Carbon Trading? Free Money!

Carbon trading, eh? How does that work then? Why don't I try and explain it to myself.


Polluting is bad and planting trees is good. For bad read 'negative', and good, 'positive'. To balance the scale a polluter needs to plant trees so that his negative score comes back to a neutral 'zero' value. He won't plant any trees himself of course (not unless the press is there, ha ha). Besides were he to do so who'd need a middleman? And whether we need them or not, God knows we must have middlemen. Sure enough carbon trading is a middleman's wet dream and that's why we're going to get it even if everyone except the middleman has to die in the attempt. Ha, now that I think about it, global warming could happily be described as 'a middle man, his invented product, and the fight to turn us all into buyers and sellers'.

But it is true that polluting is bad and planting trees is good. At least we can all agree on that. Just like we all agreed that Saddam possessing WMD's was bad and that a democratic Iraq would be good. Only some crazy pro-WMD, anti-democracy, tyrant-loving loony would have argued otherwise. And even if we suspected at the time that there was something screwy in amongst the arguments for war, at least it was all for a good cause. And didn't that turn out well! Iraq is now a thriving WMD-free democracy and we only had to kill 5% of the population to do it. And so it is with carbon trading: a few fudged figures, a few billion dollars rorted, but it's all for a good cause and only some crazy environment-hating pollution lover in the pay of Big Oil could possibly speak against it.


Hmm... here's the same argument from a different tack: To say that if global warming was bullshit, some scientist would win fame and fortune by proving it, is worth precisely as much as saying (way back when) that if Saddam didn't have WMD's, some journalist would win a Pulitzer by being the first (and only) guy to say so. So much for that argument. In the run up to the war not a single journalist did the obvious and googled Scott Ritter. Impossibly the world's most famous weapons inspector became a media unperson. And that Pulitzer? Ha ha ha, what's the point of a Pulitzer if you're black-banned from the entire industry? It's not called a 'bloc-media' for nothing. And just like there was a songbook for Iraq's WMD's and everybody had to sing from it, same-same for global warming.

Otherwise never mind the old polluting bad, planting trees good, how about steal from the rich to give to the poor? Did somebody say Robin Hood? How about Double Plus Good! Welcome to carbon trading, wherein finally we all win the lottery. The big fat-cat polluters will have to buy carbon credits and they'll have to come crawling on their knees to the forest owning poor. Who but a crazy pro-rich anti-poor weirdo could be against it? Honestly what's not to like in this idea?


I don't know... how about the fact that it's bullshit? The wealthy of this world would sooner eat their own heads than hand their money over to the poor. Sure enough they won't be doing any such thing. Rather, what they'll be doing is forcing the poor to sign their lives away (at gunpoint if necessary) for some feathers, mirrors, and glass beads. Then they sit and wait. They wait like Alan Greenspan and his proxies waited after they handed out free money to every man jack who couldn't afford a mortgage. Alan and his very good friends didn't care that the loans could never be repaid. They knew how worthless the imaginary money was. They just wanted all the land. Or everyone homeless. Or some combination of the two, now that I think about it. And they got it. Well, not all of it yet but don't worry, they're very patient fellows.

Meanwhile in New Guinea we can see the feathers gag happening in real time (SBS pt 1) (SBS pt 2) (SBS pt 3). And the falsity is beyond obvious. Laws not in place? No idea who the owners are? The ministry in charge of it all so utterly corrupt it was actually disbanded? Doesn't matter! No need to take my word for it, watch that vid and see the pell-mell rush to sign up anybody with a pulse. And the local governor complained to the Australian government about the whole sordid affair did he? Ha ha ha ha ha - Mate, the government of K Rudd is precisely as interested in the crookedness of a land grab in New Guinea as they are in the crookedness of a the land grab in Australia's own Northern Territory. Which is to say, not. Which is to say they're a party to it. K Rudd and the middle men? Best of friends!


