England's England

Your child abuse must stop!

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:01:00 +0000

As if with one voice we condemn child abuse. But, we think of acts of cruelty against children as being the more obvious acts that cause physical pain or discomfort, or the awful starving or torturing to death we hear stories of from time to time. Most ‘ordinary’ parents don’t think of themselves as committing acts of cruelty against their children.

However, these are the parents who are probably quite happy to commit acts of physical as well as mental abuse against their own children without even realising what they are doing. They’ll probably abuse their child because their parents abused them.

On the physical side, without consultation or the permission of the child, parents will arrange for a circumcision. This means, for reasons that have no basis in medicine or science, the parents decide to remove a part of the penis. Jews and Muslims will do this because an ancient religion they never question tells them to. It’s crossed over to other religions as a ‘trendy’ modern form of abuse against a baby.

Far less dramatic, yet still a physical abuse is the habit of piercing the ears of a baby. This abuse is because the parents have decided that their child will wear jewellery. Again, the baby is far too young to be consulted. Instead, the parents have imposed their view on the innocent child. Indeed, before the child even understands what they are, it will have had studs stapled through the wounds imposed into its ears.

The greater form of child abuse practised by parents is the mental one.

A child gives its parents unconditional love. It knows nothing else, and it looks to its parents to be its guardians and to guide its understanding of all this newness that surrounds it. Making sense of things is so difficult. Yet rather than really help, the first thing a lot of parents will do is subject their child to the ritual abuse handed down over the years; the abuse of distorting reality.

The first abusive distortion of reality is the lie about Father Christmas. Instead of putting across the fun of Father Christmas as they would with any other childhood fun, parents will indoctrinate the child into believing that Santa is real. They don’t do this with Disney characters or cartoons, but they do it about Father Christmas. How can this be anything but the abuse of an innocent and trusting child?

As the child gets older they are told lies about the tooth fairy. It’s the parents’ fun little joke and the child is again the victim of the abuse. They trust unconditionally and know no better. They aren’t able to understand that their parents find this cruelty hilarious.

There are other lies the parents like to torture their children with, ranging from the bogeyman living in the wardrobe to the monster under the bed. Then, of course the biggest lie of all will be forcing the innocent child to believe that there is a god, and, depending on the religious choice of the parents, all the peripheral characters of the religion they have chosen.

A child never chooses to believe in a god, its parents force it upon them, along with all the other lies that seem obligatory for childhood.

As a child gets older and starts to work things out for itself, it soon realises with quite an awful sadness that Santa doesn’t really exist. Sadly, the parents usually laugh and are high with glee when the child has the revelation. It’s a revelation that usually accompanies what should be the happy and innocent time of Christmas and the Holiday season, but mars it and scars the child for life. The child gets shouted at for being so soft and for not appreciating the hilarity of the wind-up they have been the victim of.

As the child progresses, other abusive lies are revealed, and it’s not long before the tooth fairy can be dismissed as another bit of parental cruelty.

However, long into adulthood the fear of the dark and the monster under the bed that the parents indoctrinated the child with remains, such is the victory of the cruelty.

Likewise the religious mumbo-jumbo that parents have fed their children. That is very hard for a child to break free from. Although more and more are breaking free as humanity progresses, there are still adults with a belief in a god and the surrounding structure of the particular religion their parents forced on them from birth. Like with the fear of the dark, religion is quite a hard one to grow out of because it’s designed to not allow the mind to break free.

It can be a lot easier to submit to and not question the religion that parents forced upon a child than to break free from it. Indeed, part of the ritual structure of the religion is designed to re-self-hypnotise and to keep the mind from free thinking or questioning the logic. The same mind that questioned and worked out the lie about Santa and the lie about the Tooth Fairy is not allowed to question the lie of the religion. Anybody questioning is of course going to be subject to terrible punishment later in life, or, in death. It’s very hard to break free when surrounded by the constant reinforcement of the abuse, and so quite often a child will develop Stockholm syndrome with regard to the religion being practised around them. It takes a strong mind to break away from this constant and ritual mental abuse.

I don’t believe children should be abused in the way they are. I don’t believe they should have bits cut off of holes punched in them, or their minds filled with any of the ritual lies I’ve described.

It’s about time that parents found committing any of these acts of abuse were prosecuted and punished.

"So, how long after a woman has started dating should she feel able to fart in front of her partner?"

Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:01:00 +0000

“So, how long after a woman has started dating should she feel able to fart in front of her partner?”

- Christopher England just wondered that!

Sigh. Oh for prisons like this over here.

Tue, 16 Mar 2010 00:01:00 +0000

Over here in the UK, we allow the criminals to rule. There is plenty of posturing, but actually no deterrent to any violent crime. Murderers get fined or let off, and those that do make it to prison find Play Stations and Sky TV waiting for them. They get rewarded for whatever it is they did outside.

