I have a dream...

I have a dream... it's a dream about me and it's a dream about the world. It's a very beautiful dream.

In my dream I'm in my own personal airbus as it flies over Haiti. I'm fucking a young girl who was rescued/plucked/
kidnapped from Port-au-Prince just an hour earlier. I'm fucking her in the arse. And I'm strangling her. I'm strangling her and I'm fucking her, and because I know what's coming, it's great - just like how it used to be however many years ago. And as I feel my climax approaching I reach over and push the button on my own personal HAARP remote control. Even above the white noise of the jet I can hear a roar like a thousand atom bombs as Haiti is destroyed in an earthquake that I made merely by extending my god-like finger. And like music to my ears Haiti's death rattle becomes the girl's death rattle and in the perfection of that moment my god-like cock ejaculates into the arsehole of her lifeless corpse.

Okay, it's not really my dream. It's actually my dream of a dream, the dream of the god-king of the death cult - it's the absolute most, sacrificed for the absolute least: a nation destroyed, hundreds of thousands dead, millions left homeless and starving, and all of them enslaved to a future of untold suffering and misery and all for the briefest most evanescent moment imaginable, to wit - me having an orgasm.

No squeamishness now! That right there was a perfect death cult moment - a somewhat unlikely and fantastical moment but also not so very far from the truth of the whole thing neither. Best I can make out, in amongst the satanist / talmudist sub-tier under the Rothschilds everything seems to pivot on precisely those Crowley-esque fixations: arseholes and anal sex; death and sacrifice, and all of them maxed out with the involvement of children.


And you shake your head and say it's idiotic and none of it makes any sense? Of course it doesn't! The first thing that must be sacrificed when one worships the self is the truth, with simple common sense the first to go. Thus the orgasm, Darwin's divinely considered incentive to reproduce becomes a masturbatory moment best expended in the waste tract of a member of the same sex, or failing that, of a dead girl too young to reproduce anyway. Admittedly if we were to start condemning people for frivolous placement of bodily fluids there'd be no end to it and we'd all be in the dock. But it's a long way from a tissue in the bin, to the death cult's hell-bent fixation with depositing their jism in the ghastliest and most pointless places imaginable. These perverse fuckers view it as a thing worth killing over. I swear to God.

---

This blog here is small potatoes in terms of spook attention, but were some lower tier servants of the death cult to be reading this, I expect they'd sneer and say to themselves (by way of reassurance that they're not bullshit) that Haiti was just business. Hell, it was business-plus what with everything being a two-fer minimum. And as if these things are done for spurious reasons, Pah! Haiti's non-spurious reasons? ...oil and resources, cheap labour, population-reduction, weapons testing, the inuring of the rest of the world to their own coming death and suffering - not forgetting that the road to the new world order can't be travelled in a single bounding leap and whilst Haiti might be a single tiny step, at least it's in the right direction.


But then again who gives a fuck what a slave thinks about his master's actions? Any spook reading at this blog can take it as read that he qualifies as the lowest of the low, a slave to be snuffed out for pretty much any reason whatsoever. Not even a colonelcy will save them. Just ask Albert Carone. He didn't even get a headstone. Regardless, he'd have defended the machine that killed him. Like I said, in any cult that pivots on the worship of the self, the first thing to go is the truth. And the first person on the receiving end of the liar's lies is the liar himself.

But never mind all that - back to the main point. And what is that exactly? Am I saying that Haiti was destroyed because of sex? Well, not in so many words but... um... sure, why not?

---

I know we're meant to be happy with the usual reasons of oil, cheap labour, etc. since the concept of riches appeal to us and we personally spend a great deal of time pursuing them ourselves. And our death cult PTB wouldn't have it any other way. God forbid we lead lives of idleness like they do. The Hamptons overrun! By riff-raff in Bruno Maglis! And all of them waving their money and demanding a table at Nobu! Good God, the very thought of it...


Certainly the logic behind us being kept poor is very obvious, but the logic behind the rich getting richer is much less so. For instance, Niall Ferguson in his abysmal Rothschild arse-suck documentary series The Ascent of Money tells us that the Rothschilds have 41 chateaux. They even had them painted as a numbered mural just in case they forgot any of them. With forty one it wouldn't be difficult. And that's just chateaux, you understand, never mind cottages, apartments, or any other pieds-a-terre. Okay, so they're an extreme example, but even well shy of them, once you're filthy rich every dollar you possess comes with less and less utility (or value, if you prefer). Eventually it just becomes silly. What with becoming poor being an impossibility and with everything that can be bought being comfortably available you'd think that after a certain point that they'd cease bothering with their perverse pursuit of plunder.

Or are there things, in the pursuit of which, the filthy rich find themselves constantly stymied? Think Angers, as in Angers, France. (thanks Aangirfan, thanks AP). In that particular case, whilst the paedophile aristocracy all managed to dance between the rain drops (no surprises there), an entire network / clan of victim-breeding satanists was almost entirely rolled up. Plummy voice - "Admittedly they were all horrid, malodorous, parvenu oiks but they were such useful oiks. A chap could just get on the phone and have a child delivered - it was all so convenient. And now it's gone! Now what's a fellow to do? Curse the Gods and shake his fist at the rotten injustice of it all. Honestly."


