Monday, December 14, 2009

Carbon Trading? Free Money!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

The Global Warming Bride Stripped Bare

Non-Media Truth
The climate changes. It always has and always will.

Previous climate changes could not possibly have been caused by humans.

Media Truth
The climate is changing! There has never been anything like this before!

Current climate change could not possibly have been caused by anything but humans.

There's a expression to describe an argument of this nature and it is, an insult to my intelligence. And that goes double when the only 'solution' to the 'problem' is a centralised carbon tax regime administered by a New World Order.

Otherwise there's only two aspects to the argument:

The Weather

All discussions on the craziness of the weather are proof of nothing more than the fact that climate changes. Or to put it another way - The climate is as changeable as the weather, ha ha ha. Waitaminute! Am I the first guy to crack that joke? Seriously, sub-editors live to write shit like that. Hmm... interesting how not a single media soul has mentioned the irony of the very thing we use as a definition of changeability is somehow now a thing we imagine should never change. With this in mind (along with the sheer obviousness of it all) any argument for carbon tax that consists of stating how bizarre the weather is, is completely worthless.


There is only one question that counts: Is this current period of climate change truly different to every other period ie. with natural causes completely absent and humans being promoted to a status that would previously have been the very definition of hubris?
Given that previous climate change has been disappeared as have the natural causes that led to it,

Given that the people who declare that it's-humans-wot-dunnit have been caught flat out lying, have acknowledged that they're lying, and have discussed means of lying more effectively,

Given that these same people have been on the receiving end of staggering sums of money, promotions, Nobel prizes etc,

Given that the only solution on the table consists not of actually curtailing pollution so much as subjecting everyone to yet another contrived and convoluted means-of-exchange,

Given that this must necessarily be administered by the exact same geniuses who think it perfectly right that they receive world record bonuses in the middle of world record economic collapse (that they, sure enough, made),

Given that we're being stampeded into it like it was some kind of "Sponge-O-Matic! Three for the price of one! But only if you call now!" TV crap,

Given that the only reason that the lies-is-all-they-got death cult motherfuckers who rule us wouldn't do this is because they didn't think of it,

Given all these things... I'm going to call it! IT'S BULLSHIT! Of course they would do this! It's not like they've got anything better to do. A Rothschild can't spend every waking moment fucking kids and mind-control zombies, can he?

Frankly, the only reason to believe this latest New World Order shit is that old chestnut outlined by Hitler when he described the Big Lie. Say it with me now,

"There's no way this many people could lie about something this big."

Sure! That's how the Big Lie works! It's not like it's climatology rocket science or anything!

Monday, November 30, 2009

The Deluded Servants of Heartless Masters

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Monday, November 16, 2009

Jews, Satanists, and that wretched lesbian cabaret act

So! We have two completely separate groups of people, Jews and Illuminati Satanists each of whom seem to control the media but otherwise have nothing in common. So unalike are they that they can't even be put in the same sentence together.

Unless you want to listen to this woman. What is she on about? Human sacrifice? What? Completely mad obviously - quite right her story was disappeared. Doesn't she know that the Jewish people are international good guys promoting human rights and freedom from sexual repression etc. etc. and that we should all give thanks to them? Besides as everyone knows, Satanists are only ever Christians, or mad perversions thereof. Anyway, I only include her here in order to condemn her. Dreadful woman!

And this fellow! Good God! He's been thrashing about in a charnel pit and has absolutely covered himself in blood libels. A fig for the fact that he's Jewish. Or that he's a professor. Or that he wrote a scholarly book full of details, references, and footnotes, all explaining the role of human blood in Jewish ritual during medieval times. As if facts ever counted in an argument wherein one side was only ever going to scream !BLOOD LIBEL! over and over? Apparently those seeking to defend the good name of Jewish people got through to him and he made a retraction: yes, the Jewish people hated Christians and Christianity; yes, Jewish people used human blood for everything from quack remedies, to wine, to matzoh balls; and yes the blood had to be that of Christian boys under the age of seven and declared kosher by a rabbi; but no, no Christian boys were ever killed in order to obtain it - it all came from 'voluntary donations'. Whew!

Clearly, since no one ever volunteered to be the subject of a Satanist human sacrifice, and since, in the Jewish rituals, all those seven year olds boys volunteered to, um... 'not be sacrificed', then these two things bear absolutely no resemblance to each other. Bravo the Prof! Common sense rules the day. And whilst it was perfectly likely that in coming to this very sensible conclusion the Professor's life was threatened, clearly it was all in a good cause.

