Hitler and the Big Lie - the magic trick explained

In Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler explained the Big Lie. Paraphrasing now - regular people tell lots of little lies and expect to hear little lies in turn: but the concept of a huge lie, a really monstrous lie, a lie bigger than Ben Hur (ha ha ha), is something so alien to regular punters that it's effectively beyond their ken, and thus they are unable to dismiss it as a falsehood. The logic is: it's unimaginable that anyone, or any group, would tell a lie that big, therefore it must be true.


It seems there's a curious logic going on here. Let's imagine Hitler as a magician - a magician who explains the trick before he does it. "Ladies and Gentlemen, for my next trick I shall perform the 'Floating Phantom'. In this trick I shall, with great flourish, drape a cloth over a black felt-covered steel frame that will be lowered in as my lovely assistant drops into the box you see here. The frame was always there but you couldn't see it what with the black curtains and dim lighting, and not forgetting me and my lovely assistant doing our best to distract you. I next proceed with a bit of hoop-la - with a hoop! - and then for the big finale, I shall whip the cloth off and, believe it or not, the frame will be right there in front of you! But since you expect the girl, and she's not there, and what is there is impossible to see, you will be 'delighted and amazed', ha ha! And now on with the show! Ladies and Gentlemen! For your delight and amazement I shall now perform the wondrous Floating Phantom!"

And there you have Hitler as the creator of the Big Lie - the mad, where's-the-sense-in-it magician who tells you how he's going to trick you. Absurdly, no one ever wonders at this. Yes, we get the concept of the Big Lie, and yes, Hitler told us about it. But why do we imagine that it's his gig he's talking about? How does that make sense? And what was his big lie exactly? In any discussion of Hitler and the Big Lie, madly, no one ever does the obvious thing and cites an example of one of Hitler's Big Lies.

Okay, why don't I do it for them? How about the burning of the Reichstag? This was a false-flag attack blamed on 'terrorists' for the purpose of implementing a fascist roll-out. Um... perhaps we ought not to mention that? Shades of 911, with the Reichstag fire looking like the runt of the litter. In fact, purely in terms of casualties, and desired outcome (the nuking of Cairo), even the attack on the USS Liberty has it beat hands down. Sure enough in any public discussion of the Big Lie, the Reichstag fire will not be cited. Perish the thought! God forbid we end up in a broad Big Lie discussion about a government faking a terror attack to trick the population into accepting a variation of totalitarian rule. Thus we may discuss the Reichstag fire as false, and we may discuss Hitler as the proponent of the Big Lie, but we may not connect the two. Hitler may only be discussed as the epitome of evil one step below satan and the thought of him as an also-ran may not be countenanced.


But let's stop beating around the bush - Hitler, sure enough, was not that impossible creature, the magician who ruined his own trick. Rather he was the mythbuster of his day exploding the technique of those other tricksters, the people who owned the banks, the media, and most of commerce; who declared war on Germany in 1933; who ran the weimar printing presses; who backed and otherwise comprised the Bolsheviks; for whom the opium wars were fought; who ran and then commodified the slave trade; who posited God as supplicant under their own talmud; and who were, way back when, the only people Jesus ever got angry with. In case anyone missed it, that would be the Jews and specifically the dozen families who control international banking.

That was then, this is now, and the more things change, the more they stay the same. The media, which is to say, the place where all public discussions take place, is still entirely in the hands of Jews. If anyone wants to argue this, take it up with the gleeful-to-the-point-of-intoxicated Joel Stein. (Poor old Joel! Imagine the size of the shut-the-fuck-up he'd have been on the receiving end of! Ha ha ha, suffer in your jocks, Joel!).

Along those bracketed lines, it should come as no surprise that any discussion about the Big Lie, by the people who were accused of it, should posit the accuser as its inventor and chief practitioner. It's blame-the-victim meets shoot-the-messenger. If you think about it, this irony-free circularity is pretty much inevitable. It's QED territory - as if anyone given to the Big Lie, and who lie like they breathe, is going to throw their hands up in the air and say, 'We confess, it's true!' Ha ha ha ha - an abject impossibility.

Hmmm... an interesting thought, that. Let me have a cig on the balcony whilst I think about it.

---

For me, everything comes down to the continuum of selfishness and selflessness. The people for whom the phrase the Big Lie was coined are upside-down paragons of selfishness - they're anti-Buddhas, the opposite of 'at one with the universe' who embrace utterly the collective mindset of 'us and them' with its individual expression of 'me uber alles'. Again, if you want to argue, include me out of any parlour games. Just go read the talmud.