But Angers is just a drop in the bucket. Everything we know about the Paedophocracy comes from busts. The Casa Pia orphanage ring in Portugal - busted. The Franklin/ Boys Town ring in the States - busted. The Presidio/West Point childcare ring in the US military - busted. Kincora in Belfast, Haut de la Garenne in Jersey, Islington in London, the merest tip of Aangirfan's iceberg and all busted, and all scratched from the paedophile circuit. Somehow you'd have to imagine that in terms of simple supply and demand these busts must have an effect.

Supply is one thing and demand is another. Perhaps the demand just falls away? Perhaps the Kidd-diBuggerers (it's pronounced dee-BOO-zheray, actually) just go back to having regular sex with consenting adults? It's not impossible. There's nothing to physically stop them. Ha! There's nothing to physically stop cats and dogs getting it on either, but somehow I just don't think it's going to happen.


Mind you, as a Buddhist (admittedly of my own creation) I feel duty bound to always offer the possibility of redemption - the thought must be entertained. And even here redemption is possible but only as that variety of hell-on-earth deprogramming that Pu'yi copped in Bertolucci's The Last Emperor. However I'll happily admit it's not a very likely prospect, or to put it another way, snowballs in hell ain't in it.

The paedophiles of the paedophocracy are do-or-die, literally. Were they to truthfully answer one of those bullshit scientology 'survey' questions, What's the most important thing in the world? Truthfully? Their answer would be 'raping children'. I say this in all seriousness. In fact, what with the ultimate unlikelihood of such a thought being expressed, and the role played by such people in world affairs, I wonder if it might not be the truest thing in the world.


And so! Haiti. We can argue the nature of know-for-sure in terms Haiti and HAARP manufactured earthquakes until the cows come home but the fact remains that the death cult has exactly declared an interest in manufacturing such things, have carried out tests for precisely that purpose, and otherwise wouldn't bat an eyelid if the opportunity presented. But hell, since we're here and this is my place, I'm going to call it. Besides which, between the US as vicious opportunist taking murderous advantage of a natural disaster and the US as vicious instigator pretending to get lucky, there's barely daylight between the two. Fine, we declare a tie. Whatever...

And hello! Who are these fundies running around Haiti rounding up non-orphans and attempting to traffic them out of the country? Knowing what I know of the paedophocracy I view the prospect of them being an out and out pack of satanist paedophiles as likely as any other thing. Hell more so. Does anyone remember Zoe's Ark in Chad three short years ago? They were a children's charity founded by 4WD enthusiasts, like that makes any sense. They were jailed after being sprung with dozens of starving orphans who were neither orphans, nor starving. The media demanded that we sympathise with the dreadfulness of their plight (white people in an African jail - the horror, the horror) in spite of the fact that they'd collected children by driving up beside them in the 4WD and offering them candy if they climbed in. Fucking hell, does it get any more obvious than that? Or is that just me? It's certainly not Nicolas Sarkozy since he stepped in and personally freed them all. No surprises there. Otherwise, what do we think - Carla Bruni, mind-control zombie? Sure why not?


Between Zoe's Ark in Chad and the fundies in Haiti clearly they're both amateur hour. But the presence of amateurs doesn't mean the absence of professionals. Hell, Haiti is crawling with them: the US military, the CIA, Blackwater/XE, UN peacekeepers, and not forgetting sundry Israelis (maybe in tennis gear, maybe not), and all with a hardcore history of child-trafficking. These fuckers know what their masters truly desire. A consumable commodity that when viewed from the angle of Darwin's beyond-fundamental drive (albeit a perverse distortion of it) leaves everything else in the dust - oil, gold, drugs, weapons, you-name-it. None of these can compare to children as fodder for paedophiles. The ultimate must-have addictive product.

The hunger that cannot die possessed by the people who have everything they could ever need or want. Vampires with only a single thirst, never to be quenched. War? Earthquakes? The sound of laughter - they click their fingers and they do it because it suits them. A fig for the economic abstractions, the primal urge has them beat. The neurons fire - MUST FUCK - a throbbing boner for Madeleine, that pixie brunette, some nappy-headed jigaboo, it doesn't fucking matter. It's James Ellroy with all the women replaced by kids. It's Blood Meridian with the Judge installed in the Pentagon. It's Deer Hunter via Sesame Street with Tarantino directing a Nabokov script.

The lifeless, haggard fuckers rule and nothing can touch them. Their merest wish is our command. The world is whatever they say it is. A wave of the hand. A click of the fingers. An earthquake for an orgasm.

ashes to ashes, steel to dust

I thought I'd seen just about every image connected with 9/11 and then I saw this. This is nuts - true bonzo-zonko territory.

Keep your eye on the spiky steel framework directly above the water tower.






