1984cSubmitted by Edward Curtin

June 2, 2015 — Obama signs The USA Freedom Act

“Liberty isn’t a thing you are given as a present. He who thinks with his own head is a free man. Liberty is something you have to take for yourself. It’s no use begging it from others.” – Pietro Spina in Bread and Wine by Ignazio Silone

The year made famous by George Orwell in his oracular novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, has long come and gone. Commentators have had a field day expounding upon Orwell’s hermetic vision of a possible totalitarian world. Big Brother, newspeak, doublethink, now accepted parts of our lexicon, have appropriately been applied to various aspects of political life: the Patriot Act, spying, drones, cameras, media and government propaganda, etc.

The quality of these commentaries has, of course, varied considerably, but most have agreed in emphasizing the overt political implications of Orwell’s warning. This is to be expected in a world dominated by around-the-clock “communications” and the internet. Politics, show business, and advertising today commingle to dominate popular consciousness. All is show, the business of creating perpetual distractions from underlying philosophical issues that are the true basis of political life and the fundament for needed radical political change. An ephemeral show. Thus, like Winston Smith who “could never fix his mind on any one subject for more than a few moments,” each bit of news/commentary evanesces in the twinkling of an eye or an internet surfer’s finger. New political trivia appear for instantaneous pontification, all to be forgotten in a flash.

Meanwhile, the issue that underlies Orwell’s fantasy (and Huxley’s as well in Brave New World), the central question of human freedom, what used to be called free will, will continue to be undermined from all quarters, even by those who ostensibly abhor the political implications of Orwell’s warning. This is usually done circuitously in the name of science, human welfare, and progress, and is the specialty of those calling themselves progressives. For the idea of individual freedom — the singular person who can say “No” — is one of those dangerous thoughts that must be overlooked while slyly being replaced with a better idea. “The mind should develop a blind spot whenever a dangerous thought presented itself,” writes Orwell. “The process should be automatic, instinctive. Crimestop, they called it in Newspeak.”

Ideas do have consequences, and the idea of the free individual, basic to any decent society, has been replaced by the belief in determinism. This is so despite all the political rhetoric about freedom. This is all a dodge, laughable really. “We are a nation of politicians,” Thoreau wrote long ago, “concerned about the outmost defense of freedom.” This is still true, but in a far more dangerous and confused way now that science, technology, and mass communications have come to dominate society. (Is it any wonder that STEM –science, technology, engineering, and math — are being pushed in our colleges and universities.) Thoreau was right to suggest that it is a freedom to be slaves, not a freedom to be free, of which we boast, all the while thinking that because media pundits can remind us of Orwell’s warning we are therefore more free. “We do not merely destroy our enemies,” O’Brien tells Smith, “we change them.” And there is little doubt that that change has occurred at a preconscious level where so many people now believe that their thoughts and actions are caused, not freely chosen.

Is this the change we can believe in?

In concentrating exclusively on political visions of Big Brother forcing an unwilling public into servitude, most commentators have unknowingly done the job of crimestop. They have diverted their readers from the one idea that is dangerous to all forms of enslavement: existential freedom. Grand theories about Big Brother breaking down the front door, while true at one level, can divert attention from Little Sister who has already snuck in the back door and sapped the will to believe in our own freedom. Determinism is our current sickness; this unthinking acceptance of the belief in our existential un-freedom, that no matter what we do, think, or feel, it will, as Winston Smith keeps repeating, “make no difference.”

Is it any wonder that so many people are depressed, hopeless, and resigned.

The great American thinker William James once said that the first act of freedom is to choose it; is to believe you are free. The opposite has been occurring for decades. The idea of the personal freedom to choose, unless it is a brand of deodorant or a stinking political candidate, has disappeared behind a collective blind spot. More and more people, having been repetitively exposed to the meme of determinism, have imbibed the zeitgeist that “freedom is slavery” — and they are doing so of their “own free will,” the way it should be, as O’Brien tells Winston Smith.

This denial of existential freedom is widespread, encompassing all areas of contemporary life. It is inter-wound with a growing sense of resignation and cultural retrenchment that reflects the cancerous growth of fear enveloping the present age of diminishing expectations, a time when individual survival is heralded as the epitome of fulfillment. Resignation rules. The hopes and struggles of the 1960s for a more just and humane world, limited though they were, have given way to widespread cynicism and despair masquerading as realism. What was once thought possible is now dismissed as adolescent dreams, illusions that were bound to burst against the hard reality of the world.

This is untrue, of course, what Tolstoy called the social lie. But it is widespread and growing in influence. That the majority of people are under its sway shouldn’t be surprising; this has always been the case. Today, however, the pendulum swings faster if not wider, for we live under the spell of total and instantaneous propaganda. What we euphemistically call mass communications is mass seduction, and the desire to be seduced is one old truth that still holds popular appeal. It is the prevailing mental condition of controlled insanity of Nineteen Eighty-Four.

If one surveys present society, it seems clear that the courage and awareness to change is sorely lacking. We can only muddle through, at best, until disaster strikes. Then we will moan and groan, lick our wounds, and continue apace. Orthodox politics, the so-called art of compromise for the commonweal, has compromised us to the brink of despair. And though we like to deny it, that hopelessness and resignation has profoundly meshed with our public sense of private unhappiness, so that our “private” arrangements are of little use to us. Freedom to shop, even for “happiness,” doesn’t do the trick. The more this is so — and it is unavoidable — the more we deny it by clinging like the shipwrecked to shards of consolation in our private lives. Our small-life worlds seem like places of “freedom” to us, when we refuse to think clearly, which is most of the time. These private realms of “autonomy,” cut off as they are from public power, the very power that legitimates them and therefore paradoxically controls them, are intimately bound up with our public malaise.

As we call from our cells, we tend to forget we are in prison.

Examples of this prison mentality abound: the iron cage, the zoo, the prison, the matrix, the closed room, the garbage can, the labyrinth with no exit — all metaphors for our present situation. And metaphors are mental, ideas in pictures. We live necessarily within the pictures we imagine or accept. And to live in a cell is to live in un-freedom and to see no way out. These are the ideas that circulate as truth and within which we live our stunted lives. “The party is not interested in the overt act,” O’Brien tells Winston, “the thought is all we care about.”

So maybe if we thought about the thoughts that have led to our deepest beliefs about freedom, we could change our minds. Like a field seeded with American cluster bombs, these thoughts have been dropped everywhere. In the fields of psychology and psychiatry there is a pervasive acceptance and promulgation of a deterministic view of human beings. (And the USA is a psychologically oriented society.) This is rat psychology; rats, as O’Brien tells Winston, that “show astonishing intelligence in knowing when a human being is helpless.”

Genetic, environmental, and biological factors are crucial to these modern doctors of the soul. Biological psychiatry reigns supreme; drug therapy is the basis of clinical practice, and the notion that mental problems are biological brain disorders is widely accepted by the lay public as well as the professionals. High school and college students learn it in courses; others read it or hear it constantly through the media. It is delivered ex cathedra, and the secular faithful accept it as an article of faith. This is the medical model of the person; freedom has no place in it.

