All posts tagged Freedom

If what has happened since 2016, is in any way a yardstick by which to measure the current social and/or political climate in this country, then I predict that 2020, will be known to history as the ‘Year of  the Triggering’.

The complete and utter rout of the political left, following December’s General Election, and the Labour Party’s worst defeat since the 1930s, will live long in the memory, but not for what I believe to be wholly obvious reasons.

The total rejection of the Labour Party’s hard-left rhetoric by the British electorate, has unleashed a virtual Tsunami of vitriolic spite, and violent anger, among sections of the population, the likes of which, has not been previously witnessed.

At least in my lifetime.

The reasons for this collective outrage, can be attributed to any number of things, but in my opinion, it is clearly underpinned by a pernicious and destructive belief structure, and one which, until very recently, has not made itself so clearly visible, but is now impossible to ignore any longer.

This belief structure, this virulent, noxious and poisonous ideology, which has infected a large part of the population on both sides of the Atlantic, being continually stoked by the mainstream media for the last decade, is not even a recent thing, although there are those who will tell you otherwise.

It has taken a little over a century for it to become embedded in Western society, to the point where millions of people, from the youngest, right through to those, who frankly, should know better, have become contaminated by it’s teachings, and we are now witnessing the fallout.

Social media is where the outrage appears to be at its most acute, and Twitter, Youtube and Facebook, most specifically, where the outpouring of the pure, unadulterated hatred emanating from the left of the political arena, has been simply breathtaking.

Thankfully, most of the hatred has been confined mainly to the online world, and has, as yet, not spilled over onto the streets, and into our everyday lives, although, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that this will continue to be the case.

If what I have been watching on social media, the undermining, de-platforming and sabotaging of any opposing, or dissenting viewpoints, the rabble-rousing, the streams of insults and continual threats of violence, emanating overwhelmingly from left wing media outlets, Shillabers, ‘Activists’ and social commentators, continues, and/or increases to any degree, then all bets are off.

But I digress.

The 2019 General Election was not only a thumping victory for the Conservative & Unionist Party, but by completely crushing the very real threat, posed by the hard-left lunatics that have infiltrated, and taken total control of the Labour Party, was a win for common sense, sanity, and the democratic process itself.

I have spent the last couple of days, looking for articles and texts which would outline what I believe to be the root cause of this malaise, and to be honest, I have struggled to find anything online which encapsulates most of what I have been trying to illustrate.

However, I did find something, but as the author of the following article, as I understand it, is not known, I am unable to credit the writer, or link to an online source where the original can be found.

I am also unsure as to the date it was written.

I discovered it initially a few years ago, amongst some unrelated documents I was going through, and have tried, but failed to discover the identity of the writer.

But he/she is/was an American.

That aside, I cannot stress how important I believe this piece of writing to be, and if only for that reason, I am going to republish it here, albeit with a few [minor] adjustments to the text, which will bring it right up to date, and include the use of any current terminology.

It’s a fairly long read, and I accept that it may be difficult to digest in one sitting, but it contains one hell of a lot of information in regard to what I believe has happened in this country, (and America) to this country (and to America) and is still happening.


‘Have you ever wondered, where all this stuff that you are hearing pretty much everywhere at the moment – the LGBTQ rights movement, the fabricated statistics, the rewritten history, the lies, the incessant demands, the sense of entitlement and victimhood, and the rest of it – comes from?

For the first time in history, people in the west have to be fearful of everything they say, of what they write about, and even of what they think.

They have grown terrified of using the wrong word, or words, lest those words are rounded on and violently denounced on all sides as offensive, or insensitive, over critical, or racist, or sexist, or homophobic, or anti-semitic or Islamaphobic, or Transphobic.

We have stood idly by, and watched other countries where this has happened, and we have regarded those countries with a mixture of pity, and sometimes with amusement, because we were simply dumbfounded, that supposedly intelligent people, would have allowed such a situation to arise around them.

A situation where they would suddenly become afraid of what words they can use.

But now, we have that situation here.

Emerging initially on University campuses in the United States, Britain and Europe, and spreading with what appears to be indecent haste, to the point where, it has infected the whole country.

