We Are Cowards Because We Kill Our Children.

[For the uninitiated the situation used for this philosophical muse is that I, my dependent daughter and dependent nephew are being evicted by my sisters from my now deceased parents' house.  We all have health issues and have no resources to move in the immediate future.]

A message I get from all my sisters is this: "We are trying to save you from harm."

That may sound a little odd and it is a gross simplification but essentially the sentimental expressions are always that they are trying to help.  One claims to offer 6 months' rent to help us escape but it is a bad faith offer and she refuses to discuss it.  One offers concern but says "the others don't agree so what can I do?"  One weeps as she suggests an escape route via a dysfunctional welfare system.  One attempts to help and when that fails blames me.  So what is this "threat" this "harm" they are trying to save me from?  It appears to me the only threat of harm is coming from them.

It is fundamentally the convoluted logic of the abuser.

When I look back across our childhood I see the emotional manipulation, the serious physical violence, the rage, the terror, the austere control and it is no mystery to me why they feel the way they do.  They are the unfortunate results of abuse.  They are the broken children; the lost souls.

Even my poor mother cried out "What else can they do?" and my father's tragic last words to me were that he didn't want us thrown out as if it were a fait accompli out of his hands.

It is the guilt of the abuser.  It is the denial of the evil that is in all of us.  Only when we can accept the fundamental evil potential within is there any possibility of a moral good.  With no freewill there is no morality.  Only when we oppose our own evil can we achieve what we perceive as good.  If we are so afeared of being judged evil that we cannot allow ourselves to see our own evil then how can we possibly oppose it?  How can we possibly choose to do good?  If we were simply good people it would be no credit to us to be good because there would be no other possibility.

When my daughter was born and I cut her umbilical cord and saw this tiny miracle of creation with all the potential a human can perceive I was profoundly committed to the role in which I simply found myself - her protector - her father.  I didn't so much decide as became.  Here was a new person.  A new person who will be whoever and whatever she becomes.  It is her life not mine.  It was clear to me I was experiencing something indescribably beautiful whilst setting out on a journey that would likely not be easy.  It has proven far harder than I could have imagined.  But I think and feel a lot, and it is clear to me that if I were starving and the only way to survive was to take her food I would rather die.  The instinct to survive is at the very limit of human endurance.  It is quite conceivable (and the evidence is clear) that at the final moment most of us would kill another human being to survive.  I do not have to attain that greatest of all love that I would rather die than harm anyone, but it is a conscious decision when it comes to my daughter.

I am looking after one of my sisters' sons.  She cast him off (into her parents' house) because she could not accept the sacrifice she might have to make to look after him.  She preferred to ride off into her perceived paradise on her motorbike to live a life of material luxury with her Neanderthal controlling abusive boyfriend on the island of Guernsey.  That might sound like a harsh description but whether I judge her actions to be good or bad is not the final judgement of her - I actually understand her pain and her difficulties.  But when she instigates harm against me, my daughter and her own son in an attempt to bury the evidence of her own guilt in her own mind I will not voluntarily accept to comply.  In other words I will not harm myself, my daughter or her son in some vain attempt to avoid the harm she threatens to perpetrate.  Her problem with her guilt is her problem not mine.  I can't possibly resolve it for her because it is not mine to resolve.

All of them ran away from their parents oppression without ever confronting it.  It would seem that it is set in stone now.  It seems impossible for them to say "no" to the oppressor that lives and breathes inside them.  Why am I so lucky?  Maybe I suffered less at the hands of my parents.  But I came to terms with my fundamental and chronic betrayal of myself some 15 years ago.  Although I have always watched the world with a certain detachment and held on to the me that is within, it is only 15 years since I realised I could say "no" to any demand that I do someone else's bidding under fear of any threat.  Sure, put a gun to my head and tell me to wipe the shit off your shoe and I will do it - but I will never carry out your crime to hide your guilt from yourself.

To my sisters I would say "Grow up and own your own decisions."  If you want to throw me Ele and Mike out onto the street to get your grubby hands on some dosh then own it and do it.  But you will never get my agreement that you are right.  I will never do it for you.  And your claims that you have no other choice, your offsetting the decision by pretending it was Mummy and Daddy that wanted it, or your claims that it is financially legal are all vacuous excuses to blame other people or circumstances for your rather pathetic greed.

The truth is not that you cannot say no to the parents, or no to the money, or no to your sibling, or no to the bank, or no to the law - the truth is you cannot say no to yourself; your own hideous controlling evil self.

Another interesting corollary for this linguistic expression of the dynamics of being conscious is: do you choose to love or are you forced by fear?  Is your God benign or an oppressor?  Are you free to make your own decisions or subjugated by the threats of others as you cling to them in your own minds?

I am still utterly shocked that all this started before the parents were even dead.  The marauders pounced the instant the oppressors became weak.  It still astounds me how rapidly they seized power, as they saw it, and attacked us with such vigour.  Is it possible that their fear is so great that their ravenous desperation to get their hands on the spoils was irresistibly compulsive to the point of being psychotic?  Was it events that controlled them beyond their own ability to resist?  My much pondered conclusion is yes; they are out of control.  I cannot believe that any human could turn on their family and indeed their own child simply for material wealth.  But then I sit up and cast my weary eye across the horizon of human behaviour and history and I sadly conclude that it is all too often the case.  It is literal when I say "We sacrifice real life by complying with social contracts of oppression for our own sense of security."  We really do kill our children because we are cowards - or perhaps more accurately - we are cowards because we kill our children.

E.g. Neoliberal psychology.

I put the following paragraph in quotes to illustrate that it is a subjective expression to someone who is intentionally causing me harm.

"You are entirely convinced, to the extent you don't even consciously notice it, that I will defend myself by harming you.  On account of that your fear of me rises every time you assault me.  You are in a compulsive cycle of believing the stakes are rising and so the imperative to assault me is rising too.  You are being driven insane by your fear of being attacked as if by virtue of simply existing you will be abused.  This is the almost inevitable result of your formative experience of being born into an abusive environment."

This dynamic is self consistent.  It also illuminates the perceived need to assault the victim on the grounds that the perpetrator was assaulted and is still alive.  The false rationale including such notions as "It didn't do me any harm."

The ritualised practice of infant circumcision (or any genital mutilation) engenders a profound abstract and almost inaccessible paranoia (this is much written about in academic circles).  It is an accepted practice by mainstream Judaism (and other religions and cultures).  It is no coincidence that the self acclaimed "Jewish" State of Israel exhibits the characteristics described above on an almost incomprehensible scale.

"Au contraire!  We have an anti-Semite."  No - there is nothing anti-Semitic in what I say.  Quite apart from the fact that the term is a misnomer in the first place, the common meaning is "anti-Jewish in a negative prejudicial manner".  I have serious criticisms of all the Abrahamic religions and the consequential manifestation of behaviour.  Religions are very powerful mechanisms of psychological conformity.  It would be starkly insane not to examine them with an open mind.  My expressed observations are exactly not prejudicial because they are born of, and rely on, careful objective observations and interpretation.  There is no pre-judgement assumed or applied to any group or individual.  And, in addition to that, my observations are sympathetic to the perpetrators of abuse on the grounds that there seems no other explanation than that abuse is the consequence of abuse.  I am not going to elucidate that issue here but suffice it to say that it is self evident and self defining that "harming" children causes them to malfunction.  How could it not?  If it made them work better it wouldn't be described as "harm".  The relevant question might be whether circumcision is harmful or beneficial.  That subject has also been researched ad infinitum and the general consensus determines that in general it is harmful.  That is also my perception with all my experience and consideration of the issue.  Of course the argument remains because it is clearly a good thing from the perspective of the abuser on account of the fact it confirms their prejudicial beliefs insofar as the result is a dependent who compulsively defends their oppressor.  How the abused compulsively defend their abusers is well researched and studied if you need to know more.  It is a profound, self perpetuating, destructive, self-contradictory "survival" mechanism.

