Friday 30 January 2015

Oxford TTIP Meeting

I've talked recently about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, see:, and yesterday evening I attended a meeting in Oxford dedicated to the subject, intended mostly for its opponents. Rather unusually this was held in a church. I arrived half and hour early because the start time stated on the church's website was wrong. As I entered the door, a group of Brownies were rehearsing a dance routine. I stood by the doorway watching the young girls prancing around in skilful synchronicity and enjoyed the show. I then experienced an interesting moment of unlearning and then self-discipline. I was struck by a sudden sense that a man like me shouldn't be watching a group of eight to ten-year-old girls in brown tights and jerseys dancing. I quickly identified this as a controlled response, a thoughtcrime caused by Big Brother nanny state programming; I shouldn't watch young girls dancing because people might think I was a paedophile. Yes, even though I was watching the girls in all innocence. I felt guilty for a moment, even dirty, as if I actually were a paedophile just for enjoying a dance by young girls in a totally non-sexual way. I commanded the thought to leave my mind and I made a point of carrying on watching till the end of the show just as a little personal rebellion against both the Big Brother in society, and the one inside my head. (How ironic that the same Big Brother state which is so obsessed with "child protection" turns a blind eye to real child abuse of a horrific severity and scale, see: I'll have to do a dedicated article about this.) The church was lit by bright white bulbs and its nave split by a wide aisle with a large chapel on either side full of piled up hymnbooks, a small electric organ and other ecclesiastical detritus. On one of the pillars there was a stone relief of Abraham about to stab his son Isaac to death before God stopped him; I hate that story! Once the Brownies had left, the TTIP meeting began. Although about forty people turned up there, none of the big names on the local liberal and environmental scene were there, like Peter Tatchell and Mark Lynas. Most of the attendees appeared to be in the Green Party and the leaflets they handed out were Green publications. Oddly enough there was a policeman standing outside in the vestibule for the first part of the meeting. He hadd been there when the Brownies were in the church; was that to keep a watchful eye on them... or us?

The main speaker was a bit late because of the traffic and the chairman introduced her as Annaliese Dodds, see: He stressed that this was a non-partisan all-party meeting, yet Ms Dodds was in the Labour Party. She had been elected to the European Parliament for the Southeast England constituency in May 2014 and lives in Rose Hill, Oxford. Because of an admitted prejudice against Labour politicians, and Ms Dodds' somewhat austere and academic look, I was surprised when she actually came across as quite amiable and down-to-Earth. I expected her to have a prim schoolmarmish accent but she had a musical Scottish twang. All ten of the constituency's MEP's were invited to this meeting, including Nigel Farage of UKIP, but only Ms Dodds agreed to speak there. It seems a lot of people are aware of TTIP, as George Monbiot said in his Guardian column, see background link above; Ms Dodds says that out of the eight thousand emails she receives every week five thousand one hundred are about TTIP. She presented the subject in an impartial, professional and very political way; you can tell she's used to negotiation and diplomacy. The idea for TTIP came out as an alternative to the ill-fated agreements of the World Trade Organization in the 1990's. International trade needs regulation and before the WTO there was nothing but various bilateral agreements between nations and regions which doesn't work, in Ms Dodds' view. It's too fragmented. TTIP is the biggest and most ambitious of any international trade agreement so far; covering the United States of America and the European Union it amounts to a quarter of all the world's commerce. Ms Dodds is a member of a loose tendency in the European Parliament known as the "socialists and democrats", one of the largest. This group is in favour of globalist organization of trade because of the disorganized nature of it otherwise. The example Ms Dodds gives is the famous BMW car factory in Oxford. Because of US customs laws that factory cannot export cars to the USA unless they're dismantled first; then they have to be put back together at another plant in the USA. I agree that's insane, but I don't see TTIP as the solution; not least because of the dangers of TTIP I explain in the background link above. The EU Parliament will eventually get to vote on TTIP, but the "Socialists and Democrats" group would rather shape the deal into a form they can accept, not just reject it out of hand. Anneliese Dodds described how she was allowed to view the TTIP proposal papers, but she had to pass through a security door into a vault; and she was made to sign a non-disclosure agreement first! This is really scary; why would the basis of an EU Parliamentary bill be kept confidential? Ms Dodds of course couldn't tell us anything about the actual contents of the documents but she told us: "Some of my concerns were allayed, but not all." National governments play an important role too, she said, because they can exclude certain elements of TTIP; Labour, "my party" as she called it in this politically-neutral meeting, wants to protect the NHS from the dangers of runaway corporate privatization... erm... that horse has already bolted I'm afraid, see: I also question the abilities of national governments as the power of the European superstate increases year by year. The part of TTIP that worries "Lord Mon-bee-ott!" as Alex Jones calls him, the most is the ISDS- investor-state dispute settlements; Ms Dodds has mixed feelings about them. She sees a separate decision-making structure as something very useful in a non-democratic country without a stable and effective judiciary. She herself has experience of working in Montenegro, a state that was once a part of Yugoslavia and after the death of that communist federation it was reestablished. However its current government is still very rickety, only having become fully independent from Serbia in 2006. She believes ISDS could do a lot of good in such a fragile nation. However the EU and its member states all have a perfectly functional judiciary and so don't need third party interlopers; indeed such processes might do harm. Ms Dodds minces her words far more than George Monbiot does, and when the Q and A session began, a lot of the audience brought their fears to the table. The TTIP and ISDS represents a threat to national sovereignty; I know Ms Dodds won't agree with me, but I think a Europhile complaining about a loss of national sovereignty is something of a denialist. However TTIP poses a different and specific threat in that it replaces national sovereignty with corporate sovereignty, as Monbiot explains far more bluntly.

I had to leave before the end of the meeting. I waved goodbye to the church's bubbly female vicar and walked home in the cold. I'm glad I decided to go along to the meeting. It's very clear that the Labour Party, or specifically Annaliese Dodds who represents them in Brussels, is not completely opposed to TTIP, although the Greens, which accounted for most of the audience, definitely are. I'm definitely not an advocate of the Green Party, but I agree with the audience; TTIP sounds like an extremely bad deal. I'm not an economic socialist; on the contrary I'm something of a right wing anarcho-capitalist. However I object to TTIP just as strongly as the liberals, but for different reasons. I don't accept that some kind of centralized rule book is the only way to resolve trade disputes and incompatibilities between different nations. Surely BMW can find some way to negotiate sending the Americans cars in one piece; is it really so complicated that we need international law to intervene? I did warm to Annaliese Dodds; as I said she sounded cheery and unassuming. She was presenting her case in a professional manner, as if she were addressing the EU Parliament itself. It's possible she is totally opposed to TTIP, but can't say as much right now. Politicians are always careful to weigh and measure every single word they utter. However a time will come when Ms Dodds might have to stand up and plant her flag on one side of the line or the other. If it's the correct side, she'll earn my respect and support... even if she never gets my vote.

Thursday 29 January 2015

Meadview Eviction

I'm sorry to report that the local people and Rainbow Common Wealth activists who had been running their community centre at the old Meadview Nursery in Littlehampton, West Sussex, were forced out of their home by a huge force of riot police today, see here for background: It's not over yet; they have returned. I'm sorry I couldn't get there myself and stand beside them. If you can, please go along! Here's are the statements issued by the Rainbow Common Wealth about what took place. Also some coverage by my friend and fellow researcher Lisa Sunkmanitu Wakan. Lisa recently fought alongside over seven hundred other people in the successful defence of Tom Crawford against his own illegal eviction, see:

(January the 26th 2.35 PM)
EVICTION UPDATE : EVICTION DATE ANY TIME from Wednesday 28th January 11:59pm to THURSDAY 29TH JANUARY..... please share and show your support by coming over and being a presence here... you dont need to be on the property just at the entrance... This is THE CHANCE to SAVE MEADVIEW CENTRE as a place for ALL the community..... LETS ALL STAND TOGETHER and STOP THE EVICTION.... so Meadview can be revived as a hub of community life........ Meadview Centre , Lyminster Road, Lyminster, Littlehampton BN17 7PH .... opposite the SIX BELLS PUB ..... Thank you for all your support xx

Article in todays Argus newspaper...... bailiffs supposed to come today so please come over and support us so we don't lose this place for the people.... if we are evicted the people WILL lose it FOR SURE.... thanks please share ........ 8) x

A scene from the despicable EVICTION that took place in Littlehampton, West Sussex earlier today when a mass of riot vans and police gathered to evict 12 peaceful people trying to rescue a derelict horticultural centre for the community that the council want to sell to developers.... same ole pocket lining crap...... we sure are not all in it together but that lot are..... The eviction was violent, brutal, intimidating and a complete waste of our money...... we need to get the word out or this kinda thing is gonna get much worse!!

