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.
         

When Choice is not an Option

Canned bagpipe music glooped out the door of the souvenir gift shop as I passed, oozing like thick tomato soup into the street. 'Unchained Melody' given the tartan tourist treatment. I wouldn't want to work in that shop. Definitely time to head home.

It's a little more than a year ago that I wrote a little piece about a kundalinified bus trip home. Nowadays things are less precarious; the journey passes pleasantly enough, and without incident. I stroll indoors and into the living room. There my eye falls with considerable satisfaction upon a little line of books at the bottom of a small table. For a long while, this collection had been an unruly pile of books, reaching higgledy-piggledy towards the ceiling. I don't do a lot of reading, but enough to produce a little pile from the volumes that I had bought and read over the past two years, starting with the dreaded 'Red Book'. These comprise my current literature, and I have been reluctant to hide the books away on bookshelves, where they will immediately acquire the status of 'historical document; job done', and will in all likelihood descend into oblivion, instant anonymity.

Inconveniently, I was reminded at regular intervals that my pile of books did not win any prizes in the neatness-and-beauty stakes. Something needed to be done. Time and again I surveyed the living room, attempting to see where another bookshelf could be fitted in without cluttering the place up, or which books could be heartlessly relegated to the attic. Then, one day, it dawned on me. All I had to do was to pick up that higgledy-piggledy pile of books, turn it on its side, and it would magically become an elegant little row of volumes, a neat bookshelf lookalike. I knew all that right-brain stuff over the decades would come up trumps one day.

Sandwiched modestly amongst the heavyweights - the Red Book, the Biology of Kundalini, Climbing Days, Shamanism and Tantra in the Himalayas (what's that doing here? It's been around for years) - is Margaret Miranda Dempsey's volume 'Female Kundalini'. It is aptly named: Margaret is female, and she has experienced a kundalini awakening.

'Female Kundalini' I would not rate amongst the more remarkable volumes in my now-horizontal pile. It is, however, an enjoyable read. The first half is a potted life history, including details of Margaret's kundalini experiences. Westerners in whom the kundalini energy awakes do not appear to fit into any particular mould. However, my bits and pieces of research suggest certain qualities that are typical. Most characteristic is a strong and distinctive sense of the 'spiritual' - many people are what we could call 'seekers'. At the same time, they have a profoundly independent streak. They are not easily classified, and do not fit comfortably into spiritual groups. Outsiders, if you will.

In Margaret's case, she undertook study and practice of Mahayana Buddhism for many years with a group, while never feeling totally happy with such group. She eventually gained a reputation as a troublemaker, in the inconvenient habit of asking questions, and left the group to go to India and explore freestyle.

As a note: not all kundalified westerners fit this mould. There are those without any prior spiritual practice or obvious endeavour whatsoever. They may find things toughest of all.            

The first part of the book, the life story, is a good read. It is the second half that is weaker. It consists of various of Margaret's reflections consequent to her kundalini activation. Some of it reads as a collection of thoughts that would not be out of place in many-a meditator's diary. I easily picture somebody sitting on top of a little hill, wide views below, sun going down, writing their thoughts for the day on a meditation retreat. It could easily be me, or you.

There is one incident, however, in the second part of the book that, for me, is a real standout. It makes the whole thing worthwhile.

Margaret attends a seminar in which the topic of honesty with regard to finances comes up. She sits smugly: I haven't stolen from anybody; I can just let this pass. Then, like a bolt out of the blue, it hits her. And she knows she has to act. No choice.

Her mind and her mum tell her she's crazy. But she has to do it. She is living in a different country now, and needs to travel abroad, returning to the place she lived twenty years beforehand. There she seeks out the shop that she worked in weekends as a student. Thankfully, it's still there, as is the man who employed her there in the first place. To his astonishment, she hands him a bag containing £300. 'You employed me twenty years ago. I used to give my impoverished student buddies money off when they bought stuff in here. I reckon it came to about £300.' This is the gist of what she says. And then she leaves.

As an interesting conclusion, she doesn't feel inspired and elated afterwards, as we might expect. She feels really crap: low and exhausted. But it's a fascinating story. A moment arrives when we simply have to do what we have to do, and normal logic doesn't play much of a role. Think you're in control of your life? Think again....    

Footnotes to Gnostics, Illuminati etc

Part One: Personal Appraisal

I think that in the previous post - Illuminati, Gnostics, and the rest - I went as far as I am capable of going at the moment, in one particular direction at least. I have been left with food for thought. For what it's worth ....