Whilst the Big Lie is a thing worth discussing, obviously it's subordinate to this anti-Buddha mindset. Or to put it another way, given the mindset, and the degree of it, the Big Lie is inevitable. Keeping in mind that 'selfish behaviour' equals 'sin' (with 'selfless behaviour' equalling 'virtue'), a lie, whether small, medium, or big (or as they say in America - medium, large, and extra large, ha ha) is just another sin, one amongst many. For the anti-Buddhas at the furthest end of the continuum, all of their sins are 'Big', Lies included.

The problem with sins this great is that they cannot be walked away from. Sure enough, this is Shakespeare territory, specifically Macbeth:

By the worst means, the worst. For mine own good,
All causes shall give way: I am in blood
Stepp’d in so far that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o’er


Onya Bill! Like he said, as sins increase in magnitude, indeed to epic proportions, the sinner can no longer return to the embrace of those sinned against. Put mathematically, let's just call sin 'desire' (for the self) and plot it on an xy graph. As desire increases, 'fear' (of retribution) will inevitably climb in an identical fashion. Ha! Euclidean proof that Buddha was right in declaring fear and desire to be the same thing. Hats off to the Buddha and Euclid both.

Anyway, bare-headed now, let's just say that under this logic, the Big Lie can never be admitted, walked away from, or any other thing. Lies will follow lies, one on top of another, until an absurd unsustainable edifice is constructed that can only have one future - collapse. Hmm... it seems I'm in Les Visible territory here. Back to the specifics.

---

There's been more shit said about Hitler than any other man in history. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might have copped a lot of shit but he's got a long way to go to match the sins that have been concocted for Hitler. The bloc-media has perpetually depicted him as a villain whose only rival is Satan. BTW, I don't want anyone confused about me being an apologist for Hitler - best I can make out he was a crypto-gay paedophile racist, and probably a satanist to boot. Even on a purely technical realpolitik basis, Hitler is the guy to look to if you want a lesson in how to fail. (*And he was a vegetarian! This is ipso facto proof that vegetarians are clearly very wicked people. Hi John!)


But that being said, Hitler did a single extraordinary thing - he named and described the Big Lie. Has anyone else done this? Best I can see, everyone plays within the rules of the Big Lie parlour game, with no one ever calling a halt to things by simply naming the game. The game by the way is 'usury'. Even JFK, who followed Hitler in trying to retake control of his nation's money, did so in silence. What? Was he hoping the owners of the Fed wouldn't notice? Either way, he explained nothing and unsurprisingly no one has heard of executive order 11110.

Meanwhile on the telly, God knows how many discussions I've sat through with politicians pleading with the Reserve Bank not to raise rates, and never once have any of them wondered at its 'independence'. Likewise, the opposition will attack the government for getting into deficit by way of borrowing money from the Reserve, but never mention that the Reserve just pulled the money out of thin air. Even Ron Paul, the US's chief opponent of the Fed, will discuss inflation, the gold standard, all manner of things, but will never bag out usury as crap from the get-go. Not forgetting the left, where everyone from John Pilger to Naomi Klein will heap shit on the IMF and the World bank as wicked institutions but never wonder who owns them or whether the whole thing is a con.

And yes, I do get it that there are sundry other Big Lies entirely unconnected to banking, but for mine, none of them seem to be possessed of banking's ancient voodoo power. The central core to the banking Big Lie is the absurdly simple, and yet ultimately daft, idea that money is possessed of some kind of planet-like gravity and that merely by existing should attract more money as interest. For mine this is the heart of the matter stripped down to its rawest, most impenetrable kernel. From this flows everything else - fractional banking, reserve banking, monetary policy - and upon which such perfectly vicious entities as the IMF and the World Bank are then constructed.


Let's not forget that these other Big Lies are arguably connected to banking as well. Why did the world jewry declare war on Germany in 1933? 1933 was pre-Kristalnacht, pre-yellow stars, pre-Wannsee conference, pre-everything except Hitler's discussion of the Big Lie and his wresting of Germany's monetary policy from the Rothschilds and their very good friends. If we're prepared to acknowledge Judea's declaration of war on Germany, who but a fool wouldn't include follow-the-money in explaining it?

Following that, it's only a short step to viewing the current War On Terror in the same terms. We all know that the stories about Saudis and 911, Iran and nukes, the Taleban and opium, Pakistan and the Mumbai bombings, etc. etc. ad nauseam, are lies. And they're pretty big sure, but might they have something in common? A single, really Big Lie that explains all of them? Okay, how about the fact that all of these countries declare usury sinful and otherwise do not submit to a privately owned reserve banking system? It works for me.