Normal behavior has become a sickness and the abnormal has become the norm (see Christopher Lane’s brilliant book, Shyness: How Normal Behavior Became Sickness). Influenced by B.F. Skinner, behaviorist psychologists madly search for a technology of behavior. The person is here reduced to a meaningless performer of a string of predetermined actions. Appropriately enough, in the year 1984, in Psychology Today magazine, Skinner explained an earlier depression of his in the following words: “The behavior I had acquired in college was not paying off, and I was depressed. I did not consider actual suicide; behaviorism offered me another way out: It was not I but my history that had failed.” In his opinion there can be no freedom since there is no I. His history failed him and made him depressed. It happened to him; he was not responsible. History, a pure abstraction, is here the “devil,” the snake in the grass that victimized him. It’s very appealing, this abdication of responsibility, this denial of freedom, this creation of an outside coercive force. It’s Big Brother in another guise. For a man who referred to his autobiography as “the autobiography of a nonperson,” however, it is understandable.

Deterministic thinking of this sort is integral to the pseudo-scientific mindset that prevails today. It permeates the academic and medical worlds and is dutifully transcribed by journalists. As readers can easily attest, most people have been convinced that chemical brain imbalances and genes have been proven to be the causes of a host of psychological issues from anxiety to worrying to depression, etc. Theses misconceptions have been linked to popularized psychiatric twin studies that are falsely presented as scientific facts proving the genetic basis for behavior.

As a long list of eminent researchers — Peter Gotzshe, M.D., David Healy, M.D., Peter Breggin, M.D., Christopher Lane, Jay Joseph, et.al — have emphatically shown, the chemical imbalance and genetic predisposition stories have no scientific validity and have never been proven. They exist in the popular mind as myths, forms of pseudo-scientific religious belief. In other words, hocus pocus — false beliefs scattered through the media resulting in an embrace of deterministic thinking.

Many of these “scientific” studies are related to the question of addiction: alcohol, drugs, etc. These are now explained with the disease concept so beloved by the medical and scientific establishments. Chemistry is the key to cure. The idea of free will is not considered a possibility in all this. One is an addict because one is diseased, though one might not know it. Cure lies in accepting one’s biological disease and learning, usually with the assistance of drugs – the great cure-all — to live without the substances that cause one’s “brain centers to go bonkers,” to crib a phrase I once read a doctor use to describe what causes one to fall in love. Brain chemicals and pharmaceutical chemicals are the causes of our happiness and despair. We are all victims.

We live in a world of doublethink in which the ultimate subtlety is the rule: “consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed.” Unconscious despair lies behind this whole process of doublethink. A terrible unacknowledged anxiety grips the world, an anxiety created and fueled by the very techniques, technologies, and technicians who propose to “cure” us of the idea of freedom and mold us into a technology of behavior.

If we are self-hypnotized into being determined to be determined, the only way out is the way in, into an examination of why we choose not to believe we are free. Until individuals take their freedom, society can’t be changed. And to change society you need large numbers of free people acting in concert, something that is desperately needed. Then we will have a freedom movement, a true freedom act.

“The only way to deal with an unfree world,” Albert Camus wrote, “is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”

William James said it was a choice.

Could the first act of freedom be to snap your fingers and say, “Yes, I am free, free at last.”

Edward Curtin teaches sociology at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts, and writes and researches on a wide variety of issues. He is currently developing a book on the sociological life, an extended essay on the marriage of sociological thought and personal life. Curtin is also researching perceptions and meanings surrounding the events of 9/11. Additional writings are available at opednews.com, where this article first appeared.

Leave a Reply

46 thought on “Acts of Unfreedom: Big Brother “Science” and the Psychology of Control”
  1. James Boulware, the Dallas police sniper, had some interesting things to say before his recent shooting rampage (look under 4. of the heavy.com article linked below for his social media posts):

    The suspect’s social media comments raise gang stalking red flags:

    Complaints about illegal activities in the Navy;

    Father worked on nuclear I.C.B.M. systems in Ukraine (both father, suspect and all family members had to have top Q clearance for inadvertent disclosure).

    Suspect brings up organized crime and local political corruption regarding the judge in his child custody case.

    All of this is being reflexively labeled “delusional”, without consideration, in the context of these highly unusual circumstances, despite what is known and documented about mobbing related violence.

    1. This is just another DHS false flag, complete with blanks, money shots, crisis actors, and as usual, very poor scripting.. No one got hurt, no wounded, no dead, reports of “4” shooters in the van (prop) with now the focus of one James Boulware. James Boulware = Adam Lanza.

      These false flags are very easy to spot.

      1. If we assume that all of these incidents are false flags then we have to assume, inter alia, that academics writing peer-reviewed articles on mass shootings (e.g., Kenneth Westhues) have all been duped or played the useful idiot. I do believe that the government has been behind many false flags, 911 and SHES being two of the most obvious examples. However, I have personally experienced both workplace mobbing and community-based harassment, and, I believe, based on these personal experiences, that these activities do provoke real world violence both in academe, other workplaces, and, communities writ large. It is like distinguishing between a heart attack and a panic attack that seems like the former. Upon analysis, may of these events happen and some unknown percentage is pure government theater that seemingly happen.

  2. In my opinion, 9/11 was a Let It Happen Operation (“LIHOP”) false flag. UBL and the 19 hijackers were patsies who were closely controlled/manipulated by CIA/Mossad and other international criminal intelligence networks. The internet trolls trounced on the LIHOP explanation heavily because it was the actual truth. There was briefly a CNN broadcast of UBL watching the towers fall on a TV at an undisclosed location in the Mideast. He stated that it was ” better than he had hoped for” as he uncharacteristically looked away from the camera filming him This tape quickly disappeared, but, it could only have been obtained through a controlled person in the inner circle. That tape was probably unknown to UBL, but in any event, would never have be left behind by accident.

    1. From what I remember, when the media questioned Bin Laden after 911, and the Bush Admin. was blaming it on him. He was dumb founded that he was being blamed.

      Then a few days later, after he received a phone call,some cash, and guaranteed protection he took credit for it. His entire Family was flown out of the USA to safety when NO American was allowed to fly and all the Airlines were grounded.

      That’s what I remember.

      Side Note: How come the Media could find and contact him anytime they wanted and all of the Billions of dollars we spend on “Security” could not find him? ( I purposely didn’t name alphabet agencies)

      Oh, sorry, Our King found him when no one could..I forgot.

      1. PS:
        I’m about 99% sure Bin Laden had passed long before our King “took him out” in the middle of his BC controversy where Donald Trump was stirring it all up.

        That was great.

        Trump of all people, not scared of “them”. He did get around 44 million or so from NBC to re-new his show and to shut up but..
        Business is Business.

        So sorry all the Navy Seals had to be “removed” who were in the know.

        Much like the young boys at the church “he” attended who were “in the know” were assassinated.

        These people are beyond Narcissists, they are full blow Psychopaths.

        When I see these people on TEE VEE I just get sick to my stomach and wonder “How” can you live with yourselves?

        Well, the answer is they are Psychopaths…

      2. Bin Laden was a liar and a patsy. In the tape below he discusses that the 9/11 went better than expected. Given his experience, having built roads and buildings, with his construction company, in East Africa and the Gulf, he reasonably expected damage to the floors around the plane strikes to have collapsed. He believes “Allah” was responsible for the “miracle” when, in fact, the “higher power” was the CIA and other Western intelligence agencies planting supplemental explosives to demolish the towers.

        This tape, that seems to have been secretly recorded by an informant, reveals these statements, in the immediate aftermath of the attacks:


        1. Just remember when our MSM interprets Arab into English many a Muslim has said it is NOT interpreted correctly as to perpetuate the false narrative called the “War on Terror”.