Otherwise if you view global warming/cooling as a flat out con suddenly all the inconsistencies and contradictions become no such thing and actually make perfect sense. As our death cult leaders haggle over precisely how little to give to the third world in order to snaffle up what bits of virgin forest remain, the rest of it continues to be cut down at a rate of football fields per hour. If you really want to know where the West's head is at in regard to rainforests etc ask yourself where all that clear-felled Indonesian timber is going. Indonesia? Not bloody likely. It's for us in the fat-cat West. If those disappearing Sumatran forests were truly going to put the PTB's beachside properties under water, we'd spend as much time halting Indonesian freighters carrying timber as we do ships bearing humanitarian supplies bound for Palestine. But we don't do that because the PTB want that timber for the decking of their beachside property (which of course is no more likely to be sunk than the Israelis are to quit being psycho-killers). The cutting down of the rain forests is many things (and all of them fucked) but a global climate changer ain't one of them. Our death cult PTB tells us this themselves.

There will be climate change and no mistake. What's coming is coming. And sure enough, the death cult knows this. Knowledge is power - literally: the words 'know' and 'noble' come from the same root. Our ignoble nobility know what's coming and of course they bend that knowledge to accord with the single thrumming refrain in their head: what's in it for me - it's all about me - me uber alles - if not me, none - me, me, me, ad nauseam. It's all they have and they are nothing if not predictable. And speaking of predictable - Of course they lie and tell us it's for our own good! Of course they stampede us with fear! Always this way! Like these simpleton, one-note, trickster motherfuckers ever pass up a chance? Honestly.


Hey Tricksters! Fuck you! You're bullshit and obvious with it. A tuppence for the lot of you.

Oh, and you can stick your global warming up your arse.

The Deluded Servants of Heartless Masters

Oh, I'm so bored with this topic. I don't know if it's my detoxified brain or my yoga-fied body, but I find it hard to summon up any enthusiasm for the whole thing. Somehow it's all turned into homework. So why don't I just kill the comedy hobby-horse I've been on up until now and get it over and done with?

There aren't two media masters - there's only one, and he's Jewish. And he's Satanist! He's both and he's neither. He's the wrong end of the continuum. He is that creature that has most perfectly embraced fear and desire. He is the anti-buddha. He is me uber alles. He is if not me, none.


In much the same way that there's not much to be gained in describing the Buddha in terms of whatever he was before - 'Well, he was from Kosala, you know' - I think the same follows for our anti-buddhas. Whatever they once were long ago, they are no longer. Any descriptions that might apply would be merely nominal and bring as much confusion as clarity. Since truth must be sacrificed at the altar of their own greatness, there can be no description of them that will make clear cut sense. They are whatever works.

So who are the Jews? And what are the Satanists? I'm going to call them servants, dupes, and coat-tail riders, with each imagining themselves as the favoured child. And a case could be made supporting the rightness of that thought. But it would be equally true to say that they're just fodder to be used up as suits their uber-alles masters. Viewed from this angle these two sects of the death cult have more in common with each other than they know. It's arguable that the greatest difference between them is the fact that one is publicly acknowledged and the other is regularly disappeared from the media and exists only as an apocryphal entity, ie. in the madder works of fiction.

---

As the acknowledged servants, the Jews get to wallow in a public orgy of self-impressed self-congratulation. Absurdly, if it weren't for them (says they) we'd have no culture, art, or music, no rights or freedoms, no insert_thing_worth_having_here. It's arrant nonsense of course but the Jews, like their once-were-Jewish masters, have made lying an art-form, not least of all to themselves. Flatter them and they'll believe you. And tell them that everyone wants to kill them out of envy, and they'll believe that too.


Who knows if there's a god who grooves on human sacrifice? Not me. But anyone who's hung out at the occult section of Rigorous Intuition would have to concede that spooky preternatural shit does go on. Sacrifices are made and all in a quest for 'magick'. But as far as I can tell, none of it ever seems to count for much. Certainly in terms of holocaust = sacrifice, you'd have to ask, where's the magick in amongst that event? There, blood-lusting god or no, and 6,000,000 dead or no - I don't know that it makes much difference. All that counts is that the world believes that that's what happened and a humongous evil juju is spawned regardless. Don't argue - 6M or 300K, a brand new nation appeared before our very eyes and another was disappeared. David Copperfield eat your heart out. Magick? Who needs it?

