More Words, More Words:Liberty

Part One

Here's another Penguin 'editorial note', written by one Helena Kennedy: liberty. 'Liberty is individual freedom, of which there are two forms: firstly, a sense of freedom and release from the chains of external control (negative liberty), and secondly an internal freedom of choice (positive freedom). This also entails the notion of self-determination, which leads to inequality with others. It can also involve the taking of risks, which may not lead to the desired outcome.'

Plenty to mull over there. One problem only: '...…. which leads to inequality with others.' The words 'equality' and 'inequality' are doorways to such a pandora's box, as to end up being meaningless, really. My own life is too short and precious to spend the rest of its limited span in discussion of the issues connected with these most vague and emotionally-propelled words. If we substitute 'difference' for 'inequality', we may get closer to the truth of the matter.

We can now begin to dimly perceive this strange reality: there are two distinct types of human being. There are those who see 'freedom', 'liberty', as the basis of a healthy human society, and as the axis on which human aspiration can be properly fulfilled. And there are those who see fit to control others; who are certain of their rightness, and furthermore seek to silence and otherwise disempower anyone who happens to disagree with them. We had a peek into this infernal world in the previous post.

These two types of being also manifest the broader meaning of the 'telestai/gnostics versus illuminati' dichotomy which John Lash describes, again outlined in a recent post. There are those who seek gnosis, and there are those who endeavour to lord it over others, be it out of nefariousness or self-righteousness. This is the focal division among human beings, I suggest. Not right v left, Christians v Muslims, Christians v atheists, or whatever.

Part Two

Any social/political notions which may turn up on Pale Green Vortex are a direct mirror of what, for want of a better term at the moment, I'll call my spiritual life. Not a term I feel completely happy with, but I don't want to get too nit-picky or literalistic just now.

My approach to 'spiritual life' is nowadays highly individualistic. Self-determination is the key. Actually, I've always been like that, it's only recently that I've become vividly aware of it. The individualistic flavour is only accentuated when one sees how much of 'the world' as described by official sources, by the mainstream, is a fabrication, designed to manipulate you and most likely lead you far from your own divinity. You're on your own, buddie, you're on your own.

Self-determination doesn't mean that you don't attend meditation classes, join study groups, have friends, meet and learn from like-minded people. All this may be what you need to do. But it's you, and you alone. You are unique, and any connection you may have with Buddha, God, spirit, whatever, will be unique as well.

I benefitted from a considerable period of living within a context of 'organised Buddhism', but the time came when I had to say goodbye to all that. I required the freedom to wake up in the morning and believe, feel, experience, do anything without bias, prejudgement, or preconceived notions about how life works. If I felt I needed to put pictures of Donald Trump, Teresa May or Lady Gaga all over my bedroom walls, I needed to be internally free to act without a little voice asking 'Yes, but is it Buddhism? Is it consistent with Buddhist principles?' Even the smallest voice putting the questions would have meant death to me. In all honesty, I have thrived since leaving behind any allegiance to a religion, group, movement, or what have you.

An 'aspirational soul' on its unique spiritual journey may survive, flourish even, regardless of the socio-political climate and system it turns up in: 'to gnosis' may be the destiny and purpose of that particular life, come what may. At the same time, different set-ups will encourage or squash that aspirational force to varying degrees. I haven't heard of a lot of Buddha-minds emerging from Soviet Russia.

I have done my share of trashing the shortcomings and inadequacies of modern western societies, I confess to that one. But despite their shortcomings, they remain more favourable to the individual than most others on the planet currently. Above all, there is - or has been - a recognition, at least a cursory nod of the head, in the direction of that most precious of attributes: liberty.

Part Three

It's a never-ending game, a game of cat-and-mouse. The forces that would sever us from liberty, that very simple freedom to think and say what we feel to be right; and the force of humanity trying to discover itself, to be its unique yet universal. Today, the bases of 'positive liberty' are under serious attack. With the cat out of the bag (lots of felines in this paragraph) in the form of internet spread of information, the dark controllers are desperately attempting to exert their authoritarian will and put it back in the bag.

In retrospect, it has probably been folly to go along with the incredible centralisation that has characterised the growth of internet technology. It means in effect handing over great power to a mere handful of gigantic tec organisations. This in turn makes removing an undesirable's voice all that much easier. But there we are, as Facebook, Amazon, and the rest, come down on those who refuse to play the game - which consists primarily of globalisation, counterfeit sameness, the cloak of multiculturalism, and silencing of dissent.

