[complain complain] try these

Thomas Cook and the Association of British Travel Agents compiled a list of the bizarre complaints, including one where a holidaymaker said he felt inadequate after seeing an aroused elephant, which in turn ruined his honeymoon.

It seems many British travellers aren’t used to beaches, with a tourist complaining that “the beach was too sandy” and another upset when they discovered fish swimming in the sea.

"No-one told us there would be fish in the sea. The children were startled," the tourist said.

It seems some travellers also have a lot to learn about nature.

"I was bitten by a mosquito – no-one said they could bite," a holidaymaker complained.

In another complaint a British guest at a Novotel hotel in Australia said his soup was too thick and strong, not realising he had been supping from the gravy boat.

In an even stranger twist, one traveller blamed a hotel for her pregnancy.

"My fiancé and I booked a twin-bedded room but we were placed in a double-bedded room. We now hold you responsible for the fact that I find myself pregnant,” the guest said.

“This would not have happened if you had put us in the room that we booked."

Other complaints included “there are too many Spanish people in Spain” and “too much curry served in restaurants in India”.

Asleep: Mum’s mid-air sex romp next to son

Talent: Lynda the singing flight attendant

Safe: Passengers lands plane after pilot dies

[philosophy] otherwise known as sophistry

Cicero, in De Divinatione, wrote:

There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it.

Cruel but true. The essential problem of philosophy is:

1 That it seeks to explain that which is already explained; 2 It ignores the real causes of what is happening and why it is happening.

Sonus has written a series of articles [see my sidebar] which clearly explain what has happened to our society this time round. I could add to that my series of articles on the Morgans. There are quite a few writers who have pointed to what Hegel said in Lectures on the Philosophy of World History: Introduction, 1830:

What experience and history teach is this – that nations and governments have never learned anything from history or acted upon any lessons they might have drawn from it.

… and which Marx added to in Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, 1852:

Hegel says somewhere that all great events and personalities reappear in one fashion or another. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.

Morse said to Lewis, in Death of the Self, 1992:

When will you recognize the undertone, Lewis?

Philosophy, particularly in the form of logical positivism [a misnomer if ever there was one], refuses to recognize the undertone, the recurrent truth, even when it bites it on the bum; truth is not pure enough, not sophisticated enough, not intellectual enough, not fashionable enough, it doesn’t create the ‘oh wow’ factor; it is earthy and low-class, it is for the down and outs, it is weakness to recognize truth for what it is.

Man must philosophize because in his view of the world, given truths must never be given, on the grounds that they have been given. The baby is given a rattle but throws it away because it was given it. He wants to find it for himself and falls out of the cot doing so.

Worse than this, truth must not be recognized because it stems from multiple disciplines which recognize both the complexity of life’s manifestations and the need to contain one’s base instincts in order to remain human, the basis for a social contract personally internalized rather than imposed from without; it includes not only philosophy but elements of the metaphysical, the sociological and the historical. Philosophy detests the impurity of those disciplines.

Philosophy has three main justifications for feeling guilt:

1 It has historically supported the risibly called ‘rationalist’ or satanic side in the real, eternal war between good and evil, shown clearly in the Sonus articles, the presence, in other words of a sentient and malevolent force against the best interests of Man;

2 It has been deeply cynical in doing this; it is mischievous;

3 It follows shoddy logic, based on false opening premises.

Take Voltaire, in Épitres, 1769, who said:

If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.

Therefore he concedes, at a minimum, the possibility that He does exist. And Voltaire, deep inside, does know He exists, when he answers the priest who asks him to renounce the devil, 1778:

This is no time for making new enemies.

Philosophy is oft-times disingenuous and craftily ignores its own illogical use of its own logical syllogism by taking a false premise, i.e. that G-d does not exist and then immediately asks, ‘Well what is truth then, if G-d does not exist?’ without ever having established the first premise.

This is logic?

Coleridge, hardly a philosopher of note, wrote in Aids to Reflection, 1825:

He who begins by loving Christianity better than truth …

… thereby rendering his whole argument false before he even makes it, by means of simply beginning with an unestablished premise.