As far as 'social and political analysis, observation, comment' goes, there are far better people than me out there. Quicker on the uptake, more nimble of mind; more knowledgeable, more astute. Where I am pretty good, I feel, is on two fronts. Firstly, I can connect what is happening now with the longer game. As any lower league football team will tell you, there's a place for the long ball. Neil Kramer is good on this perspective, or used to be (I haven't kept up with him much in the past two years), and John Lash is brilliant in a hit-or-miss way. But many alternative commentators etc miss this necessary dimension completely. 'The longer game' is a question of maintaining a perspective, and of seeing everyday happenings as often small parts of far longer and deeper processes.

The other area is that of connecting 'today's news' with a metaphysical perspective - a spiritual or multidimensional perspective, if you like. Societies can be more or less inimical to self-realisation, and modern western ones are purposely antithetical to the individual, since the awakening of 'self', or 'Self', translates as the death of the Illuminati-slave patterning of human activities. A healthy society is one which recognises, permits, encourages, even, the supreme human endeavour. While in modern mainstream it doesn't get a look in.

This metaphysical perspective also involves not getting caught up in, and identified with, the menus and restricted dualisms presented to us as 'reality'. It is easy to do this: to end up seeing any situation through the lens of the constricting mainstream. Many 'alternative' commentators end up doing this to varying degrees. Even our good friend styxhexenhammer666 is not exempt. I like his style, his approach, his take on freedom, censorship, this type of essential stuff. But when I listened to him recently speaking about Maduro and Venezuela, he did roll out the 'socialism, bad; capitalism, good' banner. The metaphysical angle which I try to maintain here, avoids these simplistic either/or polarities. Socialism vs capitalism is a kind of false dichotomy, for one thing. And I don't want to play the 'good versus bad' game with topics like this. Socialism is often bad, I submit, as described in the previous post. However, the reality is more nuanced. Mel Fabregas is another presenter (again from the USA) who rolls this one out; understandably, since I believe he is from a family which braved the open sea to get from Cuba to USA. However, that Cubans and Venezuelans have undoubtedly suffered deprivations is not entirely the result of their socialist systems. Cuba is a nation that you could hardly expect to have been ultra-prosperous when most of the world was prohibited from trading with it, due to the bullying which has been characteristic of successive USA administrations.

The issue is not socialism/capitalism: it is the illuminati-style mindset, a phenomenon which exists outside and beyond any social or political configurations. This mindset can bend anything to its own nefarious ends, and is beholden to no particular social or political system. It is amoral in the very worst sense of the term. Communism: no problem. Liberal democracy: yes, I think we can use that. Socialism: yes. Capitalism: yes, yes. Socialism and capitalism are a ping-pong duality, which we can play until the end of time if we so wish. There has to be a third and 'higher' element which comes into play. Basically, what system you have is not primary: it's the consciousnesses of the beings involved. A 'better world' can happen only with the developing of wider consciousness, with the superseding of unconsciousness with self-determination and realisation. With the fostering and prioritising of individual magnificence. Which brings us nicely to....

Part Two: Kali Yuga

Yes. Back down on Maggie's farm, back in the good ol' Kali Yuga.....

It's the thing about the Kali Yuga. The bad guys always win. Once it was pointed out to me, it was so obvious, I had to laugh. I mean, it's self-defining: the Kali Yuga, the Age of Darkness, is by definition, that - the time when the bad guys win. That's what makes the Kali Yuga what it is.

And the good guys? Well, the good guys fight, stand up for all things of goodness and beauty, not in the hope or expectation of winning. They do it simply because it's what they do. They can't help it, they have no choice. It's part of what makes them good guys. They do it simply because it has to be done. It's an inner compulsion, even, we could say.

Brexit and the bad guys. The bad guys treat Brexit very seriously. For them, it's a battle lost, and in a Kali Yuga the bad guys aren't accustomed to losing any battles. They showed their true colours in their response to that referendum result. If they were people of honour, they would speak thus: "Well, we are sad to learn that you have voted to leave our lovely little club. You will be missed. However, we fully endorse the democratic process above all else, and shall endeavour to do everything we can to ensure a smooth departure. And to make things easy for the future, for everyone."

