sexiest woman room

Non-Media Truth

The climate changes. It always has and always will.

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

Media Truth

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

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

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


Otherwise there's only two aspects to the argument:

The Weather

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

Humans

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

Given that previous climate change has been disappeared as have the natural causes that led to it,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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."

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.

The following list is an expression of my theory that power and publicity come in inverse proportion. Thus the most famous at the top have the least power. The least famous, ie. those most people have never heard of, come at the bottom and are actually the most powerful. See what you think.

Nazis
Historical touchstone of evil. Says Hollywood - May we never forget. The only people to have publicly thrown out the bankers in the modern age get zero good press, and their bad press is relentless, relentless, relentless. Useful as a link to neo-nazis which exist to remind everyone how anti-Semitism never went away. According to some of the more obscure corners of the net: Nazis are possibly running the CIA via Operation Paperclip.

Muslims / the devil
I'm going to declare this a tie. Muslims couldn't get any more bad press if they tried. Whilst the TV never actually declares that the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim, a nod's as good as a wink. The devil is a Hollywood favourite. I'm thinking his purpose is provide some reason for wickedness that doesn't pivot on selfishness. As we all know, selfishness (by way of amassing wealth etc.) is a very commendable thing to which we should all aspire.

Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Zimbabwe etc. etc.
Any story that paints this lot in a bad light is a good story, says the MSM. Not as bad as the Nazis since they haven't had a holocaust (yet). Regardless, they are a wicked crew of despotic, corrupt, torturing, deniers of human rights. The US is right to include them in their violators of human rights list every year. Ha ha ha ha ha. Honestly, that's funny isn't it?

The Vatican
I know people love to hate them but they get a ton of publicity and pretty much all of it is bad. The MSM pegs them as paedophiles at every opportunity. Or anti-Semites. Or oppressors of women. On and on, take your pick. Hollywood so frequently involves wicked clergy and hierarchy that it's hard to keep up. Certainly every devil movie involves a weak and corrupt church that is no match for him. The alternative internet goes further in terms of assassinations, banking, and the vaguest of vague talk of them somehow running things. Me, I don't buy it.

Corporations / non-paedophocracy CIA
Another tie for two very popular villains! Both get gently attacked in the news media, both make popular villains in Hollywood, both get viciously attacked on the alternative internet. MSM-only folks can agree they are probably responsible for pretty much everything, and alternative Internet types know they are. Unlike the Vatican, both of these get as much good press as bad press. Where would be without corporations? Think of all the good things they make for us. Likewise the CIA is broadly treated as honest patriots working in America's interests.

The US / the IMF and the World bank
The US in toto as some variety of coherent bad guy is a permissable target in the media, but only just. Likewise the international banking entities, but they may be discussed only as an extension of US power. Pilger does this for instance. Edgy left wing characters in Hollywood flicks may also shake their fist at the US. No problems at all on the net. Absolutely everyone will broadly agree that the US is very wicked and likewise the IMF, as long as it viewed as a US entity.

Zionists
Okay we're starting to get into more extreme territory. This word is reserved for broadsheet newspaper articles (not the first ten pages) and the occasional late night news show or documentary. In tabloids, the nightly news, and Hollywood, this word will never appear. It's far more popular on the net what with the obviousness of Zionists running US foreign policy. I mean, honestly it's pretty unmissable. Being anti-Zionist will cop calls of anti-Semitism but at least it's a defensible position. Besides, there are Jewish people who oppose Zionism (but not many and those not in any useful fashion).

Illuminati / Freemasons
This is the last level permissable in the Jewish bloc-media but only in Apocryphal contexts. Besides the series of fictional books that have been around for years, it seems a movie is coming out next year. That aside, sensible journos like Pilger will never mention them. On the other hand the net is all over them. The beauty of the Iluminati / Freemasons is that one can wave them about without being accused of anti-Semitism.

Jews in general / non-paedophocracy Rothschilds et al in particular
We're into all-internet territory now. And yes, another tie. Sure enough, the media and Hollywood will never touch Jewish people as anything other than geniuses or victims, and the Rothschilds and the other families don't exist at all. In Hollywood there is no such thing as a Jewish villain. Ever. On the net, huge sites like WHR will take every anti-Jewish story you send them - drug running rabbis, holocaust denial, fake anti-Semitism, it's all good. Everything I learnt about the private ownership of the Fed etc. came from WRH.

