less OK. Problems are more likely to arise because your neighbour plays music loud at night, or their dog poos in your front garden, than anything concerned with race, sex, and the rest. Yet the 'political establishment' doesn't care about this stuff, and continues to obsess about Facebook posts, joking tweets, searching desperately for ways to accuse and demean those who 'deserve it' (primarily critics of their politics of identity fanaticism).

It's not a level playing field. There are good guys and bad guys. Minority groups are labelled as helpless victims, while majority groups are marked as oppressors. What's more, they can be put onto a scale of wickedness, an activity known as intersectionalism. As a white, English, predominantly heterosexual male, I find myself on the very bottom rung of the ladder, along with other white, English, predominantly heterosexual friends and acquaintances. We are evil personified, the cause of all injustice and wickedness on the planet. Imperialists, heartless oppressors. Funny, really. I look at these guys and find them not too bad at all.

It is against this background that Trump was elected, and the EU referendum went the way it did. Vast numbers of people (and not just white, English etc...) felt desperately let down - forgotten - by decades of politicians more intent on being generous with 'minorities' and appeasing faceless, unaccountable EU bureaucrats than with doing anything to benefit 'ordinary working folk'. People just trying to get on with their lives, normally quite conventionally, but being ignored by government after government. "What about me?" "Shut up, white privileged bastard."

Part Five

We are nearing this journey's end. The truth now stares us in the face. The politics of identity, with its mind-numbing correctness, and the will to globalism are one and the same thing. At least they are inextricably interwoven. Group identity is the most potent of weapons in the drive towards globalisation - which is a polite term for one-world government and control.

'Divide and conquer': one of the oldest tricks in the book. Insert a whole variety of 'groups' into a host culture, indoctrinate the unwary into the goods and evils of their respective labels, stand back, and watch the whole thing descend into hate-fuelled conflict. It's a matrix, a synthetic mental construct, placed upon the natural flow of events between people. It is a weird, artificial, and wholly perverse way of looking at the world, designed for chaos, break-up, breakdown.

It is, some say, a continuation of the Marxist will to power. That's a suitably bizarre proposal; but bizarre situations sometimes require bizarre explanations. The traditional Marxist view of history didn't work out, so the theory goes: the proletariat refused to do their revolutionary thing in the western world. Even after being decimated by two world wars, they refused to rise up against their oppressors. The opposite was true, if anything. After World War Two, they wanted nothing more than a job, a house, and a family, ushering in a generation of stultifying conventionality.

Thus, with the proletariat a complete disappointment, a new tactic for the revolution was needed. The emphasis shifted from 'economics' to 'culture'. The oppressors were no longer the bourgeoisie, but western culture. It was hoped that 'minority groups' would succeed where the proles had failed so miserably. Mass immigration would be a prime tool in the new revolution, especially immigration from cultures at considerable variance with the host. With its unique blend of guilt and personal responsibility, western culture was perfect to be infected with a sense of its own sinfulness, and would acquiesce willingly to its own destruction. If your aim is 'globalisation', if you find this to be a good prospect, then niceties such as the west's unique nurturing of creativity, responsible for most of what people like these days, and the west's freedom of speech (they go hand-in-hand) can be happily sacrificed for the 'greater good'.

Though strange and seemingly far-fetched, the theory succeeds in offering some explanation for the extraordinary mentality which holds sway over much of the western world today. I have come across no other explanation of our current weirdness.

So that's it for now. Signing off. Putting the diary to bed. Sleep tight.....

Images: Gooseberries; Cezanne's fruit; the original Sargon; Antifa, a face of radical socialism today