And now it looks like Israel's time is over. Clearly there's no real-world logic to it anymore, for mine its destruction is inevitable. It was a means to an end and soon it too will be sacrificed - the Holocaust as a sacrifice for Israel, and Israel as a sacrifice for world control. Dig it - like Elvis Presley or Michael Jackson, Israel is worth more dead than alive. And it's not like the Rothschilds and their very good friends will miss the place. Did they ever go there? Even for a visit? God knows they never lived there. And who could shed a tear for those wild-hair-up-their-arse Haredim anyway? The worst people on the planet!


A tuppence for sacrifice as an occult event (ie. hidden with no one knowing it took place). Imagine if a sacrifice of 6,000,000 was actually made, but all done on the hush-hush with no one knowing at all: would there be any power in that? How would it change the world if no one knew? Perhaps that's who the Jews are: a people to be publicly sacrificed over and over. And given that the power of the sacrifice lays in it's public perception, then of course the people being sacrificed must be perceived as the greatest who ever lived. More power to the publicity juju!

---

The Jews' death cult twin however, the unacknowledged Satanists, get no such blaze of glory. Or not in any useful fashion that is. As we've seen over at Pseudo Occult Media the Satanist / mind-control crowd get a lot of airtime. But madly they get airtime in inverse proportion to the number of people who get the gag. Everything they put to air is effectively an in-joke whooshing over the heads of just about everyone. Fantastic, but what's the point? Who are these in-jokes for? Is it really for us as mug-punters with the symbolism functioning as some kind of voodoo incantation for the subconscious? Somehow I don't think so. I've been seeing butterfly images and black and white checks for as long as I can remember and as far as I know, nothing happened. Besides which, wouldn't the residents of monarch butterfly migration town, Pacific Grove, have long since wigged out?


Perhaps the in-jokes are for the benefit of the ruling elite, like some kind of upper-class circle jerk / mutual wankfest? If so, it's a curious sort of benefit - a vast audience watching and not one of them understanding what they're seeing. Ha! It's the Illuminati as shy exhibitionists - they like getting on the fiddle in public with everybody watching but only if none of them can actually tell what's going on.

Aside from that, do the crowned heads of Europe watch all those idiot low-brow TV shows? Really? Somehow I have that pegged as unlikely. It's like that scene in Robert Altman's Gosford Park: as the Duchess says to the American producer, who refuses to say how his movie ends because he doesn't want to spoil it for them, "Oh, but none of us are going to see it."


So, if it's not there for us as mug-punters, and it's not there for the lah-di-dah pointy end of the pyramid, then there's no one left but the zombified slaves themselves. Certainly that would have utility: whatever channel the zombies flip to they'll be confronted by yet more evidence that there's nowhere to run. Given the time and money that goes into creating mind-control slaves, in no way should that be viewed as excessive or unlikely.

And hats off to that, but what sort of expression of power is it? To imagine that the Illuminati would revel in a constant reminder of what keeps their zombies in line, is to imagine that the Romans would have revelled in 6000 crucified slaves lining the Appian Way. Would they have had an al fresco party surrounded by corpses, three cheers for us, huzzah huzzah? Or would it somehow have been a bit too grisly and depressing? And between that and the rose-petal strewn parades through the Forum that the acknowledged Jews are permitted to give themselves, one of them could be more accurately defined as a variation of calculated insult. If all those symbols are an expression of power, they seem to be less for the Satanist / mind-control mob than they are at them, if you can dig it.


Not forgetting of course that if you were to sit down and design a power structure that was most likely to be hijacked and led around like a prize bull with a magic blackmail ring in its nose, you couldn't improve upon one that pivots on paedophilia and Satanist human sacrifice, could you? Sure enough, the paedophocracy was always going to belong to someone else, and it does.

---

But who gives a shit? Not me! Like it matters what stripe an anti-buddha is. To argue the point would be vaguely equivalent to disagreeing over whose Satan is worst, that of the Jews, Christians, or Muslims? Huh? Who cares?


