Selling David A Pup.

It’s been so long for me since I began the stressful and lonely path of ‘thinking outside of the box’ in terms of digesting the information I was being fed (and, of course, I often forget how blissful it must be to have faith in the media and the other ‘forces of good’). To give it a name I suppose I’d call it ‘personal empowerment’. I’m driven by a desire to get the most out of life, but I do not confuse this – as so many seem to – with ‘power over others’ and using people to further my own personal agenda.

In these 18 years since I started to really ‘open my eyes’ – the whole of my adult life – I have seen and experienced things I wouldn’t have otherwise noticed or encountered, or that I would have otherwise have put down to ‘luck’ or taken as written. In this time I have seen society and life in the UK descend to levels of banality even I didn’t foresee in such a short period of time. Or maybe I did (see my next article) I just hoped things wouldn’t happen so quickly?

The path of this self-education has taken in many authors and scholars – from the better self-help books, psychology and occasionally fiction; authors as varied Ayn Rand, Tony Robbins, M.Scott Peck, Stuart Goldsmith and David Icke. Taking no individual word as ‘gospel’ but going with my own sense takes self-belief I learned as an adult, not something I was spoon-fed as a child. For instance, although ‘life-coach’ and motivational guru Anthony Robbins has that cringeworthy kind of Whitehouse-endorsed corporate-friendly ‘your life is amazing’ Americanisms, there is no doubt that his love and self-belief based philosophy offers the open-minded a ‘yin’ to the ‘yang’ of the necessary but somewhat negative realisations of the Ickes and Goldsmiths.

Particularly in the area of ‘finding closure’ when someone is harbouring their own emotional damage, Robbins offers a valuable ‘forgiveness’ based antidote to the hate-based lawyer-assisted ‘closure’ proffered by the police and media which actually discourages forgiveness, encourages the damaged to wallow in hate and self-pity to their own detriment, and continues their own destruction in the name of being a ‘victim’. The only way to ‘get over’ abuse or emotional damage in the past is to empower oneself today – that doesn’t garner many column inches though, alas.

I would have thought this is the message the Mark Williams-Thomas’ of this society should be sending these all-important ‘victims’ but it is not. The sheer amount of real-life ‘monsters’ created by this culture of greed and hypocrisy seems to be never-ending – but the Mick Philpott’s & Karen Matthews’ did what they did because of aspects of the media actively encourage such mindless attention-seeking and narcissism. As Stevie Wonder said nearly forty years ago, ‘Love’s In Need Of Love Today’.

It’s true – love is in need of love today. What we are subjected to is a daily bombardment of hatred and contempt, seemingly now balanced out by the phasing out of the natural process of questioning and weighing up what we are being told. We are expected to believe everything we are told by agents of the media, and the reactions if we don’t tend toward finger-pointing counter-accusations and attempts at ridicule – or, worse.

Education – in the true sense of the word – has been replaced by the promotion of ignorance and hate, philosophy replaced by soundbites. It cannot be accidental that the secondary school education system in the UK produces amazing exam results and very little in the way of ‘knowledge’, and that a huge ‘Generation Gap’ has opened up between those born circa 1989, and those born before. To have an understanding of anything you need to apply an understanding of ‘context’, particularly in historical situations. For instance, you wouldn’t have a monarch beheading his wives in the 20th Century Britain.

There has also been what I’d describe as an annexing of children from adults in the past 15 years or so which has resulted in a massive cultural gap (something that very much extends into shared knowledge and attitude). I pretty much got on with people 10 years older than myself as I did people 10 years younger by the time I was in my early 20s, and vice versa. Teenagers embraced the assent of adulthood generally by wanting to appear like adults themselves – it was essential to ‘grow up’ if you wanted to be accepted in adult environments such as pubs, clubs and workplaces, and it was a gradual and natural process. Youth-based movements have existed in the past, but they were always founded upon ideals, there is something rather transparent about drives to “get young people interested in policing” or politics etc when they appear to lack the general knowledge or interest to apply context or ideology. They exist to become puppets.

Which brings me round to the main point of this article – the spread of misinformation created to brainwash people with no actual interest or knowledge of recent history – and specifically designed to befuddle a major irritant to the ‘New Work Order’ controllers of ‘information’. David Icke is a man who, against all odds and in the face of considerable ridicule, has managed to identify and articulate matters of great importance in both our wider society and attacks on real knowledge over the past twenty years or so. Information – and I mean actual factual information – has come to light which suggests shards of the ‘truth’ Mr Icke and his followers have been seeking to  expose for all these years have been deliberately contaminated with misinformation as a planned distraction in the case of future ‘Exposure’.