          15 years is enough for all of them to reap their trillions of tax payer funds..Not to mention the 2.3 trillion they admitted stealing the day before 911…
          Enough is enough.

        2. Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11. At all. The idea that this actor, talking about calculations about where to hit the buildings to melt steel with kerosene and destroy them, is Bin Laden is a real hoot. The CIA is known for its jokes.

          No Arabs, no planes. No Bin Laden. All seven buildings with WTC in their names were destroyed that morning–and airplanes crashed into none of them. It was 100% an inside job, employing very small nukes (or, possibly, Tesla technology, weaponized). The center of building 6 simply disappeared. WTC1 and WTC2 were transformed into dust and blew away. Mohammedan cave dwellers did not do any of that.

        3. Jesus Christ.

          That is who we refer to as “O’Santa bin Laden” with his chunky cheeks and nose. American mainstream media presented numerous bin Ladens. Usama died in 2001.

        4. Ha, ha. Maybe it was Tim Osman. That’s the name he used during his spook training in the U.S..

          I haven’t heard anyone who actually believes that Bin Laden had anything to do with 9-11 in a long time. Do people actually believe something that bizarre?

          He was the perfect patsie, having died that December and all. I suppose that made “killing” him again all that much more pleasurable for Idi Obongo.

          I laughed my derriere off watching the “spontaneous” gathering of college students at the White house at Midnight. Can you imagine? Nothing suspicious there, wot? They’d need an army of security just to keep the paid crowds from getting plucked like chickens by the muggers.

          “Uh, we buried him at sea, an old Arab custom”….ha! Had anyone heard of the “instant DNA testing” they allegedly used to determine his pedigree?

          Every day that passes makes these public speakers look more and more like a meeting of “The Liar’s Club”. Thank gawd for the IRS. We get to pay to be lied to and for them to steal the rest of our money.

          I gave up counting Osamas a long time ago. One doesn’t need to look much farther East than the Potomac, unless its Tel Aviv. But I repeat myself.

    2. Let it happen doesn’t make sense based on other events we have identified. Everything, in my opinion, is they make it happen. Controlling the outcome of every event, or at least steering towards a desired outcome, allows for the least amount of unpredictability, maximum amount of benefit, and keeps the entire operation shrouded in disbelief.

      1. I agree, it’s a matter of semantics. They do make it happen, but, it seems they always need useful idiots and patsies: Lee Harvey Oswald, the blind Sheik, Timothy McVeigh, Osama. They more than grease the rails, they do most of the shooting/bombing/killing. But the motive is there, even if they have to entice and steer and make it happen…they always need a useful idiot/fall guy with ostensible motive to cast as the “mastermind”. The MSM is complicit, and nobody wants to tell the real story except those who are marginalized and discredited.

  3. […] Submitted by Edward Curtin June 2, 2015 — Obama signs The USA Freedom Act “Liberty isn’t a thing you are given as a present. He who thinks with his own head is a free man. Liberty is something you have to take for yourself. It’s no use begging it from others.” – Pietro Spina in Bread and Wine by Ignazio Silone The year made famous by George Orwell in his oracular novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, has long come and gone. Commentators have had a field day expounding upon Orwell’s hermetic vision of a possible totalitarian world. More… […]

  4. I respectfully question the article’s scientific validity. Determinism is a law of human biology. A healthy human brain is not a thinking machine based on observation and reason. It is the chaotic product of Mother Evolution–or the mediocre creation of Father God. Much of the human thinking process is not rational, but based on intuition or the pursuit of comfort. Many pathologies that afflict the human thinking process are “deterministic:” color-blindness, deafness, essential psychopathy…So are many variegated conditions that psychiatrists consider normal, such as high versus low intelligence, tendency to seek versus avoid change, or craving for female versus male sexual partners.

    There is, at face value, no reason to exclude the possibility that some of these psychopathologies or characteristics would not be genetically inherited. A cursory review of the Bush family does not invalidate the theory that it is a carefully bred dynasty of essential psychopaths that inculcates its progeny with the Cleckley mask of sanity—a perverse application of free will that masks an evil brain and readies it to use and abuse unsuspecting mentally normal people.

    Building on this last point, the idea of promoting freedom with no safeguard against the freedom of essential psychopaths and similar unempathic mental deviants is, at best, an exercise in wishful thinking. As long as individuals who are pathologically incapable, through no fault of their own, of guilt, remorse, and compassion, are free to feign normalcy and prey upon the herd of gullible normal people, freedom will be nothing more than the proverbial carrot dangling 1 m in front of the donkey and moving away as the animal reaches out to grab it.

    Freedom may be a good idea. But there are more pressing pre-requisites to it than the “first act” the article’s last paragraph proposes. Widespread awareness of the basic tenets of empathy and its loss is one.


  5. Daniel Noel: “I respectfully question the article’s scientific validity. Determinism is a law of human biology. A healthy human brain is not a thinking machine based on observation and reason.”

    My take is that the article is an opinion piece which promotes one inalienable fact; that we do have free will choice, barring medical issues or political compulsion.

    It is certainly true that human biology, narrowly pre-defined as only mechanistic, and assumed to be only buffeted about by the environment with no free will choice, can be nothing but deterministic.

    From the oracle:


    “In many senses the field remains highly controversial and there is no consensus among researchers about the significance of findings, their meaning, or what conclusions may be drawn. … a variety of conceptions of ‘free will’ that matter to people are compatible with the evidence from neuroscience.”

    It cannot be that “a variety” of conceptions of the concept of free will can only and always mean that there is no such thing as free will or that free will has never existed. By my interpretation, the oracle serves up, to the shallow thinker, the notion that it is already too late to think that one has free will, since admittedly incomplete science casts doubt upon the notion of free will, by extrapolating broadly that all thought is merely the motion of a finger. It is this subtle act of designed intention to influence the course of human events by the carefully considered insertion of an incorrect meme, which causes many people to believe that a global system of control is being woven by powerful interests. There are pragmatic reasons for the exercise of such control. We still have freedom of speech for a few more hours yet.

    Other articles which have been designed to float to the top of a googol search under the term “free will choice study”, carry forward the idea that there is no such thing as free will:


    “As the early results of scientific brain experiments are showing, our minds appear to be making decisions before we’re actually aware of them — and at times by a significant degree. It’s a disturbing observation that has led some neuroscientists to conclude that we’re less in control of our choices than we think — at least as far as some basic movements and tasks are concerned.”

    They are discovering that there is a brain phenomena such that brain activity precedes the individual’s acknowledgement of conscious activity of simple movements. Some informal researchers, under the influence of LSD, have had the same experience, but research into this phenomena under those circumstances, has been forbidden for unclear reasons. In addition, there is widespread anecdotal evidence that consciousness of events can sometimes precede the event itself. This idea is not being studied by recognized science either. There are erratic attempts by new-agey researchers who purport to study pre-cognition, but their work is hampered by their chosen refusal to employ scientific methodology.

    To me, the headline, “Scientific evidence that you probably don’t have free will”, is a disturbing and plainly evident attempt at deceiving people, probably in order to better control them. The article attempts to confuse the shallow reader with the idea that if brain activity precedes conscious finger movement, that one can then not write an essay of one’s own free will, since one’s fingers are controlled by one’s brain.

    I have chosen, for personal reasons, to allocate a certain amount of time to post my opinion on websites. The very act of writing involves a conscious, continuing interplay of mind and material as the mind determines to express itself in writing as accurately as it chooses to. It is a blatant lie for articles like this to completely and without any rationale, unequivocably that we don’t have free will. Back to the io9 article:

    “At the same time, however, not everyone is convinced. It may be a while before we can truly prove that free will is an illusion.”

    There’s their roadmap for the future; they intentionally wish to “truly prove that free will is an illusion”. How do I know this? Because they are blatantly calling for free will to end:

    “Moreover, [Sam Harris] argues that the ongoing belief in free will needs to come to an end.”

    Buried in the article is this statement:

    “The jury, it would appear, is still out on the question of free will. ”

    “It would appear”: A sentential adverbial phrase, designed in this case, to instill doubt that the analogue, “jury”, gets to decide the question of free will based on legal principles, not scientific, as if this decision is not factual, but only opinion. How do I know this? Becasue the article has already dismissed the idea of free will:

    “Daniel Dennett has recently tried to rescue free will from the dustbin of history…”

    But back to Daniel Noel, who misses completely on this point of hes, for two reasons:

    “…the idea of promoting freedom with no safeguard against the freedom of essential psychopaths and similar unempathic mental deviants is, at best, an exercise in wishful thinking.”

    First, nobody is promoting freedom with no safeguards against criminality by psychopaths. Second, the second amendment is exactly the safeguard which protects our freedom.

  6. Patrick states:

    “No Arabs, no planes. No Bin Laden. All seven buildings with WTC in their names were destroyed that morning–and airplanes crashed into none of them.”

    Assuming arguendo that you’re right, why do you make so many anti-Islamic protests in your comments? Is it because they pose an existential threat to Israel. If so, I personally believe what Michael Scheuer said when questioned on the Bill Maher show-Israel’s existence is not worth any American lives or treasure. Coincidentally, I am of the opinion, that neocons should be destroyed.

    1. “Assuming arguendo that you’re right, why do you make so many anti-Islamic protests in your comments?”

      Because Islam is not a religion; it is an all-comprehensive political ideology, just like Nazism and communism. It is violence. To be conquered by Moslems is to be given a choice: convert to Islam, die by the sword, or (only if you are a Jew or a Christian) accept the subhuman social status of dhimmitude. Life under Moslem rule is a living hell, though, not just for the dhimmis: to be a Moslem in those places is to be a slave–although they can’t recognize that fact, having learned doublethink from birth; and even if the programming breaks down, and they long for freedom, they know that the penalty for “apostasy” is death. We in what was once the West used to know these things (we have been fighting an existential war with Allah for 1,400 years, after all–a war we did not choose, but one Moslems are assured will end in the whole world submitting to Allah’s sharia).

      “Is it because they pose an existential threat to Israel. ”


      Islam is the deadliest ideology Satan ever cooked up, and it is an existential threat to the whole world. It offers to the human race the “peace” that zoo animals enjoy. So, I feel deep sadness for Moslems, and wish to see them escape from the ideological/spiritual prison they must endure. Shat shocks me is how easily the modern effort to portray this horrific evil as a benign “religion” has succeeded. What shocks me is that the crazy term “islamophobia” was taken up, and believed to be something to be concerned about. Phobias are IRRATIONAL fears. Being afraid of Islam is the most rational thing in the world, for anyone who knows even a fraction of its history. So there is no such thing as “islamophobia,” and I do not miss an opportunity to point it out, because our culture is saturated with lies about how nice Islam really is at its core. People need to understand that that is factually 180 degrees out of line with reality.

      Our masters decided to wake up the sleeping demon that was Allah at the end of the 19th century, and goad him into returning to his conquest-model of his past. I don’t know how early this plot was hatched. There is a widely accepted claim that Albert Pike predicted in a letter to Giuseppe Mazzini that the Third World War would be the Moslems against the West (I have not read this site; I found it just now in the quickest of searches to demonstrate: http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2015/01/10/albert-pike-to-mazzini-august-15-1871-three-world-wars/).

      It is probably not true, but the plan on the part of the New World Order architects to re-awaken Allah was definitely in place by then (1871); of course, it could have been hatched much earlier. But note the date Pike supposedly wrote his letter: late in that decade the zionist movement began, when the first Western Jews returned to the land.

      Was this a coincidence?

      Moslems, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, so far as I can tell, had no interest in returning the the days of jihad, conquering countries and carving out the tongues of everyone who uttered a word in their native tongues, as they were systematically transformed into “Arabs.” They had to be induced to become that way, by Western intelligence agencies.

      It is my opinion that our masters were surprised by the spontaneous emergence of zionism, and rushed one of their own, in the person of Theodor Herzl, to co-opt that movement so that they could control it, and use it as a foil to help encourage the wild-eyed jihadism that pertained back when the Allah-cult was young and vibrant. But that’s a subject for another day.

      My point is that to a large extent Moslem terrorism still has to be cooked up by Western Intelligence, either by entrapping hapless morons who wouldn’t have done anything on their own (the first WTC bombing), or by simply doing it themselves and giving the dubious “credit” to made-up hapless morons after the fact (9/11). Either way, it’s had its effect: Moslems across the world were dancing in the streets when they learned that their co-religionists has brought the Great Satan to its knees.

      So Moslems are being played for chumps, made to feel proud of committing crimes someone else committed, crimes they would never have thought up to begin with. It’s a sort of double slavery: Allah holds their souls in wicked thrall, and Western intelligence agencies manipulate them like puppets, making all the world believe they are conspiring to take over the world. And, since that’s Islam in a nutshell, who can’t believe it?

      They are, in other words, the perfect patsies.

      1. Christianity and the White Man’s Burden were much bloodier events than anything in Islamic history. Since they happened in the Middle Ages, they share the same timeline with Islam counted from the origin of the religion.

        After WW2, a group of European Jews, sharing almost no racial identification with Israelites of the Bible, decided to colonize Palestine and brand it Israel. They had largely Nordic features including fair skin, light eyes and light hair (little of this being present in their Sephardic counterparts). These Ashkenazi, named for the Nordic river Rhine by which they dwelt, displaced more Palestinian diaspora in the Gulf than are currently being occupied by the Apartheid State. of Israel:


        These facts, along with others, ignored by Western commentators, are largely responsible for the current state of militancy in Islam. Or do you believe that the creation of Israel and the supportive measures of America and the West toward it are just coincident factors and have no causality to Islamic violence (quite a conspiracy theory)?

        It took a lot more looting and land grabbing by the West, and its proxy state,for the Muslims to become violent, than it took for the land grabbers from the West to become violent in their pursuit of pilfering land and other resources from the Muslims.

        1. You ask me why I do not avert my gaze from the ugly truth about Islam, and I tell you the answer, which you apparently don’t like—even though it is based on historical fact. Then you reply with a mass of historical ignorance. This is for the benefit of the assembled multitudes, who might not know what is so terribly wrong with everything in your reply:

          “Christianity and the White Man’s Burden were much bloodier events than anything in Islamic history.”
          This is perhaps the most foolish bit of nonsense I have ever read. Only someone who knows nothing about what Mohammed’s savage hoards actually DID to the peoples whose lands they stole could display such ignorance. It’s all available to learn, if you wish to know what the jihad was like to its victims. I will provide a booklist upon request.