What we need is the approach that’s been taken by Sheriff Joe Arpaio who created the ‘tent city jail’ to save Arizona from spending tens of millions of dollars on another expensive prison complex.

He banned smoking and pornographic magazines in the jails, and took away their weightlifting equipment and cut off all but Disney Channel movies.

He says: ‘They’re in jail to pay a debt to society not to build muscles so they can assault innocent people when they leave.’

He started chain gangs to use the inmates to do free work on county and city projects and save taxpayer’s money. Then he started chain gangs for women so he wouldn’t get sued for discrimination.

He cut off coffee because it has zero nutritional value and is therefore a waste of taxpayer money.

When the inmates complained, he told them, ‘This isn’t the Ritz/Carlton. If you don’t like it, don’t come back.’

Joe Arpaio, who makes his prisoners wear pink, and eat bologna sandwiches, is not one bit sympathetic. ‘Criminals should be punished for their crimes - not live in luxury until it’s time for parole, only to go out and commit more crimes so they can come back in to live on taxpayers money and enjoy things many taxpayers can’t afford to have for themselves.’

The same day he told all the inmates who were complaining of the heat in the tents: ‘It’s between 120 to 130 degrees in Iraq and our soldiers are living in tents too, and they have to walk all day in the sun, wearing full battle gear and get shot at, and they have not committed any crimes, so shut your damned mouths!’

"The Advertising Standards Authority quite correctly banned the Government’s scare-ads in the..."

Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:01:00 +0000

“

The Advertising Standards Authority quite correctly banned the Government’s scare-ads in the UK promoting fear of the imaginary ‘Climate Change’ (the re-badged “Global Warming” belief). The main reason for the ban was that the ads were not based on any actual scientific research into ‘Climate Change’. Not even stretching any of the IPCC’s faulty science could anybody predict any of the catastrophic mumbo-jumbo alluded to within the adverts. The UK Government wanted to indoctrinate the population so badly with their scare-ads that they lied to us. Again.

You’d think we’d be used to the Government’s habit of lying to us, what with all the rubbish they wanted us to believe ahead of invading Iraq, but I think we still get taken by surprise with each new lie.

So, why the scare-ads, and why the absolute desperation to want to make the population believe in all the lies bundled as ‘Climate Change’?

What’s equally amazing and questionable is that this whole episode isn’t being used by the other political parties as a major point scoring exercise. Strangely, only the British National Party appears to be challenging the nonsense of ‘climate change’. Are the normal people not caught up in all the hype supposed to vote BNP in order to avoid the parties believing and promoting all the climate change religion? Lordy, I hope not.

As the science fails to conclusively prove anything, people are still desperate to believe, and desperate to have you believe!

Why?

The science isn’t conclusive on whether or not there’s actually any ‘climate change’ worthy of us worrying about, beyond natural and normal cyclic patterns.

And the contribution that man may or may not make to climate change is certainly not proven by any actual research.

So why are they so desperate for us to ‘believe’ in the climate change religion?

What’s really going on?

”

- Christopher England just asked that!

Speaking of Global Warming. Somebody with a lot of time on their hand has compiled a list of media articles that have been published that blame Global Warming for this or that. It’s in alphabetical order and starts at Acne and ends at Yellow Fever. Brilliant! The point being that *everything* is being blamed on the imaginary global warming, and it shows you how ridiculous the whole climate change religion is!

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Bleeping Mc-bleeping-Donald's

Sun, 14 Mar 2010 00:01:00 +0000

What the fuck is it with McDonald’s? Bleep bleep bleep. All the bleeping time. It’s bad enough that some of their ‘restaurants’ have the ‘tone’ of the in-store music so shrill it’s distorted and deafening instead of being properly ‘background’ or ‘wallpaper’, but in addition there are bloody alarms constantly going off.

The alarms appear to be connected to fryers or other cooking devices obviously letting the staff know that this food or that food is now ready. However, with an alarm attached to every single cooking device, and most of the staff not bothering to reset them, every 30 seconds yet another alarm is bleeping away. Often three or four alarms are overlapping each other and going at the same time.

When trying to give the server an order a customer has to shout over the top of the distorted music and the server competes with the bleeps trying to be heard in return.

What McMental McFucker designed this concept?

It must be at its worst in one of the planet’s slowest and most dis-organised McDonald’s ever - on the East Lancashire Road (the A580) next to the Travelodge on the approach to Liverpool. Bleep bloody bleep bloody bleep as you wait for 30 minutes for your ‘fast food’ order! Shut the fuck up!

PS to McDonalds:

…and don’t think I haven’t noticed your prices zooming up and portion sizes zooming down. McNumpties.

