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.

You're insatiable! Me too!

It was only just recently that I became familiar with Jacques Fresco. And yes, I know that Les Visible pointed us all at him way back when, but what with me using an internet cafe wherein heavy downloads are a frowned upon no-no, I was unable to view the movie links he provided. But a lovely fellow who sits out the back of the cafe with me, gave me Zeitgeist Addendum straight from his hard drive. Finally I catch up.


And there it all was. The beauty of technology as a means of freeing us of want. With limitless energy providing limitless food, shelter, clothing, and transport, whole fields of unproductive un-endeavour would disappear. Without want, we'd see the end of crime and it's concomitant allopathic responses by way of the police, judiciary, and prisons. We'd have no need of the military. With money being unnecessary so would the industries dealing with it - banking, insurance, the stock market, all gone. Advertising too! Hurray! I'll bring the beers.

Sure enough, I'm down with all of the above. But as is my wont, I just had to pick at this thing. It occurred to me that it was less a case of, 'Here are the problems and now what is the answer?' than it was, 'Here is the answer and what problems may we solve with it?' The answer is technology sure enough. And clearly technology can solve many, many problems. And in doing so will, more or less, address the big picture. But it looks to me that the big picture view we have here has been assembled from lots of little pictures. Dig it, it's like a David Hockney photo montage.


But like a Hockney snapshot, what with the gaps in the pictures, the smooth flow of my mental eye stuttered. For mine, what Fresco's picture lacked was a coherency, a unifying overall philosophy. It seemed not to have anything to tie it together. I wondered about Fresco's world. If something were to pop up, some blemish on the perfection of it all, I had the impression that the response would be, 'What technology is there to throw at this?'

Hmm... maybe that'll work. Or maybe not. I'm thinking 'not'.

---

There are only two 'philosophers' (not the right word, but never mind) that I consider to be bullet-proof in their entirety. They are Charles Darwin and the Buddha. Me putting words in Darwin's mouth - food and protection from the elements are not the fundamental human drive. They are merely responses to what is the fundamental drive - the need to pass on one's genes. Or to put this more simply, any entity that exists must (wittingly or unwittingly, it really doesn't matter) seek to continue its existence. This is ipso-facto territory. Any entity that lacks this drive will cease to be an entity. Any entity that exists will have it. That's all there is to it.


The simple truth of existentialism - 'why am I here?' - is that there isn't one. Not beyond, 'a thing is'. The flipside of this is, 'a thing that isn't isn't'. Bloody genius, me. I've just done away with the whole field of existentialism. A fig for Descartes!

But forget such abstractions. Let's just view them as a basis for understanding the far more visceral phrase 'the sex drive'. Believe it or not, this 'drive' is existential in nature, not that that ever occurs to us. What does occur is something like 'Phwooar, look at that arse! You could bounce twenty cent coins off that!' Or is that just me? Anyway, every thirty seconds folks - you, me, the lot of us - a thought like this jolts our brain.

Believe it or not, such thoughts (by way of what drives them) are more fundamental in terms of the human condition than the basic needs of food and shelter. Sure, we need food and shelter to survive but we need to survive because of our 'without-it-we-wouldn't-be-here-to-begin-with' sex drive.

Back to Darwin now. Darwin says that there are various means of dealing with how to get it on with members of the opposite sex. Nature presents more variations on this theme than there are stars in the sky. Mates are chosen because they are: fat and sleek; good at fighting; have shiny feathers; sing well; dance well; build a better home; have superior artistic taste; on and on. Funny how humans barely differ from animals, birds, and fish isn't it? That's one of the beauties of Darwin. He says that anyone who thinks they're special is fooling themselves.


But that's only half the picture. All of the above responses are appeals by those hoping to be selected to those who'll be selecting. Those who select are after quality. For those being selected, quality is neither here nor there. They're after quantity. There's no point condemning this. Like any creature with a sex drive is going to stop with one partner. Honestly. Any creature that gets laid might be shagged out momentarily, but the sex drive doesn't take long to reassert. It only has one message and it says, 'Get Rooting!' Nor should any women out there feel smug. Nature is replete with examples of species which appear to be monogamous but are actually no such thing. Philandering abounds, females included.

So what was my point exactly? The point is that food and shelter cannot be divorced from our fundamental Darwinian sex drive. Even with all things provided for us we will still seek to find better partners and more of them. And we will do this by differentiating ourselves from our neighbours. Whoever has the biggest house, the best clothes, the shiniest car will get laid more often. Getting circular now - this need to one-up our neighbours must exist because we exist. And whatever Jacques Fresco promises us, it won't put a dent in it.

---

What a load of crap! We all know perfectly well that people who have nothing but generosity of spirit can get laid too. What about that huh?


I thank that imagined individual for segueing me into the Buddha. The Buddha acknowledges all that Darwin says, with his dictum 'life is suffering'. And suffering of course is desire. Of course, the Buddha doesn't dwell solely on the desire to get laid like Darwin does. He goes beyond Darwin to view things in terms of the 'self'. So what's the difference?

