Publish and be Damned! (Part One)

Back in summer last year I submitted an article to 'the Scottish Mountaineer', the periodical magazine of the Mountaineering Council of Scotland. As I said to the editor in my accompanying letter, I had struggled with a title, but came up with 'To love and protect - a personal view'. I pointed out that some of my views might not be shared by all MCofS members (an understatement....) but that, as an independent member, I felt able to exert the freedom my consciously-chosen position confers. Should he decide against publication, I would understand.

My article has not been published, and I understand. To be honest, it makes little difference to me personally. The MCofS finds itself in a sensitive position, trying simultaneously to take a stand against destructive government policies while remaining in a position to communicate and negotiate with aforementioned authorities. They don't want to upset the applecart too much. At the same time, I felt it to be a shame for the MCof S not to be able to let loose the unorthodox viewpoints of some of its members. It would do the organisation good, I feel. In my opinion it would be beneficial for some 'mountain people' to look a bit more deeply into the political and parapolitical chessboard where the shape of our landscapes is being decided and played out. In addition, I had taken into account the nature of my audience when writing, trying to go softly-softly where I considered appropriate.

Anyhow, I have decided that bits of the article deserve an outing. Some of the stuff echoes things I have written previously on Pale Green Vortex, while some is 'new'. I have therefore included a number of sizeable extracts below for the reader's delectation.....

What's in a mountain?

"In his excellent and wide-ranging article for the May 2015 magazine, 'What's not to like?', Dave Gordon asks a question: 'Why do so many people responsible for Scotland's landscape seem to dislike it so much?' I read it as a plaintive cry from the heart, childlike in its directness. There was also an 'Emperor has no clothes on' quality to the question. It is so obvious and puzzling, yet rarely asked. Maybe the answers are a little uncomfortable......

I recall an evening about a decade ago. I was in the throes of leaving my home in London for a life in Highland Scotland, and was having a farewell evening meal with some friends. Puzzled by my imminent departure for the far north, one of them requested an explanation. I launched into a comprehensive discourse: how out-and-out urban living was no longer a possibility for me; how I needed at least one foot in a more natural world; how my love of mountains had been rekindled, and how I cherished the opportunity to climb a few while my body was still up to the task. There followed a moment's silence. 'I still don't see why you need to move to the north of Scotland just to climb a mountain' was his rejoinder. This friend was not a windfarm developer - he was an artist, dedicated to beauty and expression of the human spirit. But he just didn't get it.

On reflection, I suspect that there aren't a lot of people who actively dislike our mountains. But there are plenty who fail - and fail completely - to recognise their value. To lives wholly encompassed by urban living and human affairs, mountains are simply irrelevant, and therefore entirely dispensible. These are people who, like my friend, don't get it at all.

Wind at any cost

Another recollection, this one from several years ago. I was watching one of those 'great outdoors' programmes on television featuring Cameron McNeish. In this edition, our indomitable adventurer was standing at the entrance to Glen Dessary. This is, he pointed out, one of the great wild spots of Highland Scotland. It had been tamed somewhat by plantation forestry, but that no longer mattered all that much, since we had got used to it, and accepted it as part of the current landscape. 'Maybe' he concluded as he tramped off into the hills 'the same will happen with windfarms.'

Whether Cameron was aware of the implications of his words, I do not know. Flexibility and adaptability have been vital ingredients in the numerical success of the human species. But they turn out to be a double-edged sword. We can learn, over time, to put up with just about anything. All manner of injustic, servitude, indecency can eventually become tolerable and the norm. With a shrug of the shoulders, peoples come to accept what is conceived of as 'their lot'. The relentless blanket promotion of the supposed benefits of windfarms, regardless of location, is a prime example of the process. It serves to gradually erode public resistance. A new sense of 'normal' is established, and what was once viewed as awful is now seen as part of the usual course of affairs. In Stalin's Russia this was called brainwashing. Here, we hesitate to employ such terms. The methods are more softly-softly but the results are similar.

