Obama Obama Obama

Those whacky Scandinavians! What a laugh - Barak Obama as winner of the Nobel Peace Prize! Ha ha ha ha, champagne comedy! Actually knowing what I know of those Nordic midnight sunbathers as being the hardest drinkers on the planet, perhaps we'll call it 'vodka comedy'. That works doesn't it? Absolut-ly. And it's not as if you can blame them - what with the sun disappearing for months on end, and nothing for it but to go mad or get drunk, they not unreasonably choose the latter. And with drunks, all you can ever hope for is that they be funny drunks. Well, those Nobel guys crack me up. Skol!


Obama, Obama, Obama - what are we to make of this cove? He's a weird cat and no mistake. Whilst it's slowly wearing off now, the greatest part of the voter's image of him was less about who he was, than who he wasn't. Clearly he wasn't George Bush. Or to put it another way, he wasn't a smirking snuff-movie aficionado, and obvious with it. He also wasn't a Southern good ol' boy, and nor was he an uneducated git who could barely string two sentences together. Unlike the ex-cokehead Bush, Obama can deliver his platitudes unmangled - which really helps, because platitudes are a tough gig at the best of times.

And then there's the fact that Bush is American royalty, which is to say he comes from a long line of criminals, war-profiteers, spooks, and paedophiles. He is connected up the wazoo, ha ha ha. Obama on the other hand, ain't. He has no connections, he hasn't got the goods on anyone, he has no one's balls in his pocket, no one owes him, and to put it bluntly, he has no power base. Okay so how did he get to be president? Seriously? Well, he got to be president because other truly powerful people decided he was a sock puppet whose time had come. And as we all know, the best damn sock puppets are mind-control sock-puppets.


Was Bush a mind-control drone? He was royalty sure, but somehow I wonder if that would mean a lot amongst the satanist/mind-control/paedophocracy crowd. These people will sacrifice their own children you know. They're so hell bent and vicious they don't really require a child to be red-headed, or a stepchild, to treat them that way. And yep, their own kids included.

From what I've read of the mind-control world, there were those who were complete slaves and there were those who were complete masters. And then there's the idiot son. Was he slave or master? Frankly I can see a case for both. He was certainly cruel enough: I'm thinking he'd have made a great torturer. And given that every other president from Kennedy onwards was on the receiving end of 'presidential models', a la Brice Taylor (Susan Ford), I doubt that Dubya was any different.

But he was different. Did we ever see another president do this? Or this? Am I the only person who wanted to rap on his skull and ask if anyone's home? Somehow I suspect that people tinkered with the idiot son's brain, and not particularly successfully either. Not that you can blame them with his ten years spent wandering in a cocaine wilderness and his brain fried to a walnut.


What if I said the idiot son was a sort of 'hybrid model' filling in until a truly superior class of mind control slave was arrived at? Given the reality of mind-control, and given the ambition of those behind it, I figure it's just a matter of time until every president, indeed every world leader, is a mind-control zero who does whatever the fuck they're told.

And really well, of course. They'll be brilliant! They'll be as handsome as Butch and Sundance rolled into one. They'll have the wit of Noel Coward, the everyman appeal of Bruce Willis, and the gravitas of Dr Kildare. They'll play the guitar like Segovia, sing like Caruso, and dance like Gene Kelly. They will be gods of love that women will all desire and men will all turn gay for. They will be bigger than Jesus Christ.

And they'll do...
whatever...
the fuck...
they're told.


Okay, so Obama ain't quite that shining all-things-to-all-men, but he's a pretty fair approximation of it. And I haven't the least doubt that he fulfils that last little prosaic quatrain. Honestly, is there anything the owners of Israel want that he won't give to them? I can't think of anything. So far he's bombed Pakistan I forget how many times, and last time I checked that was considered the 'supreme war crime'. Sure enough everything underneath that - letting the AIPAC trial die unmourned, rolling over on Israel's illegal settlements, and otherwise handing trillions to the bankers and bankrupting the US - qualifies as nothing special. Otherwise what will he stick up for? Gays in the military! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha... oh man... between the drunken Swedes and the death cult, it's harder to know who's funnier.

Between the impossibility of Obama as a no power-base, come-from-nowhere wunderkind (who in his brief climb to power somehow became completely corrupted), and the inevitability of someone just like him as a mind-control drone, I figure the latter makes waaay more sense. And rather than laboriously go through everything he's ever done looking for examples of him as mind-controllee, why not just do the Dutch Auction thing and ask, When has he ever departed from the Rothschild line? (And citing the settlements shadow-play is not permitted - pretending to stand up to Israel has been going on since Truman). And so! Under the timeless rubric of 'if you've got the game you may as well have the name' I'm going to call him.


And here's a question: Does Obama know? And further: If he's a zombie, wouldn't his wife be too? And then there's the kids...

Two Disinfo Programmes Compared

Lately I've been ploughing my way through Jeff Wells' Rigorous Intuition. Like Dave McGowan, he's another of those writers that reminds me of me but without the wank-value. He has that brilliant knack of being able to write a piece without mentioning himself in the first para every time. I don't know about you but when a writer does this I take it as a sign of obvious hackery and find something better to read. The links to some superior writers are just there on the right of this page, ha ha.


And there I was reading Wells' interview with Jackie McGauley, one of the McMartin parents (part two here), when I noticed a curious thing in the comments. Lo and behold, there was a spookily precise reprise of the stoush I had with a fellow called StevieB over at Xymphora's. When I say 'fellow' what I really mean is 'paedophocracy disinfo spook'. It's almost as if StevieB and rigint's anon were reading from the same playbook. Here are the tactics loosely summarised (and yeah, I covered this before but I think it's worth repeating) -

- express curiosity for the subject and admiration for the author
- establish credibility by conceding various limited hangout points
- declare yourself off to check out the topic du jour via a bit of research
- return declaring that you looked into and found out it was all bullshit
- employ a straw-man technique of zeroing in on a single aspect of a single scandal
- ignore all evidence of this scandal's repetition elsewhere or anything that points to a bigger picture
- refer anyone who's interested to the website of the IPT where the aforementioned straw-man is destroyed
- use tag-team partners to give the appearance of consensus
- liberally sprinkle your discourse with various buzzwords: 'hysteria', 'witch-hunt', 'overzealous', 'hoax', 'debunked', 'credulous', 'paranoid', etc. etc.
- and sure enough, blame the victims and those attempting to assist them

Going back slightly, when I said just now that it was 'almost as if' they were reading from the same playbook, to be honest I was just being coy. It's my considered opinion that there is precisely a playbook. Given the size of the CIA's mind control/paedophocracy programme: with its dual bullshit 'foundations' (the False Memory Syndrome Foundation and the Institute of Psychological Therapy), both designed for no other purpose than to discredit victims; with the effort involved in both setting up 'the Finders' and shutting down the investigation into it; with the spectacular scale of the Presidio/West Point scandal with its untouchable superstar Col. Michael Aquino ...actually, to hell with listing all this shit - there's waaay too much of it and I've covered it already.


Lightbulb! I just remembered: in the aforementioned Finders bust, US Customs Service Special Agent Ramon J. Martinez, reported finding procedural handbooks detailing how to infiltrate child-minding centres and how to traffic children whilst avoiding police attention. So there you have it: 'procedural handbooks'.

Procedural handbook, playbook: let's just say, of course there'll be a dedicated disinfo programme, and of course there'll be a document detailing specific cointelpro techniques. And as sure as eggs is eggs, within that document there'll be a section dealing variously with MSM media discussions, dedicated forums and bulletin boards, and last (and probably least) blogs and bloggers. Further, these motherfuckers ain't amateurs, nor few in number. There's tons of them. If you're on a site discussing the topic (keeping in mind that the site could well have been founded by them to begin with), it'll be odds-on that more than one of the participants will be a paedophocracy disinfo spook. For those participating, keep the above list in mind and keep a weather eye out.