Whatever you might think of Hitler, you'd have to admit that at the very least he did one worthy thing - he gave name to the Big Lie and explained the means by which it functions. But on this topic we can also fault him for not having explained clearly enough quite how big the Big Lie can be. Perhaps we can put that down to chaos theory (and its ideas on the infinite nature of scale) not having been invented yet? Regardless, in much the same way that 'big' is a concept that has no end, the Big Lie, under the auspices of its chief magicians, will always be greater than we who are used to little lies can imagine. Even as we shift our sense of scale and come to terms with the enormity of any given Big Lie, above it will be another.

Sure enough, the high priests of banking would have this seen as the ultimate voodoo spell, invested with numerological occult power. But this is arse-about. The fact that a Big Lie of this magnitude can be rendered hidden-profane-occult isn't proof of it's magical power. Quite the opposite, it's proof of its pathetic frailty - if it weren't hidden it would collapse in a screaming heap.


Back to our magician now - the easiest way to ruin his trick would be to turn the house lights on. 'Occult' means hidden - unhide what's hidden and the magic evaporates. Suddenly everything changes: the magician frozen on stage with a horrified expression on his face; the crowd's 'delight and amazement' gone like a puff of smoke; the whole tableau as un-magical as can be.

'Boo! Get Off!' says the crowd, as the well-deserved tomatoes fly.

I'll take the little Asian guy

Does the Queen go to the cinema? Fat chance! She's the Queen for chrissake. And when you're the Queen you know people, which is to say you have flunkies who know people, and they arrange for whatever film it is that tickles your fancy to be delivered to your palace for a private screening. Same same for presidents, popes, and any number of the rich and powerful. If you were given to such things, you could divide the world into two groups: those who go to the cinema or otherwise wait for the DVD; and those who have private screenings. Hmm... if you could develop a bio-weapon that killed only the latter group, you'd really be on to something wouldn't you? God save the Queen though! She's lovely!


Mind you, the people who wield true power in this world, ie. those who own the Reserve Banks, could go to the cinema if they wanted to. It's not as if they'd be recognised is it? Which is the whole idea, sure enough. When people start using words like 'lamp-posts' and 'dangling from', it pays to have no one know who you are, what you look like, or where you live. Assassination is only ever for figureheads and flunkies. The rain falls in many directions, but never 'up', if you know what I mean. Otherwise if you want to view their deliberate anonymity as an acknowledgement of their own wickedness, go right ahead.

So. Even though those in the twelve families could go to the cinema unrecognised, I doubt that they would. The price of hubristic self-adoration would require that you never mix with the hoi polloi. God forbid the self-impressed viewing others as human. But still, I don't doubt that those above us would listen to music, read books, and watch movies. Certainly they would have watched The Matrix. All of those arcane references, in jokes, and messages of homage are there for them. When someone says a film 'works on so many levels' they don't know the half of it. Those in the twelve families have their own level.


Speaking of levels, I wonder if our kings of hubris saw Stephen Chow's Kung Fu Hustle? Probably not. I suspect that they wouldn't have cared for it, what with its message that regardless of how powerful one is, there is always someone who can best you, and invariably from a direction least expected. In some ways, it's the anti-Matrix.

But never mind that, I'll bet the Rothschilds et al would have watched the Matrix and been only too chuffed to see themselves as the omniscient, omnipotent godhead with the rest of humanity deluded, powerless, and flailing about in their own filth. But that's the problem with hubris - it renders one susceptible to arrant flattery.

Whatever they tell themselves, or let themselves be told, the rulers of this world are nothing more than writ-large versions of those who worship their five senses, their stomachs, and their cocks and cunts. And as ugly as those last two words are, whatever utility they serve, they serve for those who rule also. Or to put it another way, these people shit, and their shit stinks. They're just anti-Buddhas and there's nothing special about that. In fact, it's the most obvious and prosaic choice anyone could make. And to be the greatest anti-Buddha is to render oneself the Lord of the Obvious. If the word 'sublime' is in their vocabulary it's only because they don't get it.


Regardless of The Matrix's assertion otherwise, the fact is that these lords of usury have not seen the turn of an age. They don't know what the Mayans knew. Oh alright, they've probably read up and know as much as anyone. But what's that worth exactly? Do we imagine that in any clash between the wisdom of true ancients and the usurers' self regard that the latter wouldn't trump the former? If they possess the wisdom of the Mayans in any way it's only because they stole it and beat it into some idiotic shape that served their own purposes.

The Matrix is better viewed in the context of Hollywood and the money men who funded it. Never mind the obvious bilking of cash from the gob-smacked masses - the subtext serves to flatter the powerful, and to fill the un-gob-smacked (that's us) with dismay. But both of them are worthless propositions that don't deserve our attention.

To hell with its message of the godhead's timeless omniscience and control - an age turns now and this will be a new gig for our jumped-up moneylenders. And frankly their desperation is apparent. Every day sees the lies getting ever more numerous and ever more pathetic. The number of people who get it is perpetually rising.

Clearly the families are approaching their 'crash or crash through' moment. And it's perfectly unsurprising that there are elaborately constructed elements of our culture (ahem, that would be films like The Matrix) that ignore the first half of this one-or-t'other choice. Sure enough. It stands to reason that their plans for world domination would necessarily have everyone convinced of the caper's inevitability. If we're convinced that it was always going to happen, then it probably will. God forbid that we, or even they, acknowledge that the whole thing coming a cropper is as likely as any other result. More so, if you think about it.

Okay so I'm in Les Visible territory here. Les asserts that a supernatural response is building up a head of steam and that a colossal arse-kicking is coming. He might be right. I expect that many of Les' readers don't actually believe in the supernatural. But that's only because they never thought about it. Let's just substitute the word 'supernature' for 'supernatural'. Anyone who's read James Gleick's Chaos Theory, or is otherwise familiar with it, (regardless of what kind of nihilist they are, ahem) would have to admit that with chaos theory we're in some spooky territory. It could fairly be described as the ghost in the machine.


Chaos theory's truth is that the universe is infinite. Beneath atomic structure lays infinite levels of ever decreasing 'smallness'. And above what we perceive of the universe is a flipside infinity of 'hugeness'. There is no end to this and it cannot be comprehended. Except by the Buddha, ha ha. (There! I knew I'd get him in somehow!)

This the 'above' and 'below'. And whatever terms you use to describe them it really doesn't matter. Between a god reaching down, and a butterfly making a thunderstorm, it's all the same thing - from the tiniest to the largest and back again. Who knows where things start and end? The butterfly for instance is only an approximation. It's not actually the start of anything. In a universe of infinite 'crinkliness' running in both directions, the butterfly is merely an image we can comprehend. It's just one point on the 'strange attractor'. The trail that led to the butterfly is infinitely long. Nothing started with it and clearly nothing ends there either.

And the same is true of the thunderstorm. That too is just another photo that our brains will understand. If you like, you could throw out the butterfly and instead start with the thunderstorm as the small thing that led to a far greater event of destruction or salvation. Sure enough, there's no knowing which. If you understand chaos theory you are only the tiniest step away from acknowledging Shiva as destroyer and creator. Call it whatever you like. Of view it as a concept - who cares. They're just different words to describe the same thing.


It's entirely unsurprisingly that chaos theory doesn't get a lot of press. Whilst it confirms everything told to us by the assorted priesthoods (of religion and money both), it also renders those same people as superfluous. It declares that any claims they make about possessing the truth are bullshit. The universe is infinite and unknowable. Anyone who declares that they have the ultimate answer is a liar. There can be no truth declared apart from the Buddha's bullet-proof dictum that the only certainty is change.

And below this is the undeniable fact that we, as humans, are not separate from the universe. We are one tiny part of the whole. To imagine, as anti-Buddhas do, that one is special, or above, or other, to that-which-is-not-oneself is patently false. Regardless of whatever blink-of-the-eye events have occurred before, the position is not tenable.

---

Um, okay, what? What are we meant to do with all this? Okay, maybe I can distil it into point form like some kind of powerpoint demonstration.

- Of course those who worship themselves would sell us their hype to make themselves appear invincible and to otherwise fill us with dismay.

- Hype is hype and they can stick it up their arse. There's no point listening to their lies unless it's to more closely study pathology.

- Fear is to be rejected. It serves no purpose and is otherwise a delusion.

- Microcosmic historical examples might be repeated but ultimately cannot define the macro. Indeed macros cannot truly be understood, never mind predicted.

- As ambition more nearly approaches the god-like, 'butterfly' frequency increases as does the likelihood that the outcome of crash or crash through will be crash. Not forgetting that the bigger they come the harder they fall

- Lying self-obsessed motherfuckers have nothing to offer. Between, 'the only certainty is change' and, the 'truth' of the self-serving, the latter is on a hiding to nothing.