Thursday 29th January 2015
Meadview Centre
Lyminster Road
BN17 7PH

Tuesday 27 January 2015

Alex Malarkey CTCS

I've written before about how one should always beware the CTCS, "conveniently-told confession story", see: Another case in point has just come to light, that of Alex Malarkey, a six year old boy who was involved in a terrible car accident in 2004. He suffered catastrophic head and spinal injuries and spent two months in a coma; all his doctors thought that he'd die, but amazingly his condition slowly improved. He was completely paralyzed and mute, yet over the course of a number of years he learned to walk and talk again, albeit only partially. When his speech returned he began telling his parents that he'd been sentient at some point during the two months of his coma and had gone through a near-death experience. Together with his father Kevin he wrote a book describing his experience entitled: The Boy who Came Back from Heaven, a True Story; it was published in 2010 and became an overnight New York Times bestseller. Books on first-hand near-death experiences are very popular, especially in the United States where Alex lives. Other good examples of what is sometimes facetiously called "afterlife tourism" are Dannion Brinkley's Saved by the Light and Proof of Heaven by Dr Eben Alexander. However most of these tend to be religiously neutral and propose a general ecumenical spirituality. The Malarkeys' book is very different; it's distinctly Christian in theme. Alex describes going through the gates of Heaven, accompanied by angels, and meeting Jesus; he saw Satan emerging through a hole in the sky. The story is faithfully in line with Biblical ideas and popular Christian cultural symbols. Its publisher, Tyndale House Publishing, specializes in evangelical Christian literature. However within a year of the book's launch the family began making informal statements that suggests the book's story was at least partly fabricated. Nothing official was said, but in 2011 Alex wrote in one of the book's Facebook groups: "one of the most deceptive books ever..." The comment was deleted by the group's admin and Alex was banned, suspected of being an impostor. However the following year his mother Beth confirmed that the group member had indeed been the real Alex and she supported his pronouncement; the book was a fraud. Later on she claimed that the book was an "exaggeration" and "embellishment" on a Christian radio talk show. Alex supported her statement and last week, January the 13th 2015, Alex, now aged seventeen, wrote an open letter to Tyndale House which included a full confession and a request that the book be withdrawn from sale: "Please forgive the brevity, but because of my limitations I have to keep this short. I did not die. I did not go to Heaven. I said I went to heaven because I thought it would get me attention. When I made the claims that I did, I had never read the Bible. People have profited from lies, and continue to. They should read the Bible, which is enough. The Bible is the only source of truth. Anything written by man cannot be infallible. It is only through repentance of your sins and a belief in Jesus as the Son of God, who died for your sins, even though he committed none of his own, so that you can be forgiven, may you learn of Heaven outside of what is written in the Bible… not by reading a work of man. I want the whole world to know that the Bible is sufficient. Those who market these materials must be called to repent and hold the Bible as enough. In Christ, Alex Malarkey." Tyndale responded two days later on January the 15th by saying that they'd voluntarily take the title out of print and recall as many copies of the book from retailers as they could. Source:

The Skeptics have responded as they always do to these confessions, they've immediately and instinctively accepted it without any question, and without hesitation they call "case closed!" and they refuse to consider it further. That happened when Bob Gimlin claimed he faked his famous home movie of Bigfoot, even though it was later proven that his story couldn't be true unless his wife was seven feet tall, see: This typical attitude is very palpable in the latest episode of Skeptics Guide to the Universe where the panel discuss Alex Malarkey's supposed revelation; see (from 28 minutes in): They are also berating various religious booksellers for not removing the title from their shelves sooner when Beth first came clean in 2012; the Skeptics suggest that the booksellers thought that the truth didn't matter so long as it told a good story. However that's probably unfair; accusations like Beth's are not enough alone to justify immediately action, especially since she's apparently now separated from Kevin. Also there has been some contretemps she's been having with Tyndale and her ex-husband Kevin over the distribution of the book's royalties. At no point in the SGU show above do Bob, Jay, Steve and Evan even consider whether the Malarkeys are being completely sincere in their confession. A confession is a confession is a confession... full stop! Nevertheless I have some serious doubts over what's really going on here. To begin with Beth's and Alex' testimonies don't match. Beth claimed that the story was an "exaggeration" and "embellishment" whereas Alex states that it was completely made up; there's a big difference between these two things. Also Alex' father and co-author Kevin has been strangely silent. Is it possible that Alex' confession is false? The first thing that strikes me about Alex' words is that he is clearly a staunchly fundamentalist Christian and for a brain-damaged young man he's extraordinary eloquent. It's perfectly possible that his recovery has reached the stage where he can indeed speak and write to that degree, if so I'm very pleased for him; but one still should not hold back from asking that question. I'm afraid I usually find people who are as religious as that very unreasonable and often dogmatically opposed to almost everything that falls short of their own piety, including their own actions in the past. Alex' beliefs may be clouding his view of things he said beforehand. It's likely that Alex was far less devout when he was writing the book than he is now; in fact he says clearly: "When I made the claims that I did, I had never read the Bible..." Why not? If he had been a Christian his whole life he would certainly have read the Bible from the moment he got to grips with his ABC's. So could it be that Alex is a born-again evangelical Christian who is constructing a falsified past for himself, as many people do who change their minds about something central to their lives, and thenceforth feel embarrassed by what they perceive as their misspent youth? Beth, it seems, was unhappy with the book's content from the start and she complained that "the truth is getting twisted, distorted, and packaged to be sold to the highest bidder." Beth is also feeling the grind of the celebrity lifestyle. She says she regularly experiences fans of the book knocking on her door unannounced to pay the family a visit; she finds this irritating and intimidating, and is concerned for the effect it's having on the fragile health of her son: "[Alex] is just a boy not a statue to be worshipped or person with some supernatural gifts... He does not go to heaven, have conversations with supernatural beings, and whatever visions/experiences he has had or had not had, is up to him as to what he will do with those." There may be any number of motives, known only to herself, why Beth would want the affair finished with and for her and her family to return to a normal life. She wouldn't be the first to make a fake confession in such a quest; Margaret and Kate Fox, the so-called "inventers" of Spiritualism, did so, see: Beth's own disapproval sounds very different from Alex', as I say. The references to the Bible are absent, and also she has never formally stated that the book was completely made up, only that the story is not an accurate portrayal of real events. I don't know for sure. I've only recently even heard about this case, but could it be that the deceit on the part of the Malarkey family has not ended with their confessions, but has just changed its false message? Perhaps Alex really did have a near-death experience during his two month coma, but it was one of the more conventional variety. Then, for whatever reason, when he and his father were compiling the story into a book, they imparted on it a flavour that American churchgoers would approve of. Maybe they were given an informal advance, or another incentive, from their Christian publisher on condition that they did so. Who knows? I don't wish to pass judgement on them for that, merely to get to the bottom of this complex and contradictory tale. I also wish once again to warn the Skeptics against being too eager to jump for the bait when confessions like this appear. Just because a confession is one converging with your worldview doesn't make it empirically true just because of that. It might be equally as false, or even more so, than any statement you come across diverging from the paradigm of the Skeptisphere. 

