kiddy porn

Fear trumps thought. And the ultimate trump is the combination of the words 'kids and sex', and 'kids and porn'. Thought ceases, questions are shouted down and angry mobs form.

To this end, Murdoch's media thought they were in amongst a runaway success with the latest big story here in Oz. A photographer by the name of Bill Henson had an exhibition shut down by the police on account of Child! Pornography! Sure, there were no explicit caps and exclamation marks in Murdoch's media but with us all dog-whistle trained who needs 'em? Kevin Rudd PM took his cue. 'Revolting' he said, 'kids are innocent', or something or other. Not that anyone cares what the git leading the opposition said, but he agreed with Kev.

And then... something unexpected happened. It seemed everyone who knew anything about art stood up and said sensible things. Oops, that wasn't in the script. We're not meant to have sensible discussions about Child! Pornography! We're meant to wig out.

But this was Bill Henson. It's unlikely that too many people here have heard of him, but he's a Very Big Deal. Aside from his spooky sense of light, fine compositional eye and consistently unsettling meditations on modern dislocation (here), he's taught in the school art curriculum and his prints go for $25,000 a pop. Murdoch's broadsheet The Australian wasn't able to find anyone to say anything about him that wasn't glowing. Sky News saw they were on a loser and eased off on the hysteria. Poor old Kev was left swinging in the wind, all on his pat malone. Everyone in the arts community wondered at who they'd elected - shades of John Howard.

But forget all that, I want to talk about the dog whistle.

---

I have an old girlfriend who told me something unremarkable. She said that she thought that paedophiles were worse than murderers. Maybe you're nodding - like I said, unremarkable. Who wouldn't think that?

---

I had another girlfriend who told me something remarkable. There we were in bed and I asked her, as you do, how old she was when she first had sex. Up until that point, previous answers had ranged between sixteen and twenty-odd. This woman told me she'd been ten. It's a bit of a conversation stopper. She said something ambiguous about a neighbourhood fellow, 'fucking on her'. She seemed unhappy to talk about it and I let it drop.

The conversation picked up later. I hadn't made sense of the previous statement and she clarified it for me. It was some adult guy, who lived nearby, and who would rub his penis on her vagina. On the second explanation she didn't seem unhappy. I asked her if she was scared or had to spend her time avoiding him or staying home? 'Hardly, I used to seek him out'. Me confused, 'Why?'. 'Because it was fantastic. I had the most amazing orgasms. I've never had orgasms like that since.'

Fucking hell! Do my head in! What does it all mean?

Anyway it was after this episode that her family emigrated to the Western world and she never saw that fellow again. Nor did she have sex with anyone until she was seventeen. Just like normal people. I asked why she had seemed angry the first time we talked about it and her answer was confusing and provided no clear understanding. For mine, I wondered if her confusion wasn't due to the clash of her personal experience with the worse-than-murder societal definition.

Anyway, she left me for another guy, got married and had kids. We kept in touch for a while and then she decided it really wouldn't do to stay in touch with the fellow who perhaps still loved her. Fair enough.

But forget me. For this discussion here, the question is - Was what happened to her worse than murder? Did the person who did that to her deserve a punishment beyond that meted out to a murderer?

---

I knew another woman who told me another story. In her leafy middle class home, from the age of fourteen onwards, her brothers, who were older than her, used to come into her room late at night and rape her. This went on for years. When I knew her, she was thirty, and definitely brittle. Mind you, she held a job and looked fantastic. But insecurity was the pre-dominant aspect of her personality. And for every pull on the bong I'd take, she'd do five.

About ten years after she'd moved out of home, she told her mother what her brothers had done. Her mother told her she was a liar and she didn't want to see her ever again. She did of course. In the time I knew her she was re-establishing a relationship with her mother albeit under the unspoken rule that what had happened with her brothers was a taboo topic.

And here's the question again - Was what happened to her worse than murder?

---

That's the micro. What of the macro? Through the lens of time how long have humans not been having sex following the onset of menstruation? If a million years of human existence was twelve hours on a clock might it be a minute or two? Even now there are societies where it still happens.

And we can point fingers at these societies as barbaric but meanwhile here in the West, puberty is arriving earlier and earlier for young girls. Hormones in meat and other environmental poisons have lowered the average age of menstruation from 14-15 or so, to 8 or 9. I read this in a Time magazine years ago. By now I expect the age is even lower. Does anyone think anything of this? Where's the media hysteria over this perversion? Perhaps they're too busy scheduling Saturday morning pop-clip shows full of pelvic thrusting prostitutes and their gold-laden pimps. God forbid they should screw with the revenue from the corporations that make that hormone-laden food. And then there's the make-up, the sexy underwear, and the sexy dolls - all designed for five year olds. Unbelievable.

---

I expect that there are people reading this right now who imagine I'm apologising for underage sex or somesuch. I am not. I am merely attacking the extremity of the counter proposition. Underage sex is worse than murder. Why do we think this? We don't even think that murder is worse than murder. We have first degree, second degree, third degree etc. Nor do we have a register of where murderers live. You could be living next door to someone convicted of murder and have no idea. Do murderers inspire an hysterical mob demanding that they get out of town? Certainly I haven't seen it on the media. What does this mean? That people would rather their daughters were killed than have some fellow rub his penis on their vagina?

It's the nature of a dog whistle subject that things are viewed as either/or. We go from zero to a fully hysterical 100mph in the blink of an eye. Thought is banished and the middle ground becomes a killing field. Fear is the key - it short-circuits thought. Truth is - paedophilia is, like everything else, a continuum. At one end is kids chained in dungeons and the other is a fellow who rubs his penis on a vagina. Keep in mind that that aforementioned ten year old grew up to be as normal as anyone I ever met.

And then there's a thirteen year old girl in a moody back-lit photograph in an obscure art gallery in Sydney. If the media gets their way, her life will be made hellish. Without the media, I (in future positing mode à la Gone Baby Gone) imagine her going on to live a perfectly normal life. In her adulthood she'd show the Bill Henson photo on her wall to her friends, proud to have been an antipodean version of the The Girl With The Pearl Earring. And when she had kids of her own maybe she'd take it down. Or maybe not. But with Murdoch's media hysteria? God help her.