Limited paedophocracy
Not to be confused with amateur paedophilia which is trotted out for public consumption quite frequently. The paedophocracy as an organised satanistic structure comprising the CIA, European aristocracy, and most tiers of most government is utterly absent in the media and the vast majority of the net also. Mike Rivero at WRH won't touch it except for occasional mentions of the impossible to ignore (and 20 year old) Franklin scandal. Besides that he frequently, and apropos nothing, beats the disinfo drum re McMartin. The tiny number of people who will discuss the paedophocracy such as Dave McGowan (who coined the term no less), and Jeff Wells, view it as an extension of US power a la the IMF and World Bank. Best not to pay too much attention to Europe being an equal partner. America rules Europe it seems.

The paedophocracy as control structure under the bankers.
Is this just me? Surely not. Perhaps I should get out more. Weirdly enough Susan Ford's book Thanks For The Memories, in discussing the Council who otherwise run the whole show, painted as precise a picture of the twelve families as we're ever going to get and then went on to say that they were probably all freemasons. I don't think so. For mine a paedophocracy under the Banking families, rather than opposed to it, makes sense of things that otherwise don't make sense and is as close as we're going to get to a unified field theory explaining why the world is so fucked.

Did I miss anyone?

---

Further, the answer to why Zionist disinfo is discussed and Paedophocracy disinfo isn't becomes apparent with the list.

Subject - The Chinese Government's detainment of, and legal proceedings against, Australian citizen and Rio Tinto executive Stern Hu on the charges of corruption and espionage.


We have noted a somewhat hysterical campaign in the Australian media relating to China's lawful detainment of Rio Tinto executive Stern Hu. This discussion involved numerous Australian government officials, members of the opposition, academics, as well as experts from various 'foundations', all of whom theorised as to why Mr Hu had been arrested and what it all meant. In amongst this multitude of views, we noted that not a single individual raised, or even considered, the possibility that Stern Hu might actually be guilty of the crimes with which he is charged. It was as if the media brief had been: 'We must consider every angle of this story except for that one'.

We understand that the Australian people, like the Chinese people, are particularly partial to gambling. In this context, amongst all the possibilities that one might lay odds on here, the possibility that Mr Hu just might be guilty seems neither to have short odds, nor long odds, but rather not to be on the bookmakers board at all. Does this not strike anyone as curious?

We note that in the endless media coverage that crime warrants in the Australian media, discussions invariably pivot on whether the accused did or didn't do it. Keen as we are on Australian history, Schapelle Corby comes to mind. However, we were unable to find a single previous case wherein every commentator's starting position was an assumption that the charges must be false. We found many cases where guilt was assumed, such as that of Lindy Chamberlain, but none where the charged individual's innocence was so completely taken for granted that the entire discussion completely and utterly pivoted on the ulterior motives of the arresting authority.

We will admit that were Australia utterly free of corruption, the failure to consider this likelihood would not be unreasonable. And yet on the exact same newspaper front pages that refuse to consider the possibility of Mr Hu as being guilty as charged, is the story of Australian state politician Mr Gordon Nuttall, tried for high level corruption, being found 'guilty as charged'. Clearly Australian businessmen bribe Australian politicians in the hopes of receiving favourable treatment. Your own courts and royal commissions have declared this an incontrovertible fact. And yet despite this, and despite the historical precedent of Australian involvment in the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal, the Australian media utterly refuses to concede that Australian businessmen might replicate this behaviour in China.

That aside, we are not about to take any holier-than-thou stance on this issue. We freely admit that China, like Australia, suffers from the ills of corruption. And like Australia, the Chinese government arrests, tries, and punishes those involved in these pernicious acts. Indeed we punish corruption very harshly - certainly more harshly than the effective two year sentence (after time off for good behaviour) that was handed down to Mr Nuttall. Of course, Mr Nuttall's sentence is none of our business, as are all matters pertaining to the Australian legal system.

That being said, recent statements by the Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh, to the effect that the verdict in the Nuttall case was proof that the system works and also that the government and judiciary were serious in their efforts to root out corruption, could have been lifted word for word from Chinese government media releases. In many ways China and Australia have a lot in common.