That a human being might wish to control another's freedom of mind, through restricting their free access to opinion and information, strikes me as ridiculous. It is one of the worst things that one can do to a fellow human being. 'Liberty' being the focal point of higher human aspiration. Conversely, it goes without saying that anybody wishing to control others will try to cut off the path to authenticity, realisation of uniqueness. We have 'climate change deniers'; we have 'holocaust deniers'; we also have 'aspiration deniers'. And they are out there in force.

Video link: Oh man, YouTube won't link to the vid. 'Video unavailable'. Must be a coincidence, folks, it's available. Go to YouTube, it's there. Search for 'Sargon of Akkad, To Honour the Dissidents.' 5 minutes, well presented, well worth it.  

Book of Words

Part One: King Penguin

Yes, the book of words. The dictionary. An important book, I'd say.

It was one of Neil Kramer's less glorious moments. It hails from a few years back, when I listened to everything he put out, most of which was just what I needed. Anyhow, on this particular day he was in conversation with an interviewer, I've forgotten who, when the discussion turned to words and their meanings. They talked about dictionaries and their importance. It's an online resource now, they agreed, the dictionary. "Who uses a book dictionary nowadays anyway?" almost scoffed Neil, in tones usually reserved for Remainers when they 'talk' about Brexit people.

My ears perked up notably at this point. I use book dictionaries. You know, the ones that stand on the bookshelf. And I feel it is wise indeed to do so. Online resources are all very well, but they are so defined by 'now'. As meanings and nuances change, so will online definitions. Should we wish to understand a word more fully by checking its origins and former meanings, then a book is a far more durable witness to truth and reality than anything to be found online.

There are three dictionaries in our house which regularly come off the bookshelf. There is the English - French dictionary, which is just beginning to look a bit tired around the edges. There is the English - Spanish one which, due to the continued parlous state of my own Spanish-speaking abilities, has recently fallen into three pieces. And there is the New Penguin English Dictionary.

The Penguin is an interesting case. It's big, heavy, hardback. It came my way after my mother died about fifteen years ago. Printed in 2000, it is recent enough to still be current and relevant. Yet it hails from a time when people seemed more at ease to write what they actually thought and felt. The Penguin dictionary comes with a low fear factor.

A feature of this book which caught my attention is that some words are accompanied by 'usage notes' or 'editorial notes'. I came across a couple of these comments recently, which shed bright light on the implications or connotations of words highly relevant to today's human condition.

Part Two: Socialism's little problem

Penguin dictionary, Editorial note, by Professor Peter Clarke on: socialism: 'The social emphasis in socialism is shown by the fact that, in the 19th century, it was contrasted often with individualism rather than with capitalism. The democratic state apparently offered a means of achieving socialism by consent - a strategy to which social democrats adhered, despite electoral setbacks, while Communists instead opted for the shortcut of revolution and autocracy.'

The professor's note is revealing indeed. The primary aim of socialism, according to the editorial note, is the establishment of the socialist state. The means is secondary. If we need to go through this whole tiresome democratic process, so be it. But if the aim can be achieved otherwise, so much the better. The democratic process - the will, the wishes, of 'the people' - is irrelevant. This is the unresolveable paradox of socialist doctrine: that it purports to establish a collective system for the benefit of 'the people', while simultaneously regarding the wishes of those people as unimportant. I suggest that this brings to light the real aim of 'socialism', which is to implement an authoritarian system of collectivism, within which a small number of elites rule the roost over the vast mass of human insignificances.

'Socialism': we're not talking Michael Foot and Keir Hardie here. We're talking anyone who places emphasis on the collective rather than the individual. Who thinks 'Big State' as the means to achieving this end. Who thinks rules and regulations, orders and restrictions, over personal freedom, autonomy, and individual incentive. Interference and control as panaceas. We're thinking 'one-fit' politics where everybody is reduced to the same.

So we're talking about the politics of New Labour as it was, Tony Blair; Obama, Hilary Clinton; Macron, Merkel, the great wet dream of the EU; Nicola Sturgeon, Nick Clegg, now at
Facebook; centrist, 'respectable' members of the British Conservative Party. All fit neatly into this authoritarian mould. None have much respect for the individual's freedoms.

Freedom. Yes, freedom. It should be the most basic of attributes, or aims, of any decent human society. Yet freedom, and its waning mirror image, democracy, is such a fragile little flower. Hard-won, but so easily trampled on. Its erosion, and the lack of respect it gets in some quarters, are what provoke me to write about it in the first place.