Hopefully I've done enough fleshing out above to save us yet more circuitousness and thus allow me to declare that there isn't one. Darwin's addressing of the necessity of 'being' and Buddha's view of the self as desire, are (if you cock your head and squint) the same thing. Our existence predicates the furthering of our existence and this necessarily places the self front-and-centre, first-and-foremost, the thing without which we are nothing.

The Buddha goes very very far in these thoughts. Too far for this discussion. Let's just stick to the Buddha as an answer to Darwin's imperatives. The Buddha has no beef with Darwin. He acknowledges the self but says that to view it as a thing separate to that-which-is-not-the-self is a mistake. Selflessness is not so much a rejection of yourself, ahem, but rather a means of viewing yourself in context.


Side note - Anyone who imagines a selfless person as being some idiot giving all their food to others and starving to death as a result, is being silly. Not only would this break Darwin's dictum but would also be a statement of separation of the self against that-not-the-self which is contrary to everything Buddha is on about. And yes, I can imagine a situation where such things would occur and still be described as 'right', but we shouldn't confuse extreme anomalies with the truth of the whole. In statistics, such extremities on the bell curve are discarded (2.1 standard deviations, blah blah, blah) and quite right too. Anomalies do not speak of a system but of its tolerances, a whole separate subject.

Anyway, with this selflessness as a lens, or a mindset, or a guiding principle perhaps, all of Darwin's dictums can be fulfilled. The world will function just fine. We'll all be fed, clothed, and sheltered and yes, even laid. Whilst it's no perfect 'Just one quick spray and it's gone!' antidote to Darwin's inevitable need to get laid more often, nor is it about anything else.

---

So hopefully you should have that mess of pottage above sitting in your head as a coherent perfect thought. Yes? Excellent. Now you understand the hole in Jacques Fresco's model of providing all that we need. He's got the cart before the horse. I don't know if anyone has ever actually tried to do this but I expect that with enough fiddling, it could be made to work. But not very well and not for very long. Likewise, Fresco's wish to sate our desires is one way of quenching the fires but not a very good one. The truth is desires cannot be sated. Like the TV show said - the nature of monkey is irrepressible. Subsequently any resemblance between Fresco's envisioned world and selflessness is merely a well-meaning coincidence.


Even viewed in solely practical terms the whole thing will be doomed to fail. In spite us of having all things in abundance, if the nature of the self is left unaddressed, those of a monstrous ego (pyschopaths if you prefer) will inevitably sacrifice all on the altar of their own regard. And frankly there seems to be nothing in Fresco's model to stop them.

In the big dreamy picture that is Jacques Fresco's brave new world, something big is lacking. There seems to be no coherent sense of 'This is who we are'. Or in negative terms, there is no 'When all else fails see rule 1'. Me, I reckon a continuum of selflessness provides a sense of 'who we are', a 'rule 1'. It does so as a stripped-down go-cart, a bare-bones lean-machine, a wonder tool good for any eventuality. It cannot be slurred or impeached since it favours none. It's as right as a thing can be.

Even if Fresco's plans were fully realised, it would eventually fail and we'd be back to where we started. On the other hand, if we could explode some kind of gigantic world-affecting Buddha-bomb and fill everyone's head with the truth of selflessness, the world that would result would pretty much resemble Fresco's vision anyway. And have a basis to it that made sense.


Brilliant! This and a thousand other mad dreams of a Buddhist dictator. What are the odds on Fresco's dreams seeing reality? Given that it threatens to replace insanely powerful and greedy institutions, who would rather fight to the death than let it live, it would have to be the bookie's dream. A buck will get you a million. Selflessness on the other hand is a personal trip. You can do it all on your own, and no maglev trains required.

Love

Following on from the last self-indulgent piece with me venting my spleen about my father, Susana said the most extraordinary thing in the comments. She put me and the word 'love' in the same sentence. When I read it, my eyebrows went up and I froze in disbelief. But only for a second. Then I tilted my head back and laughed.

Truth be known, I have no idea what love means. You don't need to take my word for it. You need merely search this site for the word 'love'. Whilst I couldn't be fagged doing it myself, I'm prepared to bet that it will only appear in the phrase 'peace, love, and understanding' which I use not so much as a banner to rally around, but rather as a cudgel to beat things with.

The word, in and of itself, as a stand-alone description, I, um... 'dismiss'. Which is to say, I dismiss it from my vocabulary. Honestly, what the hell does it mean?

Never mind love, here I'm far more interested in lies and lying. Actually the word 'lie' is just as fraught as 'love' and I tend to avoid it as well. Let's just say that I ponder the nature of misrepresentation. But regardless, if we were to take every lie ever uttered and analysed them to see which one predominated, I'd bet money that the phrase 'I love you' would win hands down.

And go figure that more than a few women have made it clear to me that, but for the want of me saying it, they'd have slept with me. I'm a strange cove, sure, but women who do this always fall in my estimation.

---

A while back in Shanghai, there was a woman I fancied. I was directing and she was my producer. She was smart, funny, and sexy. And she told me of her travails with her laowai boyfriend who came to Shanghai every couple of months for business. In between times he lived in Belgium with his wife and kids (Urgh! No one here I hope!). And once or twice a day he would send her an SMS saying some variation of 'I love you'. This made her all gooey. Me, I shook my head. Between words and actions, words are cheap. Hell! He sent these words by SMS, the cheapest means there is.