Even Lord T, no lover of Christianity or the principle of the existence of God, wrote in Is There a God, 2009:

I look at things logically and scientifically.

Oh what assumptions there are in that statement, m’lord. ☺ Yet he is forced to conclude:

They may even be right. I just don’t know.

Precisely.

The problem is not the existence of God but the anti-intellectualism of the idea, the lack of style in it, hence the attraction of Voltaire and others to the opposite idea. Dostoevsky touched on this in The Brothers Karamazov, 1880:

It’s not God I don’t accept, Alyosha, only I must respectfully return Him the ticket.

I argued in the articles on Christianity [accessible in my sidebar] that it is not a question of proof. It is a question of the ‘underlying tone’, the weight of where the evidence tends, a point also made by Agatha Christie.

Philosophy detests blacks and whites; they are gauche, not vibrant, not questioning, not subversive enough. Philosophy prefers grey on grey. As Hegel wrote, in Philosophy of Right, 1821:

When philosophy paints its grey on grey, then has a shape of life grown old. By philosophy’s grey on grey, it cannot be rejuvenated but only understood. The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk.

From his own pen came the true disingenuousness of philosophy – the desire to obfuscate on the grounds of it being a jolly intellectual exercise and then to set it in concrete as a ‘truth’ but in so doing, causing immense damage in a world which confers on the ‘scientific’ and ‘logical’ the status of the new gods of society, when they are, in reality, nothing of the sort.

Wittgenstein wrote, in Philosophische Untersuchungen, 1953:

Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language … [and] … what is your aim in philosophy? To show the fly the way out of the fly-bottle.

… and then philosophy goes and does the diametric opposite of what it claims. It obfuscates when there is no need to obfuscate, except over a pipe and fine wine in a smoke-filled room with convivial company and an open fire.

Philosophy lends itself to sophistry.

Philosophy can’t bear the idea of there being two eternal verities, good and evil, each having its sentient focal point, as demonstrated over and over and over in history [see Hegel and Marx above] for if it once admits those, then all it’s Sunday afternoon society discussions become meaningless, except in the context of niceties surrounding the general truth.

Take Nietzsche’s ridiculous:

Morality is the herd instinct in the individual.

… in Die Froehliche Wissenschaft, 1882.

No, morality is the feeling embedded within the self, which defines the soul and is inscribed in scripture, which in turn is only reportage of the ground rules which would ensure an orderly society [defined here as meaning the collection of individuals and families within a certain geographical area, in the context of their relationships with one another and their interdependence], should they be followed.

Unfortunately, the illogicality of the assumption that such a good plan would be voluntarily followed by sufficient sections of society [realpolitik] is partly what the Dostoevsky comment above touches on. And yet the test of the existence of G-d has always been laid down, for example, in John 3:16:

First believe and then the proof will be given.

Philosophy tries to say:

Give us cast iron proof first, then we’ll believe.

And in their smug inertia, each of them sits on some tiny throne and superstition holders are expected to come and lay down proofs at their feet when they themselves feel no onus to provide proofs of their own. They simply assert, noises in hollow tin cans.

Cast iron proof is not belief; it is acceptance of a given truth. Belief, on the other hand, demands the active participation of the believer and is therefore a useful tool for the betterment of the self, just as exercise and good diet are also efficacious in promoting good health.

It’s a good exercise to believe at least six impossible things before breakfast each day.

Philosophers detest ‘belief’ as a philosophical criterion, hence the vehemence with which they try to tear down ‘superstition’. Just how ‘belief’ becomes ‘superstition’ in their minds is not adequately explained.

It is assumed.

And philosophy attempts to call itself rational! Voltaire wrote, in Dictionnaire philosophique, 1764:

Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.

Neat, easily remembered and based on outrageously false premises, the Goebbels principle.

There is the aim of philosophy in one – to ignore truth as evidenced in the history which societies themselves repeatedly ignore and instead to posit the diametric opposite as a new ‘truth’, resting on the reputation of the philosopher for authenticity and ignoring the sheer weight of other philosophers throughout the millennia who ‘recognized the underlying tone’ and wrote just as learned works on the matter.