---

Certainly I understand a parent's fear that their children might be interfered with. You can't make hysteria out of nothing. It has to have a basis. But don't be mistaken - hysteria can be, and is, manufactured.

And then there's the question of - was it always this way? Before television were there such hysterical media campaigns pivoting on under-age sex? Who knows. But let's flip the question - In the time before there was endless sex on the TV and porn in every computer (in which significantly every woman, by way of pubic hair, or lack thereof, precisely resembles a pre-pubescent girl), might underage sex have been less prevalent than now? These questions are unanswerable, sure. But either way you have to wonder at precisely what role the media is playing. They seem to be having a buck both ways. They promote and they punish. It reminds me of the snipers in Iraq who put out some goodies and then shoot whoever picks them up.

---

What if I suggested that what we have here is the perfect weapon, the ultimate blackmail tool? It's a twofer with fear running in dual directions, one unfocused, one focused. Think about it -
-There are more and more ever younger girls with breasts and bums resembling eligible sex partners.
-These young girls are, to an ever greater degree, taking their cues from a relentless sex-promoting media.
-There are ever greater avenues for viewing porn, every single example of which says, 'What you want looks like this', which is to say, 'hairless'.

This is the set-up, the tempting snare. And then there's the Big Don't Argue - the hysterical, dog-whistle, mobs-ain't-in-it, response that awaits anyone who acts on these urges. And that weapon is us, the fearful unfocused. We are the implacable, unthinking judge, jury and executioner. Underage sex is worse than murder. What choice might the focus of this, the one so ensnared, have? None at all. Sell out your nation, send off your constituents as war fodder, sign on for whatever that shitty little country wants. Yes, yes, anything you say, anything but that.

To make a Don't Argue this perfect isn't easy. It takes years of patient work - something not unlike the thirty year campaign to make us all hate Arabs. If you thought big, and your ambition ran to dragging a superpower around by the nose, and you had no compunction about blackmail and total control of the media, it'd all make perfect sense. Murdoch's machine neither knew nor cared who Bill Henson was. He was just another sacrifice on the altar of fear. Fortunately he'll walk, insulated by his talent and fame. But the campaign of fear will not stop. There's kids and adults aplenty and their lives aren't worth tuppence ha'penny.

porn

As the world ends why don't I discuss something completely pointless? This by way of primer to a story that's taken place here in Australia lately which I shall discuss in the next post.

I don't know that I have any particular point to make here. These are merely a series of observations that will in no way provide any sort of clarity. In fact they'll lead only to questions. In most arguments I find myself in, my position on pretty much any subject is invariably that of - 'It's not that simple'. And so it is with porn.

For the record I've watched a bunch of porn. I can't speak for women, but as a male, porn had this effect of jolting the brain. I still have a sharp memory of breathlessly finding old playboys under the house. Wow! Naked women! And then there was the time a friend, his sister and I bullshitted our way into an R-rated movie. Believe it or not it was WR - Mysteries of the Organism. Ha ha ha, we were so ripped off. Later there was video and I checked out Debbie Does Dallas and all that other low-rent stuff. Ooh! Mr. Greenfeld, what a big cock you have!

At the time I was too busy resembling some sort of fevered Robert Crumb caricature to think about the nature of what I was looking at. But that was a very long time ago. I'm a different fellow now and given to wondering.

Whose life ever resembled a porn movie? Apart from a porn star, that is. You may roll your eyes at the obviousness of this but let's see where it goes. We all know that porn movies are absurdly unreal. People seem to have sex at the drop of a hat for no reason at all. Everyone has huge penises and breasts. They say ridiculous things like, 'Ooh yeah baby, give it to me long and hard!'. I'm uninterested in discussing how many sexual partners I've had but I will say that none of them ever said anything to me like the idiot things one hears in porn movies. For mine, the big difference between actual sex and porn is the overwhelming sense of the falsity of it all.

This is American porn I'm talking about here, which is to say, Jewish porn. The American porn industry is almost entirely Jewish. I'm uninterested in detailing this here. Tons of people have done it already and you're free to google.

Perhaps the single greatest Jewish talent is what I call the 'imagining of the narrative'. Now that I think about it, we could instead call it the 'positing of reality'. Hollywood, television, the media, even the news, is all the same thing. It's all imagining the narrative/positing of reality. And porn is no different.

Amongst this totality of the narrative we're fed, it's difficult to step to one side and get a different view. But it's possible. I did it. I went and lived in Japan. And porn there is different. Sure enough, everything is different in Japan and the effect is quite disorienting. It took me a while to see precisely what the difference was between Japanese porn and American porn, but I did figure it out. It's that the falsity seems broadly to be absent.

- As a side note, let me say that I am in no way encyclopaedic on the subject. I probably know the names of about as many Japanese porn stars as you do American ones. Less, I expect. And those names would date from maybe fifteen years ago. It's something I did and do no longer.

Certainly the stories you've heard are true and there is weird porn in Japan. I recall a mate and I deciding to rent the weirdest looking vid we could find and we ended up fast forwarding through an hour of bodily functions. What was that all about? Do people think this is sexy? Who knows. But this sort of stuff represents an abjectly tiny percentage of porn there.

In amongst the rest of it there is also the kind of porn Westerners would recognise. No one in Japan owns a swimming pool so you won't see the pool cleaning guy, but there are doctors and nurses and bosses and secretaries and all that make-believe stuff.

But there's something else, something I have never seen in American porn. There is a variety of porn there that involves men and women talking to each other. They chat and the men crack jokes and the women laugh. And vice versa. It is emphatically not scripted and bears as close a resemblance to normal people having sex (as I understand it) as is possible. The only difference seemingly being that the people in the vid had a cameraman present.

Beyond this 'normality' in Japan is an even greater difference. American porn is almost entirely 'thrusting' in nature. Even when the woman is on top all one will see is yet more thrusting. What I shall indelicately call 'grinding' seems to be absent in American depictions of sex. Japanese porn, to a degree I've never seen in the Western version, has the woman as an equal partner. Often as not, they enjoy the sex as much as the man. Is it possible that the women in Japanese porn do not utter the absurdities of American porn because they're too busy enjoying themselves? Who knows.

