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 - "...it 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."

Two Disinfo Programmes Compared

Lately I've been ploughing my way through Jeff Wells' Rigorous Intuition. Like Dave McGowan, he's another of those writers that reminds me of me but without the wank-value. He has that brilliant knack of being able to write a piece without mentioning himself in the first para every time. I don't know about you but when a writer does this I take it as a sign of obvious hackery and find something better to read. The links to some superior writers are just there on the right of this page, ha ha.


And there I was reading Wells' interview with Jackie McGauley, one of the McMartin parents (part two here), when I noticed a curious thing in the comments. Lo and behold, there was a spookily precise reprise of the stoush I had with a fellow called StevieB over at Xymphora's. When I say 'fellow' what I really mean is 'paedophocracy disinfo spook'. It's almost as if StevieB and rigint's anon were reading from the same playbook. Here are the tactics loosely summarised (and yeah, I covered this before but I think it's worth repeating) -

- express curiosity for the subject and admiration for the author
- establish credibility by conceding various limited hangout points
- declare yourself off to check out the topic du jour via a bit of research
- return declaring that you looked into and found out it was all bullshit
- employ a straw-man technique of zeroing in on a single aspect of a single scandal
- ignore all evidence of this scandal's repetition elsewhere or anything that points to a bigger picture
- refer anyone who's interested to the website of the IPT where the aforementioned straw-man is destroyed
- use tag-team partners to give the appearance of consensus
- liberally sprinkle your discourse with various buzzwords: 'hysteria', 'witch-hunt', 'overzealous', 'hoax', 'debunked', 'credulous', 'paranoid', etc. etc.
- and sure enough, blame the victims and those attempting to assist them

Going back slightly, when I said just now that it was 'almost as if' they were reading from the same playbook, to be honest I was just being coy. It's my considered opinion that there is precisely a playbook. Given the size of the CIA's mind control/paedophocracy programme: with its dual bullshit 'foundations' (the False Memory Syndrome Foundation and the Institute of Psychological Therapy), both designed for no other purpose than to discredit victims; with the effort involved in both setting up 'the Finders' and shutting down the investigation into it; with the spectacular scale of the Presidio/West Point scandal with its untouchable superstar Col. Michael Aquino ...actually, to hell with listing all this shit - there's waaay too much of it and I've covered it already.


Lightbulb! I just remembered: in the aforementioned Finders bust, US Customs Service Special Agent Ramon J. Martinez, reported finding procedural handbooks detailing how to infiltrate child-minding centres and how to traffic children whilst avoiding police attention. So there you have it: 'procedural handbooks'.

Procedural handbook, playbook: let's just say, of course there'll be a dedicated disinfo programme, and of course there'll be a document detailing specific cointelpro techniques. And as sure as eggs is eggs, within that document there'll be a section dealing variously with MSM media discussions, dedicated forums and bulletin boards, and last (and probably least) blogs and bloggers. Further, these motherfuckers ain't amateurs, nor few in number. There's tons of them. If you're on a site discussing the topic (keeping in mind that the site could well have been founded by them to begin with), it'll be odds-on that more than one of the participants will be a paedophocracy disinfo spook. For those participating, keep the above list in mind and keep a weather eye out.

Back to Jeff Wells now - he, along with his commenters (what with possessing a sense of decorum) argued the case fairly politely. I've already discussed the 'value' of decorum here. Whilst that particular piece was about Zionists, it's not as if the paedophocracy is somehow more deserving. But I have to ask - what sort of discussion is it (pivoting on the scale of the paedophocracy) that fails to consider the inevitability of members of the self-same paedophocracy turning up to heap shit on the whole thing? Imagine being at a town hall meeting discussing kids drag racing in Main Street and thinking nothing of a bunch of kids who've turned up and are declaring that it isn't a problem.


Speaking of Zionists, let's compare. We all know about Israel's hasbara effort don't we? And we're familiar with Megaphone yeah? (Not forgetting of course that the American Nazi bigwig Bill White is a Megaphone user, ha ha). But forget him, just riddle me this - How come Israel's disinfo efforts are widely discussed on the net -so much so that any one of us can spot a Zionist shill from a hundred metres and go pit-bull on them without even blinking- and yet the Paedophocracy's easily-as-big cointelpro efforts go completely unacknowledged? Can you dig it? If the Jews are so powerful, why do they seem unable to duck the limelight? Indeed (within the metaphor now) it seems their efforts to wrest control of the spotlight is lit up with another spotlight.

Before anyone jumps up and imagines I'm giving the owners of the Reserve Banks along with their handmaiden bloc-media a pass, let's ask another question. In this world of either/or with its arguments about Zionist/Jewish banking control versus Vatican/illuminati/ masonic/paedophocracy control, how come the Jews, via their bloc-media, don't kill their non-Jewish opponents stone-cold dead with an uncovering of the paedophocracy in all its sick, twisted glory? There's no need to wonder what this would look like since we've already seen it with the Catholic Church. We know all about Catholic priests and I doubt we could meet one without viewing him with suspicion. Compare the media treatment of the victims of Catholic paedophilia with that of, say, the McMartin victims (and never mind the Presidio/West Point scandal, which as far as the media is concerned never happened). It's chalk and cheese, no comparison at all. One lot gets victim halos and the others get the shit beaten out of them.

Think about that. And going slightly sideways now - with Jewish people so selflessly active in every human rights issue going (even those of the Palestinians, ha ha), on the topic of satanism or the paedophocracy (of the non-Catholic variety, that is) I can't think of a single Jewish commentator who has ever touched it. Rack your brains. Give me a name. Nothing? How... is... that... possible? Honestly?