There is no doubt that most of what Mr Icke – and others, sneeringly referred to as ‘conspiracy theorists’ by the mainstream media – have been writing about is founded in truth. The existence and aims of The Bilderberg Group (and it’s membership), the 9/11 controlled demolition, The New World Order – all sadly true, and – more importantly – backed up by evidence. Even the much-ridiculed ‘shape-shifting lizards’ seem to be not so ridiculous when faced with the reality of odious teflon politicians such as Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson.

Some people who pose a threat to the powers that be meet sticky ends in ‘accidents’, ‘suicide’ or ‘heart attacks’ – some are dealt with by other means. The way of dealing with David Icke has been to create the fact he is a misguided nutcase and his theories are the ranting of a madman – and in mainstream terms this has worked. After all, if he were to meet his maker via a plane crash or assassination, this would be seized upon by his loyal students as ‘proof’ of a conspiracy. Recently though, Mr Icke has fallen hook, line and sinker for a media conspiracy that has no evidence and no credibility – other than the kudos given it by Icke himself. In fact Mr Icke has fallen so deeply into these morally choppy waters I find myself wondering if he has been ‘bought off’.

I don’t think the ‘conspiracies’ I have suggested above are at all unlikely – my personal belief system is based on logic, if there is a logical reason for something to be happening I will err on the side of logic. For instance, the consequences of 9/11 (social and fiscal) have outweighed the supposed ‘cost’ have they not? If I am to buy into the subject of “institutionalised paedophilia” high up in ‘the system’ I would also suggest that the perpetrators of such evil practices would have cover and distractions ready for dispatch in the event these matters being leaked and thus become a matter of record. Indeed – if this level of systematic evil does exist there it would be utterly stupid not to plant various fairytales to distract those brave enough to venture down the path of uncovering those deadly deeds.

In my humble opinion, it is also astonishingly naive to not consider that the keenness of politicians and others woven into the fabric of the UK Government to attach themselves to popular entertainers and popular culture was to court popularity with the view of increasing their appeal to the young, to the baby boomers. If this theory wants testing it is something that is still going on today! If there are powerful paedophile networks at play, it would seem – to me, at least – that there would be a history of ‘misinformation’ scattered around regarding these matters, perhaps with unprovable tales of modern-day court jesters being involved? This is what I assume would go on, and as I have said I consider myself a logical sort of person.

Call me an idiot – I’m sure there are Ickesters who will do – but I do not see the correlation they do in the present posthumous demonisation of Jimmy Savile as a supposed ‘paedophile’ and their supposed cause of ‘exposing the dream world we believe to be real’.

When a supposed conspiracy is presented to the country as a ‘fait accompli’ on prime-time ITV (which is now far more in the idiom of ‘state television’ than the BBC ever could be) using the methods synonymous with state propaganda, is it not naive to expect leading conspiracy theorists to address the concerns immediately apparent to me (and, it turns out, many others)?

When the maker of said documentary surrounds himself in inaccurate claims, spends the next six months (and counting) dining out on his wafer-thin supposed ‘Exposure’ and has avoided completely an unscripted interview/questions-and-answers scenario does that not smack of ‘conspiracy’?

Where is the evidence? If I work on the principles promoted by Mr Icke, it is more important than ever that any issues of concern are cleared up to our complete satisfaction – surely? The truth is the posthumous vilification of Sir Jimmy Savile serves to fulfill several long-term agendas, not least the ‘buying off’ of Icke and his barmy vitriolic following. There are several ways ‘the powers that be’ could have dealt with this 20-year thorn in their side, be it the time-honoured ‘bumping off’ or the nouveau method of having some woman claim he brushed her right thigh in 1978 and then trawling him across the nation, but such methods would only serve to promote ‘The Cult Of David’ in the long term. It would appear the method chosen is present him as a crank and feed his sillier claims.

When I see Mr Icke and his fervent followers quoting hateful articles from publications such as The Daily Mail and the various Murdoch press, I despair. Maybe his mind has been well and truly blown – or, realistically, he has been bought off. For a man who’s basic message is ‘remember who you are, don’t believe the illusions’ is it not sheer hypocrisy to promote the agenda of the mainstream media when it suits just one of his more minor (and very shop-soiled) claims?