Never mind medieval times, let's jump a thousand odd years ahead of that. Blood sacrifice is right there in the Old Testament, which is to say the Torah. Does this mean anything? Says I: Absolutely Not. All of that ancient sacrifice was of every other variety of warm-blooded mammal except humans.* And since Satanists sacrifice everything plus humans, under the old rule of 'a miss being as good as a mile', we can declare these two things completely different. Hell! Let's call them polar opposites!

Besides which, that was then, this is now. Just because the Torah is full of blood sacrifice it doesn't mean anyone takes it literally (it's not as if it's the word of God or anything). Things change, words change, meanings change. 'Holocaust' used to be a Jewish sacrificial offering that was burnt on an altar. Now we put 'the' in front of it, capitalise it, and it means no such thing. Besides, if there was any occult connection between the Holocaust's original meaning and its latter day usage, they'd definitely tell us. After all the Holocaust is an event of such enormity that to even imagine altering it, embroidering it, or in anyway misrepresenting it goes against the very laws of nature. It's like sodomy - it's impossible and no one ever does it.

Where was I? Oh yes, that was then, this is now, and on the topic of human sacrifice God has probably changed his mind. What with the Talmud making it clear that Jehovah is a supplicant God who doesn't know what to think until the rabbis tell him, you'd have to wonder if there's any point in listening to him at all. Best we just ask his rabbi superiors. What's that they say? ..."a Jew should and must make a false oath when the goyim asks if our books contain anything against them." Ayah, so much for that idea! Here I am doing my absolute best to help these guys out and they just keep condemning themselves out of their own mouths! What's a fellow to do? Change tack, obviously!

Forget Jewish history. What about the other end of this discussion - Illuminati history? In amongst that curious topic is there any mention of the word 'Jewish' at all? For the sake of nuance-trashing oversimplification, let me boldly say 'No'. Here's a fellow who seems to be pretty au fait on the topic of the Illuminati. And here's a self-serving snippet (self-serving for me, that is) from one of his lengthy contributions to the Rigorous Intuition comments -

The basic story is that in 70 AD, when Titus was sacking Jerusalem various familial groups responsible for differing duties, generally connected with Temple obligations, gathered their items of diligence such as sacred oils, treasures, and hid them in caves in the Temple Mount and other areas of the country. These families comprised of members of the various priesthoods and royal lines then dispersed, many towards Europe, producing the “bluebloods.” According to Knight and Lomas, a familial secret society existed named Rex Deus that was revealed by a father to his chosen son, upon this son reaching the age of 21. This group emerged above-ground with the Crusades, supposedly in accordance with prophecies in Daniel and Isaiah.

Ah! Well there you are! The Illuminati is not Jewish because otherwise he'd have said so. Clearly if the people he were talking about were Jewish priests he'd hardly go to the effort of writing "various familial groups responsible for differing duties, generally connected with Temple obligations" would he? And besides, there'd be, I don't know... exclamation marks or something wouldn't there? Honestly, who could resist remarking upon it? Not me!

With all that in mind, anyone capable of wondering at things would have to ask: Between Joel Stein's all-powerful media Jews and Pseudo Occult Media's all powerful media Satanists, wouldn't it just be too-completely-nuts if they were somehow all the same crew, and differed only in terms of old-school versus parvenu? In the words of our rhetorically gifted Prime Minister K Rudd: 'Yes it would'.

Madness, Madness. Such thoughts may not be countenanced, and certainly not by me, ha ha. Instead we'll do the legal fiction tango. And since it takes two to tango, in a discussion of two separate blink-blink media entities, that tango wouldn't get very far if it was actually just one person dancing with themselves like some wretched lesbian cabaret act.

Thus we declare that the media is occupied by two entirely separate entities pursuing two entirely separate agendas. Dandy. But what are they after? Who are they talking to? What are they saying? What do they hope to achieve? Really - what's the goddamn point? Sure enough, I've maxed out this piece and will have to come back again.

*I forgot all about the 'Binding of Isaac' (binding, ha ha ha, God forbid we should call it 'human sacrifice'). Anyway, dead loss as a religion student, me. BTW it's worth having a look at that wikipedia entry if for no other reason than to watch the various rabbis turning themselves into human pretzels in order to avoid coming to the logical conclusion, ie. that Jews performed human sacrifice, and of their own children no less.

Monday, November 2, 2009

Blink, and Blink Again

There's two kinds of people in the world. Those who split the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't. My advice: if you ever meet one of the former, run a mile! They're dreadful people!

