Saturday 1 August 2020

Nothing disrupts the system like an inquisitive mind

July 2020 – Any persuader worth his/her salt knows that a good way to direct a conversation is to ask questions. A simple “why?” or “why not?” is invaluable in this context and it tends to prolong the engagement.

If a salesman invites you to buy his product and you decline, a simple ‘Why?’ from him (why don’t you want to buy?) could often lead you and me into a labyrinth of defensive answers, including our own ‘white’ lies, that could continue the conversation until he finds our weak spot. But the same is true when you or I ask the same question of him. That’s when his lies begin to come out.

Forget his wish to ‘see you right’, or ‘it would be just perfect for your needs’, or ‘you know it makes sense’. Lies, all lies. His job is to get you to buy his product and, one way or another, his payment depends upon it. Especially in these days of agencies and franchises and no-contract employment. Under those circumstances rare is the salesman who would refrain from closing a sale on the grounds of ‘it just isn’t right for you’. They are out there but they are few and far between.

However, we tend to differentiate subconsciously between the private trader and those who appear to have authority over us, such as police, or men in hi-viz jackets and hard hats, or the man from the Council. Then, we tend not to ask ‘why’. When told to jump, all too often, our unspoken response is ‘how high?’ It’s a very British thing, doncha know? As in, there’s no need for rudeness after all is said and done.
We tend to grant authority over us to those who have the chutzpah to act as though they have it already. (Wikipedia defines chutzpah as: “Chutzpah is the quality of audacity, for good or for bad. It derives from the Hebrew word ḥutspâ, meaning "insolence", "cheek" or "audacity".) With that information, I just had to look up Roget’s 21st century thesaurus: for synonyms and antonyms.

adventurous aweless enterprising smart ass
bold brassy fearless unafraid
courageous brave gutty         uncurbed
foolhardy cheeky intrepid undaunted
resolute daredevil nervy ungoverned
risky dauntless rash venturesome
afraid shy modest
careful timid reserved
cautious weak         yielding
cowardly gentle
fearful humble
meek mild
Now, use just your best guess, please. In your opinion, which of those two lists best describes “Britons never, ever, shall be slaves”? There is no need for the second, alternative question.
Note, please, that none of those synonyms include the idea of offensiveness, intimidation, hooliganism or rudeness. Nowhere is there a suggestion of PRIDE, which anyway usually goes before a fall. You might even say that these definitions cover my often-used mantra of 

Cause no harm
Be honest
Be peaceful
Be responsible

Isn’t that interesting?
Here is another question I’ve been musing about recently. How do WE value things? Do we use the same value system as almost everyone else or are we different in some way?

A couple of thoughts came to me while I was half listening to a news reader on voyeur-vision warbling on about how something had ‘cost’ the NHS so-and-so amounts of money. My first thought was that the corporation known as NHS has no money beyond that which the pollies give from general taxation or, maybe, borrowing from the banks.

The second was to note that whatever it was that was being reported on had been performed by living people, presumably, for the benefit of other living people, but was being valued in money terms. How come? How can we value what we do for the well-being  of each other in terms of fiat currency which is created out of thin air and described as interest-bearing debt, or has been forcibly demanded from ordinary working people and described as ‘tax’ or ‘National Insurance’, automatically taken from us under threat of harm if it isn’t paid? (Please excuse the over-long sentence but this subject makes me cross).

Which part of “Cause no harm/Be honest/Be peaceful/Be responsible” best describes those transactions? In asking this, I acknowledge in advance that ‘the labourer is worthy of his hire’ – (Luke 10:7,1 Timothy 5:18, Matthew 10:10, Leviticus 19:13, Deuteronomy 24:15). In other words: It’s in the book that we should be paid for our labour! Even when the corporation has no money.

It has been well observed – and then ignored by most – that ‘The LOVE OF MONEY is a root of all evil’. Another question: Why is this statement ignored by so many? We all know that we came into this world naked, ignorant, and penniless. We shall certainly leave this world penniless, probably dressed to impress, and possibly a little better informed (which isn’t the same as being wiser) when we leave it. But as the pharaohs of old Egypt have shown down the centuries, despite our best efforts, we cannot take it with us, and death and others can still take it from us.

And I wonder, just how dumb are we that we will not understand these things. There now. There’s another question for us to think about.


_ _ _ _

Tuesday 7 July 2020

We don't know what we don't know

Early July 2020 – Cast your mind back to a time when people thought (believed) that the Earth is flat. And it was so, because it was taught so at university, until all that changed. At the time, they just didn’t know what they didn’t know.