Me to her - "If I said you were just something to occupy his time when he's here in China and all it cost him was an SMS every day, would I be wrong? Forget his words, what does he do? What is there to say that this guy isn't just some bullshit artist? Men lie you know. Forget his words. What are his actions?"

Anyway, she threw him over. For me, ha ha! Well that was the theory anyway. What with assorted cultural confusions and a plot straight out of a bedroom farce, we didn't sleep with each other. But that was cool, she was going to come to Sydney for Chinese New Year and stay with me. After that I was going to go back to Shanghai and become an in-house director. Sounded good to me. But! - it all went to hell. For reasons that weren't clear she didn't come to Sydney and when I flew back to start up with the directing gig, it was if we were complete strangers.

I had failed apparently. Specifically I had failed to send her an SMS every day telling her that I loved her. God help me! What with her last boyfriend using this precise process to lie his way into her bed, here she was angry with me for not having done the same thing. I shook my head and wondered if she and her Belgian didn't deserve each other. But truth be known, my part in a mad farce aside, I was pleased. If she was that undiscerning, that incapable of distinguishing between words and actions, then she wasn't the chick for me. I never saw her again and packed in the directing caper shortly thereafter. And a good thing too.

---

The above was but a single 'I love you' anecdote from dozens. And I don't doubt that you'd all have your own. Truthfully, there are more stories of lies and lying with 'I love you' at the centre of them than there are stars wheeling in the sky. For mine, the phrase is so utterly devalued that it's worthless. There's a lot to be said for saying nothing.

Like the Japanese! The Japanese are their own variety of laconic. They are not a gushy people. Whilst the younger generation, deeply steeped in Hollywood, are changing now, the older generation do not prate on with heartfelt drivel. If you want to see a perfect example of what I'm talking about, go see 'Hana-Bi' by Beat Takeshi. He's a legendary director and Hana-Bi is arguably his masterpiece. And sure it's dotted with action and violence, but mostly it's a 'love' story. Everything that takes place in the film is an act of devotion by our hero for his dying wife. Astoundingly almost nothing is said. No speeches, no declarations. Actions are all. And the actions are unambiguous. The truth lays in what is done, not in what is said.


And if anyone does watch this film on my say-so and wonders, "What sort of a crummy 'love story' was that? No one even kissed anyone!", you'll actually be making my point for me. Your dissatisfaction will say far more about you as a Westerner than it will about the Japanese.

---

And then there's the Maori and the Hawaiian people. Culturally, since they're both Polynesian, their cultures are as close as could be. Curiously they seem not to know very much about each other. In conversations I've had with Maori about Hawaiians, and vice versa, no one seemed to know anything. But whatever, they have many many things in common. As a complete dilettante I'm pretty sure I won't get in trouble for saying that the concept of 'breath as life' is central to their shared culture. In Hawaii, this breath/life is the 'ha' in 'aloha'. (It's also the 'ha' in 'haole', their word for white person. There's a fabulous story in that, but I'll sling it in the comments.)


The Maori likewise acknowledge the importance of breath in their custom of touching noses. This functions for Maori like the handshake does for white people. The handshake is an expression of 'peace' insofar as it's a demonstration that one isn't carrying a weapon. Three cheers for white people. Compare that to the Maori, who touch noses so that they might exchange the breath of life. But here's the crucial thing - the breath is always from the nose, not from the mouth. This is not because the nose is special but because the mouth is considered 'corrupt', or perhaps more correctly 'corrupting'. The stink of food is part of this but that's actually the least of it. Breath from the mouth is spurned because what comes from a person's mouth, words sure enough, cannot be trusted. In words lay falsity.

---

And then there's that Brazilian chick. This is a looong story, but there I was in her marvellous ramshackle house smack dab in the middle of a picturesqe but down-at-the-heels town two hours from Sao Paolo. She was a Rudolph Steiner devotee and was in the arduous process of setting up a Rudolph Steiner school cum arts-and-craft co-op. And I was going to join her. My head was there. But that too came a cropper. Story of my life. If anyone out there is familiar with the Tora San movies (uber-famous in Japan), that's me. I never get the girl.


Whilst the whole thing was complicated with family and a boyfriend etc. a key moment came in a discussion about 'love'. She looked me in the eye, grasped my hand and told me of the most important thing there is. That being love, sure enough. She even quoted the Beatles to me. And hats off to the Beatles, but between them and my continuum (at the top of this page) with selflessness as the only thing counting, I was, ahem, dismissive. I tried to explain the distinction but got nowhere. It didn't help of course that I didn't speak Portuguese, her English left a lot to be desired, and the Japanese which we both spoke (she being sansei Japanese) was ill-suited to philosophy. But the language didn't matter. She said love and I shook my head. "No, you don't understand," I said. Yeah yeah nobody, just face it - you blew it. Time to do that Tora San thing and smile, wave, and hit the road.

---

Bloody Hell! Do I have a point or am I just blathering? Both, ha ha! The point is that for me, words are worthless, with 'love' at the top of the list. And yep, I just used a thousand words to say that. The irony runs rampant.