But since we've started let's keep going. Sure enough we've all split - we split from the MSM as well as from all those incurious people who think its message is worth listening to (which is to say, everyone we know). Here on the net we found everything that had been withheld from us by the bloc-media and we no longer wish to listen to its shit. And thus we find ourselves coming under some new heading. Here's an opportunity - why don't I come up with a catchy new media-friendly name, à la Gen X and Gen Y? Hmm... how about Gen Tell Folk? Ha ha ha. There's no age limit on that by the way.

Idiocy aside, categorisations are never that simple. Here on the net, as elsewhere, things divide and divide again. Let's forget for the moment the false alternative sites like truthout, democratic underground, and daily kos etc. I guess it's possible for people to arrive at these sites and never progress, but for all of us here they were merely way stations on the journey to, um... for the purpose of the exercise let's call it Truthland™ (the unlikeliest kingdom of them all!).

But perversely, it seems that there are two Truthlands and you have to pick one or t'other. It's not difficult of course - a blink and you're there, or... a blink and you're there. Same same different. The only rule is: you can't be in both places at the same time.

Sure enough, I'm talking about the split between the either/or mindsets of ''s the Jews' and ''s the Illuminati'. And yes, I know the expression 'illuminati' is not very useful, but between that and typing out 'satanist paedophile masonic scientology CIA mind-control motherfuckers, one of them is elegant and one ain't. And as I always say, 'Inelegance? Fuck that!'

Thus if you want to blink and read about Jews, you go to whatreallyhappened, and there it's all laid out: the holocaust, USS Liberty, the Fed, AIPAC, fake anti-Semitism, Israel and Palestine, all of it. And hats off to Mike Rivero: on all things Jewish he does a sterling job. But what you won't find on WRH are any satanists, or paedophiles (apart from the catholic clergy), or (perish the thought) mind-control zombies. If Mike does discuss them it's only to tell you that there's no such thing.

Fine - blink again and find yourself at, say, Pseudo Occult Media. This is a fine site and definitely worth visiting, but it should be said that in terms of world-view it has a rather long lens focused on a rather narrow subject area. The gig is straightforward - a search for illuminati clues in the media by way of a simple checklist: butterflies, check; mirrors, check; all-seeing eye, check; checkerboard floor, check. And on and on: frankly it's relentless, but it's neither more nor less relentless than the mind-control crowd who put it there to begin with. After a while you just have to surrender and ask the question, 'Is there anyone in fashion, pop, hell the whole damn entertainment industry who isn't a zombie or a controller?' Oh, and that Zoolander flick? A documentary! Who knew?

What you won't find at Pseudo Occult Media is the word Jewish. In a long discussion that's about nothing if not the media, somehow the people who own that media are never mentioned. Perhaps none of them know that this is going on? Perhaps the satanists are doing all this right under their noses with them entirely unaware? Or perhaps they were just too busy with their own checklist: Arab villains, check; Jewish victim/heroes, check; a relentless tide of smut, violence, and racism, check, check, check.

It's almost like visiting a house occupied by two families each of whom acts like the other doesn't exist. And we the visitors do the same: Blink - we're there to see the Rothschilds, and we know it's their house because of the unmissable menorah (we pay no attention to the pentacle bedaubed altar it's standing on); or Blink - we're there to see the Kidd-di Buggerer's ("It's pronounced dee-BOO-zheray, actually"), and it's obviously their house since we can hear the screams of the children downstairs (behind that door which has a star of david on it for some reason).

But seriously, this blinking between only one or only the other is mad. Overcooking and really ruining the house-visit metaphor now - Blink! Blink! - It's the Menendez home and we're the cops called to investigate the shotgun murder of the parents. But let's re-imagine their defence strategy - the two point at each other and say, 'It wasn't me, it was him!'. And idiotically we fall for it! Real cops would never fall for such obvious shit, but we, the Gen Tell Folk, do precisely that. We split into two flat-foot camps each sticking up for one of the brothers, and each flinging shit at the other. And since both boys were Jewish (natch) both camps get to fling around accusations of anti-Semitism. Excellent! (In the real Menendez murders the two boys blamed the victims. I don't recall them asking for mercy on account of being orphans but would that surprise anyone?)

Leaving behind the metaphor now, could it be any more obvious? WRH's wicked Jews and POM's wicked satanists are both in it together. Thick as thieves? Thick as media moguls more like. Each is perfectly aware of what the other is doing and each is completely cool with it. Oh, and never mind the low-level, expendable pawns - what the hell would they know? The only question is: which of our media parties wears the trousers? Okay, perhaps this is a bit of a yawn given that I've covered this before, but I want to come at it again albeit from the other direction. And it's all thanks to Jeff Wells' extraordinary Rigorous Intuition. Back soon with the follow-up.