I expect that you're rolling your eyes thinking that it's all fake and I'm too simple to tell the difference - Harry Met Sally, blah blah blah. Bullshit. Watch Japanese porn and see real, unfakable female orgasm. The idea that men can never tell if women have come is a myth completely laid bare in Japanese porn. The female ejaculation I have seen often enough in Japanese videos cannot be faked. If you don't believe me it's because you've never seen it.

I did once see an American vid that loudly announced on its cover that it had female ejaculation. So I rented it. And the fakery I saw was so bad that I knew that the film makers had never seen the real thing. They seemed to imagine that female ejaculate resembles semen and oozes out like some kind of sick-looking discharge. Apart from being repellent it had me shaking my head.

What's going on? Why is honest female orgasm absent from American porn? Why do we all believe that fake is indistinguishable from real? Is the reason American porn stars behave like, well, porn stars ha ha, because they don't know how to enjoy sex? Is there some meaning to this? Or are the Jewish producers of porn ignorant of this aspect of human sexuality? You have to wonder.

And what then am I to make of the also Jewish-led feminist anti-porn movement? You know the one - the Andrea Dworkin all-sex-is-rape kind of thing. As a right-thinking guy I've dutifully sat through any number of documentaries that detailed the ugliness of the porn industry. And sure, I felt bad that I'd been a consumer of it. Porn is an ugly industry and God spare anyone caught up in it. The likelihood of a person coming out it as anything other than a babbling wreck is pretty dim. But a discussion of porn from this angle is flawed. It utterly lacks any mention of what should be significant - that of female enjoyment and orgasm. Since this is completely absent in American porn as anything other than fakery how can the counter discussion make sense? The assumption on which it's based, ie. that there's nothing in it for the women and that it all revolves around the men, seems to take as its unquestionable foundation that American porn is porn - period.

Like I said - It's not that simple. I am unable to articulate any sensible position on the porn industry and their products, as such, apart from saying that I no longer wish to be a consumer of it. But I do have a simple question - Why is honest female enjoyment and orgasm completely and utterly absent from American porn? And what does that mean?

the beginning of the end for the continuum

Wow, illustrations. Can you guess what they denote? Oh, all right, I'll tell you. They are representations of the reality of the continuum. I don't expect that that will actually clarify things, but all will be made clear.

As impressed as I have been with the continuum, I'd always been nagged by a simple question. How come I'd never seen it anywhere else? It's so simple and so elegant that there's no way known I'm the only person to have thought of it. (Perhaps it does exist elsewhere. Feel free to fill me in if you've seen it.) But I suspect it doesn't exist and the reason is simple. The continuum is flawed and must be rejected.

But before the big picture, let's attack the small stuff. There were certain technical problems that came clear to me as I wrote the anti-buddha piece below. The continuum is obviously asymmetrical. The two ends are not alike. The selflessness end is straightforward. Achievement of selflessness and arrival at Buddha-dom is a full-stop. There is nothing beyond oneness with the universe. I may change my mind on this matter later, but for now, it's what I think. Let's wait until I'm Buddha, ha ha.

The selfishness/antibuddha end of the continuum is fundamentally different. For starters, it has no full-stop. Any ultimate act of evil you can think of, I could top it. And sure, you could then top me. When Michael Palin in Life Of Brian said that crucifixion was very terrible, Eric Idle replied that it wasn't as nasty as something he just thought of. Exactly. There is no end to the variety of selfish behaviour and there is no end to the magnitude of it. Anti-buddha is an abjectly imprecise term.

Do the pictures make more sense now? The selfless end of the continuum now comprises a single centre. The selfish ends are beyond counting. This depiction illustrates the singularity of selflessness and the multiplicity of that which is not selfless. As I rolled this image around in my head it became clear to me why no one has bothered with a continuum that gives equal time to selfishness. Selfishness (which is to say sin) is without end. To dwell on it is to never find selflessness.

Monks in zen monasteries are given a series of koans, or riddles. Invariably the first of these is 'mu' or nothingness. I met a fellow who had spent three years contemplating just this first one. I look forward to doing the same thing. And in contemplating nothingness it really doesn't do to give proportional time to everything-elseness. And that's what the selfishness end of the continuum is - an outsize distraction. Here's a thought - If you're trying to figure out where you're going what's the point of thinking about all the places you don't want to be?

So. The continuum is too complicated. One end of it is unnecessary. All that's required is the pursuit of selflessness. Dwelling on selfishness is worthless. Ha ha ha ha, the obvious question now is - whither this blog?

The supernote stumper - Who could it be?

Who's been following the story of the North Korean supernotes? It's a cracker. These supernotes are the best forgeries the world has ever seen. In fact, so perfect are these forgeries that to all intents and purposes the notes are real. Until they turn up in the US and then they're spotted instantly, ha ha.

There have been some ripping exposés written. Like this one by Gregory Elich. Read it and see the impossibility of the official American story. As it stands none of it makes any sense at all. But then, neither do Elich's alternative propositions either. Best not wonder too hard at his counter theory that it's the CIA because it falls at the first hurdle. But then, that's limited hangout for you. It works best if you don't think about.

Consider the logic. Elich clearly proves it makes no sense for North Korea to print the supernotes because the machines cost more than the notes that have been printed. Doesn't this logic apply to the CIA too? Who on earth would spend $200M to buy the machines to make a lousy $50M? It's idiotic - why not just spend the $50M? The logic is inescapable. The only people who could or would sensibly make this money are those who already own the printing presses. Honestly, it would have to be the first thing you'd think of. Wouldn't it?

Wonder also at the uses this supernote money was put to. The article spends half its length detailing an insanely complex and utterly relentless campaign to choke off the North Korean money supply, the justification for which pivots utterly on the supernotes. In spite of not a single UN or Interpol representative believing the US's supernote story the US persists in forcing economic strangulation on North Korea. Does this mean the CIA, on its own, wishes to strangle North Korea? Why would they do that? And how do they get the State department and Secret Service to jump through their hoops? Note that Elich doesn't posit the CIA as subject to the government proper. He merely hints at them operating on their own.