Back to Jeff Wells now - he, along with his commenters (what with possessing a sense of decorum) argued the case fairly politely. I've already discussed the 'value' of decorum here. Whilst that particular piece was about Zionists, it's not as if the paedophocracy is somehow more deserving. But I have to ask - what sort of discussion is it (pivoting on the scale of the paedophocracy) that fails to consider the inevitability of members of the self-same paedophocracy turning up to heap shit on the whole thing? Imagine being at a town hall meeting discussing kids drag racing in Main Street and thinking nothing of a bunch of kids who've turned up and are declaring that it isn't a problem.


Speaking of Zionists, let's compare. We all know about Israel's hasbara effort don't we? And we're familiar with Megaphone yeah? (Not forgetting of course that the American Nazi bigwig Bill White is a Megaphone user, ha ha). But forget him, just riddle me this - How come Israel's disinfo efforts are widely discussed on the net -so much so that any one of us can spot a Zionist shill from a hundred metres and go pit-bull on them without even blinking- and yet the Paedophocracy's easily-as-big cointelpro efforts go completely unacknowledged? Can you dig it? If the Jews are so powerful, why do they seem unable to duck the limelight? Indeed (within the metaphor now) it seems their efforts to wrest control of the spotlight is lit up with another spotlight.

Before anyone jumps up and imagines I'm giving the owners of the Reserve Banks along with their handmaiden bloc-media a pass, let's ask another question. In this world of either/or with its arguments about Zionist/Jewish banking control versus Vatican/illuminati/ masonic/paedophocracy control, how come the Jews, via their bloc-media, don't kill their non-Jewish opponents stone-cold dead with an uncovering of the paedophocracy in all its sick, twisted glory? There's no need to wonder what this would look like since we've already seen it with the Catholic Church. We know all about Catholic priests and I doubt we could meet one without viewing him with suspicion. Compare the media treatment of the victims of Catholic paedophilia with that of, say, the McMartin victims (and never mind the Presidio/West Point scandal, which as far as the media is concerned never happened). It's chalk and cheese, no comparison at all. One lot gets victim halos and the others get the shit beaten out of them.

Think about that. And going slightly sideways now - with Jewish people so selflessly active in every human rights issue going (even those of the Palestinians, ha ha), on the topic of satanism or the paedophocracy (of the non-Catholic variety, that is) I can't think of a single Jewish commentator who has ever touched it. Rack your brains. Give me a name. Nothing? How... is... that... possible? Honestly?

---

On this topic of allegedly opposed factions attacking each other, here's another sideways question, albeit from the other direction - What with the US military/CIA comfortably having the man-power (think mind-control assassins), the technology (think drugs, poisons, and other means of untraceable assassination), along with the unrivalled means to deliver this anywhere on the planet: why don't they take out their hated money-masters? Is it possible they don't know who they are precisely? I find that an unlikely prospect. Surely there's only a dozen families or so. To imagine a scenario, plug in the reality of the CIA death-lists given to Sukarno in Indonesia, with the posited reality of the denouement of each of the Godfather movies, wherein everyone is killed bang-bang-bang, before anyone has time to scarper.

Never mind anything that big, here's a far simpler question. People get whacked all the time, presidents included: Has anyone ever whacked a Rothschild? Um, okay, what should we conclude from this? What is this power structure precisely? Who tops it? Who is expendable? What if I make a rough thumbnail list? It follows below.

Power in Inverse Proportion to Publicity

The following list is an expression of my theory that power and publicity come in inverse proportion. Thus the most famous at the top have the least power. The least famous, ie. those most people have never heard of, come at the bottom and are actually the most powerful. See what you think.

Nazis
Historical touchstone of evil. Says Hollywood - May we never forget. The only people to have publicly thrown out the bankers in the modern age get zero good press, and their bad press is relentless, relentless, relentless. Useful as a link to neo-nazis which exist to remind everyone how anti-Semitism never went away. According to some of the more obscure corners of the net: Nazis are possibly running the CIA via Operation Paperclip.

Muslims / the devil
I'm going to declare this a tie. Muslims couldn't get any more bad press if they tried. Whilst the TV never actually declares that the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim, a nod's as good as a wink. The devil is a Hollywood favourite. I'm thinking his purpose is provide some reason for wickedness that doesn't pivot on selfishness. As we all know, selfishness (by way of amassing wealth etc.) is a very commendable thing to which we should all aspire.

Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Zimbabwe etc. etc.
Any story that paints this lot in a bad light is a good story, says the MSM. Not as bad as the Nazis since they haven't had a holocaust (yet). Regardless, they are a wicked crew of despotic, corrupt, torturing, deniers of human rights. The US is right to include them in their violators of human rights list every year. Ha ha ha ha ha. Honestly, that's funny isn't it?

The Vatican
I know people love to hate them but they get a ton of publicity and pretty much all of it is bad. The MSM pegs them as paedophiles at every opportunity. Or anti-Semites. Or oppressors of women. On and on, take your pick. Hollywood so frequently involves wicked clergy and hierarchy that it's hard to keep up. Certainly every devil movie involves a weak and corrupt church that is no match for him. The alternative internet goes further in terms of assassinations, banking, and the vaguest of vague talk of them somehow running things. Me, I don't buy it.

Corporations / non-paedophocracy CIA
Another tie for two very popular villains! Both get gently attacked in the news media, both make popular villains in Hollywood, both get viciously attacked on the alternative internet. MSM-only folks can agree they are probably responsible for pretty much everything, and alternative Internet types know they are. Unlike the Vatican, both of these get as much good press as bad press. Where would be without corporations? Think of all the good things they make for us. Likewise the CIA is broadly treated as honest patriots working in America's interests.

The US / the IMF and the World bank
The US in toto as some variety of coherent bad guy is a permissable target in the media, but only just. Likewise the international banking entities, but they may be discussed only as an extension of US power. Pilger does this for instance. Edgy left wing characters in Hollywood flicks may also shake their fist at the US. No problems at all on the net. Absolutely everyone will broadly agree that the US is very wicked and likewise the IMF, as long as it viewed as a US entity.

Zionists
Okay we're starting to get into more extreme territory. This word is reserved for broadsheet newspaper articles (not the first ten pages) and the occasional late night news show or documentary. In tabloids, the nightly news, and Hollywood, this word will never appear. It's far more popular on the net what with the obviousness of Zionists running US foreign policy. I mean, honestly it's pretty unmissable. Being anti-Zionist will cop calls of anti-Semitism but at least it's a defensible position. Besides, there are Jewish people who oppose Zionism (but not many and those not in any useful fashion).

Illuminati / Freemasons
This is the last level permissable in the Jewish bloc-media but only in Apocryphal contexts. Besides the series of fictional books that have been around for years, it seems a movie is coming out next year. That aside, sensible journos like Pilger will never mention them. On the other hand the net is all over them. The beauty of the Iluminati / Freemasons is that one can wave them about without being accused of anti-Semitism.

Jews in general / non-paedophocracy Rothschilds et al in particular
We're into all-internet territory now. And yes, another tie. Sure enough, the media and Hollywood will never touch Jewish people as anything other than geniuses or victims, and the Rothschilds and the other families don't exist at all. In Hollywood there is no such thing as a Jewish villain. Ever. On the net, huge sites like WHR will take every anti-Jewish story you send them - drug running rabbis, holocaust denial, fake anti-Semitism, it's all good. Everything I learnt about the private ownership of the Fed etc. came from WRH.

Limited paedophocracy
Not to be confused with amateur paedophilia which is trotted out for public consumption quite frequently. The paedophocracy as an organised satanistic structure comprising the CIA, European aristocracy, and most tiers of most government is utterly absent in the media and the vast majority of the net also. Mike Rivero at WRH won't touch it except for occasional mentions of the impossible to ignore (and 20 year old) Franklin scandal. Besides that he frequently, and apropos nothing, beats the disinfo drum re McMartin. The tiny number of people who will discuss the paedophocracy such as Dave McGowan (who coined the term no less), and Jeff Wells, view it as an extension of US power a la the IMF and World Bank. Best not to pay too much attention to Europe being an equal partner. America rules Europe it seems.

The paedophocracy as control structure under the bankers.
Is this just me? Surely not. Perhaps I should get out more. Weirdly enough Susan Ford's book Thanks For The Memories, in discussing the Council who otherwise run the whole show, painted as precise a picture of the twelve families as we're ever going to get and then went on to say that they were probably all freemasons. I don't think so. For mine a paedophocracy under the Banking families, rather than opposed to it, makes sense of things that otherwise don't make sense and is as close as we're going to get to a unified field theory explaining why the world is so fucked.