---

On this topic of allegedly opposed factions attacking each other, here's another sideways question, albeit from the other direction - What with the US military/CIA comfortably having the man-power (think mind-control assassins), the technology (think drugs, poisons, and other means of untraceable assassination), along with the unrivalled means to deliver this anywhere on the planet: why don't they take out their hated money-masters? Is it possible they don't know who they are precisely? I find that an unlikely prospect. Surely there's only a dozen families or so. To imagine a scenario, plug in the reality of the CIA death-lists given to Sukarno in Indonesia, with the posited reality of the denouement of each of the Godfather movies, wherein everyone is killed bang-bang-bang, before anyone has time to scarper.

Never mind anything that big, here's a far simpler question. People get whacked all the time, presidents included: Has anyone ever whacked a Rothschild? Um, okay, what should we conclude from this? What is this power structure precisely? Who tops it? Who is expendable? What if I make a rough thumbnail list? It follows below.

Henry K and the Council

The true star of Susan Ford's (Brice Taylor's) Thanks For The Memories is Henry Kissinger. Was there ever a fellow more deserving of assassination than Henry Kissinger? Hmm... there's a piece in that - 'People who deserve to be assassinated, inexplicably haven't been, and what that means'. Al Qaeda? Ha! Otherwise, for anyone who's ever wondered at the Nobel Peace Prize, no need to go any further than the fact that Henry Kissinger got one. It's a sort of unfunny Swedish Monty Python I'm thinking.


In Thanks For The Memories, Henry Kissinger is partners with Bob Hope in 'utilising' Susan Ford. Whilst that team-up may seem absurd, it actually makes perfect sense. All one has to do is plug this into Laurel Canyon with its wider implications re the significance of the entertainment industry, and the whole thing stands to reason. Regardless, the partnership of Hope and Kissinger is clearly an unequal one.

The closest analogy I came can come at for this inequality is one based on computers - imagine Susan Ford is a laptop that Bob Hope uses to find porn. He lends the laptop to all of his buddies and they likewise go nuts looking up variations of www.everyperversionknowntoman.com. The laptop always comes back to Kissinger who, unbeknownst to everyone, is systems admin super-user. What with having installed a keystroke monitor, and otherwise having full access to each of their caches, there's nothing Kissinger doesn't know about every sordid detail of their lives. Anyone who's ever run a computer system and had super-user privileges knows precisely what this means. Privilege equals knowledge and knowledge equals power.


Kissinger, not unlike Frank Zappa of Laurel Canyon, never participates in the vices he urges upon others. In spite of the fact that he was super-user and thus free to go nuts, Kissinger never availed himself of, nor even expressed an interest in, Ford's unrivalled charms. Square this with his carefully cultivated, albeit unlikely, image as debonair lady-killer. There's something not right with that picture but I don't know what it is. Otherwise it occurs to me that far more is to be concluded from those who didn't sample Susan Ford's earthly delights, than from those who did. With Ford as 'trap' anyone who falls into her qualifies as variation of 'prey'. Significantly, only Kissinger and the Rockefeller black sheep, John D Rockefeller, choose not to avail themselves of Ford's programmed easy virtue.

And then there's the council. Ford unambiguously states that Kissinger is their number one servant. Since Ford never states precisely who is on the council it's conceivable that Kissinger might not be a servant so much as a member. Whilst it pays to turn the puzzle pieces this way and that to see if greater sense might not be made of them, in this case I dismiss the possibility of Kissinger as a council member. This would posit the council as some variety of meritocracy, frankly an absurd idea. Aristocracies do not function on meritocratic principles - an obvious contradiction in terms. Their servants, absolutely: regardless of birth, talent and loyalty will be utilised. Amongst their aristocratic selves there will be a meritocracy of sorts but only from within their own ranks. Were it any other way, blood-lines might be displaced. And then where would the aristocracy be?


So who is the council? In his foreword, the author of Project Monarch, Ron Patton, discusses Adam Weishaupt being commissioned by the Rothschilds to unite various occultic organisations under the single banner of the Illuminati. Curiously, in spite of this organisation being founded and sponsored by the Rothschilds, they never get a second mention. Ford herself never discusses the Illuminati, nor the Rothschilds, nor even utters the word 'Jewish', apart from in the most innocuous circumstances. All Jewish people in this book are only incidentally so - they are bit players, innocent bystanders, or victims. And Henry Kissinger? Astoundingly Ford's book never once connects the words 'Kissinger' and 'Jewish'. Were you to read this book not knowing that Kissinger was Jewish you'd arrive at the end of it none the wiser.

But never mind Ron Patton, who does Susan Ford say the council are? She never names names and had she done so I'd view it as a black mark against her credibility. The Council she describes wouldn't be much chop if they went about introducing themselves to the help, would they? But that aside, Ford is free to hypothesize. The Council are Freemasons, she declares. Hmm... Freemasons eh? As a fellow not given to pursuing impossible riddles, I've never bothered attempting to undo the Gordian knot of the Illuminati/Freemason connection. I understand their original purpose as a professional guild. I also understand them acting as a counterweight to the ancient centralised control of Rome (this in the time prior to Adam Weishaupt). However I find their evolution into globe-spanning rulers of everything falls apart for want of coherency. What precisely are the ties that bind? Apart from the Rothschilds as sponsors, that is?