Now cast your mind back to a time when people thought (believed) that the Sun orbits the Earth. And it was so, because it was taught so as knowledge at university, until all that changed. They just didn’t know what they didn’t know. (As it happens, according to Time magazine in February 2014:
“1 in 4 Americans Apparently Unaware the Earth Orbits the Sun.”)

Now go back to when HIRUDOTHERAPY - the application of leeches to the skin - were thought (believed) to be helpful in treating all sorts of conditions, from headaches to haemorrhoids. And it was so, because it was taught so as knowledge at medical universities everywhere, until all that changed. They just didn’t know what they didn’t know. For example, about pain suppressants and antibiotics.

The point is, we cannot rely on science to provide us with all the right answers all the time. It can provide us with seemingly right answers to date in time. But we still don’t know what we don’t know.

If the opposite is true (ie we CAN rely on science to provide us with all the right answers all the time), we could shut down most research in universities on the grounds that we know all there is to know therefore further research is pointless. We are as gods!

So, what value is there in Professors and doctors telling politicians what is and what isn’t true while still wanting to be paid to continue researching? Is it an admission that they don’t know what they don’t know? None of us do. Which means that instructions to ‘lock down’, to keep xyz distance apart from others, to not sing in a pub or a church, are just the understanding we have today. We don’t know what understanding we shall have tomorrow. But, for lack of full understanding, businesses, jobs, travel and education (!) have been shut down across the world (except in Denmark, apparently) and families ruined because we trusted people who didn’t know and wouldn’t admit that they didn’t know what they didn’t know. Give him the money, Mabel. (As Wilfred Pickles used to say).

That is only partly a silly argument, of course. But it does highlight the difference between research and tuition in universities, and between those ‘students’ who just want a certificate that will lead to a job and those who have permanent curiosity about their subjects of choice. It’s when they begin to advise politicians that the troubles begin, it seems to me.

Politicians are a whole different matter, of course. Far too many seem to care more about what is expedient than what might be true. That means, if the proposed solution fits, go for it, and worry about the consequences before the next election. Oooh! How cynical does one have to be to find something that looks and feels like truth?

_ _ _ _ _

I listened to BBC Radio4 this morning as journalists interviewed all and sundry about closed theatres, opening pubs and restaurants, and what is generally referred to as ‘the return to normal(ity)’. The accepted premise is that the way we lived pre-CV19 was ‘normal’. To my mind that represents a sophisticated attitude, meaning ‘complex and probably not natural’. Maybe ‘abnormal’?

Stay with me and my thought processes on this one. Is it ‘normal’ to spend 2-3 hours a day travelling to and from a place of work? Of course not. It has ‘become normal’ but that is a different matter.

Is it normal to live in the equivalent of a small box, stacked one on top of another into a tower of ‘flats’?  Of course not, but it has ‘become normal’. It most certainly isn’t ‘natural’. Put another way, it is un-natural or even ab-normal, but it seems to work for some people, some of the time.

What I’m really describing is our comfort zone. We might not like it especially, but we stay with it because it feels more acceptable and comfortable than any change might turn out to be. What timid souls we can be. How conservative.

Others don’t want change because it wasn’t their idea, and then it becomes political. We know those people as socialists, or communists or just about anything else ending in -ists or -holes. Undecideds are liberals and they are the ‘whatevers’ of this world.

And there you have it. See how easy it is to create splits and dissent simply by applying a label? Sticks and stone can break my bones, but names can never hurt me. HOW BIG is THAT lie?

_ _ _ _ _

Friday 19 June 2020

Give a man a fish . . . .

Give a Man a Fish, and You Feed Him for a Day. 
Teach a Man to Fish, and You Feed Him for a Lifetime

Mid-June 2020 – You have all heard that headlined proverb before. Mostly, we think we understand it. And, mostly, we fail to implement it or understand the consequences of not doing so.

The proof in that particular pudding is seen all around us daily. The prime minister and/or his scientific advisers call for a lockdown, first in general and later in particular, especially identifying the elderly and infirm. Employees in most businesses are given ‘furlough’ - a noun which means ‘forced absence from work without pay’. The prime minister and his sycophants (sycophants today – back stabbers tomorrow) tell folks they shouldn’t worry because the government will pay those unfortunates up to £2,500 per month to alleviate the ensuing difficulties they will face. This, I suggest, is the equivalent of ‘giving a man a fish, and thus feeding him for a day’. Next day/week/month he will want to be fed again.

