[ye are gods] why does my head ache then

Have to steal a winter photo from somewhere so why not from Oestrebunny?

It's been a lovely day and the scene out there is so atmospheric - a fine haze of white, blending into the landscape, with landmarks appearing through it in part. Much warmer today - minus 18 - and a delight to wander about.

Changed my country today. Geographically I haven't but I work directly for the mother country now, which doesn't alter anything for me personally except that things are a bit more exciting. There's something I'd like to write about this evening but for once I'm not sure how to do it.

Two of the most difficult statements ever written were:

1. Psalm 82:6 - I have said, Ye are gods;

2. Ephesians 6:12 - For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Why so fascinating? Because the closer one gets to the action, the truer these two appear to be.

The Psalm was written by a man - look at the style and tone and yet it was quoted by Jesus [if you can accept this for one moment] but what the hell does it mean? As a Psalm - perhaps not a lot but as something selected for comment by the Deity, quite something indeed:

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Uh-huh.

That would have to get you reflecting on the true power of man and would explain why humanism is not only convinced of but knows implicitly that each man has it inside to be a god. But who would have the temerity to try it? Many people - look, for example at the Chinese intention to hold back the heavens so that it won't rain during the Beijing Olympics. Look at Babel. Look at HAARP.

But this attempt, historically, has always comes to naught. Now I wonder why that would be? It seems to suggest someone who can't take no for an answer and will try again and again forever. Someone clinically insane, in other words.

The second quote has been mistranslated in the revisionist RSV and I feel that that's no accident whatsoever. These days it is being taught that it is a sort of earthly wickedness in PMs and Presidents and so on - that man's dark side comes to the fore.

I humbly suggest that that is not what the KJV intended - that the KJV meant precisely what it said. We struggle not against flesh and blood; ipso facto, we struggle against principalities. So, research principalities and there's no ambiguity here, as the term is applied scripturally.

But this is heady stuff.

If you take it through to its logical conclusion, then the enemy in high places is not human. I didn't say it - don't shoot the messenger. But it's definitely written in there. Now this is where those whose interest it is to scorn this notion need only invoke the spectre of Icke's lizards and the logical path stops.

So let's rewind a bit. Read the text yourself. It was written by a fairly austere person according to his other history. So did he suddenly become a nutter for one verse and then go back to being rational once more or was he rational all along?

Let's accept, for the sake of argument, that he was rational the whole time - then what was he saying? What does he know that we don't? Was he referring to high places in Heaven or on earth? Tell you the truth - I'm not sure. Rulers of darkness of this world. But not flesh and blood. So who the hell are they then?

How about the progeny of the Nephalim? That's pretty ancient history. You say it's rubbish? Fair enough - simply show me which ancient documents conclusively disprove the notion? While you're about it, explain to me the Shardana. How about the Egyptian Sobek? The Book of Jasher perhaps? The Book of Enoch? Bonwick's Irish Druids, 1894? The Kundalini?

I'm not saying it is so - how on earth could I know something which happened so long ago? How could you know it didn't?

And what of the other quote - ye are gods? It's clear how JC was using it in John's gospel but what of the quote itself? If you say it was just a throwaway line, then why was it, specifically, resurrected all those centuries later and by this particular Individual?

I see one explanation. Every head of an organization or section becomes, in a way, a little god but is always subject to a higher god, in a bigger pool. John Buchan, mid WW1, said:

Take any big Teutonic business concern. If you have dealings with it, the first man you meet is Prince von und zu Something, an elegant young man who talks Eton-and-Harrow English. But he cuts no ice.

If your business is big, you get behind him and find a prognathous Westphalian with a retreating brow and the manners of a hog. He is the German business man that gives your English papers the shakes.

But if you're on the biggest kind of job and are bound to get to the real boss, ten to one you are brought up against a little white-faced Jew in a bath-chair with an eye like a rattlesnake. Yes, sir, he is the man who is ruling the world just now.