It was while I was considering this article that news came out of the UK government's decision to cut subsidies for onshore windfarms a year earlier than originally projected. Eager to discover the possible consequences for our mountain landscapes, I checked out half a dozen or so mainstream news sites on the internet. I was amazed to find that all the articles I read were almost identical. Sometimes entire paragraphs word for word. The usual suspects were out in force: RenewablesUK with dire warnings about investment; Greenpeace, WWF and FofE dealing out doom and gloom; Fergus Ewing with his 'What about Scotland?' stance. Not a word about the thousands of people anxiously wondering whether their lives might not be thrown into turmoil by the march of the turbines after all. Just to read these articles, we would be led to believe that the government's decision was an unmitigated social, economic and environmental disaster. Thus is public opinion moulded. And the reality, I submit, is far from what was being presented.

Not everyone is aware of the importance of the press release (and it is press release that I had been reading regarding windfarm policy in the previous paragraph). 'News' is often nothing more than a compilation of these instant-newsbite pieces of publicity. In 2008, journalist Nick Davies wrote a revealing article for the Guardian newspaper in which he summarised his research into this area. In a survey of over 2000 news stories, a mere 12% were found to be composed wholly of information researched by the reporters; 80% was completely or partly created from press releases and the public relations industry. And the 'facts' in the stories had been checked in only 12% of stories. This is the woeful situation that, to put it frankly, I believe is exploited with great effectiveness by those who view the mountains with indifference. They are adepts in the dark art of perception manipulation."

OK, so that's Part One of what my fellow Mountaineering Council of Scotland members have missed. Part Two to follow shortly.






 

  

Celebrity Chef Merkel's Special Soup Recipe

"You must understand that this war (WW2) is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest" Attributed to Winston Churchill, 1940, quoted Emrys Hughes, 1950.

A certain amount of space is devoted on Pale Green Vortex to matters of geopolitics and parapolitics. This is not something that I particularly enjoy, or feel at home with. The prospect of groups of people dedicating their lives to organising and perpetuating programmes of control and manipulation of others does not sit well with me at all. My mind does not work naturally in the style of Machiavelli. I am often slow on the uptake, and am not even much good at chess. All the same, my 'consciousness research' has inevitably led me into serious consideration of the fabric of the human world we inhabit. It is as much a creation of consciousness as is the world 'in here'. Things and events do not happen 'by chance', nor are they just 'givens', any more than the dramas that unfold within the mind of the individual.

It is not an accident, methinks (sometimes reluctantly), that I have turned up in this world of heavy polarity, where the forces of darkness run rampant, in life 'out there' at least as much as inside the personal consciousness. There is a meaning, or a purpose, or an intention, in all this. Maybe it simply reflects the nature of my own consciousness, maybe it's a sublime teaching device, maybe both. Whatever, it strikes me that the notion of personal nirvana is out of the question. It just makes no sense, and there is no easy escape. Consciousness is everywhere, subliminally demanding illumination, and when the Bodhisattva in Buddhist stories vows not to disappear into nirvana but to stick around for all sentient beings, he or she is not really expressing a choice, but a universal reality, an inevitability. It doesn't come through in the Buddhist texts, but other than being satisfied with a half-baked, one-eyed version of nirvana, there is no option. Buggering off into Voidness just doesn't cut the mustard, doesn't come into it.

The sexual assaults and molestations on New Year's Eve in Cologne, Hamburg, and elsewhere were as predictable as they were nevertheless disturbing. Equally predictable yet disturbing was the reaction from much of the public face of Germany. In my previous piece I wrote about Acharya S, a woman of integrity and honour. This time round, no such luck. Angela Merkel, for one, Executioner-in-Chief of the open door policy of national suicide. The mainstream attempt to justify this awful move has been relentless, but it has failed to really wash. Then there are those who are complicit in all this. Rather than expressing condemnation of the acts of that fateful night and demonstrating some support for those who were attacked, Henriette Reker, mayor of Cologne, simply issued a code of conduct for women to obey in future, thereby keeping those 'men of Arab or North African appearance' at arm's length. Various so-called feminist groups simply bleated their indifference by commenting that white German men commit rape as well. True, no doubt, but not in organised marauding hordes. Then we have a male, German Interior Minister Ralf Jaeger, giving his tuppence worth. What happened on New Year's Eve, he tells us, is no worse than what goes on in right-wing chat rooms on the internet. Thanks for putting us right on that one, Ralf. It's true: simply expressing an opinion is just as bad as an unprovoked physical attack on a woman.