Generally speaking, this is how animal trainers train animals. First, make it clear to the animal what it is you want it to do; then reward the animal in some way when it complies. Reward usually means giving the animal some tidbit or tasty delicacy. 

Human Resources (HR) people do it all the time. So do commercial organisations with their offers to customers of ‘if you buy this, we will give you that’. So do governments. So, how does it feel to be made aware now that you are being trained continuously, just like an animal?

The complete proverb provides a possible solution. “Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” Or, put in a slightly different way: Forget about trying to rebuild the broken system ALL OVER THE WORLD. There is no point in looking backwards because ‘If we continue to do as we’ve always done, we’re likely to get what we’ve always got’. Warts and all. Clearly, that isn’t good enough.

Instead, why not offer to retrain/reskill those who are enduring furlough but are willing to learn new skills, tasks, and trades, including entrepreneurship and how to build a business? That would provide many people with hope for the future rather than just giving them a little fishy on a little dishy when the boat comes in.  It doesn’t seem to have registered with ‘the authorities’, however.

Sadly, the problem and the possible solution I’ve just offered for thoughtful consideration aren’t the whole story.

The truth is that our pensions, social benefits and NHS system is just one, great, big PONZI scheme. What is a PONZI scheme, I hear you ask?

It is a fraudulent ‘investment’ plan in which the investments of later investors are used to pay earlier investors, giving the appearance that the investments of the initial participants dramatically increase in value in a short amount of time. (The Legal Free Dictionary).

So, we pay our National Insurance as we go (P.A.Y.E.) but that money isn’t invested. Instead, it pays out today to provide services to those who paid/contributed in a similar fashion over previous years. It looks as though their investment is coming good when they need it, but it isn’t because today’s NI benefits are paid out from the money paid in as NI contributions last week/month.

As businesses and jobs disappear, so does the PAYE contribution until, eventually the system collapses through lack of funds. The NHS will collapse; state pension payments will cease; and everything we look to the government to supply, will cease. There is no salvation coming from ‘the government’. It has no money.

In the meantime, banks remove themselves from the High Street and show themselves to be the international casinos they truly are. Soon, they will remove their ATMs from the High Street. There will be no cash and shop owners won’t want to accept cash because there are no local banks in which to deposit it at the end of the day. That is happening TODAY in my local High Street. There will be credits on a microchip on a square of plastic only, provided that you can represent some kind of value (or compliance) to the world. Those who are unable to provide for themselves will become pariahs. 

Yet, despite all this, no one is taking steps to prepare people for their miserable future. Why would they? It wouldn’t go well in the political opinion polls. But don’t worry. We still have the Postcode Lottery to look forward to.

I conclude that the intention in some unseen quarters is, over time, to allow or encourage large portions of society to go under; to fall sick and not be treated because the NHS and pensions are unaffordable; to die of starvation because they have no means of paying for food. (Because they haven’t complied with other ‘regulations’.) And at that stage people will understand that our money system is the biggest fraud of all. There is no money – just interest-bearing credit repayable to international Central banks.  

Gordon Brown and HM Treasury sold at a discount 395 tonnes (approximately 58%) of the gold which previously had backed our money, over the period between 1999 and 2002, when gold prices were at their lowest in 20 years. Today he is the United Nations Special Global Envoy for Education, with all the ramifications of the New World Order which are embedded in that job title for us all to see.

It crossed my mind a few moments ago that it just might be that those in positions of supposed authority over us (those we thought we had voted for), understand already that there is little future for us to worry about, if we continue to do as we’ve always done. THAT is something to concern ourselves about. But we never learn. Not now Primark is open again.

Somebody reminded me recently that after Archduke Franz Ferdinand Carl Ludwig Joseph Maria of Austria (18 December 1863 - 28 June 1914) was murdered and World War 1 broke out, some 8,500,000 soldiers died because of wounds and/or disease. The greatest number of casualties and wounds were inflicted by artillery, followed by small arms, and then by poison gas, according to One against 8.5 million? Words fail me.

According to the National World War II museum, WORLDWIDE CASUALTIES*

Battle Deaths 15,000,000
Battle Wounded 25,000,000
Civilian Deaths 45,000,000
*Worldwide casualty estimates vary widely in several sources. The number of civilian deaths in China alone might well be more than 50,000,000.

All of which causes me to reflect on how we elect our leaders; what power we are prepared to entrust to them, and how we ensure that the people are the authority in this land, not the here-today-gone- tomorrow politicians, and certainly NOT the political parties.

