Thursday, 16 April 2009
The newscutting, left, explains how this girl called Nicky who was filmed being slapped and whacked in the leg with a baton by an over zealous pig in riot gear (I'm not the corporate media and I'm not calling him a police officer) ended up on You Tube and then made it onto the front pages of Britain's newspapers as a result only days after they had beaten a man and caused his death. Nicky apparently wants to use top PR guru Max Clifford to sell her story. This will be an enormous PR disaster for the police. It will be hard for anyone not to think of this country as a police state, and in the context of how it is now, a police state will not be popular.
Also Jacqui Smith, Home Secretary, is in trouble for using corrupt means to have Conservative MP Damian Green arrested under the terrorism act. Does this mean she is guilty of taking steps to criminalising political opposition? Is that not a step to a fascist state? Only two weeks after the porn scandal? During another scandal about a smear campaign by a spin doctor? And the Bob Quick scandal? I could go on.
Now I could understand 'problem, reaction, solution' if this was just a ploy to get the Tories to win the next general election, but something tells me that the way this is spreading like wildfire across the police and government institutions, that there might just be an awakening. That many problems of that nature can only result in one reaction. I can't see how these events could lead to anything other than people questioning authority, and the increasing police state becoming a contentious issue.
My intuition tells me that enough people, including those in the institutions themselves, are looking up from their propaganda machine and thinking 'what the hell is going on?'.
As for demonstrations, I don't go to them often because I hated being caged in by riot police. Once I got detained with about 700 other people for 7 hours by riot officers. I saw many of them being over zealous, and provoking violence, and feel that any justice that could be done now is well overdue. In the aftermath of this, future demonstrations could become less oppressive as the police are forced to relax their tactics.
This week, public resistance to the police state is no doubt beyond what the manipulators anticipated when they were plastering 'New World Order' all over the media only two weeks ago. Abuse of police powers and oppresive government tactics have tarnished their public image so badly that I can only see this as the Illuminati making a really big, horrible mistake. In the grand scheme of the totalitarian tiptoe, this may be a small victory like a won battle in a losing war, but let us realise that this is evidence that the ruling elites are not infallible. Who knows where this could go?
We are the real Illuminati. Remember that.
Wednesday, 15 April 2009
The problem is that when you get any group of humans together, the overwhelming instinct to develop a pack animal/herd mentality does tend to undo all the rhetoric about how enlightened or evolved that said bunch of people are. A great disappointment in this reality is the fact that upon realising that you are free (to some degree) of consensus reality, and unplug from the matrix into this bewildering outer level, you will meet a lot of people who will say "Welcome to the real world". But upon further observation you may discover, especially if you are a truly independent thinker, that their world is no more real than consensus reality, and that they tend to congregate in separatist isolationist fiefdoms with the same pecking orders and systems of control that they apparently escaped still firmly intact.
In Aeolus Kephas's last ever podcast (click here) he goes into great detail about how the alternative perception community have ended up in a matrix outside the matrix, swimming in an overwhelming torrent of knowledge without context. Upon first hearing it, I imagined that he would be seen as a heretic by the die hards of the psychedelic, conspiracy, UFO and new age communities, but my reaction was that he was speaking his own truth and keeping himself free from the limitations of packs and herds. Within days of hearing that podcast I ended up in a nasty argument on a public forum with one of the psychedelic communities self styled 'thought police', which lead to official threats from forum moderators, a three day ban, and then a lifetime ban.
In the aftermath, with time to calm down and get centred again, I realised that I had committed the same 'crime' as a politician who disregard the 'party line' for the greater truth, or the member of the church who blasphemes because he feels his truth is closer to Jesus than what the priest is saying. I remembered one of Gandhi's bumper stickers: "Even if you're in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth".
Now, who better than David Icke to sum this up? A lot of people are instincively phobic of Icke, and that's because he is very challenging of consensus reality. But is that not what we need?
Here is an excerpt from his book "Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster" where he sums up the levels of freedom and enslavement of the human mind very well, using the metaphor of a camp site:
When we arrive in this five-sense "world" we begin to walk our jouney of experience. I have likened it to carrying a tent in a backpack, walking down the road and looking for somewhere to pitch it, settle down, and find our comfort zone. Where we choose to stop decides the way we see the world because this is the point, the perspective, from which we observe people and events. Here are some of the "camp-sites".