Needless to say, it hasn't been like this. Not that all the blame can be laid at the feet of folk outside the UK. Appointing a 'remain voter' to manage Brexit (ie Mrs May) has to be part of a pre-arranged stitch-up. Doesn't it? Before a crucial top-of-the-table football match between Manchester City and Liverpool, City aren't going to bring in the Liverpool manager, Mr Klopp, to mastermind their tactics and ultimate victory, are they? It seems as crass and ridiculous as that to me.

Trump, whatever you may think of him personally, is another battle lost. Not good for the globalist elite and their 'liberal' fan club. Not good, not good at all.

Having reread what I have written in this article thus far, I submit that it is rather dry and turgid! That's what you get for spending too much time and energy on those themes of illuminati worldview, conniving and manipulating against Brexit etc.

Strangely, martial language has begun to turn up in some recent blog pieces: wars, battles, fighting, winning and losing. Not generally characteristic at all. In terms of personal experience, Kundalini is predominantly a force which has evoked warmth, softness, fellow-feeling; feminine in an almost exaggerated way. More recently, however, it has woken up a very different type of energy. It has got into certain corners of consciousness, and activated a type of energy which feels adamantine, crystal-clear, hard and sharp. Warrior-like. In Tibetan Buddhist symbolism, the bell's ringing has aroused the dorje, the vajra. In Hinduism, read Shakti rising, where she eventually finds and embraces the awaiting Siva. It is Beauty kissing the sleeping Beast. Where there is Venus, there too must be found Mars, the martial language..

War Heroes

War heroes. War heroes? Well, I wish things were always as straightforward as that.... More like sacrificial lambs, sometimes. Brought needlessly to the slaughter in their thousands. In their millions.
Not so much heroes as utterly disposable pawns in someone else's dark and dirty game.

I originally intended to write a full piece on this. In the end, I haven't the heart, the stomach, to do it. I leave you to fill in the blanks yourself.

Take World War One, though. What was that about? Really? Some Bosnian Serb puts a bullet in the head of an archduke-to-be (who, by all accounts, nobody cares for very much anyhow) and before you can say 'Dig me a trench' half of Europe has been laid to waste. By the end of the four-year debacle, there are nine million combatant and seven million civilian deaths. Additionally, the political geography of the continent has been miraculously rearranged; coincidence, of course. No more Austro-Hungarian Empire. No more all sorts of stuff. No more Tsars in Russia, replaced for the benefit of all and modernity by Lenin's Bolsheviks. A new world was emerging, as a result of the sacrifices of our war heroes.

The trenches. Imagine the trenches. I'd rather not, and even with effort I find it difficult. What if it was all a bit, well, unnecessary. The official line fed to the lambs, sent bleating to their fate, their fate in the bloody trenches, wasn't quite true to what it was all about. A possibility that doesn't sit comfortably, does it? It certainly shouldn't do. So we had better not dig too deep; no knowing what we might find. Might all be a bit problematic....

Meanwhile, the heirs to that which remains unspoken sit smugly in their well-appointed offices in Brussels and elsewhere in Europe. The game - politely put, reorganising the political landscape of Europe still further - continues. To deny continuity between the tragic past and the dark, repressive present, is naïve at best. And the propaganda arm of the campaign, led in the UK by its state-sponsored broadcaster the BBC, is relentless and unremitting in its distorting, selecting, lying, omitting, in order to further the cause. If only more people knew the extent to which their minds are twisted and manipulated by the dirty little fingers of mainstream media, with the BBC at the helm. Scruple-free, morality-free.... Actually, some people may just prefer not to know.

That's all. As I write today I feel good. Yesterday, though, the whole thing was making me sick. And that is no good at all. If 'their' nefarious ways make you sick, then they have won. Then it's time to reframe oneself, as I did yesterday afternoon. On  a hill, among the trees, the wind whispering in your ears. Life returned to its senses. Don't let the bastards get to you.      

 

Gnostics, Illuminati, Anarchists, and Others

Part One: Gnostics and Illuminati

There are plenty of stories about how we got to be as we are. A few have made it on to Pale Green Vortex over the years. Here is one that hasn't. It's a story about Gnostics and Illuminati, and it's a good one.

It concerns the Magi, the Magian Order. They hung around in what is today north-west Iran, around 6000BCE. So goes the story. They were seers, shamans, skilled in multidimensional phenomena, the sort of things that seers and shamans are all about.

Then came the great divide. Like a great fall, really. Some, the telestai, continued to use their knowledge and magic for positive purposes. For 'the Mysteries'. Through a series of transformations and geographical migrations, they eventually became what we now call the Gnostics.