This is all shameful; I am tempted to label all these people as traitors to their nation and people. At the same time, I am aware of their status as victims as well as perpetrators. And, as John Lash eloquently points out, victim and perpetrator, abused and abuser, often exist in a mutual bond of identification. The dynamic is a single dynamic, the mindset of  the one easily apprehended and transferred to the other.

The mind control programme imposed post WW2 to keep Germany in its place has worked magnificently. Whisper a word of doubt or protest at 'multiculturalism', verbalise the smallest suspicion that maybe we are not all precisely the same (and that there doesn't need to be anything wrong with that), and you will get the stock retort: Hitler! Holocaust! At which point most people simply slouch quietly back into their corner. It seems to me that vast numbers of Germans have been comprehensively cowed into submission by a false choice presented to befuddle them and shut them up. Support open doors, welcome anyone in, or stand accused of being a Hitler Holocaust person. This is, once again, a false dichotomy: there are plenty of possibilities other than crass egalitarianism or being a Hitler Holocaust person. It's up to Germans to wake up and realise this.

There is indeed a good deal of racism in western Europe: much of it is directed towards the indigenous white peoples. Imagine if the New Year's Eve assaults had been perpetrated by gangs of white German males on young Muslim women. What a national and international outcry would have resulted; what venom would have been spouted at white German men. No holding back this time. Would Henriette Reker simply be issuing codes of conduct to Muslim women about how to keep the testosterone-fuelled German boys at bay? Don't think so. It is a similar situation in the USA. White man kills black youth, resulting in enormous publicity, outrage and public anger. Group of black men kills young white female: barely any media attention, as in the recent case of 20-year old Sara Mutschlechner, student at University of North Texas. The mainstream media distorts public perception, not so much by blatant lies, as by selective reporting, focussing or excluding as it sees fit in order to serve its own pre-programmed agenda.

Neil Kramer suggests that, when Empire is doing well, and things are running smoothly for it, its actions are invisible. It is when it is struggling that Empire's machinations come to the surface and are obvious to behold. I hope he is right on this one. The actions and manipulations of Empire are clear for all to see at present. The veil is thin, if not pulled completely aside. In the meantime, we shall see how events unfold. As Gurdjieff once said: 'You can never awaken using the same system that put you to sleep in the first place.' Wise words indeed. Empire cannot be brought to its knees through the ballot box (at least not as currently functioning) since it is an instrument of Empire. At the same time, individual policies of Empire can be questioned and overcome through the voting system. It is up to the people of Germany whether they find the courage to confront that which has been imposed upon them or not.

Oh, nearly forgot: the Merkel soup recipe!

1. Take plenty of normally incompatible ingredients.  Mix together well.
2. Stir thoroughly and bring to the boil.
3. Stand well back.
4. Serve with an accompaniment of indigestion tablets.

Image: chinadaily




                  

Acharya S: Goodbye, and Thank You

"How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us"  Pope Leo X, Pope 1513 - 1521

It is with sadness that I have to report the recent death of Acharya S. Personally, I was surprised at how deeply I felt at news of her passing. It seemed that I had lost a friend.....

I first came across the works of Acharya S some years ago, while undertaking my 'things are not the way they appear or are presented' investigations. I listened to interviews with her, read some of her writings, along with the opinions of some of her detractors. I found her to be a clear and fearless speaker, an uncompromising writer, and a person who tore down some of the opaque veils hung in front of the eyes of humanity.