Don’t think of this as a silly idea concocted by an old man. This idea, born with Magna Carta 1215 has been the bedrock of our Constitution, and the Constitutions of much of the Commonwealth, since then. But generations of politicians, judiciary and bankers have worked without ceasing to steal the truth from us. Nevertheless, when you know the truth, it shall set you free.

* * * *

For further information, I recommend you to research via or the printed version published as: 
           ISBN 978-1-902848-26-
                  By Kenn d’Oudney

Sunday 31 May 2020


   That’s the way to do it

June 1st, 2020 – Do you ever stop to think of the mountain of differences that separate mankind from his neighbours? I do, sometimes. And when I do, I’m totally amazed at the size of the job in front of us if we want to see life lived differently. Statisticians, economists, politicians, and the hacks who write for our various media, all seem to agree that ‘things will be different’ in future.

Probably they are right. After the happenings of the last three months who would take bets on the number of our population; who would take bets on the numbers who will be earning a living and who will be dependent on state support? Not many. It’s all more or less semi-intelligent guesswork, depending on which abacus or crystal ball is used.

Four nations form the political Kingdom sometimes known as Great Britain, which sometimes seems far from United. Many in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would prefer to live on these islands and speak a language other than English, if only they could make the idea popular. Some immigrants, especially in England would do the same.

The common religion is secularism, which stands aside from the Church of England, the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland, the autonomous Anglican Church of Ireland, the Church in Wales, which is the Anglican Church in Wales, and the Roman Catholic Church. Spread among the nations are Independents, Methodists, Baptists, (Plymouth) Brethren, Quakers, 7th Day Adventists, Mormons, Pentecostal, Evangelical, Congregational, United Reformed, Uniting, and Eastern Orthodox.

Then there are Jews (Judaism), Muslims, Buddhists, Sikh, Hindu, Atheism/Agnosticism, Confucianism, Rastafarians, Satanists. And more. Roughly 66 million people, or thereabouts. 

Loosely speaking, they have one thing in common. With varying degrees of goodwill towards each other, they all stand apart on the principal of ‘I’m right, and you are wrong’. Against that, Ecumenicalism has a tough job.

Aside from multiple differences in language and religion across the four nations, there are also differing political views, all bearing a simple title which is intended to highlight their differences. Conservatives, Socialists, (Liberal) Democrats, Marxists, Communists, Fascists, the Greens, the Independents. Sub-divided yet again between male and female, and again between young and old, and again between healthy and sick, employed, and unemployed, owners of property and renters, leaders and followers, entrepreneurs and feckless, wealthy, and poor.

In other words, potentially, 66 million differing views about How To Do It. Life seems to be a Punch and Judy Show, with the emphasis on ‘show’.

Then, in other moments of reflection, I consider the meaning and purpose of family. Those unique groups of people made up of father/husband, mother/wife, brothers/sisters, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins. If we watch our animal friends it seems the natural way for them is for mother to nurture the offspring, and father to be the provider of food and shelter, social positions which are swapped from time to time, presumably on grounds of expediency rather than desire for change.

Marauders know that the way to a ‘kill’ is first to separate the family and attack the weakest/youngest. And that is precisely what happens in the affairs of mankind. 

Fathers and mothers might well try to instill good practices into the minds of their children, but they must also send their children to a place to be ‘educated’ by others. Worse, they permit a one-eyed monster that never sleeps, living in the corner of their family room to advise, inform and train their children. Even animals don’t do that!

In between being children and becoming young people, modern mankind finds it s-o-o easy to carry a permanent, portable version of the one-eyed monster in their hip pockets. What price then the well-intentioned parents and grandparents? The bear trap jaws of anti-everything encircles, enfeebles, and destroys the family and we weep for our lost happiness and seemingly fragile security. The animal kingdom shows us too often that the new ways and lifestyles we have adopted are not natural and not necessarily good for us.


Who gave them power over you? YOU DID! Who acknowledged their titles and ranks? YOU DID! In secular terms, who claims to be a sovereign being? YOU DO! (You know your rights, doncha?). In Christian terms we assert that God is sovereign. In Islam (Allahu Akbar ‘God is greater’) and Judaism (Elohim gadol), the same but not as frequently used. 

So, take your pick. Whichever one you choose, it will mean that YOU will have to address the world differently from here on. If you see yourself as sovereign there is no longer any requirement for you to kowtow to the physical powers that surround you unless you fear them, which isn’t the basis for any kind of happy family environment. 

Ditto if you adopt an alternative belief but if you do that, I think we aren’t speaking about natural things anymore. Rather, we’re addressing spiritual (super-natural) matters, and when that happens it isn’t just a matter of words. It really is a matter of who has the greater power - and it isn’t the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury!
* * * *

Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. Bertrand Russell

Wednesday 25 March 2020

The Power of M

Recently, I mused about some of the 3-word phrases of instruction and encouragement uttered by Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and others among his playmates. The most recent is: ‘Stay at Home’. Repeat them often enough and they become a mantra to be repeated without thinking. “What do we want?” “When do we want it?”.

Idly, I mused about the expressed urgency to have the whole nation connected to broadband internet and the money government was putting into private companies, such as Openreach, to obtain this result. Why would government choose to spend taxpayer’s money to hurry up private companies to do what they would get around to doing anyway in the fullness of their own commercial time? Why? Surely, there are more important things to spend it on. I see the ‘hurry-up’ related to ‘Stay at Home’? As in, we need the hurry up first before we can get to promoting Stay at Home.

(For those who are unaware, Openreach is a functional division of telecommunications company BT plc, that maintains the telephone cables, ducts, cabinets and exchanges that connect nearly all homes and businesses in the United Kingdom to the national broadband and telephone network).

Before drifting to sleep, I wondered if I could create a three-word mantra to throw back at the chanters. I came up with “Money, money, money.”

Money, money, money
Must be funny
In the rich man's world
Money, money, money
Always sunny
In the rich man's world
All the things I could do
If I had a little money

It's a rich man's world

Ah, money. In Jewish and Christian tradition, the love of money is condemned as a sin primarily based on texts such as Ecclesiastes 5.10 and 1 Timothy 6:10. The Jewish and Christian condemnation relates to avarice and greed rather than money itself. Wikipedia

And that led me to ‘The Power of M’. Everything in life seems to be ‘Monetarized’; or ‘Militarized’; and then ‘Monopolized’. And ‘Magnified’.  I Mused.

Beginning with money. Was it just chance that among my reading that morning included:
"The fact that these foolish people are often stubborn must not blind us to the fact that they are not independent. In conversation with them, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with them as a person, but with slogans, catchwords, and the like that have taken possession of them. They are under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in their very being.
Having thus become a mindless tool, the foolish person will also be capable of any evil and at the same time incapable of seeing that it is evil. This is where the danger of diabolical misuse lurks, for it is this that can once and for all destroy the human soul.” (meaning = having the qualities of a devil; devilish; fiendish; outrageously wicked: a diabolic plot; pertaining to or actuated by a devil.) - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers From Prison

And: "The sense of responsibility in the financial community for the community as a whole is not small. It is nearly nil. Perhaps this is inherent. In a community where the primary concern is making money, one of the necessary rules is to live and let live. To speak out against madness may be to ruin those who have succumbed to it. So, the wise in Wall Street are nearly always silent. The foolish thus have the field to themselves. None rebukes them." - John Kenneth Galbraith, The Great Crash of 1929
Or, as noted above, the love of money is a root of all evil.

Monetarized (or do I mean Monetized?)

If there were to be no ‘money’ it is likely there would be no reward system involving competition. We would revert to barter which, stripped down, means ‘you do this for me, and I’ll do that for you. Deal?’  Or, as the Book of Genesis puts it: Genesis 3:19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

Not much room for freebies and handouts there. If you don’t work, you don’t eat.


There were no standing armies in days gone by. Roughly armed men of the land were assembled by the King to fight on his behalf as and when the need arose. Some were paid with salt – salarium – salary. Salārium n (genitive salāriī or salārī); second declension

1. salarystipendallowancepension; originally money given to soldiers with which to buy salt
2. meal

But that is schoolboy stuff and philosophers and soldiers have thought much on these things.

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its labourers, the genius of its scientists, the hope of its children.” - — Dwight D. Eisenhower
So, money and military go hand in hand, it seems. Aha-ahaaa! All the things I could do If I had a little money, says the politician. I can help you there, says the banker.

Everyone should understand that almost everything that a government spends money on is part of an enormous Ponzi scheme.
(Ponzi Scheme = A fraudulent investment plan in which the contributions of later joining members are used to pay earlier contributors, giving the appearance that the contributors ‘investment’ dramatically increases in value in a short period of time. A pension scheme can be a Ponzi scheme when it is run by government because usually incoming funds (tax income) involves no long-term investment. When income (tax) falls below outgoings, the shortfall is made up by borrowing from central banks which happily provide interest-bearing credit.) Illegal if YOU do it. Perfectly OK if government and banks do it.