Theodor Herzl, regarded as the father of modern political Zionism, essentially takes the perspective of the injured party who has a "right to survive".  At the outset this is a perfectly reasonable position.  However, the possibly reasonable resolution is based on the premise of a presumed enemy.  The problem is that having resolved the issue the method of resolution is no longer functional because there is no longer an enemy.  It seems to follow that for the method to continue to be valid an enemy is required.  And there is an obvious and not entirely unreasonable tendency, if something produces good results, to do it again.  The method becomes a mechanism by which one believes one survives.  It is in danger of becoming compulsive.  The problem with the philosophy and the psychology of Zionism is that it requires an enemy.

Neoliberalism is essentially Liberalism out of context and to an extreme that fits the same model as described above regarding Zionism.  It seems to be one reason they work so well together even to the point of sometimes appearing indistinguishable.  The first assertion is the right for individuals to be free or "liberated" from oppression.  The entrenched defence is that if I have something you do not have the right to take it away from me.  The philosophy, the laws, the cultural paradigms and in fact the entire edifice of Neoliberalism focuses on the right of an individual to maintain the benefits of what they produce or what they do.  But it, yet again, assumes an environment that may have been the case at the outset but is changing in response to the actions within it.  It leads inevitably to power rising and concentrating in the upper echelons of the culture.  The idea that a corporation has an inalienable right to defend itself against an arbitrary pregnant woman who has no money and so "steals" a loaf of bread is obscenely out of proportion.  But that is where Neoliberalism goes.

Our economic structures reflect this same dynamic.  We live in a pyramid economy.  Yanis Varoufakis recently described the current problems in the EU, between the IMF and Greece in particular, as "Ponzi Austerity".  He is entirely correct.  The philosophy of making money by taking it from other people only works if the money is reliably circulating.  When the conceptualisation of money is formed and defined by the people who have it as a justification for their right to have it the result is a one way trip to the top.  This is the problem many don't understand when it comes to pyramid marketing.  On a local scale, where the ocean of available wealth is treated as infinite, the rationale makes sense.  But in a closed system the boundaries create a place where there are no resources to continue the process and the net result is the concentration of all that is available in the centre of the system depriving the whole of the resources to survive.  It literally eats itself like a cancer.

My sibling's behaviour (that is four sisters and a brother) of evicting myself, my daughter and my nephew from what is tragically ironically called the family home, clearly exhibit the profound error elucidated above.  They are beating a dead horse on account of their numskull interpretation which is a consequence of their abusive upbringing.  It seems no coincidence to me that in our family the youngest male died as a result of abuse and in the two female families born of my sisters it is the youngest male which has received the most damaging abuse or that as my sisters determine what to do they are currently assaulting the youngest remaining male in this family (that is me) and it is ironic that my nephew, one sisters damaged youngest male, is conveniently collateral damage because he is being assaulted by his mother who put him here in the first place.  The females, oppressed by a virulently sexist culture, abstractly perceive the father (an austere Victorian authoritarian) as the male representative of their oppression.  As is so often the case their legitimate need to destroy their oppressor combined with their conviction that "he" is indestructible (otherwise they would not be compulsively repressed by the internal construct within their psyche) turn on the easiest victim available in the outside world which too often is not the object of their problem but a place holder to vent their frustration and vengeance.  It is understandable why their attention is taken by the most vulnerable male in their vicinity.  All of this is the same construct of dynamics as described above but with emotional validity rather than money or material existence.

It may be that my subjective experience incorrectly assesses and understands the world at large.  It even raises my suspicions that my subjective experience so well matches my concerns and interpretation of human behaviour in general.  However there are a few objective observations that suggest something quite different.  The most obvious is that some of the most respected minds in our history appear to agree with me.  Yanis Varoufakis, Thomas Piketty, Naomi Kline, Richard Feynman, Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud ... and the list cascades across cultures and history.  It also makes sense of how these dynamics so profoundly affect our cultures because they resonate in such a fractal manner from the whole right down to the individual experience.  My experience is subjective but my observations are objective.  The subjective and the objective are just aspects of the whole.  When people attempt to over objectify, that is to take their subjective experience out of the equation, by depersonalising their cognitive constructs and academic pronouncements, the results become sterile to the point of extremism as outlined above.

The consequences of these incredibly damaged minds operating in the world can reasonably be described as hideous, obscene, disgusting and generally evil.  To mistake this observation as a valid description of the people creating these circumstances is to both miss the point and to become just another polarised oppressor.  The people are not evil, they are grossly damaged.  Vengeance should not be wrought on them but on the consequences.  The people should simply be ignored or stopped or, if necessary, incarcerated to prevent further evil.  The consequential subjective result is that I am hurt and angry to a degree I hardly imagined possible for one human being.

Quantum Theory & The Panama Papers.

People often wonder who they should believe.
It is not a question of belief but rather how plausible and how likely.

If there is any underlying truth we are certainly never going to know it in its entirety.  As with Quantum Theory we only need a way to accurately handle the phenomena.  And, as with Quantum Theory, working out the sum of all possible "truths" gives a net result which predicts events most accurately.

So ...
• Panama Papers: 2.6 terabytes of data, containing 11.5 million documents from one law firm in one tax haven.  This is only a drop in the proverbial ocean.
• Süddeutsche Zeitung, The Guardian and ICFJ have had this data for 8 months.  It has been stated that some of the material will remain secret.
• Top of the news is an Icelandic Prime Minister and Putin.  This accounts for a minute proportion of the information and although more information is available it is clear that a large majority of the data remains a black hole.
• Given who is handling this data it is reasonable to suppose that they would avoid releasing information damaging to themselves (or their masters).  Unless they release all the data it is not unreasonable to assume that the vast majority of the data implicates the Western governments in serious corruption and malpractice.

There is an ongoing issue of the NSA and GSCHQ tracking all communications via the internet to the point of serious concerns about "privacy".  The data collected by these organisations obviously dwarfs the Panama Papers like a mountain dwarfs a grain of sand.  So the Western governments already know far more than these papers reveal.  For brevity it is clear that the "West" has selected this 2.6 terabytes for the purpose of distraction for their own malicious ends.

Maybe they are in the process of shooting themselves in the foot (big time) if the public keep up the pressure.

Useful links:
Wikipedia: Panama Papers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers
World Economic Forum: Just how big was the Panama Papers leak?
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/04/the-scale-of-the-panama-papers

Charlie Hebdo assault is the inevitable consequence of abuse.

I find it tragic that so many people don't seem to understand what is going on in the world today.

There are so many comments about the Charlie Hebdo "terrorist" attack on 7 January but so few people seem to realise we are all involved.  We have a hierarchical culture which is compelled to maintain itself and relies exclusively on oppression and abuse.  When Tony Blair and George Bush conspire to attack millions of people in Iraq on a blatant set of lies and we fail to hold them responsible and accept the "benefits" we are party to an unsustainable and unacceptable hierarchy of abuse.  David Cameron is guilty of sustaining and promoting that abuse.  Ian Duncan Smith repeatedly lies and abuses the population quite illegally and in spite of the judicial system making it blatantly clear no one does anything about it.  Benjamin Netanyahu is a proven liar who repeatedly and flagrantly flouts international law with impunity and causes unendurable suffering and destruction of the beauty of life itself.  But no one holds these people to account.