Besides that, the book tends to be at odds with its own assertion of Masonic control. Surely Prince Philip is a thirty-three degree mason? God knows how many times I've heard it asserted that the English crown, by way of its masonic/Illuminati influence, is the global big kahuna in the new world order. Square that with Ford's own recounting of her meeting with Prince Philip, and his diffident surprise and delight at being offered her singular talents. With Ford as the nexus, between Philip and Kissinger only one of them has super-user privileges, and it ain't Phil. The logic here is unmissable - Prince Philip, however high he might be in the Freemasons, is subject to Kissinger, and Kissinger is subject to the council. Not forgetting that Kissinger is Jewish and the Freemasons' transformation into internationalist Illuminati was brought about under the auspices of the Rothschilds. Honestly, Freemasons?

The other significant aspect of the Council in this regard is its ultimacy. According to Ford, there is nothing above the Council, and simple reason tells us that nor could there be. In reading of her descriptions of Council: their meetings, their communications, and their extraordinary secrecy, there is no way she's describing lieutenants. These people she describes are 'it'. In the big game of Risk they're not so much players as the writers of the rules. Given that this is the case, and given that fact that wealth equals power, we can safely declare that they are the richest people in the world. In either wealth or power, were anyone to even begin to threaten them they would have to be destroyed. Forget Sam Walton, forget Warren Buffet, forget Bill Gates, and all those other people topping the 100 richest list - ain't none of them in the running. And yep, even the Rockefellers ain't in this picture. Ford categorically states that the Rockefellers are subject to the Council. The only kind of 'Rich' that could have all these bazillionaires subject to it is that variety of rich that comes with ownership of the Fed and the international Reserve system. And the IMF. And the World Bank.


Thinking about it - the old chestnut about a business being 'a licence to print money' only possesses charm when it's not literally true. When it is literally true, the appeal of endless amounts of money becomes almost silly. It's like the child's daydream of owning a chocolate factory. A child cannot conceive that an owner of such a factory might view the product with something other than a desire to spend all day eating it. And so it is with money. Possessing a licence to print money renders the idea of a Scrooge McDuck-like accumulation of wealth as superfluous to the point of idiotic. Clearly ownership of the Reserve banking system is not about being rich. Rather the exercise becomes one of the prevention of others from achieving the same. It's about power, and that driven by a combination of hubris and a hubristic sense of immortality. Or are they the same thing? Probably.

With all that aside, let's also dismiss some other red-herrings. Ford's book is rife with satanism. Her entry point into the world of the council seems to be entirely satanistic. Interestingly Ford herself views the topic with disdain. As she later states, this disdain is shared by all those higher in the power structure. Marx's phrase about religion being 'the opiate of the masses' is ordinarily used as a dismissal, and further as a reason for Communism's smashing of religions. But viewed from another angle, ie. that of opiates/drugs as being a useful means of control, it could just as easily be an argument leading, not so much to smashing, but to co-option. In fact the latter makes far more sense than the former - why fight a thing when you could put it to work for you? Thus satanism makes far more sense as the beast being whipped than it does as the whip-hand itself, if you can dig it.



Likewise, the Roman Catholic church appears in the book and yet never in any impressive fashion. All early mentions pivot on it as part of the mechanism of the ritualistic abuse that goes into creating a MPD/DID slave. Small potatoes. Later, Ford describes putting on a quasi-religious dog and pony shows to impress the Vatican heirarchy, Pope included. Okay, I think we can safely declare a rule - Anyone on the receiving end of one of Ford's shows is not in the Council.

Going sideways now, how might we view other such religions and religiously driven 'isms'? In much the same way that Karl Marx was equally dismissive of all religions, do we imagine that the banking families of the Council would somehow get all weak-kneed for Judaism? Somehow I doubt it. Beyond Judaism is Zionism and its founding of Israel. The Rothschilds display their enthusiasm for this grand effort by living elsewhere. Sure they founded Israel, with Rothschild putting his John Hancock on the Balfour Declaration, but they founded the Illuminati too. If it's sensible to view the Illuminati as a vehicle for Rothschild co-option and control, why not view Zionism and Israel in the same fashion? It makes as much sense viewed in this fashion as any other - hell, more so. Frankly I expect that the members of the Council would hold Judaism per se in the same contempt as they'd hold for all religions - a bauble for the hoi polloi. That's not to say that it doesn't possess a variety of 'favourite' status: but only that of a tribe historically given to being loyal servants. Besides, a precise demonstration of the value of the Jewish people was given during the haggling that took place during the time of the National Socialists in Germany with Jews in great numbers being entirely expendable.


Back to the red herrings, at no time does Ford mention the nationality of those on the Council, nor does it even seem to enter into the picture. In this vein, what are we to make of the following quote (vaguely attributed to the Council) that describes the reasons for bringing Clinton down, "A cornerstone will fall, and further destabilize the American people. First Nixon, now Clinton, thus the people will lose faith in their leaders and the democratic way of life. So they will want to change it and will lean toward World Order." Hmm... "the American people" eh? Strange way for an American to describe one's own. Knowing what I know of Americans, I have to admit having trouble attributing this to any American mouth.

