All posts tagged Hollywood

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.

A recently published article in the Canadian NATIONAL POST by Joseph Brean, has thrown yet another spanner in the works of a long-running British police investigation, which after 28 years, has still not resulted in a single criminal charge being brought.

“A controversial police investigation into the suspected sex abuse of children by the late British prime minister Edward Heath, with it’s associated claims of Satanic ritual and murders, originated in Edmonton in 1989, when a Canadian psychologist hypnotised a woman and helped her ‘recover’supressed memories according to a confidential police consultant report obtained by the National Post”.

According to the article, three of the hypnotised woman’s sisters have also made similar claims of serial rape and ‘Satanic’ abuse, but only by their parents and no charges were ever brought, and the case was only recently resurrected because of the alleged participitation of Heath.

Edward Heath came into the picture because one of the women had reported to police that she had seen Heath’s face “on the news” and “had trusted her gut”, and at a time when the police response to historical sexual abuse claims about public figures was at it’s height in the UK.

Which got me thinking about how many other stories have found their way into, and buried themselves deeply into the public psyche and remained there ever since …. despite the fact that very little, if any evidence exists, other than what has come from what was ‘remembered’ by people who had “seen it on the news” or at the cinema, or had read about it in a magazine or a book.

The examples I have decided to use, are admittedly entirely unrelated to historical childhood sexual abuse allegations, and may appear at first to be a strange choice, but what they share is that they all show the media’s ability to not only shape lives and influence peoples decisions, but are also able to ‘trigger’ memories of events that have remained dormant in some people’s minds – regardless of whether those events were real or imagined.

One of these stories, and finds it’s place among many similar so-called ‘Conspiracy Theories’  is one that has become famous throughout the world as the ‘Philadelphia Experiment’ .

For those who are not familiar with the story (and there cannot be many), the Conspiracy revolves around an alleged ‘Time Travel Experiment’ undertaken by the United States Navy in 1943, off the Delaware breakwater using a naval vessel, The USS Eldridge which had been fitted with ultra top secret equipment at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard.

‘ Testing allegedly began in the summer of 1943, and it was supposedly successful to a limited extent. One test allegedly resulted in Eldridge being rendered nearly invisible, with some witnesses reporting a “greenish fog” appearing in its place. Crew members supposedly complained of severe nausea afterwards. Also, reportedly, when the ship reappeared, some sailors were embedded in the metal structures of the ship, including one sailor who ended up on a deck level below that where he began and had his hand embedded in the steel hull of the ship as well as some sailors who went “completely bananas”. At that point, the experiment was allegedly altered at the request of the Navy, with the new objective being solely to render the USS Eldridge invisible to radar. None of these allegations have been independently substantiated’. – WIKIPEDIA

NOTE: I am aware that ‘Wikipedia’ is not the most reliable source of information, but as it’s usually the second port of call after Google for the greater majority of people, and the place where their online ‘research’ usually starts and ends, it’s the reason I have used it as a reference point here. Hopefully more astute people will use it only as a starting point towards more in-depth investigation.

There are of course many people out there who will swear that the Philadelphia Experiment actually happened, based soley on what is available on the internet and various works of fiction, and there are hundreds of ‘Conspiracy – Based’ websites who have explored the subject in much detail, but the sources they appear to have used are other conspiracy websites, who’s sources are in turn other conspiracy websites, a number of which are of dubious ownership, are hosted anonymously on Icelandic or Russian servers, and are uncontactable should any issues arise about their published content – legal or otherwise.

If the truth is told, the ‘Philadelphia Experiment’, even when traced to it’s source does not sound promising even to the most hardened conspiracist, inasmuch as it owes much of it’s content to a rather odd guy by the name of Carl Allen, (or Carlos Allende depending on whatever source is used), who first told the story to a UFO writer named Maurice Jessup in 1956.

It is entirely possible that Allen(de) made up much of the story he relayed to Jessup, but, there are, however, some grounds to suspect that it could have been based on a real event, but one far less dramatic and had occured some fifty-two years previously at the same spot.