Our conscious mental image of the world, our intellectual understanding, is the story we construct to make coherent sense of our experience.  It is always flawed in some way but the real evil of abuse is that it perverts that comprehension and consequently causes aberrant interaction with reality.  The fact that some people use one philosophical construct or another to make sense of their broken world is the inevitable result of the injustice and warped interpretation that we perpetuate with our culture of abuse.

So it happens to be "Islam" that explains how God, or Allah, has created this sublime reality of life and all aberrant behaviour that destroys it with impunity is the most profound affront to creation and God himself.  So it gets used to explain the pain and the bewilderment.  Sometimes it is Christianity and sometimes it is Judaism but these Abrahamic religions are profound insights into the ways of the world and possibly too profound for the majority to fully understand.  On account of their inherent hierarchical structure they are almost inevitably party to the abuse.  Just to put this into context for the people who want to think but don't quite get it, Jesus was a Jew who effectively exposed that whilst some will lord it over others with hypocritical moral oppression the story of God was valid only with justice for all.  He stood against the hierarchy of control.  But "Christianity" today protects itself with a hierarchy of abuse and control.  Islam is essentially the same but with what appears to be the profound insight that we all have a moral responsibility to oppose injustice and abuse.  It is not good enough to sit passively by saying "It has nothing to do with me."  That some people who are at their wits end confronted by the totally self destructive catastrophe that human culture is currently wrecking on planet Earth and humanity resort to shooting people who scoff at their God is the inevitable consequence of the injustice we all accept every day of our lives.

For God's sake people stop protecting the authoritarian hierarchy.  Bring it to account.  It is the most grotesque irony that the likes of David Cameron and Benjamin Netanyahu are marching in solidarity in France when you consider it is they who oppose justice and free expression in the extreme.  Cameron even announced at the UN that people who dissent from the official line on events like 9/11 and 7/7 are "non violent terrorists" and must be stopped at all costs.  Well I dissent from the disgusting trope that this attack on Charlie Hebdo is the terrorist assault on free speech that the real oppressors and murderers purport it to be.  It is, in fact, the inevitable aberrant behaviour caused precisely by the oppression and abuse by Western powers against mainly Muslim communities and countries around the world.  I hold Benjamin Netanyahu, and the many others like him, responsible for causing this tragic catastrophic behaviour by terminally abused and damaged people.

To put it intellectually:  If you go on fucking with people don't be surprised when one day they finally fuck you back.

It is NOT Islam that caused this tragic event, it is NOT Christianity that caused America to rape and murder Iraq, it is NOT Judaism that causes the state of Israel to commit some of the most barbarous acts against the Palestinians.  It is allowing authoritarians to leverage punitive "justice" against the population whilst not being held to the same "justice" themselves.  It is the culture of abuse that we perpetuate that will inevitably result in the degradation and destruction of humanity.

STOP THE ABUSE.

Facing the terror.

7 year old Ahed Bakr killed on 16 July 2014 by an Israeli shell.

Many years ago I was probably one of the first people to view a beheading execution by a terrorist on the internet.  I don't even recall when it was exactly but it was certainly prior to 2004.  I wondered at the time if I could bear to watch it.  I wondered if it would traumatise me in some adverse way.  I wondered if I could cope.  But in summary I recognised that I am alive and I have a choice to look at the reality of humanity or look away.  I considered that there was a human being who had lived and was murdered and I had a choice to honour his life by acknowledging and witnessing his suffering.  It could not be worse for me than it was for him.  So I watched the video.  It was disturbing and haunting but it also allows me to absorb some of the more disturbing aspects of humanity.

It is reasonable that it is not acceptable to go to someone's wedding party and to display hundreds of maimed and murdered children to force people to confront the horrors that are currently happening in other parts of the world whilst the guests indulge in good food, music and celebration.  There is, as they say, a time and a place for everything.  So when is the time and where is the place to face the extreme horrors of human behaviour?  It is right that people enjoy the good things in life.  But it is not right to maintain a disproportionate level of luxury facilitated at the expense of other people's suffering.  It is particularly disturbing when people actively ignore what is being done in their name to sustain their pleasure.  And it is sinister in the extreme to deliberately hide evidence of crimes to keep people in ignorance.

One of the iconic images of the Israeli assault on Gaza in 2014 is that of 7 year old Ahed Bakr who was killed on 16 July by an Israeli shell and his body was cast by the explosion like a discarded broken doll on the beach.  Israel claims they were firing at terrorists but the fact that at least 70% of the thousands they killed were civilians invalidates that defence.

On 19 August 2014 James Foley was the first victim of the iconic ISIL execution videos of Western hostages.  The video was clearly a fake.  It was only days before the authorities removed the video and claimed that it may have been faked but that James Foley had certainly been executed by ISIL soon afterwards.  So why would ISIL, a truly barbarous outfit, display a studio like simulation of an execution?  The most likely explanation is that they wouldn't.  They would show the execution, as they have done on many occasions before, in its raw horror.  If they are to be called terrorists it is because they intend to terrorise not sanitise.  The fact that this video was clearly fake did not stop the authorities using the memory of it to continue to incite fear and moral indignation in their own population to justify their intention to bomb the Middle East.  There was then a conveniently timed sequence of these almost identical videos of executions with the barren unidentifiable background and the victim on his knees in an orange jump suit with the executioner dressed in black like some evil figure from an Ali Baba pantomime on the right.  The latest being the 'fake' execution of Alan Henning on 3 October 2014.  Within 10 hours of its apparent release all traces of the video had been censored from the internet.

It is understandable that the authorities do not show the full horror on the main stream media whilst middle class people are enjoying their evening meal.  What is not acceptable or reasonable is that they remove all evidence from the internet.  If you want to prove to people that an execution has taken place it is ridiculous to hide the evidence.  The evidence of the atrocities in Gaza are available on the internet.  It may seem paradoxical but that is because the authorities cannot control the plethora of information and disturbing images from thousands of sources to thousands of destinations - yet.  Finding the more disturbing images is, however, becoming harder.  Searches done on Google recently are not finding the wealth of images and articles relating to Gaza that they did 2 months ago.  It is clear that someone is working hard to curtail, if not entirely control, the free flow of information.  But the ISIL executions are well and truly erased.  The most likely explanation is that the authorities have control of the source and destination of these videos and want to prevent them being studied and used as evidence that something is amiss with the official story.

The tragedy is that in both cases - Gaza and ISIL - there are innocent lives being destroyed.  It seems likely that the Western hostages portrayed in the execution videos are dead.  It does not make sense that an organisation like ISIL (especially if we are to believe the story the authorities require us to believe that they are savage and heinous) would construct fake videos to hide the true horror of someone having their head ruthlessly hacked off.  They are clearly not in the business of sanitising executions for Western consumers.  If the Western powers wanted to present execution videos as propaganda they would not film themselves executing these people and then publicise the incriminating evidence on the internet.  In fact they would likely 'stage' the videos and later kill the individuals off camera because they are surplus artefacts more dangerous alive than dead.

It is clearly evident that the collective group embodied largely by the US, the UK and Israeli governments are content to use sophisticated and dreadful illegal weapons to slaughter thousands of civilians deliberately trapped in Gaza.  Israel blockaded the sea, had already walled in the population and conspired with Egypt, a US backed military dictatorship, to lock the back door.  There was no escape for the population.  Israel then used terrible weapons including the most disgusting flechette missiles (sophisticated nail bombs) to intentionally target children in schools and hospitals.  The US supported and rearmed them and the UK actively defended them with propaganda and suppression of the real story.  I wrote to David Cameron and the best his office could offer was that David was concerned and the UK government had sent money for humanitarian aid.