- Base Camp: Most people don't choose to walk very far. A few strides and out come the pegs at a point where they believe what the media tells them and accept that they are ordinary and powerless or that they know all they need to know (same thing). They are hapy to drift though life guided by accepted "norms" and conditioned "thought". They include the athiests and the fanatical religious believers, those who think this world is all that exists and those whothink if they do whattever their religion tells them they might get a ticket to the afterlife in paradise. I will call these the "Base-Campers" and they represent by far the greatest number of humankind.
- Radical Camp: Others walk a bit further until they find an acceptable spot. These are the "Radical-Campers", and they have begun to see that there is more to know than we are told. They might be "greens" and "environmentalists" or campaigners against the arms trade, "third world" debt, globalisation and other five-sense injustices. The Base -Campers who pitched their tents back down the road see these Radical-Campers as extreme and "loony" because we judge everything and everyone from our own point of observation - where our tent is pitched. What is perfectly sensible to one person or group will be extreme or crazy to another. In the same way, our conditioning, background and accumulated "knowledge" lead us to see the same event from very different perspectives. If a guy came out of the sea with a crab clinging to his bum someone might shout, "Hey, there's a crab's claw stuck to you bum." But a fellow crab might say, "Hey, you've got a man's bum stuck to your claw." Depends on your point of observation.
- Conspiracy Camp: Those who are still not satisfied with the perspectives and beliefs of the Radical camp decide to walk some more before they pitch the tent. These "Conspiracy-Campers" realise that the injustices the Radical-Campers acknowledge ar not random, but part of a coldly calculated global injustice, the Illuminati conspiracy. they will see the connections and the game plan within the five-sense reality - the names, dates, coordination and so on. The Radical-Campers see these Conspiracy-Campers as extreme in the same way that Base Campers see them. The Radical-Campers may, and indeed many do, condemn the Conspiracy-Campers as "racist" or "Nazis". Did you know that a global fascist state is unfolding all around you? What? You're an Nazi - condemn him, ban his meetings, ban his books. You think I'm joking? If only I was. Back down the road in the tent city of the Base Camp, they see the Conspiracy-Campers as crazy, loony, "conspiracy theorists" akin to members of the Flat Earth Society.
- Infininty Camp: There are others, the "Infinity-Campers" I will call them, who continue to walk on past the point where the five-sense conspiracy researchers are banging in their pegs. They have no desire to pitch a tent and they don't even carry one because there is never enough time to put it down before something draws them further down the road of inner and outer discovery. By now the road is quiet with not may people about, but those who venture this far start to realise that the world we see, hear, touch, smell and taste, is an illusion and only a very tiny frequency range that those senses can perceive. Beyond its vibrational walls is infinity, where all possibility exists. They see that the five-sense "human bodies" of the Illuminati leaders are only a physical vehicle for entities operating beyond the five senses to control the "physical" world and turn humanity into a giant battery, an energy source. To conventional five-sense conspiracy researchers, Infinity-Campers are extreme and doing great harm to their efforts to persuade people through names, dates, places, etc., that the conspiracy is real. To the Radical-Campers they are lunatics, but dangerous ones if "naïve" people believe what they say. To the Base-Campers they should be locked away in a psychiatric institution because they are clearly mentally ill. In short: anyone who moves beyond the point where you have pitched your tent is seen as extreme and the further they wander down the road the more extreme you perceive them to be. Their points of observation ar so different, and this puts them, literally, on different "wavelengths".
In the aftermath you can look back from that perspective at how they keep going round and round the same old stuff. Any awakened observers who witness you standing your ground alone against such viscious pack mentality will come with you as you command respect because of your integrity. This in turn will create a level playing field in a socially egalitarian environment.
It seems to me now that the journey to the 'others' is very difficult indeed. Full of dissenters, debunkers and zealots. It is our challenge to use these situations as a big obstacle course, and return to inner peace as often as possible.
Friday, 10 April 2009
Here in the UK there is a new road safety campaign to scare teenagers into looking as they cross the road. The unquestionable propaganda that goes with this campaign makes is a bone of contention to even consider challenging it. And if you do challenge it, you will be accused of being callous and insensitive, with the usual emotional knee jerk reaction:
"What if it was your teenage child?"
Fair point, up to a point. But the picture above on the left (if you are of a sensitive disposition, don't click on it) is really disturbing, and aimed at kids. It depicts a side on view of a young actress playing a corpse lying on the road, staring with sinister cadaver eyes. It draws you in by appealing to your morbid fascination, and it is easy to get transfixed with deep subconcious fear as you get further and further sucked in.
On television, there is a 9pm watershed to protect children from disturbing images, scenes etc, but the rules are a bit different when it comes to billboard advertising. This advert is aimed at teenagers specifically, but regardless of who it is aimed at, people of all age groups have to walk past this advert, from little kids to sensitive elderly people to even paranoid schizophrenics. The trouble is, for those with a weak will and morbid fascination, this image is irresistible to look at, and affects people on a subconscious and even unconscious level.