I know that the 'American Dream' is a myth but that doesn't mean it's not without power. I cannot believe that a person who grew up in the United States (in something other than a closet) would utter such a thing. Not forgetting of course that the New World Order is not a New American Order. With the century just ended being described unabashedly as 'The American Century' do we think that Americans would now come over all coy and worry that in naming the world order after themselves, other people might think they have swell heads? Ha ha ha ha, Americans have no such shortcomings. Americans are American to their bootstraps. They're Americans first and Internationalists second. I will never buy an American as having no attachment to his country, mythical or otherwise. The quote above could only come from a true Internationalist, someone who spent the vast majority of their life not living in the US. So! Let's also strike the CIA, the old money American ruling class, and any other significant US institution (that's not currently headed by a dual-citizen Israeli).


For mine, it seems all roads lead to the Rothschilds and the other twelve families. Collectively they remain the one ring to rule them all. How does the rest of it go? Oh yeah, "And in the darkness bind them". Exactly.

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.

Selflessness as a martial mindset

All behaviour lies on a continuum with selfishness at one end and selflessness at the other. Selflessness is superior to selfishness - this is self evident and inarguable. All sins are by definition selfish acts, and all virtues are likewise selfless. Only by the most perverse cavilling can selfish acts be defined as virtues. With selflessness as an ideal this cavilling can always be torn to shreds. If attacked from this angle no argument in favour of selfishness can be sustained.

Me, I think that this is bullet-proof. But, no one much cares for it. I can understand the temptation to write the whole thing off. Since the word selflessness appears nowhere in any public discourse, indeed is pre-emptively shot down in endless discussions that are variations of what's-in-it-for-me, the thought occurs that perhaps the whole thing is a silly idea, not really worth considering.


Frankly this is arse-about. Honestly, if selflessness was some silly thing, silly like Paris Hilton, the media would be all selflessness, all the time. Silly is what the bloc-media does best. I'm going to view it the other way around. Selflessness is absent from the general discourse because it is a thing to be feared. Not by us of course. Rather it's feared by the death cult PTB.

Think about interest, usury, money-as-debt, and the reserve banking system. The truth of this arrangement, ie. that it perversely brings no benefit to anyone but the absolute top of the pyramid with impoverishment for the rest, isn't utterly absent from all forums of discussion - the education system, the government, and the media - by accident. It's absent because if it was common knowledge the whole game would be over. Which is to say, it's absent because it's feared. No mistake, the death cult PTB are, beneath their smug, expensively coiffed exteriors, driven by fear.


Usury is one thing but selflessness is another. Usury is merely a means of delivering us to our fate. It's the truck that drives us to the abattoir; it's the conveyor belt; it's the rotating knives. A widespread discussion of usury would deliver into our hands the means by which we could take our sabots to the truck, the belt, the knives. A discussion of selflessness on the other hand is a discussion about the nature of this carnivorous cannibalism in toto. Certainly it addresses the means by which we are sliced and diced, but it goes further and attacks the whole concept of us being eaten at all, and suggests that perhaps we might find some other way of doing things.

Thus a discussion couched in terms of selflessness is a threat not so much to any particular tactic or strategy but rather a threat to the whole self-definition that drives the creation of the strategies themselves. It's huge, it's dangerous, and that's why it's nowhere.

---

Certainly our death cult rulers do not wish to have their actions viewed or discussed in this fashion, and their fear of this will be enough to ensure that selflessness is not in our lexicon. But this threat-nature of selflessness is only half the picture. The flipside of it all is that (forgetting all of the above momentarily) any people who only know, indeed can only think in terms of, me-me-me are far more easily dealt with. Rather than the bundle, they are the individual sticks - easily broken one by one. Thus the absence of selflessness in our lexicon is an absence of unity, or strength if you prefer. A ubiquitous mindset of me-me-me is the death cult's sword and shield both. And sure enough, for us selflessness can serve both these purposes also. It can be a defence and an offence. Quite right too, since as Bruce Lee declared, if you get it right they should be the same thing.


"Yeah okay nobody, brilliant, and another picture of Bruce Lee, but what are we supposed to do with this?" The answer to this is nothing, or nothing in particular. View it as a lens, a means of looking at the world. View as a foundation, a thing upon which to stand. View it as a martial arts form, a sense of balance, force, and direction that has no end in and of itself, but is merely applied to every physical, or in this case mental, action. Frankly, it's nothing more than mindfulness.

---

So as to cut off imagined counter arguments, let me say there is nothing to fear from it. It doesn't require you to be penniless, clad in sackcloth and ashes, an ascetic in a cave. Do that if you like, but don't imagine that it's demanded of you. There is nothing wrong with having stuff, but stuff-for-the-sake-of-it is idiotic, and obviously so. Stuff of this nature is the chunk of metal on which the oxide of fear and desire will form. But were you to look at your stuff and ask yourself how much utility it provides, and for how many people, it couldn't hurt. Van der Rohe's principle of 'less is more' is a design maxim, sure, but it's also a philosophical statement. Stuff will not bring you happiness and we all know it. On the other hand, it will bring you fear.


Selflessness is less about stuff than it is about the shedding of fear and desire. It's a mistake to assume otherwise. And as sure as eggs is eggs, the death cult media machine would, can, and does spend all its time and energy ensuring that you'll make precisely that mistake. It runs the gamut from Hollywood's Gordon Gecko absurdly declaring that greed is good to every other TV commercial telling you that "you deserve it." I don't know about you, but when I hear witless flattery like this, I know I'm being bullshitted to.

---

So our feet are on solid ground, our eyes are clear, our hand is open - now what? Now we take it to them. Ideas count - the death cult doesn't control the media for no reason. The battle is, and always has been, for the mind. All we need to do is offer an alternative that isn't yet more bullshit. And that's what selflessness is - an alternative to everything wicked and fucked up in this world.

There is no point opposing wickedness with some half-baked variation of its own theme. Opposing one fellow's version of me-me-me with your own version of it is, I don't know... idiotic? In a fucked up world it's just more of the same. Likewise, to replace one definition of us-and-them with another cannot and will not succeed. Brand X racism is not a better product than Brand Y racism. They're both shit products and to hell with the both of them.


Like it matters whether the union organisers in South America that were killed, were shot by death squads that belonged to coke or pepsi. Who gives a shit? Sure enough, preferring your own brand of racism to someone else's is like arguing over whether coke tastes better than pepsi, with the death squads neither here nor there. Fuck snipping around the edges, why not go big-picture and condemn it in its entirety?

There's no point opposing evil with evil. We are not members of a hate group. We are members of a love group (as cheesy as that sounds). We have nothing that can be misrepresented. The last thing we'll do is charge into a Holocaust museum with a gun. A tuppence for such thoughtless stupidity. In the battle for ideas, that old man just scored a point for the opposition.

It's the false ideas (otherwise known as delusions) that need to be smashed, not the purveyors of them. Without their delusions the wicked of this world are nothing. Shoot the wicked and the delusions live on. And whilst you can smash one delusion with another, indeed the history of the world has been one episode of this after another, it will never solve anything. The only thing that stands clean, untarnished, and unimpeachable is selflessness.

In this battle, selflessness has the ability to be the sword, the shield, the tactics, the strategy, the choice of the battleground, and even the morale of the troops and the banner they hold high. Does that sound like overblown bullshit? No need to take my word for it. The death cult PTB has already told us they fear it by disappearing the least mention of it from our vernacular / armoury.


Whilst they might do their best to have us forget that word, and then to substitute their own words (and thus fight the battle they know they can win) - they cannot disappear the thing itself. Selflessness is timeless, indestructible, impervious to whatever the motherfuckers bring.

If we boil it all down, and strip away the distractions, the only weapon the death cult has is fear and desire. Between that and selflessness, only one of them is worth having. Between delusion and seeing clearly; between the self and the all; between fear and desire and peace, love, and understanding, anyone who isn't bullshit has already arrived at the right place. Not forgetting of course, that wherever you go, there you are.

The Hundred Flowers of The Matrix

Once upon a time in China, after the revolution had bedded down and things were going well enough, the leadership under Mao Zedong, and premier Zhou Enlai particularly, declared that China needed the participation of its intellectuals and that their criticism would help improve Chinese communism. This was called the Hundred Flowers Campaign. The title came from one of Mao's own poems: 'let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend.'


Depending on who you listen to, this was either a well meaning attempt to improve communism and lend it the kind of well-rounded timelessness of confucianism and taoism, or it was a trap. Intended or no, the latter is what occurred. From its early start of 'healthy criticism' to its final orgy of demands that the communists be thrown out, it seemed that China's ancient curse of luan (乱 - chaos) wasn't far away. In China, it never is. What followed was an Anti-Rightist Campaign that saw hundreds of thousands of students, intellectuals, and bureaucrats demoted, fired, imprisoned, or killed. It seems that provided the centre holds, luan isn't really luan. Not that dead people can tell the difference, sure enough.


Mind you, the Hundred Flowers Campaign and its follow-on Anti-Rightist Campaign wasn't a patch on the Cultural Revolution. But that's a whole other story. As is the earlier Three Anti Five Anti Campaign, the later Tiananmen Square protests and crackdown, and ten years later, the Falung Gong protests and the subsequent anti-Falung Gong campaign. But each had in common the removal of anyone, or more specifically any collective, who could threaten the centre. But the Hundred Flowers is the clearest and most graphic - a hundred flowers open their petals, impressed with their own gorgeousness, all the while unaware that over by the shed the mower is being started up.

---

Speaking of China, in the first year I was there an obscure film called The Matrix was released. Has anyone heard of it? I recommend it and you can probably pick it up in any number of Beijing DVD shops. Don't pay more than 8RMB ($1.30) or else you're being ripped off. Anyway, The Matrix starred Keanan Wynn, or Christopher Reeves, or somesuch, and was made by the Wachowski brothers who astoundingly appear not to be Jewish.

I say that because The Matrix is very very Jewish. Apart from the Jewish uberman nature of the hero Neo; the slo-mo orgiastic promised land of Zion; and the constant repetition of the number six; the plot revolves around humans living lives of complete delusion with everything they understand of the world being false - the reality being that they are little more than sources of sustenance for a parasitic uber-intelligence, here represented by computers.


But this is merely one layer of truth. Beneath it is another. Appallingly (for Zionists), Zion is merely a throwaway vehicle intended only to nurture each successive uberman. Millennia after millennia, Zion is repeatedly destroyed, as is the uberman du jour - all of this so that the godhead computer rulers of the world may more nearly perfect the nature of the delusion that holds the humans in their thrall.

Astoundingly, at the end of the film Neo does not defeat the godhead. Rather he earns their thanks and reverence by being a loyal servant who sacrifices himself to ensure their survival by killing the mutual enemy 'Smith'. In defiance of whatever sense of realpolitik computers might possess, and not forgetting the endlessly repeated historical precedent of killing without mercy, the godhead keeps its end of the bargain and does not rid itself of the threat of Neo, and nor does it wipe out Zion.


Otherwise, looked at objectively, Smith was potentially a good guy, an ally worth having. He was the only means by which the godhead could have been destroyed. But never mind, he's killed, the pitiful human slaves are left to live lives of delusion in their goop-filled coffins, and Zion is free to rescue the odd individual here and there and otherwise carry on with their ecstasy-fueled rave parties. And Neo? He is embraced in the loving arms of the godhead and ends the film on a bier like some warrior on his way to Valhalla.

Forgetting the come from nowhere 'happy' ending for a moment, as well as the initial red-pill arrival at not-quite-the-truth, the actual time-and-time-again reality of the Matrix's world is that each given period of enlightenment, climaxing with the arrival of 'The One', is merely this millennia's variant of the hundred flowers campaign.

---

And so! Here we are! We took the red pill, and by way of the internet, we woke up to the truth of the world and the veil of delusion that's kept us in thrall all these years. Let's not be distracted by the fact that the internet was initially set up by the military - just like Al Qaeda was set up by the CIA, American nazis by various Jews, communism by the bankers etc. etc. Let's also think little of the prediction by that most loyal servant to the bankers, Rupert Murdoch, that the internet will all be over soon. To hell with that! We've woken up to what's going on. We've read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion for chrissakes!


But wasn't the Protocols a best seller in Russia just before the Tsar was thrown down and the Bolsheviks began their seventy year reign of terror? Far more people were familiar with it then than are familiar with it now and yet it seemed to make no difference whatsoever. Indeed here we are, one hundred years later, and everyone is convinced that it's a 'forgery'.

That aside, how many times have the lords of usury been thrown out of each given country exactly? Edward Longshanks (the villain of Hollywood's Braveheart) threw the goldsmiths out of England in 1290 and yet in 1654 all-round good guy (unless you're Irish) Oliver Cromwell readmitted them. Dig it - in the time of Shakespeare there were no Jews in England. Or to put it another way, in the time of no Jews in England there was Shakespeare. I wonder if The Stranglers got the irony of singing 'whatever happened to all the Shakespearoes' whilst surrounded by strippers? Probably not.


Sure enough today the City of London rules, and all those hard-done-by Jewish oligarchs hounded out of Russia by the villainous Putin (and otherwise known as the 'Russian' mafia) are all welcome to come on down and buy half of Mayfair (and a famous football team while they're at it). Did you know that the City of London is its own jurisdiction, with its own police force, and is otherwise not subject to the mayor of London, or parliament, or anyone at all? The Vatican eat your heart out.

But we're on to them! Or should I say, we're blooming well onto them? With the internet as our spring time, we have burst forth from our cold dark earth of ignorance and now turn our faces to the sun of truth. Here now in this time, the like of which the world has never seen, we glory in our pursuit of knowledge and open discussion. We are the hundred flowers.

---

Yeah, yeah, what a cynical party-pooper I am. Here we are grasping the hard-fought-for truth and I'm asserting a truth above this that says it's a big con, that it's merely a trick by the world's greatest liars to strengthen their position, and that ultimately we're all fucked.

Ha! Not so fast! Here's one small truth - um, I've run out of space and shall have to continue in the next piece. Another (and less self-referential one) is that the world is very great, far greater than the people who imagine that they are in control of it. Coming up next - Stephen Chow, chaos theory, cocks and cunts, and, um, the Buddha possibly. Mind you, if it's somewhat different I'll come back here and edit the preceding sentence to make myself look clever. God forbid I should ever be wrong. Ha!

Holding on to 'know thyself'

It's embarrassing I know, but I have never taken a trip. Of the psychotropic variety, that is. Everyone I know has done so, but somehow I missed out. I have no great philosophical objection to it all. Quite the opposite - so many people have told me that I really must do it that I've put the word out that if anyone comes across a goldtop mushie, pop it in some honey and give me a hoy. One day...

And yes, thank you, no need for anyone to pile in and tell me of the wickedness of this. I get it. A cousin of mine went out on a Friday night once and disappeared for three days. Finally he turned up in a casualty ward, naked, cut to pieces, and barking like a dog. No one knows quite what happened to him but it's assumed he took a trip. A bad one, obviously. Sure enough, he got better but he's now on a daily regimen of anti-schizophrenic drugs and will be for the rest of his life. That LSD (an industrial strength chemical concoction) is bad, in no way condemns the natural hallucinogens which ancient peoples have been taking under the guidance of elders for millennia. Natural v chemical. Tradition v the latest thing. Wisdom v no idea.


These dichotomies aside, if only my cousin had had someone like the father of a Swedish friend of mine. His father was an original hippy and had been there and done that, and he told his son that no one should take a trip until they're at least forty. It was his opinion that any earlier than this was dangerous, what with a young mind not quite having settled down into a solid variety of 'this-is-who-I-am', if you can dig it. For this original hippy, even thirty was too young.

I expect those of you reading, and who are in their forties, will get the concept. Me, I'm so glad I'm in my forties. Sure I miss the thoughtless physical health of my youth - the endless energy, the instant healing, the indestructibility, etc. But between that and me having a handle on who I am, I'll take the latter. And when I heard the Swedish hippy's advice it struck a chord. I got it. Had I heard it when I was thirty, say, I suspect I would have been too nebulous a concept for me. I may or may not have followed the advice depending on whether someone else said something different. "Nah! That's bullshit!" - "Um is it? Okay."

Being young is about not knowing what to think. As it was, my friend's Dad's advice was no do-or-die for me, what with already being past forty, and never having taken a trip anyway. But all that aside, the kernel within that advice is a thing worth rolling around in one's head and wondering at.