          “Since they happened in the Middle Ages, they share the same timeline with Islam counted from the origin of the religion.”
          This is perhaps an even more foolish. When Mohammed was creating his horrible “religion,” in the 7th century, all of North Africa, all of the Levant, and all of Asia Minor were Christian. As were Spain and Greece. The things the Mohammedans did to the peoples whose lands they stole, the means by which they forcibly converted them, are too terrible to relate here. No savagery in recorded history equals it. Nothing Christians ever did can compare with such cruelty—and that’s saying something, when you consider what the conquistadores did to the Indians. But the fact is that Christianity grew and developed peacefully, by persuasion, and Islam was born with the sword and grew relentlessly by the sword.

          “After WW2, a group of European Jews, sharing almost no racial identification with Israelites of the Bible, decided to colonize Palestine and brand it Israel.”
          This is hilarious. Such historical ignorance is a rare thing–but I wouldn’t preserve it if I were you; it’s not worth much. Jews had been steadily migrating to the largely unpopulated land of historical Israel since the 1870s. After WWI, when the Ottoman Empire—which had been the owner of that region—ceased to exist, the League of Nations gave Great Britain a Mandate to create a homeland for the Jews in what it called “Palestine,” which included all of what is today Israel and Jordan. The steady increase in numbers of Jews in what is today Israel was not sufficient to spill across the Jordan River, so what we today call Jordan never ended up a part of Israel. Meanwhile, as the Jews were building a country in a neglected wasteland, their enterprises attracted vast numbers of Arab migrant workers from Egypt, Syria, and Iraq, who subsequently settled down and never went home—the people we today call “Palestinians.” Nobel “Peace” Prize winning “Palestinian” terror boss, Yasser (that’s my baby) Arafat, for instance, was from Egypt. Who knew?

          Meanwhile, the perfidious British were refusing to implement the Mandate they had been given–and even stopped Jews fleeing persecution during WWII from entering the land that had been set aside for them. The Brits, in fact, became even more obstreperous in this refusal in the aftermath of the War. I’ll let Wiki tell that part:

          “In Poland, the Kielce Pogrom (July 1946) led to a wave of Holocaust survivors fleeing Europe for Palestine. Between 1945 and 1948, 100,000–120,000 Jews left Poland. Their departure was largely organized by Zionist activists in Poland under the umbrella of the semi-clandestine organization Berihah (“Flight”).[91] Berihah was also responsible for the organized emigration of Jews from Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, totaling 250,000 (including Poland) Holocaust survivors. The British imprisoned the Jews trying to enter Palestine in the Atlit detainee camp and Cyprus internment camps. Those held were mainly Holocaust survivors, including large numbers of children and orphans. In response to Cypriot fears that the Jews would never leave (since they lacked a state or documentation) and because the 75,000 quota established by the 1939 White Paper had never been filled, the British allowed the refugees to enter Palestine at a rate of 750 per month.”

          The British Empire was going away, and since the League of Nations was no more, what to do about the Mandate? In early 1947, shortly after the war had ended, Britain asked the newly created United Nations to propose a partition plan, dividing “Palestine” between the Jews and the Arabs who had also settled there in the first half of the 20th century. Wiki again:

          “The Plan also called for the British to allow “substantial” Jewish migration by 1 February 1948.[98]
          Neither Britain nor the UN Security Council took any action to implement the resolution and Britain continued detaining Jews attempting to enter Palestine. Concerned that partition would severely damage Anglo-Arab relations, Britain denied UN representatives access to Palestine during the period between the adoption of Resolution 181 (II) and the termination of the British Mandate.[99] The British withdrawal was finally completed in May 1948. However, Britain continued to hold Jews of “fighting age” and their families on Cyprus until March 1949.”

          On 14 May 1948, the day the British were all gone, Israel declared Independence, and the United Nations recognized the new country—but the surrounding Arab countries did not, and they all attacked Israel. Israel won that war. From then on, the British no longer around to stop it, a large wave of new Jewish arrivals from war-torn Europe steadily entered Israel.

          Having that in mind, one notices, when you use this ridiculous quote

          ” They had largely Nordic features including fair skin, light eyes and light hair (little of this being present in their Sephardic counterparts). These Ashkenazi, named for the Nordic river Rhine by which they dwelt, displaced more Palestinian diaspora in the Gulf than are currently being occupied by the Apartheid State. of Israel:

          …you sound like an ignoramus. There were probably a million Jews in the land of Israel already, as WWII drew to its end—many of whom were third generation Western Jews whose grandparents were the original modern zionists. You want people to believe that the Jews were not already in the land in the years the UN was attempting to partition it between Jews and Arabs, which is obviously a ridiculous idea. You seem to think the land was devoid of Jews until after WWII ended, when a Nordic race of fake Jews arrived and took over the place (to quote you, above, “After WW2, a group of European Jews, sharing almost no racial identification with Israelites of the Bible, decided to colonize Palestine and brand it Israel.”).

          Hahahaha! You are really a hoot, Peace! Those fake Jews must have been damned surprised when they got there and found the place packed to the gills with REAL Jews whom the UN was about to pronounce the owners of a new, independent, country! And they say those crafty fake Jews are smart! Ha!

          “These facts, along with others, ignored by Western commentators, are largely responsible for the current state of militancy in Islam.”

          More nonsense. Boko Haram, the Taliban, pretty much everything that happens in Indonesia and Pakistan and the Philippines…none of it has anything to do with Israel. Islam is inherently violent in ways unimaginable to the people who inherited Western Civilization. Fathers murder their daughters for “shaming” the family in some slight way, and feel proud about it, wherever Moslems can be found. In Egypt, 90% of women have suffered the removal of their sex organ (and since 10% of the population is Coptic Christians, that means pretty much every Egyptian woman). In Pakistan women routinely have jars of acid thrown into their faces. This, is the culture of Islam. Terrorism comes with the genetic code of the ideology (remember—it’s not a religion). Certainly, every Moslem does not succumb to the deep truth inside the evil thing that is Islam—but so what? The fact that an individual Moslem’s humanity often overcomes the internal logic of what true adherence to Islamic ideology requires only tells us that the devil is not all-powerful. Individuals can be Moslems and NOT agree to carry out the order to cut the tongues out of infidels who insist on still talking in their native language, when the hoards are ransacking the place. Bonus!

          On the other hand, the Moslem Brotherhood, Al Quaida and ISIS only exist because they are creations of Western Intelligence agencies. While they are not organic, spontaneously emerging movements–and thus not anything to do with Israel in their origins–they are only possible because the people in them are Moslems. It is impossible to imagine the creation of such organizations out of Christian, or Buddhist, or Hindu populations, because those are actually religions, not violent political ideologies with terrorism at their origins; Unlike Islam, their founders did not assure their followers that by violent conquest they would one day rule the entire world. So, since these organizations did not “rise up” on their own, their existence is most assuredly NOT a response to the facts surrounding the creation of the State of Israel. They are tools of the New World Order plotters to undermine the stability of the post-WWII world order, to pave the way for a World government. As I said before, they are perfect patsies—because, being Moslems, these disaffected, hopeless, young men can feel real pride in committing acts of terrorism. By doing it, they are making Mohammed proud. What these pathetic losers need is to convert to Christianity and abandon all the cultural assumptions that make up the Moslem Mind—which many of them have in fact done, in defiance of the death decree Islam pronounces on those who attempt that happy transformation.

          “Or do you believe that the creation of Israel and the supportive measures of America and the West toward it are just coincident factors and have no causality to Islamic violence (quite a conspiracy theory)?”