Did I miss anyone?

---

Further, the answer to why Zionist disinfo is discussed and Paedophocracy disinfo isn't becomes apparent with the list.

Monty's trouble with servants

Dear Chas,

It seems my travails with the servants continue. They're such a pain in the arse! Do you recall one of the scullery maids taking exception to her daughter entertaining us at our soirees? I had Bates put the fear of god into her of course, with his men following her about etc. but somehow she gave him the slip! With her daughter! It was that little pixie-eyed brunette that you liked.

Anyway, they ended up in Shelmerston telling the usual dark tales of satan worship etc. Happily Reeves, who heads the police there, got back to me as soon as he heard and I had Bates nip in quick and throw her down a flight of stairs. The daughter is in the dungeon now (how pleasant it is to have one) and is much more agreeable what with her mother having so clearly conveyed to her what happens to troublemakers, albeit by being a corpse, ha ha. At least she was good for something.

Anyway it now seems that one of Bates' men has run off with a photo of the dead woman and idiotically imagines there's money in it. We'll disabuse him of that notion soon enough, but what's wrong with these fucking people? It's endless. Bloody servants! You can't live with them and you can't have them all killed en masse. Not unless you have some perverse desire to do your own laundry! There's a curious thought. I don't even know where my laundry is. Nor how it's done. Given that that's the case perhaps I'll let the laundry-woman live. Quality of mercy and all that, ha ha. Ain't I grand?

Drollery aside, if only these jumped up scum could be taught their place once and for all. I know the Fabians have things all planned out with their socialism etc. but where's the abject fear!? Otherwise, Grosvenor of the Royal Society talks of progress with his new-fangled electrical apparatus but the woman he showed me just seemed to be a listless automaton, of no use in bed, nor the laundry, nor anywhere else. One remains hopeful but in the meantime one's forced to run around keeping people in their place. Like I said, tiresome in the extreme! I really do have better things to do with my time.

Speaking of which, you'll be coming up for our soiree Friday week? I absolutely promise you that little prixie brunette will be there - and freshly terrified with it, ha ha!

yours aye,

Monty

---

If you scroll down slightly you'll notice another new piece below this one, and below that another. What started as a desultory three-piece effort ended up spiralling out of control and I cut it into three. Whether the three were ever truly connected is debatable and probably best approached with the thought 'Well, he is mad'. Yoroshiku.

Fear and Deterrence, and the Possibility of Redemption

---

The Small Picture

I was once at a picnic with otherwise right-thinking people when a fellow there started up with an anecdote about him having rung the local radio station to participate in an on-air discussion about that old chestnut of what's-to-be-done-with-wayward-teens. His gleeful contribution was to demand 'More Whipping!' Seriously. He was convinced that if only children were beaten more often and more harshly, society would be the better for it.


Happily he had never had children. The only person there who had, and whose children were famously trouble with a capital T, agreed. She recounted anecdotes of all the trouble she had made as a child, with the punch-line consisting each time of the hell they copped when their father caught them. Somehow this was evidence of the rightness of 'whipping', never mind her own kids. Sure enough, yours truly spoiled the social harmony by declaring that they had everything arse-about.

For the record, I've never had children. But that being said, my youngest brother was born in my last year of high school, and whilst ultimate responsibility didn't lay with me, I didn't miss much either. (And if I might just take a brief moment to brag - in an age before disposal diapers, my nappies were a triumph of dynamic tension and left everyone else's for dead). But never mind me as a crowing rooster cock-a-doodle-doo - in a discussion about discipline I followed my father's lead, which for the purpose of the argument I shall sum up as 'less is more'.

According to my father, we as children copped a whack on the bum precisely twice. In amongst us throwing anti-social, me-uber-alles tantrums we were told that this was unacceptable and that we might choose to stop it, or cop a smack on the bum. It was up to us. After we chose poorly twice, and copped two smacks, in the face of his unambiguous implacability, from then on we just believed him and chose the option that consisted of not getting whacked. I have no recollection of this you understand, merely his say-so. In fact, until he told us how he'd disciplined us, I'd have declared we'd never been whacked at all. And this is how it went for my youngest brother a decade and a half later. He was smacked precisely twice during that two year old period wherein one's sense of what-I-am expands to include the whole world. I don't know if this will surprise people, but I and my brothers were absurdly well behaved. For us, our greatest horror was that people might be disappointed in us.

This is merely me recounting the past you understand and doesn't necessarily represent me in the present. Meanwhile back at the picnic, I declared that 'whipping' will, in and of itself, in no way instil a sense of right and wrong, nor any other useful thing apart from fear. This fear will ensure nothing more than a variety of cunning that pivots on Not Getting Caught. Honestly how many times have we seen parents, of the variety given to copious physical punishment, variously promise a smack and not deliver it in the face of continued appalling behaviour (indeed with the likelihood of offering some reward-like sop to mollify the child), or otherwise delivering a whack from nowhere for behaviour that, never mind the child, had me stumped as to what they'd done wrong. What's a child to glean from this?


This was perfectly summed up for me when I once lived across the hall from a father who'd terrorise his daughters mercilessly - the screaming was nightmarish. He perfectly nailed his own absurdity when I heard him scream at his daughters, "Listen! Even when Dad is wrong, he's right!" God help those kids, there's only one lesson they'll learn from that, and that is: since there is no right and wrong, everything is arbitrary, with the say-so belonging to whoever has power, and thus the only thing that counts is not getting caught.*

The Big Picture

And from the micro to the macro, everything is like this. In this white man's world with its God who favours 'those who help themselves' (think about that), we extol no 'virtues' apart from those of individuals who excel at amassing things for themselves. Sure enough for yours truly, who puts everything on the selflessness/selfishness continuum, these are not virtues but sins. 'Sins' meanwhile, as defined by society, differ from its 'virtues' by the merest of technicalities. If I was to take $4 from a fellow I would be a criminal. But if I was a member of the Gillette/Schick cartel and charged $4.10 for a razor blade that cost 10c, I would be a feted captain of industry, an example to all.


Society deters people from committing its definitions of sins by way of fear - a fear, not of being seen as selfish (since this is a virtue), but rather of getting caught and thus being on the receiving end of further sins, which is to say, deprivation of liberty. This fear is a 'deterrent' - knowing how harshly we will be treated upon being caught we are thus deterred from committing the crime to begin with. Either that or we will do whatever it takes not to get caught.

You don't hear the word 'deterrence' much anymore - certainly not like you used to back in the seventies and eighties. Back then it was everywhere, what with being the reason why we needed to fork out a bazillion dollars for enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world ten times over. Now it's nowhere on account of it being at odds with Israel's desire to reduce Iran back to a parking lot. Frankly the complete absence of the word deterrence in a discussion of Iran's alleged pursuit of nukes is enough to tell any thinking person that the whole thing is bullshit.

Sure enough, deterrence is bullshit. For every person deterred from committing a crime, is another who is only deterred from being caught - to avoid this, he'll corrupt the judiciary, kill the witnesses, heap crime upon crime, whatever it takes. Which is to say, deterrence is as likely to increase crime as to reduce it. Not forgetting the beyond obvious fact that if deterrence worked, there'd be no one in jail.

I do hope no one starts up with that old chestnut about how if we didn't deter people then it'd be worse than it is now. Not unless they want to buy one of my famous tiger amulets, which will guarantee the wearer protection from tiger attacks. I've worn it for forty years and never been attacked once. Except for that time at Taronga Park zoo... but think how much worse it would have been if I hadn't been wearing it!


I don't know if they have tigers in Bhutan, but they certainly have criminals. Well, they do now anyway - ever since Rupert Murdoch's Sky began broadcasting into every home that is. Suddenly their meagre police force no longer has time to assist grannies cross the street because they're too busy chasing all those people who've taken to robbery and murder. Where's that fellow from the Picnic? He could advise the Bhutan government that what's needed here is more 'whipping'. Yeah well, fuck him and fuck his bullshit.