- The Buddha, who cast off fear and desire and became one with the universe, was not unhappy. And between him, and those who'd have us live lives of fear and desire, I'll take the little Asian guy.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Here's an experiment you can try at home. Ask just about anyone what they know about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. If they've heard of it at all, it's unlikely that they'd know anything beyond the fact that it's a forgery. This invariably represents the sum total of anyone's knowledge on the subject. This struck me as curious. Can anyone think of any work wherein all we know about that work is that it's a forgery? Are you scratching your head? It seems that in this regard, the Protocols is perfectly unique.


Trespasses against Jewish people are perpetually portrayed in our media as the wickedest thing imaginable. Not forgetting our schools. Here in Oz, we're currently being harangued that the nation's kids aren't being taught enough about the Holocaust. Perhaps Australian kids don't watch TV? There, all things Nazi and Holocaust are pored over in great detail so that we might not miss even the smallest aspect of it. And yet of the Protocols we know nothing beyond its falsehood. Why has no one delved into this forgery so that we might better understand the wickedness of the false slurs it casts upon the Jewish people? Surely this would be as worthy of our attention (and our understanding of Jews as victims) as the endless documentaries about Nazis and their women, pets, haberdashers etc? Curiously, unlike every other crime against the Jews this one get no attention at all. Nothing.


For the sake of ambiguity I will concede that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a forgery. It's a curious forgery though. It's not a forgery like the time I forged a David Bowie concert ticket. The original ticket existed and I merely copied it (Sorry Mr. Bowie but we were poor and there was a particular girl I wanted to impress. I'm sure you understand). The Protocols is not that sort of forgery. The author's lateral means of slurring the Jews is to imagine himself as a member of a cabal intent on world domination. The 'forgery' is an entirely original work that has leapt fully armed from the forger's head. It's fraud lays in its positing of a mindset that doesn't exist, at least not in the minds of Jewish people. Or so we understand.


In reading the Protocols might we not ponder the mind of the forger? What of his outlined plan? Would it work? I defy anyone to not be profoundly impressed by the author's understanding of human affairs, politics and war. Nor by his embrace of a most singular inhumanity. His ability to imagine himself as the most perfect anti-Buddha the world will ever see, is extraordinary. I declare him a black genius nonpareil. Machiavelli ain't in it. Nor Sun Tzu.


Which is curious don't you think? People study and debate both of these aforementioned. They are considered touchstones in the subject of the governance of humans. And yet I doubt that there's a curriculum anywhere that includes the Protocols - except to dismiss it as a forgery, sure. But oughtn't that to add to it's singularity? The other two works, The Prince and The Art of War, were written by men who had ruled nation-states and fought and won wars. Had our forger? Who was this guy? Could he have been some general or head of state? How precisely did he write such an astounding work? By all rights, it should be the literary puzzle of the century. As a forgery that is. But it ain't.


It seems no one studies our forger or his work. Or do they? The Protocols is far too significant a work to be ignored. It's a perfectly workable plan for world domination and the enslavement of mankind. This is a big call sure. But I'm prepared to make it since I see our forger's dictums at play every day in what passes for news in what passes for the media. It's all right there. If you want to dispute this, feel free to read the Protocols and tell me I'm wrong. Good luck.


I will concede that it's possible that those who rule us are carrying out the Protocols' agendas without knowing anything about it. It's also possible to master the violin without ever hearing someone play it. But it's unlikely. To this weary observer it's clear that those who rule us have studied the Protocols and implemented them entirely. If anyone can read the Protocols and not come to the same conclusion I will eat my motorcycle.


Says I, if you haven't read this work, don't miss it. There is nothing quite like it. And it's on the net for free! Oh look, here it is. For those with short attention spans don't worry. It comes in perfect bite-sized stand-alone paras that probably add up to ten pages. Brevity aside, it is gruelling. But don't worry, you don't actually need to read it all. In fact, if you give up half way through take it as proof that you still possess a soul, ha ha.


Certainly you will never read a work that's more hateful. Over and over you will find everything that could be considered great about humanity viewed merely as a weakness for humanity's destruction. Never has the product of a human mind so lacked humanity. Everything that we think of as good in this world: art, music, literature, culture, fellow-feeling, compassion, and love, is absent here. The world of the Protocols, the world being made right now, is a world without joy - a world of shit.


But don't look away. Know the world you live in. Take a breath, steel yourself, and read it.

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?

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.