I can't comment because I have absolutely no clue. But my own experience certainly bears out that even the highest are subject to someone higher. In the end, on earth, the highest of highs is the one who finances your plans. Where did they get the money?

Been in the family for generations. Fair enough. Where did it originally come from? Why did those particular families get it? Why not mine, for example? With such dangerous thoughts as these, I'm going to suddenly stop.

[fragmentation] organization's major weapon

One simple statistic is that the blogosphere has grown 100 times in three years and it is fragmented, especially in the political sphere.

While that is good in some respects, it also fragments opposition to highly organized forces which can be viewed at many levels. Everyone focuses on what they see as the whole issue but more often it is a numer of fragments of the whole. I see people writing what they think are very witty reposts on other people's posts, invoking catchphrases they've learnt off by heart and yet, when you examine it, the two parties are not so far apart, except on some interpretations.

Fragmentation, splintering. Each with his own slant, each looking from one angle but decrying another.

My anonymii focus on the EU monster and rightly so, the Americans increasingly look at the SPPNA, a man I know is working to get Christians out of Masonry, Gates of Vienna focuses on Islamic Sharia, in Britain, Lionheart and others do likewise, Cassandra illustrates the evils of PoMo, most UK pundits attack Brown and his neo-fascist state but don't you see that all these right thinking people are fragmented? They doubtless consider all issues but promote one or two.

I just commented at Gates of Vienna about Political Correctness and the Baron quite rightly stated:

The celebration of oxymora is central to the politico-linguistic discipline commonly known as “political correctness”.

To disable rational opposition to the prevailing orthodoxy, the first step is to take control of the language, forbidding certain words, promoting others, and changing the meanings of words within the permissible vocabulary to align with an all-pervading political ideology.

The second step is to erode the logical framework of thought itself, eating away at the deep structure of language until the underlying mental processes are deranged, leaving the mind vulnerable to re-programming.

Under the new PC template, time-hallowed distinctions — between good and evil, moral and immoral, true and false — are discarded. The only remaining distinction allowed is between what is and is not politically acceptable. PC has but a single commandment: “Thou shalt have no other words before mine.”

Good stuff but meanwhile the nature of a more complex battle remains obscure.

Assisting in the general confusion are catch cries which do so much damage that it's debilitating - try these words - Zionist, cabals, PoMo, globalism, Political Correctness, Neocon, White Supremacist, Truther, Illuminati, conspiracy theorist, relativist, multi-culturalism, inclusionism, Christian [aaaagh!], Atheist, Right and Left, climate porn and so on and so on.

Ruthie made mention of internet idiocies:

[I]t’s particularly prominent in Internet message boards, comment threads on news articles, partisan mainstream political blogs and various other quick and anonymous fora for political “debate.” YouTube comment threads, for example, are one of the worst places for this.

I know I shouldn't even read this stuff, I shouldn't indulge my perverse fascination, but it's like watching a car accident— there's something captivating about the wreckage. The reasoning is often shallow and faulty, ad hominem attacks are plentiful, and common sense is in short supply.

It is dire. Each has his own standpoint and in his "ramblings", argues from his own perspective, pronouncing "self-evident truths" in emotive language. Millions and millions of blogs are doing this. Everyone's pushing something and trying to have it seen as the major perspective.

Christian sites resort to capitalized fonts to convince or endlessly quote scripture. Illuminati sites use garish colour and emotive adjectives incessantly, making logical jumps when they should make the single point they're safe on and leave it at that.

The conflict between people divided by labels is staggering.

Even if I beg that people look at the global implications of all policies currently being pursued and therefore all agendas, the very word "global" will turn off half the people reading this. This is madness - turning off because of a label. It's moronic to label someone a "Truther" and thereby dismiss all arguments out of hand. Where is the logic in that?

And what the hell is a truther anyway? Someone looking for the truth of what's happening? Is that a bad thing, to look for truth? What are we meant to do - follow jingoistic catch cries and wrap ourselves in a flag? And which flag? The EU's? The Union Flag?

One section of society points to Christianity v Islam, another at Christianity v Jewish Cabals, another at the West v Islam, another at Statists v Libertarians. All deny something in their focuses.

Surely local self interest is the overwhelming governing factor at the base level, followed by the national interest which derailed Doha, then we splinter into all the other divisions mentioned above. In all of this, one theme I see running throughout is people's freedom to self determine their own direction in life but even here, supposed free enterprisers call for bans on this, regulation of that.

And total deregulation is anarchy and anarchy is just the separation of the sheep so they can be picked off, one by one, by the real evil [seen through my Christian eyes], the evil which says: "It's OK to indulge whatever passion springs to mind with no cessation and with no fear of consequence." Anakin Skywalker's anger - go for it, breathes Palpatine - kill, kill, kill. Yes, it feels good, doesn't it, Anakin? Indulge youself to your heart's content.

And in the process he loses his soul, his ability to resist his base desires. Little people get in his way - he swats them. You tire of one woman - get another - there are millions out there to be exploited. The road to yahooism is broad and easy. ASBOs, Clockwork Orange - great landscape for the hedonist, isn't it?

All right, my tuppence worth. Islam of the virulent kind is making huge inroads, the western leaderships are riddled with tentacles of the well acknowledged monster called the Finance, people are fragmented and pursuing their own agendas, congratulating likeminded people and gently shunning other points of view, the destruction of values once associated with Christianity is almost complete, the move to Continental Governments proceeds apace but is running into Nationalism, local, national and regional interest rules all and allows monsters utilizing the flag to rise in Africa, Iran, Malaysia and anywhere you care to name. The Old Money sits in its sanctuary and funds the mayhem all over the globe.

Then we look at China, which gave rise to this blog's name. Oh my goodness - once we start on China!

What's the net effect? Unrest, unhappiness, a new ignorant generation of alienated ASBOs and homies, breakdown of all societal codes which served before and rampant greed of a kind never so nakedly obvious as we are seeing today, not just at the top but permeating all strata of society. The great gods Credit Debt and Never-Be-Satisfied are blighting families worldwide and now into Russia.

Hope? Is blinkering one's eyes and pretending all is well true hope? We need armour, not blind faith. I know where you can get it from but I equally know why you won't seek it. I therefore beg two other things:

1 Do one kind act for someone outside your circle each day;

2 Look at what the other says and see how far it can be reconciled with your own, even on minor points.

[quick quiz] special bag edition

Bag was not so impressed with the last one so I'll try again. :)

1. What is the most times a car has rolled over in an accident and been filmed doing it?

2. What is the highest grossing western film of all time, according to Wiki and adjusted to 2007 values?

3. Who was Alexander VI's famous daughter?

4. Who holds the world land speed record with Thrust SSC and where is he from?

5. What's the name of China's superhighway linking through to Israel?

7 - in Casino Royale, Titanic, Lucretia Borgia, Andy Green - England, Karakoram

[casino royale] could this be the best bond yet

A year behind everyone else, as is my wont, I watched, last night, an American DVD of Casino Royale and it's damned good.

I well remember the furore when Pierce Brosnan was stood down, along with Moneypenny and Q and at the time, even thought of boycotting the next Bond film too. As it turns out, they did it all really well, were wise to wait and rethink it all and the whole package not only stands up but is right up there as a contender for the best Bond ever.

It unfortunately puts some of the Moore vehicles like Live and Let Die and View to a Kill, which had great moments, ultimately to shame though Moore himself always had a certain something about him. Many say that the Dalton era was sub-standard but some disagree - he brought a sort of realism back to the role which, in the era when computer graphics were just taking off big time, consigned Dalton to the scrapheap of Bondiana.

Bond flicks must always have that blend of big budget exotic locations, suspended disbelief, action and those eternal Bond girls and yet the last of the Brosnan era, even with Halle Berry, was overrated IMHO, along with Halle Berry herself. Just how much of the wham bam, incessant action does it take to rob the plot of dimensions beyond two?