          Since the whole basis of your presentation is founded on ignorance of the history of zionism in the decades before WWII, this question is meaningless. When you start with a false premise, expecting an answer based upon it, well, pardon me if I opt not to play the false game.

          “It took a lot more looting and land grabbing by the West, and its proxy state,for the Muslims to become violent, than it took for the land grabbers from the West to become violent in their pursuit of pilfering land and other resources from the Muslims.”

          Since pretty much ALL Moslem lands (i.e. everything that is not today Saudi Arabia) were stolen in the most horrifying atrocities the world has ever seen, that’s pretty funny. Ignorance is bliss, I’ve heard.

        2. My reply to this comment became unusual long (I know, you’re all laughing), and spent the night languishing in moderation. I wouldn’t be surprised if James chooses not to publish it, so I posted it at my own site. All one need do to read it is click on my name.

        3. “…you sound like an ignoramus. There were probably a million Jews in the land of Israel already, as WWII drew to its end—many of whom were third generation Western Jews whose grandparents were the original modern zionists. ”

          Please notify Jewish press sources as they recall a different scenario under the British Mandate in Palestine:



        4. Surely you don’t think your first link supports your original assertion? No doubt, if I’d known about it, I’d have linked to it to support MY case, in refuting yours. It’s fantastic. Thanks, Peace! As the article makes entirely clear, an alien race of Nordic fake Jews did not suddenly decide, after WWII, to set up shop in a Jew-free Arab country—contrary to what you originally said. Israel’s independence was the result of more than half a century of Western Jews systematically migrating to the land. If your fake-Jew Nordics showed up, it would have been just as I said—they’d have found a country chock full of long-resident, multi-generational Western Jews on the verge of long-delayed national independence. You argue my case wonderfully. I appreciate it.

          Oh, and your first link provides a true bonus! The article absolutely verifies my remarks regarding the artificiality of the “Palestinians” as a native population. I had forgotten just how incredibly perfidious the English actually were, in actively encouraging illegal Arab immigration, and the scale of it, while they were blocking the entry of Jews into Mandatory Palestine—in exact contradiction to their assignment by the League of Nations. I used to know those numbers (I wrote my reply to you purely from memory). Thanks for the reminder! What a bunch of scumbags those English were. Why were all those illegal Arab aliens allowed in? Why has no one told them in the years since they started murdering Israelis to just go home? If the criminally minded British had not broken the law, allowing hundreds of thousands of Arabs to flood into the land they were supposed to be setting aside for the Jews, there would be no “Palestinian” problem today. Britain created the “Palestinians”! I almost forgot! All I’ve been thinking about is the migrant worker jobs-Americans-won’t-do model of Arabs being attracted to Jewish employment opportunities—which is true enough. But just like America, there was an AGENDA behind the flooding of the country with aliens. It does my heart good, Peace, to be reminded of it.

          Anyway, it’s a pleasure, always, to have one’s memory refreshed, and in the process have it pointed out that long ago research is still retained, even if some of the details have accrued a bit of rust. Boy, those numbers. The Brits were simply flooding the land with Arab migrants, to crowd out the Jews. Bastards.

          It is also gratifying to be reminded that my words have persuasive power. I say that because there can be no doubt that your second link, being about the only recorded instance when Jews openly engaged in terrorism, is a clear contrast to the entire history of Islam, which has never, ever, not been openly engaged in terrorism. Resorting to dirty tactics in fighting for national independence is pretty much what all break-away countries end up guilty of. Israel, to its credit, feels ashamed of it. How many such countries acknowledge the shamefulness of those “necessary” acts? Not many.

          Say what one wants about the Jewish contingent of the New World Order’s plotters–much less the Jew next door–they NEVER desire to be associated with terrorism. Moslems, on the other hand, the world over, dance in the streets in celebration of it, handing out candy to express their sheer delight when their co-religionists blow up a school bus full of infidel children. Islam is a mental illness.

          Your brief comment bolsters my hope that these chats can have a persuasive effect. Sometimes I wonder if I’m just wasting my time. Then, a person such as yourself links to articles like these, and I know it is definitely worth the trouble. Thanks again, Peace.

          Oh, one more thing. If you can find a link to an article about how to get Egyptian Moslems to stop slicing off the clitorises of their girl children, I’d appreciate it.

          Solidarity, forever, Peace!

        5. I saw a photo of a young woman from Saudi Arabia who had her lips sown together for converting to Christianity. There is a militancy problem with Islam and also a theocracy problem, essentially no division between church and state. These are valid points Pat. It does not excuse this countries war crimes, nor the war crimes of Israel, but, they are problems inherent in Islamic government and society. Many of the Westernized followers of Islam, as well as the majority of individual citizens in these Islamic are very different from the mullahs, etc, that police them (half the population of Iran are women, over 80 percent are under 30). The soldiers we send off to war don’t create the constructs of torture, but rather, are caught up in them. Remember that before the recent Genocidal Wars in the Mideast that this country ran a Program called Phoenix in Vietnam. This program, which terrorized and killed a civilian quota of 1800 a month, produced at least one prolific serial killer here. The reason why we have three million Muslims in this country, and we have little post 9/11 terror is because of the assimilation of Muslims, not because of the booming terror industry that is militarizing U.S. society.

          You should not say that Muslims did not occupy Palestine prior to WW2. The land has had many empires rule over it over centuries but its people were primarily Bedouin prior to 1947. While Jews and Christians were in modern day Palestine, the majority of the dwellers were Arabs of the Islamic faith. In my opinion, marginalizing this population is as vulgar as the white South Africans claim that they lived in South Africa before the indigenous black population.

      2. Sad to say. But the original works of our Arab brothers were based on the Blessings of Abraham who is their forefather as he is ours ( Jews, Christians, Arabs and everyone) from what I have studied so far.

        So do not get into a heated argument with me if you disagree but I think I’m on the right track. We are ALL one.

        The corruption IMHO, began with this prophet Mohammad who changed the words and times, scratched out his Elders words( a very unique thing about the Koran is you can change the words if you think your are worthy but you have to leave them readable in the Koran.)

        I’m green and NO expert, just saying what I think I know. ( At least I’ve tried)

        I really don’t know what to say. IMHO, This Prophet has caused more trouble between our Arab brothers than anything I know.

        Their fight is NOT with us, but between themselves. Liken it to the Catholics and Protestants.

        The Devils in our Govt, have exploited this for their little “War on Terror” valued so far at around $14 Trillion. Can you imagine putting that kind of money in your pocket as they do?

        Pat said” My point is that to a large extent Moslem terrorism still has to be cooked up by Western Intelligence”

        So Sad and So True. It doesn’t exist without the Psyops and manipulation. They got no money and can’t get here…..

        This is Wrong. And saying Sorry to them just ain’t enough when so many of their Family Members and Friends have been killed,made homeless, destitute. They are Victims of Profit with NO remorse from Wall Street and “our” so called leaders.

        I stuck my neck out here but Wrong is Wrong.


        1. While I’m waiting for the NSA to approve my last message:

          “Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of it’s own ends,

          And openly tells it’s Free citizens, “We need to pass laws in Secret and you can Read them “After” they have become Law.