Monday 26 January 2015

Submarine Drones

The advancement of electronics has inevitably led to aircraft that can fly themselves without the vulnerable and heavyweight human pilot that all conventional aircraft need. Drones are often guided by an operator who can fly the aircraft remotely from the ground, sometimes a considerable distance away; or they can operate automatically, controlled completely by their onboard computer according to pre-programmed instructions (I don't know who had the idea of using the same word for an unmanned aircraft as we do for a male bee). As always when it comes to this kind of technology, swords very quickly get beaten into ploughshares. The companies which pioneered the manufacture of drones for the military have adapted their designs. The US Department of Homeland Security, the US Coastguard, NASA and the FBI are all either using drones or have intentions to get hold of them. The UK border agency also wants aeroplane, helicopter and airship drones to patrol the English Channel to catch illegal immigrants, the bait in a thousand Big Brother traps, see: Drones give surveillance, police and military forces abilities that they'd never have enjoyed without them, they can now go places remotely that they could never reach in person and strike with complete impunity at enemies that would otherwise be invulnerable. And this advanced technology is not confined to things in the sky.

I've already discussed driverless cars and other road vehicles, see: Now we have to look under the water for the next chapter in this story. The Russian navy has announced through RT that it is introducing undersea drones. These will be deployed from its new Yasen-class nuclear-powered attack submarines and its fifth generation successors. These are carried on board the submarine where they are released and travel offline to wherever they're needed; then they can be activated on command by a radio signal, see: There are practical difficulties with submarine drones because while underwater it's much harder to maintain radio contact with them, unlike aircraft drones in the air. The robot would have to keep an aerial sticking above the surface of the sea to pick up its operator's instructions; either that or it would need to trail a wire to its mother ship or be communicated with using ultrasonic transmissions which could be picked up by the enemy. However it's perfectly possible that these new submarine drones may have more advanced autonomous control systems than we're currently familiar with; perhaps more advanced than is currently declassified in the public domain. The onboard computer alone might be enough for the robot to carry out various missions without any human input at all. The novelist Michael DiMercurio writes submarine-themed stories and this includes unmanned vessels driven by artificially-intelligent computers, see: Could these devices already be in service secretly, in the same way as the Aurora spyplane? If so this puts a whole new angle on the recent events in the Baltic Sea where unknown submarines were detected in Swedish territorial waters, see: Perhaps those subs were just dropping off drones, in which case Sweden's sovereign seas could still be illegally occupied by unmanned electronic monsters up to God-knows-what. What's more, it may not be just Russia that uses them. If the same follows with submarine drones as followed in the aircraft industry, pretty soon the police, intelligence and other agencies will want them too. We could see robotic underwater spies in rivers lakes and reservoirs right here in England. With the advancement of technology and miniaturization how long will it be before the surveillance state will have autonomous devices that can swim along sewers and water pipes to invade your home and spy on you? This gives me a creepy feeling. Imagine looking down into a toilet bowl and seeing a fibre optic camera staring up at you.

Sunday 25 January 2015

Deindustrialization Confession

I've come across an article, thanks to my friend and fellow researcher Heidi King, which is a review of an episode of the BBC TV series The Human Universe. This is presented by... of course!... Prof. Brian Cox. It's currently available on BBCi Player: I've not seen the episode yet, but was interested to read what the critic said; this is Dave Darby writing for the environmental website It takes the form of an open letter to Prof. Cox. It is extremely revealing about the environmental movement. The author wishes to comment on two points Cox made, about democracy and nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion is a subject I've covered before and it is an experimental method of energy generation through fusing hydrogen nuclei, as opposed to nuclear fission which is the splitting of uranium nuclei. Fusion is said to have advantages over fission because it is cleaner and safer, see: Dave Darby quite rightly points out Cox' rather naive pronouncements on democracy and explains that the real power lies with a superclass; as regular HPANWO readers know, that's what I'm always saying too. However the really remarkable bit in when Darby goes on to give his views on nuclear fusion. Like many greens, with a lowercase G and a capital one, he laments about the length of time it's taking to develop the process. Cox has pointed out that fusion "works!" yet the enormous engineering challenges have made many feel doubtful because of the extremely long delay for it. The scale and urgency of the Earth's energy problems, whether real or perceived, mean that fusion is seen as effectively useless. This is an argument I'm familiar with; however the next thing Darby says is almost without precedent. He claims that the advent of useable and widespread nuclear fusion power could threaten democracy and degrade the environment. That's a new one on me. See:

Dave Darby says that by introducing nuclear fusion into the world as it is, humanity will suddenly have access to far more energy than ever before and this will generate massive economic growth, which will mean more human activity like road-building, holiday resorts, cars, mines, second homes and factories etc. This will cause even more displacement of nature than that which it currently suffers. This is completely at odds with a most of the current environmentalist rhetoric which focuses almost exclusively on the problem of Carbon™ emissions and climate change. If we can get those licked, so they say, we home and dry, see: The only other ecologist I've heard utter the same position as Darby is Erik Pianka, the great depopulator. He is so misanthropic that he calls Homo sapiens "Homo saps!" and thinks that we shouldn't have nuclear fusion because we'd just use it to level mountains, see: Darby says that nuclear fusion would only be safe in the hands of a "steady state" economy, one based on zero growth; this would be an economy managed to stay "within nature’s limits". He says: "The introduction of fusion into an economy whose only purpose seems to be to increase in size could be a very different, and dangerous matter." Darby then goes on to talk about some other issues that I agree with him on, like fusion energy being taken over by a few mega corporations, as if that isn't already the case with fossil fuels. He's also an opponent of GMO's in an age where major environmental spokesmen are being foolishly seduced by the idea, like Mark Lynas, see: He also attempts to dampen Prof. Cox' ardour for space exploration, not least because rockets are very environmentally unfriendly. However he also feels we need to get our own house in order first before heading out to mess up other planets. What amazes me about Dave Darby's letter to Cox is that fact that he is effectively confessing something that few ecologists do, an open call for global deindustrialization. This means a reversal of the industrial revolution and a return to agrarian society, small scale production, generating electricity locally and organizing politically on a small scale. To be fair, I'm drawn to some aspects of that model; however it is a theory with a dark and light side. The end of the New World Order and the dawn of the post-Illuminati era will inevitably mean a slowdown and eventual halt of many mass centralized industries, simply because they're caused by pathological consumerism. This process will happen naturally; the same goes for decentralizing power. However a very superficially similar model is also proposed by the supporters of that very New World Order; a perverted and warped version of it in which a greatly reduced human population exists under the complete control of a global tyranny with a planned resource-based economy. This is actually a very extreme form of communism. The removal of unnatural and malevolent government in itself will be enough to prevent the nightmare Darby fears. Humans are social creatures and we will regulate our own activity naturally, if left to our own devices. Therefore I warn Dave Darby not to become harnessed to the various movements which use people's fear of ecological destruction to fool them into taking part in a scheme for a globalist dictatorship, the Club of Rome, Agenda 21 etc. As for Prof. Brian Cox, he will allow himself to be used for whatever propaganda the producers of his TV shows want, see here for more details: This issue has got me thinking. I've talked a lot before about a plan to suppress free energy; is it possible that some people behind that conspiracy are environmentalists like Dave Darby? Sure I know nuclear fusion is not technically free energy, but it is very similar in that it will greatly increase energy output with none of the costs and practical concerns of the fossil fuel infrastructure. Their fears of free energy could be similar to Darby's fears of a world run on nuclear fusion. See here for more details:

Saturday 24 January 2015

Eyes in Outer Space

Eyes in Outer Space is a short futuristic documentary by Walt Disney, made in association with the US Department of Defence in 1959. It's directed by Ward Kimball, one of Disney's most famous colleagues, the man behind films like Snow White and Dumbo. The narrator is none other than Walt Disney himself. It's currently available on YouTube, see: Partly live-action and partly animated, this twenty-five minute production is primarily about the weather. It explains what causes extreme weather, and illustrates the suffering and destruction it wreaks. It then paints a picture of the future in which satellites in space would one day help us to monitor and predict the weather. This is of course is a familiar reality today. Another prophesy it makes is that one day a global network will control the weather using high technology. The viewer is shown an imaginary scenario in which a hurricane is heading towards the eastern seaboard of the USA, a common threat in that region, and operators at a "world weather control centre" use various methods to deflect it back out into the Atlantic Ocean. They move a ridge of high pressure towards to coast to create a barrier against the hurricane; this can be done by deepening two depressions on either side of it, one in the central United States and one is eastern Canada. Chemicals are sprayed from the ground into the two stormy depressions. They're also deposited in the air at high altitude by "robot planes", what we'd nowadays call drones, chemtrails in other words. They also launch rockets which explode in the path of the hurricane, generating artificial clouds which block the suns rays from shining on the sea and fuelling the hurricane. In order to prevent flooding in the two depressions the control centre dispatches more drones to spread the storm out and dissipate its effects. This operation involves massive electrodes sticking up into the sky to charge the atmosphere with electromagnetic energy; just like HAARP. They are helped by the crew of a manned space station in low Earth orbit. After more rockets are shot into the hurricane clouds the storm finally moves out to sea where it can blow itself out harmlessly.

At the end of the film Disney states: "In the world of tomorrow, weather control will enrich and safeguard our daily lives." He goes on to predict that deserts can be made lush and fertile and frozen lands warmer. In one way this film, made fifty-six years ago, is very perceptive. We do indeed use rockets and satellites in weather forecasting and climatology. However the weather control scenes still look distinctly like science fiction. However are they? Has weather control not been realized in the same way, or has it just been realized in secret? After all when Eyes in Outer Space was made weather modification was obviously being discussed openly. HAARP is very real, and more and more people are wondering what its true purpose is. The same goes for chemtrails, which are essentially what is described in the film. Are we having our weather and climate controlled by artificial means? I think so. The idea of geoengineering is becoming semi-mainstream. It's being addressed seriously; plans are being made and some academic institutions are offering courses in geoengineering, primarily the Oxford Martin School, see (from about eleven minutes in): These courses are only theoretical naturally, but they could be a way for "talent scouts" in the real geoengineering projects to pick out dedicated, desperate and discreet new recruits. When the Disney film was made the science of weather modification was completely in the public light. It must be obvious to anybody watching Eyes in Outer Space that surely the same technology used to drive a hurricane away from the United States could also be used to drive one towards an enemy nation. Therefore weather control could become a very potent weapon of war. It's not a conspiracy to say that it has been developed and even deployed in action; experiments date back to the 18th century. During the Vietnam War American forces initiated "Project Popeye", a highly classified mass cloud seeding programme along the western borders of Vietnam to increase the monsoon rains and flood out the Viet Cong's supply routes from the North. The roads of the "Ho Chi Minh Trail" were all washed away or covered with landsides; bridges were destroyed, paths were inundated by swollen rivers and the supply routes cut off. The British government did cloud seeding experiments in the 1940's and 50's called "Project Cumulus". I've spoken before about how I suspect this was the cause of the Lynmouth Disaster, see:, but can it ever be proved? Maybe one day. I would say that Eyes in Outer Space is an important historical document that could be used in investigation into cases like Lynmouth. What about other similar events? Was Hurricane Katrina one of these attacks? If so was it accidental or deliberate? FEMA certainly used the disaster to exercise its civil emergency powers. Peter Robbins has also explained in his book Left at East Gate which he co-wrote with Larry Warren, that the Great Storm of 1987 which destroyed much of Rendlesham Forest, was not natural. The BBC weatherman Michael Fish infamously commented the day before that no hurricane was coming, so this was not one predictable by the Met Office which was monitoring natural weather patterns, see: We also have the strange behaviour of Hurricane Erin which turned very sharply away from the striking New England and New York City on September the 11th 2001. Is this because of the 9/11 attacks? I think so. As Dr Judy Wood and Andrew Johnson have discovered, the kind of weaponry used to destroy the World Trade Centre also has an effect on weather, see: There are no conclusive answers here, but this mountain of coincidences and historical silences leads us to be very wary. (Thanks to Tiberius Kirk for bringing this to my attention.)

Friday 23 January 2015

Leon Brittan Silenced?

The former Home Secretary Leon Lord Brittan has died at the age of seventy-five. The Conservative peer served in Margaret Thatcher's cabinet from her election in 1979 until 1986 when he resigned over a scandal related to the defence contractor Westland. However I believe that the Westland Affair was a triviality compared to other matters that have come to light in more recent years. As I detail in the background links below, Geoffrey Dickens MP, now also dead, handed Brittan a dossier containing the names of MP's allegedly involved in the organized sexual abuse of children. He naturally trusted the Home Secretary to take action because he is the minister responsible for law and order, but Brittan never did. In fact it wasn't until 2013 that the British government made any formal statement on the issue. Brittan's death comes shortly after a story announcing that the supposed "independent inquiry" into Dickens' accusations will once again be delayed due to a public statement made by the former chair of the investigation... the second former chair that is... Baroness Butler-Sloss, see: The principle witness to the investigation... should it ever happen... would naturally be Lord Brittan. Now of course that will not be an option. He has taken whatever secrets he knew to his grave. So is there anything suspicious about Leon Brittan's death? Was he killed because, to coin a phrase, he knew too much? It's impossible to prove. People do just die, in fact everybody does at some point. Brittan was in his mid seventies and had been suffering from cancer. It's similar with Robin Cook, Tony Blair's Foreign Secretary who resigned in protest over the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Shortly afterwards he went out for a walk and died of a heart attack. Should that worry us? After all he was almost sixty and heart disease is the most common cause of death for men of his age group? There is no direct evidence of foul play in either Cook's case of Brittan's. However the timing of their demise was very opportune in both instances. There are people breathing a huge sigh of relief right now because Leon Brittan is dead. They've been extremely fortunate; if these really are powerful and influential people, would they really be satisfied to leave such serendipity to Lady Luck? What do you think would hold them back from assassinating Brittan? Morals? There was also a curious turn of events in which Brittan was recently questioned by the police over an incident that took place in 1967. A woman came forward and accused Brittan of raping her at an address in London, see the background links below. Again, is that just pure coincidence? There is no answer at this point; we only have speculation based on the convenient nature of this turn of events. However it's perfectly possible that Leon Lord Brittan was murdered; there are plenty of people with the means, motive and opportunity.

Thursday 22 January 2015

Je suis Tom

Tom Crawford is a loving family man from Nottingham with a wife and children. He bought his house over twenty-seven years ago in good faith. He's a hard-working, law-abiding citizen who has recently suffered from cancer. While lying in his sickbed his alleged creditors, The Bradford and Bingley Finance Group plc, tried to repossess his home because of an act of fraud on their part. Due to a pathetic technicality he lost his court case and bailiffs have since harassed him, trying to kick him and his wife out of their home. In July last year the local bailiffs tried to evict Tom and his family, but a huge crowd of well-wishers gathered outside to forcibly prevent the bailiffs from entering. Among them was my friend and fellow radio show host Lisa Sunkmanitu Wakan, see: The cowardly little bullies that make up the bailiffs company were sent packing. However they're coming back. Tomorrow, January the 23rd, there will be another attempt to evict Tom and his wife from their home. If you can get there, please go and defend him again. I can't go myself, sorry. I wish I could, but no matter. I can spread the word to those who are able to go. The address is 3 Fearn Chase, Carlton, Nottingham, NG4 1DN. The action will begin some time about 10 AM. This is extremely important. Tom's daughter Amanda Pike has made a statement about her parents' predicament:

Morning, everyone! May I first start by saying "thank you!" so very much for the support we are getting its absolutely amazing and just all round lovely!... But, as much as we appreciate each and every one of you, we need more. Secondly, this may be a little long, but please bear with me. I'm just a girl trying my best to help my mum and dad when they need me most. I'm speaking from the heart because I need you to see how much we need you. On the eviction day last time, some reporters attended and were just so so lovely and for that we couldn't be more appreciative. It was reported in so many of the newspapers, and made it onto the television; it really did give us hope and for that we are eternally grateful. We have been told a few may attend next Friday which is totally amazing, and of course we are massively grateful again; so if you are a reporter reading this, please do feel free to contact myself if you needed more information. Okay so the thing is, I need help with ideas and who to contact, whether that be on Facebook or Twitter (Ah the demon in my personal, not remotely tech-savvy head... I'm just rubbish with it, ha ha!). So if anyone can help with that side of it; I'm not even sure who to Tweet or what pages to post on but, any is better then none. I'm not just talking the press, but maybe famous personalities, or parties or businesses. I don't know, I'm probably rambling, but we have six days including today until Friday, so it isn't very long at all. This isn't any old plight, my parents will be made homeless; I mean properly they'll loose everything they have paid for, if Bradford and Bingley succeed. All we need is for people to help us and the powers-that-be to listen and look at our evidence, and stop this! Bradford and Bingley, now Asset management resolution, do this numerous times a day. This is second nature to them, in fact their CEO Richard Banks (who is aware of our situation because Dad has written to him personally) says he does it for peoples' own sake. Well in our case it certainly is not helping us. (I'm actually at a loss to think of anyone eviction would help!) We have paid in full, its not our fault they cocked up and don't want to admit it, and fess up to making a mistake... but it is never to late! I'd guess that some people involved in the decision-making of our case, even down to bailiffs and the police, may see us as a pain. How dare we try to stop this! Others involved may tell themselves that the bank has to be right and see us as a challenge to win, and make a point to the world. But ask to see my dad, he will gladly sit down and show you our proof. We might be seen as trouble makers, we should toe the line and do as we are told, but... why should we when we have paid in full? In fact Bradford and Bingley actually owe us money. All we are doing is trying to keep a roof over heads and keep safe. We lawfully own a teeny tiny spot in this world of ours that comes in the shape of 3 Fearn Chase and we cant let that go. We have too many memories here and have had to many laughs and tears to just let people take it from us, when we have done nothing wrong. Not to mention the fact we are one and a half years over the end of our twenty-five year mortgage! You may be thinking, you know people came last time, they don't need me; honestly, hand on heart, that couldn't be further from the truth. Of course we need you. If this was your mum and dad, your nan or granddad or your neighbour would you sit back and let this happen? I know you wouldn't, because having seen for myself I know ninety-nine percent of people out there are good. You don't want to see innocent people out on the street, in the cold left with nothing; who have already been through so much. All Bradford and Bingley had to do was admit they made a mistake and leave us be, I just don't understand. I will never understand. The more people that find out about this the better. I have watched my mum and dad return home from work every day exhausted. Over the years I watched my mum and dad upset and stressed trying to make ends meet, which they always managed, but often going without to make sure we had a meal, I have also seen what this has done to both of them. My father, as you know, hasn't been well of late and in the thick of all this nearly died numerous times, which they knew about but didn't care. He is improved, but he is most defiantly still recovering and my mother has had to bare the brunt of all this and it has taken its toll on her. It's heart-wrenching for me and my brother and sister to see. We got seven days notice, seven days to pack up a home of twenty-seven years. Why were we given so little time?... At a guess, so that we couldn't get help, but how wrong they were huh? What they don't realise is that we have you.

Our new friends and family... we have people who know right from wrong and we have determination. We won't be terrorised, we won't be bullied and we will get justice. If we give up what kind of people would we be? Many people have been driven to giving up, they can be forgiven for that, we understand but not us, never!... We are not just doing this for us we are doing this for others... someone has to, because this cannot go on any longer. Please, I will beg if I have to, help us get the word out, Tweet people, post on Facebook pages and groups, tell your friends and family. We will get this to court one way or another and you are alllll welcome to join us that day, because it is coming. Good has to beat these crooks. We only have you and each other to help us. Legislations and laws are being totally ignored and disregarded in our case and we don't know why, we can prove one hundred percent that what is happening is unlawful. We are not a big corporation, nor are we rich, but what we are rich in is heart and guts and love, and with these things we will fight this until our last breath, because it's wrong. They have taken enough of my parents' lives, so for them and others going through this, this has to stop. As Dad says, come and stand with us in solidarity, and I'll say, we'd be ever so grateful x. Join us at 10am on Jan the 23rd 2015 for peaceful support at 3 Fearn Chase, Carlton, Nottingham. NG4 1DN

What is it that makes a man become a bailiff? It's insane and obscene when you think about it. The poet Heathcote Williams used the term "blind dwarves" to refer to whalers, but it could equally well apply to bailiffs. To think that somebody would deliberately join a profession which involves robbing their own people? It may be a cliche, but it is literally like a turkey investing in the Christmas industry. They're no better than the Kapos, the guards in Nazi Germany employed to protect the Auschwitz camp and the Jewish ghettoes, even though they themselves were often Jews. The irony is that bailiffs themselves need a place to live; they have fraudulent mortgages too. If they default then their own colleagues will turn up at their door to kick them out into the street. Does it really have to go that far before these mindless goons develop a conscience and intellect? So much oppression and injustice goes on because it's committed by people who are "just doing my job, mate!"
Lisa has done a special show about this case on her station Cry Freedom Radio, see:

Wednesday 21 January 2015

Rainbow Common Wealth Eviction

In Lyminster, West Sussex there's an abandoned set of buildings that used to be a garden centre called Meadview Nursery. Because these buildings were left unused local people and ecological activists decided to take them over and build a thriving community centre. They've been growing organic food in the greenhouses and a cafe in one of the old chicken sheds. They also have plans for a home-schooling centre and an art gallery. However the council have labelled them as "squatters" and want to evict them. The people using the old buildings are creating a loving and empowering local community centre based on environmentally friendly principles, and the government want to take it away from them. The people have set up a Facebook page appealing for help, see: Apparently the council want to sell the land for development; an industrial estate would take its place. My first guess was a McDonalds Drive-Thru or a Tescos store. Actually it wouldn't have surprised me if the government wanted to evict the "squatters" anyway out of sheer bloody-mindedness, or out of fear for the independence and freedom they bring. The authorities are terrified of people who are creative, free-thinking, outspoken and take action on their principles and words. As always it is not just the economic and political that they're concerned about, but also the artistic and spiritual. No doubt the usual lies are being spouted about "illegal occupation by freeloaders" and how an industrial estate would "bring jobs to the town"; yes minimum wages and JSA slavery that strips the local economy of its prosperity. The government know what will happen if the idea catches on; people everywhere will start growing their own food, teaching their own children and even using their own money, see: State power over us is dependent on voluntary compliance. You may wonder what you can do to help. You might not have the means to travel to the location and help, I can't right now either; but this doesn't mean we can't support these people. Do what I'm doing and spread the word! There's another activism event I'd love to help out with but can't; Tom Crawford, the Nottingham cancer patient is going to be harassed by bailiffs again this Friday, the 23rd of January, see: However, this doesn't mean I'm helpless even though I can't be there. The same goes for Meadview. Be there! But if you can't be there, just tell everybody you can.
There is a personal connotation for me connecting garden centres to nonconformism, subversion and rebellion, see:

Tuesday 20 January 2015

David Icke vs Sonia Poulton

I intend this article to be as short as possible. I hope it will be the last time I have to write one like it, but of course it won't be; therefore I plan to expend as little time and energy as possible on it, the exact opposite of a lot of other people's intentions in the Truth movement. If you need more information then read the background links. I've been aware of this issue for some time but have only just decided to comment for the reasons I go into below and in those background links. In the aftermath of the downfall of The People's Voice, regrettably but predictably, fingers began pointing. Why had it happened? Who was to blame? Where's the donation money gone? David Icke himself was one of the first to speak publicly, see: The principle antagonist in David's narrative of the TPV debacle is Sonia Poulton, an independent journalist who, unlike most of her fellow newsmen, speaks openly about conspiratorial ideas. She has struck back vocally against David Icke's accusations, see:, and: As always, I leave HPANWO readers to look at both sides and make up their own minds up. The point here is not who's right and who's wrong, the point is that again... yet again... we have a personal dispute that has snowballed into a fully blown truth mob. Once again a cluster of supporters are gathering around both figures waving placards and throwing paving stones at each other. Once again both sides expect everybody else to join in. Once again, they will try to press-gang the undecided masses into adopting their cause, often by using rhetoric, moral blackmail, threats and insults to force compliance. It wouldn't be so bad if they at least behaved sensibly and respectfully towards others. But no, you have to join one side or the other; "you're either with us or with them!" Anybody who doesn't want to get involved, like me, is immediately accused of indecision and weakness. Either that or one side will assume that you're on the other by default. Here's an example: The other day I was invited to join a Facebook group called David Icke is Full of Shit!; when I declined I was immediately branded with the label of "not wanting to hear alternative views!" about my "messiah!". Messiah? Do I really need to explain what a ridiculous and unfair thing that is to say? Regular HPANWO readers know very well about my changing viewpoint and mixed feelings related to David Icke because of my review of his recent Wembley lecture, see: Why on Earth would anybody claim that David is my messiah? It's because the person who said that is a supporter of Sonia Poulton. I've not said a bad word about Sonia Poulton, in fact the only time I've referenced her at all in the past was to praise her, see:, but it doesn't matter. Because I've not joined her "side!" in this one-to-one tussle she's having with David Icke. I am therefore completely against her, and religiously and devotedly supporting David Icke. In a truth mob every point is polarized; in fact it's only a matter of time before supporters of David's "side!" will accuse me of being an Icke-basher, of being of his ex-wife Pam's accomplice, of sexually fancying Sonia Poulton, or of working for Richard Warman's legal campaign against David. You see? Polarization! Truth mobs are not capable of rational analysis and discourse; everything is black and white. You're either with them or against them, see: Unfortunately truth mobbing is taking up a huge amount of time and energy that could be spent more productively, and this situation is getting worse. The background articles below on Danielle la Verite, Kevin Annett and Darren Perks have had some of the highest viewing figures, and the most comments, of anything I've ever posted. There are even certain people within our community who now do nothing else except truth mobbing. They've effectively appointed themselves the amateur armchair policemen of the conspirasphere.

What I find even sadder and more insulting is when I'm accused of cowardice, indecision and betrayal, by both sides of course, because I won't drop everything else I'm doing and answer their call to arms. I have a few questions for those people. If I do as you ask and join in your crusade, then I won't be able to help with the geoengineering campaign, like I did here: If I do as you ask and join in your crusade, then I won't be able to spread the word about children being abused in care homes, see: If I do as you ask and join in your crusade then I won't be able to host the Exopolitics events, see: If I do as you ask and join in your crusade then I won't be able to make films about the erosion of free society, like this one: Make no mistake, this is what you are asking of me! I promise! I swear! When we beat this New World Order I will dedicate five years of my life to writing a multi-volume epic about who is a shill and who's not, who did tit and who did tat, who's the king of the castle and who's the dirty rascal; I give you my word! But when I see those white lines in the sky, false flag terrorism, GMO crops growing through the gaps between the bricks in our houses, children being murdered, our economy being pickaxed into depression... I hope you will understand if until then I reprioritize somewhat.

Friday 16 January 2015

Ben Emlyn˗Jones live at TruthJuice Nottingham

I will be speaking at Truthjuice Nottingham on Wednesday the 4th of March at the Burton Road Community Centre or Phoenix Boxing Club, Burton Road, Gedling, Nottingham, NG4 3GN, starting 7.30 PM.
In 1944 the psychic medium Helen Duncan was put on trial under the two hundred year old Witchcraft Act of 1735 because she was accused of defrauding the public by staging a fake seance. Was she really a fake medium? Or was something more complicated and furtive going on, something related to espionage and wartime security? Her many gifts of clairvoyance, clairaudience and precognition have all been overshadowed by the publicity relating to the physical materialisation side of her mediumship.
See here for more detailsĖ

Wednesday 14 January 2015

Saturn 3

Saturn 3 is a 1980 science fiction thriller produced by Lew Grade. Despite being a British production filmed at Shepperton Studios it has an all American cast; and the director, Stanley Donan, is also American. The screenplay was penned by none other than Martin Amis, a name very much associated with highbrow literature whom I wouldn't thought would stoop to pulp sci-fi; but maybe that's just my prejudice showing. The film was trashed by the critics; complaints were made about its rather homespun production design and special effects. The starscapes and planets are clearly just crude matt paintings; very primitive even for 1980. Compared to Star Wars from four years earlier it looks very bargain basement. Personally I don't give a damn what "duh cwitics" say, see:; also good visual effects are not essential for good science fiction; Blakes 7, a contemporary of Saturn 3, is a prime example, see: The style of Saturn3, especially in terms of its costumes, is rather kitsch and camp and distinctly reminiscent of the overtly gay Flash Gordon movie from the same year. What I consider Saturn 3 to be is a very interesting, but deeply disturbing film; and its themes are very relevant to the world we're living in today.
It's currently available on YouTube, see:

The film is set several centuries in the future. Earth is overpopulated, the environment is degraded and there's a major food shortage. At the same time space travel has become very advanced and mankind has begun to venture to the other planets of the solar system. On the third moon of the planet Saturn is an agricultural research centre. In the film the moon is always called "Saturn 3", but its name is actually Tethys. The centre is staffed by just two people, a man called Adam and his wife Alex. They also have a dog, a small border terrier called Sally. Adam and Alex are both empaths and love each other very much. Their lives are totally isolated and carefree. The biblical metaphor is very obvious and I'm glad the writer didn't go as far as to overdo it and call the woman Eve. Adam, played by Kirk Douglas, is much older than Alex, played by Farrah Fawcett. He's in his sixties while Alex is in her early twenties. Alex has lived a very sheltered life and she knows little of what lies beyond the research station; she was born in space and has never been to Earth. Adam has been out in space a long time but was born on Earth and lived there in his youth. Then a snake enters the garden. Adam and Alex' work is behind schedule so the organization behind the station sends somebody to assist them, Captain Benson, played by Harvey Keitel (His voice is that of Roy Dotrice, today best known as Hallyne in Game of Thrones). His arrival, in an insectoid landing spacecraft, totally changes the atmosphere of the station. In the beginning of the film it is revealed that he is a psychopath who murdered a fellow astronaut on the mother ship from Earth. He brings with him the modules of a new kind of robot, called the "Demigod series", and begins to assemble it. He behaves in a very antisocial manner; he hacks into the centre's CCTV and secretly monitors Alex and Adam. He feels an intense lust for Alex... perhaps understandably seeing as her actress is Farrah Fawcett... but his romantic seduction techniques have a lot to be desired: His only chat-up line is: "You have a great body; may I use it?" He explains that on Earth people have all adopted free love and it's common courtesy for a hostess to have sex with a male guest. He also gives her some drugs. This naturally makes Adam angry. He also feels insecure because of the age difference between Alex and himself. Benson knows this and plays on it; he hints at Adam: "When the robot is assembled one of you will be obsolete." At several points Adam and Alex contemplate murdering Benson, but their empathic nature stops them. Benson continues to work on the robot. He calls it "Hector"; as it takes shape we see that it is vaguely humanoid with a metallic ribbed body, long legs and claw like hands. Inside it is human brain tissue wiped of all its memory which is its CPU; plastic tubes of liquid flow through it too, giving it a semi-biological mien. It has no voice and just makes sinister mechanical noises; when it gets angry it makes a disgusting electronic pulsing sound like a transhumanist heartbeat. It has a diminutive head that looks like an angle-poise lamp. It is probably the most frightening fictional robot I have ever seen. Benson programmes Hector with a duplicate of his own mind using a brain-to-machine interface. It turns out he has an implant in the back of his neck into which he inserts a plug connecting him with Hector's system. Because Hector and Benson effectively share the same consciousness Hector is equally sadistic and cold as Benson. It is devoid of a sense of humour and becomes enraged when Adam beats it at chess. It also becomes obsessed with Alex. It begins its rampage by killing Sally the dog; for no other reason than it can, in true psychopath style. It then tries to kill Benson. Once again empathy saves the psychopath; Adam is tempted not to, but in the end rescues Benson from the robot. When the robot tries to recharge itself Adam overloads the socket and stuns Hector long enough for Benson to remove its brain and dismantle its modules.

Once the crisis is over Adam goes berserk at Benson and promises to report him. The humans go to bed while the robot lies in the laboratory in pieces. Yet the brain and cameras are still active and during the night, Hector commandeers the station's existing robots, just simple automata, to reconstruct its body. In the meantime Benson arrogantly walks into Adam and Alex' bedroom. He says: "I'm leaving, and I'm taking your partner with me!" When Adam object Benson taunts him about his age difference from Alex and Adam attacks him. Only Alex' pleading stops him killing Benson. Benson then knocks Adam out with a blunt instrument, grabs Alex and tries to drag her to his spacecraft, but the newly revived Hector intervenes. It severs Benson's hand and drags his unconscious body away. Alex and Adam then head for Benson's spaceship to try and escape; being chased by Hector all the way. At one point they push Hector into an acid pit and it comes out covered in slime, making it look even more repulsive and terrifying. Unfortunately the robot destroys Benson's spacecraft before the two humans can reach it. With their escape route cut off Adam and Alex discover the full horror of what the robot has done. Hector has decapitated Benson and placed his head on top of its own body, so creating a new interface with Benson's dead brain. The Hector-Benson gestalt monster is now in control of the station and is using Adam and Alex as slaves cum guinea pigs for its experiments. Adam falls unconscious and wakes up to discover he has an interface socket in the back of his neck just like the one Benson used to have. But when the monster tries to connect Adam up to itself Adam detonates a bomb he has concealed in his pocket blowing up the monster and himself. In the final scene, Alex boards a spaceship for Earth.
There are several themes in Saturn 3 which concern me. One is that it includes the fear of overpopulation, food shortage and environmental damage leading to the need for heavy industrial scientific intervention. We're told that the agricultural research station on Saturn 3 is involved in hydroponics, the growing of plants without soil, but it's not revealed whether Adam and Alex are developing genetically modified crops or not. There's also the element of transhumanism, the very subject Ray Kurzweil waxes lyrical over, as if it's the perfect way forward and it can bring nothing but wonder and glory to humanity. Hector is exactly the kind of robot predicted at the advent of the Singularity, see: An intelligent machine with a computational power equal to the human brain, which can connect directly to a biological brain and download information and even the personality of the human being it's wired to. In the end man and machine become one in a revolution which ends natural humanity as we know it. Transhumanist proponents assume that only good can come out of this technology without understanding that the interests of the political classes and those of the masses are often divergent and contradictory. The reckless naivete of Kurzweil could lead to a situation in which most of us are not so much immortal robots or Aryan supermen, but rather disposable slaves, mutant subhumans, Epsilons from Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, or the "superchimps" from Arthur C Clarke's fiction. And all living in a deformed and diseased world, a new world, the New World Order; as Max Igan correctly points out in his outstanding film on transhumanism, see: Saturn 3 also illustrates the duel between empaths and psychopaths. Unlike other productions, most notably TavistockEnders, there is no anti-empathic propaganda in the film. There are occasions where Adam and Alex' empathy puts them at a disadvantage; they have an opportunity to flush Benson out of the station into space and do not do so, and also a chance to let the robot kill him while he's helpless but they still rescue him. Yet in the end the Hector-Benson gestalt is destroyed by Adam's empathy. He sacrifices himself to save Alex; the psychopathic gestalt is disarmed by failing to understand how somebody could do this because it's a psychopath which only understands self-interest. In the scene where Adam and Hector are playing chess there's a hint at what's to come; Adam beats the robot by sacrificing one of his pieces, a tactic Hector hadn't thought of. Saturn 3 also contains a reference to the Fall of Man. I'm not religious and don't believe in the story in the Book of Genesis, but there are many other ancient texts with a similar plot; humans a long time ago enjoyed a higher state of spiritual awareness and then that all changed. We descended into the Kali Yuga, world of Rex Mundi or the Age of Iron, depending on your source. This is generally regarded as a "bad thing!", but on a philosophical level it could be argued that it's just a part of the natural cycles of the universe. Perhaps in fact we're lucky to be able to take part in the drama of adversity that takes place in the world after the Fall of Man; paradise might get a bit boring after a while. Whatever your opinion, this transition is symbolized in the storyline of Saturn 3; Adam and Alex fall when Benson comes into their lives. All in all, a terrifying but fascinating film, a prophesy of the New World Order, and a warning. However, like Adam and Alex, we are not helpless; we have the capability of stopping it.

Monday 12 January 2015


Have you ever found yourself in a disagreement with somebody, your boss at work, a bloke in a pub, a spouse or family member, a Skeptic online, and listening to their replies to your points suddenly makes you feel like you're being tied up in knots, kaleidoscopic spectacles have been forced in front of your eyes and you're being rotated on a roundabout until you're completely dizzy? If so then you're definitely not alone. Why is that? Debate should be a simple matter shouldn't it? The philosophical rules of logic and reductionism were worked out over two thousand years ago by the ancient Greeks; more recently during the Renaissance and Enlightenment these rules were refined. Today there are even debating clubs, the most famous being the Oxford Union. Debate shouldn't be a complicated and illusive thing: a proposal is presented, a contester explains why the proposal is incorrect and the proposer can counter-contest if he has a suitable argument, and this cycle repeats for as long as the debaters need or wish to continue. This is always done using the basic laws of reason; it's how (ideally) law courts operate and Parliament. The winner is the side who can produce the superior context for whatever is under discussion. This process is one that everybody carries out continuously in our interactions with each other. It's essential for human society because it is how we form a consensus about what is true or false, right or wrong, possible or impossible. If that process is ever perverted then how do we know what's real or not? This is an important question because unfortunately it is often perverted and that perversion is sometimes difficult to define and expose. I really love debating; for me it's a kind of spectator sport, and a sport I regularly participate in myself. One of the masters, now sadly no longer with us, was Christopher Hitchens, see: This is why I run the HPANWO Forum, see links column. Since the rise of Facebook these good old-fashioned internet forums have fallen into disuse; that's a pity I think. I always debate according to the rules; I can't deviate from them, maybe because I suffer from an empathic disorder (and it is a disorder; more on that another day). Also I have never been trained in the alternatives and I don't want to be. 

"Alternatives?" I hear you ask; "what do you mean, Ben?" I think you know what I mean; you have just never thought to put it into words. There are many ways the rules of debating can be bent or broken to make it falsely appear like the one who breaks them is winning. The methods of "pseudo-debate" have also been studied and categorized. In some cases this happened a long time ago; the book The Art of Being Right by Arthur Schopenhauer was written in 1831, see: This was actually meant to be a sarcastic parody of pseudo-debate, but it includes a lot of information that has been taken seriously and inspires pseudo-debaters to this day. Interestingly, before I read that book I had already independently identified a lot of the same points Schopenhauer does. I began this HPANWO Forum thread to describe a few in my own way: This is a big subject and very difficult to describe, but I'll try. As luck, or synchronicity, would have it, there has recently been a cluster of situations that illustrate this issue in my life. The best method I can use is give examples of some pseudo-debating techniques.
1. Excessive rhetoric
Proposer: "9/11 was an inside job."
Contester: "How can you be so cruel to the weeping heartbroken families of the three thousand innocent people who died on that terrible day!? Have you no shame!? Why can't you show them some respect!?"
Did you spot pseudo-debating? The contester is not actually explaining why he thinks 9/11 was not an inside job. What he is doing is criticizing the proposer on a purely personal level, trying to make him feel that merely stating the proposition, that 9/11 was an inside job, is inherently immoral. This is an attempt to undermine the proposer's morale, to make them feel intimidated and full of self-doubt, and therefore less proficient when it comes to their turn to make a counter-rebuttal. In my own experience this week I encountered another prime example. I was told that it's my fault if children die because I wouldn't join the anti-Kevin Annett campaign, see:
2. Ad hominem
Proposer: "The Apollo moon landings were faked."
Contester: "Why should we believe you? You were convicted of shoplifting in 1969."
In this case the contester is diverting the issue away from the subject at hand and making the audience look at the character of the proposer and not his argument. This is very similar to the excessive rhetoric pseudo-debate; both violate the proposer and both distract the conversation away from the point. A regular ad hominem used against conspiracy researchers is: "You're anti-Semitic!" which is a lie in most cases; it definitely is with me, see: Those using excessive rhetoric and ad hominem don't need to be truthful.
3. Sewing Confusion
These above two methods of pseudo-debate are, in various adaptations, probably the most common, but there are others. A good example happened to me on the HPANWO Forum recently. I posted a video on chemtrails with Sofia Smallstorm and this was how the Skeptic member "Reflex" replied ("Hag" is me):
"I started watching that video with the "expert" on chemtrails doing her talk. Any bets that thirty minutes of research will show that she doesn't actually know anything about the subject? I'm thinking of things such as her claims about what conditions clouds like to form in, and how far back the supposedly "new forms" were reported. I'm guessing that the cloud formations have been around for much longer than the air travel / chemtrails she's claiming are responsible for them.
Willing to take up the challenge, Hag? Could be a good test of researching skills. What I mean by 'challenge' is that you have provided a video as 'evidence' of your claims. From the few minutes I've watched of that video I am of the impression the 'evidence' is someone without a conventionally recognised reputation on a subject (but claimed to be an expert) giving a slide show.
Now this may be all well and good, and isn't a reason to discredit her opinion at all. But it is a reason to investigate her statements before accepting them as truth (because as far as we are aware, nobody else has validated her claims).
So the 'challenge' part is to take a couple of her claims which are potentially verifiable (I've already mentioned two) and do some research ourselves on their validity. I am 'challenging' you to do that. If you do some research, and agree with her, I then research as well. If I find that your research was invalid / unsubstantiated then you lose the challenge and concede that…
a) The evidence given in the video is flawed
b) Your research abilities are inadequate
c) You (and by extension, most conspiracy theorists) have a tendency to encounter information which sounds good and accept it without questioning or critical thought.
Naturally, if your research shows she is incorrect then I acknowledge your research skills (and we jointly reject the video 'evidence'). Additionally if your research backs her statements, and my research can't counter this, then I admit to being wrong about her and that you have provided me with new information I can't counter and must acknowledge as being a concern.
NB: I issue this challenge as a risk – I have not done the research yet and base my stance on personal expectations of how the conspiracy world works. As such, I am going in to this unprepared in an attempt to make it more interesting (i.e. so you have a chance).
From another personal expectation, my prediction is that you will refuse to take up the challenge and give some difficult to comprehend reason of why it wouldn't be productive.
Beez (another member), what odds will you give me on my latter prediction? Do you think Hag will put his money where his proof is this time, or do the usual 'I know I'm right but refuse to prove it' approach?"
There's an awful lot wrong with that reply; it contains some rhetoric, I'm not sure if it's excessive. It also contains a personal criticism that I consider unfair. The "I know I'm right but refuse to prove it" is an unjust characterization of me. The biggest problem is that at no point does Reflex simply tell me why he thinks Ms Smallstorm is wrong. He must have worn out his fingers typing that long monologue, and it took a long time for me to read and assimilate it. By the end of poring through it from beginning to end I may well have forgotten what the original point was. When I brought up this critique Reflex replied with another acre of text that was equally bewildering. Everything I said to him he hastily reshaped and threw straight back at me. In the end he even started chiding me for not answering his questions about Sofia Smallstorm. I very quickly became confused, flustered, bamboozled, trapped. If you read the forum thread it looks as though Reflex has won the debate against me; but this is a superficial illusion. He has proved himself the better pseudo-debater by a long stretch though. Maybe for some people that's all that matters, (source:

I've had the same problem with a former internet friend whom I've fallen out with; I go into details here: Another method of pseudo-debating is simply to hurl abuse. When I politely and diplomatically brought up my misgivings over feminism another erstwhile feminist friend "Katy", she replied thus: "Oh fuck off, Ben with your men's rights crap!" Should I include verbal violence as a pseudo-debating protocol? Yes, I think I should. By far the worst offenders when it comes to pseudo-debate are Skeptics; those who promote themselves as the ultimate arbiters of science and rationality. Here are some of the other tricks they have up their sleeve to get their way: What I think is sad is that a lot of people reading this will wonder why I'm even mentioning the subject. It's just the way things are, isn't it? They'll assume that what I call pseudo-debating is simply another form of debating; the two are really the same, aren't they? Certainly that is the prevailing view; few people understand the difference between debating and pseudo-debating. I think academia and the media encourage us to pseudo-debate. Why? For the reasons I state above. A way to keep the truth from the people is not just to hide it away where we can't see it, but to manipulate our thoughts into a form that makes us unable to comprehend the truth even on the occasions we do see it. For example, when a scientist says: "Man-made climate change is a real threat!" How do we know he has arrived at that conclusion by proper debate? Are we sure he hasn't just capitulated to excessive rhetoric, ad hominem, confusion and other forms of pseudo-debate? The same goes for whether UFO's exist, whether there is a life after death, whether the Bilderberg Group is dangerous or not. If pseudo-debate has become the normal way to do business then we're living in a world in which anything and everything could be delusion. Experts will stand on a platform and make completely bogus statements, in total sincerity, which most people will believe without question. There is no way round this except to attempt to maintain a level of sanity by not playing that dirty game. Don't stoop to the level of the pseudo-debaters just because everybody else is doing it and it's the only way you can be seen to win arguments. It might temporarily salve your ego, but it only drags the common denominator down another peg. We have to keep playing by the rules and insisting on others we interact with playing by the rules. If others don't reach that standard we must have nothing to do with them. Sure, it will look like they've "beaten you!" and they'll go back to and brag about it; just let them! I ended up posting this to Reflex: "Reflex, I give up. You've won. I cannot outmanoeuvre you. This kind of crosstalk is way beyond my abilities." There are more important matters at stake, like the chemtrails Sofia Smallstorm talks about. When I see those white lines in the sky, false flag terrorism, GMO food in our diet, children being murdered in care, our economy being pickaxed into depression... and then I look down and read epic diatribes on Facebook about who is a shill and who's not, who did tit and who did tat, who's the king of the castle and who's the dirty rascal... I shake my head and wonder. If this is the Truth movement, do we really deserve a free world?