Never mind me as cleverpants wordsmith - a blog, an audience, and a huge pile of words being put in some kind of order. Bully for that. But back at the house of geriatric indulgence, with me and the old man, it's positively Japanese. Every day is like a scene from Hana-Bi.

Perhaps I brought it with me from the temple - "shiraberi wa dame" - chit-chat is bad. And there, there was a lot to talk about. Here at home there is nothing to talk about beyond Fox Sports and doctors. And I haven't much time for either beyond needing to know what channel to change to and when the appointments are.

Here there is no love. Or certainly no declarations of it. The only thing that counts is 'doing'. For me (or perhaps for an ideal me) all my actions should be an embodiment of selflessness. And I ain't in that picture. And nor are such messy things as emotions. Like 'love' etc. If I was to start in on that, the whole thing would fall in a screaming heap. It would turn the picture into one that was about me. And if it was about me, it wouldn't be about me because I'd be gone.


But here's a picture of me. Or me as played by Vincent Cassel in the movie of my life, that is. Nothing in his head. Nothing in his heart. No thoughts, no love, no nothing - just emptiness. Dig it, it's like Camus' Stranger albeit with a happy disposition and no Arab monkey business. And when Cassel wants to know what his motivation is, he'll be told he hasn't one. "Just go through the motions. Attempt to embody selflessness. Don't ask us what that would look like since no one bloody knows. Just do your best." Says our Vincent - "But why am I happy?". Sorry Vince, no answer to that one neither. You just are.

Truth is, living with my father has been a brilliant experience. The only way anyone could cope with the old man's utter self-obsession is to let go of one's own desires. I'll admit that there's a certain 'reactionary' aspect to this. And I know that no one likes that word - to say, 'I am not that' is full of negative connotation, a thing to be avoided. But if one is seeking selflessness it's no such thing. Everything I wish to shed is here precisely depicted in the closest genetic template imaginable. It is what I am leaving behind.

And Susana, apologies for using you as a prop, ha ha. It's not you, it's just my brain turning a word around. And what a word! A word so fraught, so plugged into insecurities and self-worth, replete with uncountable meanings, stories, variations, and use and misuse, I reckon we're better off without it.

Do or don't do. Actions over words. That's where the truth lays.

an imaginary speech to an imaginary man

What do you want? I'm assuming you wish to live. Since you've expressed nothing to the contrary, that is. The question it seems is - Why. Why do you wish to live?

Best I can make out, you wish to sit here watching sport on the TV all day long. Day in, day out, every day the same. It seems not to matter which sport. Nor does it matter whether you've seen it before. On any given day we probably watch that fifteen minute Fox Sports News bulletin twenty times. More, probably. The same stories over and over and over. And none of it worth a pinch of shit of course. If we were to take out the endless histrionic moralising about footballers and cricketers getting on the piss and punching some fellow, or molesting some woman, there'd be very little left.

Wait a minute! Benfica beat Galatasaray on a 2-1 aggregate and escaped relegation in the Bundesliga! In spite of the fact that we have no idea what this means we'll watch it twenty times. As long as there's winning and losing, and all accompanied by screaming, it's all good.

What is there besides Fox Sports? Food used to be very important. Well, not food so much as processed sugar and grease. Actual food, the food I cooked, you would peck at, complain that you were full, or that it was too dry, or that your false teeth couldn't handle it, or whatever (honestly, any idiot excuse was good enough) and then throw it out. Just before you'd shuffle over to the fridge for a creme caramel. Followed by some ice cream. And a bowl of custard. And perhaps a cornetto ice cream. And some chocolates, biscuits, and toffees. Hmm... how about one of those little Woolworths-brand petit choux things? Why not. A day well spent! Ninety percent of your caloric intake comprised entirely of sugar and grease. Oh! It's good to be alive!

Sorry, I'm being sarcastic. But you really loved that stuff. So much so that you put up with chronic diarrhoea for months - shuffling off to the toilet every fifteen minutes. For months! Good God, there was shit everywhere, the walls, the floors. How many times did you shit your bed? I can't even remember. God knows what lies you told your doctors. And God knows what they made of it all. By all rights you should have been constipated, what with that being a major side-effect of your chemo. Anyway you gobbled those anti-diarrhoea pills like yet more candy. And the only thing you could think of that might be at fault was my cooking! Ha ha ha ha - it's funny really.

But now you don't even have that. With the cancer taking hold, and you with no appetite and vomiting all the time, you barely eat anything. The petit choux sit in the fridge uneaten.

You have no friends and family. You trashed all that long ago. No one calls or visits now. If one of my clueless brothers calls occasionally you talk for five minutes and then say, 'Well, I'll let you get back to it', and hang up. Really you'd rather watch TV.

Your doctors are your social life now. Would you argue if I said your relationship with them could be defined as 'Yes, sir. No, sir. Three bags full, sir'? You go through the motions, they go through the motions - it's a game of charades that goes on and on. I understand their part in the charade. They've got a mortgage to pay and kids to put through an expensive private school. And with your DVA gold card you're their cash cow. They love you to death. Literally, now that I think about it. God forbid your death should come early. Where's the money in that? Prolongation is the name of the game. And billing all the while.

But you don't seriously think they give a shit do you? Billing aside, best I can tell they view you as a technical exercise. Imagine some fellow in charge of a new soft-drink product launch. For him to succeed doesn't require that he drink the product or even like it. And since the product is entirely without nutritional value or anything beneficial at all, he'll oversee a campaign that pivots entirely on violence. Or sex. Or any goddamn thing. He really doesn't care.

And nor do your 'carers'. They don't care. They just go through the motions. And so do you. They prolong your life - you prolong your life. And the question of 'What's it all about, Alfie?' is nothing more than a cue for a conversation about Michael Caine. "Gee, he's good that Michael Caine, isn't he?" Otherwise I know what's in it for them. Money. But what's in it for you? Why do you continue? For yet another day of sitting watching Fox Sports News to see if Benfica escapes relegation?

Perhaps you do it for me? I am the only thing in your life besides the doctors, the TV, and the sweets. And the mad thing is that we have nothing in common. Everything you hold as worthy I have nothing but contempt for. Certainly there's the aforementioned trinity - I hate 'em and you know it. And it gets worse when we take a break from sport each night to watch the SBS news. It's your half hour of suffering as I get iconoclastic on everything that you ever held dear in your life. The government, the military, duty, loyalty, and respect, all that stuff, everything - I smash it to pieces. As I lay bare the litany of lies we're told, the obvious parallels to your life spent making pointless war upon Asians is unmissable. If I call John Howard a war criminal, what does that make you? Everything you were proud of, now shown to be the thoughtless actions of a dupe. What a nightmare. Finally the weather report! You - "Is it alright if we put it back to the Sports?" Me - "Dad, I've already done it." A sigh of relief.

And so we come back to the question - Why do you wish to live? Your wits are gone and the sports is meaningless. You're in pain all the time and you can barely eat. There's no one in your life but for a fellow who's a walking-talking indictment of everything that was you. What is there in your life?

Here, now, in this forum that you will never see, I'll tell you what it is - it's fear. I see it in your eyes you know. It's never not there. And with everything turned to dust, all joy banished, and every reason to live gone - fear is all that's left. Here it is, without adornment, the perfect, elemental, hard, white stone of fear. This is the ultimate fear - the fear of non-existence. Anything but that. Any delusion, any charade, any noisy trumpeting TV distraction is preferable to facing this thing.

You'll never know it for what it is. Which is to say, you will never know yourself. All you know is delusion, and delusion is all you ever were, are now, or ever will be.

I know you have never wondered at the meaning of 'today is a good day to die'. Since you have no idea what it means, you will never say it. Regardless, it's as true for you as it is for one who understands. When your 'today' arrives it will be a good day. The fear, the delusion, the suffering, held only by your terrified grip will become as nothing - a waft of smoke from a dream in some movie you barely remember. A thing that never was, to become never again. An end to it all. A good day.

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.

Twin Pillars

In much the same way that when one drinks from a spittoon it's impossible to back out half way through, looking into the pedophocracy leads you far further than you ever wanted to go. (It's all Aangirfan's fault. Curse you Aangirfan!)

It began with me looking into the Madeleine McCann abduction. I thought little of it when it occurred way back when, but I'm now convinced that the whole affair was precisely the pedophocracy in action. Given Portugal's insanely huge Casa Pia childcare scandal that swept up members of the government, judiciary, police, and the media - and which is precisely equivalent in scope to Belgium's Dutroux scandal - it beggars belief that the media spent more time pointing fingers at the McCanns than wondering at organised paedophilia. And sure enough, hardly anyone has heard of Casa Pia. Nuts.


Anyway, as one follows pedophocracy links and trails, one heads further and further into red pill territory. It's almost enough to make you sympathise with that fellow in the Matrix who regretted taking the aforementioned. Eventually my trail led me to this, and this, and this. To a certain extent I wonder if I should be linking to such things. Only because it's the equivalent of being thrown in the deep end. Hmm... 'deep end' doesn't quite cut it - how about 'the abyss'? Which is to say, had someone shown me all of this ten years (in my Time magazine days), or even two years ago (in my nowt-but-wrh days), I'd have rejected it outright whilst wondering at their sanity. No longer. And presumably anyone reading here has already been through Dave McGowan with his pedophocracy and programmed killers (along with the various discussions here of related wickedness) and so I think it's a step we're capable of.

I have no idea if everything in amongst those assorted links is true. After all, I'm just some loudmouth bullshit-artist living in a low-rent Tourist Town. With my happily unmolested childhood I have no experience of anything even close to this kind of thing - all that schooling under the Catholics and no one so much as laid a finger on me. Thus, I bring nothing to the discussion but observations.

In this spirit, it strikes me that the blizzard of undeniable facts coming from the US, Belgium, the UK, France, Portugal, Italy, and Russia, must necessarily lead a thinking man to viewing those articles' big picture explanations (à la Operation Monarch and MPD/DID) as, if not likely, at least feasible. Very feasible.

And speaking of sniff-tests, there's my ever-handy Media Absentometer™ wherein an occult entity's power is in inverse proportion to its explication in the media. Individual incidents will slip out but they will never be pursued and no big picture will ever be constructed. The media's spotlight points everywhere but there. Certainly I'm talking about the private ownership of the world's money supply, but let's plug the pedophocracy into this concept. In terms of a thousand isolated events never being viewed as part of a big picture, it's right up there with banking. (In this vein, how about we plug the Catholic Church into the absentometer? Oops, bent the needle backwards it seems.)