Acharya S sure touched a nerve: the foundations of much of western 'civilisation' over the past 2000 years, to be precise. While I might not go along with every detail of what she said, and might shrug my shoulders with a 'don't know and don't mind too much' about a few of her other claims, still three overarching proposals of hers appear to me unshakeable. Firstly, that the story of Jesus Christ is based upon astro-mythological realities - considerations of movements of the sun, moon, the stars and the zodiac - rather than literal historical facts. Secondly, that the Jesus story is not unique, but largely mirrors other tales - of the Egyptian Horus, Mithras, et al -, all stories of the Great God of the Sky, the Sun. And thirdly, that 'historical' Christianity as embraced by most of its believers is largely the creation of Imperial Rome as a means of control of the masses.

Unsurprisingly, the notion of Jesus as Sun, rather than Son, doesn't go down well in all quarters. I have rarely come across outbursts so hateful as some on the internet directed towards Acharya S. Even as she was dying from inflammatory breast cancer, certain 'religious people' were posting about how this was retribution - she gets what she deserves. Ironically, such people of Jesus bare witness to the truth uttered by Acharya S about the toxicity of religious literalism. Such people are, in my view, amongst the most vulgar and low that walk the Earth.

Slightly more reasoned criticism of Acharya S's work comes down mainly to nit-picking. While some of the nits are indeed pickable, they fail to detract from her main theses, which deal a devastating blow to Christian historicity, literalism, and fundamentalism. I see it like this: maybe a Jesus holy guy existed, maybe he didn't. We can never really know. Whatever, he took upon himself a mantle of pre-existing mythology and astro-theology. Of pre-Christian nature-based wisdom.

For a brief summary of the origins of Christianity according to Acharya S, you could do worse than watch the first part of 'Zeitgeist: the Movie' ( readily available on the internet). This is based on her work. I recall the first time that I watched this. Once presented, it all seems so jaw-droppingly obvious; it is amazing that we didn't all get it ages ago, instead of being taken in by the official Jesus story. Yet is has worked; and that provides a clue as to the way that the channels of officialdom continue to pump fairy tales into the mainstream, and the public at large falls for it. This in spite of the more-or-less transparent nature of the lies and deceptions on offer.

One of Acharya's works, 'Suns of God', stares out at me from my bookshelf as I write. It is one of the more important volumes under my stewardship. Other great religious figureheads aside from Jesus are considered by Acharya as Sun Gods. Krishna gets an exhaustive treatment, and she sees Buddha likewise. As  former Buddhist, I view the latter notion with particular fascination. She approaches Buddhism, not primarily as the body of consciousness-enhancing practices that I found so appealing, but in terms of stories of the Buddha's life. I don't think Acharya understands Buddhism as a lived tradition, and she allows herself to get side-tracked into issues that don't fit how many Buddhists see Buddhism eg whether Buddhism is theistic or atheistic - a false dichotomy. Buddhism is arguably neither; and, besides, literalism and historicism are lesser issues for most practitioners of Buddhism than they are for followers of Abrahamic monotheisms.

Despite all this, Acharya S is able to actually see what is staring us in the face all the time, but which we bemusingly fail to see. One example concerns the many different dates given within the traditions of Buddhism for the Enlightened One's birth. These vary wildly, something which we generally side-step as we take on board the most generally accepted date in the modern western version of Buddhism as 563 BCE. Surely, argues Acharya, these huge discrepancies point to something or other. She suggests that the Buddha is in reality a composite figure, created from solar-based traditions going back way further than normally reckoned. A notion which makes the whole thing far more interesting to me.

In the face of adversity, rancorous criticism, and ad hominem attacks, Acharya S stood firm. For having the guts to pull back the veil on one of the great disempowering deceptions of the west, she is to be admired and respected greatly. Revealing the machinations of Empire is not an enviable task.

Acharya died on December 25th. The universe in its synchronicities possesses a sometimes dark sense of humour: I know this from other death dates in my ken. To die on December 25th, the day when the sun begins once more its long, slow ascent ever higher into the sky, bringing forth light, banishing the darkness. A fitting day indeed for her passing.

Acharya S, you will be missed. Thank you, thank you.