"Why should “Life mean life”? Because it does for the victims."

Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:05:00 +0000

“

Why should “Life mean life”?

Because it does for the victims.

”

- Christopher England just said that sentence!

Photo

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:01:00 +0000

Jamie could have been ordinary and anonymous

Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:01:00 +0000

Once upon a time there was a cute little toddler called Jamie.

He was just an anonymous little boy, and would have probably grown to be just ordinary at school, and with luck, would have had a fairly ordinary job, married and had ordinary children, and just chugged along being anonymous as most of us are, as he enjoyed his uneventful life and grew older and then eventually died.

Yes, it’s possible that he might have not remained anonymous and ordinary, and he may have had something important to contribute to society and mankind. Some of us may well have ended up having heard of him, or using the advance in science he’d contributed to, or voted for him to allow him to represent us and make this country a better place. But, there would be no shame if Jamie had lived his anonymous life as an ordinary bloke.

However, Jamie never got a chance to be anonymous or ordinary. Instead, he was taken from his mother, and bewildered and unable to comprehend what was happening to him, Jamie was subjected to a few hours of a catalogue of absolutely awful and unforgivable torture. He was methodically and disgustingly tortured to an eventual death. The cold and extensive details of Jamie’s slaughter were so awful that grown men like me openly wept.

Poor Jamie’s lot in his short life was not to be anonymous and ordinary, but to become famous and immortalised as a murder victim. A victim of such terrible acts of brutality that the details were often not fully reported by the media of the day. To confound and compound the horror, poor Jamie’s torturers were two ten year old boys.

As people on the outside looking in we asked how on earth should we deal with this? We were not the family or connected with Jamie or his murderers, yet we knew it was not right, felt the confusion and the revulsion and got caught up in the truly terrible emotions of the moment.

We suffer our own bewilderment to this day because Jamie was ritually killed by children. Reactions range from the liberal-minded wets blaming society and trying to intellectualise about it, through to the lynch-mob wanting to string the murderers up there and then.

What we did end up doing was sentencing the murderers to ‘life’. Jamie’s sentence, of course, was death. His sentence was passed down to him by the two murderers who decided to be judge, jury and executioner. Jamie, of course, had done nothing wrong to be sentenced to death for. The brutal torture before his death is not something any civilised society hands down as part of a death sentence, and yet that’s what his executioners performed on him. In exchange for Jamie’s death we gave his murderers ‘life’.

To a lot of the more naive of us, since we are no longer allowed to execute murderers, ‘life’ means putting the murderers away from society forever, and our eye-for-an-eye blood lust has to be satisfied with that.

However, what we don’t realise is that the custodial system doesn’t actually work like that. A judge may well pass down a sentence, but the custodial system ignores it and makes up its own rules regardless of what the judge and the law may have said. The ‘life’ that the murderers were given was a ‘life’ of one-on-one education and special attention and training for 8 years, followed by a clean slate, a brand new identity, and a guiding hand to leave the custodial system completely and go out and become ordinary and anonymous like Jamie would probably have loved to have been.

A society that feels it needs to reward murderers with all this advantage over Jamie has got to be sick, surely? Are we really ok with telling ten year olds that capturing and slowly torturing to death a toddler is ok, and as a reward we’ll give them special schooling and opportunities that they wouldn’t have had if they’d not murdered and had instead just tried to be ordinary and anonymous?

It’s no wonder then that when one of the now advantaged murderers does something to abuse his extra special opportunity to become ordinary and anonymous, that we react in a haze of anger and confusion. We are confused and feel betrayed after all we’ve done to give him the opportunities he removed forever from Jamie.

Ok, the lynch-mob restart their call for instant blood-lust gratification, but more worryingly the clucking ruling classes and liberal elite start their inane excuses and, to my horror, “feeling sorry for” the murderer who has failed to be ordinary and anonymous.

Feeling sorry for him? What a sick and perverse society we live in, when we feel sorry for murderers who have failed to take advantage of everything extra they’ve been given.

Whether this ‘feeling sorry’ comes from priests from within the Catholic church - an organisation that has only in recent months started to admit that extensive sexual abuse of children might be a bit wrong - or from the ruling liberal elite and middle classes, it has got to be very very wrong.

Surely, the murderer was given his golden opportunity, his wonderful once in a lifetime advantage to be everything he’d not allowed Jamie to be, but he blew it. It doesn’t matter why or how he blew it, but that’s got to be it. The Hundreds of Thousands of Pounds the society wasted on ‘rewarding’ Jamie’s murderers has been money thrown away for nothing. It could have been used to help those who more properly deserved it and had demonstrated they were the ones who deserved it by not torturing toddlers to death.

Sadly, we are obsessed with giving criminals advantages over the victims, and this has to stop. If there is another victim of one of Jamie’s murderers (we are not allowed to be told), then society and the custodial system certainly will be to blame. We must learn that ‘life’ has to mean a ‘life’ behind bars for life, if not for Jamie’s sake then for the sake of the latest victim of one of Jamie’s muderers.

We, and I mean ‘we’, could have prevented that.

Or maybe he’s on his throne trying to pass a...

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:01:00 +0000

Or maybe he’s on his throne trying to pass a ‘rock’?

(See? I could have opted for some anti-Catholic rant about young boys but I kept with the toilet humour instead.)

"Smokers. I don’t object to them smoking or killing themselves by so doing, as long as they a) don’t..."

Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:05:00 +0000

“Smokers. I don’t object to them smoking or killing themselves by so doing, as long as they a) don’t cost me anything to supplement their health care, b) don’t do any of their smoking within my nose’s breathing range, and c) put their drugs out properly rather than causing fires by discarding them lit. Arseholes.”

- Christopher England just said that!

Facebook is the real big brother

Mon, 08 Mar 2010 00:44:54 +0000

It’s interesting watching the paranoid display their paranoia. I love their conspiracy theories and listening to them rattling on about how terrible it is that the Government are doing this or the Government are doing that, and their references to it being a ‘big brother’ state. Fools. They’ll hold court about cctv or id cards or about paperwork or about photos on id cards or dna records or police stops or anything but the one single thing they should be being wary of: The internet, especially Facebook.

For some reason the paranoia stops at the internet. They think it’s their friend, even an ally against their fears of ‘big brother’. They will happily use free web-based mail services or search engines or social networks and media without even seeing what’s really going on. Information and statistics about them isn’t being collected by the Government or the police, but by the providers of the ‘free’ internet services they are using. It’s available to anybody who wishes to pay for it, and it’s freely available for those who don’t want to pay for it, even me.

Not only do places like Facebook collect and store all sorts of information about the users, including their entire life story, but Facebook regiments its users in a way that Communist China could have only dreamed of.

Everything about a Facebook user’s life is carefully and obligingly written-up by the user him or herself. Their life story, their profile, who they are, what they are. Pictures of their indiscretions, comments on where they’ve worked. Their families, their holidays, everything. Nothing is missed out. And, as with everything on the internet, it never really goes away. The info is there forever even after it’s currently ‘deleted’.

Nothing on the internet is every truly deleted, once it’s out there it’s out there.

Via Facebook anybody, not just the feared Government or police, can watch as people change from single to in a relationship, get married (complete with all the photos conveniently labelled with who’s who) and then become single again. Everything about the user is available forever. Now that’s just got to be far superior to any database or surveillance that any Government could have wished for!

Facebook also regiments and controls people. Just as in Communist China everybody had to look the same and wear the same, so they have to within Facebook. There is no place for an individual to express themselves outside of the framework and structure they are forced to accept from Facebook. They have no control over the colours, the content, the fonts, the style or layout of Facebook. They have to pick the nearest ‘location’ and ‘network’ they are allowed to belong to, they can’t invent a new one. Those who deviate from the norm and maybe actually belong to more than one ‘network’ are not allowed to. Those who live in places Facebook hasn’t heard of are not allowed to live there. Those who are in relationships that can’t be categorised by the options available have to either not mention it, or lie and pick the nearest in order to conform as they are profiled and catalogued. Everything about Facebook is regimented and fits inside pre-determined little boxes or it doesn’t exist.

This, of course, is because Facebook is really just a huge gigantic database of information and surveillance and an agent of conformity. It is designed to reduce the independence of the users and to make them passively accept and comply. It is the ultimate mind control.

Why won’t Facebook users reject any or all of this and make a bid for freedom? Peer pressure. They want to be part of what everybody else is part of, and they fear that if they aren’t they’ll somehow miss out. Truthfully, of course, the only thing they’ll miss out on is voluntarily putting even more intimate details about themselves into the massive database they can never delete anything from. Fear of missing out on Facebook is so strong that when the occasional account is ‘frozen’ because the user has been ‘out of line’, fear of the loss of all their photos, their online life and friends, drives the user to be completely compliant when their account is reinstated. Such is the complete level of mind control Facebook has over its users.

To keep Facebook users even more compliant and to start to empty their wallets, low grade ‘games’ are available. These are far more expensive to use than ‘proper’ multiplayer or interactive games, but Facebook users bow to the carefully designed peer pressure to see what their ‘friends’ are up to when playing these games, and the only way they can do this is to pay to play themselves. Like a virus it multiplies and takes control of the Facebook user, and it’s also stored as evidence forever.