That aside, if anyone ever wanted proof of the rightness of the continuum, the unasked for social experiment taking place in Bhutan is it - a society that overnight replaced a consensus of selflessness with a shiny media model of selfishness and instantly found itself amongst all the ills of the West. Clearly it's high time we in the West wagged our finger and explained how their newly crime-ridden nation should now join the civilised world in instituting a fear-based model of deterrence, and thus may their society be as free of the depredations of criminals as we are. Or would the abysmal hypocrisy be too much? Ha ha ha ha, "Mr. Prime Minister, the delegation from the Wackenhut corporation is here to see you."

And that's how it goes - the Bhutanese are fuzzy-wuzzy jibber-jabberers and we teach them and not vice versa. The Portuguese on the other hand, whilst they are wogs, and do jibber-jabber, at least they're Christians who occasionally use soap, and thus might have something to say worth listening to. They've de-criminalised drugs it seems. Astoundingly the whole place hasn't turned into predicted den of iniquity. What's going on? It seems that the drug-users who were otherwise undeterred by the fear of punishment, actually benefit from calm and sensible discussions about the rightness of the whole caper and actually take up the government's offers of what I'm going to call redemption.

As if this wasn't completely fucking obvious. As if people like breaking into homes to steal laptops to pay for their addiction. Honestly. Portugal's experiment (in the bleeding obvious) is perfect proof that a fear based system of punishment pushes people further into crime. Now that it's been dispensed with, people finally have an opportunity to return to the embrace of society and are doing so wholeheartedly. Both crime and drug use in Portugal is declining.


The only problem with Portugal's experiment is the narrowness of the vision. Redemption is offered to users but not to sellers. Why is this is an either/or proposition? Rather than get bogged down in finicky arguments, why don't we just say that if fear didn't work for one crime, why do we imagine it will work for another? In the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary? Besides, what sort of person is picky in offering redemption? What is the 'line in the sand' that defines who or what deserves redemption, and who or what deserves fear and loathing, apart from a statement of arbitrary personal prejudice?

Little Picture Us Versus Big Picture Motherfuckers

Here we are, regular folks ever more appalled at monstrous sins of those who rule the world. Between a non-denominational satanist paedohile death cult, and a Jewish banking and warfare death cult, it's perfectly unsurprising that we dream of their righteous demise at the hands of a howling mob - string them up from lamp posts, tear them limb from limb, push stakes up their arse until the blood gurgles out their mouths. I get it. In fact I've brought up lamp posts on more that a few occasions myself.


But honestly, there's no future in it. Were this to happen, nothing would have been learnt (amongst the survivors - and there would be survivors, there always are) apart from that old chestnut 'Don't get caught' and the requisite next thought, 'If only we'd been more vicious'.

There's no either/or for redemption. What works for small scale misdemeanors is every bit as applicable for large scale crimes-against-humanity. Honestly if the Emperor Pu'yi (in Bertolucci's Last Emperor) who was inculcated his entire life can find happiness as a gardener, anyone can.


And yeah, I also get it that what I'm suggesting is an idealistic mad dream that's right up there with pig aviation. But I don't give a fuck. Not that I'm making any pretentious claims to whatever, but did the Jesus in the bible give a fuck? Did he temper his positions on account of fear, realpolitik necessities, or any other thing?

The most absurd thing is that a world without fear, a global societal model based not on proscription of innumerable sins but rather redemption and a single aim of selflessness, is possible. We now have mass communications perfectly capable of bringing about a paradigm shift in how humans regard, and subsequently treat, each other. And in Bhutan, all we'd have to do cut their satellite, ha ha.

I haven't a shred of doubt that this is technically do-able. If anyone doubts this, just consider what would result if all the time and energy currently devoted to turning us into self-obsessed gits striving to outdo our neighbour, was instead spent on the rightness and benefits of selflessness. It's inarguable that this could be done if we wished it.

Instead, the social darwinist motherfuckers who rule this world choose, amongst all the models Darwin offers us, to emulate predators. It should be obvious to anyone of the meanest understanding that they've chosen poorly. It may have made sense once, but now (in this age of dioxins and depleted uranium) it no longer does. We are now perfectly capable of infinitely greater things. That these people have so wildly excelled at mimicking such hateful creatures, does not speak of their greatness, but rather of their prosaic lack of imagination and ultimately their stupidity.


To hell with them and their world of fear, I reject all of it and refuse to participate in any aspect of it, regardless of how much I'd like to see them on the receiving end of their own bullshit. In spite of me mentioning it just now, truth is, hell is none of my business. And quite right too given that redemption is always possible. Just to make things crystal clear, this is not a discussion of probability, but of possibility. If a thing is right and if a thing is possible, then that's where I'm at. Fear, whether received, or inflicted, and with no acknowledgement of redemption, is bullshit. The death cult can bring on their armageddon, whatever they've got - the fear and loathing will all be theirs.

Walter Bowart, meet Carl Cameron

A plunge down the memory hole! Penny sent me this book in pdf ages ago and I only just now got around to reading it (sorry Pen and thanks). I have to say that this book is, if you'll forgive the term, a complete mindfuck. So much so I want to urge it upon everyone.


But! It doesn't exist! The CIA bought the entire print run. It was even disappeared from public libraries. Admittedly it's on Amazon but only as second hand copies and those are going at a hundred bucks each. You read that right - US$100. Given this, and given the fact that the author died a couple of years ago, I see no problems with me making it available for download - 2.9MB pdf - off you go.

The book itself is written in a straightforward newspaper journalese. It's Dave McGowan albeit with a bigger bibliography and more footnotes. In many ways Operation Mind Control is a prequel to McGowan's Progammed To Kill. Ideally you'd read Bowart first and McGowan second. But really it's neither here nor there. Each book reveals the most astounding facts and there's very little direct overlap.

The main thought that kept running through my head as I read this book was that it was written in 1978. My naive wonderings in that know thyself piece were old hat well over thirty years ago. Bowart discusses the use of computers back when supercomputers had less grunt than a mobile phone now has. As for the book's discussion of tiny electronic implants in the skull for remote triggering, you don't need me to tell you how far we've come with that. Not forgetting that whatever we might know about RFID, we barely know the half of it, and even then the truth will be ten years ahead of that.

As then there's the drugs. Good God! LSD, as huge as that was, was just a small part of it. They tested everything - Bowart's book lists over 130 drugs. Since then I'd bet that there'd be that many again as families of drugs. And for every 'happy' drug like Prozac (even that's old hat now) there will be ten black opposites. The book makes clear that very little mind research takes place without spook involvement. And if this spook funded industry comes up with anything 'good', ie. useful for something other than the black arts, it's a complete fluke. The last thing they're interested in is improving the lot of mankind.

Bowart paints a picture of mind control taken to such a degree of perfection that it's staggering. Anyone could be made to do anything and have no memory of it at all. And that was thirty years ago. And here we are today, with endless discussions of 'how is this all possible', and yet Bowart had the answer in 1978. His book makes it clear that just about anyone, given several weeks of programming could be made to do pretty much anything - right up to killing their own mother. And after having done so, they would think nothing of it. And further, were they to be hooked up to a lie detector and asked if they knew anything about their mother's death they would pass with flying colours. Don't forget (and it's worth italicising twice) - that was over thirty years ago.

In 1978 a computer interface consisted of green glowing text in a UNIX shell. Now we have gorgeous photographic desktops with little animating icons, all of which are endlessly editable. I'll bet money that the fully operational mind control programme of that time, has now advanced to a similar level of sophistication. The 'tech' endlessly talked about by that fellow over in the Smoking Mirrors comments section seems perfectly feasible.

Once again, I'm forced to re-evaluate everything. Obama spent two years working for a CIA front company did he? Well that's all it takes. Pick a leader who makes no sense and plug him or her into this book and see if you don't view them in a whole new light. Sure enough, bring up 'mind control' in any discussion of current world events and you'll be viewed as a crackpot. But honestly, read this book and you'll know that there's no point discussing such things without mind control being considered as a distinct possibility.

---

The only point of contention for mine is who owns the mind control caper. Bowart, like McGowan with his paedophocracy, posits his 'cryptocracy' as a product of the CIA, the NSA, the US military and sundry US government acronyms, and all of this under the control of about 'twenty people'. We're left to assume that these twenty are all of the American ruling class. Me, I don't buy it - way back when, this might have been the case, but not anymore. The rule now seems to be that as the stakes rise higher, so does the likelihood of the US elite absurdly acting against their own interests. Honestly, we see it over and over.


Since we're in memory hole territory, why don't I put up another disappeared story - it's Carl Cameron's Fox News reports of Israeli spying, and specifically Amdocs and Comverse Infosys. It's in mov format and comes in four parts, each between 10 and 15MB.

Watch these and ask yourself - if the US spook elite is so powerful, how is it possible that they'd let two such crucial apparatuses of spook control end up in Israeli hands? If they really were such ne plus ultra powers, there is no way known that these insanely important telecommunication functions would be in any hands other than American ones. QED.

Besides, watch Cameron's reports and see how these all-powerful institutions flail about, unable to do anything about Israeli spying. Not forgetting that the FBI's biggest case for decades, the AIPAC spy trial, just folded with only a single guy going to jail, and he was American. Honestly, for the old school American elite this was nothing other than an ignominious, shit-spattered defeat - an unambiguous, in-your-face demonstration of who's in charge.

Let's not forget that the CIA, founded as an umbrella organisation to whom every other intelligence agency would report, is now itself underneath the Department of Homeland Security run by an Israeli citizen. (Hmm... it seems we have unstoppable programmed killers and yet Michael Chertoff remains unwhacked. More QED for the question of 'whose cryptocracy is this?')

Let's finish with a quote from Operation Mind Control about Dr. George Estabrooks, who in the early forties theorised about what the fiendish Japanese might do with a single hypnotist -

It would be possible, he said, for "the enemy" to plant a foreign agent as a doctor in a hospital or his own office. This "doctor" could, by means of fake physical examinations, place thousands of people under his power over a period of time. Estabrooks projected how, by hypnotizing key officers and programming them to follow suggestions, this "masked maneuver" could enable a lowly first lieutenant to take over the reins of the entire U.S. Army.

Ha ha ha, such fatuous nonsense. I have a much better idea. Why not let the intelligence agencies spend all their time and money conducting experiments and torture etc. and then if what results is a thing worth having, just take the reins when it's done? Cue the maniacal laughter! Ha ha ha ha! Bloody evil genius, me! Oh wait, it seems someone already thought of it. Damn.

Pedophocracy Disinfo 101 - Stevieb shows how it's done!

The following is me piling into the comments on Xymphora's posting 'Why all the American traitors?' In it, he wonders at why the American old guard has so utterly sold out to Jewish interests. His conclusion? 'I think it is just power.' Which is to say powerful people want more power and thus they hitch their wagon to those even more powerful, the Jews (ie. it's a voluntary gig and they've only themselves to blame). I have a different view sure enough.

But that's not the point of the exercise. The point is, that in a discussion of the second most powerful structure in the world, the pedophocracy, a disinfo merchant showed up and gave us all a salutary lesson in how it's done. It's word perfect. You start with an expression of open-minded empathy and then go from there...


nobody
04/01/2009 10:46 PM
You think it's just power? No way known. Go google 'mcgowan pedophocracy'. Read chapter six about 'The Finders' and tell me that this isn't the secondary enforcement structure. And McGowan only scratches the surface. Keep digging. Go deep into Dutroux. Check out the Casa Pia scandal in Portugal. Look into the isle of Jersey and how it plugs into Bournemouth, North Wales, Belfast. The links (always reaching right to the top) spread everywhere - Italy, Russia, France, Holland. Nowhere is untouched. And each scandal connects to every other one.

The structure undoubtably exists and explains things brilliantly. 'Um, I think it's power' really isn't up to your usual high standards X. And yeah I get it that the subject is so mind-bogglingly ugly that the response is to dismiss it and turn away, but that's the idea.

But if you ain't prepared to go there, you'll merely spend the rest of your life scratching your head.

I doubt anyone could be fagged but here were my thoughts on the matter - here and here

-

stevieb
04/02/2009 11:39 AM
For Nobody: I was doing some reading into the allegations of child porn rings and ritual abuse and murder - repulsive in the extreme, but fascinating nonetheless.

But as far as the McMartin pre-school story - was that thoroughly debunked? As I remember none of the children had any physical signs of abuse and the stories were planted in the children's head by some overzealous child-abuse experts.

Adding that to the other more credible stories tends to weaken the whole pedophocracy allegation - for me, at least

-

nobody
04/02/2009 09:22 PM
Hey StevieB,

Should've clicked the first link mate. It was precisely about McMartin. But never mind, here's a quick summary -

The stories of parents as deluded victims of an hysterical, out of control, mob of social workers were false, and demonstrably so. The so-called 'False Memory Syndrome Foundation' is funded by the CIA and staffed by 'ex'-CIA and 'ex'-paedophiles. Martin T Orne, Louis Jolyon West, Ralph Underwager, and Peter and Pamela Freyd. There is no scientific basis to 'False Memory Syndrome'. Not a lick. They've been thrown out of court over and over.

The woman who started it all, famously 'drunk' and 'schizophrenic', was neither until she began getting death threats and came under a relentless media attack. She didn't imagine the assault on her son, she just wanted to know why blood was running from his anus. This is NEVER mentioned. All we hear was that she was nuts. And besides, a dozen of the kids had chlamydia. Do the math on that. Which is to say, you don't catch chlamydia from toilet seats.

The McMartin case eventually pivoted on the existence of tunnels running from the pre-school to various properties. The line was that since the tunnels didn't exist the whole thing was a mad invention. Astoundingly (not really) the media was utterly uninterested in the fact that an uber-famous, well-qualified archeologist E. Gary Stickel found the tunnels precisely as described. The logic is bullet-proof. The kids described tunnels, the tunnels were found as described, the kids weren't lying.

Tunnels are not the work of one enthusiastic guy and his buddy. It takes teams to dig tunnels. Plug this into the utter disinterest of the police and the media; 'ex'-FBI plants 'assisting' the parents; the enormity of a well funded organisation like the 'False Memory Syndrome Foundation'; a complete lack of convictions in the face of overwhelming evidence; and the replication of this story in the Presidio/West Point scandal, the 'Finders' scandal in Florida and Washington, the Franklin scandal, etc etc ad nauseam, with the same names continually popping up, and you're in amongst something fucking huge. Really Fucking Huge.

No need to take my word for it. Just get googling. I've given you plenty of names here. Time to open your eyes. You get your head around this and the only question left is 'Whose pedophocracy is it?'

-

stevieb
04/03/2009 12:15 PM
There's more to it than that, Nobody. I have a book - not by any of the authors in the lengthy expose (and I did find some of accusations - after source checking - credible)- that gives a detailed account of the trial, the children involved and the teachers involved.

And that was very credible.

I'll have to look for it - i have thousands of books - but I think it was called "Satan's children" or something like that.

But anyway - as I say the rest is very interesting and there is no doubt about the Marc Dutroux affair, so there is definitely alot of important people that need to be behind bars at the very least.

Flogged and quartered is more like it...

-

stevieb
04/03/2009 12:19 PM
There's YouTube footage from Belgium showing the dungeons in the bastard's house that will make you feel sick...

-

stevieb
04/03/2009 12:29 PM
OK , Nobody - I see what you mean. I read the first link - I'll get back to you later.

There were tunnels under the McMartin pre-school?

Well, that IS interesting....

-

nobody
04/03/2009 11:13 PM
Hey StevieB,

Well that's the thing you see. Yes there are books, articles, and documentaries, all explaining how it was the fault of the parents and social workers. Just like there were books, articles, and documentaries, all explaining how there were WMD's in Iraq. Same-same 911. Same-same the USS Liberty. Same-same you-name-it.

The scale of the disinfo for the Pedophocracy alone speaks volumes as the size of this thing. Honestly, that there's a bullshit 'foundation', a bullshit 'syndrome', a bullshit sing-from-the-same-songbook media campaign, with books, movies, and documentaries is proof enough of the enormity of what we're in amongst.

As a power-base, a means for corruption and control, the pedophocracy is unrivalled. None may stand against it. The trail of bodies the pedophocracy has in its wake makes the Kennedy assassination look second rate. Seriously.

But first things first. The primer for this is Dave McGowan's 'Pedophocracy'. He's a terrific writer with a marvellous breezy style. Here it is - http://mindcontrolforums.com/pedo1.htm

It's all good, but chapter six, will blow your mind. It details the 'Finders' bust and has in full the customs agent's report detailing what he found at their 'headquarters'. Paedophiles with 'headquarters' - who knew? And wait until you find out what happened to his report and who made it happen. I'd say it was unbelieveable, but read it and disbelief won't be an option.

-

stevieb
04/04/2009 02:12 AM
Err - my research has shown there were no tunnels under McMartin pre-school. Thats horsecrap.

And so is the rest. I shoulda known betta.

-

nobody
04/04/2009 02:36 AM
Did E Gary Stickel come up in your research?

http://www.whale.to/b/stickel.html

Did you look into 'False Memory Syndrome'? Did you check out Dave McGowan? Did you read about the 'Finders' bust? How about the Presidio/West Point child-minding scandals? I'm thinking 'not'.

What was your research Stevie? Between E Gary Stickel, his Phd, and an experienced dig team, and your 'research' which obviously came up against some disinfo, I'll stick with Stickel mate.

-

nobody
04/04/2009 03:36 AM
Actually now that I think about it, that was really beautiful. A perfect example of how it's done.

"I looked into it. It's crap. And so is the rest. I should've known betta." - Case closed, nothing to see here.

Any curious waverers out there? Don't worry, Stevie, who was like you and initially curious, has done some research and since he's determined that it's crap, you may too. No need to look into it for yourselves or otherwise do all that arduous googling. It was crap after all.

Whew! Everyone go back to whatever it was you were talking about before. There is no pedophocracy, the False Memory Syndrome foundation isn't staffed by spooks and paedophiles, the parents at McMartin imagined it all, and you probably can catch chlamydia from a toilet seat. Honestly, what was I thinking of?

-

stevieb
04/04/2009 11:10 AM
Look Nobody - why not look a little closer yourself instead of throwing around straw men. As I said before - alot of what is posted about the pedophocracy was quite credible (and had very little to do with Satanism it seems. I should have been more specific when I said 'the rest is crap'.)

But including the McMartin pre school in there is just going to get you laughed at, unfortunately. The tunnels are a hoax perpetrated by some more overzealous idiots.

BTW are you saying that it isn't possible to plant ideas into the heads of small children?

-

stevieb
04/04/2009 11:16 AM
Google "McMartin tunnel hoax". You'd have to believe the entire Los Angeles justice system was compromised to believe that those tunnels are anything but fiction.

Why would you waste your time with this when there are bigger fish to fry and some credible evidence in other areas I don't understand...

-

nobody
04/04/2009 08:30 PM
The entire Los Angeles legal system? What, like that's a lay-down misere? Read chapter six of McGowan's pedophocracy and see the size of the system that refused to touch the 'finders'. How big is the system that refuses to acknowledge that anyone except for 19 Muslims brought down three high rise buildings in their own footprints?

And why stop at 'McMartin Tunnel Hoax'. Go type in 'JFK hoax'. Apparently it was a lone gunman after all. Of course the tunnels are dismissed as a hoax. Everything is. Those who would conspire wouldn't be much chop if they didn't expend energy declaring that the people who've sussed them out are nothing more than hoaxers, bullshit artists, and froot-loops. It's called disinfo mate. You can be that dupe if you want, no skin off my nose. That's just me being charitable you understand. Others would be less charitable to those pushing disinfo.

But let's just pretend you're a dupe and I'm not wasting my breath talking to you - Between E Gary Stickel, an archeological heavy with no stake in the whole affair and giving his honest professional opinion; and him as deluded, or keen to delude ('overzealous idiot' was it?), all the while in the teeth of a huge smear campaign with only his professional reputation at stake, you're going to run with the latter are you? Like that makes a lick of sense.

But fuck it. Who cares? No one here, that's for sure. Xymph ponders at the US establishment kowtowing to tiny ethnic minority and comes to a soft-as-shite conclusion - the most powerful people in the most powerful country in the world just aren't quite powerful enough. Meanwhile, I proffer a working model of corruption and control that exists as a cold hard certainty with bullet-proof trails leading into the FBI, CIA, the military, and the government, and everyone blinks and goes back to their previous conversation, or otherwise airily waves their hand in dismissal. Anyway, no need to fear, there'll be new post soon enough and you can all go back to thinking of reasons why the entire US establishment is in thrall to the Jews that don't involve organised blackmail by way of paedophilia.

Hell, I'll help you out: they were caught sleeping with someone who was not their wife; they're closet gays; they accepted gifts and didn't declare them; they lied to congress; they did it for the money. The fact that none of these would make me, nor any of you, sell out your country is neither here nor there. You should all think nothing of it. Or just scratch your heads saying, 'Gee I don't know, it's all too difficult'. I'm good either way. Besides, as if the kind of people who'd stage false-flag mass terror events in order to start a war would stoop to paedophilia to get what they want! The very idea is preposterous.

I'll leave you all to it. Enjoy.

-

manfromatlan (as well-meaning bystander)
04/04/2009 11:08 PM
It isn't that Xymphora or others around here don't follow the link between pedophilic rings, blackmail, and ritual sex abuse or treat it lightly, nobody. Looking at the many references provided on the internet it looks like abuse did take place at the McMartin Day Care. We have so many hushed up pedophile ring cases in Canada and the UK, of course people care. But people aren't going to get bogged down in the minute details. Me, what got me was the children's videotaped testimony about the abuse and the hospital nurse's report (which got shot down by the lawyers)

-

nobody
04/05/2009 02:37 AM
Bugger the details. Arguments about details are a technique to shoot down a discussion of the bigger picture (and I fell for it, sure). But my initial on-topic point was precisely about the big picture. These disparate events in Canada etc etc aren't disparate. It is a single structure. Like I keep saying, read McGowan's pedophocracy, particularly chapter six. Anyone who wants to tell me that the report written by Special Agent Ramon J. Martinez, United States Customs Service, was bullshit is on a hiding to nothing as pedophocracy disinfo spook.

And if anyone thinks I'm being paranoid, think of the effort that went into the CIA's Mockingbird op. Well a tuppence for that. The pedophocracy is above the CIA. Don't laugh, just go read the report. It's at the link above. I absolutely guarantee you won't be laughing then. More effort goes into shutting down, obscuring, or otherwise disappearing discussions about the pedophocracy than any other thing - JFK, 911, the London bombings, you name it, none of these things compares. The threat of exposure as a paedophile is the ultimate don't-argue. When someone has a photo of you en flagrante dilecto with a kid, you do ANYTHING they say. Exposure is the end of the world. Can we dig it?

And some guy turned up and said he looked into it and it's bullshit... well shit, eh?

On topic again - If you're looking for a mechanism whereby the American elite (hell, any elite, I don't care how 'powerful' it is) can be forced to sell out their own interests, here it is. Pedophocracy uber alles.

-

stevieb
04/05/2009 09:44 AM
Nobody - relax. FIrst off this 'heavy' of an archealogist used two parents of supposed victims to perform the dig - and the evidence consists of couple of children's toys that could have easily been planted. Whic, regardless is not evidence of tunnels.

If there were tunnels under McMartin pre-school there would be lots of evidence. There isn't.

Now explain to me why this is disinfo?

And again - I'm questioning the McMartin satanic cult accusations only. So your consistently referring to this as denying the pedophocracy is wrong.

And I've seen absolutely nothing to suggest Sickel is a 'heavy'. And how do you know he has absolutely nothing at stake in the affair? What do you know aboutGary Sickel?(not STickel)

Inevitably I'm thinking I will be called a plant - but you should know that I am not and that your going to have to do better than suggestin g I've something at a stake in calling into question your thesis.

But I'll read chapter six and see if that brings some stronger facts to the table....

-

stevieb
04/05/2009 09:46 AM
It is Stickel -lol.

Sorry....

-

stevieb
04/05/2009 09:56 AM
In one of your links, the blogger in question repeatedly said that tunnels had been found under McMartin pre-school.

No tunnels were ever found.

-

stevieb
04/05/2009 09:58 AM
And a discussion of details is not intended to shoot down the entire thesis. It is to confirm or deny it based on evidence.

Do you have any formal schooling, Nobody?

I know this may sound condescending - and for that I apologize - but it may explain your aversion to relying on facts and credible sources...

-

stevieb
Yesterday 10:13 AM
yes and no, penny.

Yes it can be, sure. But it also gives you the tools to think for yourself if you allow it to.

Perhaps 'formal' schooling was the wrong word.

I'm thinking some level of post high school education where you wouldn't be throwing around claims without properly researching them or sourcing them(not that I haven't been known to do that very thing myself in the past, even with some post hs education).
It isn't of course absolutely necessary, but it helps.

-
nobody Today 10:25 PM
Okay Sevieb, sorry, Stevieb (lol), given that the absolute best I can say for you is that you're a clueless self-impressed git who somehow just happens to come up with a word-perfect 'how-to' template for pedophocracy disinfo spooks, I'm just going to call it anyway. You are a pedophocracy disinfo spook. Which is to say, you're a paedophile. No need to get cross mate! If you got the game, you may as well have the name. Ha, you turn that saying on its head and it makes more sense than it does the right way round!

And here's the game, (as a Disinfo 101 single-page powerpoint presentation).

- pay no attention to the big picture, nor to myriad examples pointing to it
- stick to a single scandal of your own choosing, and perpetually return to it
- focus on a single aspect of the single scandal and declare that false
- use the alleged falsity of this sliver of a sliver of the big picture to dismiss the whole

E voila! And extra brownie points for blaming the guy arguing the case for the big picture, for the paucity of the case for the small picture. It's the cherry on the sundae that is your genius.

Otherwise folks, I recommend you follow Stevieb's sole suggestion as to google inputs, and actually do a search for 'mcmartin tunnel hoax'. You will be precisely delivered to either: bullshit 'may-as-well-be-mockingbird' journo Debbie Nathan, famous defender of all things paedophilic; or better yet, the 'Institute of Psychological Therapies' run by no less than Ralph Underwager, who, if anyone can remember back that far, I precisely named as a famous paedophile spook. The 'False Memory Syndrome Foundation' and the IPT are the same people, all funded by the CIA and existing for no other reason than to promote paedophilia and defend paedophiles. Thank you Stevieb.

And Stevie, as for you wondering at me having formal schooling - stick to the kiddy raping mate, because you really suck at ad hominem. I'd laugh if it weren't so sickening. If you're going to get ad hominem on someone there's no point fucking around. Thus -

Go fuck yourself you sick piece of shit.



PS. For anyone who's interested, this conversation didn't cease at this point and carried on for some time and can be viewed at the link provided in the first para. Gratifyingly (from an argumentative point of view), Stevieb stayed absolutely true to form the entire time, never swerving from a pedophocracy disinfo line. Indeed his pathetic attempts to dismiss the entire issue as a hoax grew ever more desperate with him repeatedly, and absurdly, linking to the already discredited FMSF and IPT. All up, it was a truly abysmal display and for mine proof positive of the one-trick-pony weakness of the pedophocracy disinfo playbook.

Holding on to 'know thyself'

It's embarrassing I know, but I have never taken a trip. Of the psychotropic variety, that is. Everyone I know has done so, but somehow I missed out. I have no great philosophical objection to it all. Quite the opposite - so many people have told me that I really must do it that I've put the word out that if anyone comes across a goldtop mushie, pop it in some honey and give me a hoy. One day...

And yes, thank you, no need for anyone to pile in and tell me of the wickedness of this. I get it. A cousin of mine went out on a Friday night once and disappeared for three days. Finally he turned up in a casualty ward, naked, cut to pieces, and barking like a dog. No one knows quite what happened to him but it's assumed he took a trip. A bad one, obviously. Sure enough, he got better but he's now on a daily regimen of anti-schizophrenic drugs and will be for the rest of his life. That LSD (an industrial strength chemical concoction) is bad, in no way condemns the natural hallucinogens which ancient peoples have been taking under the guidance of elders for millennia. Natural v chemical. Tradition v the latest thing. Wisdom v no idea.


These dichotomies aside, if only my cousin had had someone like the father of a Swedish friend of mine. His father was an original hippy and had been there and done that, and he told his son that no one should take a trip until they're at least forty. It was his opinion that any earlier than this was dangerous, what with a young mind not quite having settled down into a solid variety of 'this-is-who-I-am', if you can dig it. For this original hippy, even thirty was too young.

I expect those of you reading, and who are in their forties, will get the concept. Me, I'm so glad I'm in my forties. Sure I miss the thoughtless physical health of my youth - the endless energy, the instant healing, the indestructibility, etc. But between that and me having a handle on who I am, I'll take the latter. And when I heard the Swedish hippy's advice it struck a chord. I got it. Had I heard it when I was thirty, say, I suspect I would have been too nebulous a concept for me. I may or may not have followed the advice depending on whether someone else said something different. "Nah! That's bullshit!" - "Um is it? Okay."

Being young is about not knowing what to think. As it was, my friend's Dad's advice was no do-or-die for me, what with already being past forty, and never having taken a trip anyway. But all that aside, the kernel within that advice is a thing worth rolling around in one's head and wondering at.

---

Along these lines, let's jump - to the word 'break', as in break, broke, broken. This can mean various things. In the context of 'The photocopier is broken', it could mean something as simple as a fuse being blown. No biggie, let's just call the repairman. But for that part of human existence that preceded photocopiers (and other diabolical machines), when a thing was broken it was necessarily in pieces. Think clay pots. You break a thing, and it becomes useless.

Funnily enough, with humans it's the other way around. You break them and suddenly they become really very useful. Perhaps the most useful thing there is. What sort of 'broken' is this? Think horses. A human can be broken just like a horse can be broken, same same. Which is to say, we break their will. (Now there's a word for you. What is one's 'will' in this sense? Hmm... 'the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action'. Not bad. But might we not call this 'knowing who one is'?)


When we break a horse, we break its will and it is no longer what it was. It is no longer its own master but instead is subject to us. What we broke was its definition of itself. And so it is with a human who is broken. A broken man, whether by someone else's hand, or mere circumstance (ie. 'After his son died he was a broken man'), loses his spark, his impetus, his definition of himself. And when one man breaks another it is invariably so he might subject that man to his own will. The man is redefined - servant to the fellow who broke him.

It's not just this being broken that humans and horses have in common. Were they to be released from their fealty each could recover their sense of themselves. A horse that escapes it's corral will turn wild again, which is to say rediscover itself as a horse. 'I am a horse! I run about! I root mares! I do whatever the fuck I like!' (Um, apologies for this being very 'male'. Certainly I could make it all non-sexist but the clunky syntax required would make it flow like a bucket of wet sand. Between flow, and catering to the rigidities of non-sexism, I choose the former. Words are one thing, and deeds are another. Oh wait, have I broken the flow here? D'oh!)

Where was I? Oh yes, breaking a man. It strikes me that this has been a constant throughout history - men breaking men in order to subject them to their will. Hmm... there's an book angle for you. "Men as Beasts - The History of Breaking the Human Will". Howard Zinn eat your heart out.

Anyway thank God we've left all that behind - master/servant - all that rubbish. Now we have freedom. Ha ha ha ha - as if! The motherfuckers of this world (psychopaths, whatever) have never quit. In much the same way that horses have been replaced by horsepower, breaking a man's will has likewise scientifically progressed to hitherto unimaginable heights. Which is to say, 'depths'.

For black-hearted secret organisations like the CIA et al, keen to have the world subject to their will, this ability to truly break a man, to make him act against his most deeply held principles, constitutes a variety of holy grail - Mind Control. If one could control a fellow's mind, who needs super powers? Bugger kryptonite - between being able to weaken Superman, and turning him into your biddable asset, it's a no-brainer. Or to put it another way - why would you shoot a horse when you could ride it instead?

