the joy of corruption

This is the real thing - true corruption. It's what will happen to all of us. And I love it.


That's enough stringing along of the gag. I'm actually talking about compost. No banking, media or racial strife, just me putting all my food scraps into a pair of tubs filled with earth that I have on my father's balcony.

I've always loved how food scraps in soil disappear. I actually had a better arrangement in another place I lived. That soil was so thick with worms that there'd often be more worms than earth. It was nuts. It was so idiotically fecund that everything grew in it. This current compost isn't there yet. I should say, I've never had the space to actually grow anything. There was that time I was a teenager and we had an orchard, but that's another story.

In the meantime I just make earth. After starting with the most crap 'potting mix' imaginable, comprised mostly of woodchips, I'm now starting to get soil worth having. One day I may grow something in it. But at the moment I don't care. I just like collecting all our food scraps, putting them in the soil and watching it rot. In about a month or so, whatever I bury in the soil (eggshells, banana tops and those stupid stickers they put on fruit aside) has disappeared.

If nothing else, I've reduced our garbage to a fraction of what it was. It used to break my heart carrying out bags of perfectly good compost uselessly rotting in plastic. And the flip side of this is weird. Bucket after bucket of food goes into my compost tubs but the volume of soil never changes. The tubs never get any fuller. Spooky.

This is actually a big subject and I may revisit it later. But for now I'll keep it simple. And what's simpler than my hands plunged into the rich soil and my nostrils filled with the smell of corruption? I'm a simple soul and this makes me happy. Human metaphors aside, corruption equals life.

selflessness

There is a fellow out there in the world and I am his bête noire. Perhaps I was naive but I never had myself pegged as one to end up so designated. But it seems it's my lot. Over at smokingmirrors my least utterances reduce him to a caps-lock apoplexy. Truthfully I do not read him. I blink to see if I'm copping it yet again and then move on. But this blink is enough for me to know that I am the antichrist's cousin once removed, guilty of worshipping the false idol of selflessness. Or somesuch.

But forget that, the purpose of the exercise here and now is to clear up 'selflessness'. It's not hard because there's really nothing to it. Let's just say it's as simple as you want it to be. All a person has to do to be selfless is to do something for another that is not self-serving. Sharing food is perhaps the single most human expression of this. Otherwise one might help an old lady to a chair, a mother with her pram, or friends move house. If you expect something in return you don't get it. This is simple, simple stuff and I don't doubt that those reading here, do this kind of thing every day. In embodying this, not only will you make the world a better place but, believe it or not, you will find true happiness.

This is the simplest definition of selflessness and it is not wrong. If you like this definition and choose to lead your life in this fashion, I say, long may you live.


Or if you wish, we can take it further. Actually let's rewind. To say that performing acts of selflessness will bring happiness is somewhat simplistic. If doing things for others brought 'happiness', people like Gandhi would have been reduced to a puddle of orgasmic delirium. Somehow I doubt that this is an accurate description of him. What if I was to suggest that acts of selflessness don't bring happiness so much as they dispel unhappiness?

What unhappiness is that? It is that universal unhappiness that things are other than we would wish them. Buddha called it 'dukkha', which is to say suffering, which is to say desire. No human is free of this desire that they might feel better, look better, be more successful, be more famous, have more stuff, blah blah blah, ad infinitum. This desire is all in your head sure enough. In a discussion of selflessness, which is what we're having, it is that which defines you. It is the self, the sense of 'me'. Those who embrace desire embrace the self and are sensibly called 'selfish'. Those who let go of desire let go of the self and are thus called selfless. These are the people who share what they have, who help the old lady, the mother, the friends, or like Gandhi, devote their lives to freeing a people. Even if they don't mentally articulate it, this is how it works.

Believe it or not, this diminishment of unhappiness is readily apparent whenever you meet the selfless who devote their lives to others. You'll notice not that they're madly happy, but that they possess a calmness, a placidity. What you will see in their face is the absence of unhappiness, of desire, of the self. These are all the same thing.

This is a definition of selflessness taken one small step further. But it's actually no different to the first one. But whatever, if this is how you define your selflessness it's all good. Hats off to you.


Or we can go further, and take that final step to the metaphysical. If you're with me so far, it seems that who we are - the self / sense of desire - is actually a discussion of how we relate to the world (which is to say that which is not us). Is the world there for us? Or are we there for it? Do we make ourselves greater by taking from those not us? Or do we lessen ourselves and give to those not us? The answer is obvious and not the final step here. The final step is to wonder how far the diminishment of the self can go and what that means.

Can one shed all desire? What happens to the self? Does it disappear? Does a person who does this disappear? Are they no more? Ayah! Scary stuff. Who wouldn't fear this? Who would wish to cease to exist?

Funnily enough, no such thing happens. In fact it's the precise opposite. Those who take from others do not become greater. They actually harden into black holes of negativity. They become a dense speck of hatefulness. Those who give of themselves expand. It is they who actually become greater. They radiate love. Where this path leads to is that old chestnut of becoming 'one with the universe'. This is what Buddha became. He cast off desire, fear, and all delusion of the self. He ceased to differentiate between himself and that which was not him. And anyone can achieve what he achieved. Anyone can become Buddha.


If you think that this last bit is bullshit, that's fine with me. Take the second meaning instead. Or the first. It doesn't really matter. It's certainly not worth having an argument about. The important thing is that there is nothing to fear from selflessness. In whatever way you view it, it cannot lead you astray. None of these definitions have anything in them to cause unhappiness, ill will, or any form of negativity.

We won't get fooled again, says our Kev

How thrilled we all are. Alternative internet sites are falling over themselves with glee at Australia's withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's 'criticisms' of the Iraq war. Before we get too carried away, let's look at what he said. Or more specifically let's look at the key comment that renders everything else he said completely worthless -

"Have the actions of rogue states like Iran been moderated? No."

God help us. The irony runs rampant. Think about it. We rushed to war with Iraq because of a pack of lies about WMD's in the hands of wicked Muslims who suicidally wanted to kill us all. And yet on several occasions now, our Kev's been busily banging the drum about Iran. For those who've been living in a cave and haven't heard Kev and Rupert's other talking heads, Iran is, a) about to possess WMD's, b) are wicked Muslims, and c) suicidally want to kill us all. Check, check, check. Good thing we're all as thick as pigshit. Two minute hate double plus good! What do you think Kev?

According to Rupe's broadsheet The Australian, he thinks, 'Australians had to learn from the pre-war errors of judgement about Iraq, and not repeat the same mistakes.' Ha ha ha ha ha. What fatuous shit! The only way I can make sense of this last statement is if I add a few words of clarification - in the interests of precision, you understand. It thus becomes - 'Australians had to learn from the pre-war errors of judgement about Iraq, and not repeat the same mistakes about Iraq.' Perhaps that's what he meant, because he's sure as hell not talking about Iran since he's red-hot keen to have us make those same 'mistakes' all over again.


To be perfectly honest I don't think Rudd believes a word he's saying. I reckon he'd be perfectly happy to leave troops in Iraq. He's certainly happy to leave them in Afghanistan. The list of sophomoric self-answered points he made about Iraq could exactly be replicated about Afghanistan. Why don't I put words in his mouth? 'Was paying and arming war-lords to crush the Taliban a good idea? No. The opium crops which had been eliminated under the Taliban have now reappeared and the resultant heroin is flooding Russia and Europe. And here too, soon enough.' But Kev won't say any such thing. Since he wasn't committed to leaving Afghanistan by previous leaders and shadow-cabinets he doesn't give a shit.

The only reason he pulled out troops from Iraq (just some, not all) is because he had no choice. The criticism he made of the war was as gentle and as irrelevant as he could make it. Since our troops were only ever symbolic, their withdrawal was likewise symbolic. Symbolism aside, he barely differs from his doppelganger, Howard. Rudd is, like Howard was, perfectly committed to the Murdoch/neocon/CFR/international banking agenda (call it what you will) and his removal of troops and his criticism of the war was the tiniest sop to the anti-war mob he could get away with. I have no doubt he checked with his masters to see if it was all okay with them.

I'll say it as clearly as I can. Rudd is bullshit - a puppet to those who control our economy. He is no one's saviour. He is to Australian Labor what Tony Blair was to English Labour. If you're anti-war, anti-imperialist, or just plain-old right-thinking your last best hope was Mark Latham. Know that he wasn't assassinated in Murdoch's media for no reason. Rudd is Murdoch's man. He ain't yours. Like the people of Afghanistan, you're going to cop what you're going to cop. Rudd's job is to wear a suitably pained expression, utter inanities and hope that Rupert's right, and that no one will ever wake up to it all.

kiddy porn

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

porn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the beginning of the end for the continuum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The supernote stumper - Who could it be?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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