The unestablished assumption is that the Christian message is a superstition. Yet it is one which has brought hope to millions, particularly those down and out. And what has Voltaire’s, Hegel’s, Nietzsche’s and Marx’s philosophy brought?

The extinguishing of the flames?

No, it has given weight to the crazed dreams of Adolph Hitler, Marx and their ilk who, in turn, were equally funded and abetted by the power of darkness in Europe and America [anyone dispute where the cash came from?], recognized by so very many researchers and visible, in part, in the Finance.

Churchill commented, in 1920, on one aspect of this:

"From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, to those of Trotsky, Bela Kun, Rosa Luxembourg, and Emma Goldman, this world wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence and impossible equality, has been steadily growing.

It played a definitely recognizable role in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the nineteenth century, and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads, and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire."

This is but one example of the true crime of philosophy, throughout history, its political use against the common man, always acting as the running dog of oppression instead of nobly lifting Man above his station and freeing him from his chains.

In times of real trouble for citizens, does anyone recall Nietzschean soup kitchens or Hegelian help centres? On the other hand, does anyone recall the Salvation Army wherever and whenever there was a crisis brought on by Them?

And do Christians need to pay London Transport to daub signs on the sides of their buses proclaiming, ‘There is a G-d?’

The philosophers call it ‘humanism’ when it is anti-humanism, enlightenment when it is the sure road to darkness and rationalism when it is illogical irrationalism.

Why is it the sure road to darkness? Here’s why:

What experience and history teach is this – that nations and governments have never learned anything from history or acted upon any lessons they might have drawn from it. [Hegel, Lectures on the Philosophy of World History: Introduction, 1830]

There’s a good reason. Because there’ve always been forces preventing the learning of those lessons. It’s been in their interests for the lessons not to have been learnt. It’s been necessary for the advancement of their jaundiced concept of ‘progress’.

I’ll always remember the Thunderdragon’s statement that ‘we’ve moved on from that now’. Y-e-e-es. A bit like Molière’s Le Médecin malgré lui, 1667:

Géronte: It seems to me you are locating them wrongly: the heart is on the left and the liver is on the right.

Sganarelle: Yes, in the old days, that was so but we have changed all that.

Was it mere coincidence that The British Empire was forged when bound by one belief system – G-d, Queen and Country, Rule Britannia? And what is it now, in the days when to utter the word G-d is anathema? As Margaret Drabble wrote, in A Natural Curiosity, 1989:

England’s not a bad country; it’s just a mean, cold, ugly, divided, tired, clapped-out, post-imperial, post-industrial slag-heap, covered in polystyrene hamburger cartons.

[I didn’t say it – she did.]

Was it mere coincidence that America, which so fervently used to believe in itself, in the American dream, the constitution and the flag, before it was sold down the drain by the CFR financiers and the Obamaclintonsocialists, when it was bound by a calvinistic work ethic and a common belief system, went on to become the supernation of the world?

Was this mere coincidence?

Now it has lost that, with the godless, humanistic socialists driving the wedge into American society – observe the result, people.

Observe what 12 years of ‘rationalism’ has done in Britain. Try to set up a business in this country and see how far the taxation lets you get.

When will people learn the lessons of history?

[diary note] time marches on

It’s one year today since I flew out of Russia – doesn’t time fly when you’re having fun?

Positives – meeting up with fellow bloggers and making friends, the place I live, a constant delight every morning and evening and … er … well, Britain itself really, with its hedgerows, dry-stone walls, neat gardens, inverted V roofs, paths and lanes. Plus its colours.

No one starves in Britain and in this part of it, it’s safe to walk around. It’s under the jackboot right now but there are still things which are done and not done. One can be surer over here and the beer’s still good.

Negatives – the absolute knackeredness of society. It’s a stiff, an ex-society, so thank you, Nu-Labour. Everything’s so tight, so constricted, so lacking in opportunity, so closed. Even to travel a short distance costs a fortune.

Nothing adds up. A society which must run up huge credit debt just to survive is a society in terminal decline. To apply for something and be asked your ethnicity and sexual orientation is just bizarre. To have to have an NVQ to sweep streets is even more bizarre.

Constants – the blogosphere and blog friendships, same here and in Russia.

[will you still need me] will you still feed me

Paul McCartney will be 67 on June 8th.

67!

The Problem with Linfield

Right, so the third story is up:

The Problem with Linfield

Set in an English stately house, it's a murder mystery ghost thriller and of the three, I like this the best. Moon over Sedna was my attempt at an SF romance, Turandot was the world of Italian opera but this one is a more classic tale.

I do challenge you to see if you can guess the villain before the end [chuckle].

[passenger to frankfurt] wisdom unwonted

God-free-morals takes me to task for tearing down the holy cows of godless humanism – the so-called ‘great’ philosophers but I charge that the humanists themselves are tearing down the greatest humanitarian of all, a philanthropist and a scientist to boot, then crying foul when it’s done to them. I see precious little practical, hands-on philanthropy in this interesting theorizing – there’s nothing in it for the common man and it’s the common man plus truth that this blog is interested in.

I’ve been called ‘ignorant’ for daring to question the unholy icons of irrationalism, having majored [admittedly long ago] in political philosophy for my degree. So yes, I have read through their turgid texts and parroted them with enthusiasm at the time and the finished product was to be accepted as a paid up member of the Fabians.

The things we do when we’re still in our philosophically formative years.



Whilst my natural metier is G-d, Queen and country and I feel comfortable with that from my upbringing, nevertheless, if you can show, on reasonable grounds, that the Queen is concurrently guilty of being head of an occult family and a temporal realm, if you can show that Voltaire was fundamentally flawed or that David Beckam is not god, then I’m willing to hear it.

Certain things stick in the mind and one which sticks in mine is a dialogue by Morse and Detective-Sergeant Lewis in Vicenza, when they were hot on the trail of a subtle murderer on whom no mud would stick. Lewis despaired, ‘Maybe it was an accident after all, sir,’ to which Morse, exasperated, replied:

When will you recognize the undertone, Lewis? There’s something, an image. A room. In Oxford. A note in an envelope. A woman’s body hanging in a doorway. She’d promised to testify against Clark [the suspected murderer of a current day woman who’s seemingly suicided]. But her nerve failed. Under his persuasion probably.

He’s … in … this!

Recognizing the undertone – so difficult for so many.



The immediate charge against Morse, myself and out ilk is that we’re obsessed with the destruction of another person, that we’re off our heads. Or as Paul [Saul] of Tarsus was charged by Festus:

Thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.

We’re certainly unpleasant to behold whilst in full pursuit and all sympathy is, understandably, with the guilty, the perceived ‘innocent’ victims of the withering barrage.

What the people who make those counter-charges never explain though is what possible gain is there in it for the pursuer, the bloodhound, the guided missile? What’s in it personally for him or her? Money? Morse is an excellent example of a non-respecter of persons whilst being a devout respecter of people. He’ll go where the leads take him. There was much in Paul’s manner which was galling, especially his absolute conviction that he was on the right path and yet it’s this sort of person who finds things out in the end, who gets the results.



Dates are very important things in discussing anything of major importance, especially when something written earlier turns out to accord with more modern revelations.

There’s a lady I sometimes quote from her 2000AD article on Them and so far, the things she alleged have only been supported with the passing of the years.

Similarly, there are things written in Passenger to Frankfurt, by Agatha Christie [1970] which mesh with what has been subsequently learned. Only in the context of when it was written, only in the context of things which have come to light since then and from a mind which allows such a scenario to be seen as possible, can it be taken seriously.

‘Marvellously entertaining,’ wrote the Observer but I’d have to disagree. ‘Uncannily accurate in places,’ would have been my comment. As a story, it’s perhaps one of her weakest, it is single-plotted and driven by an idea which in those days was in the realm of pure fantasy. She wrote herself:

It is not an impossible story – it is only a fantastic one.

The reason it is so weak in plot and dialogue is that it has no basis in known reality but she’d got this idea into her head about the shape of things to come and all plot devices were governed by this idea, all relationships, all dialogue, served this end. Nothing stood on its own, in its own right, as a piece of entertainment.



Christie’s world-view was always pro-human, slightly orthodox and filled with compassion for the afflicted. It was also scathing about those who would destabilize the world for their own selfish ends. Very young in WW1, she lived through the depression years and WW2, plus its aftermath, so her views were bound to be coloured by these things.