Would I want to employ somebody whose data I can easily see from Facebook tells me that they spend all day playing games? Would the pictures of them puking during their latest night out (And why the feck are all the photos people put on Facebook of them hideously drunk?) tell me more about them than I’d get at interview? Oh look, they can’t seem to hold down a relationship. Hmmm. That’s not nice, they said they’d kill somebody. Whoops, is that a hint of racism in that joke on their wall?

Of course, the paranoid conversations we first mentioned about the Government and the police and all that surveillance will even go on via Facebook, yet they are far too conditioned to appreciate the complete irony. Somewhere the real ‘big brother’ is laughing at just how compliant they are as it’s watching and controlling them.

The climate change 'debate'...

Sun, 07 Mar 2010 00:01:00 +0000

Questioner: Hi, this global warming thing, could you show me the figures and data and calculations so I can understand it more?
Climate Scientist: You Heathen. Are you questioning the word of a Climate Scientist?
Questioner: No, I just want to see what you see, that's all.
Climate Scientist: You don't need to see it, you have the word of a Climate Scientist passed down to you. Thou shalt accept the word without question.
Questioner: Well, you're telling me these things but not showing me the data that helped you arrive at this conclusion.
Climate Scientist: You don't need the data, besides which the data has been lost, completely lost, so it's not there to be seen! So, yah, boo, sucks, to you!
Questioner: So, you want me to believe what you are telling me but you won't show me how you got to the conclusion you have.
Climate Scientist: You are a Denier. An evil Denier! Verily you will rot in hell for your blasphemy. Never question a Climate Scientist. Our word is law!
Questioner: I'm not denying anything, I just want to understand how you arrived at this notion that the globe is warming.
Climate Scientist: Notion? Notion? How dare you! You Deniers will force us to Armageddon and beyond. You are traitors seeking to destroy humanity and the entire planet. You are a danger to us all.
Questioner: Steady on, all I'm after is a chance to review what you are telling us.
Climate Scientist: Review? Review? The work of the almighty Climate Scientist is peer reviewed by thousands, nay millions of others, so you have no place trying to be a reviewer. You deniers are not welcome because you want the world to die.
Questioner: I don't want the world to die, I just want to -
Climate Scientist: - The science is settled. There is nothing you can learn or change. Mankind is making the world die. We will be extinct within three years. Deniers will never be forgiven for questioning the science and causing the world to get even hotter.
Questioner: Well, since 1998 it's actually been cooling, not heating.
Climate Scientist: No it hasn't, it's, it's, erm, it's all part of climate change. Not global warming, no it's not that any more. It's climate change. You can't argue that the climate is changing.
Questioner: Well, the climate is always slowly changing, that's what it's always done.
Climate Scientist: No it hasn't. The climate is changing because of human beings and them breathing out. They're to blame and the only way we can save the world is to kill them all except for people Climate Scientists like.
Questioner: That's a bit over the top isn't it?
Climate Scientist: Tell that to the Polar Bears you Deniers are single handedly killing, you bastards. And every time you start your car another glacier dies in the Himalayas. You murdering bastards.
Questioner: But there are more Polar Bears than ever and the glaciers are melting at the same or slower rate that they always have, and the sea temperatures and seal levels are steady, and -
Climate Scientist: - I've got my fingers in my ears. I'm not listening to you. I'm right. You're wrong. That's the way it is. The science is settled. You are killing us all.
Questioner: Erm, you're not making any sense. It definitely sounds like you're not being scientific.
Climate Scientist: What piffle! Climate Scientists don't need to be scientific. We already know what's happening. We knew it was happening before we even examined anything to prove it was happening. The proof is that we said so, and that's enough. Climate Scientists say 1 and 1 equals 5, and there's no doubt that 1 and 1 equals 5.
Questioner: This sounds more like a faith, a cult religion, rather than a science.
Climate Scientist: Any more questioning and I'll have you burned at the stake as all Deniers will be. Good day to you!
(Door slams and Climate Scientist wanders to the horizon muttering and chirping to himself like a budgerigar.)

The price of 'Gas' (Petrol)

Sat, 06 Mar 2010 00:05:00 +0000

Don’t Americans (well, the Americans from the United States of) just piss you off with their whinging and whining when the cost of petrol goes up a few cents?

Yes of course they do.

You point out that although they are now paying $4.00 a US gallon, we here in the UK are paying $10:00 a US gallon and they ignore you as if only their pain has any value.

This is typical of the arrogance of this warmongering nation who certainly know how to forcefully step into other countries and take their petrol. It’s all me me me me.

We can only hope that as the US slips further and further into recession that we are watching the slow demise of these tossers who never think of anybody else in the world but themselves. Empires rise. Empires fall. Goodnight America, your time is up..

Let's make 'grassing' cool!

Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:01:00 +0000

‘Grassing’ is good. No, honest, it’s good to be a ‘grass’. It’s only those who are doing something wrong that want you to believe that ‘grassing’ is not good. Think about it.