The others, however, the breakaway group, took their mystical knowledge and power into the world; that is, the worldly world. Into statecraft, the manipulation of peoples. Mind control, social manipulation. Power politics. They were the germ of what became known eventually as the Illuminati. Mystics of darkness, power for the control of the mass of humanity. Not good, not good.

Yes, it's a fine story. How much credibility it comes laden with, I would not like to say. It has its sources, bona fide. But, let's face it, it's pretty much impossible to know these days what was really going on last week; what chance do we have of confidence with regard to anything from 8000 years back? History, a discipline which I once felt rested upon 'hard facts' I now see is anything but. It is the most fragile of studies, where distortion of 'reality' is the easiest of pursuits and the norm, even if at times unwittingly so. Fake news; fake history.

Let's not be too romantic about the past. It's a mood which comes over me from time to time, I admit. But humans have, most likely, always been nasty to one another on occasion. Fighting for scarce resources, for decent pasture or fertile growing land. For water, for another tribe's beautiful women. Or for fun. But for long it was a local, small-scale affair; manageable. Then something happened, went wrong. People got big ideas, states became big and powerful, and the modern world mentality took root.

It's one of my less orthodox notions but it's this: things haven't changed much for a long time. The pattern was set literally thousands of years ago; hence the manner in which the story of the Illuminati makes sense to the soul today. The technology has changed, the geopolitics has got reconfigured time and again, but the essential is uniform. The overall patterns, the overall dynamics. Read about the Romans and it's uncannily familiar. It's the same themes recurring, the same battles being fought on different soil. Primarily the war for power of an elite few over the great majority of humanity. It's important to bear that in mind when taking stock of 'current events'. They are simultaneously new and not new at all. It's an ancient game, replayed, recurring. That's the perspective that's needed.

Part Two: Collectivism

Socialism; collectivism. I've never, at any moment in my life, been sold on politics. I've always had the sense that politicians, whatever their leaning, are largely a bunch of ne'er-do-wells, not worthy of any great trust or respect. All the same, it's been quite a thing for me.....

When I was young, it seemed clear. Socialists, the left, Labour people, were more like the good guys. They cared about justice, were concerned for the poor, the unprivileged, the downtrodden. In contrast, the righties were egoists, bent on self-aggrandisement at the expense of the majority. Cunning, ruthless, uncaring. They were the Establishment, and they were bad.

Somewhere along the line, everything started to change. Today, the Establishment no longer consists of Tories, or proper Conservatives. It is, instead, the hive home for a whole bundle of 'social democrats', 'liberal democrats', 'progressives', whatever crass term they like to use. In Britain, Cameron, Clegg, May, Sturgeon, Miliband, Corbyn (I suppose), Blair, Brown, from today and the recent past, all belong to the same club. Softly-softly socialism, collectivism. A liberal semi-totalitarian elite.

So a great transition has been effected, where 'radical' has now seamlessly become establishment. Sadly (for me) I know a goodly number of decent folk who continue to believe that 'left', 'socialism', is somehow for the general good, a force for change. They don't seem to recognise collectivism when it's already here....

Collectivism is 'Big State' society. The problem is that it is not for the benefit of 99% of the population. Not really, other than in the form of flat screen TV and Facebook. In truth, socialism, or collectivism, is a slave system, where the vast majority of people are encouraged to become robotic sub-humans. Numbers in a hive. Above and beyond, there lives the super-elite, who live on the blood and hard toil of the masses. Take a look. Soviet Russia, Mao's China, Venezuela, it seems, the EU. That's what you see. Not what you want to see, but what you actually see. Socialism means slavery. It's one of the great con tricks of the modern age. And it's in your back yard as I write.

Part Three: Slaves of Atlantis

Here's another story. We owe a great deal to Plato for it. Most modern mainstream 'academics' (read 'trusted children of Machiavelli in the pay of the super-elite') will tell you that Plato's story of Atlantis is a fantasy, a metaphor, or suchlike. They are looking at it through the lens of 21st century theory, which makes a hard-and-fast distinction between 'fact' and 'fiction'. I don't think that Plato, pre-enlightenment, more-or-less contemporary with Buddha, saw things in quite the same way. Anyhow....

Atlantis. It was. so the story goes, populated by people of wisdom and love, light-years ahead of modern humans in spiritual gnosis and the technological advancements which accompany knowledge of the working of higher dimensions. The time arrived, however, when some of their number began to get naughty. Control and manipulation, rather than spiritual illumination, became the order of the day. A bit like the Illuminati story. Some say that they began to develop human/non-human hybrids, who became perfect worker underlings. Whether true or not, Atlantis morphed into something of a slave culture.