Carefully read the last two paras of Elich's piece. After two thousand words odd, up pops the concept that it's law enforcement agencies tracking criminals and terrorists. A single sentence is enough! We have it. It's 'enforcement agencies', whoever that is. Or maybe not. Best not to be too specific. Best to trail off with meaningless blatherings like - 'As with all stories that the public is asked to accept on blind faith, the topic should be examined with critical thinking.' Ha ha ha ha. Top stuff! Elich's piece is a cracker. It's full of every kind of thing except critical thinking.

Forget the nonsense. Why don't I pose a far more obvious possibility? This article is, misdirection aside, a clear depiction of how international banking goes about smashing a nation that refuses to play ball. It's the ugly side of a monopolistic, privately-owned money supply. No business in a street gets out of paying protection and no nation that possesses wealth worth having will be allowed to control its own currency.

Keep in mind here that the US is not the prime mover. The US is merely the biggest business on the block. Their money supply is owned and they too dance to the banker's tune. And what tune is that precisely? How many times have you heard commentators on the television say (particularly lately) that nothing is as important to the Fed as the sanctity of the banking system? Well there you have it. This is the biggie, the sine qua non. In any discussion about what takes place at a global scale, on the question of motive, one should always look first to the 'sanctity' of the banking system. It is above all else. It may not be challenged and heaven and earth will be moved to ensure that no alternative is possible.

Provided this prime directive is served, the US may do anything it likes. As the made-to-order wars are carried out, those who nominally run the US are free to make money in any way they can - oil, weapons, drugs, speculation, it's all good. This serves two purposes. Sure enough, it keeps the old guard from overthrowing their money masters. They have the guns and the manpower and could do it if they really wanted to. So they have to be kept happy. The second purpose is that this lower tier criminality hides the true reason we are at at war with Krablapistan. Thus may all those punters, smarter than the average bear and not fooled by the media drivel, cleverly know that it's actually all about oil, weapons, drugs, etc. We shake our fist at the sock puppet and dream of throwing him down.

Meanwhile the media is free to say whatever they like, provided they do not interfere in, or otherwise name the architects of, a sanctity-of-banking campaign, which is to say economic strangulation and war. Clever (or not so clever perhaps) pieces of limited hangout aside, invariably the media will fulfil its role as maidservant of international banking and blame the victims. Subsequently everyone knows that the North Koreans are very wicked villains who starve their own people. Our sanctions on North Korea are perfectly understandable. We do it for their own good.

Same-same for everyone currently suffering under sanctions and warfare. But me, I wonder at the guilt of those whom the media says we're meant to hate. I wonder if the list of those we must hate isn't the same as those who refuse to succumb to a privately owned money supply. If this is the case, perhaps the shit-list is the hit-list - those we should cheer for. Ayah! Does this mean I have to cheer for Kim Jong Il?

anti-buddhas

How to explain the evil fuckers of the world? Over at smokingmirrors there's been talk of a 6% of people as being psychopaths. Apparently there's a book called Ponerology that explains the science of ponerology, which is to say 'evil'. I haven't read it. I've merely read about it. But I have to be honest and say that I have trouble making this concept gel. There's something that's a bit too 'either/or' for mine.

Selfishness_______________________________________Selflessness

This is my continuum. No one cares for it. Never mind - It's as fine a means of judging behaviour as any I've encountered. And you can't say it ain't elegant.

Human behaviour is very messy and many factors come into play. Determining the rightness of one's actions on this continuum is not simple. The middle ground between the extremes is huge and ambiguous. There are no simplistic do's/don't-do's here. Thought is required. But two aspects of it are simple - they being the extremities.

Any person who can perfectly embrace selflessness is Buddha. They become one with the universe. This does happen but it's a tough gig. It's not made any easier with every aspect of our media devoted solely to making the population as selfish and self-indulgent as possible.

The other end of the continuum is less spectacular and far more common. People at this end are what I call anti-buddhas. For the record I shall state that an anti-buddha is not the Antichrist, whatever that is. Anti-buddhas are merely wicked paragons of selfishness. An anti-buddha has the least regard for others and the most regard for himself. An 'us and them' mindset is necessary. Dig it - 'us and them' is the opposite of 'one with the universe'. Interesting, no? Anyway, given that the above continuum goes to the nth degree, this ultimate selfishness would ideally comprise the enslavement of all living creatures to the benefit of the fewest people possible.

An anti-buddha is a psychopath, same-same. Except it's not that simple. An anti-buddha is not an either/or proposition. There is no either/or on a continuum. Between a baby-killer and a baby-beater and a baby-neglecter and someone who just doesn't like kids very much, there's a linear path travelled. At what point does one cross that threshold and become one of the 6%? And is there truly no turning back? And is this alleged either/or psychopath irredeemable? Is there nothing to be done with a psychopath apart from locking him up forever or killing him?

What then to make of this fellow? Have a read but give equal attention to the Chinese. The Japanese soldiers that the Chinese locked up were precisely anti-buddhas. And somehow the Chinese thought them worthy of redemption, and succeeded at it.

It wasn't easy. It took years of unrelenting psychological pressure. No self-serving bullshit was permitted. Nothing short of completely admitting to the full wickedness of their behaviour was accepted. There was no time limit. Whoever it was, was stuck in jail until they made a full confession that the jailers decided wasn't bullshit. I don't believe any human could defeat this process.

Remember the end of 1984? As the bullet entered his brain, Winston Smith loved Big Brother. Smith's understanding of the rightness of 2+2=4 was broken down and rebuilt until he embraced 2+2=5. What I'm suggesting is the inverse of this process. One would take an anti-buddha and give him the opportunity to abandon his delusion of us-and-them, of 2+2=5. He would then be free to embrace the truth of selflessness. Breaking down a false proposition is easier than building one. Even a six year old can learn that 2+2=4. The replacement for delusion requires no fabrication. It exists already as truth and need merely be seen with a mind unclouded.

I have no time for aliens, lizards, or non-humans with a DNA of 'evil'. I view them as metaphors for people who have utterly embraced selfishness. That they should do this is neither unlikely nor difficult. In fact it's a certainty. Of course there are people like this. As sure as there are Buddhas there are anti-buddhas. This state of being, of delusion, is not irremediable. That's not to say that such a remedy is easy, quite the opposite, it's tremendously difficult. But it can be done. If Pu'yi with his life-long inculcation can be rehabilitated, so too can a Rothschild. Lock a Rothschild up in prison and I guarantee you he could be broken.