Is it just me, or did that thing just vibrate itself to powder? And has anyone got an explanation for whatever-this-is that isn't science fiction?

---

This sequence is from Judy Wood's website, specifically this page. There's a ton of perfectly extraordinary material at the site albeit arranged in a difficult-to-follow dog's breakfast fashion. The site is clearly unloved, apparently untouched for four years. I'm still wandering around it trying to figure out what she's saying exactly. Fingers crossed I can figure it out.

Regardless, everything I'd constructed by way of a story to explain 9/11, ie. thermite and controlled demolition, now goes out the window. Whatever is going on in these photos is waaay beyond that.

non-tasmanian no-planers please

First up, anon from the previous comments section. I follow on.

"Let's take 9/11 one step further.

For starters, I have seen live video proving that no airliners hit the WTC towers, taken by a live NBC affiliate on that date.

When a person pulls their head out of their colon, and accepts the fact that the planes were photo-shopped on to the WTC videos (and rather crudely, in places) after the fact, and that there is a time delay between when things happen and when you see them on TV, it explains a number of things, such as:

1) Why there is no video of ANYBODY boarding any of the planes in question, at the boarding gates in question, at the airports in question, on the date in question. Additionally, the FBI stupidly claimed that 9 of the "Arabs" were sent to secondary security, due to "suspicion." If that's so, then why is there no secondary security video of any of them? Are they fucking vampires? And, if they went through this added security, then how could they have possibly taken all of the weapons and such on board that the government claims? And where are the private and federal lawsuits against the airports, airlines, and/or security company(ies) for allowing it to happen? Simple. There are no lawsuits because there is no video of them, and they didn't get those weapons on the planes, because they didn't get on the planes. This also explains why a number of the accused “hijackers” were subsequently found to be alive and living in other countries – quite a trick for a “suicide” pilot/hijacker.

2) Why they have never recovered any tail sections, any of the huge, 6-ton tempered-steel outboard engines (including the struts), any of the tubular steel seat frames, any of the passengers' corpses, any of their luggage, fuselages, the basically indestructible black boxes (which have ALWAYS been recovered before and since 9/11), etc. When planes of that type crash, they leave wreckage.

3) Why a woman who still lives in New York spent 5 years searching for relatives of 64 people on one of the obviously phony passenger lists, and even after hiring detectives, never found a single one.

4) Why Willie Brown and a number of clergy left San Francisco International Airport after a number of hours on that date, because not one family member/relative/friend ever showed up to inquire after any of the alleged passengers on "Flight 93."

5) Why NORAD never intercepted any of these "hijacked" airliners -- because there were none to intercept.

6) Why neither United nor American airlines has ever filed a loss claim for any one of those four flights.

7) Why there is no video of a 757 hitting the Pentagon.

8) Why, up until late 2004, as pointed out by a noted 9/11 researcher, the BTS web site showed that neither of the American flights were even scheduled to fly on that date. The BTS pulled the pages off-line and doctored them, later reposting them, but unfortunately for them, by that time, the original pages had been backed up and widely distributed over the Internet.

9) Why the FAA had the tail numbers of the 2 United flights registered as "valid," meaning that the planes were still in service, until September 28, 2005. The FAA only de-registered them after two other 9/11 researchers kept demanding to know why the planes were still registered as being in service, four years after both the federal government and the airlines had stated for the record that they were destroyed in a “terrorist” attack.

10) Why the FAA's own directory of pilots and their qualifications showed (at least a while ago; they've probably doctored that by now, just as they doctored the BTS web pages after the criminal implications were pointed out) that on 9/11, not one of the eight pilots alleged to have been in the cockpits upon takeoff had a current, valid commercial pilot's license."

Hullo again anon. Will you forgive me for declaring myself dubious on the no-planes thing? Perhaps it's the curious take-no-prisoners, fuck-the-lot-of-yers attitude of the no-planers? They remind me of Tasmanian Devils - they'll pick a fight anywhere, for any reason, and even amongst their own family (if you can dig it). I've yet to see one of them convince anyone of anything. Or even try really...

Furthermore I'm not quite sure what utility might be gained by dispensing with planes and utilising doctored footage that would necessarily be at odds with the numerous witnesses, particularly given that the remote control of civilian jetliners has been a simple reality since the late sixties. It's like the Apollo photos with the alleged mismatched shadows that supposedly have two light sources. Why bother using two when one would suffice and two would offer no perceptible advantage? This scores big in the what's the point? department.

I will concede some aspects of the no-plane case. Dave McGowan turned me around on the Pentagon. Prior to that I'd gone along with Mike Rivero and his numerous witnesses. McGowan did a number on the lot of them. And obviously there was no plane in that field in Shanksville (but there does seem to have been a debris field leading up to it). But as for the twin towers I've yet to see anything that made me think twice.

What does everyone else think? Are there any non-tasmanian no-planers out there?


Disinfo and psyops aside, here are my technical thoughts on the matter:

In Anon's spray, photoshop is the wrong word. Photoshop is for the manipulation of still images only. Moving footage would require a far more elaborate process. I can see two options.