The moment arrived when Gaia-Sophia, Great Goddess, had had enough of this nasty nonsense. Thus came volcanoes, earthquakes, terrible cataclysms, and Atlantis sunk beneath the sea forever. Saved were the few truly wise ones, who foresaw the disaster, and escaped to.... the Poles, Tibet, are favoured venues, locations where good magic, good mysticism, lived on.

Why I am reminded of present-day EU whenever my mind turns to the slaves of Atlantis, I cannot imagine...… OK, the EU is a developing slave culture, for the benefit of a small elite intent upon a project of globalisation (read 'glob-isation', where everybody  is a little 'glob'). The real enemies are not terrorists, Islamic extremists, mass murderers. No. They are those who stand up for national identity, pride in place of birth, the individual human being, even. Anyone who doesn't like the idea of global collectivism.

The sentiment behind Brexit needs to be a healthy one. People are simply fed up with being told increasingly what to do by bureaucrats who they have no idea about, thousands of miles away. Similarly with 'national' and 'populist' movements across Europe. Putting details and niceties aside, I take them all as a good sign.

Hollywood, maybe, has taught us that slaves are poor people with nothing. This is not necessarily true. In modern times, they can live affluent lives, with new mobile phone devices every couple of years, annual holidays abroad, and the rest. They are, nevertheless, slaves, confined within a little box. And the EU does not care to treat its slaves very well at all. If they are really naughty slaves, such as the Greek ones, then they will be punished mercilessly. And even well-behaved, submissive slaves, like the German ones, are readily abused, with mass uninvited influxes of people from cultures that are not at all compatible. No wonder people are fed up.

The EU is the perfect flowering of the virus of the Illuminati 8000 years ago.

Part Four: Anarchism

There is no way out. Not within the parameters of the box.

It work on different levels. I deplore the EU model because it demeans human beings. More metaphysically, and where I really come into all this, spiritual realisation is not a transfer of 'the drop of water melting into the great ocean', into a vision of a collective 'all is one and the same'. It is a matter of self-determination, self-realisation, self-actualisation, outside and beyond any identity with group, be it political, cultural, religious. It is ruthlessly individual, personal, even. And it is this process which collective theory discourages, indeed seeks to eliminate from human possibility altogether. The realisation of the collectivist dream spells the death knell of individual aspiration, barring the few who are truly exceptional. Conversely, the realisation of the individual spells the death of the slave collective. It is actually the only solution.

Strict non-alignment politically, ideologically, is the name of the game. As soon as you begin to identify with any -ism, that natural purity of openness will start to close down. And that openness is a requisite for real spiritual gnosis. It is what is meant by that more 'ooh, aaah' term, the Void.

I find myself frequently in accord with those who term themselves nowadays 'libertarians': believers in freedom of speech, freedom in thinking; in the individual, self-determining human being. Another word that I often resonate with is 'anarchism' - which, in its more profound meaning, is not so far removed from 'libertarianism'.

In my mid-teens I undertook a personal education in fringe politics. I became a Marxist for about a fortnight, until I recognised its inherent contradictions, and intuited that it just wouldn't work. Then I found political anarchism. It was mainly through the lives of Bakunin and Proudhon, neither of whom I felt hugely enthusiastic about. But the spirit of political anarchism came through and has remained.

The thing is: we don't need a lot of governing really. Most of it is unnecessary slave control, that's all. The vast majority of people, whatever their nationality, religion etc, are reasonably OK. A certain amount of regulation of trade, transport, and so on, is needed. But as little as possible, and as much of it as possible should be local. This is what I mean by being anarchist-inclined. Government, but a little bit, carefully circumscribed, and light-handed. And predominantly local. That's all that's needed, really.

It's not my place to go into the fineries here. It's a general principle, that's all, and I don't deny that there are problems. But I suggest that, for bringing an end to the Illuminati-lookalike mould that is shaping our world, it is the only solution. Anything else, and the mess continues, inevitably so.

Link to John Lash's article about Gnostics and Illuminati:
                   
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/mistic/gnostic01.htm

Images:

The Nag Hammadi Codices, prime source for info on Gnostics
Artist's impression of Atlantis

And, for your infinite edification, a relevant ten minutes from our buddie in the USA, Mr HexenHammer:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y1FWSBBB6s