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Lighting the Moondoggie

This started as a comment for Penny's blog but quickly sprawled into something too big for there. And too big for here too, ha ha. Still here it is -

Hey Pen,

Just back from six pages of Dave's Moondoggie. First up I gotta say I'm with him in toto. That is, I (and my little dog too!) agree with him that the Apollo missions were bullshit. Humans have never been to the moon and I expect he's right in saying that they never will.

But a couple of his arguments are bullshit and I reckon he'd be better off dropping them. Which is to say, on the subject of shadows, ambient light, and second light sources, he's completely wrong. He declares he knows a lot about photography, but regretfully I'm going to have to trump him with my ten years in 3D. A 3D heavy will understand light to a degree way beyond any photographer. Sorry if that puts any photographers' noses out of joint but it's the cold hard truth.

As an example, I'll ask the question - has anyone got a glass of water with them right now? If you don't, go get one. Now put the glass on the table. Now pick it up. Now put it down. Repeat this a few times and watch the play of light and shadow on the table. In amongst this is refraction, reflection, and shadow. Sure enough, a photographer can play with this: he can have more or less; he can light it from different angles; he can add mood: dramatic, gentle, whatever - and then he shoots it and bills the agency $5000. Lucky him.

What he does not have to do is figure out how to make the light do that thing. The effect as such, is pretty much done for him. In 3D nothing is done for you. If I want those pretty 'caustics' in my glass of water scene, I have to make them myself. Subsequently it is the lot of the 3D operator to spend a great deal of time contemplating the nature of light and how it is passed from object to object. If I don't tell the assorted objects within my scene how I want them to do this, then they ain't gunna - it's as simple as that. There is no default 'just-do-whatever-nature-does' setting. Instead there is 'incandescence', 'diffuse', 'specular roll-off', 'eccentricity', and an endless array of jargonistic concepts that are the lot of someone who has to define the laws of physics for every single shot.

Hmm... it's like re-inventing the wheel every time, except we also have to re-invent the earth, and then explain to both the earth and wheel the existence of the other, and how they should view that. Welcome to 3D.


Now - the behaviour of light: Dave declares that light can only reflect back to where it came from. Oh dear - wrong answer. It is the nature of light that when it hits an object (regardless of what direction it comes from) the light then bounces in all directions. If it didn't we wouldn't see anything. If you see a thing it's because the light that has struck it (from the sun, say) has bounced into your eye. Whilst the light from the sun is effectively parallel, it does not likewise reflect in a single direction, ie. into your eye and your eye alone. It bounces in an infinite number of directions, and thus into everyone's eye. That's why 50,000 people can sit in a cricket ground and regardless of whether the sun is behind them, or in front of them, or wherever, they can all see the action in the middle of the field.

Clearly this reflected light does not go into our eye as some kind of go-nowhere-else one-way trip. Light is a 'lady of easy virtue' that will bounce around and around. Thus the people in the cheap seats on the hill who are in direct sunlight can still see the lah-di-dah sorts in the member's stand who are in shadow. They are lit by ambient light - the light that has bounced into them from the ground, the other stands, and yes, the atmosphere in the sky.

Now, before anyone pipes up with how the moon doesn't have any atmosphere, let me cut you off and say you've grasped the wrong end of the stick. Whilst atmosphere, or more precisely clouds, can produce soft, multidirectional light, in no way is this the be-all-and-end-all of ambient light. A photographer who knows the difference between the hard light that strikes a person on a sunny day and the soft ambient light that strikes them on a cloudy day, and thinks that 'cloud equals ambient' needs to think again. Ambient light is merely light that comes from all directions instead of one. Clouds make this happen, sure, but so do lots of things. When clouds intercede between the sun and the object being lit, the light passes through the clouds and loses its hard parallel nature. The clouds are now the light source and the light it puts out bounces around in every goddamn direction and is thus reduced, diffuse, and 'ambient'.

But the fact is, we don't need clouds to do this. Let's go into deep space, way beyond the moon, way beyond anything. It's just me and my camera and a white volleyball (um, which I've filled with black sticky rice and egg custard to, a) stop it exploding with differential pressure, and b) give me a delish last meal before I die of the radiation). Anyway, under Dave's photographer-logic of atmosphere-equals-ambient, the ball will be dazzling on the side lit by the sun and in perfect darkness on the side not lit. Or it would be if I wasn't floating next to it. Bugger! It seems like the light bounces off me and acts as a 'fill'. Sure enough, my white space-suit acts as a variety of mirror that reflects light back at the volleyball. In precisely the same way that light strikes the ball and bounces in all directions (one of which is into my eye), the light will also strike me and my white space-suit, and bounce in all directions (one of which is into the volleyball). The Dark Side of the Volleyball will be lit, and atmosphere ain't got nothin' to do with it. (Nor Pink Floyd, ha ha).