---

Along these lines, let's jump - to the word 'break', as in break, broke, broken. This can mean various things. In the context of 'The photocopier is broken', it could mean something as simple as a fuse being blown. No biggie, let's just call the repairman. But for that part of human existence that preceded photocopiers (and other diabolical machines), when a thing was broken it was necessarily in pieces. Think clay pots. You break a thing, and it becomes useless.

Funnily enough, with humans it's the other way around. You break them and suddenly they become really very useful. Perhaps the most useful thing there is. What sort of 'broken' is this? Think horses. A human can be broken just like a horse can be broken, same same. Which is to say, we break their will. (Now there's a word for you. What is one's 'will' in this sense? Hmm... 'the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action'. Not bad. But might we not call this 'knowing who one is'?)


When we break a horse, we break its will and it is no longer what it was. It is no longer its own master but instead is subject to us. What we broke was its definition of itself. And so it is with a human who is broken. A broken man, whether by someone else's hand, or mere circumstance (ie. 'After his son died he was a broken man'), loses his spark, his impetus, his definition of himself. And when one man breaks another it is invariably so he might subject that man to his own will. The man is redefined - servant to the fellow who broke him.

It's not just this being broken that humans and horses have in common. Were they to be released from their fealty each could recover their sense of themselves. A horse that escapes it's corral will turn wild again, which is to say rediscover itself as a horse. 'I am a horse! I run about! I root mares! I do whatever the fuck I like!' (Um, apologies for this being very 'male'. Certainly I could make it all non-sexist but the clunky syntax required would make it flow like a bucket of wet sand. Between flow, and catering to the rigidities of non-sexism, I choose the former. Words are one thing, and deeds are another. Oh wait, have I broken the flow here? D'oh!)

Where was I? Oh yes, breaking a man. It strikes me that this has been a constant throughout history - men breaking men in order to subject them to their will. Hmm... there's an book angle for you. "Men as Beasts - The History of Breaking the Human Will". Howard Zinn eat your heart out.

Anyway thank God we've left all that behind - master/servant - all that rubbish. Now we have freedom. Ha ha ha ha - as if! The motherfuckers of this world (psychopaths, whatever) have never quit. In much the same way that horses have been replaced by horsepower, breaking a man's will has likewise scientifically progressed to hitherto unimaginable heights. Which is to say, 'depths'.

For black-hearted secret organisations like the CIA et al, keen to have the world subject to their will, this ability to truly break a man, to make him act against his most deeply held principles, constitutes a variety of holy grail - Mind Control. If one could control a fellow's mind, who needs super powers? Bugger kryptonite - between being able to weaken Superman, and turning him into your biddable asset, it's a no-brainer. Or to put it another way - why would you shoot a horse when you could ride it instead?

---

And then there's MPD/DID. The acronym stands for Multiple Personality Disorder/Dissociative Identity Disorder - the former is the old term and the latter the new one apparently. This is that old chestnut of fiction wherein two or more personae ('alters') exist within one mind. Think Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, albeit with Hyde as an alter appearing merely by having his name called. In searching for a non-cinema metaphor, MPD/DID is to the breaking of the human will, what the Reserve Bank system is to your local loanshark.

And in much the same way that Reserve Banking's private ownership doesn't exist in the media, MPD/DID is similarly misrepresented as the fantastical stuff of fiction, not to be taken seriously. However, having read the account of witness X1 (amongst myriad others) from the Dutroux scandal, I now have MPD/DID down as non-fiction. Besides this, if you plug it into Dave McGowan's Programmed To Kill, and the battle between Recovered Memory Syndrome and the CIA's False Memory Syndrome, a 'what-the-fuck-is-going-on-here' picture starts to sharpen into something possessed of shape, colour, and form.

It seems we're permitted to know about MKultra and its assorted drug and hypnotism experiments. But perhaps this was merely a side-show to the true three ring circus of Operation Monarch. According to Ron Patton this involved Josef Mengele. We all roll our eyes - bloody Josef Mengele! More Boys From Brazil fiction! Yeah, maybe, maybe not.


Given that American practitioners of the black arts wholeheartedly embraced the personnel of Japan's Unit 731 (and their experiments in biological warfare), the default position would have to be 'why wouldn't they?'. That the Germans pursued Mind Kontrolle like the Americans pursued mind control is beyond plausible. That they did this in concentration camps with the prisoners as experimental subjects, likewise. It's precisely what the Japanese did with 731. And Mengele? Why not? Every other goddamn thing about the Holocaust has been misrepresented, why not him too? It's perfectly possible that the various stories of him in Brazil were complete fiction. The Boys From Brazil certainly was.

What if we were to call MKultra a search for a drug induced shortcut to MPD/DID? And it seems the shortcut, by way of LSD, failed. LSD, in breaking the link between reality and fantasy, seems only to produce less than useful casualties like my cousin. No problems, if LSD doesn't provide the answer, move on. And since it's not addictive and thus unlikely to produce the staggering profits of smack, coke, and meth, then it isn't really worth pursuing. If there's any proof to be found in one's own microcosm, I have encountered all three of above and yet never bumped into LSD. The experiment is over and it no longer suits the motherfuckers to have it out there.

So they chucked in MKultra. But there's no way they chucked in the search for mind control. For motherfuckers, this holy grail will never lose its appeal. Best to stick with the tried and true - smashing the psyche of the young. Certainly that one can take a child, brutalise them, and turn them into killers is old hat. Evidence of it is everywhere, from Sparta of yore, to China's Cultural Revolution, right through to the Congo of today.