Two recent-ish events stand out. Firstly, post-Brexit vote. Some 'Remainers' have shown their own true, rather ugly, colours in its wake. They haven't got their own way, and are not happy. This in itself is fair enough. But when people attempt to overturn the majority vote, or demand a re-run, or even simply dismiss all Brexit people as idiots or old fogeys, then they are playing the dark socialist game, where democracy can happily take second place to the more important end, that of staying in the EU. It is the crass arrogance of the 'socialist liberal elite', who are so certain of their superiority, that they will ride roughshod over the majority verdict if they can only find a way.

Part Three: No more words

Then, as well as Brexit, there is social media. The Thought Police, necessary for any jolly good authoritarian society, have been out in force. We knew it was going to happen. While the internet has facilitated the sharing of information and ideas in ways that were previously unimaginable, still it was inevitably going to be used to filter and shape what people receive and believe to be true. Especially once most of the world has, rather foolishly, become dependent on a small number of organisations as its source of nearly everything.

What started as a trickle has become, just recently, a Niagara. Banning, censoring, 'deplatforming' are the order of the day. The first high-profile critic of the mainstream to be taken down was Alex Jones. Tommy Robinson has followed, and there will be more. Anybody even bold enough to express support for these miscreants is at risk: Swedish independent journalist Katerina Janouch was recently suspended from Facebook after simply expressing support for Tommy Robinson's stance in an article on freedom of expression. It is ridiculous, laughable, and scary. 1984 in overkill. It's sometimes difficult to believe that this is happening right now....

This is the socialist mindset in feeding frenzy. Remember: democracy, freedom of expression, are optional; the end justifies the means. And if that means shutting people up, so be it. Nowadays people are not 'disappeared' by a knock on the door at dawn and a meeting with the firing squad: this does not bring in votes, people take exception. Instead, the authoritarian righteous ones feel fit to silence them by attempting to remove them from the public realm. Silenced, tongues cut off, those speakers of words and opinions inconvenient to the bigger programme.

Pressure from politicians and similar seems to often be behind much of this modern-day censorship. In the UK, various ne-er-do-wells from the Labour Party are especially zealous. 'Thug' (a word often used in the mainstream before Mr. Robinson's name) Tom Watson, deputy Labour leader, is one such, believing he has the right to decide for the population at large who they can listen to and who is forbidden.

Those under the cosh are invariably people of a populist, nationalist frame of mind. This is the big giveaway. People who dare to point out that the multicultural global society (read 'one-world socialism') comes with its problems. That it is not automatically for the benefit of all. Any other point of view is tolerated on mainstream social media; this is the one and only exception. It is being dealt with ruthlessly. Do you get the picture?

A particularly touchy subject is Islam. Just mention it and you will be deleted from Facebook tomorrow. It is Tommy Robinson's main crime, to criticise some aspects of Muslim religion and society. You don't do that any more. It's actually one of the weird things. Before 9/11, nobody really cared too much. Then, two apparently opposing things came into being. Firstly, we were informed that there were a whole number of terrorists attacks in and on western societies, all committed by Islamic terrorists. Simultaneously, it became increasingly bad to criticise or question anything about Islam, to the point where today it has acquired the status of a protected religion. While it is absolutely fine to have a go at Christianity, you utter a word of reservation about Islam at your peril. Can you get your head around this contradiction? It's just surreal. But people seem to get away with it.

To be yawningly clear, once more. This is not about whether Tommy Robinson is a good guy, or whether Islam is the perfect religion. It's about freedom to communicate, and by implication the dignity of the individual. There are those who consider themselves in a position to tell others what they can say, and by implication think. Which facts and opinions the public at large is permitted to hear. And there are other people who are not happy with this authoritarianism. Not at all.

And to be yawningly clear yet again: I am not suggesting that everybody who considers themselves a socialist, liberal progressive, whatever, adheres to the advancement of 1984 as I have outlined it. But it is a factor, and you can't get away from it.

That's it for now. Back with another juicy word shortly.....        

 

Get 'Im!

From time to time there appear characters who, it is deemed by the fair and wise, must be dealt with. Silenced. Obliterated from the public domain. People who speak truth, uncomfortably so; who arouse from sleep other people. Troublemakers.

One such was Jim Morrison. Unlike other icons of the age who were able to whip up a teenage frenzy, such as the Who and Rolling Stones, Morrison also came with a critique, a razor-sharp mind, when he wasn't completely out of it. He was demonised, wrongly accused of 'lewd behaviour', made to flee to Paris, where he died an ignoble death.