Option 1 - A 3D plane comped into footage of an empty sky. Given the simplicity of a render involving a simple metallic object like a jet-liner (a render is the conversion of sundry algorithms and data into shiny complete footage), and given the grunt of computers nowadays (even in 2001), this is just feasible. It used to be that renders would take an hour a frame (and there's 25 frames in a second don't forget) but we've come a long way since then. Rendering gets closer and closer to real-time every day. Anyone who's played one of those new car-racing games and marvelled at how good it looks, you're looking at real-time rendering. It's not quite photo-real but it's not bad neither. Also in televised sports games, horse races, and swimming competitions it's possible to see various graphics comped real-time onto the field, or pool, or whatever. The camera pans to and fro but the graphics stick to the environment. Mind you, the 2D graphics that sports require is way simpler than any fully 3D jet liners. And the computer games involve their own series of cheats not available to people with real cameras in a real city. The problem with this option is the fact that eye-witnesses would have nothing to see. The planes would only exist on TV.

Hmm, thinks: Would a separate team be required for each separate shot? Or would each camera be able to plug into a central computer supporting a single 3D model that would be automatically comped into each camera's output? Nightmarish! And how to avoid having the plane appear over the various foreground elements of smoke etc? In the regular post-production world this would involve the manipulation of soft-edged mattes that would involve hours of work and absolutely smash the possibility of real time rendering. Furthermore, the requirements of coordinating CG animation with real world pyro is so fraught (certainly in real time) as to be, well... frankly impossible.

Option 2 - Some variety of projection with no comping necessary. God knows how this would work: an insanely powerful 3D projector (or a series of them) would throw a solid non-transparent image of the jetliner into the sky that would not only convince witnesses, but also cleanly transfer to film and television. It is true that were this possible it would simplify the whole process. One camera, a hundred cameras, witnesses in their thousands, who gives a shit? Mind you the problems I outlined above in regards to coordinating the timing of holographic plane with the non-holographic kerosene explosions are identical. Of course above all this lies not only the fact that no such thing is known to exist but I can't even imagine how it would work. Further, in some ways it reminds of that old chestnut you see in superhero movies - unbelieveable innovations that would make their inventor rich if only he thought of selling it. Like Spider-man's web shooters. Honestly, the guy is perpetually poor and it never occurs to him to sell these things? Okay, same-same for massive projectors that can mimic reality in 3D without a screen or anything. Never mind Mahathir saying that if they can make Avatar they can make anything: Avatar is a kind of false z-depth 3D (ie. if you go closer to the screen you won't see around the corner) and you have to wear special specs to even see it at all. A massive projector capable of fooling a city would be to Avatar what Avatar is to Indonesian shadow puppets.


But to hell with me! Pile in folks! Has anyone got any time for the no-plane gig?

Pearl Harbour, 9/11, and Craig Murray's Mental Horse

Poor old Craig Murray. It seems his mental horse still shies at the 911 hurdle. Says he, there would have been too many people involved and someone would have objected. The following is the comment I would have posted there if it wasn't for the fact that, a) it's too long and, b) I was too late to the party, and c) his comments section is now perfectly infested with sundry full-time professional shills who, as Craig himself recently said, spend more time at his blog than he does.

Hullo Craig,

How dreary this discussion is - all bogged down in its various (and alleged) building and demolition experts. "It'd take months and dozens of men. Either that or one good bang and a kerosene fire." God spare me. May I just step back and go big picture? Or 'big documentary' perhaps. Have you seen the BBC documentary Sacrifice At Pearl Harbour? You really must - it's at googlevideo.


In it, by way of testimonies from various participants (English, Dutch, Australian, American: signals corp, foreign service etc) it's made unarguably clear that there was pretty much nothing about the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbour that the Americans weren't fully aware of. The closer the Japanese came, the more precise the details, until eventually Roosevelt would have been impatiently looking at his watch. The only two people not in the loop were Short and Kimmel, the respective army and navy commanders of Pearl Harbour, and upon whom the whole thing was blamed.


It's a cold hard truth that Roosevelt wanted the US in the war and Pearl Harbour was the means he used to achieve this. And sure, he sacrificed a couple thousand of his own people. No big deal - I doubt anyone in Washington would have batted an eyelid. They wanted a war, and in a war sacrificing people - in large numbers - is just part of the game. It's done all the time. Mind you, what you don't do is sacrifice expensive hardware. That's why Pearl Harbour was full of WWI vintage ships and all the shiny new vessels were out to sea.


Okay, so what's that you say about 911? ...too many people involved and someone would have objected? Can I put it to you that it doesn't make any difference? In Sacrifice At Pearl Harbour the too-many-people who were involved are interviewed one after the other. And? And nothing. Hell, do an ask-around at the office and see if anyone is aware that Pearl Harbour was bullshit. Never mind that, the conversation in your comments here is proof in itself. It's yet another tiresome to-and-fro that refuses to acknowledge that the US government has previously used a fake event involving the sacrifice of thousands of its own citizens to gin up a war. And lots of people were involved, they did tell their story, and nothing happened.