‘Grassing’ is the act of discreetly informing the relevant authorities (that could mean a parent, a teacher, an employer, or the police) about something that’s been done by somebody else towards a victim. It’s about helping the victim. It’s about getting the wrong-doer to stop doing wrong. I mean, if you saw a young baby being punched and kicked, you’d want the person hurting the baby to stop, right? Would you really be happy to just let it carry on because you “ain’t a grass”? Would you?

Yet drilled into so many humans by the bullies in their community is the idea that to do anything to stop the bullies is to somehow break some weird code of conduct. The code of conduct is that you don’t ‘grass’ but you let the bullies get away with whatever they wish. How mad is this? Yet it’s accepted by so many communities because they can’t see how they’ve been manipulated by the criminals into thinking ‘grassing’ is wrong. No, no, no, no, ‘grassing’ is NOT wrong.

People will say, “I ain’t a grass” when asked for help to stop the bullies and perpetrators of crimes, which lets them carry on with their crime wave producing yet more victims. Victims of not only the bully but also the person who won’t ‘grass’. The person not ‘grassing’ is producing new victims. Are they happy to do this? It seems so. New victims of robbery, of assault, of bullying are being made every day because of this nonsense about not ‘grassing’. Indeed, people who do ‘grass’ are then themselves victimised with quite horrifying results to reinforce the ‘never grass’ message to others, such is the control by fear that the bullies have over communities.

However, and here’s the thing, the world would be a far better and safer place if ‘grassing’ was not only acceptable, but also cool. How’s about making it a crime and a stigma to not ‘grass’. Imagine communities hovering around a person goading them because they had NOT ‘grassed’. That’s where we should be if we really want safer communities with respect instilled into everybody rather than the current climate of fear.

Break free I say, reclaim your dignity and ‘grass’ away today.

Photo

Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:01:00 +0000

The truth can't compete with old books

Wed, 03 Mar 2010 00:01:00 +0000

What’s the best way to inject a theory or a fact or information into the system?

Let me expand. Supposing you want to very swiftly make a lot of people believe something. It doesn’t have to be untrue, unusually for this day and age, it could be actually be true. However, you want to place this idea or information into society and to get it believed or supported. What medium should you use?

Probably your first thought is television. Wrong. Radio? Nope, but that comes second. Internet News services? Nope. Social networks? Nope. You need to be in print.

The main print media that people believe is a book. Next comes a newspaper.

Ok, here’s how it all works: It’s important to target the chattering middle classes. They are the ones who help shape consensus thinking. They always have been and always will be. What they think matters, regardless of whether millions of the lower and more gullible classes have opinions about anything beyond who should be voted out of the Big Brother house, or who should win the X Factor. The lower classes can’t actually do anything with real information, which is why they are given so much pointless information to fill their mainly vacant minds with, to keep them occupied and to stop them annoying the chattering classes.

It is the chattering classes that network and control and shape and decide what’s what. It is the chattering classes we must target with our information or ‘truth’.

Now, apart from obscure programmes on obscure TV channels like BBC4, the chattering classes don’t really watch TV. Well, they might watch Newsnight if they feel a bit of very light trivial entertainment is in order. They do also listen to the serious programmes on Radio 4, but they only trust people they hear on Radio 4 who’ve written books.

You may be able to Twitter or use the blogosphere to reach them, as a lot of them are sold on the non-Facebook aspects of social media, but like with TV’s Newsnight, they won’t think of your information as anything but trivia because the words you’ve written are not on paper.

The reason the chattering classes are only programmed to accepted the printed word as having any value originates at University. Institutions of learning are not ever at the forefront of knowledge or forward radical thinking. They tend instead to be bastions of tradition and ancient stability. Knowledge to these institutions means books, especially old books. Traditionally books were the tools of the intellectuals and scientists, hence why book burning was common in ancient times when the lower class peasants revolted and destroyed these things they’d not learned to read or to use, but instead feared because they appeared to give the gentry power over them.

Universities may well have embraced technology and tomes of information may well be stored electronically, but the server rooms are not as fiercely guarded and protected as their libraries. Books even in this modern age still hold the power and ultimate knowledge. The older the book, the more power it commands. That’s what is taught even if it not actually said.

It doesn’t even matter if what’s written in the book is proven to be completely wrong or in need of a rethink, it will still have power to smite even the most highly researched and presented tv documentary, because the chattering classes will favour its printed words over the words of a human speaking in front of them via a television. Again, the older the book, the more power it has to smite the televisual presentation.

Remember, the chattering classes have been trained to think and believe this whilst they were at University, and they know no other reaction or ability to reason, and have motivation to question their programming.