Now a question. Do all of us understand compound interest? It is the mathematics of a banker. Compound interest (or compounding interest) is interest calculated on the initial principal, which also includes all the accumulated interest of previous periods of a deposit or loan. 

Compound interest can significantly boost investment (lending) returns over the long term. While a £100,000 deposit that receives 5% simple interest would earn £50,000 in interest over 10 years, compound interest of 5% on £10,000 would amount to £62,889.46 over the same period. That’s why credit cards and mortgages are so expensive no matter what you are told about the interest rate.

What could we do to overcome or avoid the Power of M? Good question. We couldn’t go back to simple barter. It is difficult to imagine how we could obtain anything beyond our daily bread if the basis of exchange is barter.

We could take away from private bankers the right to print interest-bearing credit ‘money’– hear them weep at the very idea – and have our own government provide the needed liquidity. It has been done before!

“In August 1914, at the outbreak of the First World War, to avoid the imminent collapse of the private banks and the Bank of England itself, Parliament passed a Bill through Parliament in two days which authorised HM Treasury – not the Bank of England – to create, issue and control money that was debt-free and interest-free because it was based entirely on the wealth and potential of the British nation. The high-street banks reopened and people who had planned to withdraw their savings in gold were more than happy to accept these new Treasury notes created by HM Government and there were no problems at all concerning inflation. The private banking system was saved from collapse but unfortunately the politicians (who were, and still are, subservient to the wishes of the City of London) went back to borrowing debt-laden ‘money out of thin air’ from the private financial sector which resulted in the bankers being able to make a killing out of the killing on the Western Front.  And it also meant that the National Debt went up unlawfully from £650 million in 1914 to £7,500 million in 1919.” – Justin Walker. and
That must be worth thinking about. Mmmm!

Tuesday 25 February 2020

Your name MEANS something

March 2020 – I read a report this morning that almost made me weep. The headline read: 

Boris Govt: Releasing Report on Ethnicity of  
 Rape Gangs ‘Not in Public Interest’, Ministers Need ‘Safe Space’

It went on in some detail, including 16 mugshots of men, presumably gang members because the ‘credit’ on the photographs was given to West Yorkshire police.

“Boris Johnson’s government (who, precisely?) has refused to release a report on the ethnic background of grooming gangs, saying it is not in “the public interest” and would deprive ministers of a “safe space” to shape policy.

The grooming gangs investigation was announced by Sajid Javid, the former Home Secretary, in 2018, with a pledge that he would “not let cultural or political sensitivities get in the way of understanding the problem and doing something about it”.

The promised transparency soon evaporated, however, with Home Office bureaucrats (who, precisely?) deciding that the report would in fact remain “internal” — and top-level politicians and parliamentarians (who, precisely?) representing constituencies plagued by grooming gangs questioning whether a real investigation was even carried out.

Now attempts by the left-wing Independent news website (an inanimate concoction – so who, precisely?) to have the report disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act have foundered, with the Home Office (who, precisely?), now led by Priti Patel, insisting it is not in “the public interest”. 
Nor, presumably, in the interest of those unidentified persons in the Home Office.

Why should I almost weep over this article? Why should you care?

Have you ever heard the expression: ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune’? Well, bear in mind that every single one of those unidentified spokes persons mentioned above, is paid from the public purse. Which leads me to believe that the idiom ‘he who pays’ means that taxpayers (the public) have an over-ruling say in the matter, over-ruling the hirelings. We, the people/public, put them where they are, not to do what they want but to do what we want. That’s the way it must be if we, the people, are to be free people. (Unless, of course, we are NOT the piper payer. There could be better funded private payers simultaneously paying more, couldn’t there? Vested interests?) The idiom then would be about a dog and two masters.

* * * *

I don’t spend much time watching voyeur-vision, but I did a few weeks ago when the Hollywood epic Western film ‘Dances With Wolves’, starring Kevin Costner, was broadcast. It is twenty years old and I hadn’t seen it before.

To my way of thinking the film is loaded with subliminal messages. (1) The Latoka Sioux Indians are just one of several native American tribes in that part of the world; (2) All of them identify first and foremost as of the same family; (3) They recognise hierarchy within the family. (4) Only men are named as Chiefs and names follow personal attributes or skills. (5) The ‘families’ formed into councils where equal time and attention was given to whoever spoke. (6) The councils could, if argued strongly enough, over-rule the Chief. (7) Strangers remained as strangers, even if they lived with the tribe, until such time as their worth to the tribe became evident through their actions.