I will reflect light into the ball and the ball will reflect light into me. This would be vaguely directional sure, rather than truly ambient, but... if we had enough astronauts and enough volleyballs, and all floating in the middle of nowhere like some mad, drug-fuelled outer space sticky rice and egg custard wig-out... deep breath... in the centre of that would be true ambient light bounced in from all directions. And all without atmosphere.

And so! There we are on the moon, and we're shooting the other astronaut who happens to be standing in complete shadow. Beyond him in the background we can see the surface of the moon. Which is to say, direct light is striking it and bouncing in every direction, one of which is into our eye. If we see it, it must be so. Okay, and since it's bouncing in every direction it must bounce at him also. And of course, from him this weakened light must likewise bounce in all directions, one of which will be into our eye. It cannot be any other way. And yes, there is no atmosphere but it doesn't make any difference. Light does not need atmosphere to bounce around and behave in an ambient fashion.

With the surface of the moon acting as an ambient light generator, a matt black object will bounce (reflect, same-same) very little ambient light back at us, but a white object will reflect quite a lot. And of course a fully reflective metallic foil object will bounce nearly all of it back at us. And sure enough, it's all right there in the photo just as it should be. And whether we're on the moon, in the studio, whatever, it doesn't make any difference. The ambience is no proof of anything one way or t'other.


And then there's the shadows, particularly those in the photo of the two landing pads on the 'lunar' surface. I'll happily concede that it isn't the lunar surface, and is in all likelihood cement dust sprinkled on the floor of the Lookout Mountain Studio in Laurel Canyon. But what I will absolutely not concede is that there are two light sources in this picture. Believe it or not, there is only a single light source and all the shadows accord with it. As head of 3D my job was precisely to look for errors of this nature and this picture hasn't got any. The foreground grey stick is square to us and about twenty degrees from the ground. The background leg is not quite square to us and maybe 75 degrees to the ground. Their shadows, along with those of the bumps in the extreme foreground are exactly right for a single light source, camera-right, and elevated at approximately 45 degrees.

I swear to God - professional reputation, the whole thing - this photo is halal. Without a shadow of a doubt (ha ha), I could build this scene in 3D and prove it utterly. It'd be the big don't-argue from hell. But to be honest, I couldn't be fagged. And besides what would I be proving? That the guys who faked these photos were smart enough to do the sensible and obvious thing and use a single light source? Shake my head - what a waste of time...

Besides that, if there were two light sources, we'd see one of two things: a) some of the objects would be lit from two directions and cast two shadows; or b) with the foreground objects and the background objects having each their own separate hard lighting, between them in the mid-ground there would be either a double lit area or a band of shadow - pick one. Blending two lights in this fashion is murderously difficult. I've tried to do it and it's a fool's errand. No one would waste their time.

And besides, take a look at this shot - what's the fucking point? Two landing pads occupying a small area of ground? Big deal. It's hardly a hero shot, and it could easily be lit by one light source, and so... why wouldn't you? Why bother with two lights? Sure enough, it is lit by a single light source. Me, I haven't got any kids but I'd be perfectly happy to swear on the lives of someone else's. Or is that too ghoulish? Hell, just take my word for it.

Oh! I tell you what - if anyone feels really confident on this shadow caper, like really, really confident, like 50oz of gold confident (all the money I have in the world), and wants to put their money where their mouth is, I'll take that bet! I'll dig up my 3D Maya license, clock up a day's labour, and Baby, I'm a Rich Man, Yeah!


Mind you, I wouldn't feel good about taking that money. I'm not that cruel and besides, in the big discussion I agree with Dave. Previously I'd never had much time for the Apollo Hoax crowd and that was mostly due to the chronic nature of the wrong-shadow/ambient-light argument. Happily Dave attacked the whole Apollo question in his usual brilliant holistic fashion and I'm now on board. But as I progressed through his moondoggie piece, the head of steam that had built up (of the 'Go Dave Go!' variety) all came to a grinding halt once the dreary specifics of the lighting kicked in. Bugger! We were rocking and rolling and now it's all fallen flat!

Dave! Ditch those two photes mate! They ain't doing you any favours!