So, where does it come from?

And what exactly is it?

We know it as “Political Correctness.” Which is a term that began as something of a joke, literally in an American comic strip, and many people still cannot grasp how serious it is. It is deadly serious. It has become a disease that has reached pandemic proportions since the beginning of this century, and is a sickness that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, and around the world.

It is the disease of ideology.

Political Correctness is not funny.

Political Correctness is serious…. deadly serious.

If we choose to analyse it, or if we look at it from a historical aspect, it becomes clear exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. it is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s, and the hippies and the peace movement, it goes back a lot further, fifty years in fact, to the Great War of 1914-1918.

If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism, the parallels become obvious.

First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than in Universities and Colleges, many of which, to all intents and purpose, are little more than miniature North Korea’s, where the student who dares to cross any of the invisible lines set by up by the gender feminists or the LGBTQ rights activists, or the local ‘minority’ groups, or any other of the sainted “victims” groups that Political Correctness revolves around, quickly finds themselves in a world of trouble.

Within the small legal system of each university, they can face formal charges – some star chamber proceeding – and ultimately, punishment.  Take that as a look into the future that Political Correctness intends for any nation as a whole.

Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this philosophy certain things must be true – such as the whole history of our culture, is the history of the oppression of women. Since reality directly contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must become forbidden to acknowledge the reality our history. People must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant to live a lie, they, also naturally, use their own ears and eyes to look around and say, “wait a minute. This isn’t true. I can see for myself that it isn’t true,” the power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie.

That is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.

Secondly, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of production.

Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of race, sex, etc., have power over all other groups.

Nothing else matters.

All politically correct literature is about that. Everything that has gone before is about that one thing.

Thirdly, just as in classical economic Marxism, certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil.

In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, certain groups are good – radical feminists, (but only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) people of colour, LGBTQ people and a few others, are determined to be “victims”, and as such are automatically deemed to be good, regardless of whatever they say, or indeed, do.

Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie economic Marxism.

Fourthly, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation.

When the classical Marxists, the Communists, took over a country like Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, taking away their property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions. When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance to a university in favour of a person of colour, who isn’t as well qualified, the unfortunate white student is expropriated.

As indeed, affirmative action, in our society today, is a system of expropriation.

Companies owned by white people don’t get a particular contract because said contract is reserved exclusively for companies owned by people of colour, or women.

So expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism.

And finally, both forms of Marxism have a method of analysis that automatically gives the answers that are required. For the classical Marxist, it’s Marxist economics. For the cultural Marxist, it’s deconstruction.

Deconstruction essentially takes any text, removes all meaning from it, and re-inserts any meaning that is required. So we find, for example, that all of Shakespeare is about the suppression of women, or the Bible is really about race and gender and little else. All of these texts become simply become grist for the mill, which proves that “all history is about which groups have power over which other groups.”

So the parallels are very evident between the classical Marxism that we are familiar with in the old Soviet Union and the cultural Marxism that we see today in the the form of Political Correctness.

Those parallels are not accidental, however, the similarities did not appear out of thin air. The fact of the matter is that Political Correctness has a history, a history that is much older than many people appear to be aware of, outside of a small, select group of academics who have studied it.

The history goes back, as I said earlier, to World War I, as do many of the pathologies that are today bringing our society, our heritage, our culture, and even our identities, down.

Marxist theory said that when the general European war came (as it did come in Europe in 1914), the working class throughout Europe would rise up and overthrow their governments – the bourgeois governments – because the workers had more in common with each other across the national boundaries, than they had in common with the bourgeois and the ruling class in their own country.

Of course, as we know, 1914 came and went, and that did not happen.

Throughout Europe, workers rallied to their flag and happily marched off to try and kill each other. The Kaiser shook hands with the leaders of the Marxist Social Democratic Party in Germany, and said that there are no political parties now, there were only Germans. And this was repeated throughout Europe,

So obviously, something was wrong.

Marxists knew by definition it could not be the theory. In 1917, they finally got their coup in Russia, and it did look as though their theory was working, but it stalled once more. It did not spread following the war as the Marxist’s hoped, despite the Spartacist uprising in Berlin, with the Bela Kun government in Hungary, with the Munich Soviet, the workers did not support them.

So it appeared that the Marxist’s had a problem. And two Marxist theorists set to work on it: Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukas in Hungary.

Gramsci said that the workers will never see their true class interests, as defined by Marxism, until they are freed from Western culture, and particularly from the Christianity – that they were blinded by culture and religion to their true class interests. Lukas, who was considered the most brilliant Marxist theorist since Marx himself, said in 1919, “who will save us from Western Civilisation?”

He also theorised that the great obstacle to the creation of a Marxist paradise was the culture: Western civilisation itself.

Lukas gets a chance to put his ideas into practice, because when the home-grown Bolshevik Bela Kun government was established in Hungary in 1919, he becomes deputy commissar for culture, and the first thing he did, was to introduce sex education into the Hungarian school system. This ensured that the workers would not support the Bela Kun government, because the Hungarian people looked at this aghast, the workers, as well as everybody else. But he had already made the connection that today many of us are still surprised by, that we would consider the “latest thing”.

In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank was established that took on the role of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates what we know today as Political Correctness.

Essentially, the basis for it was created by the end of the 1930s.

It came about because a very wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by the name of Felix Weil had become a Marxist, and had a lot of money to spend. He grew ever more disturbed by the divisions that existed among the Marxists, so he sponsored something that became known as the Marxist Work Week, into which, he brought Lukas and many of the key German thinkers together for a week, working on the differences of Marxism.

He said, “what we need is a think-tank.”

Washington and London is today filled with think tanks, and we think of them as being a very modern invention, when in fact they go back more than ninety years.

Felix Weil endowed an Institute in 1923, associated with Frankfurt University, that was originally going to be known as the ‘Institute for Marxism’. But the people behind it, had decided at the start that it was not going to be to their advantage to be openly identified as Marxists. The last thing Political Correctness wants, is for people to work out that it is in reality, a branch of Marxism. So instead, the name ‘Institute for Social Studies’ was decided upon.

Weil was very clear about his goals. In 1971, he wrote to Martin Jay the author of the definitive book about the ‘Frankfurt School’, as the Institute for Social Research becomes informally known as, and wrote: “I wanted the Institute to become known, perhaps even famous, due to its contributions to Marxism,”

He was successful. The first director of the institute, Carl Grunberg, an Austrian economist, concluded his opening address, according to Martin Jay, “by clearly stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific methodology.” Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the Institute, and that never changed.

The initial work at the Institute was rather conventional, but in 1930, it acquired a new director named Max Horkheimer, and Horkheimer’s views were very different. He was very much a Marxist renegade. The people who create and form the population of the school, are also renegade Marxists. They are still very much very much Marxist in their thinking, but they are effectively run out of the party. Moscow looked at what they were doing, and said, “Hey, this isn’t us, and we are not going to support this.”

Horkheimer’s initial heresy is that he is very interested in Freud, and the key to making the translation of Marxism from economic into cultural terms is essentially that he combined it with Freudism. Again, Martin Jay writes: “If it can be said that in the early years of its history, the Institute concerned itself primarily with an analysis of bourgeois society’s socio-economic sub-structure,” – and I point out that Jay is very sympathetic to the Frankfurt School, I’m not reading from a critic here – “in the years after 1930 its primary interests lay in its cultural superstructure. Indeed the traditional Marxist formula regarding the relationship between the two was brought into question by Critical Theory.”

A lot of the stuff we have been hearing about the last few years – the radical feminism, the women’s studies departments, the LGBTQ studies departments, the black studies departments – all these things are branches of Critical Theory.

What the Frankfurt School essentially does, is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s, to create this thing known as Critical Theory.

The term is ingenious because one is tempted to ask, ‘What is this theory?”

The theory, in simple terms, is to criticise.

That’s it.

The theory is that the way to bring down Western culture, and the (established) capitalist order, is not to lay down an alternative.

They explicitly refuse to do do that.

They simply say it can’t be done, that we cannot imagine what a free society would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we are living under repression – the repression of a capitalist economic order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression – we can’t even imagine it.

What Critical Theory is about is criticising.

It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, and is designed to bring the current established order down. And, of course, when we hear from feminists, that the whole of society is just out to get women, and so on, that type of criticism is just another derivative of Critical Theory. And it comes from the 1930s, not the 1960s.

Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno, and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse, who, in his own writings calls for a society of “polymorphic perversity,” that is his definition of the future of the world that they want to create.

Marcuse in particular by the 1930s, is writing some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this runs through the whole Institute.

So do most of the themes we see in Political correctness, again in the early 1930s.

In Fromm’s view, masculinity and femininity were not reflections of ‘essential sexual differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part, socially determined,”

Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct.

Another example is the emphasis we now see on environmentalism.

“Materialism as far back as Hobbes had led to a manipulating dominating attitude towards nature.” That was Horkheimer writing in 1933 in Materialisms und Moral. ‘The theme of man’s domination of nature,” according to Jay, “was to become a central concern of the Frankfurt School in subsequent years.

“Horkheimer’s antagonism to the fetishisation of labour, (here’s where they are obviously departing from Marxist orthodoxy) expressed another dimension of his materialism, the demand for human, sensual happiness.” In one of his most trenchant essays, Egoism and the Movement for Emancipation, written in 1936, Horkheimer “discussed the hostility to personal gratification inherent in bourgeois culture.” And he specifically referred to the Marqis de Sade, favourably, for his “protest…. against asceticism in the name of a higher morality.”

How does all this stuff still flood in here?

How does it flood into our universities and colleges, and indeed into our everyday lives today?

The members of the Frankfurt School are of course, Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933, the National Socialists came to power in Germany, and not unsurprisingly, they immediately shut down the Institute for Social Research. And its members subsequently fled, and scattered.

They fled to New York City, and the Institute was re-established there in 1933, with help from Columbia University. And the members of the Institute, gradually, through the 1930s, although many of them writing in German, shift their focus from Critical Theory about German Society, and destructive criticism about every aspect of that society, to Critical Theory directed towards the destruction of American society.

There was another very important transition when the war came. some of the Institute’s members go to work for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key figure in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.

These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too much to us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the student rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by resistance to the draft and the Vietnam War.

But the student rebels needed theory of some kind. They couldn’t just go out one day and shout “Hell no, we won’t go,” they had to have some theoretical explanation to explain their actions.

Very few of them were interested in wading through Das Kapital.

Classical, economic Marxism is not light, and most of the radicals of the 1960s were none too deep. Fortunately for them, and unfortunately for America, and not just in the university, Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School relocated back to Germany after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in Germany is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there – when the student rebels come into Adorno’s classroom, he calls for the police and has them arrested – Herbert Marcuse, who remained in America, saw the 1960s student rebellion as the great chance. He saw the opportunity to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the New Left in the United States.

One of Marcuse’s books was the key book. It virtually became the bible of the SDS and the student rebels of the 1960s. That book was ‘Eros and Civilisation.’ Marcuse argues  in that book, that under a capitalist order (he downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, a Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework is Marxist), repression is the essence of that order, and that gives us the person that Freud describes – the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses, because his/her sexual instincts are repressed.

We can envision a future, if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of “polymorphous perversity,” in which you can “do your own thing.” And by the way, in that world there will be no longer work, only play.

What a wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-1960s!

They are students, they are baby-boomers, and they have grown up never having to worry about anything, except eventually having to find a job. And here is a guy writing in a way that they can easily follow. He does not require them to read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to hear which is essentially, “do your own thing, if it feels good, do it,” and “you never have to go to work.”

By the way, Marcuse is also the man who created the phrase, “Make Love, Not War.”

Coming back to the situation people face on university campuses, Marcuse defines “liberating tolerance” as intolerance for anything coming from the political Right and tolerance for anything, and I mean anything, that comes from the Left.

In conclusion, both America and Britain today is in the throes of the greatest and direst transformation in their history. We are becoming ideological states, and countries with official state ideologies, enforced by the might and power of the state itself.

In “Hate crimes” we now have have people serving prison sentences for political thoughts and ideas. And its going to go a lot further, and that category is going to be expanded even further.

Affirmative Action is only part of it.

The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness in universities is also part of it. Its exactly what we have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in China, in Italy and now it’s here.

And we still fail to recognise it because we see it as just Political Correctness and simply laugh it off.

My message to you today, is that its not funny, its here, its growing and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy everything that we have ever defined as our freedom, and our culture.

I often think, in quieter moments, how this generation will be judged by history.

Particularly when a person only has to take a look around their own streets, and at their own neighborhood’s, let alone look at their country as a whole; to see how subservient, how disinterested and how apathetic people have become in regard to not only their own future, but that of their own children and their children’s children, they have become.

It really brought it home to me recently, while browsing through some research documents and books I had purchased, when I happened upon a document that my father and his friends often spoke about with great passion when I was growing up in South Wales, and is something that I had only ever seen online before.

What this document shows, is that not so very long ago, there were people who were willing to stand up against the established order, who were prepared to put themselves on the line in order to elicit real change, and who were proud enough to not only fight for their country’s independence and freedom, but that of their countrymen too, and so much so that many of them risked everything in their attempts to make reality a common dream that all Nationalists, of all nations have shared.

I have photographed it, and published it in full below for posterity, and to show that as a Nation, Wales was offered a choice, and that Wales, and Welsh men and women and children – did once dare to dream ….

According to a number of sources, Hungary is about to follow the UK’s lead and vote to leave the European Union.

This will follow this weekends vote to curb the influx of immigrants, which reports say will be a landslide victory, and end the ‘Quota’ of immigrants the EU has forced them to accept.



People all over Europe appear to be waking up to the simple fact that the European Union does not serve them, and is answerable only to itself.

The U.K. may yet prove to have been the catalyst that leads to the liberation of Europe, ensure it’s release from the iron grip of Brussels – and save itself from the Globalists and Banksters who have desperately strived to destroy it.



“The difference between a criminal and an outlaw is that while criminals frequently are victims, outlaws never are.

Indeed, the first step toward becoming a true outlaw is the refusal to be victimized.

All people who live subject to other people’s laws are victims.

People who break laws out of greed, frustration, or vengeance are victims.

People who overturn laws in order to replace them with their own laws are victims. ( I am speaking here of revolutionaries.)

We outlaws, however, live beyond the law.

We don’t merely live beyond the letter of the law-many businessmen, most politicians, and all cops do that-we live beyond the spirit of the law.

In a sense, then, we live beyond society.

Have we a common goal, that goal is to turn the tables on the ‘nature’ of society.

When we succeed, we raise the exhilaration content of the universe.

We even raise it a little bit when we fail.

When war turns whole populations into sleepwalkers, outlaws don’t join forces with alarm clocks.

Outlaws, like poets, rearrange the nightmare.

The trite mythos of the outlaw; the self-conscious romanticism of the outlaw; the black wardrobe of the outlaw; the fey smile of the outlaw; the tequila of the outlaw and the beans of the outlaw; respectable men sneer and say ‘outlaw’; young women palpitate and say ‘outlaw’.

The outlaw boat sails against the flow.

All outlaws are photogenic.

‘When freedom is outlawed, only outlaws will be free.’

There are outlaw maps that lead to outlaw treasures.

Unwilling to wait for mankind to improve, the outlaw lives as if that day were here.

Outlaws are can openers in the supermarket of life.”

Thomas Eugene Robbins (born July 22, 1936 in Blowing Rock, North Carolina) is an American author. His novels are complex, often wild stories with strong social undercurrents, a satirical bent, and obscure details. His novel Even Cowgirls Get the Blues (1976) was made into a movie in 1993 directed by Gus Van Sant.

I often hear people speaking about, and am seeing an increasing number of books and websites, promoting the importance of ‘New Age’ thinking, especially among those who operate within the confines of so-called Alternative Media and various ‘fringe’ groups existing on the peripherals of society.

So what is it we actually know about the ‘New Age’ and the reasoning behind it?

For one thing, there is nothing ‘new’ about it, as it’s origins lie in Freemasonry, and is simply a re-working of the official Masonic dogma, which is in turn based on ancient beliefs and religions, the most prominent incarnation, being Hinduism.

One only needs to look at some back copies of the official magazine of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, now ‘The Scottish Rite Journal’, which was, from the early 1900’s until the 1970’s, entitled ‘The New Age Magazine’.

Within the pages of this magazine, it was discussed how a ‘New Age Religion’, could be implemented using pseudoscientific methods, and rolled out worldwide to overtake Christianity, Islam and every other religion and belief system.

Manly Palmer Hall, a freemasonic scholar, wrote extensively about this proposed new religion incorporating aspects of lost and hidden traditions, the golden verses of Hindu gods, Greek Philosophers, Christian Mystics, and the spiritual treasures waiting to be found within ones own soul.

A confident public speaker, he used his imposing physical attributes, (6′ 4″ in height) to great effect when his first series of lectures, propelled him almost overnight, into the go-to source in America at least, of an astonishing range of material that resonated not only with the intellect, but also on a subconscious level.

The Theosophical Society, which was given a Masonic Charter and founded in 1875 By Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, was intended to introduce and incorporate women into Freemasonry, and it was the collective writings of Blavasky and her followers, along with the works of Aleister Crowley, which laid down the entire premise for what is known today as the New Age Religion.

Although the New Age movement is itself thriving, being promoted by such media luminaries as Oprah Winfrey and author and public speaker Deepak Chopra, which lends it an aura of mainstream credibility and authenticity, the way it is now being incorporated into the Truth Movement, using carefully selected snippets of truth in order to indoctrinate people, is something that should not be overlooked.

It has not gone unnoticed, that much of the New Age religious propaganda being promoted within the Truth Movement, is almost always, coupled with the Alien Agenda, and when the promoters of the Alien Agenda are scrutinised to any degree, the links are unmissable.

The key aspect of the New Age religion, is that there is ‘no truth other than the truth of the individual’s own belief system’.

How often are we seeing this on the Internet now, where various claims and stories are permeating social media and blogs, many of whom are beyond normal belief, and have no basis in truth whatsoever, yet are being freely shared and promoted online, simply because the collective belief they are true, overrides almost everything else – including it seems, common sense and the distinct lack of evidence to support them?

From this mindset also comes the ideology that all of what we believe, ie: reality, is in fact an illusion, and that every human being is able to effect changes in the physical world around them – simply by thinking differently about it.

The people who are promoting this concept within the Truth/Alternative movement, also promote the idea that by harnessing these inner mystical and magical powers, they can be used to fight and ultimately defeat the ‘New World Order’.

David Icke, for example, and of course those who follow his doctrines, have claimed that if we stop thinking about the negative things that are happening all around us, those who hold the reins of power and who control us, (Giant Lizards) will no longer be able to use the negative energy of our thought patterns, causing the whole control system to collapse around them, effectively freeing humanity.

Which of course, may be plausible if the planet was actually run by invisible reptilian entities, and not as it is by narcissistic psychopaths, who care nothing for the health and welfare of any being that dwells upon it, and would not be negatively affected by collective human thoughts, be they positive or otherwise.

Michael Tsarion, who is a follower of both Crowley and Blavatsky, has promoted the idea that divination and the correct use of Tarot Cards can be used to channel positive spirit energy in order to achieve a similar result.

I should have no need to explain to anybody, that if reality is in fact real (which hopefully most people believe to be the case), trying to make people believe that reality is something else entirely – would prove beneficial only to those who the New Age Messiah’s claim they want your help (and donations of course) to defeat…. Or something like that.

As the 2015 General Election looms large in the UK, one thing that may have gone unnoticed, is that there seems to have been a subtle takeover of many governmental institutions and departments – by increasing numbers of people with what can only be described as, ‘psychopathic’ traits and very low, or non-existent levels of empathy?

Which has had the effect, that the never-ending cycle of unlawful and unnecessary wars, secret courts, state corruption and brutality, lying politicians, arrests without legal warrants, grossly inaccurate mainstream media reporting and the stealing of people’s incomes by the banks, are not things that can easily be questioned.

Or challenged.

It also appears to have now become the sole responsibility of each individual citizen, to somehow learn to cope psychologically, with an increasing series of brutal and harsh changes, that have been implemented by each successive government.

Changes, which are in reality, and if you take the time really think about it – a world away from what have been enjoyed by previous generations.

Could this be the result of the professions of ‘Psychology’ and ‘Psychotherapy’, having been covertly, and gradually politicised?

And have those professions been politicised to a degree, that any problems which now occur within society, are being attributed solely to the individual instead, who is then forced, albeit by very subtle means to conform – instead of expecting their duly elected representatives in Parliament to change their way of acting towards them” ?

If the British people, as I very much suspect, are now seen as being unable to decide for themselves who should rule them, how will they then be able to address the problems that have been forced upon them, by those who are using and abusing this country, dismantling it’s public services, it’s institutions and it’s resources, as well as it’s people – as if they were their own private property?

Equally unfortunate, is while there are some open-minded and acutely aware people, who are starting to come together, quietly organising themselves and attempting to find a way to change society for the better of all – the greater majority will dutifully continue to vote into power, the very people who are systematically dismantling that society around them.

I feel that a dark and heavy cloud has been lifted from my shoulders today.

I was arrested on the 22nd November 2013, for a comment I made on a blog, which was edited to read something completely different, and then reported to the police.

They seized my iPad, which was thoroughly examined, I was re-bailed twice and I have been informed today that my bail has been cancelled and there will be no further action.

“The comment I made did not match the comment that was presented to the North Wales Police.”

It was a malicious and entirely false accusation, the consequences of which, has meant my family and myself have been subjected to six months of suspicion, accusations and damnable and outright lies that have been circulated via social media and a number of shady blogs.

Our home has been targeted, as have my children, I have been accused of being a Paedophile, a Child Killer, A Wife Beater, a Psychopath, somebody who abuses my children, Howard Hughes, A Stalker, A Troll and rather bizarrely, a killer of Rhubarb!!

I have also had daily threats made against both myself and my family.

This was planned and orchestrated by one man and one woman, ably abetted by a number of others, some of who claim to be Child Abuse Advocates/Campaigners.

One of whom, is a publicity hungry *investigative journalist*, who, for a reason that defies any logical explanation, manages to get his face on TV, whenever childhood sexual abuse is discussed, as he appears in his role As a self-appointed ‘Paedohunter‘.

Personally, I do not give a damn as to whether or not anyone believes me, but the evidence proves that I am/was innocent, and I can live with that.

My hands are clean, my conscience is clear and as I write this, I am witnessing the person who has done this to me/us, is now in the North of England, stalking and harassing yet another innocent person, who he now appears to have developed a grudge against.

He is cataloguing his every word, threat and action, both on Twitter and via his YouTube channel and looks set to continue until he is stopped.

To those who have supported me, I offer my gratitude and will remember all of you, and in turn, also offer my unwavering loyalty and support should you require it.

To those who stood by and watched this man attempt to discredit me and try his hardest to harm my family, you have got to live with that and as Karma has played a large part in my life, I rest assured that it will be re-visited on each and every one of you …. one-hundred-fold.

I also remain confident that your apathy and cowardice will fester and become an unbearable burden to you, rewarding you with nothing but misery, pain and loneliness for the rest of your miserable lives.”


I have this last week witnessed, an event, which I can only describe as being ‘surreal’ in nature, and would have been unimaginable had it occurred only a few short years ago.

An article I published a few days ago, BOVVERED has been reported to the police by someone with far too much time on their hands, for containing content they believed was ‘Homophobic’ and therefore should be viewed as being both ‘Inflammatory’ and likely to cause offence.

The content in question was the name ‘GAYLORD’, which was the moniker given to a character portrayed by the late comic actor Dick Emery, which I referred to in the article.

*GAYLORD ga(y)-lo-rd as a boy’s name is of Old French origin, and the meaning of Gaylord is “lively, high-spirited”. The name Gaylord has seven variant forms: Gaillard, Gallard, Galliard, Gay, Gayelord, Gayler, Gaylor and of course GAYLORD.*

That got me thinking; maybe I too, should feel offended by, and begin reporting to the police other common English words, names and phrases, that could be viewed in a similar manner.

I could even travel down to the west end end of London, and stage a sit-down demonstration at one of the capital’s oldest and most elegant Indian restaurants, GAYLORD LONDON (est: 1966), demanding that they immediately change their name or cease trading at once, or I will refuse to leave.

I could then launch a mass e-mail writing campaign, even adding an online petition in order to reinforce my demand that any similar-sounding, thus clearly offensive names be either changed or prevented from ever being transmitted or published in the media and on the Internet.

It could mean however, that athletes such as Tyson Gay, the second fastest sprinter ever after Usain Bolt, would then have to join Irish broadcaster Gay Byrne, Author Gay Hendricks, Australian singer Gay Kayler and British Horticulturist Gay Search, as having offensive names that should be only referred to forever more as the ‘G’ word.

But no matter, my sensibilities and delicate nature are far more important.

*Gay (Gaye) is a female or male given name (795th (“Gay”) and 1295th (“Gaye”) most common female name in the United States, according to the 1990 U.S. census. It can also be used as a short form of the female names Gaynell and Gaynor and as a short form of the male names Gaylen and of course GAYLORD. The writer Gay Talese’s name incidentally, is derived from Gaetano, his grandfather’s name.*

Should it prove a success, other names could be added to the list which could also then be classified as being Offensive, Racist or Homophobic.

Just imagine the possibilities ?

Middle-aged, man-bag carrying and balding men suffering from erectile disfunction, running shrieking in horror to their local police station, demanding the use of the name ‘Everard’ be outlawed with immediate effect.

Which would mean that Railway Engineer Everard Calthrop, Major General Mathias Everard, Actress Harriet Everard and a medieval Norwich Bishop, would be struck from historical records and cast into the liberal wilderness of all offensive and Non Politically-Acceptable Words, like a discarded, once-fashionable item of hideous clothing.


Of course I would not even consider doing any of the above in reality, and thankfully such behaviour remains the domain of only a few bitter, small-minded, mentally stunted and spiteful people.

I passionately believe in freedom of speech and expression, transparency and honesty and will fight against the censure of the truth in any form.

I also believe, that as a society, we would suffer greatly from the enforced loss of any part of the English language.

I read a lot of blogs, I follow the more important activity on Forums, I used to interact with a lot of people on Twitter and I am well aware of events on Facebook and other social networks.

That said, I am beginning to notice a lot of negative comments with regard to certain people that I have a great deal of respect for.

This criticism is mainly aimed at people who are seen as ‘profiting’ in some way for the work they do.

Let’s try and break this down a bit.

Millions of people in this country purchase newspapers and still pay their television licence right?

They do not complain about shelling out their hard-earned cash to industries and established institutions who after all, blatantly lie and sell disinformation to them on a daily basis.

These same people however, grumble, bitch and gossip amongst themselves about the ‘Bare Faced Cheek’ and ‘Hypocrisy‘ of writers who, if the truth is told, are taking a big risk in trying to tell them the truth.

How does that work?

Would these people turn up to a party empty-handed and expect to be fed, watered and entertained without making a contribution?

Do they expect people to spend untold hours researching, answering telephone calls and emails at the same time as producing a regular high-quality output of relevant information as well as somehow putting food on the table?

Do they think that putting everything on hold in order to spent the majority of your day and much of the night sometimes, collating information before organising it into a workable format for publication, is somehow undeserving of payment?

Would the people who criticise these writers work those sort of hours for nothing?

So why expect others to do the same?

I despise charities on the whole, mainly because most of the donated money is skimmed off to pay large salaries to directors and suchlike, instead of reaching the very people it claims to be helping.

Charities are big businesses, especially when they trade on the welfare of children for example, from my own experiences more and more kids seem to ‘slip through the net’ than are able to be helped by these so-called Charitable organisations.