Denial and resistance. Nervous breakdown. Reconnection with humanity. And, believe it or not, gratitude. Even for the worst of the worst, redemption is possible.

PS. But just to be on the safe side, our Rothschild would be banned from possessing any money, restricted to a cloistered community and (sorry folks) sterilised. After a multi-generational succession of anti-buddhas, it's better safe than sorry.

such obvious puppets

That Kevin Rudd is tireless ain't he? Yesterday he wrapped up his first budget and is now buried up to his eyebrows in media engagements. That would be enough for a normal man. But not our Kevin. In amongst endless discussions about the oh-so-important economy he still finds time to paint horns on the oh-so-important Ahmadinejad. Um, which one is he again? Does he hate us for our freedom? Or want to impose sharia law? Or is he a regular islamo-fascism kinda guy? Honestly, there are so many irrational haters-of-us that I lose the plot. Why can't we just have one like in 1984? We'll call him Ahmed Mohammed, or something.

Anyway, Rudd madly wants to take Ahmadinejad to the ICJ (or is it the ICC? no one seems too sure), for a litany of crimes that might broadly be defined as being insufficiently considerate of the feelings of the Jewish. Believe it or not, I think a trial is a brilliant idea and wish our Kevin the best of luck. God knows he'll need it.

For starters, his claims about Ahmadinejad saying that Israel should be wiped off the map will fall at the first hurdle. Mostly due to the fact that he never said it. Frankly I'm astounded they're letting Rudd use this so publicly. This will be a test for the Australian media to see if anyone corrects him. What he actually said was that communism would be consigned to the scrap-heap of history. Oh wait, that was Ronald Reagan. Anyway substitute Zionism for communism and you've got Ahmadinejad's comment. (Good God! Does this mean that Ahmadinejad is as villainous as Reagan? Just joking. Reagan killed far more people.) Meanwhile an actual country has actually been wiped off the map. Try and find Palestine in an atlas, on a globe, or any goddamn place. Good luck. And did somebody say, 'Hillary Clinton' and 'obliterate Iran' just now? No? Oh, okay, let's not mention it then.

Back to the list of crimes, that criminal Ahmadinejad questioned whether Zionists were human. Silly Ahmadinejad. Of course they're human. They're actually the only humans. It's the goyim who aren't human. We're beasts with two legs, cockroaches, insects to be exterminated. The whole lot of us aren't worth one Jewish fingernail. How dare some jumped-up fingernail-bug question the humanity of God's chosen. Obliteration is the least he deserves. In the meantime let's put him in the ICJ/ICC and have a discussion about the use of racist epithets and the wishing of ill upon others by world leaders. That would be a discussion worth having.

Ahmadinejad's third crime was the hosting of a conference that questioned the veracity of the Holocaust. I shall say nothing on this subject. Let's just put it into court and argue the case. I look forward to a healthy discussion as to why this subject alone amongst ALL others may not be discussed on penalty of jail. I'm curious as to why it is perfectly okay to print any murderous, sacrilegious calumny against Muslims, and yet a public discussion as to an historical event warrants the Australian Attorney General discussing the invasion of the country that hosted it.

No really. The Attorney General Robert McClelland was very keen to demonstrate his intellectual prowess. From Murdoch's Australian - 'Mr McClelland had argued that taking legal action was better than other alternatives. "The alternative to not using these international legal mechanisms is considering wholesale invasion of countries, which itself involves, obviously, expense but more relevantly, of course, the potential for a significant loss of life," Mr McClelland said.'

Holy Fucking Jesus! Is this the most dim-witted man in Australian history? Did he really say that? We must sue them in court or otherwise we'd have to invade them? Get Fucked! Hey McClelland, are you not bright red with the embarassment and shame of a such an idiotic statement? Expense and potential loss of life, you say? I can see you've spent a lot of time thinking about it. Git.

Sorry I retract all of that. They're not stupid. They're merely puppets. Rudd is a shill for powerful Jews. There's no room for any doubt now. He does what he's told. He's decided that the thing that is coming cannot be stopped. Rupert whispered in Kevin's ear - 'Get on board or cop what Latham copped. It's a juggernaut and you can't stop it. Don't get any smart ideas. Do what we say and you and your family will be fine.'

Oh by the way, there will be no charges laid against Ahmadinejad, no trial at the ICJ, or the ICC, or any other place. It's a charade, a puppet show. What Rudd and Canada's Harper are actually telling us with their pre-emptive attacks on anti-Semitism, is that their Jewish masters are expecting a backlash, and soon. A backlash for what I wonder? How about this - whatever is coming is going to be so big, so ugly, and so obvious, it'll make Israel's slaughter-fest in Lebanon look like small potatoes. The crowds, which didn't hit the streets for Israel's villainy there, won't be able to ignore this one. It's going to be really big. And it's going to be soon. And of course, BYO Israeli flag and box of matches.

Don't believe anything they tell you about nihilism

Those nihilists are nuts aren't they? Take me for example. Here I am tapping away at a keyboard that I don't even believe exists. I'm madly putting words in some kind of idiot order that can't possibly make any sense for non-existant people whom I don't believe can read, since there's no such ability. You'd wonder why I bother.

That's what a nihilist is, isn't it? Someone who madly thinks nothing exists? Has anyone met such a creature? Roll it around in your head - 'a person who thinks nothing exists'. Does that make any sense? Does it sound sustainable? How does it work on a day-to-day basis? Why would this mad fellow eat? Or scratch his arse? Or bother living at all? Honestly if you're prepared to entertain such a thought you really should wonder at yourself. The whole idea is idiotic on its face. And yet that's what I get accused of being. Since I choose not to believe in things, somehow nothing is real.

What nonsense. Real things don't require belief. They just are. The butcherbird singing a song on my windowsill in the hope of getting a piece of ham doesn't require a stretch of my imagination. It doesn't require me to take someone's word for it. I don't have to dispel doubt that he's there. No belief is needed because he's Right Fucking There, singing that berserk song. G'day mate, yes I know you're there, and no, you're not getting any ham. I'm a cruel man but fair.