Since the media has, to a man, chosen to ignore this fact (much like they chose to ignore the most famous weapons inspector in the world, Scott Ritter, when he declared that there were no WMD's in Iraq) we end up in a nonsensical conversation with its foundation consisting of 'that could never happen and they could never do it'. But it did happen. They have done it. And not in isolation neither. Fast forward to the Lavon Affair of 1954, the Gulf of Tonkin 1964, the USS Liberty 1967, and lo-and-behold 'it could never happen' starts to look, I don't know... perverse? Jump then to the year 2000 and we have the super-heavy neocon PNAC mob banging the table demanding war in the Middle East and dreamily hoping for "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor". And their wish came true! "Gosh, I'm the luckiest girl in the world!" says they, with a glycerine tear in their eye.


And here we are nine years later Craig, with absolutely overwhelming evidence from thousands of sources and you still can't get your head around the thought that 911 might have been faked. Here's a question for you - What would it take? What would it take to get you there? It seems vaporised steel and molten concrete won't do it. Certainly not traces of thermate. Nor will: the whisking away of evidential rubble; the failure/disappearance of security footage; the fact that the Muslim extremist pilots ate pork, drank alcohol, and cavorted with hookers, (and they couldn't fly); the hundreds of witnesses who testified to multiple/sequential explosions "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, all the way down like a controlled demolition!"; the fact that Bush mis-remembered his 911 moment and reminisced about watching the first plane crash on live TV (three times! in public!) - none of this will get you to even consider that anyone other than a bunch of Muslims might have been interested in making 911 happen.


I'll read your mind Craig - I'll tell you what would get you there: If the whole thing was on the telly and was given the imprimatur of talking heads. I'll bet money that that would make a believer of you. Unless the media says it's so it may as well have never happened. This is in spite of the fact that the media has shown over and over again how perfectly crooked it is. Not a single soul was allowed to contradict the WMD's in Iraq story - everyone sang from the same songbook, all in perfect harmony. Impossibly, the media's first and only name in their WMD rolodex, Scott Ritter, was nowhere to be seen. I'll say it again - Ritter's global media absence in 2003 could not possibly have been an accident. He was off-message and so he was off-media: the entire media, all of it.


And travelling back now - the USS Liberty, the Gulf of Tonkin, the Lavon Affair, Pearl Harbour, none of them ever happened in the media, not beyond their sing-from-the-same-songsheet bullshit spin. But they did happen. Ask the crew of the Liberty: threatened with death, ignored by history, and now they're furious beyond all consolation. Pinchas Lavon is dead, but the Egyptian Jews who set the bombs are still alive and were all given medals recently. What's Hebrew for hip hip hooray? Kimmel and Short went to their graves with neither of them earning a rehabilitation, but never mind, shit happens.


Except ...in the media. There, shit does not happen. There, when faced with the media's unasked question 'Who are you going to believe? Me? Or your lying eyes?' we all slide out of our seats, kiss the screen, and declare our fealty. Yeah, well fuck that. I refuse, and I'm only one of thousands upon thousands who've done the same. We know you're capable of better things Craig: you do know better. You know that they lie. En bloc! And they do it Big-Lie-style about the biggest story there is: the Bringing of War. They've done it before and they'll do it again. And again. And again. They'll keep doing it until the balance shifts and 75,000-hits-a-month heavies like yourself stand up and call it for what it is.

The media has even more invested in 911 than they do in global warming but as with global warming they can be shifted. Their hand can be forced. But it'll never happen if guys like you sit there telling yourself (and all to the applause of your barking seal full-timers) that 'it could never happen... they would never do it...'

Pearl Harbour was a lie and 911 was no different. Our rulers lie and they lie big, as big as Hitler. If you ain't prepared to say so, then you ain't good for much Craig. Whatever it is you're on about - torture, and memos thereof - you're just snipping around the edges.

Australia - Love It or Fuck Off!

Back in the early seventies, what with the old man being on a military exchange thingy, my family spent a Northern Summer in the USA. This consisted of a trek up the East Coast with us staying in a string of motels and military bases. To be honest my main memory was of heat and glare, ha ha, but I recall us being struck by, and remarking upon, certain things that we, provincial though we were, had never seen anywhere else. As a young kid, I understood these to be American things.


Whilst my parents were amazed that everyone had a new car (all bought with 'credit', an alien concept for Australians then), I was distracted by other more colourful things: the American flags that seemed to fly on so many houses. After a while I'd stop pointing them out because there were just too many. For anyone thinking, 'Yes, but weren't you on army bases? Of course they have flags', remember: We were army people, back home we'd lived on army bases. In Australia, there was no such thing as a house with a flag out the front, army base or no. Or if there had been, whomever it was would have been viewed as eccentric, or odd, or something.

"You know he has a flagpole at his house and he hangs a flag from it?"
"Does he? What kind of flag is it?"
"An Australian one."
"Really? He actually has an Australian flag at his house? Geez, what a dickhead."