Timothy Leary was another. Pied Piper of psychedelia: drop out, everybody. That's not the right message; could not be tolerated. He rendered himself harmless in later years when he adopted the then-novel 'virtual realities' as his enthusiasm. Wilhelm Reich, another. Maybe his inventions were too close to the bone. He died in prison, a broken man, I suppose. You see, 'they' don't care whether you live or die; except that 'organised death' which does not appear to be caused by 'them' is preferable.

And today we have Tommy Robinson. Cut to the quick: hounded relentlessly by a bunch of authoritarian bastards. Nasty people, who preach tolerance, so long as you don't disagree with them. Shameless politicians try to get this sort of thing set up, and spineless pathetic social media corporations bow down before them. Friends, we live in dark times, in some respects at least. So much so that there will be more on this theme shortly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny9bVn6Kf6g
 

Bad Bad Corporation

It was nine years ago, April 2nd 2010, just a few short weeks after Pale Green Vortex made its glorious entrance onto the internet. The BBC made its first most inglorious appearance on this site. I suggested that, rather than watching BBC Breakfast in the morning, you might be better off with kiddies' programmes. 'Bear Behaving Badly' was particularly recommended.


A lot can change in less than a decade, and not just ones personal perceptions. BBC Breakfast, Victoria Derbyshire, BBC 'News', Panorama, Newsnight and the rest: it is now widely recognised that nobody in their right minds will tune in to these trashy propaganda specials any more. The credibility of the BBC has plummeted, as have its 'news' and documentary ratings. Maybe there is a light at the end of the Kali Yuga after all.

I recently read a book on the topic. Yes, we seem to be doing books on Pale G.V. at present. Relatively hot off the press, it was: 'BBC: Brainwashing Britain?' by David Sedgwick. Familiar territory, I thought to myself; no sweat. It's actually quite a big tome. And with page after page after 387 pages of BBC 'news' and current affairs being inspected, dissected, analysed, I was in quite a strange mood by the end.

I knew that the BBC was bad. But I had failed to absorb just how totally, utterly, unremittingly bad it is. When it comes to 'news', that much-lauded impartiality is quietly and cunningly jettisoned. Instead it is socio-political conditioning that is remorseless and relentless, purpose-designed to wear down the critical faculties of the viewer. It's not that most of the content is fine, with just the occasional hiccup. Everything, but everything, is viewed through a particular-coloured lens: liberal elitism, cultural Marxism, socialist multiculturalism, power-addictive globalisation, call it what you will. It is there, unmistakeable, once you know how to look.

If you have ever read George Orwells' '1984', you have probably never forgotten it. If you have never read it, well, it's not too late. It's a nightmare dystopian future that Orwell conjures up. When I last read it, about five years ago, even then I found it rather exaggerated. No longer. David Sedgwick, the author, refers to '1984' frequently when describing the ideal society envisaged by BBC types, and the many underhand tactics employed in order to try and bring about their elitist authoritarian vision of society. Selection, omission, distortion, personal smear campaigns, invoking of simplistic good versus bad scenarios, careful choice of language designed to persuade and manipulate: all is everyday fayre in the impartial world of the BBC. Nothing is too low to use, provided it works. Fake news is the norm at Broadcasting House.

The author focusses on two themes to highlight the propaganda nature of BBC (mis)reporting: its ceaseless anti-Trump stance, and its equally ceaseless anti-Brexit pose. He could equally have chosen other topics, such as the BBC's 'coverage' of the themes of climate change and so-called renewable energy. It was my own dip into the realities surrounding these topics which initially alerted me to the strange interpretation of the word 'impartial' by the BBC.

None of what I have written is intended as rhetoric or exaggeration. For once, a Pale Green blogpost can be taken pretty much literally. So too the content of 'BBC: Brainwashing Britain?'. Unlike much of what comes out of Broadcasting House, it is properly researched, not depending on rumour, tweets, or press releases. The BBC is indeed a most dangerous organisation, and it is with relief that I observe how many other people are realising the same. I suppose that, in their increased desperation to perpetuate unsustainable narratives, the BBC's tactics are becoming increasingly obvious, increasingly stupid and over-the-top.

In describing so clearly the nefarious means by which the BBC tries to manipulate the UK populace, the book also provides the reader with valuable tools of discernment which can be used equally with regards to anybody else's 'news'.

So I'm going to heartily recommend this book. If every adult in the UK read it, the nation would become a wiser, better place, more aligned with honesty and reality. And Broadcasting House could be used for something constructive and useful.

As a postscript, the website of the book's author, David Sedgwick, includes his blog, which provides well-written worthwhile pieces.