And the witless wannabes who serve those anti-buddhas? Whether it's the dispensable and unacknowledged bastard son who's never seen the light of day and is unable to see past his nose to the fingers that lead him, or the golden headed child who (unaware that it's just a cheap wig) lifts his head ever higher to receive his own adulation and otherwise accommodate the patiently waiting blade - like anyone would shed a tear for the either of them.

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...

The Death Cult Flying Circus!

Man: I don't know - Mr Wentworth just told me to come in here and say that there was trouble at the mill, that's all - I didn't expect a kind of global despotism.

(JARRING CHORD - The door flies open and Cardinal Ximinez-Rothschild of the City of London enters, flanked by two junior cardinals, Cardinal Biggles and Cardinal Fang.)

Ximinez-Rothschild: NOBODY expects a global despotism! Our chief weapon is monetary policy...monetary policy and the bloc-media...the bloc-media and monetary policy.... Our two weapons are the bloc-media and monetary policy...and corruption via satanism and paedophilia.... Our *three* weapons are the bloc-media, monetary policy, and corruption via satanism and paedophilia...and a centuries spanning gradualism.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as the bloc-media, monetary policy.... I'll come in again. (Exit and exeunt)


Does that make metaphoric sense? Well it does if you're standing on a balcony having a cig and trying to put together a sensible picture of what we're up against in terms of the death cult. Reducing a thing to senselessness ought not to be dismissed out of hand. Honestly, if a thing is senseless to begin with why not treat it that way?

For mine the essence of Python's senselessness was captured in one obscure sketch called 'Climbing the North face of Uxbridge Road' in which mountaineers with pitons, carabiners, and ropes laboriously traversed the footpath next to Uxbridge Road. For some reason this is mad, and yet doing the same thing on the side of a mountain isn't. Perhaps that was the beauty of Python - to make obvious the absurdity of all those things that we're otherwise required to discuss as if they were sensible.

No wonder there's nothing like Monty Python anymore. Now all comedy seems to be Jewish farce. Jewish farce has no point to make apart from the fact that everything can be reduced to smut. We're all Beavis and Butthead now. To hell with actually listening to anything anyone says or what it might mean. Instead we sit there blankly, our mental antennae attuned and waiting for the arrival of a smutty word - 'He said 'Bartok', heh heh heh heh....'


Interestingly, Python is actually undergoing a resurgence at the moment at the hands of Eric Idle (the least and shallowest of all the Pythons) who has reduced The Holy Grail to that most vacuous of art forms, the Broadway musical. Thus Idle becomes feted and wealthy, and the intellectual and philosophical heart of Python, Terry Jones, remains the most obscure of all his fellows. Sure, of course.

Otherwise Monty Python (with Spike Milligan's Goons as my intro) made me the fellow I am today. It taught me that arcane and otherwise intimidating topics could belong to anyone and that one might view them however one wished. There was no topic that couldn't be stripped down, turned inside out, and if necessary smashed over the head with a stout bit of reductio ad absurdum. Or to put it another way, they were the mortal enemies of 'this-is-how-you-must-think'.


When I was at university my best friend joined the army. To cheer him up whilst he was in the nightmarish world of basic training I sent him a letter (remember them?). What with both of us being silly Python fans, on the back of the envelope I put down the sender as 'Nelson Riddle and his Orchestra'. He quickly wrote back asking that I not do that again as the mail was always handed out by a corporal who never missed a trick in saying something shitty about the sender. This in an effort to humiliate and demean the recruits you understand. Have we all seen Full Metal Jacket? Okay, like that. Sure enough 'Nelson Riddle' qualified as a perfect red flag, "Does he blow your horn does he? Do you blow his? Are you a couple of fags?". Happily my friend succeeded where I would have failed and gave the right answer - "No, corporal".

Perhaps that's the military in a nutshell - Python bad, Beavis and Butthead good. God forbid anyone in the military should know the meaning of reductio ad absurdum. How would we ever get a war on if people could think for themselves and come to the conclusion that it was bullshit at its heart? Hmm... thinking about it, the military is essentially a soft form of trauma based mind-control à la Brice Taylor (Susan Ford). Those who've been through military training might want to scoff but only because they haven't read Ford's book. Compared to what she went through, military training is like Club Med.