But we are white men. As if we couldn't come up with something better than Africa's blank-eyed child killers. Even Henry Lee Lucas and his grand guignol slaughterfests, whilst serving a definite purpose, leave a lot to be desired. Really, MPD/DID is the go. To be able to take a mind and fracture it into discrete entities each capable of different things answers the brief pretty well. And yeah yeah, suffering beyond comprehension, a mind smashed to pieces, with only a shell remaining - like motherfuckers give a shit.

And so we arrive at X1, and all those like her. She survived and with help is attempting to reconstruct herself. You'd have to wish her luck in her endeavours to find peace of mind. There but for the grace of God etc. etc. But I suspect she's in a minority of those MPD/DID victims who escaped their snuff film fate. Who knows how many went on to inflict their own misery upon others?

---

Did anyone read Ursula LeGuin's Earthsea Trilogy? The magic of Earthsea pivoted on everything having a secret name. This name was always guarded since possession of this knowledge gave one power over whomever it was. When I read this book, way back when, I greeted this concept with a shrug. Nice idea, but as best I could tell it seemed to have no great connection to anything. Not anymore. Now I really wonder at it. It's a precise description of the mechanism by which an MPD/DID slave is controlled. Curious. Never mind a shrug, now I shake my head. Did Ursula LeGuin just fluke this?

---

In amongst this sordid trip through MPD/DID, the thought occurred to me (since I'm that sort of fellow) 'What if it was me being subjected to this?'. Would I cope? Or succumb? If someone wanted to split my mind, would they succeed? Could I hold on to my will, my sense of myself?

In turning this thought around, the phrase 'know thyself' popped into my head. It's an oldie but a goodie that I'd never taken beyond face value. Like LeGuin's secret names, I'd merely shrugged - know thyself - um, okay, sure, why not? But under the light of MPD/DID, 'know thyself' now seems fraught with meaning. Madly, I wonder if it might not originally have been a warning from an ancient sage familiar with some antediluvian version of mind control. Hmm... an unlikely prospect. And besides, surely the MPD/DID variety of smashing-of-the-will must necessarily be restricted to a tiny number of people. Statistically individuals like X1 couldn't comprise more than a tiny fraction of one percent of the population.

Not so fast! Perhaps this isn't an either/or proposition? Perhaps it's another continuum? What if people like X1 were merely the furthest extreme on a bell curve? (So extreme, that in much the same way that statisticians reject such extreme anomalies under the 2.3 standard deviations rule, we too do likewise and reject it as a subject too far. We really just don't want to go there). Back to this continuum now, isn't our sense of know-thyself under a daily assault? In fact, couldn't we describe everything we're on about here - from Adbusters' simple sense of dislocation, through to the Protocols plans of destruction for everything 'not them' - as an assault on our ability to know-thyself? What is the media (Hollywood, games, advertising - all the same thing) apart from a machine that does precisely this? Isn't it our sense of know-thyself suffering death by a thousand cuts?

And then there's who the media is aimed at. It ain't me, that's for sure. One doesn't have to spend very long immersed in the media before realising it's almost entirely directed at the young. As with MPD/DID, when assaulting know-thyself it pays to start young. Otherwise, not so long ago there was no such thing as 'youth culture'. A single generation ago people would have understood each of these words separately but to connect them would have had them scratching their heads. Ha! Now that I think about it, 'youth culture' is a perfect oxymoron. With culture being a thing that develops slowly over countless generations, how could 'youth' and 'culture' possibly be put together in any sensible fashion? Honestly?


Regardless, the media relentlessly beats young people about the head with perverse ideas of who they should imagine themselves to be. A lot of it is connected with turning them into hell-bent consumers, sure enough. So what's up with the media's relentless sexualisation? What does this have to do with consumerism? Whether eight year olds are wearing g-strings or granny pants, the money would flow regardless. So what are our kids being made into? And why?

And whilst this is a long way from what was done to X1, it's still the same road with everyone being shepherded towards the same destination, with know-thyself receding ever further into the distance.

Between our venerable Swedish hippy urging his son to wait until he's forty, and the CIA handing out vast quantities of LSD; between parents hoping for a 'normal' family and the media's mad deification and sexualisation of children; and between peace, love, and understanding, and the endless inculcation of us-and-them with death to towelheads - could we not define all of these as a struggle to hold on to know-thyself?

Am I the only person to ask some variation of the question, 'Is this my country?', or better still, "Who are we?'. I don't think so.

Whilst it's early days for yours truly with this line of thought (with much work to be done), could we describe Siddhartha Gautama's ascension to Buddha-dom as him arriving at a complete state of know-thyself? For mine, it's inescapable that the ultimate truth of know-thyself is that we are one with the universe. The black opposite of this, desired by those who would break us/break our will, is that we each become our own universe. Thus we become individual, self-obsessed molecules bouncing off each other in a state of complete chaos. We lack all coherency - in both meanings of the word. It's a smashing of our 'one-ness'. Whether this one-ness is within our own heads, à la X1, or collectively, as in our sense of community, I'll posit that it's all the same thing.

I have no idea if that Swedish hippy dad quite knew what he was doing when he passed on his advice to his son. And never mind the specificity of it as being about psychotropic drugs. That's a useful thing to know, sure. But above that, his words and the wisdom that underlies them are pure gold, perhaps the only thing worth knowing. Thyself. Within this lies everything. If one could pass on one single thing to one's child, says I, this is it.