Indeed, the printed word is so important at University level that in order to prove themselves worthy of being labelled a Degree or above holder, the University attendee even has to produce their own printed words. Failure to do so means, well, failure.

The book is never questioned. It is the conch shell.

In other words, this entire article that I’ve written has been a waste of time, yet at the same time it will prove my point perfectly. The chattering classes will neither consume nor consider these words even if they stumble upon them.

These words can’t and won’t be taken seriously by the chattering classes because these words are not printed words in an old book, so there is no way I can actually inject a new idea into their chatter is there?

What is the secret beneath Liverpool?

Tue, 02 Mar 2010 00:01:00 +0000

What secret lurks beneath Liverpool? What power nestles below? What has been built there that the normal people are not allowed to see?

There is obviously a much larger conspiracy to hide something from the citizens of Liverpool and the great British public at large, but there must be a tiny local elite that do know about it but won’t say anything.

It’s time we knew the truth. What’s beneath us could pose a danger to us. We need to know.

To try to understand a few things we have to first step back 200 years to the early 1800s. A retired but extremely wealthy local man had teams of workers constantly building tunnels under Liverpool. Dozens of tunnels, we are told, but it was maybe hundreds. Known today as the Williamson Tunnels, nobody knows why Joseph Williamson set about having them built. Indeed, there are various rumours and thoughts, but nobody actually offers a truly rational explanation. A very tiny few of the tunnels are open to the those who wish to pay to investigate, with many more known about but carefully kept closed to the public gaze. It is said that there are others that are classified as ‘lost’. But are they?

In more recent times two much larger tunnels, the more modern Kingsway and the older Queensway, were built to carry traffic under the River Mersey.

Inexplicably and somewhat illogically the tunnels are less than a mile from each other. Logic says that if there really was a need for two tunnels under the river connecting Liverpool to the other side of the Mersey, then they should have been placed much further apart. They weren’t. They were deliberately built almost next to each other.

Most locals’ attention to what’s really going on is not drawn to the tunnels because they are so close to each other. This means that when one tunnel is mysteriously closed, it’s no big bother to drive to the other. Obviously had the tunnels been more properly situated much further apart, this would have been far more annoying and caused more interest and questions when one or the other is regularly closed to the public, especially at night. Indeed, the tunnels, especially the Kingsway, are closed far more often than tunnels elsewhere in the country.

Yet, whilst they are closed, locals complain of the fact that their closure will usually proceed a lot of vehicular activity either going into or coming out of the tunnel. Strange tinted windowed unmarked cars, vans and sometimes huge lorries will speed in or out despite the signs flashing that the tunnel is closed and advising to use the other.

It has been suggested that at approximately a mile in, parts of the tunnel walls are actually false, hiding spur roads deep underground. When the tunnels are officially closed, these unidentified vehicles are using these underground spur roads towards a destination that is still unclear. Regular users have noted that at certain points, tyre marks appear to veer off the road and head into the wall. These are most probably the points where the spur roads are and the wall is false, being drawn back out of the way for use when the public are not able to see what’s really going on.

Similar oddities can be seen by rail travellers once in the rail tunnel under the Mersey. Careful observers looking out of the windows into the darkness will see additional points and spur lines apparently leading nowhere. But are they truly leading nowhere? Why would spur lines be needed inside a tunnel?

There are reasons why this was one of the first electrified railway tunnels in the country. It’s because of the huge amount of extra trains that run through the night after the railway is closed to the public.

In the early 2000s questions were asked about the building work that appeared to be going on inside the Queensway Tunnel. Some bright members of the public had observed the vehicles coming and going during the periods when the tunnel was supposed to be closed. A cover story about how they were constructing seven large refuges within the tunnel was issued and temporarily satisfied and silenced the curious.

However, the evidence is unequivocal that something much much bigger and top secret is going on. It’s something the public are not part of. Something known about by only the elite and maybe the higher parts of inner Government or the military.

What is the secret beneath Liverpool? It’s time we were told the truth.

Words are taking control

Mon, 01 Mar 2010 00:01:00 +0000

Words. Everywhere. They are trying to get us. To overwhelm us. To make us never forget them. Are we in danger? Yes we are.

See, ages ago words were trapped in books. We were safe. In fact, only a few people knew how to understand what the shapes that were words actually meant. Indeed, knowing the danger that words posed some with foresight collected books into piles and burned them. The words were destroyed; we were safe. What books there were were very small in number and the vast majority of the population were safe from their influence.

However, words took control and forced those whose minds were influenced to make sure that more and more generations would be able to read the words. Schools were invented and forced words down the throat of the innocents attending. As time moved on it became compulsory to learn how to read words. It still is today.

Poor schoolchildren just couldn’t escape the torment of words. Cruel tutors would force them to learn them and score them on how much they knew and understood. Society would begin to judge a person’s worth not on who they were or what they could do or say, but on their ability to read words.