He has enthusiastically promoted the agenda of a certain Operation Yewtree – a Metropolitan Police operation set up to create a ‘smoke and mirrors’ illusion to distract the brainwashed public Icke claims to want to ‘awaken’ and also – even more threatening to our ‘freedom’ – to prevent others who may well know the Savile ‘allegations’ are garbage – from speaking out and addressing this ‘big lie’. This is not ‘smashing institutionalised paedophilia’ it is promoting the dubious agenda of a vicious mainstream media and encouraging the bullying of individuals by this corporate cluster of organisations.

Does he really think a police force colluding with the corporate press – 30+ ‘reporters’, 7 police vehicles and 20 officers to arrest a 67 year old buffoon for touching a grown woman’s breast in 1978 – is part of his ‘wider truth’? If not, why does he associate himself and his greater message to such injustice on the grounds that he was fed a red herring about Jimmy Savile many years ago – when NOTHING is being done to ‘expose institutionalised paedophilia’ other than the bullying of hapless slightly right-wing light entertainers?

For those of use not blinded by the false lights of ‘Savilegate’, it would seem that David Icke is finished – which can only be the long-term aim of his supposed enemies, and the reason his head has been turned. It’s one thing being swept along by a tidal wave of bullshit on the belief it may reveal a ‘greater truth’ but another thing entirely to submit to a hateful mainstream media whilst instructing people to “Get Off Your Knees”

When David ‘gets off his knees’ and smells the coffee, I might start to pay attention again. Until then, thanks David – for information on 9/11, Monsato, the post-9/11 wars, the infowar, Bilderberg and the NWO hierarchy etc – but no thanks.

I’ve enough to investigate and educate myself with now, without bothering with mainstream media bullying and engaging with a very real national ‘dumbing down’ of the populace. If we are to believe justice is destroying deceased entertainers with lies, trawling hate figures for unprovable historic sex crimes, supporting a corporate media who are embroiled in criminal activity with disgraced police forces and consuming exactly what we are told by dubious figures who will not allow themselves to be questioned that is something I cannot support.

There is a lot of wrongdoing going on the world and there has been for a long time now. In the face of the culture of the past 20 years phasing out intelligence and ‘general knowledge’ to a population more easily pleased and bovine than ever before, I don’t wish to waste my time and resources on individuals pointing their finger at the likes of Top Of The Pops.

David Icke’s transformation over the past few months is akin to Howard Roark becoming a fervent supporter of his arch enemy Ellsworth Toohey in Ayn Rand’s ever-relevant novel The Fountainhead – as beguiling as it is foolish. I hope his new-found support of the police, ITV, The Daily Mail and Rupert Murdoch will provide him with whatever it is he seeking to benefit from – but this is not an agenda I can believe in.

Advertisements

Fifty Shades Of Phenomenal – Fifty Shades Of Snobbery

Even though we’re just into August, there’s no doubt that 2012 already belongs to E.L.James’ “Fifty Shades” trilogy of books. In just a few short months, the books have gone from Kindle-only erotic “fan-fiction” to topping the best selling lists worldwide. It has flown off the shelves courtesy not of some huge marketing campaign but via good old fashioned “Word Of Mouth” recommendation and has been the talk of every internet social networking site and workplace. And yet, in a world that normally considers mass popularity as a barometer of taste, these books have met with a somewhat mixed reception from the media.

My own ‘personal recommendation’ came in early April, and coincidently enough came from a female who had experienced my own personal ‘fifty shades’, couldn’t deal with ‘the real thing’, reacted accordingly – and ultimately had to be cut loose shortly after. It was, I was told, “a novel about 2 people and BDSM and so much more” and “I really had to read it” – so I purchased “Fifty Shades Of Grey” that week and took to it like a duck to water. Of course it helped that I recognised much of my own personality in the lead male character (as hinted at in the initial recommendation I had received) – sans extreme wealth and childhood neglect – and the trilogy continued to resonate with me throughout partly because of this. What happened since I purchased the first volume, less than four months ago, is something I certainly did not expect in spite of my wholesale approval of these works. It has, through word-of-mouth and recommendation on social networking sites, become an absolute phenomenon.
The reaction of the media has been interesting – one of general disdain and disinterest. The newspapers have been awash with female columnists sneering at this “mummy porn” and wrongfully concluding it encourages the portrayal of females as sexual submissive to horrible beastly men, journalists have been quick to declare the books badly written with “clunky prose” – and yet the phenomenon prevails. Whilst it would easy to take an elitist view and consider this the literary equivalent of, say, the music of Maroon 5 or Rihanna what these jealous journalists are failing to take into account is the impact these books are having on those swept up in the wave of enthusiasm. I could sneer at all the people I consider ‘unworthy’ of such a good read and bemoan it’s “populism”, but I would be failing to take into account how far reaching and possibly life-changing these books could be to some. I have seen these books bought and embraced by the barely literate, people who have never before sat down and read a ‘book’ in their adult lives. People for whom the intense passion, salacious but-never-tacky sex and the incredible relationship depicted in the book will be nothing they’ve ever imagined nor will never probably experience. People who’s very lives are those of adult children, who have sex “cos it’s what you do innit” but never experience passion, who live their lives as they communicate – in meaningless soundbites and minus the vowels, who treat cognitive thinking as “weird”. People for whom “music” is a constant wall of thumping monotone beats, computer-generated distortion and generic autotuned “singing” reading about incredible sex soundtracked by Thomas Tallis’ 16th Century layered complex choral music. All of this and more, in a society where the death knell had been sounded long ago for the artistry & wonder of the English language, with grown adults consistently making the spelling errors of the remedial children of yesteryear. All of whom being totally absorbed now by fictional books depicting seriously discerning lead characters. This impact goes way beyond the sneering contempt of populist hacks or even my own deep cynicism, and it can only be a force for good.
Aside from hypocritical swipes at the authors style of writing, the main issue raised in criticism of these books comes from other, supposedly intellectual. females taking issue with the depiction of BDSM sex and the dominant/submissive relationship between the male and female lead characters. Whether these hackneyed concerns are being raised in denial of the critics own sexual needs and habits, and in some knee-jerk defence of ‘feminism’ is unclear, but the criticism has been transparently uniform enough to barely disguise the true agenda. Aside from creating, outside of the ‘industry’, a literary phenomenon what is irking the female critics the most is the fact E.L.James has effectively let ‘the’ genie out of the bottle in terms of what women, if I may generalise so, really want from a relationship and from sex. That this is indeed just what the author has done is reflected in the incredible popularity of the books with women (and some men) of all ages. It is a fact of life that sex requires one party to be dominant and one submissive, and that generally in the sexual element of most heterosexual relationships the male is sexually dominant and the female submissive – it is completely natural, indisputable and, unfortunately for those in denial of these roles, a given. The male role – both in the bedroom and within relationships – has been diminished in recent years amidst hollow cries of “girl power” and the resultant trail of unhappy people swearing allegiance to broken frameworks and females happy to reduce the role of men to that of unwitting sperm donors and hapless (or reviled) stooges. Sex itself is an animalistic, uncivilised act based on a man fucking a woman, there is no place for ‘political correctness’ in this order as it is the very basis of our being – to put it crudely men are made to ‘fuck’, women made to ‘be fucked’. Whilst no-one is suggesting women exist purely as sexual muses for their men, this is the basic gist of life itself, and in this respect the sexual relationship detailed in the “Fifty Shades” books are just reflecting, from a woman’s perspective, this most carnal of desires. What this reveals, of course, is despite much post-modern posturing this base need is very much alive in women as it always had been and it is this fact that must infuriate the supposed feminist journalistic elite – what they completely fail to realise though is that “Fifty Shades” is not depicting a neanderthal beast dominating a submissive female (as so many columns have attempted to depict), and does not represent the sole reason why the books are so popular. As well as the graphic knicker-wetting descriptions of various fantastic sexual acts, the main point of the book and the true reason it has gripped so many of such varied backgrounds is the emotional relationship between the male and female leads – how they impact on each other, how they bond, how the relationship shifts and develops and how amazingly deep and rewarding that is. Of course, the sad fact is that most people never experience the type of relationship described in the books and never experience the highs (or lows) – but what the popularity of the book and, in particular, the lead character Christian Grey’s popularity reveals is most women – of all classes and walks of life – really want in a man. They want smart, they want slightly vulnerable, they want deep, they want cultured, they want discerning, they want looking after, they even quite like being ‘stalked’ and watched if the stalker is appealing to them – and the certainly want sexually dominating. Most men should be taking note and taking care of their future happiness, but in a sea of indifference, denial and endless distractions, most won’t. Most women too will read these books, get horny over these books, fall in love with these books – and then promptly return to their ‘safe bets’ and passionless, pointless relationships (a fate that seems to have befallen my ‘friend’) whilst spending a lifetime putting up with second or third best and occasionally wondering “what if”.

Of course, the bonus for the few wise “Christians” here is E.L.James has basically handed over an ‘instruction manual for women’. Those of us who already benefit from a “Mr Grey”-esque personality can, instead of channelling our intensity in the wrong directions and suffering for our ‘art’, bask in the glory of knowing we are what they want (what they really really want) and those who can’t handle it – well, it’s their loss isn’t it…..