Echoing this thought, as a people as proud of our country as Australians are of theirs, we also understand that the people of Australia would hold a dim view of us, or indeed any foreign government and media, wagging a collective finger at Australian legal proceedings. Keen to seek commonalities, we would consider viewing such behaviour poorly as perfectly reasonable.

With this in mind, may I say as China's Premier that China looks forward to a relationship with Australia that is free of rancour and distrust, and instead embodies harmony, well-being, and prosperity for both our countries.

I have a friend in Hawaii, with whom I cracked a joke about North Korea dropping a nuke on his arse. Ha ha ha, what a card. He wrote back shaking his fist at North Korea and I replied that I was actually just joking and that North Korea was precisely as likely to nuke Hawaii as the US military was to find WMD's in Iraq. And besides Hawaii is DU radioactive already and it was the US military what dunnit.


He conceded the point but came up with an analogy about North Korea being the weird trouble-making kid in school who still deserved to cop a beating if for no other reason than to get him to shut up and stop being a dickhead.

Cool. Why don't I run with the analogy?

The fact is that neither my school chum, nor anyone, has ever met the North Korean kid, nor even laid eyes on him. Every single thing we ever heard about him came from the gang of kids who run the school newspaper and the school website where they like to post little quicktimes they make with their handicams and laptops. And for anyone reading the paper or looking at the website it's transparently obvious that that little North Korean kid is a troublemaker who deserves whatever's coming to him. We pay no attention to the fact that the sum total of everything we know about him comes from the tiny cabal of kids who run the paper.

But the thing is that the kids who run the newspaper are buddies with the school bully who extorts everyone's lunch money. Sure enough, this is never mentioned in the school newspaper. The bully, by the way, doesn't actually front up and take your money. He's much more sophisticated than that. What with having compromising pictures of the headmaster, half the teachers, and the people who run the tuck-shop (cavorting with his sister Lolita) he takes a 50% cut of the lunch money after it goes through the tuck shop's till. No one in the school apart from the headmaster even knows that this goes on. Even the tuck-shop lady thinks the money goes into the school's 'general revenue'.


Instead everyone just complains about the high price of the pies and sausage rolls, and about how crummy and run down the school, and the grounds, and the facilities are. The teachers don't complain too much because the bully paid for special catering just for the teacher's room with real espressos and everything.

Whether the North Korean kid had figured any of this out or not, he decided not to participate. Instead he brought his own lunch from home (kimchi bibimbap, I expect) and thus didn't pay any money to the tuck-shop at all. Well that's him fucked. Truth be known the school bully doesn't really need the North Korean kid's money - he's already the richest guy at school. Hell, he's richer than the teachers! Put together! But that's not the point. Such independence cannot be allowed. Everyone must be kept in line and no alternative to the bully's tuck-shop game may be permitted. If everyone brought their own lunch, then where would he be?

At the behest of the bully, the North Korean kid is a constant target of the school newspaper. It's relentless and it's effective and everyone hates him. And of course the footy team hates him. They hate him as much as they hated that Iraqi kid. But even the cool kids hate him too after they saw that crazy puppet show quicktime that the newspaper kids made. It was called Footy Team America and, believe it or not, took the piss out of the jocks. It was as smutty as hell, complete with copulating puppets, and all the naughty rebellious kids thought it was great. "Ha ha ha, look at those stupid footy wankers!" they said. But they failed to notice that the jocks thought it was great as well. And the lot of them, bedazzled by the smut, thought nothing of the fact that the North Korean kid, along with all the Arab kids, were depicted as dickheads who deserved their beating at the hands of the idiotic but otherwise righteous jocks.


Don't forget, none of these kids has actually even met the North Korean kid, nor even heard a peep out of him. But that's how it was for all the foreign kids. If it wasn't for the newspaper no would even have known they were at the school. Take the kid from the CAR for instance. "Kid from the car? What car?" "No dickhead, not the car, the C-A-R, the Central African Replic. He sits at the back of the class, a few seats away from the Zimbabwe kid." Sure enough, since we all read the school newspaper, we know all about the Zimbabwe kid, who is a crazy little bastard. But truth is he's not half as fucked up as the CAR kid, but since the CAR kid eats at the tuck-shop (unlike the Zimbabwe kid), he ain't in the paper and no one knows who he is. Not forgetting of course that there's nothing like being hated by all the other kids to make a crazy kid crazier. Meanwhile the CAR kid hangs out at the tuck-shop and is 'normal', albeit invisible, and then the bell goes, and he's off home for his nightly self-mutilation frenzy, not that anyone cares.