Soon the words would seep into every home, delivered by newspapers. Relentlessly day after day they would appear. Next were billboards and street signs. Words everywhere. Television not content with delivering pictures and sounds would also have words.

Words leapt onto clothing, first discretely hiding on the inside, then working their way onto the outside. Words dominated clothing until no longer would people buy clothing with words on, they’d buy words with clothing attached.

Words would smother boxes containing food. Words everywhere. More and more words on the street, disguised as instructions, warnings, information, adverts. But, words nevertheless. It wasn’t long before the words took control. Clothing without words on it was rejected. Products without words would not be bought.

Words looked enviously at mobile phone technology. Pretty soon they made the leap, stifling and replacing the speaking that phones were designed for by becoming the norm but called ‘text’. Whatever the name, they were still words. Taking control. Taking over.

The ultimate success in the campaign from words is the internet. As you take in what I’m saying now, you must realise that the words have taken control. They are here. Going through your eyes. Into your brain. Overwhelming you. Taking control. Stopping you thinking. Making you a drone. No longer a free thinker. Too busy thinking about what the words have made you think. That’s why you won’t stop. You’ll take in more and more words but understand nothing and have no thoughts of your own.

Westminster Bridge is the bridge that allows a road the runs...

Sun, 28 Feb 2010 00:01:00 +0000

Westminster Bridge is the bridge that allows a road the runs adjacent to the Houses of Parliament in London to cross the Thames. On a sunny day the light coming through the intricate stonework quite correctly shows on the pavement a graphic representation of the, er, ‘members’ of the Houses of Parliament.

Oh my god, they've killed Lidl!

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:01:00 +0000

Why do things change in such a confusing manner whilst staying the same? WTF has happened to Lidl? It’s done a Nestles.

Many years ago, Nestles was famously pronounced “Ness-ells”. Millions of children knew the jingle especially when associated with the Milky Bar Kid. “The Milky Bars are on me” he’d declare ahead of the invisible choir singing the jolly phrase “Ness-ells Milky Bar”.

Suddenly and for no readily apparent reason “Ness-ells” became “Nezz-lay”.

Why?

Well, I suppose it was the French company (properly called “Nezz-lay” because they’re or were, erm, French?) finally dragging the Brits into the modern world where things can have a French accent without being scary. Children, however, were traumatised and sales of Milky Bars dropped immediately in favour of Cadbury products.

Now, skipping through the era when strange things happened like the cleaning product ‘Jif’ inexplicably swapped the ‘J’ for a ‘C’ to become ‘Cif’, a bunch of Germans brought to Britain a strange and yet compelling down market grocery chain called ‘Lidl’. This is the chain normally used by white people who live here but are not of English origin, or people who have little to no money. It provides strangely named products, and packs of deliciously tasting reformatted cheese or is it ham or is it cheese or is it ham or is it the same product just randomly labelled cheese or ham depending on how the person sticking the labels on felt that day? It’s very cheap and addictive.

Excitingly, amongst all the cheap groceries are strange and previously unseen electrical and other hardware type products, man-toys. These are very cheap products too. These products have man-magnets attached to them forcing men to buy them and forget about buying groceries. I have dozens of LCD ‘weather stations’ listening to temperature probes outside in the garden but have never successfully returned with a bottle of milk.

Anyway, apart from not giving you carrier-bags for free, I’d never seen Lidl advertised on TV. I’d assumed this too was part of the plan to keep the prices so low.

Suddenly, Lidl appeared in a string of ads on TV! Wow! Nothing wrong with that, it might attract more shoppers to try it. No mention of the man-magnet toys though. That would have clinched it for me had I not known of the man-toys already, but maybe it would have dragged thousands of new guys in to browse the man-toys. A failing on the part of the advertising agency I mused!

The deep brown northern voice of whatshisname provided the voiceover for the commercial telling me how wonderful Lidl is, but, what? What’s that he just said?

Oh my god!

Forever, ‘Lidl’ has been pronounced “Lid-ull”. I don’t know anybody who pronounces it in any other way. The people in the stores pronounce it “Lid-ull”. There are even UK-Garage songs about Lidl that pronounce it “Lid-ull”. But. But. But.

Whatshisname the voiceover man was calling it “Leed-awl”.

“LEED-AWL”????

“LEED-AWL”????

When the feck did “Lid-ull” become “Leed-awl”?

Ok, I suppose it’s always been “Leed-awl” in Germany (pronounced “Deutschland”) because “leed” is how they pronounce “Lid” over there. But why did they leave it for so long before telling us Brits we were saying it so wrongly?

I feel so very violated.

The only way I can get over this is to go into Lidl right now and…and…and buy a man-toy!