Put another way, it seemed to me like a prototype Natural Law; unsophisticated but strong and very fair. Call it God’s Law, if you will. Call it Common Law, if you will. Also call it Trial by Jury and Nullification by Jury if you are on my wavelength.

Then I mused for a while on the meaning of names. I read an observation made years ago by a man named Lysander Spooner. His observation was: "To say that majorities, as such, have a right to rule minorities, is equivalent to saying that minorities have, and ought to have, no rights, except such as majorities please to allow them." - Lysander Spooner

(According to Wikipedia Lysander Spooner grew to be an American political philosopher, essayist, pamphlet writer, Unitarian, abolitionist, individualist anarchist, legal theorist, a member of the socialist First International and entrepreneur of the 19th century).

I mused: “What were his parents thinking to give their child the name ‘Lysander’? I looked up the meaning of Lysander – it means ‘liberator’. Lysander was a Spartan naval and military commander in 400 BC (and a character in Shakespeare’s “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”.


I thought about my parents and my given name – Michael. Michael is an archangel in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and is of Hebrew origin. It means “who is like God”. Wikipedia also tells me that Michael is an archangel and an archangel is an angel of high rank. The word "archangel" itself is usually associated with the Abrahamic religions, but beings who are very similar to archangels are found in several religious traditions. So, what were MY parents thinking when they gave me that name? This is shaping up to be a good game, good game.

Moving on and experimenting with names which loom large: What does Elizabeth mean? Apparently, it, too, is of Hebrew origin, and the meaning of Elizabeth is "God is my oath". Can also mean "God's promise", "God's satisfaction" or "God's perfection". The usual English spelling of Elisabeth, which was the usual form until the 16th-century reign of Queen Elizabeth I of England, whose popularity made the "z" spelling more common ever since. In the Bible, Elizabeth was the mother of John the Baptist. 

I’m slowing down now but still there are questions. Such as: Why do our names have meanings? Best answer I can come up with: Because we aren’t numbers. (Despite computers).

I conclude this muse with reference to the Christmas nativity play all of us know from our youth. Matthew 1:20-22 King James Version (KJV):

20 But while he (Joseph) thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD (Gabriel) appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet.

Joseph is the English form of the biblical Hebrew name Yosef, meaning ‘God shall add another son.’

* * * *
Hmm (again). What IS in a name?

Wednesday 15 January 2020

I KNOW MY PLACE (and it isn't at your feet)

January 2020 – Silly season is over and we’re all back to work and fully refreshed and energized. Aren’t we? Aw, c’mon. You can do better than pull a face and roll your eyes. Have you never heard the famous saying: “Smile and the world smiles with you, cry and you cry alone”?

Or (my) not-so-famous-saying: “Laugh and the world laughs at you”? That’s because we just don’t know what we don’t know – and we don’t know that we don’t know. Sadly, most don’t even want to know what they don’t know – unless it is gossip. But you can bet your sweet life that somebody else does and that, given the opportunity, they will use it to their advantage, not yours and not mine. 

That said, we all know our rights, don’t we? Yeah, right.  The only ‘right’ many have heard about is the right to remain silent, made known to them by a fellow man (or woman, if you want to be politically correct), usually wearing a uniform, who does his/her job with (y)our consent. However, anything you do say will be recorded and may be used against you (but not in support of you) if ever push comes to shove.

And that strikes at the heart of things as I see them. For example, did you know that if someone demands money from you . . . with menaces (as in ’give me your money, or else’) it is a criminal act? Of course you do. In popular parlance it is known as ‘mugging’. And did you know that you are quite within your rights to tell that person “No, go away. It’s my money and I’ve earned it”? Or words to that effect.

Of course you do. So, if that is true, how come it is ‘acceptable’ for a council or government tax collector to demand money from you/us – ‘or else’? And we pay whatever is demanded . . . or pay someone else whose full-time job it is to present a case to the mugger to pay less than the sum demanded, in return for payment for doing so. I’ve heard it said that ‘you can’t fix stoopid’ and it seems to be true. Or, as Albert Einstein put it: “The difference between genius and stupidity is: genius has its limits”.

Notice if you will, it is ‘the collector’ who demands your money on behalf of the corporation known as ‘the government’ or ‘the council’ or some other institution. The corporations have no life because they are a lifeless fiction and the corporations have no money, nor need any, until a corporate slave ventures out to demand money from some other living person. What a clever trick. The corporations and institutions are silent idols and false gods. Those who speak on their behalf are deceivers, liars and cheats. As I said earlier, you/we don’t know what we don’t know. Neither do they, sometimes.