Now they fill the media with horror stories of staged ISIL executions.  Four so far.  David Cameron is quoted as saying of the latest one on 3 October 2014 "The brutal murder of Alan Henning by ISIL shows just how barbaric and repulsive these terrorists are."  The obvious intention being to continue mustering support for the UK's unspecified and apparently endless military activities in the Middle East.  The ironic tragedy is that ISIL, on all accounts, appear to be barbaric and repulsive terrorists.  So why the fabricated and strangely invisible evidence.  It hardly matters who has fabricated it or if the abhorrent murders have occurred - the seriously troubling issue is why the falsification.  It is all the more disturbing that the official line from both the US and the UK is to emphasize the gross inhumanity of these unacceptable executions whilst remaining astoundingly silent on the bizarre genocidal butchery in Gaza.  It is self evident that their moral outrage is contrived and not genuine.  It is clear that their intentions are to persuade people to accept the need to exercise more violent intervention in the Middle East.  They are, by definition, warmongers.

Of course, with reference to David Cameron's latest speech, on no less than the world stage, at the recent UN General Assembly on 25 September 2014, it now appears that I am not allowed to exercise this intellectual inquiry for fear of being categorised as a terrorist myself.  The phrase "One might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb." comes to mind.  On the subject of lies and deception Cameron did say one thing that has lingered tantalisingly for days in my mind.  I eventually realised why it was provoking me.

With reference to the contradictory notion of 'war on terror' he named two specific events from many years ago and I quote "The peddling of lies: that 9/11 was a Jewish plot or that the 7/7 London attacks were staged."  He cited them (the peddling of such 'lies') as examples of what he has termed non-violent extremism and I quote again "We must be clear: to defeat the ideology of extremism we need to deal with all forms of extremism – not just violent extremism."  When he says "deal with" he does not mean engage with, listen to, discuss or debate - he means shut them down whatever it takes.  He is literally trying to terrify people by threatening extreme violence against anyone who voices an opinion that is not in line with the official story - in spite of the fact that the official story is based on evident falsification and misrepresentation of events.  This is, by definition, an act of terrorism.

But what has struck me so profoundly is that like any criminal there is a strange Freudian need to reveal the crime.  There was no need for Cameron to name those two events in a short 2,000 word speech at the UN over 10 years later.  But he is not as ruthless, psychopathic, clinical or clever as his erstwhile partners in crime.  He has, in the classic behaviour of a liar, let the cat out of the bag.  Why, with the abundance of current issues that need dealing with, was he compelled to not only deny the falsehood of those two specific events but to threaten anyone who dare mention such 'lies'?  I understand psychology well enough to know that if David Cameron seriously 'knew' in his own mind that those events were as officially described he would not be motivated to make such a strong denial of their possible falsehood so many years after the events.  But the evidence suggests that he is actually afraid of the truth coming out.  Now I don't know what the truth is but it seems Cameron knows more than me.

In summary there are a lot of tragic and dreadful events going on.  There is a lot of information and disinformation.  There are people vying for power and influence and there are people searching for an understanding and the truth.  The important thing is to have those biblical "eyes to see and ears to hear".  It may, hypothetically, be that the universe is ruthless and that Bush, Blair, Cameron, Obama, Netanyahu and a few others are perfectly right that people will kill people so it is better to kill them before they kill us.  They may be right that if necessary one should employ lies and deception to achieve what you believe is right.  They could, theoretically, be right that there are no higher values, no principles, no honour or truth.  But I do not believe it.  I believe that humanity is on the brink of its own destruction and the only way to successfully move forward and avoid that self-destruction is to deal with real reality and not the fictional reality of an idealised humanity which relies on hiding the unpalatable or terrifying reality in front of us.  We need to have eyes to see and ears to hear.  We need the truth and we need to confront it and deal with it.  We need to be honest no matter how difficult it appears to be.  We need the internet to be uncensored and information to flow freely.  If we are not dealing with reality we can't be successful in reality.  So come what may we need to understand what is going on.  These people 'in power' are clearly not being honest, straight forward or kind.  We have to get beyond that.  We have to face the fact that we are all capable of mistakes and bad deeds.  We are all capable of caving in and submitting.  The Americans, the British the Israelis, the Egyptians, the Syrians the Russians are all capable of dreadful behaviour but there is no way to stop this permanent decline until we face up to reality.  We have to stop demonising others with what we are terrified of in ourselves and start facing the truth regardless of what Cameron says.

We need to face the terror.  We need to deal with it.  We need to accept it and not try to rub it out by blaming others and destroying them.  The terror is in each and every one of us.  By trying to erase it from our experience we become the perpetrators of the very thing we fear most.

"We sacrifice real life by complying with social contracts of oppression for our own sense of security."

Avoiding the benign terror.

Mathematical 'Art'

I was having a discussion on the internet with my friend who shall be called Dave.  Several other's got involved and then Dave said to me "When I tell you I 'feel' God you can't feel what I feel yet because you haven't felt what I've experienced."  He went on to say "What you are seeing right now is the worldly things... Negative things... And in all the beautiful sunsets where I see God the Artist, you see science and death."

Well I got mad.

No Dave - That is neither correct nor fair.  I think you are projecting your subconscious onto me.  It seems to me it is possibly you who fears that the alternative to your sense of euphoria is misery or, as you put it, "science and death" as if it is cold and meaningless.

As it happens I have had very similar 'feelings' to the one's you describe.  I experience the profound joy of being alive and the sense of awe at the complexity, beauty and wonder of it all.  If I come across at times as 'negative' it is precisely because I think life is sacred and irreplaceable.  I am appalled by the inhumanity, death and destruction that is wrought in God's name on this planet.  I am angry, very angry, and with good reason.  My humanity bleeds for the pain and suffering of millions on this earth and I spend a lot of my time concerned and puzzling over it.  If my life is worth anything it is to bear witness to the truth of what is going on.  Many people would rather feel happy in their ignorance and that is a viable option but what I see is people afraid to view the terror that is rampant in this temporal existence.  If I choose to carry a disproportionate volume of pain that is my choice (as much as any of us has any choice).  I would suggest that I am actually far more in tune with what Jesus stood for than 90% of practicing Christians.  I say that from quite a lot of experience including being a practicing Christian for many years and attending possibly the best Roman Catholic private school in the UK and spending many hours discussing theology with seminary students and priests.

I made a film called "Recoil" many years ago.  It was entirely abstract with nothing 'recognisable' in it and wholly black and white with a sound track composed jointly by myself and Cabaret Voltaire.  It was viewed by a priest who knew nothing of my motive but he understood exactly what it was about.  He described it as genius.  It was about God recoiling at the realisation of what he had created.  I mention this just to add substance to my claim of sincere involvement and awareness of those issues that most people associate with religion and in particular Christianity.  I understand religion far better than most and have, ironically, probably had more conversations with God than the proverbial 'hot dinners'.

So by all means discuss religion with me but please don't tell me I "haven't experienced it yet" or try to convert me to some blissful interpretation of God which, in my humble opinion, is an escape clause.  Christ didn't die for no reason; he died, as is so often explained, for our sins.  But that is not a get out clause to carry on with gay abandon killing and maiming children with impunity to protect our own sense of wellbeing and happiness - which is how a lot of people treat it.  You are not singularly responsible for the deaths of thousands, actually millions, across the Middle East but I don't see you lobbying against your government to stop this insane war machine where they are unleashing the most sophisticated 'scientific' technology of death upon millions of civilians in the Middle East.  That is the real cold hard "science and death".

I profoundly, and with every fibre of my existence, object to this wholesale industrial slaughter being perpetuated by our cultures.  No - Christianity is about standing against oppression.  It was never meant to be a cushy ride and using God and the Church to gain a sense of peace and contentment for one's own sake in spite of the dysfunctional trauma being perpetrated by our societies is an affront to the man who stood against authoritarian hierarchy and oppression and died on a cross for our sins.

He knew, because it is predictable, that they will kill anyone who stands against them.  It is not a fiction or a practise run - it is real life and real death.  The profundity of death is we have no real way of not seeing it as the end.  It is the terminal meaninglessness of our existence staring us inescapably in the face.  This is why Christ descended into hell before ascending to heaven.  It is the absolute hopelessness that has to be experienced before the revelation of the incredible wonder that is reality.  Most Christians simply sidestep that fearful awareness and continue to delude themselves that it will be alright in the end.  There is only one way it will be alright and that is when we wake up to the fact that this is reality, this is God, this is what it is about.  In Christian terms this is absolute - this is sacred - if you can't value and respect it as the very existence, the very becoming, of God then it is a charade and a falsehood.

In fact the tragedy is that by avoiding the benign terror that is the revelation we project it onto others.  Hence the cultural fear of terrorists giving rise to the 'justification' for being the harbingers and executors of death (real death) to millions of others.  We become our own worst fears.  No Dave, I am not ignorant of God, I fear and love God.  But I cannot indulge in the now entirely corrupt material world manifestation of the false religion maintained by the very hierarchy that Jesus objected to.  And to add to your education I also produce beautiful mathematical, scientific, 'art' to add to the delights on this planet too.  And here is a wee example [at top of blog page]:

You can see more at

http://samspruce.deviantart.com/gallery/33264046/Patterns

or

http://www.toxicdrums.com/gallery/index.htm

:)

I hope my emotional creative writing has conveyed a little more of my passion and beliefs. ;)

STOP PRESS: Cameron supports Scottish Independence.

Cameron raises Saltire over 10 Downing Street in support of Scottish Independence.

Official - David Cameron supports Scottish Independence!

It seems David Cameron has read my letter to him.  And in a desperate attempt to exonerate himself from any collusion with the rogue Chancellor's illegal actions of attempting to affect the outcome of the Scottish Referendum on Independence by foul means of bribery and corruption the Prime Minister of Britain, David Cameron MP, has shown his support for the "YES" vote for Scottish Independence by raising the Scottish flag, the Saltire, above 10 Downing Street.

The Saltire has been the main icon associated with the "YES" vote in the referendum and Mr Cameron has decided to show his support by raising the Scottish National flag above his official residence.

In an interview David Cameron was thought to have said "It weren't me mate, it were him [George Osborne] wot done it.  I never tried to bribe anybody.  I support Scottish Independence.  That's why I've got a Scottish flag flying over 10 Downing Street."

Many Scottish Conservatives are now changing their vote to a "YES" vote because they simply follow their leader without a thought.

I would like to add my thanks to David for being such a sport and helping to promote the good cause of Scottish Independence.

Letter to Cameron re Osborne's poisoned chalice.

David Cameron MP Prime Minister of the United Kingdom 10 Downing Street London SW1A 2AA

8 September 2014

Dear David Cameron

Could you please inform me (and the general public) whether you authorised George Osborne's claims, on 7 September 2014, regarding more autonomy for Scotland which were reported in numerous national papers.  Is this an official Conservative Party policy announcement or an arbitrary unofficial pronouncement with no authority?

The Guardian reported that Osborne said "... a plan of action to give more powers to Scotland. More tax powers, more spending powers, more plans for powers over the welfare state." and went on "... the moment there is a no vote in the referendum."

I bring this to your attention urgently because if the Chancellor has gone rogue I fear your silence on the matter may make you and the Conservative Party accessories to the illegal act of attempting to affect the results of a referendum with bribery at the eleventh hour.

A veritable poisoned chalice from which you may be inadvertently drinking.

This is a very serious matter and I would appreciate your urgent response.

Yours sincerely




Sam Spruce
B.A. M.Sc. MBCS CITP

photo credit (image altered by TD): The CBI via photopin cc

My letter to Cameron re. George Galloway attack.

David Cameron MP Prime Minister of the United Kingdom 10 Downing Street London SW1A 2AA

2 September 2014

Dear David Cameron


I was shocked to hear of the attempted murderous assault on George Galloway MP in London on Friday 29 August 2014 resulting in a dislocated jaw, severe injuries to his skull and broken ribs.

I am even more shocked at the deafening silence emanating from Westminster and in particular you and your Conservative Party over this matter.

Your contradictory messages are becoming bewildering.  It seems your government can support the murder of thousands of dispossessed civilians in a besieged enclave including hundreds of children and all done with internationally illegal weapons and entirely against international law.  You fortify Cardiff to a ridiculous extent, inconveniencing the local population to a serious degree, to protect a bunch of foreigners who seem to want to vilify Russia, without reasonable evidence, for being next door to a country whose democratically elected government were overthrown by a violent coup which you support.  You happily respond to a hoax video of a journalist being executed in a Guantanamo Bay jump suit by an alleged Islamic State persona by attempting to terrorise the British public that dangerous "terrorists" are going to attack us all in our beds and to attempt to introduce new laws which are utterly draconian to the point of being against international law and the Declaration of Human Rights.  But on the subject of an elected, and well respected, British Member of Parliament being savagely assaulted and nearly killed on a street in London you remain silent.

One could be forgiven for thinking that the Tory Party is a bunch of intellectually challenged rich thugs who think themselves above the law and are happily desecrating British society sending this country into the Dark Ages whilst getting high on one drug or another.  There seems not one ounce of political integrity in the whole Tory Party.

Consider me profoundly shocked.


Yours sincerely




Sam Spruce
B.A. M.Sc. MBCS CITP

Parochial incitement: The ugly return of anti-Semitism

A still from CNN video

Yet another unfortunate post by a sadly parochial American.  I post this on my blog to illustrate that we have a problem in the world and it is not simply that some people are wrong.  The people are being fed a bizarre manifestation of a false simulacra and cannot get themselves out of the matrix.  It is therefore important to dissolve the fabrication to afford vision to the people who are currently dreaming the nightmare.  They are not bad people - they are damaged and anaesthetised.

I don't like posting warped propaganda on my blog but in order to address the problem it needs to be understood.

My friend "Dave" (as he shall be known) posted the following on Facebook:

The ugly return of anti-Semitism By Timothy Stanley
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/01/opinion/stanley-return-of-anti-semitism/index.html

... and so I responded:

What are you trying to suggest Dave?  Are you posting this to illustrate the mind-blowing stupidity of CNN or the parochial ignorance of the American people?  Please get your head out of the sand and notice the protests are anti-Israel.  Israel is THE major cause of anti-Semitism in the world by claiming itself to be a "Jewish State" as if Jews agree with the wholesale slaughter of victimised and dispossessed people.  This is deliberate warmongering and your country - your government - are the primary instigators of this devastation of civilisation.  Grow up and take a look at the wider picture.

Who armed the revolting Islamic State murderers?  Where did they get all their funding and their money?  Go and find out.  I can tell you it was the USA but you don't have to believe me.  But if you are unwilling or unable to look to find out then you have no business demonising them as if they are not your very own government protégé.  It is quite deliberate to raise the spectre of "terrorists on our streets" and "anti-Semitism on the rise" to inflame the situation and justify wholly ridiculous laws to restrict your freedom to keep you under control.  Have you bothered to read up on the history of Israel to inform yourself of the historical facts?  Have you any idea how many international laws Israel has breached?  Are you aware of the number of UN resolutions Israel and the US have totally ignored?  How many otherwise unanimous resolutions the US has vetoed to prevent Israel being held to account?  How many violations of human rights in their obsessive pursuit of the oil reserves in the Middle East?  Do you not realise they are deliberately causing chaos to justify their continued barbaric assault on the world at large?

How can you not see your own concerns about the militarisation of your own police as connected to the overall policy of oppression and control by your own government?  Are you not aware that the militarisation of your domestic situation is entirely designed and implemented by the same policies being nurtured in Israel?  Do you think it a coincidence that all your ranking police are sent to Israel on courses with the IDF to learn how to oppress and control a population?

It is no hyperbole to say that the heinous illegal weapons such "White Phosphorus", "Flechette" and "DIME" which Israel has been using on the ghettoised population in Gaza are being tested for use on the American population.  Get out of your fear zone and look at the bigger picture Dave.  Please.

Why Scotland should vote "YES" to independence.

VOTE "YES" FOR AN INDEPENDENT SCOTLAND.

There are plenty of small countries like Norway, the Isle of Man and Monaco which flourish as independent entities.  There is no fundamental reason why Scotland cannot do so.  There is no inherent dependency on the rest of the UK and Westminster in particular.  In fact the Scots have traditionally been a fiery independent lot not succumbing to being usurped too readily.  Vote to un-usurp yourselves.

All arguments for remaining in the UK are self contradictory, spurious or downright stupid.  Westminster is not a benign parent looking after a dependent child who would come to harm if they weren't there to support them.  If the UK wants Scotland to remain in the UK it is for the benefit of Westminster.  If Scotland was a burden they would encourage the Scots to become independent wouldn't they?  Westminster wants what Scotland has got.  And Westminster evidently wants it for its own aggrandizement and wealth as they continually keep Scotland impoverished by design.

If Scotland is independent and Westminster wants what Scotland has got then Westminster will simply have to make suitable arrangements with Scotland to continue to share the wealth.  This can only be good for Scotland.  Current arrangements would be severed but new ones would be formed - and more directly in the interests of the Scottish people.

Consider, also, two possible scenarios:
1/ Scotland votes "Yes" to independence.  Either they do well in which case it was the right decision or they do not do so well in which case, since Westminster is so desperate to 'keep' Scotland, the independence would clearly be reversible.
2/  Scotland votes "No" to independence.  Westminster continues their 'austerity' policies, selling off of the NHS, privatising everything in sight and generally abusing that poor northern region somewhere up there in the cold and wet north.  Westminster gets a vote of confidence in their policies which are clearly destructive to the general mass of 'people' in the UK and things probably get worse.  What is even worse than that is the Scots will never be asked again because Westminster will forever use the excuse that Scotland was asked and wanted to stay in the UK.

So the first option is reversible and the second option is irreversible.

My reason (being English) for wanting Scottish independence is primarily to give a strong message of no confidence to the elite oligarchs in Westminster.  It would significantly undermine their legitimacy and weaken them in general.

Please tell all your friends in Scotland to wake up and if they can't be bothered to find out the facts then please just don't vote.  Voting in ignorance is probably a dangerous crime.

Voting "Yes" for an independent Scotland will shake things up a bit and will be the best thing that has possibly ever happened to the UK.  Scotland will flourish and right wing permanent war and austerity will be undermined in Westminster.

Humanity is awakening and humanity has to awaken to have any chance of living sustainably and harmoniously on this planet.  Please have the courage to grasp the future and do the right thing.

VOTE "YES" FOR AN INDEPENDENT SCOTLAND.

CBN "How Britain Became a Global Exporter of Terrorism"

Still image from the CBN video below.

I am in the peculiar position of not liking politics and not having a good mind for their mode of discourse and discussion.  I don't either study world events nor do I recall facts and figures well but I have a good analytical mind.  My observations don't fit well in the general political debating arena but they are profound and valid.  So I present them in my own inimitable way and very few people take much notice.  I do converse with both sides of the 'argument' in the political spectrum because I am more interested in how this ridiculous oppositional, competitive and aggressive situation arises.  my objectives are to stop abuse and destruction and to promote sustainable and harmonious existence.

A friend of mine in the USA posted this video (he shall be named Dave for anonymity) and I responded.  Having written my thoughts I decided to post them on my blog to possibly reach a little wider audience.

My response to Dave:

What a pile of inflammatory nonsense.  Are people so stupid that they can't even ask why?  Did parents and teachers so criticise children for asking that simple question that they no longer know how to ask it?

I will respond directly to you Dave and my comments are there for any wider audience.

First of all religions have historically been a rallying call to the wider population.  Religion is never actually the reason or justification for violence.  All Abrahamic religions purport to believe in peace and justice and all have used it to justify the slaughter of other human beings.

What does one collectively call the major western alliances?  USA, Britain, Israel, Germany, France, Europe, Saudi Arabia, Australia, etc. ... this collection of countries which, to varying degrees, are on a self announced mission of expansionism and control?  The term "New World Order" has been discredited by association with "conspiracy theorists" who themselves have been ironically discredited by an illegal conspiracy by the CIA.  But it is American politicians who use the phrase "New World Order" to refer to their wider objectives.  Some people refer to the USA to simplify things because the relationships between UK and USA are of one kind and the relationships between USA and Europe are somewhat different and the Israel piece of the jigsaw is unique in many respects but collectively they form a significant interconnected powerbase so I'll settle for Western Powers for the time being.

The Western Powers have been on a violent mission to occupy, control or influence the Middle East for (more than) decades.  I am not a dedicated historian but even since 9/11 it has been clear what is going on.  American politicians wanted to invade Iraq and Afghanistan and needed a "Pearl Harbour" event to rally the Americans' support for such an invasion.  That was all documented before 9/11.  They got what they wanted in the 9/11 event.  It doesn't matter who was responsible although the evidence strongly suggests it was a false flag.  So in what way could that event possibly be justification for invading those two countries?  There has never been any proof that Osama bin Laden was involved - just assertions and pronouncements from war mongering politicians.  Osama bin Laden was the owner of a 'respectable' Saudi Arabian construction company who the CIA funded to operate as militia in Afghanistan to kill Russians.  No one ever presented evidence that Afghanistan was somehow responsible but they invaded the country on that pretext.  They have all but destroyed that country.  But what about Iraq?  Sadam was backed by the Western Powers to hassle Iran for years but that wasn't good enough especially when they were then strong enough to shout 'foul' over the oil issue.  So the Western Powers invaded the country and killed a million civilians in the process of destroying its political and material infrastructure. (They also stole all its money and that is well documented if you look into the subject.)  What did that have to do with 9/11?  They made their aggression generic under the banner "War on Terror", an Orwellian perversion if ever there was one, and accused Iraq of having "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (another utterly perverse misuse of a phrase) which was proven false by the UN.  But why would that stop the invasion?  I recall all too well that both Bush and Blair invoked the Christian God to rally popular support for their 'good' war.

How do you suppose people in Iraq view "Christianity" when the most powerful nation on the planet claims its own God wants to destroy people in Iraq?  Does your brain somehow not equate killing hundreds of thousands of people as murder if it is done with sophisticated military equipment?

We are being 'terrorised' by the Western Powers' propaganda and perverse perspective.  Take, for example, two phrases continuously regurgitated to conjure terror in the minds of the simpletons in the West: "Allāhu Akbar" and "Islamic Jihad".  We have the same equivalent phrases in the Christian West, e.g. "Good God" and "Christian Soldiers".  When you use the 'English'/'Christian' terms you always understand the human benign compassion behind them but when wogs, no, sorry, Jews, no sorry, niggers, no sorry, Muslims (I knew I'd get it right in the end.) use a foreign language we are encouraged to believe it is ignorant and aggressive.  Of course it is sometimes - we are all human after all - but Bush used the phrases aggressively and you don't appear to notice or object.

What about these two ridiculous events: the James Foley Video and the Murder of Lee Rigby mentioned in the video?  Relating to Lee Rigby: How many innocents have been murdered on their home ground in Afghanistan and Iraq by American and British soldiers?  We'd be overwhelmed if each one got the level of attention by the Western Media.  And he was a soldier, not a civilian.  Relating to the James Foley Video: It has already been exposed as a hoax even in the Main Stream Media for God's sake (oops there I go again "Allāhu Akbar" in English).  But has that stopped them using it to incite hatred against anyone in the Middle East they want to bash to fuck next?  No, they sidestep the fact that it was a hoax, never asking why, or what is going on, and continue with the idea that James Foley was killed some time somewhere and that is so unacceptable we must invade the Middle East!  Where do the eleven (I expect more) journalists killed by the Israeli war machine in Gaza get this level of indignation and publicity?  They don't Dave because they don't care one iota about life - they care about their oppositional objectives.  They care about aggression, oppression, coercion, control and abuse.

You have an idea of my views on the gun laws in the USA and you support 'people' owning guns.  Why?  Correct me if I am wrong but it is because if the government disarm the population you see the possibility that they have more power and control to oppress people.  Armed, the population are harder to oppress because there is a bigger risk of violent opposition to violence against the population.  What the hell do you think the "Jihadists" are doing?  They oppose oppression.  Don't be drawn into this ridiculous polarisation by citing violent idiots doing the shouting as somehow representing the population at large.  If one did that then you, Dave, are just another American wilfully responsible for murdering hundreds of thousands of peaceful citizens in Iraq.  Are you unaware that the majority of Iraqis have the same aspirations to all the good things in life as the majority of Americans?

We are embarked on an insane destructive permanent war scenario for the benefit of the elite.  Citing the Queen in this video as representing Christianity and civilisation is the biggest joke of all.  Have you ever read the story of the "Emperor's new clothes"?  The pomp and ceremony, the disgusting display of opulence, the ruthless hierarchical extravagance is staring you in the face but you can't see it.  Is this what "Christ" advocated?  No - quite the opposite - he opposed it.

This video is nasty ignorant trash designed to incite hatred.  It is not in any meaningful way informative or helpful.

Letter from Cees Hamelink to Putin voicing the opinions of millions.

Professor Cees Hamelink

A letter sent by a prominent Dutch Professor to Russian president Vladimir Putin has attracted much media attention in Europe.  The letter was written by Professor Cees Hamelink and signed by dozens of Dutch intellectuals and professors. Below is the letter in its entirety.

Dear Mr. President Putin,

Please accept our apologies on behalf of a great many people here in the Netherlands for our Government and our Media. The facts concerning MH17 are twisted to defame you and your country.

We are powerless onlookers, as we witness how the Western Nations, led by the United States, accuse Russia of crimes they commit themselves more than anybody else. We reject the double standards that are used for Russia and the West. In our societies, sufficient evidence is required for a conviction. The way you and your Nation are convicted for 'crimes' without evidence, is ruthless and despicable.

You have saved us from a conflict in Syria that could have escalated into a World War. The mass killing of innocent Syrian civilians through gassing by ‘Al-­‐Qaeda’ terrorists, trained and armed by the US and paid for by Saudi Arabia, was blamed on Assad. In doing so, the West hoped public opinion would turn against Assad, paving the way for an attack on Syria.

Not long after this, Western forces have built up, trained and armed an ‘opposition’ in the Ukraine, to prepare a coup against the legitimate Government in Kiev. The putschists taking over were quickly recognized by Western Governments. They were provided with loans from our tax money to prop their new Government up.

The people of the Crimea did not agree with this and showed this with peaceful demonstrations. Anonymous snipers and violence by Ukrainian troops turned these demonstrations into demands for independence from Kiev. Whether you support these separatist movements is immaterial, considering the blatant Imperialism of the West.

Russia is wrongly accused, without evidence or investigation, of delivering the weapons systems that allegedly brought down MH17. For this reason Western Governments claim they have a right to economically pressure Russia.

We, awake citizens of the West, who see the lies and machinations of our Governments, wish to offer you our apologies for what is done in our name.
It’s unfortunately true, that our media have lost all independence and are just mouthpieces for the Powers that Be. Because of this, Western people tend to have a warped view of reality and are unable to hold their politicians to account.

Our hopes are focused on your wisdom. We want Peace. We see that Western Governments do not serve the people but are working towards a New World Order. The destruction of sovereign nations and the killing of millions of innocent people is, seemingly, a price worth paying for them, to achieve this goal.

We, the people of the Netherlands, want Peace and Justice, also for and with Russia.
We hope to make clear that the Dutch Government speaks for itself only. We pray our efforts will help to diffuse the rising tensions between our Nations.

Sincerely,

Professor Cees Hamelink

I have copied this letter to my blog on the grounds of creating more copies of it on the internet.
I do so with complete respect and regard to the authors and the recipient.
There are more people who want peace and sustainable living for humanity on this planet than want continued strife, war, poverty and debasement.  These people must wake up and stand up against this insane authoritarian hierarchy which acts with complete impunity and cannot be allowed to get away with it for the sake of all future humans and life on this planet.

The references I have are:
http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/25981/53/
http://theinfounderground.com/smf/index.php?topic=18601.0

A BARREN STREET

A poem written from a dream.

A BARREN STREET

OH GOD I CRY TO THEE FOR HELP
AND YET WITH NONE I PLEAD STILL MORE

WHENCE MAN HAST THOU,
WITH ICE AND THORNS AND THIGHS
STILL WET UPON THIS SAND
CRIED OUT FOR MORE.

AND SO TOO SUN, WITH BLESSINGS SWEET,
WITH BURNING CRAVE FOR LESS.
OH MAN WHERE DUST THOU GO,
HOW LONG CAN THOU ENDURE,
AND THEN WITH ALL THAT IS NOT HERE
WE BLEAT AMONGST THE WOLVES.
TAKE DOWN WHAT GOOD THOU HAILS
AND LOVE FOR THEM AS NOT WILL KNOW.
INSIDE THERE WAS,
AND YET WITH ORANGE BRIGHT,
YOU KNOW NOT WHAT.

TAKE YOUR TRUST AWAY AS BITTER NOW IT WAS.
THEN WHENCE YOUR YOUNG HEART CRIES ALOUD
NOT THEN NOR NOW AND IN IT THOU DOST FEEL,
TAKE LOVE NOT TALENT WHENCE YOU GO.

ANON BRIGHT LOVE, ANON.

A POET ONCE DID WANDER WHENCE HE SPOKE.
TODAY THOU DUST.

YOUR BURNING HAND WILL LOVE WHAT SHAKES YOU NOT,
FOR PEACE IS NOT THE THRONG THAT PLACES MEN,
UNTO THE WORLD THIS PUZZLE NOW WE TAKE
AND DUST IT ROUND OUR MINDS.

OH GOD I PLEAD TO THEE FOR HELP
AND NOW WITH NONE I CRY STILL MORE.
OH MAN WHO MEASURES THINGS FOR MEASURE'S SAKE,
UNTIL YOU DIE NOT ONE SHALL BE REVEALED.
TAKE DOWN YOUR SHINING PRIDE YOUR LAMPS OF LIFE
AND REST SECURE UPON YOUR CERTAIN GRAVE.

David Cameron pronounces freewill is dead: "We Have No Choice But To Fight"

An article in the infamous Huffington Post claims that Mr Cameron has made a pronouncement that free will is dead.  Or at least he admits to having no free will himself and collectively applies that to the rest of Britain.  He is reported to have said "We Have No Choice".  Personally I think we do not possess the function that we call free will.  I have (as have many others) debated the question of free will.  There are many arguments against the existence of free will and sometimes, watching the behaviour of humans in world history, my tendency to conclude this is strengthened.  I do actually think we have some functionality that does manifest itself as what we call free will and that is complex but one thing is for sure: authoritarians require free will to exist precisely to justify culpability of people they want to control.  It's all very paradoxical.  So what is David Cameron suggesting when he claims he has no choice but to fight?  Well, he's abdicating responsibility and implying impunity for himself and the rest of Britain if they take their sophisticated military into another land and blow the hell out of a bunch of people (doubtless including children; those collateral darlings we so love to see splattered across the media to justify our outrage).

So in a satirical vein I proposed the alternative speech that was not reported by the press:

The full report of David CupCake's announcement...

[To camera] "We paid an actor named Trevor Slattery to masquerade as the evil 'Mandarin' in charge of a terrorist organisation called Ten Rings which we armed to the teeth (at great profit to ourselves) ... sorry, there's someone talking in my earpiece ...
[Speaking quietly to earpiece] What?  Say again ... Wrong film? You say it's not Iron Man 3 - it's The New World Order?  Ok ... sorry
[Back to camera] ... We paid an actor, trained by Mossad, called Simon Elliot to masquerade as the evil 'Al-Baghdadi' in charge of a terrorist organisation called ISIS which we armed to the teeth (at great profit to ourselves) to wreck Syria and now we want to arm the Kurds (at a wonderful profit for us too) to fight IS to give us an excuse to send our troops to fight and die for us to gain control of massive oil reserves in the Middle East.
[To earpiece] What? Don't tell them the truth?  What ... sorry ... yes ... um you say IS is a threat to Britain?  How? ... Sorry what? ... did you say 'cupcakes' ok ...
[To camera] Er ... Cupcakes.

That was the humorous take on it - now for something completely serious.

When I scanned the article the following quote shocked me.  This sort of rhetoric is becoming more common and apparently more acceptable without question.

Cameron also took [sic] out IS supporters at home - warning that anyone "walking around with Isis flags or trying to recruit people to their terrorist cause" would be arrested. "We are a tolerant people, but no tolerance should allow the room for this sort of poisonous extremism in our country," he said after talks with Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe.

Almost 50 IS-related videos were among 28,000 pieces of terrorist-related material taken down from the internet, he added. Cameron said he hoped for a "new start" in Iraqi politics as newly-appointed prime minister Haider al-Abadi seeks to form an inclusive administration that will unite behind opposition to IS.

And he promised a concerted diplomatic push to secure the support of countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Egypt, Turkey "and even perhaps Iran" to effort to counter the extremists.

My internal alarm bells rang.  First of all the whole point of a democracy is that everyone gets to say their bit.  So if a particular view is extreme and held by a few it is not a problem.  If it is held by many then that is the whole point of democracy.  You can't call controlling people's views democratic - it is dictatorship - by definition.  So if 20 people want to walk around with ISIS flags that is called freedom.  But it appears David Cameron, in consultation with a fatuous unqualified numbskull called Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe (titicular aggrandizement or what?) can just announce that people will be arrested for carrying a flag.  He goes on to emphasize "We are a tolerant people" which is clearly not true in his case.  His reference to there being no room for poisonous extremism is ironic.  My thoughts simply jump to Israel and wonder at the 'poisonous' and 'extremist' nature of that regime and David Cameron's support of them.  People have every right to support Israel (not the UK Government but that is a different matter) and they have every right to support Palestine and even Hamas if they want.  Hamas is demonised as a 'terrorist organisation' by the British Government but I have never encountered the idea that people should be arrested for carrying a Hamas or, indeed, a Palestinian flag.  So the alarm bells ring; what is David Cameron afraid of?  What is the British Government hiding?

The next paragraph goes on to say that they are censoring information on the internet.  That is disturbing.  Whatever happened to free speech?  Why are the 'authorities' so afraid of ISIS and their views?  He goes on to say the UK is seeking collusion with countries that some would consider terrorist in their own right.  Are people still unaware that Saudi Arabia funded the 9/11 attack?  There is no reasonable doubt about that in the minds of people who research these things, only in the media controlled public domain.  Well if 9/11 was a terrorist act that puts Saudi Arabia in the same frame.  Interestingly it also puts the USA in the same frame since it was probably their money in the first place.  And what of Egypt?  They had a revolution to escape the grasps of a dictator and democratically elected a government which the military deposed shooting 800 of government supporters in a peaceful protest.  Again, not mentioned much in the main stream media but in a report by Human Rights Watch they conclude Egypt’s actions likely constituted a crime against humanity, one of the worst violations of international law.  Now would that be classed as terrorism?  And my recollection is that Iran has been tarred by the label 'terrorist' by the UK Government in the past too.  What's changed?

Although I am not a well informed political beast I am more than suspicious about the shenanigans and machinations of the UK (and US) government.  My humorous 'speech by Cameron' refers to the film Iron Man 3 .  If you haven't seen it you should.  The Mandarin, a much feared ruthless leader of the terrorist organisation Ten Rings, turns out to be just a front man who is actually an actor paid for by the mad scientist Aldrich Killian in an attempt to get the US to buy his weapons.  It appears, even in the main stream media, that there is much doubt and mystery about the self acclaimed leader of ISIS.  He goes by the name of Al-Baghdadi which is known to be a  nom de guerre.  There is much speculation but his past does not indicate any radical nature or involvement.  There is suggestion that his real name is Simon Elliot and he was trained by Mossad which is supported by an alleged Snowden leak.  I am very sceptical about these claims but what they do illustrate is that there is no clarity in the official story to refute them.  They also make a lot of sense - they are plausible.

Sometimes people tend to feel that these 'conspiracy theories' are so extreme and they can't imagine their own government (that they have strangely been indoctrinated to believe) would be involved in such utterly extreme clandestine illusion.  But consider Iron Man 3, for example; who can imagine how that movie was made?  We just assume that there are many creative minds, clever experts and much sophisticated technology to create a brilliant, coherent story with convincing special effects.  Why would we imagine that governments, which have far more resources than Hollywood, couldn't or wouldn't use their resources to construct whatever illusion they required as the cultural conceptualisation of world affairs.  Most people, on thinking about it, might actually feel it was a failure if they didn't.  Given that there is virtually nothing nowadays to distinguish one illusion from another we have to look elsewhere to build our concept of the world.  One way of doing this is to weigh up the plausibility of the stories.  One thing, perhaps the only thing, we have to go on is our selves - our own experience and understanding of other people's behaviour and feelings.

Given that ISIS has been funded and armed by the US government for its activities in Syria then it is clearly not without connections.  The same thing occurred with Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan; The CIA funded and armed a Saudi Arabian construction company to fight off the Russians who were invading.  They set themselves up as Islamic freedom fighters living in the mountains and harassing the Russian military until they left.  Osama bin Laden was later targeted by the USA as most wanted man in the world when it suited them.  But for ten years they couldn't find this man!  It seems far more likely, when they can send drones in to foreign countries and knock off anyone they wish without a trial, that the 'story' of Osama bin Laden was far more useful to them than killing him.  Like a good soap opera what did they do when they wanted the story to end?  They killed him off.  Where was the evidence?  They say they threw the body overboard.  Is that plausible?  The most wanted man in the world, hunted for ten years, the motive for any military action anywhere the US and the UK cared to venture, thrown overboard leaving no evidence?  It is seriously implausible.  In fact it is not true.  I can say that with as much certainty as I can say there is not a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars (that is a reference to Bertrand Russell's proposition) because it is neither provable nor disprovable and as such becomes irrelevant - the US government ensured that outcome - which leads to the strong implication that the fate of Osama bin Laden was not as purported by the US.

It seems Al-Baghdadi is another stooge planted by the Western Powers or "The New World Order" for the manipulation of the population for their own malicious agenda.

But when the great man David CupCake speaks out the British public all say "Aaaaaaah" like the little green men in Toy Story.