The context of her 1970 story had to have been the student riots in Paris in 1968, the climate of terror sweeping the world – Munich was only two years away, the machinations of various parties behind the scenes -Watergate was also two years away and the falling away of society, which is interesting to read in this story because many feel the breakdown is a more recent phenomenon.

The lady was also nearing the end of her life and as her writing prowess had necessarily diminished, she rambled more than in her best works, yet she was deeply concerned with the state of affairs which were beginning to consume society. She wrote of these:

‘What is going on in the world today? What is everyone saying, thinking, doing? Every day there is a killing, a girl strangled, elderly woman attacked and robbed of her meagre savings, young men and boys attacking or attacked, buildings and telephone kiosks smashed or gutted, drug smuggling, robbery and assault, children missing and children’s murdered bodies found not far from their homes. Can this be England? Is England really like this? One feels no – not yet – but it could be.’

This was written, remember, in 1970.



She continues, through the mouth of one of her characters:

‘Fear is awakening, fear of what may be. Not so much of actual happenings but because of the possible causes behind them, some known, some unknown but felt. And not only in our own country. Hijacking of planes, kidnapping, violence, riots, hate, anarchy.

They, whoever they are, work through youth in every country. Youth has always rebelled. You pull down, you want the world to be different from what it is. But you’re blind too. There are bandages over the eyes of youth, they can’t see what’s going to come next. And who is behind them, urging them on? That’s what’s frightening about it. You know, someone holding out the carrot to get the donkey to come along and at the same time there is someone behind the donkey, urging it on with a stick.’

The other character now says: ‘You’ve got some extraordinary fancies.’

‘There not only fancies. That’s what people said about Hitler. But it was a long, careful preparation. It was a war that was worked out in detail. It was a fifth column being planted in different countries all ready for the supermen. It’s a creed that they’ll be willing to accept if it’s offered cleverly enough.’

‘Whom are you talking about?’

‘I don’t know but there’s something somewhere and it’s running on the same lines. Pattern again you see. It’s so frightening, the same idea which always recurs. History repeating itself. The young Siegfried.

There’s a good deal of alarm and despondency about. More than usual. Something is brewing and the kind of people who will go anywhere, do anything, unfortunately believe anything and so long as they are promised a certain amount of pulling down, wrecking, throwing spanners in the works, then they think the cause must be a good one and that the world will be a different place.

They’re not creative, that’s the trouble, only destructive. The creative young write poems, write books, paint pictures, as they always have done. But once people learn to love destruction for its own sake, evil leadership gets its chance.’

When told that she should bring this to the attention of the authorities, she replies:

‘Politicians don’t have time to look at the world they’re living in. They see the country they’re living in and see it as one vast electoral platform. They do things they honestly think will make things better and then they’re surprised when they don’t make things better because they’re not the things people want to have. And one can’t help coming to the conclusion that politicians have a feeling that they have a kind of divine right to tell lies in a good cause. It’s not really so very long ago since Mr. Baldwin made his famous remark:

If I had spoken the truth, I should have lost the election.’

Recognize any current pollie in this? Then she gets right down to it:

‘There are forces at work always that give you certain things. But behind of each of them [transport, power, energy] there is someone who controls it. You’ve got to find who’s controlling the powers that are slowly gaining ascendancy in practically every country in Europe and further afield … you’ve got to get behind the things that are happening and find out the motive force that’s making them happen.

One thing that makes things happen is money.

There are big movements afoot. There has to be money behind them. We’ve got to find out where that money’s coming from. Who’s operating with it. Where do they get it from? Where are they sending it to?

'Then there are trends.

It’s a word we use a good deal nowadays. Trends or tendencies. A tendency, shall we say, to rebellion shows up. Look back through history. You’ll find it coming again and again, repeating itself like a periodic table, repeating a pattern. A desire for rebellion, the means of rebellion, the form the rebellion takes. It’s not a thing particular to any particular country. If it arises in one country, it will arise in other countries in less or more degrees. It’s a pattern, a pattern that arises and seems inevitable. You can recognize it where you find it.