As for the school paper, everyone admits it doesn't always get it right. Like that time when they had that big story about the Iraqi kid having a collection of guns, with his bedroom walls covered in pictures of other school kids with targets drawn on them. They made a little animated quicktime about him too. And yep, the cool kids thought is was funny as hell.


Finally when the footy team went to his house and absolutely kicked the living shit out of him, the school newspaper had a daily report about how we'd find those guns and pictures with targets any day now. The student president even appeared in the school paper to announce that they had found them: but it wasn't true and eventually the paper dropped the whole topic. "Anyway he's a spastic, look at the way he walks, and we're helping him to be normal." And each day the footy players dutifully drag him down to the tuck-shop so he can be normal and stop being such a fucking retard. And rotten ingrate that he is, he doesn't even thank them. Typical.

Mind you, no one had ever met the Iraqi kid face to face before they took to him with baseball bats, and it never occurred to them that before his kneecaps were smashed that he could walk just fine. Whatever. Astoundingly, a few kids actually wondered at it all and wondered if perhaps the gun story was bullshit and that really the whole thing was about something else? Perhaps the Iraqi kid made a pass at that Olive Oil chick? Who knows? We recall some vague thing hinting at something or other in the school newspaper. Anyway at least the little Iraqi spazmo is hanging out at the tuck-shop and being normal now.


And down at the tuck shop, pies in hand, the kids talk about the latest story about some other kid they never met - "Did you see that thing in the paper about that North Korean-Iranian-Russian-Chinese-Venezuelan kid? He has a basement full of crossbows! And his bedroom wall is covered in pix of kids with arrows through their heads! And he's a freak who dresses up as a lesbian! And he tortures cats with a Fisher-Price Play-Doh Factory! And, And, And..."

And were a kid in school to stand up and say that the school paper is bullshit and that no one has even met these kids, and that it's all about the tuck-shop lunches, everyone would laugh their arses off. "Tuck-shop lunches! Huh? What are you talking about? Like lunches have anything to do with anything?! You're just some vego poof who doesn't like pies! ♬Erh-oo-erh♫ Have some salad! Besides if there was a some crazy scam like this, we'd see it in the school paper! Duh!"

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.

It was twenty years ago today, that Deng Xiaoping told the band to play. Rat-a-tat-tat went the tuneless ditty.


Those bastards! Cue the fist shaking! Here we are twenty years later and the Western bloc-media is still outraged. A talking head, with his sad face on, reads the autocue to tell us of Chinese villainy. Cut to a candle-lit memorial in Hong Kong. Cut to a dissident who now lives in the West. Cut to library footage of a fellow in China who was in jail. Are you outraged yet? If you are, you should call the media. What with the complete and utter lack of interest of the part of the Chinese people themselves in embracing their victimhood, it seems it's up to everyone else to do it for them. Anyone who can think of a stunt that will make the Chinese government look bad will in all likelihood get airtime.



Weirdly, the idea of jobs being exported to China is here turned on its head. Why aren't the mainland Chinese doing this themselves? Why do we have to do it for them? Between sending film crews to Tiananmen Square for a non-musical remake of The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (ha ha ha, this critic raved!), and some Chinese punter's mobile phone footage of a riot, one of them fills the brief and costs peanuts.


So where is this footage? Why aren't the Chinese people demonstrating? 'Because they're oppressed and censored,' says the Western bloc-media. 'My arse,' says I. Just so you know, I never met a Chinese person who didn't have a mobile phone with camera. All of them are on the net and they madly email each other all day long. If there were protests they would be filmed. And if they were filmed they'd be emailed out. This is simple and obvious stuff and the Western media stringers in China know this perfectly well.