Monday, October 12, 2009

Obama Obama Obama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

The Gods, Les Visible, and Pascal's Wager

What's a bloke to do? Here I am with a desktop overflowing with unfinished pieces - 'World Death Organisation', 'Satanism and the Self', 'Bonuses for the Most Expensive Fuckwits in History', 'The Daily Global Fear and Desire Index' etc. etc. - and all of them knocked back.

I knocked them back because... who gives a shit? Or to put it another way, we're at the town meeting, called because a thirty metre tsunami is due in an hour, and a voice pipes up asking what the council's going to do about the cracks in the footpath that the tremor caused. And the guy's got a point: the cracks are so bad that you could fall and break your hip. But in the face of the tsunami... who gives a shit?

Actually that's just our little world. Truth is, back in the real world everyone is rolling their eyes, catcalling, and otherwise laughing their heads off. Broken footpaths, the collapsed bus shelter, and what-about-the-insurance, is all they want to talk about - and who is this dickhead blathering about a tsunami? What tsunami? Doesn't he watch the news that guy? Sheesh! If there was a tsunami, they'd tell us. The worst is over - they said so on the news!

Yeah well, we'll leave them to it. We're having a whole other conversation, and there, between 30m waves; and bits and pieces of broken infrastructure, one of them is a topic worth discussing and the other is a mere series of clues pointing to it. Can you dig it?


Still, a little nagging voice says that maybe it won't be so. What with the death cult following the Fabian creed of gradualism, perhaps there won't be a tsunami at all - just more run-of-the-mill rollers wearing away, wearing away. Dig it - it's the condemned man keeping his fingers crossed that he won't go before the firing squad and will instead be sentenced to hard sodomy for the term of his natural life. "Oh thank God, it's only daily rape." Whew!

But really, as if the death cult would be so rigidly doctrinaire. If gradualism suits, they'll use it. And if a world war is what's required, then dandy, cue the fire bombing. Or whatever! - they're nothing if not versatile. As if the people who control our education, media, and government are going to leave any bases uncovered or otherwise resile from anything because, well, "That's just going too far..." Besides, there's just too much now and it's there for anyone with an ounce of curiosity to see.

Just to be precise, I figure we're in for an unholy trinity - Economic Collapse: 426 trillion imaginary dollars. Never mind the 'recovery' - is everyone familiar with a 'head and shoulders' curve? Okay, so we're at the shoulder and now comes the long drop, all the way down. Cue the, um... 'Great Recession' is it? Ha ha ha. I guess that's like a Great Depression but with more hype. And more deaths - six million in the US alone last time around. Global Pandemic: A fake virus treated with a vaccine that's no such thing. Will this be the greatest act of mass murder in history? Sure, why not? The CFR/Bilderberger mob has already declared that five billion dead would be just dandy. World War: Iraq, Afghanistan, even the coming smashing of Iran - all sideshows. The big game? Russia v Nato. And are Ladbrokes offering odds on Israel nuking someone? If evens is the best you can get, it'd be worth laying a hundred bucks on.

Any one of these would qualify as an event of unparalleled wickedness. And we're going to get three! Yay - fans of history, rejoice! And sure enough we, who ordinarily prefer history at a bit of a remove, ask the question - What's to be done?


Well, we must oppose it! Fight Fight Fight! Well... there will be fighting and no mistake. We'll meet the enemy and he'll be us - the streets will run with blood and the death cult (looking down from their corporate boxes) will roar with laughter. Who said there's East and there's West and never the twain shall meet? He didn't own an Armalite obviously. East/West - North/South - Muslim/Christian - white/coloured - rich/poor - military/civilian - It's time to do the us-and-them cha-cha, and all to a rat-a-tat beat. Buddha was bullshit and his so-called "middle way" nothing more than an excuse for Hegelians to smash two opposites together. Bring on the Revolution! And cue the impossible voice-over guy - "This revolution has been proudly brought to you by International Banking."

If people want to pile in on that, good luck to them. I'm sure the death cult won't have seen them coming. Meanwhile where I live, in this cardboard cut-out town, in a cardboard cut-out state, in a cardboard cut-out country - with Rupert Murdoch in charge of the paper, scissors, and Perkin's paste - ain't nothin' gonna happen. Between the bang and the whimper (with no third option), it'll be "A whimper for me please. And how much is that? Ten trillion dollars? Um... okay, just one then, and not so big thanks." What nice manners we have, even for our rapists.


"Hey nobody, what's that in the title, about Les and Pascal having a bet or something?" Oh yes, I do thank that imagined fellow for reminding me. It seems that in setting the mood in the first couple of paras, I've done my usual trick and written a thousand words already. But rather than quit and come back, I'll just plough on.