We know already that the City of London is a corporation, don’t we? We know that the BBC is a corporation. It says so on the label. So when a media outlet claims that ‘the BBC said’ or ‘the City said’ they are creating a terminological inexactitude (creating a lie) because a man-made lifeless creation is incapable of speech. The real statement is (said) made by a living person pretending to represent the lifeless corporate fiction. Therefore, that person has no authority over us unless we first give our consent to it. Or, conversely, that other person is a tyrant. How come? Because we are all equal in the sight of God even if we don’t see ourselves as equal in the sight of each other. 
Now, there’s a thought!

* * * *

What is the Real Deception when Liars, Cheaters, and Thieves Control the Narrative?

By Gary D. Barnett
January 11, 2020

“I was a CIA director, we lied, we cheated we stole… like, we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment.”
Michael Pompeo ~ U.S. Secretary of State and former CIA Director

Donald Trump, the current head of U.S. politics, has lied, cheated, and stole, as well as ordered and authorized murder and mayhem, but he is not the only one. This is a trait of most all presidents, all political parties, of Congress, the CIA, the mainstream media, and most all other government bureaucracies, especially the entire “security and intelligence” sector of government. There is such an extreme mass of deception and lies that it has become almost impossible to ferret out any truth. The truth does exist of course, but has been purposely disappeared by sinister forces that continue to control the national narrative.
I have long held that any sane person should believe nothing, and question everything. During this time in our history, nothing could be more important for clarity of honest thought and knowledge. This is not just a slogan, but also a necessity of life, if one is ever to understand the real workings of this profoundly corrupt system we live under. Nothing is ever as it seems, because everything is far different than presented. This is the long-standing fact of politics and political deception. That of course means that we all live in a purely propagandist state.

Why all the deception? What is the point? What is there to gain? Who stands to benefit? And more importantly, who stands to lose?

What has been happening recently has created new levels of outright arrogance, lying, fraud, hypocrisy, and dishonesty. This contemptible situation could never see the light of day if the general population simply had any ability or desire to think or participate in intelligent thought, instead of floundering in abject indifference and ignorance. Any unquestioned continuation of current events created and prosecuted by those in power could easily lead to apocalyptic war across the world. This scenario is no longer science fiction, or the ramblings of falsely labelled conspiracy theorists; it is teetering on the edge of reality. The situation is dire, and any slight push at this point could lead to all out war.

The stupidity of modern common man causes me great angst. I have attempted to understand the masses seemingly forever, but I cannot gain any understanding of the behaviour of the mob, regardless of all my observance, study and research. Those who rule over this mob are much easier to figure out, because they have an obvious agenda, and benefit greatly from these non-thinking groups of lethargic fools.

The current ruling class, those elite at the top including banking and corporate magnates and others, and their pawns in politics, the mainstream media, the military, and certain other powerful entities, all have the same desires. These desires are power, money, and control over all others in society. This is what is sought, and this is what drives the strong to lord over the weak. This is why the constant deception exists. The point of it all is power. The gain is more power, more money, and more control. This class of people is the benefactor of all the lies and deceit, and they will stop at nothing to achieve total control. The losers are all the rest of us.

I am taking this somewhat more philosophical approach instead of reporting on all the current lies in the news that are leading us into a risk of global annihilation, in order to expose the bigger picture. There are a good number of great minds that are continually telling the truth, and the truths being exposed in the alternative news are staggering to say the least. It seems as if every single event, whether considering what is being reported about Iraq, Iran, Syria, or other fabricated attacks without evidence, are nothing but lies. Attacks on commercial planes, or murderous assassinations meant only to cause certain outrage, or unguided rockets meant to miss the supposed real targets, are all lies or false flags of one sort or another. For these things to be so remarkably obvious to thinkers, and yet at the same time so elusive to the common people, seems unimaginable.

No matter how much effort I expend in order to understand mankind, and why death, destruction, and power wins out over compassion and harmony, I continually fall short in my efforts. This has always been frustrating for me, as I truly want to see the best in man, but experience has dampened that desire. I only have respect for the individual, and it is my position that only individuals can seek and find the truth, and use that knowledge to better themselves and then become a light for others to follow. In other words, the individual is what will save us, not the collective mass of those non-thinkers who have become complicit in their own destruction.

I had enormous respect for Butler Shaffer, and he summed up this dilemma in just a few prescient words. Those words are on a bench where his ashes have been placed. 

They read: “Civilizations are created by individuals.  They are destroyed by collectives.”

First published by  Reproduced here with kind permission of the author.