Brosnan opened well in Goldeneye and possibly did best in the next. Sophie Marceau lifted TWINE out of all proportion to the quality of the film and overall, Brosnan certainly didn't disgrace the role one bit.

So what of Daniel Craig?

Well, everything's subjective but given the raw brashness he was meant to display, he was great. Truly. I think he's a magnificent Bond and you can really feel his emotions or non-emotions if you like, along with him. The betrayal near the end was predictable, of course - Bonds don't have wives - but it was handled well. Boston dot com describes Craig thus:

The new James Bond is quick and muscular, and there is nothing remotely camp about him. He doesn’t wink; in fact, I’m not sure he even blinks. Where other men might athletically sail through a narrow window opening during a chase scene, he prefers to plow through the wall. He’s a strapping brute — young, untested, rough around the edges — and he is magnificent. Let the purists squawk: In Daniel Craig, the Bond franchise has finally found a 007 whose cruel charisma rivals that of Sean Connery.

Time dot com disagrees:

The Craig Bond might know no French at all; he's not the suave, Oxbridgian 007 of legend but the strong, silent type, almost a thug for hire, and no smoother with a sardonic quip than John Kerry. Still, he fits one description Fleming gave of his hero: "[His face was] a taciturn mask, ironical, brutal and cold." ... [This] is a Bond with great body but no soul.

The locations were often stunning and one can picture Mr. White [interesting how in real life the cabal nasties are colour coded too] in his real setting - a chateau by Lake Geneva is the perfect place for true evil to reside. This is gritty, it's raw and it's great.

The only annoying suspension of disbelief, for me, is during the torture scene. As males, we can assure the female half of the population that Bond wouldn't be making wisecracks to his tormenter in that cheeky-face way, with his testicles in that condition. By the way, Craig's body would have to be the best of any Bond, Connery included and his level of menace was right up in the Connery class.

My favourite part was in the opening sequence when the sleek black terrorist is leaping from one derrick up in the sky to another with Craig in dogged pursuit - James almost falls off a few times but hauls himself back and continues the chase. His body's obviously not cut out for ths type of highwire gymnastics but he manages. That was a nice touch.

Naturally, even after one picture, the comparisons have been made and yes, it's too early.

Craig is a fine actor, there's absolutely no doubt of that and Eva Green is surprising. Did they dub the English voice? Her kissing gives her away - it's so French and her body movements are too - the French have that artless sluttishness down pat. She's not a beautiful woman but scrubs up well - although maybe she'd have been better off as a true villain, if the Fleming novel had only allowed.

As a fan of the grittier type of Bond, where does Casino Royale rate? Right up there. Where does Craig rate? Surely up with Connery and with Connery's reputed orneriness as well - hell, what do you want from a hero after all? He's fun and he's dangerous but for sheer menace, perhaps early Connery edges him out.

Bond 22 is going to have a lot of people eagerly waiting, methinks. I loved 21 and might watch it again now - work is a bit slow today.

081387: Les [transgressions] obligatoires sont une règle d'art

CLICK PIC!

[blogger quiz] because we just gotta

Which blogger uses this banner?

Haven't had a quiz for some time. The idea is to pick the blogger.

1] Which blogger calls her orchid Eric?

a. Oestrebunny
b. Wife in the North
c. JMB

2] Which blogger is currently running a "guess the object competition"?

a. Reactionary Snob
b. Mutterings and Meanderings
c. Mopsa

3] Which blogger has finally come out with his/her real name?

a. Mr. Eugenides
b. Mary Mary Quite Contrary
c. Welshcakes Limoncello

4] Which blogger is running a "spot the Lib Dem competition"?

a. Jams O'Donnell
b. The Norfolk Blogger
c. Bob Piper

5] Which blogger is posting on the Scottish weather?

a. MacNumpty
b. Richard Havers
c. Longrider

Hint - use link hover.