Overt patriotism was something Americans did. We were simply Australian and that's all there was to it. No one was confused - we knew who to cheer for at the cricket, and since when did being Australian have anything to do with anything else? Anything beyond that was a piece of wank, a contrivance of some sort. Australia was just a place and we lived there and we liked it. We weren't loudmouths, we weren't braggarts, we didn't thump our chests and behave like arseholes. The low-key punchline to this joke says it all I think -

A Texan is bragging to an Australian about how big his ranch is: "I could get on my horse and ride for two days and still not get to the Western boundary."
"Yeah," said the Australian, "I used to have a horse like that."

And with this lack of a vocabulary for self-congratulation, we used to celebrate our low-key love of Australia with an appropriately low-key national holiday, Australia Day (January 26), during which no one did anything and nothing happened. It was just another day-off, an excuse to go to the beach. But somewhere in the last 10-15 years with that shit Howard leading the way, Australia came adrift. Bamboozled by the media, we forgot who we were and became something else. Now, collectively, we are precisely that variety of jingoistic, chest-thumping arsehole with Australia Day as some kind of Arsehole-Xmas. And just like Christmas, it seems the decorations go up earlier and earlier, and get ever more elaborate. It's been flag week all week - cars, apartments, and human billboards - ever growing numbers of people keen to declare themselves as scoundrels getting in early for their refuge.


Lacking all sense of irony, now that we're unafraid to declare Australia the greatest place in the world and Australians the greatest people (John Howard's precise words in his farewell speech), what could be more correct and proper than gangs of youths who've tattooed themselves with the flag (literally) getting as pissed as newts and screaming abuse at anyone who doesn't reply Oi Oi Oi when they yell Aussie Aussie Aussie at them. Ten short years ago no one had ever heard of Aussie Aussie Aussie - Oi Oi Oi. Now it's a belligerent variety of national motto cum public pop quiz, with a torrent of abuse for whomever fails to answer. Sure enough, Australia Day is down in the police calendar as All Leave Cancelled, as bad as New Year's Eve. On the news round-up of Australia Day, the police will either be 'pleased at the level of violence' or 'appalled at the level of violence'.


No one will say, 'Violence? What?!' Since when did Australia Day involve drunken mob violence? Perhaps it's since crypto-gay, crypto-fascist radio broadcaster Alan Jones encouraged the good people of Cronulla to spend Australia Day beating up Muslims? "Come to Cronulla this weekend to take revenge... get down to North Cronulla to support the Leb and wog bashing day." Lebs? Wogs? Gosh, who can tell the difference? Sure enough, Jones' listeners unable to differentiate just beat up whomever. Jones still rules the airwaves and an endless litany of crimes and misdemeanours seem to have had no effect, certainly not on any of the politicians who have to crawl up his arse if they want to win the demographic. Frankly I have him pegged as a deadset certainty for the satanist/mind-control arm of the death cult. And his very good friend David Flint, head of the Australian Broadcasting Authority. Scumbags.


But fuck the both of them, they're just two old misanthropist fags with a predilection for rugby players. In the glossy cardboard cut-out army leading us to nowhere good they ain't nothing special. The task of this autocue-reading horde is to ensure the absence of the question, "Well, how did we get here?" God forbid. Best we all pat ourselves on the back and say, "This is my beautiful house. This is my large automobile." And gee whiz, don't we as the greatest people in the world deserve every bit of it? Who could possibly speak against it?


What a wanker! That's just how it is. It's the... what do you call it? The Zeitgeist! - the 'spirit of the times'. Yeah? Says I - Fuck the Zeitgeist. It might have meant something once, but no longer. Now the zeitgeist is just another thing the media manufactures. And here we are - a nation full of media-manufactured self-impressed, self-absorbed intolerant arseholes: good to go for war, torture, you name it. And all made to order.

'Australia - Love It or Fuck Off' can fuck off.

Jubus - eating their cake and having it too

Is everyone familiar with that phrase that denotes the doing of two mutually exclusive things 'To have one's cake and eat it too'? I don't know about anyone else but this phrase always bugged me - what was mutually exclusive about it? There is nothing in the expression to prevent and from functioning in terms of sequentiality, as in 'Go down the shop and get me a packet of Rothmans'. Surely one could have one's cake, and then one could eat it. Curious, I asked my English teacher. "Aha!", she said, "Everyone gets that wrong. The correct phrase is actually to eat one's cake and have it too." Lightbulb goes bink! Thanks Mrs. Smith, you're brilliant!

Now that we've sorted that out, and since we're on the subject of mutually exclusive things, how about them Jewish Buddhists? They're called 'Jubus' and allegedly they comprise twenty percent of American Buddhists. Who knew? Not me. Perhaps I should get out more. Or perhaps not. And for those who want to know what someone eating their cake and having it too looks like, it doesn't get any better than Jubus. If you look up oxymoron in the dictionary sure enough there's a picture of a Jubu.


For mine it is perfectly unsurprising that great swathes of the Jewish people are disenchanted with their religion. Well of course! The monstrous falsity of the idea that a perverse bloodline-obsessed God would play favourites (once removed, ha!) (And yes Ashkenazis, I'm talking to you) is just so obvious that any dimwit could figure it out. Sure enough, insane amounts of time and energy are spent turning Jews into self-obsessed gits whose genius can't travel beyond their own greatness. And following this travel analogy, part of the duty of those who herd the Jews is to perpetually scrawl the words 'Here be Monsters' on every uncharted bit of the map to make sure that no one strays.

But sure enough, Jews do stray. Perhaps they discover that the monsters are self-created chimeras and are unhappy with the Craig Murray-esque response, 'Yes, but that doesn't mean that real monsters don't exist'. Or perhaps they have trouble reconciling the blood-spattered irony of Jews as vicious inhuman exterminators running rampant on a turkey-shoot genocide in the world's largest ghetto? Or... perhaps they just want an experience that's more all about me than traditional Judaism is, ha ha ha. Who knows? Perhaps they're not unhappy at all. Perhaps they just function like the Borg from Star Trek so that everything not-them must be destroyed, owned, or subverted. That's been the lot of Christianity - why not Buddhism too?


What the fuck is this guy's problem? Why shouldn't Jews be Buddhists? Isn't that a good thing? Thank you Mr Google Drop-in, that was just the question I was hoping someone would ask. The thing is you see, is that Buddhists and Jews are polar opposites. Selflessness versus selfishness. One-with-the-universe versus us-and-them. The only certainty is change versus the only certainty is God and his special love of the Jews. Anyone who imagines that they can somehow embrace both of these propositions is a fool, or a hypocrite, or both. Never mind me, let's hear from the fools and hypocrites -

Some observers also note that Judaism and Buddhism share an understanding of the nature of suffering. For Jews, suffering has been an unfortunate constant throughout their history, culminating in the Holocaust and infusing contemporary Jewish culture with a theology of suffering to the extent that even alienated Jews have imbibed it... The Jerusalem Report quoted one Israeli living in Dharamsala... as saying: "It's so Jewish, you see, to always talk about suffering as Buddhists do."

Are Jewish people able to look at anything without tripping over themselves? What Buddhists posit as the single most fundamental and universal truth for all, Jews look at and declare, 'That's so Jewish!'. God spare me. And again -

In The Jew in the Lotus, Rabbi Zalman Schachter-Shalomi says he would like to request the Dalai Lama: "Give me a dharma talk addressed to Jews."

What? Like they're not regular people? And what the fuck does this Rabbi want to hear? That there is no self unless it's Jewish? That all is delusion but some delusions are better than others? Or perhaps all is delusion except for the voice of your grandmother -

Lew soon found himself surrounded by fellow Jews who had also sought enlightenment through Buddhism but who could not deny their Jewishness... both authors heard an inner voice of their grandmothers which returned them to their birth faiths

This from Alan Lew who spent ten years in Zen meditation only to fall at the hurdle of his grandmother. All that time and he couldn't wrap his brain around the fact that whatever his grandmother wanted to tell him was bullshit, another delusion amongst an uncountable many, simply one more thing to be dispassionately observed and let go of like a handful of smoke. His book by the way, he rather unsubtly titled One God Clapping which is a bit of pissweak, sub-editor wordplay attempting to disguise the otherwise unambiguous image of God applauding Lew. (Presumably for having quit the monastery and become a rabbi). And don't think that that image didn't occur to him. It did and that's why he went with the title.


Oh, and birth faith? We all roll our eyes. There is no such thing as a 'birth faith'. Right there in that pat two word expression (say it three times quickly - it even sounds stupid) is precisely the kind of complete nonsense required to explain the rightness of a God re-imagined as a father who madly singles out one of his children and awards them a privileged status.

Ultimately, any Buddhist Jew who is true to his Buddhism must engage his Judaism, for the simple reason that Buddhism subscribes to the Law of Karma... Ram Das replied that he had to face the karmic reality that he had been born as a Jew.

There's no end to the bullshit non-logic is there? Once more - no one is born a Jew and certainly not any as-caucasian-as-I-am Ashkenazi Johnny-come-lately. Whilst it's true that some genetics are inescapable and one need only look in the mirror to be reminded of them, when an Ashkenazi Jew looks in the mirror there's only one stark message they should be paying attention to, and that is - Stay Out Of The Sun. With white skin like that you're on a hiding to nothing for skin cancer. Everything else is bullshit. The above-quoted Mr Das (otherwise known as Dick Alpert) was not born a Jew.

That he was born is most certainly true
and of course he was told, 'You're a Jew'
But instead of great reverence
he should've met it with severence
by way of a loud 'Whoopty Doo!'

Is that poor of me? To deal with a fellow's oh-so-important self identification with a limerick? I don't see why. A tuppence for the limerick and a tuppence for any 'Buddhist' who can't let go of some story their parents told them. That story, earnestness in the telling or otherwise, is just a string of words - a contrivance, a construction, a clever meme. The fact that a meme has overcome environmental depredations and successfully replicated itself for a thousand years doesn't mean it's true. Nor that it's laudible. Do we laud lichen? It's been around for ages.


Not that I'm big on Karma (one can be a Buddhist without it you know) but let's concede that it exists. That being the case, Das's 'karmic reality' was to be told he was a Jew by his parents who were told the same thing by theirs. Let's imagine a fellow is told he is a thief - his father was a thief and his father before him, a long line of thieves going back a thousand generations. The whole point of karma is that such a thing should not be embraced. To embrace it is to invite more bad karma.

'Jews aren't thieves!' says our thin-skinned drop-in tripping over himself and missing the point as usual. Mind you they ain't no pumpkin pie neither but the purpose of the analogy was to knock down the idea that one must adopt the identity one is given by one's parents. But forget karma, all a Jubu needs to know is that all is delusion. And 'all' here includes any cherished self-definition. Hell, especially that. If an individual can't deal with a self-definition then everything that follows must and will be corrupt and no truth can be arrived at.

Taking another tack now, perhaps the Jubus might like to look to the fellow they profess to revere and whose name they cut in half to make their catchy moniker, ha ha. (Psst, Jubus, stop scratching your heads, I'm talking about the Buddha). The Buddha was Kshatriya, the highest level caste within a vicious Brahminist system. Did he ever embrace or otherwise espouse the rightness of Brahminism? Where was his so-called karmic reality? And what did his grandmother have to say on the subject? But then, Buddha's gran is one thing and whether he would have listened is another. I've never heard of Granny Ghautama but I do know that the Buddha left his palace, his father, and his wife and child. All of it - he left it all behind. According to legend when he returned to Kapilavastu after his enlightenment, his wife and child followed him in abandoning all that they had been before too. And not as some half-baked 'Brahbus' neither.


To all those Jubu heavies who've clocked up time in temples and been told all sorts of nice things by Buddhist priests who know precisely as much about Jews as Jews have told them... a Jew should and must make a false oath when the goyim asks if our books contain anything against them... well, that ain't me. A fig for the big names you know and a tuppence for your wall of starfucker photos. I ain't here to pat you on the back when you pull out a faith-based plum and say, 'What a good boy am I!' What would that achieve apart from furthering you in your perverse delusion of chosen-by-God, us-and-them specialness? What if the best I could do for you was to throw a bucket of cold water in your face and try to awaken you to the hard ugly truth that your 'Jewishness' is a delusion and an ugly one at that?

Hey Jubu - you want to wake up in this world of delusion? Well that ain't ever going to happen unless you wake up to yourself first.

Wake the fuck up!




---

This is the first part of a meandering effort I broke into three. The other two parts follow below.

The Monster

"[We] are not servants of some God; we are our own gods." says Michael Aquino, Satanist, paedophile, and Oprah guest.

"The Jewish people as a whole will be its own Messiah." wrote Baruch Levy in response to Karl Marx's request that he write something that he could masturbate over.


And then there's Anthony Robbins. Robbins is a fellow who found a way to offer paying customers the closest thing to a religious experience imaginable without actually having a deity involved. Best I can make out Robbins replaced the deity with the self. Whether his devotees get it or not they have effectively posited themselves as gods and are praying at their own altar.

I know a fellow who met his wife at an Anthony Robbins meeting. They married and had a son, and whether it's Robbins' doctrine or not, they thought it would be a good idea to loudly and frequently tell this boy that he was a genius. I'd only see them a couple of times a year but each time, within the short space of a few hours, I'd hear half a dozen public declarations as to his genius.

I'll admit that it's possible he was a genius, really I have no idea. All I know is that I never saw anything that impressed. But what is certain is that he believed he was a genius. He was special and he knew it. And when his three brothers were born and inexplicably weren't told that they were geniuses and thus were fairly normal, he ruled them like a tyrant. He was never not pummelling them, stealing their shit, or being pissed off that someone other than himself might be the centre of attention. At one social gathering I asked him if he could do me a favour and not beat, knock down, or otherwise sit on any of his brothers for the next hour. He said okay and yet thirty pathological seconds later he had one of them in a headlock.

School was the same. There, he was precisely the bully from hell. By the time he'd been kicked out of two high schools it seems he'd wised up enough to be somewhat less obvious. As for the acid test of his genius by way of school marks, um... who knows? His mother who'd spent the first ten years of his life telling everyone who'd listen what a genius he was seemed to go uncharacteristically quiet on the subject.

He could come good this kid - it's not impossible. Anyone who's seen Michael Apted's 7Up series would know that anything can happen. But regardless I'm going to call it - if you want to make a monster, start with a regular human and tell them they're a genius. Tell them they're special. Tell them they're better~over~above everyone else. Hell, tell them they're chosen by God. That'll work just dandy.


And anyone rolling their eyes at the disorganised witlessness of the above parental flattery and who imagines that their heavily codified, honed-over-centuries version is vastly superior, well... you don't get it. The result is still a monster.

---

Part three below.