In 1904, a British Vessel commanded by a Captain Urquhart, The Mohican …. had encountered something that he said: “was beyond me” …. [I] never saw anything so terrifying in all the years I have been at sea.’ As they sailed in a dead calm, a ‘strange grey cloud’ appeared with ‘bright glowing spots in the mass’. This made straight for the ship and quickly surrounded it, just as so many car drivers have reported happening. Once within the cloud, the entire ship was filled with a ‘strange glow’ and the sailors watched in terror as their beards ‘stuck out like bristles on a pig’. The compasses were spinning wildly. Some of the crew were on their knees praying and Urquhart tried to distract them by giving them things to do. But nobody could move the metal chains or anchors. They were magnetised to the hull, or perhaps weighed so much that nobody could lift them (it is unclear). A strange altered state descended on the crew. The captain described a ‘great silence over everything that only added to the terror.’ Time lost all meaning but eventually the cloud disappeared and everything returned to normal…. WASHINGTON TIMES ARCHIVE

WASHINGTON TIMES Philadephia, PA August 2nd 1904

What does help the Conspiracy along though, is that Jessup was invited to the Office of Naval Research (ONR) in Washington, who had been sent copies of Allende’s allegations which had found their way into one of Jessup’s books, and a senior Naval officer had decided to investigate.

The Navy did describe that meeting as a ‘private venture’, but it does ask the question as to why such a meeting would have taken place if nobody had thought there was any substance to Allende’s telling of the tale.

There is almost no record about this meeting, but what is known is that Jessup soon descended into a somewhat depressed state and commited suicide soon after, and Allende simply ‘Disappeared’ from the record.

This of course led to the claims of a conspiracy to grow exponentially and lead to the story that is still being bounced around the internet today, and was also the basis of a number of books, three Hollywood Movies (The Philadelphia Experiment I and II 1984 and 2012) and (The Final Countdown 1980), which were loosely based on Allendes and Jessup’s retelling of the story, with the usual Tinseltown twist.

None of the subsequent books and movies, however, referred to the 1904 incident, which was not only witnessed, but recorded in the media and entered into the public record for posterity.

From what I am able to ascertain, one eye-witness did come forward at one point, and did claim that he took part in a top secret experiment that day and was in fact beamed decades through time, but his testimony was dismissed as it turned out he had only recalled his experiences after ‘seeing one of the movies on Television’.

While I admit that the actions of the US Navy in regard to arranging a meeting with a Science Fiction writer, and his subsequent apparent suicide are indeed suspicious, it does not prove that the Philadelphia Experiment actually happened, nor does it provide evidence of any such experimentation taking place using the methods described so vividly by so many online narrators.

Another example of how the media can influence people goes back to an event which occured on 2 May 1933, when a Scottish newspaper, the Inverness Courier related the account of a local couple who claimed to have seen an ‘enormous animal rolling and plunging’ on the surface of Loch Ness.

The story of the ‘monster’ ( a name chosen by the Courier editor) immediately became a media sensation with London newspapers sending correspondents to Scotland and even a circus offering a £20,000 sterling reward to anyone who could capture the beast.

Even though there were local accounts of an aquatic beast living in the Loch dating back 1500 years, the story only really gained the attention of a wider audience from 1933, when construction began on the A82 – the road that runs alongside the north shore of the Loch. The work involved considerable drilling and blasting with explosives, and the locals believed that the distruption had forced the monster from the depths and into the open waters of the Loch.

There were a number of independent sightings around that time, but the only visible ‘Proof’ did not appear until 1934, when a London surgeon R. K. Wilson managed to somehow take a photograph that appeared to show a slender head and neck rising above the surface of the water.

‘Nessie’ photo taken in 1934 by London surgeon R.K. Wilson

A whole cottage and tourist industry has risen around possible sightings of ‘Nessie’ since that day, and has remained the subject of fierce debate ever since it’s discovery and that first ‘sighting’, which generations of people not only believe in wholeheartedly, but a large number have dedicated their entire adult lives to trying to prove.

The first generally accepted sighting of Nessie, and the inevitable public interest ever since may have absolutely nothing to do with the release of the movie ‘KING KONG’ on March 2nd 1933 in New York City, which tells of a gigantic, prehistoric ape who lives on an island populated by undiscovered native people, gigantic exotic insects and plant life, and land dwelling, flying and aquatic ‘Dinosaurs’…. Very similar to the Scottish ‘Nessie’ if comparisons are to be made.

Still from King Kong Movie 1933

I am not suggesting for one minute that allegations of Childhood Sexual Abuse are in any way, shape or form ‘Conspiracy Theories,’ or are as ficticious or imaginary, as many of the stories that have been circulated in the media and consequently online inevitably turn out to be – but is it beyond the realms of possibility to suggest that at least some of the allegations of maltreatment of children by people in the public eye, are the result of inaccurate and sensationalist media coverage, and/or of unreliable ‘Therapies’ which ‘recover’  monstrous memories that previously only existed in the ID?

According to Sigmund Freud’s ‘Psychoanalytic Theory of Personality’, the ‘ID’ is the personality component made up of unconscious psychic energy that works to satisfy basic urges, needs and desires. The ID operates based on the pleasure principle, which demands immediate gratification of needs. Freud compared personality to an iceberg. The top of the iceberg above the water represents conscious awareness. The bulk of the iceberg below the water symbolises the unconscious mind where all the hidden desires, thoughts and memories exist. It is there that the ID resides.



The National Post (Canada)

TIME STORMS (2001) – Jenny Randles




It seems fitting somehow, that the movie ‘La La Land’ swept the board (winning seven out of a possible fourteen movie prizes) at the 47th Golden Globe Awards held at the Beverly Hills Hilton in California yesterday.

It is fitting, inasmuch as the term ‘La La Land’ has long been used to describe the complete lunacy and total separation from reality that is the Hollywood Movie Industry and also many of it’s famous inhabitants.

And one aspect of these entertainment industry get togethers that is becoming increasingly common, and a rather troubling one, is that actors, producers and directors, are using the platforms afforded to them during these occasions – to push various political agenda’s, and this latest ceremony is no different.

This time, it was the turn of veteran actress Meryl Streep, who used her lifetime achievement speech to take aim at President-Elect Donald Trump – without even mentioning him by name.

Ms Streep, who’s passionate support for Hillary Clinton is no secret, took time out to both defend Hollywood against allegations of elitism and to call on her fellow actors to remain vigilant and to resist intolerance: “Hollywood is crawling with outsiders and foreigners, where are their birth certificates?” .“So if you kick them all out, you’ll have nothing to watch but football and mixed martial arts. And that is not the arts,” she said.

She also made another fairly obvious reference to the President-Elect’s now infamous (alleged) mimicking of a disabled New York Times reporter in 2015, which the left-wing liberal media and their mouthpieces on social media, have argued ever since was a deliberate attempt to mock the disabled community.

“It kind of broke my heart when I saw it,” Ms Streep continued, “and I cant get it out of my head, because it wasn’t a movie, it was real life. And this instinct to humiliate, when it’s modeled by someone in the public platform, by someone powerful, it filters down into everybody’s life, because it kind of gives permission for other people to do the same thing. Disrespect invites disrespect. Violence incites violence. When the powerful use their position to bully others, we all lose. We need the principled press to hold power to account, (where have we heard that before?) to call him on the carpet for every outrage.”

Understandably, her words did not sit well with a number of conservative Hollywood heavyweights, as this picture of Mel Gibson and Vince Vaughn, which was taken during her barely disguised all out attack on the incoming Republican President shows.

As expected, the left-leaning media outlets on both sides of the Atlantic have jumped on this, and have focused all their (and presumably the public’s) attention, on the President-Elect’s alleged attack on the disabled reporter.

So was her attack justified?

Was it even factually accurate?

According to the video below, it certainly does not appear to look that way, and even if as some elements of the alternative media have claimed it is open to interpretation, I shall leave it to the viewer to decide for themselves what is the truth of the matter.


And as many of us have come to expect by now, attacks on what are seen as right-wing politicians and their supporters by those on the left are nothing new, and almost always are based around personal attacks and not on any particular political policy they happen to find disagreeable or offensive.

However, what should also be taken into account is that although Ms Streep obviously has a huge problem with Donald Trump, she did appear to be perfectly comfortable joining in with a standing ovation given to Roman Polanski in 2003.

‘I guess these are “Liberal Hollywood values” actors abide by. A standing ovation for rapists, and long-winded diatribes against a man looking to put America First.’

That’s some real hypocrisy right there, dont you think?







The terms ‘Conspiracy Theory’ and ‘Conspiracy Theorist’  have been appearing in the mass media more and more during the last couple of years, specifically during the run-up to the 2016 US Presidential Election, and are terms particulary favoured by left-wing liberal mouthpieces to ridicule and distract from anything that questions the prescribed narrative.

Personally, as somebody who almost always questions the official version of any story, a decent Conspiracy Theory to me is something that does need to be traced back to it’s probable source, but ONLY if I think there is any truth in the story to begin with.

I am often asked why it is that I do not pay much, if any attention to many of the Conspiracies doing the rounds on the internet at any one time, and I always give the same answer – which is that I simply do not believe it’s worth spending time on anything I feel is being purposely disseminated to distract from what is really going on.

Unfortunately, it’s also my belief that the greater majority of what has been circulated by the mass media, and has been bounced around most of the Alternative Media outlets over the last few years falls into that category, and is exactly what the mass media has been alluding to when it refers to ‘Fake News’.

That being said, one should also not be completely dismissive of what the mass media churns out on a daily basis, as there is almost always a real story being buried beneath the headlines, which can, if you are able to read between the lines, be found if you are willing to put in the effort.

History has shown us that many of the events that have been written off as being nothing more than ‘Conspiracy Theories’  by the mass media, have in fact, turned out to be true, examples of this are easily found online if keywords like; Watergate, Operation Northwoods, The Iran-Contra Affair and the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and many others are entered into any decent search engine.

And of course the mass media themselves, are not above promoting Conspiracy Theories of their own in order to hoodwink the population into supporting things that there really is no public appetite for – examples of which were the shameless reporting of an imminent ‘Bird flu Epidemic’  to encourage public compliance of an aggressive vaccination programme, and who could forget the 1990 ‘Testimony of Nayirah’  where a 15-year-old girl named “Nayirah” testified before the U.S. Congress that she had seen Iraqi soldiers pulling Kuwaiti babies from incubators, causing them to die.

Her testimony, shown on all mass media outlets, helped gain public support for the 1991 Gulf War.

Despite protests in the mass media at the time that even questioning her story was itself a ‘Conspiracy Theory’, it was finally shown that her testimony was indeed, false. (It was the creation of the public relations firm Hill & Knowlton for the specific purpose of promoting the Gulf War.)

Politicians themselves are also not averse to using Conspiracy Theories to negate and/or remove public opposition either, a noteable example of which, being that of Welsh Labour politician Anne Clwyd, a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, who was unsurprisingly given an easy ride when she appeared before the Chilcot Inquiry, despite being personally responsible for disseminating an uncorroborated and later totally discredited story just before a crucial Parliamentary vote on the Iraq war.

Her voice trembling with emotion, Ms Clwyd had addressed the House of Commons describing a grotesque industrial machine used by Saddam Hussein as a ‘people shredder’  into which opponents of his regime would be fed feet first, their remains then being thrown into plastic bags and used as fish food.

Without that story being imprinted into the public consciousness, the possibility will always exist that Britain as a nation would not have supported, and subsequently entered the Iraq war.

It can be difficult to ascertain what is real and what is a ‘Conspiracy Theory’  these days, mainly due to the sheer amount of (dis)information being uploaded to the internet; a great deal of which is not even worth considering in my opinion, as although the world wide web is without a doubt the greatest repository of human knowledge ever constructed, it is also the platform used by sociopaths and consummate liars, and of course by those who have the most to lose should the truth about many events, be they historical or current or sometime in the future …. emerge.

I am not going to even try and point the finger at any one group, or agency or organisation that I believe are soley responsible for being in overall ‘control’ of everything that goes on, it is not as simple as that, and there are any number of websites you can find who are only too willing to regale you with lurid tales of how the ‘Elite’, the ‘Jesuits’, the ‘Jews’, the ‘Moslems’ the ‘Zionists’, the ‘Nephilim’, the ‘Bilderbergers’ the ‘Illuminati’ a secretive ‘Knights Templar’ sect, ‘Shape-Shifting Lizards’ or even that a murderous race of ‘Grey Aliens that reside on the dark side of the Moon’ are the culprits, and it is totally the choice of the reader of those sites to decide which, if any are the true enemies of humanity ….

That is not the remit of the Outlaw, I have little time for it and I Shall leave that to others.

What I will do, and hopefully have been doing for the past four years, however, is to encourage the reader to look at what lies beyond the obvious, to question everything, and to think so far outside the box even if it becomes uncomfortable, as it’s the only way to truly separate the fact from the fiction and determine what the hell is really going on.

I also believe that in order to do that, one must first unravel specific events of the past that are demonstrably untrue, yet also seem to be as persistant in people’s beliefs today, as an antibiotic resistant infection refuses to be eradicated, resurfacing time and time again whenever a certain agenda needs to be implemented.

Some of the stories I will be looking at in 2017, will be among those that have become ingrained in so many people’s belief systems, that subsequent generations have dedicated their  entire lives  searching for proof of, and even tourist industries have been built around them, despite the fact that they are nothing more than media inventions, (and I include the Movie Industry when I refer to media in this instance) and have next to nothing in the way of proveable facts to sustain them.

Which will I believe prove interesting to some, but drive many others out of their minds ….

Do you believe in ghosts?

Do you believe that inanimate objects can be ‘Possessed’ by the essence or ‘spirit’ of their deceased previous owners?

Much like houses can be ‘haunted’ by their deceased occupants, can dead drivers also haunt the cars they died in?

Many believe so, and one particular car, which belonged to the Hollywood legend James Dean, has been the subject of such speculation for more than 50 years.

Even though he starred in only three movies, Dean has become an object of cult adoration.

James Byron ‘Jimmy’ Dean (8th February 1931- 30th September 1955), died in a fatal car crash in September 1955.

For most of the summer preceding his death, he was on the set of the movie ‘Giant’ just outside Marfa, Texas.

After returning to Los Angeles, Dean bought a silver-grey 1955 Porsche Spyder.

Dean himself, loved the car and nicknamed it “Little Bastard,” but many of his friends appeared to be very nervous around it.

For some reason, being close to it made them feel uneasy.

Driving the Porsche to the races at Salinas, California, Dean collided head-on with another car, which had paused while making a left-hand turn.

Dean was killed instantly.

Soon, a rumour started to circulate that the mangled remains of Dean’s car were somehow ‘cursed’.

James Dean was born on February 8th 1931, at the Seven Gables apartment house in Marion, Indiana, to Winton Dean and Mildred Wilson.

Six years after his father had left farming to become a dental technician, the family moved to Santa Monica, California.

They spent several years there, and by all accounts young Dean was very close to his mother.

According to Michael DeAngelis, she was “the only person capable of truly understanding him”.

When Dean got the part in East of Eden, he bought himself a red race-prepared MG TD and, shortly afterwards, a white Ford Country Squire Woodie station wagon.

Dean soon upgraded his MG to a 1954 Porsche 356 Speedster, which he raced.

Dean came in second in the Palm Springs Road Races in March 1955 after a driver was disqualified; he came in third in May 1955 at Bakersfield and was running fourth at the Santa Monica Road Races later that month until he retired with an engine failure.

During filming of ‘Rebel Without a Cause’, Dean traded in the 356 Speedster for one of only 90 Porsche 550 Spyders.

He was contractually barred from racing during the making of ‘Giant’, but with filming out of the way, he was free to compete again.

The Porsche was only a stopgap for Dean, as delivery of a superior Lotus Mk. X he originally ordered was delayed and he needed a car to compete at the races in Salinas, California.

Dean had asked custom car painter and pin striper Dean Jeffries to paint “Little Bastard” on the car as soon as he took delivery.

When Dean introduced himself to actor Alec Guinness outside the Villa Capri restaurant in Hollywood, he asked him to take a look at the Spyder.

Guinness thought the car appeared ‘sinister’ and told Dean: “If you get in that car, you will be found dead in it by this time next week.”

This meeting took place on September 23rd 1955, seven days before Dean’s death.

While still on the set of his last movie ‘Giant’, Dean filmed a public service announcement, in which he said:

“You know, I used to fly around quite a bit on the highways. I took unnecessary chances, but now when I drive, I’m extra cautious. I don’t have the urge to speed so take it easy when you drive. The life you save might be mine.”

Shortly after speaking those words, in September 1955, Dean jumped into his New Porsche 550 Spyder and hit the highway at 85 mph en route to the Salinas Car Races, Dean was even stopped for a speeding citation, then sped on, and at 5:50 PM, he crashed into a Ford driven by one Donald Turnipseed.

Donald was only slightly hurt; Dean’s passenger, Rolf Wuetherich, was thrown from the vehicle and badly injured.

The 24-year-old Dean however, had fulfilled the many premonitions of his premature death he had spoken to his friends about.

Not only had Dean predicted his death in real life, but in ‘Rebel Without a Cause’, he spoke the now prophetic words:

“You know something? I never figured I’d live to see eighteen.”

Following his death, strange things had started to occur around ‘Little Bastard,’ which had also become the focus of much media attention.

When car buff George Barris purchased the crumpled wreck, it slipped from its tow truck and broke a mechanic’s leg.


Barris then sold the Porsche’s engine to Troy McHenry, a Physician, for his race car, and William F. Eschrid, another doctor, bought the drive shaft.

Both raced with cars using the parts from Dean’s car for the first time at Pomona, California, on October 1st 1956.

McHenry spun out of control, hit a tree, and was killed.

Eschrid flipped his car on a curve and was seriously hurt.


A third race car was using two of the tyres from Dean’s wrecked car when all four tyres blew out simultaneously during a race.

This time the driver did die.

Another coincidence?

When the Porsche’s crumpled frame was put on display to promote highway safety, it broke it’s mountings and injured a teenager’s hip.

Another fatality occurred during a multi-car pile up nearby, while the Porsche was being loaded onto its tour truck.

The same truck then suffered unexplained brake loss, swerved out of control, and slammed into a storefront.

Following that, two young would-be thieves were injured while attempting to steal parts from the car.

When one tried to steal the steering wheel from the Porsche, his arm was ripped open on a piece of jagged metal.
Later, another man was injured while trying to steal the bloodstained front seat.

This would be the final straw for Barris, who decided to store “Little Bastard” away, but he was persuaded by the California Highway Patrol (CHiP) to loan the wrecked car to a highway safety exhibit.

Nearly a million tickets were sold when the wreck was put on display at a carnival.

Pieces of the twisted, bloodstained hulk were prised off and stolen as macabre souvenirs, until the remainder of the car suddenly and inexplicably, fell apart into eleven pieces.

During the return train trip to Hollywood, the remaining pieces of James Dean’s car ‘vanished,’ never to be seen again.

Many people believe that certain objects can become cursed if they’re involved in tragedy or violence.

Was the wreckage of Little Bastard, a cold and lifeless collection of metal, plastic and rubber, haunting others with just such a curse?

Until it’s found, we may never know.

The frontier West of popular legend was not the violent “Wild West,” so often depicted by Hollywood, the mainstream media and history teachers and writers.

For example, in one of the most famous locations in the American west, Dodge City, there were only five killings during 1878, also the most murderous year in the town’s frontier history.

In Deadwood, South Dakota, only four people were killed that year.

In Tombstone, the location of the legendary ‘Gunfight at the OK Corral,’ the five people killed during that shoot-out was the entire tally for the town that year.


The reason the OK Corral shoot-out even became known at all, was that town ‘boosters’ over dramatised the event, simply to attract new settlers, and encourage people to visit.


The most notorious cattle towns in Kansas, Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, and Caldwell however, did see more violence than similar-sized small towns in the west.

But not as much as the movie studios, novelists and history teachers would have you believe.

Official records show that between 1870 and 1885, there were only 45 murders in all those towns combined.

There is no solid evidence, that anyone was ever killed in any frontier town shoot-out at ‘High Noon’ either.

William Bonney, (Billy the Kid) was a pyschopathic murderer, but he did not kill 21 people by the time he was 21 years old, as the legend says.

Evidence does support him killing three men, the true number remains unknown, but is certainly nowhere near double figures even.

‘Wild’ Bill ‘James’ Hickok famously claimed to have killed six Kansas outlaws and secessionists in the incident that brought him notoriety.

But Bill also lied.

Only three men died at his hand, and all were unarmed.

William Cody’s reputation as a gunslinger was derived mainly from his own imagination.

He openly admitted that he ‘fabricated’ his version of the shootouts depicted in the movies and stories written about his life and times.

He was a crack shot though, and is said to have proved it repeatedly at Bison-Killing Contests, which is where he earned the nickname ‘Buffalo Bill.’

What he did not do however, was kill many Indians, and when he was a much older man, his estranged wife revealed that he had been wounded fighting Indians only once, not the 137 times as he often claimed.

One of the enduring and popularised images of the frontier west in America, the armed bank robbery, was nothing more than Hollywood chicanery.

An interesting aspect about the so-called ‘Wild West’ is that in reality, there were actually less bank robberies than there are in modern-day America.

Criminals were no less greedy than today, I would imagine.

Was the United States really plagued by bank robberies in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s?

Did gangs of armed men in black hats and long coats, routinely ride into town and rob the banks in small western towns?

Absolutely not.

Bank robberies were almost non existent in the ‘Wild West’ period.

Between 1859 and 1900, in 15 states (including Nebraska), there were probably less than six in all.

Prior to 1900, there were no successful bank robberies in any of the major towns in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas, Kansas, Nebraska, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, or New Mexico, and only two carried out in California and Arizona.

Many people carried concealed weapons at that time, so potential robbers were always vulnerable to serious injury.

Most criminals don’t really want to get hurt, so they are usually reluctant to select targets that look as if they are willing and able to fight back.

Bank robberies only began to be a serious problem in the western United States in the 1920s, when the automobile allowed criminals to quickly cross the state line.

But that would be a far less romantic and bankable image, I would imagine.

To put it into perspective, there are more bank robberies committed in modern-day Dayton, Ohio, in one year than there were in the entire Old West during the entire frontier period.

There were of course, sound reasons for this.

Bankers had to demonstrate to the community in frontier towns, that they meant business, so would normally construct a building that would show stability, permanence, and most importantly, safety.

The buildings were usually, in the center of town, with other stores on each side.

This left only two walls ‘open’ to blasting without disturbing the town residents, who tended in those days, to live and sleep above their businesses.

The bank front faced into the town, and smashing through it would attract far too much unwanted attention.

That only left the rear wall the most accessible.

Even then however, blasting through a solid wall was no easy (or quiet) task.

Banks usually incorporated double-reinforced rear walls in their designs, so even if the robbers got inside, they still had to deal with an iron safe.

The safe storage of money and valuables, was seen as being paramount to successful banking, then as now.

One intrepid Oklahoma banker kept his cash in a small grated box with live rattlesnakes inside.

Another banker from Arizona, did have a safe, but put the cash in a wastebasket covered by a cloth, hoping thieves would take just the safe and ignore everything else.

Others slept, ironically, with the bank’s assets under their matresses.

That was before iron safes appeared, I must add.

Constructed around a “ball-on-a-box” design, the earliest safes, known as ‘Cannonballs’ featured a large metal box on legs that were designed to hold important documents.

Gold and silver, plus paper money, was stored on top of the box in a large ‘ball safe,’ which proved difficult to separate from the bottom, or, more importantly, to carry off.

Plastic explosive had not even been invented, so ‘blowing’ a safe with sticks of dynamite, would have been extremely difficult, although not impossible.

Things became even more difficult with the introduction of the more conventional ‘Diebold’ safes, named after the Cincinnati company that supplied many of them.

These had steel doors which were several inches thick.

They could of course, be penetrated in time, but that was something in very short supply during a robbery.

So, it was simply avoided altogether.

In fact, many western banks deliberately left their vaults open during the day to allow customers, (and potential robbers presumably) a clear view of the safe.

Like the often depicted (and entirely fictional) rear-wall blasting, the front-door bank robberies are almost absent in western records.

So where did the myth of the western bank robber come from ?

Some of it can be traced to Missouri, where the James and Quantrill gangs plundered banks at will during the Civil War era.

But Hollywood and dozens of ‘Wild West’ fiction writers are the more likely culprits.