The simple fact is, there are no protests in China because no one gives a shit. Not if the twentieth anniversary is anything like the tenth, that is. It just so happens that I was in Beijing for the tenth anniversary in 1999. Back then, what with me being the clever Time Magazine reading Occidental, I was curious to see what form the Chinese people's anger would take. Talk about beg the question! The anger took no form at all because there wasn't any. I couldn't find a single person whose reaction was anything beyond wondering what they were going to have for lunch. Hmm... Hunan, Xian, or Sichuan?


Dont' think that they don't get it. They get it - they were there. They know that the original protest was the most rampant shitfight imaginable. Sure it was thrilling at first, but as the weeks passed and the trains kept rolling in from the outer provinces (where our lunch cuisines came from), disgorging endless thousands, the whole thing went to hell. Lunch was one thing, but clueless, Johnny-come-lately bumpkins who didn't know the party was over was something else.



Frankly the government was damned if it did, damned if it didn't. It could talk with the leaders, make concessions, thank everyone for coming, whatever - none of the new arrivals wanted to know about it. They hadn't spent days in arduous train travel just to turn around and go home again because some what-the-hell-would-they-know Beijingers had made a deal. And yep, finally the tanks rolled down Chang'an avenue.


Not forgetting of course that more people died in Gaza lately than died in Tiananmen. And does anyone think that the religiously sanctioned, racist slaughter in Gaza will be honoured with ten-year / twenty-year commemorations? We roll our eyes - fat chance of that. It will be dissolved down to the same word-recognition level that the Nakba now gets. "The Nak-what? What is he talking about?" Exactly.


Meanwhile it seems there's two Chinas. There's the China as imagined by the Jewish bloc-media. This is a very terrible place where an oppressed and beset people lead lives of fear. And then there's the China I went to. In that China, there is no fear. None. Nor is there any oppression. None. In fact I'd declare that the people in China are freer and less fearful than the people of the West.



Okay, okay, I will admit that the majority of my time was spent in the megapolises of Beijing and Shanghai with side trips to Xian, Wuhan, and Hainan. Everyone I knew was middle class. They had been poor but they were no longer. I did encounter farmers who were poor but I never discussed their oppression with them. Really, they were more interested in the fact that I rolled my own cigarettes. Regardless of this, if anyone wants to offer counter propositions about how China is so too a terrible place, I'll happily turn the tables and compare it to the US and we'll see who trumps whom.


With the US leading the West into its jackbooted future of tazers and torture, if the wicked Oriental other didn't exist, the bloc-media would have had to have invented it anyway. And sure enough, they did invent it. And it's on TV right now. But the only thing they're telling you about is themselves. Always this way...

I have this habit of mentally rewriting what I see and hear in the media. And when the news is on, I'm unbearable. Some Western leader will stick his worthless bonce up and spout his shit, but you probably won't hear it because I'll be talking over the top of them putting words in their mouth. The difference between my answer and theirs is that mine will be a lot closer to the truth, ha ha. Sure enough, I can be hell to watch the news with. Whilst I'm a sensitive fellow (no really!) I find it hard to feel bad when someone gets huffy about not being able to hear a pack of lies. I don't know if Aangirfan is hell to watch the news with, but the school-girl collective certainly gets the gag. Onya Aangirfan!

---

And then there's Hollywood. But movies and news, it's all the same thing. A prime function of this bloc-media is to tell us who to hate - Arabs, Germans, and Russians mostly. Since the media is completely Jewish, it's no surprise at all that we should hate whomever the Jews hate. And for those who've read the Talmud, it would be hard to disagree with the proposition that the Jews nurse a variety of hatred for everyone who is not them.

But down to today's Hollywood microcosm. Evidently in Hollywood, organised crime is Italian, or Chinese, or Japanese - anyone except Jews. And yeah, yeah, there's a tiny handful of exceptions like Once Upon A Time In America and Bugsy. But even amongst these rare exceptions we find individuals who (unlike the endless parade of Italians-Chinese-Japanese who must always expound on their Italian- Chinese- Japaneseness) seem barely to be Jewish. It seems that there are no Jewish traits, there is no Jewish 'character', and to be Jewish consists of nothing beyond being a deserving plucky underdog or a 'visionary', or both. Either way, a hagiography is the least they deserve.