          It is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new Government”

          Ric 2015. ( I made this up myself) Haha

          Oh, I forgot, we passed the Patriot Act, John Warner Military Commissions Act (2006 by Pelosi and Reid)) PDD 51 Full takeover (Rex 84 on Crack ( Pelosi and Reid, both houses)

          Wait a minuet, Democrat’s don’t vote for Draconian secret laws that enslave the American people!. They’re the “Free Minded” “Smart” Intellects of Freedom, Right?


          Never mind…….

        2. Patrick states:

          “If the criminally minded British had not broken the law, allowing hundreds of thousands of Arabs to flood into the land they were supposed to be setting aside for the Jews, there would be no “Palestinian” problem today. Britain created the “Palestinians”!”

          It is a ridiculous contention to state that the Palestinians were illegally flooded into Palestine by a British conspiracy. You should join the La Rouche organization which believes that America is still a colony of England! These hair-brained conspiracies are why all conspiracy researchers are reflexively considered tin-foil hat nuts! All of these crazy jihad Arab leaders, including Iran, agree to re-establishing the 1967 borders-but the European Jews will have none of it because their leaders are more fanatical than their Islamic counterparts.

        3. I was only reading the article you linked to, Peace, and commenting on it. Sounds like you are uncomfortable with your own supporting evidence. History is history, whether we like it or not.

          Hey, here’s a question. Since you know nothing of the history and modern reality of Islam, you’re not the one to ask, obviously, but plenty of people are reading this, so someone might have an answer. Imagine you are a garden variety white American who converts to Islam. At what point are you taught to erupt in your rage, rush to your home to obtain a jar of battery acid, rush back to the scene of the offense, still enraged, and throw it in the face of a woman who had the impertinence to wear a crucifix that in her outrageous brazenness your eyes were assaulted with the horrible sight of? (http://pjmedia.com/blog/heres-everything-you-need-to-know-about-islamic-hate-for-the-christian-cross/)

          Let’s leave for another day the lesson in the conversion process where you are taught to become fervently convinced that your daughters are not supposed to have clitorises, and so you must snip them off. For now, we’ll just stick to the crucifix being so offensive to the Moslem eyeball that permanent disfigurement is the proper punishment, as everyone in Pakistan seems to agree. At what stage do the imams teach THAT one? I know that in Masonry, there are “degrees,” the deeper mysteries taking time to be led into. Is that how it works with Islam? I’m curious about stuff like that, the way one is fascinated watching a car wreck.

          Bonus question: Plenty of “American” fathers have murdered their daughters in recent years, for believing that they are growing in America, and not in whatever hell-hole the parents fled from. How does a lilly-white, run-of-the-mill American, who converts to Islam, learn to practice his new faith with the appropriate fervency to achieve that kind of dedication? Islam is such a splendid thing.

      3. Great work, Patrick. It’s cleared up any lingering doubts I had about Islam. Gee, to think I buy my milk from a Moslem who runs a convenience store…..

        1. Individuals are irrelevant. Especially in places Moslems are a tiny minority. But even in Islamic hell-hole countries, most individuals you will meet are fine people. It is the ideology I am talking about, the mental slavery that makes places ruled by Islam so horrible.

          Very few people outside the Moslem world know what dhimmitude is. Very few people know anything about how Islam came to rule the vast lands it did–what Mohammed’s hoards did to their victims, as they gave them the choice of conversion, death, or dhimmitude. If you knew these things, you yourself would not be so sanguine.

          Sure, when they are just the nice guy running a shop in a country largely devoid of fellow Moslems, they are just another nice guy. It’s when Moslems take over a country the terror becomes real. A large percentage of the world has experienced that nightmare–and Europe, right now, is inviting it. Europe, who beat those invaders back for centuries, has invited them in, in their millions. Europe has collective Alzheimer’s, is all I can guess.

      4. Patrick,
        You are one of the few who seems to be able to grasp the concept that although Muslims/Islam are often used as tools by the New World Order Globalists, and may not really have been involved (at least as described by official source) in 9/11 and the BMB, they are still not our (Western Society) friends.

        There is a reason the NWO chose Islam to do its dirty work. It isn’t too hard at all to rile them up, is it? Then supply them with money and weapons, and viola, ISIS, ISIL, Al-Qaeda. Many Muslims seem to enjoy torturing and killing fellow human beings, especially when in a groups.

        I’ve had many discussions with people here in NY who will tell me, ‘Mohamed down at the corner store is really nice, he’s Americanized.’ To which I tell them that he may be civil with you now, but if the crap ever hits the fan, he will always side with his people – Islam.

        Many people are in denial about the danger that is Islam. They naively believe that they can be integrated into our society and adapt our values. This is Western Arrogance, believing that simply being around us can change people and have them shed millennia-old cultures.

        One of my theories on the BMB is that the Tsarnaev brothers were set up as dupes by certain U.S. agencies and given these FAKE explosive backpacks. The brothers were radicalized/brainwashed and more than willing to blow innocent people up. One brother was allegedly killed, while the surviving one who went to trial actually believed that he did leave a live bomb at the scene, which of course, is complete nonsense.

        Just because the NOW is bad, doesn’t mean that Islam isn’t.

        1. Thanks for that, Paul.

          I particularly like this part: “Many people are in denial about the danger that is Islam. They naively believe that they can be integrated into our society and adapt our values.”

          It’s true, and all one needs do to verify it is to examine what has been done to all the countries of Western Europe in this benighted century, as their “leaders” have rapidly filled them with Moslems who have absolutely no intention of adopting the culture of the countries they are colonizing. It’s absolutely disgusting. Sweden is no longer Sweden, Norway not Norway, England not England. The list goes on.

          What’s REALLY disgusting is that the people of those countries were never consulted about this. And when they finally awaken to what was being done to their ancient cultures, they were denounced by their “leaders” as “racists.” That today’s Danes should desire their grandchildren grow up in the historical Denmark, and not a Moslem hell-hole, well, that makes them “racist.” When the asinine Russell Brand, on a panel show, denounced Nigel Farage as a “poundshop Enoch Powell,” he fully expected most viewers would laugh, and agree it’s a BAD thing.


          Take a look at England today. A constant stream of direct flights to Pakistan returning to the Midlands with child brides. Powell said the new immigration policy meant that alien cultures were going to replace the English one, and he was wildly popular for being the only politician with the courage to say so. He LOVED India, but he also loved England. He wanted India to stay india–but he absolutely did not want England to be transformed into India. Well, that made him a “racist.” Russell Brand thinks everyone believes it’s an accurate way to assess Powell’s legacy.

          As I have written here many times, Europe fought for centuries to keep out the invading Moslems. Thank God they did; each European country was allowed to develop its unique culture within the benign confines of Christianity. Now, the rulers of Europe are throwing it all away. And the man on the street is persuaded that because Ahmed the falafel seller is a nice guy Islamic ideology is therefore just as nice as Buddhism.

          As I said: Ugh. We are too stupid to keep our culture.

  7. It was many years ago that those entrusted with power decided to abuse that power by and through a huge attempt to socially engineer whole societies through the introduction of many ideological illusions used against the unsuspecting masses of people.

    Determinism is one of those illusions but it is much more than just illusion; it is a paradox because it is layered with confusions that blur the concepts of culture into semantic problems versus socialization and leads the unsuspecting to real confusion about true concepts.

    I call our semantic problems ‘the fog of determinism.’