There was a period when a yearning towards crusades swept countries. All over Europe, people embarked in ships, they went off to deliver the Holy Land. All quite clear, a perfectly good pattern of determined behaviour.

But WHY did they go? That’s the interest of history, you know. Seeing why these desires and patterns arise. It’s not always a materialistic answer either. All sorts of things can cause rebellion – a desire for freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of religious worship, again a series of closely related patterns. It led people to embrace emigration to other countries, to formation of new religions very often as full of tyranny as the forms of religion they had left behind.

But in all this, if you look hard enough, if you make enough investigations, you can see what started the onset of these and many other – I’ll use the same word – patterns.'

'In some ways it’s like a virus disease. The virus can be carried around the world, across seas, up mountains. It can go and infect. It goes apparently without being set in motion. But one can’t be sure, even now, that that was always really true. There could have been causes. Causes which made things happen.

One can go a few steps further – there are people. One person, ten persons, a few hundred persons who are capable of setting in motion a cause. So, it is not the end process one has to look at. It is the first people who set the cause in motion. You have your crusaders, you have your religious enthusiasts, you have your desires for liberty, you have all the other patterns but you’ve got to go back even further still.

Further back to a hinterland. Visions, dreams. The prophet Joel knew it when he said:

Your old men shall dream dreams. Your young men shall see visions.

And of those two, which are the more powerful? Dreams are not destructive. But visions can open new worlds to you – and visions can also destroy the worlds that already exist.’

An example was now given of an Embassy wife who went to hear the Fuehrer speak:

‘Why was everyone so impressed? And so she went. She came back and said, ‘It’s extraordinary. I wouldn’t have believed it. Of course, I don’t understand German very well but I was carried away too. I mean, his ideas were wonderful. They inflamed you. I mean, you just felt there was no other way of thinking, that a whole new world would happen if only one followed him. Oh, I can’t explain properly.’

She was urged to go and actually write down what Hitler said at the next rally. She reported:

‘I started to write down what he said. This is frightening. There wasn’t anything to write down at all. I didn’t seem to be able to remember a single stimulating or exciting sentence. They were just … meaningless. I don’t understand.’

Then:

‘Jan Smuts puts it in a phrase: ‘Leadership, besides being a great creative force, can be diabolical.’’

One of the characters then asks what can be done about it.



The answer:

‘You’ve got to go like Kipling’s mongoose. Go and find out. Find out where the money comes from and where the ideas are coming from and where, if I may say so, the machinery comes from. Who is directing the machinery? There’s a Chief of Staff, you know, as well as a Commander-in-Chief. That’s what we’re trying to do.’

Later, in describing the modes of behaviour of a new generation which these people are encouraging:

‘Against their mode of government [democracy], against their parental customs, against the religions in which they were brought up. There is the insidious cult of permissiveness, there is the insidious cult of violence. Violence, not as a means of gaining money but violence for the love of violence. That particularly is stressed and the reasons for it are, to the people concerned, one of the most important things and of the utmost significance.’

‘What about drugs?’

‘The cult of drugs has been deliberately advanced and fomented. Vast sums of money have been made that way but it is not, or so we think, entirely activated for the money motive. It looks that way. People are being arrested and brought to justice. Pushers of drugs will be followed up. But there is more than just the drug racket behind all this. The drug racket is a means and an evil means, of making money. But there is more to it than that.

If you live in a castle on a mountain peak, overlooking the world below you, well, it makes you despise the ordinary folk, doesn’t it? You’re the top one, the grand one.’

Eventually, because Passenger to Frankfurt is a work of fiction, the two heroes do get to penetrate the veil and come face to face with the head of the Bavarian family who is behind it all. Actually, it is a woman, a great mother of darkness and she says:

‘With money, if one knows, if one has the discrimination, what is there that money cannot do? It can give one the best.’

Around the walls of the schloss are countless paintings and other works of art, many of them stolen. Throughout the castle are lines of golden haired, blue-eyed Aryans, singing the most beautiful of Wagnerian stanzas and an element of madness pervades.

A great bell now tolls.