I have Les pegged as today's Hunter S. All he lacks is an editor to sort out his possessives, contractions, and plurals, ha ha. Sorry Les! (He also lacks Thompson's uncannily accurate descriptions of the paedophocracy, which until Jeff Wells laid them out, I'd always taken as a variety of metaphor. Those stories about Thompson? Well, if Operation Mockingbird and Laurel Canyon got funky together, and the result was a natural child, what would that offspring look like?)

The above is not me dropping any dark hints about Les. I have as good an ear for falsity as anyone, and I've yet to hear Les strike a false note. There are real people in this world and Les is one of them. Or to put it another way - I wouldn't bother discussing Les if I thought he was bullshit, or insubstantial, or any other epithet. I come here not to bury Les, but to praise him (backhanded, of course...)


That being said, let's carry on - the point of the exercise here is merely a continuation of me turning Les' discussions of the coming tsunami in deus ex machina terms around in my head and wondering at them from different angles. And that's when Renaissance man, Blaise Pascal, stuck his tuppence in. Primarily Pascal was a mathematician who, amongst other things, built one of the world's first calculating machines, invented the science of hydraulics (and the syringe specifically), and was otherwise the founder of the modern theory of probability.

As if that wasn't enough, he was also a religious philosopher who spent the whole latter half of his life cloistered in the Jansenist convent of Port Royal. Cloistered or no, he never forgot the libertine friends he'd made during his 'worldly period', and with them in mind (and as you might expect from a mathematical expert in probabilities) Pascal sought to appeal to their scepticism by way of a simple bet with what's now known as Pascal's Wager. Here's Encyclopaedia Brittanica -

Pascal assumed, in disagreement with Thomas Aquinas but in agreement with much modern thinking, that divine existence can neither be proved nor disproved; and he reasoned that if one decides to believe in God and to act on this basis, one gains eternal life if right but loses little if wrong, whereas if one decides not to believe, one gains little if right but may lose eternal life if wrong. In these circumstances, he concluded, the rational course is to believe.

It's hard to believe I know, but I'm not the only fellow who turns things around and comes at them from different angles. Brittanica again -

The argument has been criticized theologically for presupposing an unacceptable image of God as rewarding such calculating worship and also on the philosophical ground that it is too permissive in that it could justify belief in the claims, however fantastic, of any person or group who threatened nonbelievers with damnation or other dangerous consequences.

Good point. But you've got to love this - " could justify belief in the claims, however fantastic, of any person or group who threatened nonbelievers with damnation or other dangerous consequences." Ha ha ha, that sounds like every religion ever invented doesn't it? It certainly sounds like the Christian church.

Unsurprisingly, with Pascal effectively an adherent of a Jewish sect (er... that would be Christianity), the whole discussion is one of what's-in-it-for-me, driven by the twin carrot-and-stick prospects of the fear of damnation versus the promise of a glorious eternity. And me, I have to ask the question: What sort of insecure God is this?

If a fellow was an incarnation of Francis of Assisi (say), leading a life of perfect virtue devoted to the well-being of all living things, would Pascal's God get angry with him if he didn't know who He was? Absolutely! The Christian God (besides being a slavish adherent to the old bullshit maxim of 'ignorance of the law is no excuse') is a jealous one who visits the iniquity of the father upon his children to the fourth generation merely for failing to acknowledge him. Jesus Christ! As if a God who's every kind of 'omni' wouldn't be above such petty concerns? Where's the serenity?

Bugger it. Why don't we turn Pascal's wager on its head - and plug it into Les' deus ex machina while we're at it? And so: given that Les' manifestations of supernature are not insecure and do not demand we tip our hat every time we sneeze; given that a shit-storm tsunami to end all shit-storm tsunamis is definitely coming, and if anything was ever going to warrant a deus ex machina response, this is it; given the rightness of Epictetus' discussions of 'what is in our power' (thanx Kikx), with stopping a tsunami not being one of them; and not forgetting yours truly being a Buddhist of his own description, attempting to embody the right end of the continuum (at the top of the page), we arrive at the following 'thus' -

Supernature or no, if one sheds fear and desire, and acts with reverence for all things as if they were possessed of supernature, if right, one gains all that might be hoped for, but loses little if wrong, whereas if one embraces fear and desire, and effectively reveres the self, if right, one gains little beyond the ephemeral, but if wrong... "Hey, the ocean's just gone out. Let's go down and look."