---

And then there's MPD/DID. The acronym stands for Multiple Personality Disorder/Dissociative Identity Disorder - the former is the old term and the latter the new one apparently. This is that old chestnut of fiction wherein two or more personae ('alters') exist within one mind. Think Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, albeit with Hyde as an alter appearing merely by having his name called. In searching for a non-cinema metaphor, MPD/DID is to the breaking of the human will, what the Reserve Bank system is to your local loanshark.

And in much the same way that Reserve Banking's private ownership doesn't exist in the media, MPD/DID is similarly misrepresented as the fantastical stuff of fiction, not to be taken seriously. However, having read the account of witness X1 (amongst myriad others) from the Dutroux scandal, I now have MPD/DID down as non-fiction. Besides this, if you plug it into Dave McGowan's Programmed To Kill, and the battle between Recovered Memory Syndrome and the CIA's False Memory Syndrome, a 'what-the-fuck-is-going-on-here' picture starts to sharpen into something possessed of shape, colour, and form.

It seems we're permitted to know about MKultra and its assorted drug and hypnotism experiments. But perhaps this was merely a side-show to the true three ring circus of Operation Monarch. According to Ron Patton this involved Josef Mengele. We all roll our eyes - bloody Josef Mengele! More Boys From Brazil fiction! Yeah, maybe, maybe not.


Given that American practitioners of the black arts wholeheartedly embraced the personnel of Japan's Unit 731 (and their experiments in biological warfare), the default position would have to be 'why wouldn't they?'. That the Germans pursued Mind Kontrolle like the Americans pursued mind control is beyond plausible. That they did this in concentration camps with the prisoners as experimental subjects, likewise. It's precisely what the Japanese did with 731. And Mengele? Why not? Every other goddamn thing about the Holocaust has been misrepresented, why not him too? It's perfectly possible that the various stories of him in Brazil were complete fiction. The Boys From Brazil certainly was.

What if we were to call MKultra a search for a drug induced shortcut to MPD/DID? And it seems the shortcut, by way of LSD, failed. LSD, in breaking the link between reality and fantasy, seems only to produce less than useful casualties like my cousin. No problems, if LSD doesn't provide the answer, move on. And since it's not addictive and thus unlikely to produce the staggering profits of smack, coke, and meth, then it isn't really worth pursuing. If there's any proof to be found in one's own microcosm, I have encountered all three of above and yet never bumped into LSD. The experiment is over and it no longer suits the motherfuckers to have it out there.

So they chucked in MKultra. But there's no way they chucked in the search for mind control. For motherfuckers, this holy grail will never lose its appeal. Best to stick with the tried and true - smashing the psyche of the young. Certainly that one can take a child, brutalise them, and turn them into killers is old hat. Evidence of it is everywhere, from Sparta of yore, to China's Cultural Revolution, right through to the Congo of today.


But we are white men. As if we couldn't come up with something better than Africa's blank-eyed child killers. Even Henry Lee Lucas and his grand guignol slaughterfests, whilst serving a definite purpose, leave a lot to be desired. Really, MPD/DID is the go. To be able to take a mind and fracture it into discrete entities each capable of different things answers the brief pretty well. And yeah yeah, suffering beyond comprehension, a mind smashed to pieces, with only a shell remaining - like motherfuckers give a shit.

And so we arrive at X1, and all those like her. She survived and with help is attempting to reconstruct herself. You'd have to wish her luck in her endeavours to find peace of mind. There but for the grace of God etc. etc. But I suspect she's in a minority of those MPD/DID victims who escaped their snuff film fate. Who knows how many went on to inflict their own misery upon others?

---

Did anyone read Ursula LeGuin's Earthsea Trilogy? The magic of Earthsea pivoted on everything having a secret name. This name was always guarded since possession of this knowledge gave one power over whomever it was. When I read this book, way back when, I greeted this concept with a shrug. Nice idea, but as best I could tell it seemed to have no great connection to anything. Not anymore. Now I really wonder at it. It's a precise description of the mechanism by which an MPD/DID slave is controlled. Curious. Never mind a shrug, now I shake my head. Did Ursula LeGuin just fluke this?

---

In amongst this sordid trip through MPD/DID, the thought occurred to me (since I'm that sort of fellow) 'What if it was me being subjected to this?'. Would I cope? Or succumb? If someone wanted to split my mind, would they succeed? Could I hold on to my will, my sense of myself?

In turning this thought around, the phrase 'know thyself' popped into my head. It's an oldie but a goodie that I'd never taken beyond face value. Like LeGuin's secret names, I'd merely shrugged - know thyself - um, okay, sure, why not? But under the light of MPD/DID, 'know thyself' now seems fraught with meaning. Madly, I wonder if it might not originally have been a warning from an ancient sage familiar with some antediluvian version of mind control. Hmm... an unlikely prospect. And besides, surely the MPD/DID variety of smashing-of-the-will must necessarily be restricted to a tiny number of people. Statistically individuals like X1 couldn't comprise more than a tiny fraction of one percent of the population.

Not so fast! Perhaps this isn't an either/or proposition? Perhaps it's another continuum? What if people like X1 were merely the furthest extreme on a bell curve? (So extreme, that in much the same way that statisticians reject such extreme anomalies under the 2.3 standard deviations rule, we too do likewise and reject it as a subject too far. We really just don't want to go there). Back to this continuum now, isn't our sense of know-thyself under a daily assault? In fact, couldn't we describe everything we're on about here - from Adbusters' simple sense of dislocation, through to the Protocols plans of destruction for everything 'not them' - as an assault on our ability to know-thyself? What is the media (Hollywood, games, advertising - all the same thing) apart from a machine that does precisely this? Isn't it our sense of know-thyself suffering death by a thousand cuts?

And then there's who the media is aimed at. It ain't me, that's for sure. One doesn't have to spend very long immersed in the media before realising it's almost entirely directed at the young. As with MPD/DID, when assaulting know-thyself it pays to start young. Otherwise, not so long ago there was no such thing as 'youth culture'. A single generation ago people would have understood each of these words separately but to connect them would have had them scratching their heads. Ha! Now that I think about it, 'youth culture' is a perfect oxymoron. With culture being a thing that develops slowly over countless generations, how could 'youth' and 'culture' possibly be put together in any sensible fashion? Honestly?


Regardless, the media relentlessly beats young people about the head with perverse ideas of who they should imagine themselves to be. A lot of it is connected with turning them into hell-bent consumers, sure enough. So what's up with the media's relentless sexualisation? What does this have to do with consumerism? Whether eight year olds are wearing g-strings or granny pants, the money would flow regardless. So what are our kids being made into? And why?

And whilst this is a long way from what was done to X1, it's still the same road with everyone being shepherded towards the same destination, with know-thyself receding ever further into the distance.

Between our venerable Swedish hippy urging his son to wait until he's forty, and the CIA handing out vast quantities of LSD; between parents hoping for a 'normal' family and the media's mad deification and sexualisation of children; and between peace, love, and understanding, and the endless inculcation of us-and-them with death to towelheads - could we not define all of these as a struggle to hold on to know-thyself?

Am I the only person to ask some variation of the question, 'Is this my country?', or better still, "Who are we?'. I don't think so.

Whilst it's early days for yours truly with this line of thought (with much work to be done), could we describe Siddhartha Gautama's ascension to Buddha-dom as him arriving at a complete state of know-thyself? For mine, it's inescapable that the ultimate truth of know-thyself is that we are one with the universe. The black opposite of this, desired by those who would break us/break our will, is that we each become our own universe. Thus we become individual, self-obsessed molecules bouncing off each other in a state of complete chaos. We lack all coherency - in both meanings of the word. It's a smashing of our 'one-ness'. Whether this one-ness is within our own heads, à la X1, or collectively, as in our sense of community, I'll posit that it's all the same thing.

I have no idea if that Swedish hippy dad quite knew what he was doing when he passed on his advice to his son. And never mind the specificity of it as being about psychotropic drugs. That's a useful thing to know, sure. But above that, his words and the wisdom that underlies them are pure gold, perhaps the only thing worth knowing. Thyself. Within this lies everything. If one could pass on one single thing to one's child, says I, this is it.