    Socialization and society defined by Joseph Chilton Pearce: “Socialization as a definition of civility, that which brings us together in cooperative benevolence and nurturing. Socialization in this sense is instinctual, is the source of community and fosters extended nurturing, care and the mutual sharing of aesthetics, events, dreams, hopes, ideas and ideals; mutual appreciation of works, skills, creativity, cooperative ventures and the sharing of higher broader expanses of love–love of neighbor, self and God.” [The Biology of Transcendence, pg. 122]

    True concept of culture and society by Joseph Chilton Pearce: “Culture includes the highest achievements of humankind–art, music, philosophy, science, astronomy.” [The Biology of Transcendence, pg. 121]

    The anthropological use of culture and society: “A shared conglomerate of survival strategies, enculturated in, that breeds group violence and despair. Culture as the set of ideas that form the foundation of worldview, self-image, mind-set, faith and belief–culturally determined.” [The Biology of Transcendence, pg. 122]

    To sum up; socialization, culture and society is instinctual learning where the anthropological culture and society is culturally determined and enculturated in.

    John Stuart Mills in his classic, Utilitarianism (1861) laid down some interesting thoughts on free will, as follows:

    Free will is the capacity unique to persons that allows them to control their actions. Freedom of will is the capacity to act with moral responsibility.

    The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy offers these statements about John Mills and determinism:

    “Mill now turns to the question of whether determinism – correctly understood – is indeed incompatible with the doctrine of free will. His central idea is, firstly, that determinism in no way excludes the possibility that a person can influence his or her character; and secondly, that the ability to have influence on one’s own character is what we mean by free will.”

    “Actions are determined by one’s character and the prevailing external circumstances. The character of a person is constituted by his or her motives, habits, convictions and so forth. All these are governed by psychological laws. A person’s character is not given at birth. It is being formed through education; the goals that we pursue, the motives and convictions that we have depend to a large degree on our socialization. But if it is possible to form someone’s character by means of education, then it is also possible to form one’s own character through self-education: “We are exactly as capable of making our own character, if we will, as others are of making it for us.

    The ability to influence the formation of one’s own character, for Mill, is the substance of the doctrine of free will: “(…) that what is really inspiring and ennobling in the doctrine of freewill, is the conviction that we have real power over the formation of our own character; that our will, by influencing some of our circumstances, can modify our future habits or capabilities of willing.”


    You will notice in the statements above that the anthropological culture and society, our enculturation and cultural stamp is absent in these remarks pointing out our ongoing semantic confusion.

    Are we in a culturally determined prison? Well John Stuart Mill brings it all down to our personal, individual need and capability to form our own intrinsic character. In order to understand the importance of this, one must study Kant and his thoughts on free will being in the transcendental structures of the mind.

    Carrying out the conscious formation of our own intrinsic character is a process long ago completed by our ancient ancestors in their civilization, which as Jung correctly determined, left us with an instinct to inwardly reflect.

    Its this reflective instinct we use to escape from our culturally determined prison. Its an internal process where our conditioned consciousness enculturated in, is purged (Latin root ‘to purify). The ancient alchemists called it turning lead into gold.

    As I have already passed through this process my own experience validates the thoughts of great thinkers like J. S. Mill, Carl Jung, Kant and Pearce. I now say I am free just like in the Bible where John informs thoughts on the trials and tribulations which comes from conformity, where he implies, ‘be in the world but not of it.’ (Romans 12:2)

    Thank you Prof Curtin, for your most thought provoking writing here which is of the genre that always pushes me back to revisit and contemplate on important matters.

  8. Who thinks the latest evil white male shooting is a psy op? I haven’t scrutinized the particulars, but the timing seems incredibly convenient for TPTB to distract from Rachelgate, which was blowing up the Diversity Cult’s bizarre contradictions (like that sex can be ‘transitioned’ while race/ethnicity cannot be, even though when expedient ‘race’ is only skin deep).

    1. Is it just me or does this Clown look a lot like Adam Lanza with the “Bowl” hair cut..haha

      Also today we had the TPA vote, The “Trans-Racial” Chick controversy, AND The POPE saying we need a One World Government for Climate Change…Just saying. No diversions here.

      The news is all about this Adam Lanza look alike….

      It’s just become comical to me.

      1. Yeah, they use one of those “Identi-Kits”. Bowl haircut…check. Hollow eyes……check. “Here he is, somebody call Central Casting”. “See Martha, he’s got ‘The Look”.

    2. Sue, they certainly want no mistake about the ethnicity of this latest example, do they? “A white male”. “A sandy-haired white male”. Did I mention that the victims were “Black”?

      Well, there you have it. Now someone will simply have to DO SOMETHING! Maybe they can build fortified churches. Can’t be too careful.

      I couldn’t help but notice that the alleged shooter had an alleged Facebook page who’s “friends” list was largely African American. Sorta strange for the “white supremacist I’d wager.

      Also, the Souther Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a scurvy lot, issued an immediate release of a photo of his in his “white supremacist” jacket. Where did that come from? How did they get it so quickly?

      Here we go again with more events in search of legislation. Just when “Merica is recovering its breath from the Bruce (I mean Caitlan) Jenner affair, there’s this. Wow, change agents of mass distraction.

  9. Excellent article. Oddly, before reading it I had been thinking along similar lines myself. My question to myself was “why do we choose to be spectators in someone else’s movie”?

    In looking back over the years there can be little doubt that this phenomenon is more pronounced today than in the past. If may be the result of becoming a world of TEE VEE watchers who have accustomed themselves to watching passively.

    We seem to have lost the ability to constructively ignore. When some action or other inspires reaction, we often howl with outrage at the idea of something when, in point of fact, we should simply give it the credence it deserves, namely, ignore it.

    Those aficionados of TV “news” should understand this perfectly. The job of the talking heads is to establish “reality” and delineate the acceptable limits of reaction. Those who watch these performances on a regular basis no doubt seldom question this format. They accept that “their” job is to watch and react.

    Each new outrage is followed by another distraction. Always, there are pundits and politicians at the ready with “solutions”. How convenient. It is an electronic “Delphi Method”. They are after “consensus”, naysayers need not apply.

    So maybe it boils down to whether we want to be masters of our own destinies or not. If we content ourselves with leaving problems, real or created, to the “experts”, and simply join a rooting section, we are not actively living our lives. We are vicariously watching others do it for us.

    At the heart of all of these discussion at this site is the recurring theme of “they”. Just who are “They”? What gives They the right to determine our futures? Who appointed They? Who cares what They says?

    In serious matters we often hear “today the U.S. took measures to….”. Did they? Who is “The U.S.”? Did they ask anyone here? How am I responsible for what this alias does? I didn’t vote for them.

    “They” are stealing our wealth. “They” will likely get us all killed. Is this the default position of anyone who lives vicariously? Perhaps all that time spent in front of a tube could be better spent in developing a personal ethos. Once that is accomplished, one could simply begin living by it.

    It is true that through law “They” can make criminals of us, but as long as we live our lives consistent with our beliefs, who cares? No one said that living authentically didn’t have consequences. For that matter, so does living vicariously.

    The article implies, and I support, the idea of never looking left or right. Gather what information you need to make your decision, then do it. Never be distracted by shiny gadgets or hyperbolic rhetoric. We won’t win an arm wrestling competition with these psychopaths. Ask anyone who has experience with them. The best relationship with a psychopath is not to have one at all.

    Lastly, we don’t need permission. We don’t need a law. The police and the courts are not the answer to anything. As the author implies, lets be free. You don’t have to ask anyone for that. In fact, no one can take that away from you unless you allow it.

Leave a Reply