Thursday, October 1, 2009

A Farewell to Aergia

Not that she gives a shit, but I've been a devotee of the goddess of idleness, Aergia, for many years now. Was there ever a goddess more demanding? Kali perhaps, ha ha ha. Aergia of course is the un-Kali. The only death Aergia ever demanded was that of one's sense of duty (to any but herself, that is). The inscription over the door of her temple reads 'Abandon all ambition, Ye who enter here.' Not that that ever deterred those whose heads echoed with her siren song. Here lay a refuge from that world of care, stress, and anxiety.

Genocidal man-made pandemics? Contrived global economic collapse? World War and a fascistic one-world government? Ha! Nothing more than shifting transient patterns in the golden brown smoke of the temple incense. I lie back and with red-rimmed eyes observe the hypnotic sinuous shapes as they lead me down assorted trails, and all of them to somewhere balmy and untroubled.

Geez, is that enough of that? "Stop the metaphor, I want to get off!" Okay, I admit it - I'm actually talking about marijuana. God, the marvellous times I've had smoking grass and the brilliant people I've met - I wouldn't swap it for anything. But. For every reason I might offer as to why dope is good, the obvious falsity of the argument becomes ever clearer the longer one persists: all drugs obey the law of diminishing returns.

Biochemical inevitabilities are one thing and Les Visible is another, ha ha. I have no idea what percentage of the people who visit here read Les as well. There was a time when my entire readership (all ten of 'em, ha ha) was actually Les', lured sideways from his temporal blog, Smoking Mirrors (where I spent all my time hanging out). For those who don't read him, you should - he's a hell of a writer. However, somewhere along the line I found myself being more and more taken with his spiritual blog, Visible Origami. I don't know if this is a personal irony but it's at the origami blog that Les holds up a mirror in which my hypocrisies are cast in stark relief.

In the origami mirror I see a fellow extolling the virtues of selflessness in one breath, and... dragging on a scoob with the next, ha ha. Cue the descent into self-indulgence! Never mind me cleverly dispensing with everything in the Reckitt-Benckiser/Colgate-Palmolive aisle of the supermarket: for every dollar I didn't spend there, I'd spend two in the Cadbury's chocolate and Arnott's biscuit aisle. Pathetic.

I'll concede that that's not so very dreadful really - penny-ante stuff - but that's not the point. Les' words of advice over at Origami are not those of an allopathic doctor discussing a minor symptom in isolation. Les' ain't that guy. His view is holistic and addresses what ails us in the widest terms imaginable. And I'm so there!

Ha ha ha ha... fucking hypocrite! I'm not there at all, nor anywhere close.

Truth is, I'm a fucking mess - cigarettes, coffee, and grass rule my life. Without I shed these, I'm going nowhere. Whatever I want to achieve, or to become, all is subordinated to the fact that I have to have a cigarette every forty minutes or so. Subsequently, there's nothing for it but to bid them farewell and the one which must go first is also the easiest - marijuana. And what with Aergia being such a sexy goddess I thought the least she deserved was a big send-off. Frankly a quarter of an ounce of the sacrificial incense would have sufficed but as it turned out I ended up with an entire ounce of organic North Coast hippy buds. Ayah! I've encountered a few heroic dope smokers in my time and after this brook-no-resistance effort, I declare myself one of them, ha ha. (BTW - Did anyone suss me out? The six pieces preceding the last one were all written stoned. It was obvious if you think about it).

Me and the goddess aside, here we are, each of us on our own journey. And we know full well that this trip ain't going to be any kind of business-class as usual - no comfy seats, no free glass of champagne, no forty kilos of luggage. Never mind economy, in case you missed it, we never got on the plane! We remain the ant-like nobodies ten clicks below, doing the whole thing on foot. And down here, it's travel light or forget about it.

And me? I haven't even started, ha ha. Hell, I'm still ditching suitcases! God knows how many I've tossed so far. But I'm getting somewhere and I've only a few left to go. And then, whatever's coming, I'll be as prepared as I can be.

Not forgetting of course that this runs in both directions. There's us and where we wish to go, and there's the death cult with their own fucked up thoughts on the matter. In terms of the relationship between these two things, Les gets it, and the people in his comment section rudely demanding some kind of battle plan, don't. Anyone expecting some variety of Iwo Jima flag-raising over a pile of Savile Row clad corpses is going to be disappointed. Not forgetting the falsity of the original event anyway...

Hold that image of victory in your head if you want to, but you'll merely be that monkey who won't let go of the banana in the trap. T'ain't nothin' can be done for that monkey without he lets go. Okay, so time to let go.

Seeya Aergia, it was fun while it lasted mate.