But the principles remain the same. We are not to think: we are to blink and do. The only variations to the theme are in the intensity. From MKUltra to the military and from there to the civvy world, it all comes under the heading of mind control with the dial merely being turned from hard, to medium, to soft.


Speaking of going off to war, may I take a moment to plant a boot up the date of the Briton of the Century, Winston Churchill? Said Winston, "In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." The sideways logic here is that it would be poor of a fellow to view them as inveterate liars just because they lie all the time about every goddamn thing. Says they, 'We possess the truth and we only lie out of the necessity of protecting this truth, do you see?'

Ha ha ha, you have to admit it's bloody clever isn't it? But the truth is that the noble war that necessitated these lies was bullshit from the get-go. In 1938, Churchill was in debt up to his eyeballs and was only saved from having to sell the family estate Chartwell by a Jewish South African gold mining millionaire, Sir Henry Skrakosch. What's Yiddish for 'quid pro quo'? And Germany's arch crime at the time of Judea's declaration of war against them in 1933 was to have wrested control of German monetary policy from the hands of the Rothschilds et al. And the yiddish for 'cui bono'?

Churchill's 'finest hour' was bullshit, just like every other bullshit war. The ends justified the means, but only for a tiny handful of liars - weren't nothing in it for the rest of us. Let's tweak another quote: "Never in the field of human conflict was so much paid by so many to so few". Sure.

Since then little has changed. The wars are smaller but there's more of them and they pretty much approach 'all the time, forever' in their frequency. With never a pause the new world order's noble truth, flanked by its bodyguard of lies, marches on. That 'truth' (world peace is it?) is every bit as false an end as the means used to arrive at it. As if anything good can come from enslavement by fake money, corruption by satanistic paedophilia, and an unrelenting deluge of media black lies? Honestly. The new world order will be exactly as fucked as the old world order with the only difference being the size of the pyramid underneath those who view themselves as the worthy pointy bit at the top. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.


Under that timeless rubric, I don't know that it matters who the boss is exactly. Up until now I've been flailing about in some mad variety of death cult whodunnit. Ha! Dig it - it's Poirot trying to figure out who stabbed the victim on the Orient Express. Gosh, there seems to be evidence pointing at everyone! Sure enough, the saucy Belgian figured out that it was everyone. Hmm... if you think about it, Murder On The Orient Express is a brilliant metaphor for how the death cult works. Its only point of departure from the real world is that the authorities who went on to arrest the assorted culprits on the train would have been in on the act as well.

Back to Python now, I have a sketch in mind. Or is it too unfunny? Perhaps I should do it as one of those 'flash mob' art event thingies? Anyway, imagine a bunch of people, dozens strong, all in suits robbing a bank (perhaps wearing bowler hats, just to add a python-esque touch). Or are they bank robbers? Perhaps they're the bankers themselves? For us as mug punters cowering in fear it's hard to tell the difference. Either way, each of these suits holds a pair of shotguns, one wired to the throat of a confrere and the other waved about at us. Of course each has a shotgun wired to their own throat. They scream demands, variously fearful and angry, "Hand over your money or everyone dies! We don't want to do this but we have no choice! But if everyone does as we say, we'll all be fine!"

Where's our clever Belgian? "I say Poirot, any idea who the culprit is?"

Mind you, I'm not too sure about the aforementioned fear and anger. Maybe it would exist at first, as each participant finds a shotgun at their head, but eventually they'd each become just another exhausted thousand-yard-stare killer like everyone else in the perverse shotgun-wired rat's nest: the whole tangled mass relentlessly moving forward to wherever the fuck it is they're going, and none of them even sure why anymore.