I see this as a 'silent weapon for quiet wars' offensive - an attempt to simulate the traumatizing effects of war in a non war zone, to generate fear, to create submissiveness as another manipulation trick to coerce conformity. At the same time it will desensitize us even further as our sub conscious minds swim in the excessive and ubiquitous snuff movie like clutter that the corporate media relentlessly doles out to us that, for the less strong minded and the faint hearted, what is to stop an unexpected nightmare from being triggered by having these images buried in their heads? Who is going to protect them from apparent road safety propaganda?
Is it any wonder that there are so many people on anti depressants and anti psychotic drugs? Granted, teenagers can be clueless, especially when it comes to road sense, but does that justify living in a world of disturbing imagery?
Anyway, enough of my spin on it. Below is the press release/propaganda. You have the opportunity to weigh it up against my take on it, and make your own mind up about it. You may not agree with me, but as a result of a devil's advocate opposing perspective, you will see it in a less biased and more neutral light.
A STARK new road safety campaign from Transport for London (TfL) urges teenagers to 'Think! Look out for your mates'.
The campaign's theme, 'Don't let your friendship die on the road', highlights the fact that friendship is one of the most important things in young people's lives.
As teenagers are more likely to be involved in a road collision than any other age group, compelling posters will be put up close to schools and busy areas across London.
They show young actors who appear to be lying against a wall, however, a second glance reveals them to be lying on the road as a result of a collision.
The message is a clear call to action: 'Think! Look out for your mates'.
In addition to posters, a radio advert dramatises the effect of young loss as a teenager reads a eulogy for a best friend at their funeral, while a series of online banners will appear on popular websites including Bebo and MSN Messenger.
This year TfL is spending £57million on road safety measures in the capital.
Chris Lines, head of the TfL London Road Safety Unit, said: 'These adverts serve as a stark reminder to young people of the importance of taking care when using, or nearby, London roads.'
The bumbling buffoon
It appears that Scotland Yard’s assistant commissioner Bob Quick (Bob Slow would be more appropriate eh?) has been photographed holding a sensitive document in public relating to counter terrorism. He was on his way to see unelected Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Home Secretary/porn scandal survivor Jacqui Smith when it was noticed that he had these secret documents on full display for everyone to see.
Hang on a minute. Is this kind of criminal negligence possible? I mean, you’ve got a document related to preventing a terrorist attack from happening (allegedly). You’d think the chief commissioner would say the following:
“Bob, it is of the utmost importance that this document MUST NOT BE REVEALED in public. London is the most surveilled city in the world. You can’t move for CCTV cameras. Tourists and paparazzi take pictures all the time, and you cannot be 100% sure that terrorists are not taking pictures as well.
“As a result this document must never be revealed outside this office, and must be stored in an lead lined x-ray proof briefcase with a double combination lock until it reaches Downing Street. ”
Those sorts of high standards should not be considered unreasonable should they?
So how come it is possible for this scenario to be happening at all? Was bungling Bob set up? Or was there some other more sinister agenda here? Well, if you read the news cuttings you will find that this situation lead to the fast tracking of a few raids on British muslims (apparently potential terrorists) which lead to one man being tasered. Were these people potential ‘Al Qaeda’ terrorists? Whether they were or not, wouldn’t the police tasering one of them be detrimental to building good relations with the British Muslim community? Wouldn’t that make a lot of muslims lose respect for the police and want to join a jihad?
Also Bob Quick has been paid off with a £110,000 pension for his ‘minor error’ (see left).
Something here does not add up.
It’s a double whammy for the boys in lime green this week as four riot police at the G20 demonstration beat up Evening Standard seller Ian Tomlinson with their sticks, resulting in him having a heart attack and dying. At first he was said to be an innocent bystander who was in London that day to sell the Evening Standard, but later they dished up evidence of him being drunk whilst blocking the path of a police riot van. I supposed they’ll say they were provoked into beating him up as a result will they?
I have also included a piece from the London Paper, Wednesday April 9, 2009 containing graphic images of Mr Tomlinson’s confrontation with the police (see left).
There's no doubt a few funny handshakes have been exchanged this week.
Saturday, 4 April 2009
But at the bottom it says in capital letters MORE ARRESTS. Hang on, if there's a few more police officers plodding up and down is that supposed to deter crime and create less arrests? Process of elimination suggests that this is not a crime prevention measure after all, but a step towards making Britain more of a police state than it already is. What will they arrest us for? Dropping bits of our sandwiches? Possession of long hair and beards? 'Looking at me in a funny way'?