What other things apart from butcherbirds don't require belief? Well, it's simple. Everything you can see, hear, smell, touch and taste is completely unconnected with the idea of, or the need for, belief. To attack an otherwise rational person on the basis that he can't tell the difference between what is and what isn't, is, gee whiz, I don't know... I just shake my head at the stupidness of it. But believe it or not, ha ha, I've encountered it many times. It's the standard sleight of hand employed by religious types to conflate a belief in a thing (ie. religion) with an absence of belief (ie. atheism/nihilism). Says they, these are equivalent 'beliefs': a Christian believes God exists; an atheist believes no god exists; whilst a nihilist goes further and believes that nothing exists. God spare me. It's a crap argument but crap arguments is all religious types have.

Perhaps when arguing with mad Christians it's better to concentrate on shared disbelief. Do Christians believe that that blue-headed elephant guy is a god? No? Okay cross him off. We could go through god after god in this fashion and have a lovely time agreeing with each other over and over. Cross, cross, cross. Yay! We smash fake gods! If we were to come up with a complete list of gods, the Christians and I would be in complete agreement over the non-existence of 99.99% of them. Go figure why they'd get all huffy about a single god amongst this uncountable multitude. Apparently this one god is special. But aren't they all? Who would worship a god that isn't special? Christians shouldn't take this personally. This line of logic is not specific to any particular religion. It's a 'catholic' argument, if you like, ha ha.

Anyway let's say we've arrived at the obviousness of atheism. Then there's the unavoidable question - why stop with gods? If I'm prepared to make that final tiny step from 99.99% atheism to 100% atheism, might I not cast my jaundiced eye at everything else I'm meant to believe? There's no shortage of these things. They define us and bind our society together. For instance, I am meant to believe that it is right that one should have unlimited desires and go to great lengths attempting to satisfy those desires. Apparently I should base my life on this. To moderate my pursuit of this self-gratification, there are certain fear-based proscriptions on my behaviour. All our laws pivot on the assumption that I shall not do a thing because I will be fearful of the punishment that will result. Is that the best we can do? We geniuses? We white men? Honestly?

What bullshit. I reject desire. I reject fear. A fig for arranging society thus. See if I can't do better, ha ha. I gave it a try just to the right here with my abjectly unsexy continuum. Between self and selflessness no belief is required. The less cluttered it is, the better. There are no proscriptions, no rules, no loopholes - merely an ideal to be aimed for.

Think about it. Nowhere here do I ask anyone to believe in anything. Nowhere do I say, Take my word for it. In fact, for the record I say, Don't believe it. Belief is not required and will not help you. Sure enough, in the meeting of the pursuit of selflessness and the mindset of perfect nihilism, there is no clash, only harmony. In fact I'll go further and state, right here, right now, that they are the same thing. True nihilism involves embracing the ultimate truth that there is no self. There is only a self if you believe that it is so. A person who can abandon this belief will know the mind of Buddha. You, me, anyone. If other people choose not to think about this, to use it as a self-serving straw-man argument, turn it arse-about, or any other goddamn thing, a fig for them, ha ha.

PS. And then there's the Buddha - "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense". Now that's nihilism.

A cyclone, a terror trial and Kevin Rudd

Those poor bastards in Burma. Between their government and their cyclone they're fucked. And then there's the US! The media showed a US warehouse packed to the gunnels with food just waiting for the opportunity to be sent. Cut to that demented bitch Condoleeza Rice, with her cross face on, wagging her finger at the Burmese. Cut to George Bush snarling some variation of an ultimatum that the Burmese should let the humanitarians in.

Only one word was missing from the whole coverage - Katrina.

Side note history lesson - in 1974 Cyclone Tracy obliterated Darwin, a city of 40,000, in Australia's North. Per head of population it was the equivalent in scale of New Orleans and Katrina. The then US military offered to step in and airlift the whole population to other cities. The Australian PM Gough Whitlam, who was a variety of left-wing and under endless assault by the CIA and their proxies, turned them down, swearing the Australians could do it themselves. And they did. In two days every person in Darwin was relocated. It's amazing what can happen when a place isn't run by murderous motherfuckers.

Australia currently has a big terror trial doncha know. Maybe this one won't collapse like all the previous ones. See what you think. This from the front page of Murdoch's Australian newspaper last Thursday -

"The accused head of a home-grown Muslim terror cell was secretly filmed by police testing a bomb built by an undercover agent from explosives and gelignite packed in a plastic ice-cream container.

In the surveillance video played yesterday to a Victorian courtroom in Australia's biggest terror trial, Abdul Nacer Benbrika is shown by the undercover police officer how to set off the bomb on a bush track."

And sure enough, it's ALWAYS this way. There is no Al Qaeda. Here, as in the US, the UK, and Canada, without the government providing explosives, plans and every other goddamn thing, all we'd have is a collection of coloured people sick of seeing coloured people getting shat on. And I can dig it. What they're most guilty of is not being smart enough to spot a government agent. Honestly, can anyone think of the last terror attack that wasn't bullshit? The last one in this country was the Hilton Hotel bombing of thirty years ago. And even that was a variation of bullshit.

Finally, what is Kevin Rudd up to? Frankly I don't trust the guy. Between his private New York powwow with - and unspoken endorsement by - Rupert Murdoch, his unabashed reassurance to those who own the Reserve Bank madly pretending to be a message appealing to prospective voters, and his unprecedented official Australian congratulations to Israel on sixty years of land theft and genocide, I reckon I've got his number.

So why has he dumped his plans for an Australian version of the Department of Homeland Security? I asked this out loud and my father said, 'Because it doesn't work.' To which I replied, 'It's not meant to work. It's merely there to place the CIA and other old guard security apparatuses under Jewish control.' Believe it or not, the old man, a thirty year military veteran, nodded. I've turned him into a radical, ha ha.

I reckon there are three possibilities -
- Rudd's allegiance to Jewish control is limited. He'll say the right thing but when it comes to the crunch he'll find a way to dissipate things.
- A variation of revolt took place at a cabinet or senior bureaucrat level and Rudd's power came up short.
- Rudd doesn't need it. Control of Australia's security organs are already currently in the hands of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Under this is an Office of National Security. Done right, this will serve the same purpose as a DHS. The Australian notes in the last two paras of a story covering this that there is to be 'a strengthening with the department, including creating a post of national security adviser.' Hmm....

Mind you, these three things aren't mutually exclusive. We'll just have to sit tight and see what happens next. Apparently a 'major statement on national security strategy' is being finalised in the PM&C. I can't wait to hear it. Keep in mind, we haven't had a terror attack here in thirty years.

less is more

What happened to music? Did anyone even notice? Maybe it's just me. I'm given to viewing things through a lens of time. Humans have been on the planet for, I don't know, a million years? And yet, most everything that defines our day to day has only been this way for a generation or two. If the time that humans have been humans was a twelve hour clock, almost everything we think of as 'normal' has only been this way for less than a second on that clock.

Put music on this scale. For countless generations the only way people could hear music was if they were present whilst it was actually being played. Music was prized. People would look forward to the opportunity to listen to it. They would talk of it long after. Each opportunity to hear music was something special.

And now? Now, music might just be the most devalued and worthless thing ever. It's everywhere we go, all the time. It's such meaningless shit that we almost breathe a sigh of relief when we escape it. There's so much music now, catering to ever narrowing tastes, that people will actually react violently if subjected to music they don't care for. I shall never forget freelancing in a workshop ruled by a petty tyrant whose music tastes ran the gamut from Metallica to Megadeth. I put on Puccini's Death of Butterfly and this fellow went into an apoplectic meltdown. I've lost count of how many workplaces I've been in that dissolved into acrimony over people bitching about having to listen to 'shit' music. Even two generations ago such an intolerance of music would have been inconceivable. As would the idea of having such narrow tastes.

That blink of an eye ago, when the only way to listen to music was to have real people play real instruments, there was a tremendous incentive to have musicians amongst a community. I couldn't comment as to whether there are less musicians now, but in Sydney the live scene has died in the arse. It's all about DJ's now. DJ's used to be merely the guys who whacked records on turntables. Actually, they still are, but somehow it's the height of musical ability. What percentage of music is recycled now? People who can't play an instrument but are capable of fiddling about with computers are now a Very Big Deal. Who needs to practise, practise, practise when you can cut and paste? God spare me recycled music.



Some of the greatest never-to-be-forgotten moments in my life have been musical: a two hundred voice choir rendering me non compos mentis with Carmina Burana at the Sydney Opera House; A Russian soprano, whose voice could fill an opera hall, completely overwhelming a lounge room in Milan with Ave Maria; a couple tearfully performing Hawaii 78 in a karaoke in Kailua a week after Israel Kamakawiwo'ole died. Why is it that recorded music has never had this power? How come I yawn when I hear a recording of Carmina Burana?

A strange thing happened to me in a Uighur restaurant in Shanghai. Uighurs are the round-eye Muslims of China's West. They have precisely the problems the Tibetans have except that nobody gives a shit about them. Anyway, it was very late and we'd completely missed the floor show of traditional music. But as we were eating the inevitable lamb, it occurred to me that the instrumental music I was listening to was not recorded. It was live surely? I turned around and looked for the player - nothing, a near empty room. Ten minutes later I was struck again that this could not be muzak. I looked again, there was nothing and I dismissed it. Another five minutes and I had to wonder, am I going nuts? I twisted in my chair and there he was. It was the owner of the restaurant sitting in a little alcove playing his dutar, a long-necked lute. He was leaning out, a grin on his face, glad that I'd finally seen him. My face mirrored his and I did that Buddhist thank-you hand gesture. He was a Muslim sure, but he grooved on it.



The thing is, how did I know the music was live? I'm no audiophile. I have no trained ear. But I knew that the sound was possessed of a depth and texture that no stereo could deliver. Three times I turned around. Whatever it was this music possessed made recorded music seem ordinary. And recorded music is ordinary. I would never have paid attention to a CD. And the point is? For me, it's that perhaps recorded music isn't worth listening to. So, ha ha, I no longer listen to it.

Me, I want to feel what humans felt right up until a mere two generations ago. I want music to have value, to be significant, to be a human event. I want to be done with the idea that there is such a thing as 'shit' music. Believe it or not, the absence of perpetual recorded music is not a hole in my life. I'm perfectly happy to listen to the wind, and the birds, and the sound of the surf. Humans did this for a million years. And now I do it too. And if there's real people playing real music, I'm your man.

the greatness of white people

How great white people are. What would the savages of the world have done without us? As everyone knows coloured people are lazy and worthless. God knows what they did before we arrived in their lands and showed them the value of hard work. Can you imagine? I expect they all sat around in the dirt merely waiting for a superior race to turn up and give them a handout. Typical.

Right from the first encounter between the old world and the new, when Columbus met the Arawak people of Hispaniola (now Haiti and the Dominican Republic), it was evident that coloured people were shiftless bums. We showed them that their idea of only just doing enough work to provide food and shelter for themselves was bullshit. And to teach them a proper work ethic we made them all slaves. Quite right. But really we were wasting our time. Those good for nothing wretches chose to die rather than be enslaved. Piss weak and ungrateful with it! If such lazy, worthless savages don't want to acknowledge the superiority of white people, genocide is the least they deserve. Beasts have more value.


Honestly, what sort of people don't aspire? This is white people's greatest contribution to the world. We aspire like no others. We want to live like kings. All of us. We don't wonder at the impossibility of everyone living like this. We dismiss it as a silly question. Those who aspire the most, deserve to receive the wealth and servitude of those who don't. And those that don't should consider themselves lucky to be shown what might be theirs if only they were more like those they laboured for.

If there was one single lesson that the coloured people of the world could learn from white people it is this - you must embrace selfishness. The greater degree of selfishness, the better. Forget selflessness and communality. Forget lands being owned by all. Forget modifying your behaviour out of concern for others. Modesty is bullshit. Anyone who doesn't lust after a huge mansion, tons of shiny toys and servants to do the lawn, the pool, and every other goddamn thing, is a variation of loser. In the white world we know what a winner is. A winner is he who most closely approaches the most perfect gratification of the most perfect desire.


Really, coloured people need merely look to our religion. It is a religion for all. Its founder, Jesus, rejected the essential exclusivist tenet of his own Judaism and said everyone could embrace the Jewish God. The resultant Christ-inspired Jewish sect would be the greatest religion the world has ever seen. And does the white man's Jewish God extol selflessness? Ha! Of course not. How could a God who has a chosen people be a God of selflessness? The great gift of this Christ-ian Jewish sect was to instil in the white man an abiding visceral hatred of selflessness. Every single encounter between the white man and the savage was an encounter between those who owned things and those who didn't. And if mass slaughter was what it took to teach people the rightness of this mindset, then we would kill without mercy.

Feel free to think of some other single defining description for white people. White people speak different languages, eat different food, and have different cultures. Says I, the only thing that unites them is their own sense of superiority as provided by their thin-as-a-hair reinterpretation of the Jewish mindset. All of the above is a checklist of this. Anyone who's impressed with the superiority of the white race and wants to spiel off their own check-list of 'We are superior because...' - Stop. Wonder at the sense of superiority itself. Wonder at how we came to be so. Are the achievements of white people the cause of this sense of superiority or the result of it? And finally wonder at your own ego, at your own sense of specialness, your overarching righteousness and ask yourself, 'How closely do I resemble those that I hate most?'.

in pondering the draft a sudden thought strikes me

Four years ago I cleverly predicted that a military draft in the US was unavoidable and that that would be the beginning of the end of their military adventurism. Ha ha ha. More fool I. Friends delighted in pointing out how I got it wrong.

On the subject of the effect of draftees in the military, I'm with John Pilger. Pilger made a documentary back in 1971 called The Quiet Revolution that detailed the revolt of draftees in Vietnam. It was this revolt, rather than protests at home, that forced the American withdrawal. A combination of troops shooting officers, mutinies on naval vessels and riots in military prisons would eventually have led to a complete breakdown of the US military.

There is a crucial difference between draftees and enlistees. Having chosen one's lot, as enlistees have, is usually sufficient to make them put up with being bullshitted to, maltreated and even being forced to participate in murderous villainy. A rejection of these things is effectively a rejection of one's self. This must be resisted at all costs. The vast majority of people would rather participate in war crimes than wonder if they're the bad guy. Draftees lack this ego-driven check on questioning their behaviour. Certainly fear or confusion will hold them back, but not forever. An unwilling accomplice is a very different beast to an willing one. It was the 'unfettered' draftees who eventually brought the Vietnam war to its inglorious end. Sure enough, those behind the Iraq war knew this only too well.

Speaking of which, let's, for the sake of argument, forget about the war being about WMD's. Let's pretend it was about bringing democracy to Iraq. Democracy requires stability. General Eric Shinseki said that achieving this would require 3-400,000 troops. And he got sacked for saying so. No one said, 'Do you think so? Stability is very important to us.' Ha ha ha.

But let's be charitable and imagine the war boosters had seen Band of Brothers. Towards the end of that you can see German troops in uniform, and under arms, taking over the civil administration of occupied Germany. It's a perfectly fine way of occupying a country with minimal use of your own troops. And in Germany no one wigged out, terrified that these German troops might be nazi-party 'dead-enders'.

It was same-same in Singapore and Indo-China after the defeat of the Japanese. They too kept their arms and stayed in day-to-day control under a tiny allied command. Defeated enemy troops, ideology notwithstanding, clearly have tremendous utility for maintaining stability. Perhaps it was with this in mind that the civilian leadership of the Pentagon sent too few troops. And yet, unbelievably, in defiance of all common sense (not to mention Occupation 101 at West Point) the Iraqi army was disbanded. Not enough troops and a failure to utilise the defeated forces can predictably lead to only one thing. Instability.

Says I, that was the whole point. It was certainly the whole point of Oded Yinon's plan for reducing the Arab countries of the Middle East to ungovernable civil war. Iraq wasn't to be liberated. It was to be smashed to pieces and made to stay that way. Afghanistan likewise. Stability was the last thing they wanted and anything suggesting otherwise was just more bullshit. The truth is that, for the dual-nationals running the Pentagon, the ideal outcome of the Iraq war would be if every single Iraqi died screaming. Or quietly starved to death. Or just drowned in their own shit. It's all good. Think Palestine.

And are we ready for a tiny step sideways? What if I said that these dual-nationals not only don't give a fuck about Iraqis, but they don't actually give a fuck about American troops either? Remember the Iran/Iraq war? I recall Time magazine crowing about how if both sides smashed themselves to pieces that that would be a beautiful thing. Extend that mindset to Iraq and substitute the US for Iran. Speaking of Iran, these same dual-nationals are hell-bent on having the US attack that country too. It can no more be taken and occupied than Iraq, of course. It can only be smashed to pieces. And if the US military is itself smashed to pieces in the process, it's all good! The more the better! Like the chickenhawk our-loyalty-lays-elsewhere civilians give a shit.

There will be no US draft. Certainly not while the US military golem is operating under Oded Yinon's plan. Increased numbers of troops in Iraq might just ensure stability. And that's bad. Draftees would also be the key for bringing the current enterprise, and any future ones, to a premature end. And that's bad. Fresh troops, via the draft, would also rest the current exhausted troops and possibly save the US military from complete degradation. And that's bad too. In this fucked up world, there's lots of things to worry about, but a draft ain't one of them.

A sudden thought strikes me -

The bankers who've sucked America dry for the last hundred years have finished with it. America's wealth had been replaced with debt. All the gold is gone. The marvel that was US manufacturing has been sent overseas. All that remains is the largest military force the world has ever seen. Honestly, how could they leave it intact? With but a small change to the top of the command structure pyramid, it could be sent in any direction the new leadership chose. It would be the only force that could threaten Israel. It's a threat that they'd have to remove. It stands to reason. What if I were to say that the current wars in the Middle East are less about smashing those country's militaries than they are about smashing the US's? What if the destruction of the US military (and NATO now that I think about it) was the whole point of the exercise? With Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran serving merely as the means to do it? Given that the masters of lies layer their lies to depths as deep as their ambition is high, it's a distinct possibility.