Mind you, the pedophocracy isn't quite in banking's league. I'd say it scores a 9 to the money-masters' perfect 10. Firstly, things monetary have a distinct leg-up advantage insofar as they're unintelligible to begin with. Even if one does manage to explain the basics of banking to someone, it remains a nebulous concept for them - in much the same way that since GM food doesn't make you instantly sick, the government has never banned it, and it looks exactly like regular food, perhaps there's nothing wrong with it?

The pedophocracy on the other hand, requires no arcane explanation. Everyone instantly gets it - you put 'sex' and 'kids' in the same sentence and patient explanation becomes hysterically unnecessary. Paedophilia will never be airily dismissed like the unintelligible complexities of banking. Which is to say, both the banking elite and the pedophocracy max out the Absentometer, but the latter doesn't get quite such an easy ride.

And then there's Rothschild's balls-out statement 'Give me control of a nation's currency and I care not who makes its laws.' This is him unambiguously telling us that he's beyond the law. And how does the pedophocracy rate on this scale? Hooly Dooly! They pretty much max that fucker out, don't they? And sure, there have been trials and publicity. But the wash-up is something else. Who went to jail for McMartin? The Presidio/West Point affair? The Franklin scandal? Jersey? North Wales? L'Affaire Dutroux? Would I be right in thinking that all up it was two people maybe? Wow. And sure, the Rothschilds get a lovely, comfy obscurity, and paedophilia in Belgium was bigger than Ben Hur, but either way the ballpark is the ballpark.


For mine, these are the twin pillars of occult power. Oh wait, I was just about to wonder at the relationship between the two, when a thought occurred. What if we were to take the metaphor one step sideways and call them the Two Towers? Ring a bell? What if I was to say that banking was Sauron's base, and the pedophocracy was Saruman's? That kind of works - one is subordinate to the other; the destruction of one will not automatically lead to that of the other; and both have utility for their counterpart; and yet each can independently act in their own interests. Above all however, the one ring rules and the fundamental relationship of who's master of whom remaining unchallenged.

But not wishing to take anything for granted, let's reverse things. I can see no way that the pedophocracy could seize the banker's power. On the other hand the pedophocracy could belong to anyone. You lay your hands on their video collection and you have them by the balls. Frankly I see that as being the whole point of it. Hmm... I seem to recall that Interpol has a database of every kiddy porn image and movie ever made. A thing worth having, that, wouldn't you say?

And besides, there's no way the whole world could come under pedophocracy control. 'We are all paedophiles now', ha ha. As if. No, I have the pedophocracy pegged as servant to banking's master. It's a means of control via corruption. Someone need merely dip their toe in the pedophocracy pool and that's them done for. They're owned. And the idea of a corruption-based control mechanism existing to further the interests of a corruption-based control mechanism strikes me as an idea disappearing up its own arse. You wouldn't bribe a politician because you're nutty for bribery, if you can dig it. You bribe them to achieve something. That makes sense, doesn't it?

---

Oh dear, it seems I started on one thing and ended up with another. As usual I point my laser at a mirror ball. Brilliant. And now I've gone on too long. But rather than viewing this as waffling, why don't I do my usual trick and declare it to be the macro preface to the next piece's micro. Up shortly - Operation Monarch, Ursula LeGuin, and 'Know Thyself'.

Japanese spritzers, Scott Ritter, the G-spot, and other occult knowledge

There I was wandering around my own hard drive and I found some porn! It was the only thing I'd ever bothered saving. It was from a VCD I bought in Hong Kong years ago. I bought it because its cover caught my eye. The Chinese characters on the front said, '500 people!' and beneath that was a photo of hundreds of naked couples, each with their own futon, with the futons laid out in rows in some gigantic sound stage. Sure enough it was a Chinese knock-off of a Japanese thing. I expect it cost ten HK dollars which is about a buck fifty.

Buck fifty or no, it's one of the most extraordinary things ever. It's not an orgy or a free-for-all. All of the people are directed. They all do the same thing. They start with kissing. After ten minutes, with the cameras wandering through the ranks, the director gives the nod and everyone goes to the next foreplay position. And so on and so on. Ten minutes of each thing, with everyone in rows, all facing the same way, all simultaneously progressing through the various positions, man on top, woman on top, etc etc, until everyone 'goes' (nb. the Japanese do not so much 'come' as 'go'. Ha! this and a thousand other curiosities). And then it's all over bar the mopping up with the thoughtfully provided tissues. At no time is there any artifice, pretence, or bullshit. The whole thing is shockingly honest.


Okay, so this is porn but it's also something else. For mine, this is up there with Christo and Spencer Tunick. As art it's the equal of any of these, albeit without the famous backdrops. Viewed objectively, it's like some mad anthropological tableau, a real cultural trip. These people are so polite and considerate of each other! And within these ordered acts of nude uniformity is the wildest array of differences imaginable. I still don't know what to make of it. One could write it off as mere porn, sure. But this is so unlike anything you've ever seen before, and such a mindfuck, that it's beyond that. It's something else.