And now for that timeless chestnut - what's to be done? As Aangirfan so sensibly pointed out, really it's always been this way. And who can argue? It's not as if the fear-driven, anti-buddha death cult ruling us are imaginative or original. It's all been done before. Hell we all did it ourselves when we were two, and our sense of ourselves expanded to gargantuan proportions, but happily we grew out of it. Along those lines of all-been-done-before, why don't we view the death cult as dinosaurs? They might have made sense when the means to cast off the old predator-and-prey model didn't exist, but that was then and this is now: with modern mass communications such as they are, and the world an interconnected global village, a new paradigm based on compassion and common sense (ie. selflessness rather than selfishness) is actually possible. Don't scoff - if the insane effort that has gone into enslaving us in this global despotism had instead been spent urging us towards the other end of the continuum (at the top of the page), we'd be there already.

But forget all that, it doesn't make any difference since it's always been this way. And the future may be better or it may be worse, but it doesn't make any difference since it's always been this way. This is the Buddha's 'here and now'. The immutable truth of here and now is that the only option for each of us is (and always has been), to embody the world we wish to live in. There's no point waiting - waiting for some event, or cause, or charismatic saviour. I'm not saying that this thing or person isn't coming, just that it shouldn't-doesn't-won't make any difference. Not if you're being that embodiment, that is. Subsequently, there's no point being fearful, angry, or dismayed (nor in losing one's sense of humour, ha ha) because who wants to live in that world? Not me.

Meanwhile the world is the world and we observe and try to make sense of it. Perhaps we'll never be giants like Darwin or the Buddha, each with their own unified field theory of human behaviour. But that's okay, we merely declare ourselves 'midget' giants. And as such, we reach for the stars, as the giants do, but find our fingers are no closer than anyone else's, were they to try. Never mind, at least we tried and at least we get the gag. Unlike that thick-as-pigshit death cult. They don't get any gag apart from from those that involve a Beavis and Butthead variety of idiot sniggering. Regardless, we whose hearts are true (well, as true as we can make 'em), and whose quills are sharp (licked with the tongue in our cheek), will carry on helpfully pointing out the senselessness of whatever the fuck it is they're on about.

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.

Henry K and the Council

The true star of Susan Ford's (Brice Taylor's) Thanks For The Memories is Henry Kissinger. Was there ever a fellow more deserving of assassination than Henry Kissinger? Hmm... there's a piece in that - 'People who deserve to be assassinated, inexplicably haven't been, and what that means'. Al Qaeda? Ha! Otherwise, for anyone who's ever wondered at the Nobel Peace Prize, no need to go any further than the fact that Henry Kissinger got one. It's a sort of unfunny Swedish Monty Python I'm thinking.


In Thanks For The Memories, Henry Kissinger is partners with Bob Hope in 'utilising' Susan Ford. Whilst that team-up may seem absurd, it actually makes perfect sense. All one has to do is plug this into Laurel Canyon with its wider implications re the significance of the entertainment industry, and the whole thing stands to reason. Regardless, the partnership of Hope and Kissinger is clearly an unequal one.

The closest analogy I came can come at for this inequality is one based on computers - imagine Susan Ford is a laptop that Bob Hope uses to find porn. He lends the laptop to all of his buddies and they likewise go nuts looking up variations of www.everyperversionknowntoman.com. The laptop always comes back to Kissinger who, unbeknownst to everyone, is systems admin super-user. What with having installed a keystroke monitor, and otherwise having full access to each of their caches, there's nothing Kissinger doesn't know about every sordid detail of their lives. Anyone who's ever run a computer system and had super-user privileges knows precisely what this means. Privilege equals knowledge and knowledge equals power.


Kissinger, not unlike Frank Zappa of Laurel Canyon, never participates in the vices he urges upon others. In spite of the fact that he was super-user and thus free to go nuts, Kissinger never availed himself of, nor even expressed an interest in, Ford's unrivalled charms. Square this with his carefully cultivated, albeit unlikely, image as debonair lady-killer. There's something not right with that picture but I don't know what it is. Otherwise it occurs to me that far more is to be concluded from those who didn't sample Susan Ford's earthly delights, than from those who did. With Ford as 'trap' anyone who falls into her qualifies as variation of 'prey'. Significantly, only Kissinger and the Rockefeller black sheep, John D Rockefeller, choose not to avail themselves of Ford's programmed easy virtue.

And then there's the council. Ford unambiguously states that Kissinger is their number one servant. Since Ford never states precisely who is on the council it's conceivable that Kissinger might not be a servant so much as a member. Whilst it pays to turn the puzzle pieces this way and that to see if greater sense might not be made of them, in this case I dismiss the possibility of Kissinger as a council member. This would posit the council as some variety of meritocracy, frankly an absurd idea. Aristocracies do not function on meritocratic principles - an obvious contradiction in terms. Their servants, absolutely: regardless of birth, talent and loyalty will be utilised. Amongst their aristocratic selves there will be a meritocracy of sorts but only from within their own ranks. Were it any other way, blood-lines might be displaced. And then where would the aristocracy be?


So who is the council? In his foreword, the author of Project Monarch, Ron Patton, discusses Adam Weishaupt being commissioned by the Rothschilds to unite various occultic organisations under the single banner of the Illuminati. Curiously, in spite of this organisation being founded and sponsored by the Rothschilds, they never get a second mention. Ford herself never discusses the Illuminati, nor the Rothschilds, nor even utters the word 'Jewish', apart from in the most innocuous circumstances. All Jewish people in this book are only incidentally so - they are bit players, innocent bystanders, or victims. And Henry Kissinger? Astoundingly Ford's book never once connects the words 'Kissinger' and 'Jewish'. Were you to read this book not knowing that Kissinger was Jewish you'd arrive at the end of it none the wiser.

But never mind Ron Patton, who does Susan Ford say the council are? She never names names and had she done so I'd view it as a black mark against her credibility. The Council she describes wouldn't be much chop if they went about introducing themselves to the help, would they? But that aside, Ford is free to hypothesize. The Council are Freemasons, she declares. Hmm... Freemasons eh? As a fellow not given to pursuing impossible riddles, I've never bothered attempting to undo the Gordian knot of the Illuminati/Freemason connection. I understand their original purpose as a professional guild. I also understand them acting as a counterweight to the ancient centralised control of Rome (this in the time prior to Adam Weishaupt). However I find their evolution into globe-spanning rulers of everything falls apart for want of coherency. What precisely are the ties that bind? Apart from the Rothschilds as sponsors, that is?


Besides that, the book tends to be at odds with its own assertion of Masonic control. Surely Prince Philip is a thirty-three degree mason? God knows how many times I've heard it asserted that the English crown, by way of its masonic/Illuminati influence, is the global big kahuna in the new world order. Square that with Ford's own recounting of her meeting with Prince Philip, and his diffident surprise and delight at being offered her singular talents. With Ford as the nexus, between Philip and Kissinger only one of them has super-user privileges, and it ain't Phil. The logic here is unmissable - Prince Philip, however high he might be in the Freemasons, is subject to Kissinger, and Kissinger is subject to the council. Not forgetting that Kissinger is Jewish and the Freemasons' transformation into internationalist Illuminati was brought about under the auspices of the Rothschilds. Honestly, Freemasons?

The other significant aspect of the Council in this regard is its ultimacy. According to Ford, there is nothing above the Council, and simple reason tells us that nor could there be. In reading of her descriptions of Council: their meetings, their communications, and their extraordinary secrecy, there is no way she's describing lieutenants. These people she describes are 'it'. In the big game of Risk they're not so much players as the writers of the rules. Given that this is the case, and given that fact that wealth equals power, we can safely declare that they are the richest people in the world. In either wealth or power, were anyone to even begin to threaten them they would have to be destroyed. Forget Sam Walton, forget Warren Buffet, forget Bill Gates, and all those other people topping the 100 richest list - ain't none of them in the running. And yep, even the Rockefellers ain't in this picture. Ford categorically states that the Rockefellers are subject to the Council. The only kind of 'Rich' that could have all these bazillionaires subject to it is that variety of rich that comes with ownership of the Fed and the international Reserve system. And the IMF. And the World Bank.


Thinking about it - the old chestnut about a business being 'a licence to print money' only possesses charm when it's not literally true. When it is literally true, the appeal of endless amounts of money becomes almost silly. It's like the child's daydream of owning a chocolate factory. A child cannot conceive that an owner of such a factory might view the product with something other than a desire to spend all day eating it. And so it is with money. Possessing a licence to print money renders the idea of a Scrooge McDuck-like accumulation of wealth as superfluous to the point of idiotic. Clearly ownership of the Reserve banking system is not about being rich. Rather the exercise becomes one of the prevention of others from achieving the same. It's about power, and that driven by a combination of hubris and a hubristic sense of immortality. Or are they the same thing? Probably.

With all that aside, let's also dismiss some other red-herrings. Ford's book is rife with satanism. Her entry point into the world of the council seems to be entirely satanistic. Interestingly Ford herself views the topic with disdain. As she later states, this disdain is shared by all those higher in the power structure. Marx's phrase about religion being 'the opiate of the masses' is ordinarily used as a dismissal, and further as a reason for Communism's smashing of religions. But viewed from another angle, ie. that of opiates/drugs as being a useful means of control, it could just as easily be an argument leading, not so much to smashing, but to co-option. In fact the latter makes far more sense than the former - why fight a thing when you could put it to work for you? Thus satanism makes far more sense as the beast being whipped than it does as the whip-hand itself, if you can dig it.



Likewise, the Roman Catholic church appears in the book and yet never in any impressive fashion. All early mentions pivot on it as part of the mechanism of the ritualistic abuse that goes into creating a MPD/DID slave. Small potatoes. Later, Ford describes putting on a quasi-religious dog and pony shows to impress the Vatican heirarchy, Pope included. Okay, I think we can safely declare a rule - Anyone on the receiving end of one of Ford's shows is not in the Council.

Going sideways now, how might we view other such religions and religiously driven 'isms'? In much the same way that Karl Marx was equally dismissive of all religions, do we imagine that the banking families of the Council would somehow get all weak-kneed for Judaism? Somehow I doubt it. Beyond Judaism is Zionism and its founding of Israel. The Rothschilds display their enthusiasm for this grand effort by living elsewhere. Sure they founded Israel, with Rothschild putting his John Hancock on the Balfour Declaration, but they founded the Illuminati too. If it's sensible to view the Illuminati as a vehicle for Rothschild co-option and control, why not view Zionism and Israel in the same fashion? It makes as much sense viewed in this fashion as any other - hell, more so. Frankly I expect that the members of the Council would hold Judaism per se in the same contempt as they'd hold for all religions - a bauble for the hoi polloi. That's not to say that it doesn't possess a variety of 'favourite' status: but only that of a tribe historically given to being loyal servants. Besides, a precise demonstration of the value of the Jewish people was given during the haggling that took place during the time of the National Socialists in Germany with Jews in great numbers being entirely expendable.


Back to the red herrings, at no time does Ford mention the nationality of those on the Council, nor does it even seem to enter into the picture. In this vein, what are we to make of the following quote (vaguely attributed to the Council) that describes the reasons for bringing Clinton down, "A cornerstone will fall, and further destabilize the American people. First Nixon, now Clinton, thus the people will lose faith in their leaders and the democratic way of life. So they will want to change it and will lean toward World Order." Hmm... "the American people" eh? Strange way for an American to describe one's own. Knowing what I know of Americans, I have to admit having trouble attributing this to any American mouth.

I know that the 'American Dream' is a myth but that doesn't mean it's not without power. I cannot believe that a person who grew up in the United States (in something other than a closet) would utter such a thing. Not forgetting of course that the New World Order is not a New American Order. With the century just ended being described unabashedly as 'The American Century' do we think that Americans would now come over all coy and worry that in naming the world order after themselves, other people might think they have swell heads? Ha ha ha ha, Americans have no such shortcomings. Americans are American to their bootstraps. They're Americans first and Internationalists second. I will never buy an American as having no attachment to his country, mythical or otherwise. The quote above could only come from a true Internationalist, someone who spent the vast majority of their life not living in the US. So! Let's also strike the CIA, the old money American ruling class, and any other significant US institution (that's not currently headed by a dual-citizen Israeli).


For mine, it seems all roads lead to the Rothschilds and the other twelve families. Collectively they remain the one ring to rule them all. How does the rest of it go? Oh yeah, "And in the darkness bind them". Exactly.

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.