Anyway, who's seen True Romance with Christian Slater and Patricia Arquette? This was directed by Tony Scott with a script from Quentin Tarantino. Neither of them are Jewish, but the Weinsteins who paid for it all are. Lately my head has been thrumming with the memorable scene in which Slater's dad, Dennis Hopper, is about to be tortured by the Sicilian mob boss, Christopher Walken, who wants to find Slater so that he can recover the money Slater stole. To save his son and spare himself torture, Hopper decides to insult them in the absurd, yet happily realised hope that they'll just kill him.

We as the audience are meant to think that it's right that Sicilians be racially slurred because they're villains. But this is simple-minded. They're villains because the fellow who wishes to slur them, declared them so. Explaining and excusing individual scenes by the totality of the plot is a mistake. The plot, the dialogue, all of it, the whole thing, is a contrivance to arrive us at the bigger message of the-world-is-thus, and its whom-we-must-hate. Everything is subservient to this.

Fine. In the spirit of 'If that's fair enough, so is this', let's re-write the original and see if these minor variations don't recast everything we understand. And wonder also if this only-ever-so-slightly altered script would ever have gotten made. Otherwise I declare this to be 'walking in another man's shoes' albeit turned on its head. The shoes here have been used to deliver a kicking and now I borrow them to kick in the opposite direction and see how the kicker likes it.


Walken: Jews are great liars. The best in the world. I'm Jewish. My father was the world heavy-weight champion of Jewish liars. From growing up with him I learned the pantomime. There are seventeen different things a guy can do when he lies to give himself away. A guys got seventeen pantomimes. A woman's got twenty, but a guy's got seventeen... but, if you know them, like you know your own face, they beat lie detectors all to hell. Now, what we got here is a little game of show and tell. You don't wanna show me nothin', but you're tellin me everything. I know you know where they are, so tell me before I do some damage you won't walk away from.

Hopper: You're Ashkenazi Jewish, huh?

Walken: I'm Jewish.

Hopper: But you're Ashkenazi Jewish.

Walken: Yeah, Ashkenazi.

Hopper: Ya know, I read a lot. Especially about things... about history. I find that shit fascinating. Here's a fact I don't know whether you know or not. Ashkenazi Jews ain't from Israel. They ain't God's chosen people. They ain't real Jews.

Walken: Come again?

Hopper: It's a fact. Yeah. You see, uh, Ashkenazis have, uh, Asian blood pumpin' through their hearts. Or regular white blood, take your pick. Hey, no, if eh, if eh, if you don't believe me, uh, you can look it up. Hundreds and hundreds of years ago, uh, you see, uh, these Kazakhs invaded the Caucasus and settled there. And the Kazakhs are Asians, and Caucasians are white, and neither of them were from Israel.

Walken: Yes...


Hopper: So you see, way back then, uh, Ashkenazi were like, uh, Hun from Asia who moved into the white neighbourhood. And, and your great-great-great-great grandmother fucked a Caucasian cracker and that's why you're as white as I am. But, uh, well, then these Asian crackers converted to Judaism and just called themselves children of Israel, and ah, chosen by God. They just declared it themselves! That's why that chosen-by-God bitch Zippy Livni has blonde hair and blue eyes, yeah. You know, it's absolutely amazing to me to think that in this day and age, hundreds of years later, that, uh, that Ashkenazis imagine they have some connection to the bible, or the torah, or the 'promised land', or any of that shit. Now this...
[Walken busts out laughing]

Hopper: No, I'm, no, I'm quoting... your history. It's written. It's a fact, it's written.

Walken: [Laughing] I love this guy.

Hopper: Your ancestors are slopes and crackers. Uh-huh.
[Starts laughing, too]

Hopper: Hey. Yeah. And, and you ain't chosen, or special, or nothin', ho, ho, yeah, you ain't even Semitic. You're just a jumped-up, self-impressed, racist git who thinks he's special... now, if that's a fact, tell me, am I lying? 'Cause you, you're bullshit.
[All laugh]

---

There. No one will take offence at that will they? No one took offence at the original when it was about Sicilians. In fact we all thought it was very clever. And if anyone wants to get huffy, feel free to pile in to the comments and hoist yourself on your own petard. I dare ya.

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.