But! Forget about it! I don't really want to discuss this particular video. I merely insert the preceding as a preface to the following. (Or if you want to view it as me cravenly explaining why I have porn on my hard-drive, you may do so, ha ha.) And otherwise, I have no idea if this vid was a big deal in Japan. Perhaps it was run of the mill? Certainly its not-infrequent incidences of female orgasm and ejaculation are. In Japan, that is. In 'Western' porn (which is to say, Jewish porn) there's no such thing. What's perfectly unremarkable in Japan is completely and utterly absent in the West. And it's this line of thought that has fired my brain.

Okay so I've written about this before. Ever monotonous, me. But here I want to go one step further, make some new connections, and otherwise clarify things.

---

But let's leap to Scott Ritter first. Remember him? Way back when, in the weapons inspection phase after Bush the Elder's Gulf War, he was 'it'. He was the good-looking ex-marine who was stomping all over Iraq searching for WMD's. He was certainly all over the media. I saw him dozens of times and you probably did too. He was savvy, sharp, and pithy. He was so good that whenever the media needed an expert on WMD's in Iraq, Ritter was the first, and probably the only, name in their rolodex.

Cue to a couple of years later and we're in the run-up to the idiot son's Gulf War with a media discussion of same exact subject - WMD's in Iraq. On and on, an endless discussion of how Saddam was going to kill us all. Everyone who was anyone, and could string two words together, got on the TV to tell us about Iraqi WMD's. Everyone, except Scott Ritter. And nobody noticed. The only reason I noticed was on account of his name copping a single fleeting mention in a single fleeting newspaper article. It hinted that Ritter was somehow in disagreement with what the US government was telling us.


A minor explosion in the head of yours truly. Scott Ritter! Whatever happened to him? Why wasn't he on the telly? And he disagreed about the WMD's? Huh?! No one disagreed on this! What's going on? Fired with curiosity, I hit the net and discovered that Ritter was saying that there were no WMD's in Iraq at all. Not a sausage. And the media...?

The media, which apparently loves controversy, was utterly uninterested in a fellow who was, a) arguably the expert on the topic under discussion, b) media savvy and camera friendly, with an excellent track record, and c) had a controversial view on the biggest topic going.

I'll keep saying this because it's a big deal - Ritter's complete and utter absence in the media was IMPOSSIBLE.

Well, it was impossible if the media is what they say they are. Allegedly they love controversy. Allegedly they like to get the scoop that no one else gets. Allegedly they love to dig up the truth and win that Pulitzer. Scott Ritter was someone's ticket to all of these things and yet not one single media entity would touch him. Nuts.

The only possible explanation for Ritter's absence is one that pivots on the media as a bloc-media wherein no one may stray from a centrally dictated line. That's the only conclusion possible.

Okay, yawn, everyone gets it. It's all old hat. Well it certainly is on this blog, ha ha. But whatever. I just want to hammer home the principle that if one can figure out what's absent in any given media discussion, far more will be learnt than by attempting to analyse what's present. Or perhaps that should be 'presented'. What's presented is bullshit designed to mislead and confuse. Whatever isn't there has been disappeared because it will lead us to the truth. Or peace. Or health. Or freedom. Or insert-thing-worth-having-here.

---

And everything is like this. Certainly everything in the media. For some reason we differentiate the media from Hollywood, from publishing, from games, from the porn industry. This is foolish. They're all the same thing. They all deal with perceptions. And they're all run by same people. Jewish people, natch. To be honest, if the Jewish people had one single talent, it's their ability to posit an imagined reality. No one here will be surprised when I say that, between reality and the Jewish media's posited reality, the latter trumps the former. Just ask the Iraqis! Otherwise you can call this ability lying if you like - no skin off my nose.

And this genius for creating a self-serving reality isn't confined to us understanding that Jewish people are victim/heroes and Arabs are villains. Nor to Christians being slowly turned into precisely the kind of people that Christ emphatically rejected. Nor to the world being convinced that usury and money-as-debt are as natural and inevitable as the sunrise.

Nothing is left out. Everything is viewed through this Jewish lens. Even sex. Sex is a funny thing. How do we learn about sex? Okay so there's the antiseptic mechanics of it that we're all taught at school. And then... And then... It seems that's there's two ways to learn about sex. One is by doing it. I'm going to call this 'education by Chinese whispers'. It's whispered from person to person. The other means of learning about sex is via the Jewish perception machine. Which is to say, porn. And no mistake, porn definitely serves this purpose. How many kids have watched full-tilt porn before they even have their first sexual experience? Most of them?

Fact is, they don't even really need to watch porn at all. Regular sitcom television is now so pornographic it's mind-boggling. To be honest I rarely watch this sort of stuff. But all one has to do is flick around the channels and this is sufficient to get the idea. Has anyone seen Two And A Half Men? Good god. Is it just me, or is this show entirely devoted to the sex life of two men who have a boy living with them? And last night in surfing through the channels I happen upon David Lucas's glabrous bonce (from the comedy show Little Britain USA) filling half the screen as he mugs wantonly over David Walliams' realistically sculpted prosthetic penis (which fills the other half). Do we seriously think kids don't surf through the channels like this? Of course they do.


Okay, sure, it's the parent's fault. Guilty of insufficient vigilance! But vigilance is easier said than done. Not so long ago, finding depictions of sex anywhere was not easy. Now it's everywhere. It's so omnipresent that we barely think anything of it. It's normalised now. So much so, that was you to sit in someone's loungeroom and point out the perversity of what they're watching, they'd take you for some variety of nutbar wowser.

Anyway the trend is unmistakable. Four decades ago TV depictions of married couples required that they not be in the same bed together. And now, not only are they in bed, but it will be made perfectly clear that they are involved in some graphically unmistakable sex act. In fact, it's perfectly possible that it will comprise the entire pivot around which the episode revolves. Seinfeld anyone? Not forgetting of course that the biggest video of whatever-year-that-was was Paris Hilton sucking cock. How many boys and girls saw that? Most of 'em I expect.

Side note 1 - I spent some time in Milan in Italy and met a lot of wealthy young American kids studying fashion etc. It was fun for a while but eventually I got tired of hearing the word 'awesome', and moreover, of the really intense pornographic nature of most of their conversations. I'm not talking smutty double entendres here. I'm always up for that. This was different. "No man, she actually preferred sucking cock to having sex. She said that! And she bet me (right there in the middle of the party!) that she could make me come without touching me except with her mouth. So I said, 'Man, we're getting this on video...''. All with endless interjections of 'awesome' from the mixed company audience. I was at a loss in these conversations. I'd never come across people who talked like this. And nor was there any shortage of them. Shake my head.

And me, I haven't the slightest doubt that these kids are this way because of their immersion in the Jewish media. Not only are our conversations ever more given to sex, but this sex is ever more extreme in its perversity. But this is just more background to my main point, that being about absences.

---

The absence in amongst this sea of porn is female orgasm. And had I not lived in Japan, watched Japanese porn, and witnessed the ubiquity of female orgasm, I'd have assumed that it was some variety of chimera - 'a thing that is hoped or wished for, but in fact is illusory or impossible to achieve'. As far as Jewish porn is concerned that's female orgasm for you.

Or let's put it this way - women do have orgasms in Jewish porn. Which is to say they scream more loudly when the man comes. But having seen When Harry Met Sally, we all know that it's bullshit. And it is bullshit! Besides, female orgasm results from certain, ahem, physical actions. Me, I have never seen these actions depicted in Jewish porn. Certainly not for long enough for an orgasm to result. So whilst we might vaguely understand that female orgasm is possible, we will never be shown how to bring it about in any useful fashion. (I suspect that if any couple in a Jewish porn movie did manage it, the whole sequence would be left on the cutting room floor.)

Keep in mind that no cultural reference is too obtuse for the porn industry to hang its hat on. 'Splendour in the Grass' was turned into 'Splendour in the Ass'. 'Edward Scissorhands' became 'Edward Penis-hands'. On and on, ad nauseam. Any idiotic thing will do. Except female orgasm.

Straight up and unambiguously now - This absence is IMPOSSIBLE. Which is to say, it's a deliberate act. There is no way known that the porn industry forgot, or is otherwise unaware of, actual female orgasm. It's as simple as that.


Side note 2 - Who remembers the G-spot? I recall a fifteen-minutes-of-fame book written about it in the eighties. And then what? And then nothing. It sank without trace. Not a single ripple interrupted our ever growing exposure to our ever more perverse discussions of fellatio, necrophilia, bestiality etc. In fact I expect that there are people reading this who are scratching their heads, not quite sure what I'm talking about. Well just to make things clearer (ha!), here's the definition of G-spot from my Macintosh's Oxford American Dictionary - 'a sensitive area of the anterior wall of the vagina believed by some to be highly erogenous and capable of ejaculation.' What? "believed by some"? Ha ha ha ha - who wrote this shit? Go to Japan you fuckwit! Check the porn! No need for 'belief' mate, it's all right there spritzing the goddamn camera.

---

Okay. So what does it all mean? Why is Jewish porn (hell, the whole media) completely devoid of non-fake female orgasm? Why is that? Remember - like Scott Ritter's absence in the run up to Iraq, this cannot be an accident. Impossibilities like this can only be deliberate.

It's hard to avoid coming to the conclusion that the existence of female orgasm, along with the means of achieving it, are some mad variety of occult knowledge. The masses (the non-Japanese masses, that is) are to be kept ignorant of it. To what end? Why is this so?

I wonder if there isn't some porn-specific variation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion out there that explains why the goyim may not know about female orgasm. "Deprived of this knowledge, the goyim will all run melancholy mad and turn to us for solace" or somesuch.

And whether I have a precise answer for this or no (okay, so it's 'no'), it's not like everything above is rendered worthless. The fact that I don't know the 'why' doesn't change the cold hard certainty of 'who', 'what', and 'when'. These alone are enough to tell us what we're in amongst. The dichotomy of reality and its depiction by the world-is-thus Jewish media is cast in stark relief regardless.

Consider the enormity of this. There is no aspect of our existence that the Jewish definers of reality aren't prepared to distort. Nothing. What's in your head belongs to them. From whom we kill, to how we fuck - all of it - it's all theirs.

And sure enough, the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn't exist. Yeah well fuck that. I'm calling it.