Christie, of course, is in the realm of the novel here and she clearly based her idea of what the real power whom the real world Mr. Whites serve, on a Wagnerian and Nietzschean ideal while the actual head is a fat, bloated testament to total excess, with no constraints.

Your own image here is as good as hers, as good as mine, which is somewhat different to Christie’s. The thing she has got right though is the geographical location of one of the hubs of Europe from where the world trouble is generated and fomented.

‘Modern thought, modern writers and others whom she finances and controls. She’s behind it in once sense, supports rather curious charities, earnest philanthropists and idealists, raises innumerable grants for students and artists and writers.

[But] it’s not yet complete. It’s a great upheaval that’s being planned. It’s believed in, it’s the new heaven and the new earth.

That’s what’s been promised by leaders for thousands of years, promised by religions, promised by those who support Messiahs, promised by those who come back to teach the law, like the Buddha. Promised by politicians. The crude heaven of an easy attainment such as the Assassins believed in …

[Drugs] … only a means of having people bent to her will. It’s one way too of destroying people – the weak ones. The ones she thinks are no good although they had once shown promise. She’d never take drugs herself – she’s strong …

Propaganda is the first stage and behind it, there are vast armaments piling up. Arms that go to deprived countries and then on to elsewhere. Tanks and guns and nuclear weapons that go to Africa and the South Seas and South America. In South America, there’s a lot building up. Forces of young men and women, drilling, training. Enormous arms dumps. Means of chemical warfare.’

On the way impressionable people are sucked into it:

‘That’s a very ancient one, the one that everybody understands and appreciates. Something in it for you. That’s your line. You haven’t been appreciated in the past but all he stands for will hold out the hope of reward to you. Because you give him all the inside dope he wants about your own country, he will promise you places of power in that country in the good times to come.

It’s a world movement all right. They come up from nowhere and destroy everything. They haven’t got knowledge and they haven’t got experience but they’ve got vision and vitality and they’re backed by money. Rivers and rivers of money pouring in. But it’s based on hate, it can’t get anywhere. It can’t move off the ground.

Don’t you remember in 1919, everyone going round with a rapt face saying Communism was the answer to everything? That Marxist doctrine would produce a new heaven brought down to a new earth. So many noble ideas flowing about. But then, you see, whom have you got to work out the ideas with?

After all, only the same human beings you’ve always had. You can create a third world now or so everyone thinks but the third world will have the same people in it as the first world or the second world or whatever names you like to use … and when you have the same human beings running things, they’ll run them in the same way. You’ve only got to look at history.’

‘Does anybody care to look at history nowadays?’

‘No, they’d much rather look forward to an unforeseeable future. Science was once going to be the answer to everything. Freudian beliefs and unrepressed sex would be the next answer to human misery. There’d be no more people with mental troubles. If anyone had said that mental homes would be even fuller as the result of shutting out repressions, nobody would have believed him.’

Ha, ha you effing sheep

And those who oppose these overwhelming forces and the power of money?

‘There’s always an opposition. There are people who have a suspicion of what’s going on, of how the world is going to be made to change, of how, with money, wealth, armaments, idealism, great trumpeting words of power, that’s going to happen.

There are people who say that shall NOT happen.’

I also like this little barb, which could apply to England within the EU:

‘Can we contemplate a corrupt state subsidized from some outside source?’

That was written, as previously stated, in 1970 but based on the knowledge of a lifetime. I also like her diagramatic explanation of how it all works:

Key to Wagner’s Ring:

A = armaments
D = drugs
S = science
J = agents provocateur
F = finance

A little comment of my own:

When the resources of the state, which is itself in debt, in thrall to outside forces, are swung behind youthfully impractical visions of impossible ideals which sweep the new generation along with it, when those visions were fomented and endlessly funded from elsewhere for socially destructive ulterior reasons, when the entire leadership of a country is treasonous and self-serving, in line with the new philosophy, then that country is heading for a fall and so is the known world.

As is now happening.

Fortunately there is an issue in this country which shows these people in their true light, these people who loudly trumpet their new morality and that issue is the gurkhas. That’s how much the corrupt leadership cares for the traditions and for the defenders of this island nation. I can’t adequately express my contempt.

But that’s another topic.