Also, look at the pictures. The copper (the one with the tit on his head) is black. The community support officer (the plastic pig) is Asian/Indian. Is that not pandering to the political correctness brigade? Would it be condidered racist for them to use white officers in these pictures? Or are they just trying to use a politically correct disclaimer to absolve them from the amount of black people they're going to victimise? The black and Asian people in the picture will be used to spin that they are not a racist institution, but that's obviously smoke and mirrors. We know the truth. This stinks of Orwellian doublethink combined with creeping fascism.
On the plus side, at least is was a warm sunny day when I took this picture!
Experts are digesting the G20's "historic" trillion-dollar bid to pull the world out of recession after Gordon Brown hailed the creation of a "new world order".
After two days of intense talks with his fellow leaders, the PM claimed victory, saying: "This is the day the world came together to fight back against the global recession, not with words but a plan for global recovery and reform.
"The decisions, of course, will not immediately solve the crisis, but we have begun the process by which it will be solved."
US President Barack Obama was effusive in his praise for Mr Brown's chairmanship, and branded the outcome "a turning point in our pursuit of global economic recovery".
There had been fears of tensions with French president Nicolas Sarkozy and German chancellor Angela Merkel. In the event, both proclaimed themselves satisfied, having secured tough curbs on tax havens and hedge funds.
Mr Sarkozy said "a page has been turned" on the "Anglo Saxon" financial model, while Mrs Merkel said it represented "a very, very good, almost historic compromise". But there were no firm commitments to a new fiscal stimulus - which many believed Mr Brown and Mr Obama were hoping for.
The key plank of the deal is an injection of 1.1 trillion dollars of additional resources for the International Monetary Fund and other international institutions - the biggest increase in their history, according to Mr Brown.
Mr Brown said new rules on bankers' remuneration - establishing "sustainable compensation schemes" - would mean "no more rewards for failure".
Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Vince Cable said the summit "stopped the rot" in the global economy but more had to be done to boost trade and tackle tax havens.
He told BBC Breakfast that world leaders had realised they needed to act together to deal with the worldwide recession.
In the aftermath of the G20 summit it seems that all they have really achieved is to further borrow and spend their way out of debt, which is impossible. I doubt this is anything more than a spin doctoring via the big lie machine to lure us into a false sense of security. One thing that was agreed was that 800 more troops should be sent to Afghanistan. It's funny how the war machine continues during times of financial cutbacks. All the talk about closing Guantanamo Bay and bringing troops out of Iraq, and what do they do? Exactly.
And as for the way the protests were spun in the media, I saw a front page of the Daily Mail with the caption "Love and Hate". Love referring to a cosy picture of Brown and Obama with a backdrop of US and UK flags, and hate referring to a disturbing picture of riot police hitting a man with blood dripping off his head. I also saw a picture of police charging at a man who had fallen to the ground.
But when I dug deeper I than the front pages I came to the conclusion that the majority of protesters were peaceful, but the 'perception management' of the propaganda machine is the same old trick - make the only people who stand up to the lies in our society be portrayed as unwashed benefit scroungers hell bent on causing destruction and violence - even if the photographic evidence shows the police hitting them! The police are nevertheless portrayed as good, and their bleeding, bruised victims are seen as layabouts who should get their hair cut and get proper jobs like normal people.
However I feel that the general consensus is drifting away from that these days. Our world leaders are so blatant in their lies, deception and control freakery that a lot more straight ordinary people are feeling like they have been taken for a ride by gangsters.
Before 911 I used to go to the anti capitalist Mayday demos. The next day, straight people would pass judgement on everyone who attended as being unwashed dole scroungers, drug users, etc. But it seems these days that a lot of people in suits with normal jobs who still consider themselves to be capitalists attend these demos. It's no longer capitalism vs anti capitalism. It now appears to be joint captilism/anti capitalism vs gangster capitalism.
It may just get easier to shoot more holes in this New World Order and expose it for the scandalous sham that is is. Who are they kidding eh?
Friday, 3 April 2009
The answer by one student was so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues via the Internet, which is why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.
Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law that gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed or some variant.
One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that, if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell.
Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell. Because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay constant, the volume of Hell must expand proportionately as souls are added.
This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it?
If we accept the postulate given to me by Sandra during my freshman year, that "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you," and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is endothermic and has already frozen over.
The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is extinct…leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being - which explains why, last night, Sandra kept shouting
"Oh my God."
THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY