Monday, 27 August 2007

The Lucifer Project

Arthur C Clarke wrote a trilogy of novels called the Space Odyssey. The first one, 2001, was made into the famous film by Stanley Kubrik. The second book, 2010, tells to story of a second expedition to Jupiter where the astronauts encounter the same alien intelligence that the first book and film, but this time it’s a lot more powerful. It converts all the hydrogen in Jupiter into heavier elements until a fusion reaction kicks off and Jupiter becomes a star, a second sun for the solar system, which is basically what happens in nebulae when stars form naturally. This new sun is called Lucifer- the light-bearer. The third book, 2061, is about how the new sun comes to affect the solar system and all the moons of Jupiter. I wonder how much Clarke knew about what’s really going on. He may well have been hinting at something because he worked very closely with NASA in the years preceding these books; he invented satellite technology that allows the global communication we take for granted nowadays. It’s possible that the Illuminati are trying to do this for real. Yes, create a second sun in our solar system! This plot has been nicknamed the Lucifer Project by researchers.

It’s a little known fact that modern unmanned spacecraft are partly nuclear powered. They are driven by rockets for propulsion, but the onboard electrical system is run by the energy from decaying radioactive metals, in this case plutonium, the same material used in nuclear bombs. This has caused a lot of controversy and fears over public safety. What would happen if the launch failed and the craft came down in a populated area? But, as you’ll see, this is the least of our worries. In 2003 NASA’s Galileo craft ended its mission by crashing into Jupiter at top speed. 28 days later a strange black spot appeared on the surface of the planet (This is exactly what happened in the book!) What could have happened is that Galileo triggered a nuclear explosion because its 48 pounds of plutonium fuel cells reached critical mass on entry. Question: If this is what happened, was it accidental or deliberate?

If it was deliberate, and the NASA scientists, some of them anyway, were trying to turn Jupiter into a second sun, then it seems to have failed. But they could be planning to try again with Saturn. The much publicized Cassini-Huygens mission has been in the news a lot lately, having discovered much about Saturn and its moon Titan. This craft is also nuclear powered. It is driven by 72 pounds of plutonium cells, much more than Galileo. The plan is to end Cassini’s mission in the same way that they ended Galileo’s. NASA plan to crash the probe on Saturn, or at least this is the official position:

After its primary mission ends in 2008, Cassini is already scheduled to receive one two-year mission extension, with a second one possible. NASA is targeting decommissioning of Cassini in 2012. Unlike the Galileo spacecraft, which was plunged into Jupiter to disintegrate in a fiery atmospheric entry, there are complications for a similar fate for Cassini; namely the fact that it may impact a large object within the rings and become uncontrollable. NASA is also looking into a possible high-altitude parking orbit or impact on a smaller moon where RTG contamination will not present a problem. Specifically, scientists do not want to contaminate Enceladus or Titan, which both have the possibility of organic materials, with the RTG's radioactive waste. (Source: Wikipedia)

We’ll soon see how keen they are to crash the craft. This was origianally going to happen next year, but the fact that it’s being delayed until the “Real Millenium” year of 2012 is telling. 2012 is the year predicted by the ancient Mayans as being the transition to a new phase of existance.
Why would the Illuminati want to create a second sun? I don’t know and can only guess. It could be to change the enviroment of Earth towards one that is more congenial for their power schemes; the “Eschaton” or final push for complete world domination. It could be that the suns vibes are helping to set the people free and the Illuminati want to create a second energy source of their own to counter it. Maybe the perpetrastors of this in the sapce programme are not the high Illuminati, but are doing this in secret for what they think is a different reason while the high Illuminati know the real motive for the action (a common story). It could be just one of those “because we can” scenarioes. They want to be clever and just do something for the hell of it, to show everyone what geniuses they are. We built the Channel Tunnel for this reason and all these other useless and destructive architectural projects that we just do to flex our muscles and pat ourselves on the back for being so clever (When they’re not done for ritual purposes). As what will happen to the Earth, the planets, the old sun and the people if Saturn turns into a star, I can't bring myself to even dare to speculate! If, like me, you have a respect for astrology, then Saturn becoming a star will have an undreamt of effect in the department too!

A fired of mine at work is really taking this seriously. She and her husband have packed up and left Oxford for the remote highlands of Scotland to try to avoid the outcome of the Lucifer Project. She says that we’ll know when it’s happened because the sky will turn red. I’m going to miss her actually; she’s the only person I know in my daily life whom I can talk to about the “crazy stuff”. However I think she’s climbing up the mast on a sinking ship. If the Lucifer Project happens then there’ll be nowhere on the Earth, or even the solar system, where you can hide. The only solution is for us to free ourselves by taking decisions back into our own lives rather than letting our “leaders” make them for us. If we can see through the veil of secrecy covering space agencies then we can stop the Lucifer Project.

Here's a vid on the subject:

Sunday, 26 August 2007

Stephen Greer in Nexus

How many readers read Nexus Magazine? If you don't try it!

I've just finished reading Stephen Greer's article in the current issue and it's fantastic! A perfect way to introduce newcomers to the subject of Disclosure. If it gets online I'll post a link. He says that the problem with UFO secrecy is that it's been going on for so long and it's so emeshed in a web of its own covertness that it can't escape. Dwight Eisenhower was the last US president who knew the whole story, although Kennedy, Carter and Clinton had some knowlege. (Both Bushes are completely ignorant, according to Tim Good, but Cheney is not. Reagan knew nothing although he was manipulated by those who knew the whole truth, hence the famous "threat from space" speech that someone else wrote!) UFO secrecy, according to Greer, has nothing to do with people not being able to cope with knowing that there's life out in space; most people believe in it anyway; it's to do with the dsiscovery of the technology and science of the extraterrestrials themselves and who has access to it. Disclosure will cause a revolution that has never been seen before, and it will, for the most part and for most people, be a good one. Free Energy, antigravity, space travel, an end to poverty and injustice. But it will end the dominence of the oil industry and the military-industrial complex. The Third World will become an equal of the US/European power bloc. It will alter every facet of human society, poltical, economic, military, social, religious, EVERYTHING. The powers-that-be are terrified of that!

They're also terrified of the fact that with Discolsure the people will also learn that this revolution could have happened 50 or 60 years ago! So all the poverty, injustice and enviromental destruction of the past half century have been for nothing! They could have been avoided with just a few words: "We know UFO's exist"! Will we ever trust our leaders again? The Powers-that-be know that this question is rhetorical!

BTW A friend of mine who's just fled to Scotland to avoid the Lucifer Project (I'll explain what that is later) told me that Greer is ill. Aparently he's got a brain tumour! Does anyone know anything about that? Please comment if you do.

Friday, 24 August 2007

Area 51- The Closest Encounter! This bloke must have balls of solid rock! The "Cammodudes" have yet to make someone "disappear" to my knowlege, but they are authorized to shoot you if you enter the base. The chances are they'd just arrest you and call the police, but if they were having a bad day they'd kill you and nobody would ever hear from you again. There's be no coroner's inquest, no funeral, nothing! The Cammodudes are civilian contractors- mercenaries, in other words. They are probably employed by Wakenhut, a company used in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo and known to be employed by EG&G, the company that runs much of Area 51. Wakenhut troops have a reputation for being very trigger-happy and have been implicated in several atrocity allegations. This is a good doc, but really it only scratches the surface. The experiences of Robert Frost and the other men who sued the govt over the illnesses they got working at Area 51 shows exactly what the place is: a black hole. You enter it and you cease to exist. All your legal rights are made void and what happens on the base stays on the base.
My guess is that this is fake, but I'm not 100% certain. If it is fake then the producers have learnt the lessons of the Santilli film, the famous "Alien Autopsy". They've shot the puppet in a dark studio so it's a lot harder to see detail. The rest of the stuff about aliens being interviewed etc is a lot more plausable. I recomend looking up articles and films about Phil Schneider. Unlike so many other self-styled Area 51 insiders, Schneider produces hard evidence, pictures of aliens, alien material etc. Another interesting guy is Bob Lazar. I used to have serious doubts about him, but as I listen to more and more of what he has to say, and what others have found out about him, he seems more and more credible. For instance, it turns out that Lazar really did work at Los Alamos before being deployed to Groom Lake; an initial inquirey turned up negative and I used to assume he'd made it up. But George Knapp, the reporter who first brought him out into the public view, managed to locate records of his name at the Top Secret laboratory. Here's an Art Bell radio interview with Bob Lazar:

The War on Democracy

I’ve always admired John Pilger. I respect his mission and consider myself a part of it. I’ve found his films quite upsetting; the odds we were up against seemed overwhelming. But this one is different. Yes it’s harrowing indeed, especially the descriptions of brutality in South America (This film should be compulsory viewing for those considering a career in the military, intelligence or diplomatic services), but it’s also optimistic and inspiring. You get the feeling that the corner has been turned. Things are getting better.

It’s interesting how the coup in Venezuela was triggered by a false flag operation, just like 9/11. I bet the CIA organized that shooting! Thank God for once this deception didn’t succeed! There’s an important lesson here for all of us: don’t believe the hype! Stand up for your rights! Don’t forget that it’s the populus who hold the REAL power. In the second part of the programme, about Guatemala and Chile, the CIA agent effectively admits they use false flag terrorism! “A few harmless bombings” was the euphemism. The brief interviews with the CIA agents say it all in a few words. What a stark confession! Some were openly unapologetic for it and denied the consequences of their actions as vehemently as any Auschwitz capo. It’s interesting how Margaret Thatcher supported Pinochet when he came to the UK for exile too. The painting by the Juan Delphin is one of the most incredible works of art I’ve ever seen. It’s an amazing blend of indigenous Shamanic art and political street mural. It reminds me of Neil Hague (see links).

Thursday, 23 August 2007

The Enemies of Reason- Part 2

In this second part, Richard Dawkins puts alternative healthcare under the Skeptical eye. Alternative health practitioners will claim that their methods have been scientifically tested, Skeptics will say they haven’t been. It’s up to the public to educate themselves; hear both sides of the story and make up their own minds. But any attempt to take that choice away from the consumer creates a dictatorship, and science becomes just another religion. Dawkins laments about how the NHS is funding homeopathic medicine, but why is this wrong? It would be wrong if Skeptics were the only ones who paid tax, but they're not. Non-Skeptics like me also do and to try to force the exchequer to fund things only Skeptics approve of would be undemocratic; again, making Skepticism itself no better than a religious cult. I personally use a Spiritualist hands-on healer who has cured me of backache, predicted a future back problem, and cured me of aching hips, toothache and anxiety. Skeptics will say that this doesn’t constitute a scientific test and they’d be correct, but the fact is I walked in ill and came out healed. As long as it keeps working, I’m going to keep using it… And (this bit is really going to piss off the Skeptics) the treatment is free.

I think old Dawky really needs to look into the discoveries of Maseru Emoto before dismissing homeopathy altogether.

Dawkins position of the binary choice between reason and superstition is not a universal absolute, it is strictly cultural. It is only in the West that we’ve developed this obsession with the material. EG: In Western culture there’s a clear distinction between an astrologer and an astronomer. Some might even call them opposites and claim that you can be only one or the other, but not both. However in many cultures, like ancient Egypt, there is no such distinction. The Egyptians actually have a single word in their language that translates as both “astronomer” and “astrologer”. For them there is no cultural necessity to distinguish between and separate mystical beliefs with exact scientific knowledge. In fact a modern Westerner would have a difficult time trying to explain the difference between astrologers and astronomers to an Egytian. Was ancient Egypt in any way backward or atrophied because they didn’t adopt the rational-purist view of Dawkins’ ideal? Of course not! They were one of the most advanced and rich cultures ever seen. They lead the world in all the attributes we recognize as the fruits of civilization. If they’d survived long enough they may well have invented all the wonderful things modern science has given us that Dawkins repeatedly emphasizes. They could have done it without abandoning their non-material worldview too.

Wednesday, 22 August 2007

My Dream- 20/8/07

Last night I had a dream that I was in a very down-at-heel place; an open concrete building like a car park with graffiti on the walls and rubbish everywhere. I was attacked by a gang of thugs. The leader of the pack, and the only one who spoke to me, was a very stereotypical street hoodlum: a black teenager with a hoodie and baseball cap. He slashed my arms, face and chest with a flick-knife, demanding something from me which I can’t recall; probably cash or my mobile phone. It was very vivid; I could see the wounds made very clearly and it hurt a lot. After I woke up I could still feel the pain and even checked the sites for scars.

It makes initial sense to categorize this dream as a nightmare, but was it? You see, I never gave my attackers what they wanted. I stood up to them and refused despite their violence. So maybe it was really a good dream, signifying personal empowerment and freedom from fear.

Thursday, 16 August 2007

Oxford Architecture Pictures

Sorry about the delay in getting these photoes up. I've included two new pictures that I've taken since the original survey. There's a pub opposite the records office called "The Original Swan". It's a nice place, but I've never really paid it much attention. That was a mistake, seeing as it's only 20 yards from the site of the old Knights Templar lodge. My mistake was illustrated by the shape of the shelters that have been put up over the beer garden. It's a blatent Illuminati truncated pyramid. I'll have to pop in and have a word with the landlord. Hope he doesn't kick me out for being a loony! Maybe I should just raise the subject of the shelters casualy and not tell him why I'm interested. The name is also symbolic. The swan represents the underworld, I think; I'll have to ask Ellis. The island lake in Althrop Park where Diana is buried is home to swans.

Also, note the sun disk image on the facade of the yellow-bricked building. I'll explain what the sun disk is later.

Wednesday, 15 August 2007

Richard Dawkins- Enemies of Reason


Richard Dawkins has made some good points in his time, especially about the dangers of religious bigtry and superstitious dogma, based on scripture rather than spiritual experiences. But he's completely lost it here! He's saying that science and reason are not just a way to see the world, they are the only way to see the world.

Science did a good thing, freeing the world of dogmatic funadamentalism. I also don't dispute the benefits of technology. But the problem is that the rise of materialistic science has also taken something away from us, a feeling of spirituality. Most people instinctively feel this loss. A few don't mind, like Dawkins, who tries to brand everyone who does as backward and deluded! Most people do feel this however, I think. I certainly do. This is why many people, including myself, have gone on a search to find this lost part of ourselves and the universe. It's not because we're backward or deluded; it's because we know that there's a place for spirituality in our own lives and the world. It used to exist before dogmatic religion came along and destroyed it, by burning witches and "evil pagans" etc. We want to find it again. We know it exists, we just can't see it yet! Can't we have a society which embraces best of both worlds: the benefits of science and reason, but also intuition, spirituality, the divine? Are the two really incompatible? I think not and I'm not alone. One of Dawkins' own Oxford colleagues has challenged him. Here you can see the two of them wrangling in a rough cut outtake from Dawkins' last TV series:

For some reason this didn't make the broadcast cut. McGrath has cahallenged Dawkins to a live debate at the Union, but so far Dawky hasn't taken him up on it!

Tuesday, 14 August 2007

Dean Warwick

Dean Warwick was a civil engineer who worked on several bridge and tunnel projects for the American government. In the 60’s he was very close to the presidents, vice-presidents and Congressmen. He describes himself as a “whistleblower”. He’s lectured extensively revealing what he knows about the Kennedy assassination, 9/11 and other govt cover-ups. In October 2006 he was scheduled to give a lecture to the UK Probe conference in Lytham St Annes, Lancashire. He told the organizers in advance that this was going to be a different lecture to the ones he normally gave because this time, for the first time ever, he was going to name “the AntiChrist”. He got up on stage and began his speech about 9/11, demonstrating with a stack of cans how the collapse had to be controlled. Then he paused for a moment and keeled over. I know what happened because I was there. I called an ambulance as several other delegates gave him first aid, but it was too late. He was 62 years old and had a wife and children.

I’ve written extensively about this incident because I doubt very much that it was natural causes. I’m definitely not alone among Probe members in my views, but I’ve been one of the most outspoken. The timing seems beyond coincidence (if such a thing exists at all). the lecture was an exclusive. He was about to tell us who the AntiChrist was; it was truly Omen-like. He seemed to be building up his speech to some big climax or bombshell just before he went down. As I watched him, at that very moment, I looked over my shoulders to joke to myself that there might be a sniper in the air vents! The theatrical way it was done was not just about silencing Warwick, it was sending out a warning to the rest of us. A quick perusal of my links column will show you how assassinations like this one are very possible for the Hidden Hand; they have technology that makes the latest spacecraft look like a 19th Century hansom cab. It could have been done by hi-tech poison, energy projection, psychic attack or scalar beam. A scalar beam is like having a gun that can fire a bullet from anywhere in the world that turns into a ghost bullet that can pass through rock, water, walls, metal as if they’re not there, but then just before it reaches its target, it turns back into a real, solid bullet and kills him stone dead. There is no protection from a scalar beam, not even in an underground bunker.

I’ve been harshly criticized for my views. People have said that there’s no evidence of foul play and that speculation will only add to the grief of Warwick’s family. I don’t think this is fair at all. The whole thing about these kinds of hits is that they don’t leave any forensic evidence. They’re either tightly controlled by the authorities, as in the case of JFK, or they use weapons that the police have no idea exist. I would not speak out about this if I was not more than suspicious. I don’t see how keeping shtum about a murder shows respect and sensitivity for the murder-victim's relatives. (This is my contention with the narrator of “Screw Loose Change”) Maybe if we keep speaking out and voicing our worries and concerns about what is being done to us in the name of preserving the power of the Illuminati, then perhaps we can prevent further deaths like this, and save other people’s wives and children from the heartache of losing a loved one.

Monday, 13 August 2007


Here's a good vid about Cryonics, the deep-freezing of dead bodies in the hope that in the future, science might find a way to bring them back to life:

I'm intitally sceptical (not "Skeptical". I consider spelling that word with a K makes it a different word from spelling it with a C; I'll say why later). But people who say things are impossible are usually proved wrong.

I'm not religious, (I was brought up in a Catholic family, but I've lapsed) but as I've already said, I beleive in an afterlife of one sort of another. I wouldn't try this with my own dead body, but after watching this I kind of hope it works for the sake of the first couple. I thought they were very sweet and I was moved by the woman's death. The second couple are a bit up their own arses.

It can't be easy doing this in the United States. I hope you won't interpret this as anti-American prejudice, but I've a feeling their are lots of Americans who will be repulsed by Cryonics, seeing it as the work of the Devil!

More than Immortality

Here's another Aubrey de Grey lecture:

I've begun to see this business in a different way. Its goal is not just immortality, it's about curing a lot of the geriatric afflictions that old people have to suffer: arthritis, Alzheimers, blindness, deafness etc. That can't be bad. When I'm old I might rethink about whether I'd have this kind of treatment. Although it would also involve the bonus, or side-effect, of incresing my life span. If I still feel the same way about that then as I do now it makes me wornder what I'd do. Would I be willing to commit suicide if I lived past a certain age?

Rasputin Lectures at a Conference

If you've read my post on Live Extention then you'll be familiar with Aubrey de Grey, this barbically-challenged individual, as he says his piece at the Technology-Entertainment-Design conference last year.

I can't see anything unethical about this kind of research at all, so long as nobody forces you to live for a thousand years if you don't want to. The more I look at this the more I think that it could work... not that I'm any more keen to try it myself. As I said before, it's not for me. I'm concentrating on the quality of my life, if necessary at the expense of some of its quantity.

DC Rebuttal

A member of the DarkConspiracy forum has challenged my SLC claims (see the post below). Here's the thread: . Here's my reply:

Why do you need to write in bold?

Also filling a pepperpot full of the word "fact" and sprinkling it liberally over your post as if it's a plate of fish and chips might make you look sophisticated, impressive and academic in some circles, but it won't fool members of this forum. If basis of your arguement was sound you would need that kind of showmanship.

1. I addressed that issue in the original point

2. I read in in "Alice", I'll find you the source, but if the alternative seismic evidence has to be reviewed by a geologist then I'm probably going to dissapoint you. If you need establishment peer-reviewed articles then I'm preaching to the Unconvertable. Get your pepperpot out again, Randi!

"For instance you pointed out that the firefighters could put out the fires with a couple hoses? If you bothered to research this statement it was from firefighters BELOW the impact point. Again... facts here!"

What? So the firemen didn't know how bad the fire was or where it was blazing the fiercest? And how far were they below the blaze? I'm asking because if this fire was as bad as we've been told then areas a fair distance from it would have been unviable because of heat and smoke. However Rick Resorla didn't have any problem in the Morgan and Stanley office just a few floors lower than the impact zone; and he had no fireman's kit.
"'The Windsor Building fell very differently to the WTC. It didn’t all pancake in one go.'" Again ... do some research. two words: Concrete Core! All the steel in the top floors collapsed."

"'Ah! So the twin towers did have supporting cores like the Windsor Building. The narrator says they’re hollow. But if you watch the film of the WTC being built they look pretty solid to me.' Not like the Windsor building. Concrete!"

So all the floors pancaked at freefall speed in one go, as the result of a fire which only produced small flames? And as for the WTC having a concrete core: I'll see if the film about it being built is still up.

"'17. The narrator keeps comparing the WTC collapse to known controlled demolitions. He says that there’s no way the explosives could be rigged up in the WTC secretly. Are conventional explosives the only way to demolish a building? How about scaler beams and other secret technology that the govt has?'
Scaler Beams?? bwahahahah ok... I should just stop."

And your reaction is exactly how the govt keep these things secret! Who needs underground bases. Public incredulity buries things deeper than the Nevada desert ever could!

"'30. I don’t dispute that wreckage of Flight 93 was found. But was it wreckage from a crash or from a midair explosion?' What did it colide with??"

Who said it collided with anything? Not me!

"'36. It doesn’t seem to bother the narrator much that Flights 11 and 77 weren’t scheduled to fly that day!' Um... what? Please elaborate and back it up with a source."

Dylan Avery and the Narrator provide the source in the film.

"'39. What about Barbara Olson, the lady who made a reverse-charges call from an airfone? This cannot be done. Even if she’d called the operator first; if the operator could have arranged it with special permission then why not just give her the call free?' Why don't you look up the evidence from the Mousauii trial where you can listen to that and other phone calls that were actually recorded."

Will do, I'll be interested to see how and why a reverse-charges call was arranged.

"'41. The hijacker list was released on September the 14th, just 3 days after the attacks. It didn’t take them long to find out who did it eh? They didn’t even have to wait long after Bin Laden’s supposed confession (which was faked too anyway).' Their names were on the FLIGHT MANIFEST! My GOSH! are you actually reading what you are posting ??"

Do you know how many names were on that manifest? How much stress and confusion there was. How many relatives had to have the news broken to them before they could be absolutely sure who the bad guys were? It took them just three days!? Doc, I've got some beachfront property in Birmingham you might be interested in!

Screw Screw Loose Change

Watch Screw Loose Change here:

I've watched Screw Loose Change, the debunkers' answer to Loose Change and I'll give you my critique so far. I'll do it in the same way the narrator, what I call Mark Iradian, the person who writes the captions, has done to Loose Change. Actually there's very little information in this piece of shite that you can't get from the Popular Mechnaics article. There's too much to go into in a single viewing as the narrator inserts a rebuttal almost every few seconds, but I've addressed the most important points:

1. Operation Northwoords shows that a capacity and will for deceit on an enormous scale was present in the Kennedy Administration. Are we to believe that the current Bush administration is different? Of course, as the narrator points out: Northwoods did not (at least openly and/or in its initial proposal!) involve any deaths, but saying that because of this 9/11 had to be unconnected, then the govt’s respect for the sanctity of human life is a pretty weak basis for that conclusion.

2. Why would a “New Pearl Harbour” be necessary just to introduce new ITC technology into the military?

3. There are several reports on seismic activity on 9/11. Why don’t we look at all of them concerning Building 7. The same goes for the firemen witnesses. Was fire damage the only thing that caused the collapse? Well then why didn’t the Windsor Tower in Madrid fall down? It does make the movie Towering Inferno somewhat far-fetched (I notice they’ve not shown this on British TV since 9/11/01!). Also WTC7’s inferno was far from “towering”; it looked more smouldering to me. As did the fire in the twin towers (The firemen’s reports from that one said that the firemen were confident that they could extinguish it with hoses).

4. The criticism of the Russ Wittemburg, Willis Carlo and Dylan Avery himself are pure ad hominem.

5. I’m glad the narrator didn’t insult our intelligence by quoting from the Jane’s scientist who reckoned the wings and tail of Flight 77 just folded up like a model glider. These “experts” seem to disagree even amongst themselves. If the know it all, it should be easy for them to work it out and concur.

6. The witness at the Pentagon in the “confusing aftermath” of the attack doesn’t sound “confused” to me. He sounds very calm and positive.

7. I haven’t made my mind up on what his the Pentagon; there’s a lot of contradictory evidence that both proves and disproves the missile and plane theories. In a way it’s only a secondary debate. Whether Flight 77 hit the Pentagon or not, it could still be an inside job. Also if it was definitely a missile it could support the official story too. Al Qaida have missiles too (mostly because the Americans sold them to Al Qaida!).

8. The narrator’s causal acceptance of the confiscation of the CCTV footage is pure denial. If the FBI are prevented by law from releasing the footage why do they release the helipad footage? Could it be because it’s the one most likely to prove the plane theory? Also the narrator says that it can’t be used because it “doesn’t show anything clearly”. Well it does seem to show clearly that there was no Boeing 757, but there is a puff of smoke.

9.The narrator’s single word “yes” makes me laugh. it seems a very convenient coincidence that the plane, or whatever it was, hit the Pentagon on the ring that was both reinforced and on the opposite side to Rumsfeld’s office.

10. The narrator says “why even compare the two?” when he refers to the strike on the empire State Building by a B25-bomber. Well where’s his analysis of the difference in structure of the two buildings? Does he think that the difference in weight, speed and fuel capacity of the B-25 and the 757 are the only factors? How about the structure of the aircraft and the impact damage? How about the size of the resulting fire? The news footage of the Empire State building crash looked no different to me than the 9/11 footage.

11. The narrator says that the other examples of buildings that burned and then didn’t collapse was because they were not hit by a plane. But WTC7 was not hit by a plane either.

12. The Windsor Building fell very differently to the WTC. It didn’t all pancake in one go.

13. Ah! So the twin towers did have supporting cores like the Windsor Building. The narrator says they’re hollow. But if you watch the film of the WTC being built they look pretty solid to me.

14. The narrator uses a positive ad hominem where he says that no structural engineer agrees with the “9/11 Deniers” (What a wonderful expression! It immediately makes you want to deomize them like holocaust deniers). I don’t think it’s true anyway.

15. The “freefalling” debris outside the collapsing WTC has been propelled by the explosion; it is not in free fall any more than a bullet would be if you fired it down at the ground from the roof. Also, as the narrator says a moment earlier to support his own point, you can’t actually see the main part of the collapse due to the smoke and dust.

16. The narrator states sarcastically “We always know that the first news reports are the most accurate ones.” I agree with that, sans sarcasm. The initial on-the-scene reports are often the most accurate because the media censors and the reporters own credibility safety net have yet to come down.

17. The narrator keeps comparing the WTC collapse to known controlled demolitions. He says that there’s no way the explosives could be rigged up in the WTC secretly. Are conventional explosives the only way to demolish a building? How about scaler beams and other secret technology that the govt has?

18. The narrator claims that similies in the firemen’s testimony are not evidence. I couldn’t agree less; they are crucial evidence. The firemen come from the position that it was not a controlled demolition so they are bound to use similies to describe what they witnessed.

19.The supposed “quote mining” is nothing of the sort when you add my above point. The firemen are relating what they hear from the founding assumption that the official terrorist story is true.

20. “An investigation was underway” so they couldn’t release the firemen’s tapes! Well then how come they released the Pentagon helipad CCTV footage? Surely you must see that there is a political motivation to all this, whether you believe the govt did 9/11 or not!

21. Supposedly the fireman who said the fire could be put out in the tower, whom I quote myself above, was mistaken. I’m interested to see if this film mentions Rick Rescorla. (It never does!)

22. The people jumping from the building need not be escaping the flames. Smoke inhalation and suffocation from a fire kills more people than burning does. The WTC fire was giving off thick black smoke.

23. So the molten steel might not have been steel, but aluminium. How much aluminium did the WTC contain? I’m only asking because neither LS nor the narrator say how much molten metal there actually was.

24. “The team” (what team?) spent six days examining millions of tons of rubble and then gathered “significant amounts of data” on its performance!? Does the narrator think we’re stupid? Yes he does and that’s his weakness. Then it was shipped off to the Staaten Island yard; how long did the team spend there? Also there were concerns that the material had been disposed of too quickly and these were only refuted by a member of Congress

25. The OK City bombings have everything to do with 9/11 because the same firm was involved in the clean-up and both were suspected false flag operations.

26. The narrator seems to have little knowledge of the history of false flag ops. If he’d learned about Operation Gladio maybe he’d be realize that the govt would have no qualms about killing people in a real Operation Northwoods.

27. The last words on Kevin Cosgrove were played longer than necessary to make the point. Exposing the viewer to this harrowing material could be an attempt at shock-tactics or demonization. “Look! Tragedies like this are what Dylan Avery doesn’t care about!” The continual use of the term “9/11 Denier” is definitely a personal ad hominem smear campaign.

28. The narrator criticizes the witnesses for using similies again. See what I wrote above about that.

29. But like the Pentagon theories, whether flight 93 was shot down or crashed is a secondary debate and has no bearing on whether 9/11 was an inside job or not.

30. I don’t dispute that wreckage of Flight 93 was found. But was it wreckage from a crash or from a midair explosion?

31. The theory that Flight 93 landed at Cleveland is another example of initial new reports, which I think are often the most interesting, while the narrator prefers to trust the party line ones that come out later after the script has been agreed on.

32. Flight 93 may have been shot down. A lower level of the govt from the one that orchestrated 9/11 may have covered it up to spare the feelings of the relatives, as well as the poor fighter pilot who had to pull the trigger. But even people who investigate this theory still think that Bin Laden did it, which is the ultimate goal of the agenda. A good way to disguise a big conspiracy is to hide it behind a smaller one.

33. The story behind the black boxes is interesting. Their contents are secret, but the FBI claim to have played the voice recordings to the victim’s relatives.

34. Amazing that, even if is possible for a passport to survive the explosion, this particular one did. Not just anyone’s passport, but a hijacker’s passport. This is a psyop: It gives the image of the individuals involved placed at the scene so that the subconscious will forever associate the two. It’s also odd that the narrator makes that very point when remarking on how amazing it was that the black boxes were claimed to have been found in the rubble. If he believes a passport can be found under those circumstances then why not a black box?

35. “OOH! The Evil One, Dylan Avery, questions the heroism of the flight 93 passengers! Grab your torches and pitchforks!”

36. It doesn’t seem to bother the narrator much that Flights 11 and 77 weren’t scheduled to fly that day!

37. More demonization! To question the content of the phonecalls for the plane! UGH! Well if these phonecalls were edited out of context to be misleading, or even faked, then how does not questioning them show respect and sensitivity to the grieving relatives? It’s getting to the ridiculous point that the official story of 9/11 is becoming a Holy Scripture.

38. Re: Betty Ong’s call: Is there much difference between seeing a murder, of a friend and crewmate probably, and hearing about one on your plane?

39. What about Barbara Olson, the lady who made a reverse-charges call from an airfone? This cannot be done. Even if she’d called the operator first; if the operator could have arranged it with special permission then why not just give her the call free?

40. Official, publicly released voice-synth technology needs recordings to clone a person’s speech. What about further secret development of the system?

41. The hijacker list was released on September the 14th, just 3 days after the attacks. It didn’t take them long to find out who did it eh? They didn’t even have to wait long after Bin Laden’s supposed confession (which was faked too anyway).

42. The authorities don’t half make a lot of mistakes when identifying hijackers. It only took them three days to get the list and then they reckon that the nine alive are just mistakes!? Get away!

43. The attempt to prove that the confession tape is genuine is a non-starter. The person depicted in the film is quite clearly a younger, fatter man than bin Laden. I’ve seen some good graphics that morph the two together so you can see the obvious difference. And the tape was “found in a hose”? That seems most odd. Wasn’t it posted to a police station or left at the US embassy? No, it was just stumbled upon, by coincidence, a mere 3 days after the attacks!

44. The narrator is living in Dreamland if he thinks that the USA is not descending into a dictatorship! The fact the Avery and Alex Jones etc are getting publicity is not by the govt’s choice of complacency. It’s because they’re falling before the tide of public opinion!

45. Kevin Barrett is branded a racist just because he denies that hijackers could take over a plane with Stanley knives. How does that make him a racist? He doesn’t make his claims on the fact that the hijackers were Arabs, only that they were unarmed. And Dick Cheney is not an “Angry, evil white man”. He’s not a man at all he’s a Reptillian!

46. I love the certified picture of a terrorist training camp, from a spy plane or even a satellite! Looks more like a field of hay bales to me! Could this be one of the propaganda pictures that the Bush administration released to justify the invasion Afghanistan? One of the ones that have been doctored?

47. The film ends with the sickest and most spiteful debunker of all: That if you question the official story of 9/11 you’re an unfeeling, exploitative pirate who doesn’t care about those who died. The only way to be patriotic and respectful to the victims is to be baptized into this new religious cult called “19 hijackers did it at the orders of bin Laden”. The wear and tear my keyboard would suffer typing the briefest response to that would not justified.

Saturday, 11 August 2007

Friday, 10 August 2007

The Face on Mars

This is a fascinating vid. You'll need to do some reasearch into the background of this. Browse "Face on Mars". I doubted this for as bit when the first Mars Global Surveyor shots came out, but this changes everything! When they came to the bit with the new pic of the Face I actually jumped! Why would Nasa need to tamper with these photoes if the Face theories are all nonsense?

Thursday, 9 August 2007

Life Extension Movement

This stuff is creepy! If we all lived forever then we'd run out of space on Earth.I couldn't cope with more than a natural lifespan anyway. I enjoy my life, but it's also very painful too. I'd rather die and take the risk. I might go to a worse place, but then again I might go to a better one.

This is a promotional film, not an investigation, so it makes no attempt to explore alternative viewpoints to a significant degree. There's a very brief sequence where the interviewees philosophize about the possiblity that perhaps even if we fail to live forever in our current existance, there's an existance beyond that. But they see the issue in a very dated and simplistic way. They say things like "Well I'm not sure what's after death so I'm hedging my bets" or "There's just no evidence". This is debatable, even in the same scientific circles that they're a part of. They seem to have quite a 19th Century view of the soul debate. It's "either-or": Heaven/hell in the religious sense or neurochemical shutdown: oblivion. It takes no acount of many of the research into Near-death experience etc.

The bit on nanotechnology was very interesting and probably the most feasible part of the programme. I have major misgivings over the logic behind "transhumanism" though. The idea that you can reproduce a person's mind in a computer and store it like you would an eletronic document is based on the assumption that the mind is merely chemicals and electrical signals in the brain. This is a dubious position, I think. Nobody knows what the mind is. We can observe electrical activity in the brain that relates to waking consciousness, but this is a very different thing from mind itself. It may be possible to create an artifical intelligence; a machine with a mind, but that doesn't mean that your mind and mine can be shuttled to and from the same databases as that intelligence! Here's another short clip where Janet Street-Porter interviews that Rasputin-lookalike from the fist film, Aubrey de Grey. (How the hell can you trust this guy with genetics when he doesn't even know what a bloody razor is!? ):

Interesting Vintage Interview

I often wonder exactly why we need the nation state at all. It's a political structure that really only exists because of the problems in the world today. The nation state is a good way or responding to ecomonic disasters, military threats, imposing laws to alleviate poverty etc. Do away with the current ecomony, war and poverty then we'd start wondering why we need these expensive and inefficient bureaucrats in Westminster and Washington.Why can't we have a system where each city, town or even small village rules itself? We could have local govts, independant barter economies with our own currencies and all industry run by workers' cooperatives, companies where every worker is also an equal shareholder.

I've looked into setting up a Hospital porters' cooperative and we're going to apply for the contract at my hospital if it goes out to tender again.

Wednesday, 8 August 2007

Illuminati Architecture In Oxford

Photoes here:

And I'm talking about the Oxford suburbs, not the famous city's university. To write about the symbolism in that you'd need a 500 page book! See the "Battling the Behemoth" and "Ellis Taylor" links for info on symbolism in Oxford University

The Illuminati are a group of high secret society degree members who administer the covert imposition of the New World Order. They use strange visual symbols to communicate and leave their "mark". This is for several reasons that i'll get into later, but the links column will provide you with some back ground to that.

The set pics is of some peculiar symbolism I found in the architecture of a district of Oxford called Temple Cowley. It’s called that because the Knights Templar once had a lodge there. It seems like they’ve left a legacy in the area they occupied.

I include the entrances to the shopping centre "Templar's Square". They look quite ordinary now, but a few years ago they were covered by a parapet shaped like the truncated pyramid and all-seeing eye. I'll come back to that in a minute.

The church-like building is the Oxford Records Office which used to be a real church. It sits on the site of an old Knights Templar lodge which was built after the French purge and remained open untill the 18th century. The circular pattern on the ground is a labyrinth, and it is in the forecourt of the Records Office in commemoration of its Templar past. The KT's used to have initiation ordeals and rituals similar to today's Masons. One of them was to walk the labyrinth. This was a ceremony of cleansing and a gesture of loyalty to the Brotherhood, because the labyrinth was considered holy. (the KT's lore was deeply pagan, despite their historical pious crusader image).

It was nearby that I made a significant discovery: As you can see in the pics, The district's architecture contains Illuminati symbolism. What do you see in those roof gables and the carport parapet? The truncated pyramid and all-seeing eye! All these buildings stand a hundred yards or less from the Records Office on the site of the KT preceptory. What's amazing is that the same pattern not only appears in the modern structures, but also in the others which are much older, allbeit in 2D. I include a red-bricked Vicxtorian house and another from a century or so earlier.

There is no doubt that someone is, either subconsciously or deliberately, influencing the style of architecture in the Temple Cowley area to commemorate the KT's and also create a powerful Illuminati energy field (notice the mobile phone mast as well). This is a long-term policy that has been in force for several centuries; probably since the KT lodge was founded.

Technical difficulties, sorry. Pictures to follow.

Hospital Porters' Anthem

I'm a porter and you're a porter
We're porters through and through
With dignity and pride too
Don't give up on being you
We're porters through and through

In every county's every town
Don't let convention put you down
We're porters and we're proud.

Bad for Your Health- a Poem:

I wish I wasn't only a Porter
The lowest human life on Earth
I've watched Holby City and read Loaded
We can't go against Conformist worth

The one goal in life is to achieve
Conventional status and wealth
If you want to be free not to persue them
It could be very bad for your health!

My Book Review: Who Are the Illuminati?

Who Are The Illuminati?” by Lindsay Porter
From the first glance it is obvious that this book is a skeptic’s debunker (But I still read it. It’s wisdom to always look at both sides of every argument). The blurb and introduction describes the Illuminati as “The most maligned organization in history?” The book begins by claiming that our modern image of the Illuminati is a false myth, descending from just two sources in the 1800’s: the Scottish historian John Robison and the exiled French priest Abbe Augustin Barreul. The author’s initial mistake is to equate the modern ideas of a global shadowy elite and with the true story of Weishaupt’s Bavarian Illuminati, a small and short-lived organization. In this way she makes the same kind of mistake as the people who think all NWO theorists are all anti-Semitic. So if you say: “The Illuminati is the secret organization behind the NWO”, you are automatically interpreted as saying: “Adam Weishaupt’s Bavarian Illuminati is the secret organization behind the NWO”. I’ll come back to that point later.

The book then moves on to the story of Adam Weishaupt, the Bavarian academic who founded an organization called “The Illuminati” in 1776. He says that he did this as a reaction to the Catholic dominance of Bavaria at that time, enforced by the Jesuits who controlled every school, university and library. Books on science, philosophy and history etc were banned as being “heresy”. The country really was stuck in a time-warp. The Illuminati constitution written by Weishaupt sounds very benign and full of goodwill. Its plan was to encourage in Bavaria the kind of Enlightenment that was going on in Protestant Europe, where Christian doctrine was giving way to Gnostic and rational thought, through education, discussion and study. All very nice, but does the organization live up to that ideal?

Actually there is something very suspicious about Weishaupt in the later years that, in my view, contradicts his earlier philanthropy. He models the Illuminati on secret societies like the Masons and Rosicrucians. The group was structured into degrees and compartmentalized so that nobody knew anything about the people above them in the inclusive pyramid structure that is all too familiar. A novice Illuminatus only knew his immediate superior, not his superior’s superior, nor his superior’s degree-mates, and therefore none of the other novices. There were elaborate, Masonic-style rituals to initiate a promoted member into his new degree, including oaths of obedience, secrecy and threats of violence for breaching the order’s code. Symbols like the owl, flame and skull were part of the rituals. The author believes that Weishaupt and his cronies did this purely as a way of giving the group a bit of mystique; a lure for the curious young students that he hoped to recruit; as well as keeping the group secret from the Church authorities. I disagree. Of course there would be a limited need for privacy and confidentiality, but not on that scale; and the organization’s esoteric pomp would actually be very counter-productive in a Catholic theocracy like Bavaria. I’m sure that it wasn’t exactly helpful in avoiding the charge of Satanism that was hurled at them. Also the hierarchical nature of the order seems to contradict Weishaupt’s professed egalitarian principles. He was supposed to be a republican anti-aristocrat who believed that every human being was born equal and had a right to knowledge and happiness. It doesn’t add up.

A great change came over the order in 1780 when Weishaupt recruited the Hanover writer Baron Knigge. He was an ideal member and very quickly rose to the top of the hierarchy to become joint Master with Weishaupt. This was the start of a highly significant development. There was a major schism between the two Illuminati Primi. It was very much due to Knigge that the Illuminati became so ritualistic; Knigge was also instrumental in the order’s infiltration of Freemasonry. I have a feeling that Knigge may well have been a “Mugabe-Nehru”: a person with a mission to infiltrate and take over an established institution and sit behind the scenes, riding in the slipstream of someone else, usually a genuine innocent, until the time comes to make your move and usurp their position to change the institution into something different. It could be that Weishaupt is not to blame for the course the Illuminati were to take. But the author doesn’t address this possibility.

The author then attempts to prove that the various groups, like the Illuminati/Masons, which have been blamed for the French revolution could not have done so. For example she addresses the legend of the executioner of Louis XVI shouting “Jacques De Molay, you are avenged!” The Masons (and therefore the Knights Templar) suffered badly under the Terror; many were guillotined, so how could the revolution be a Masonic plot? The author’s logic is that because the entire Masonic network had to be in on the hypothetical plot, it couldn’t have happened because they were basically killing their own. If she had brought more recent conspiracy research to bear she might have found the answer. Not every Mason had to be in on the plot; not every Jacobin, not every Illuminatus. Because the foundation of these societies is compartmentalization and obedience the plot can be engineered by just a handful of people. I’m sure this handful would have no qualms about sacrificing their own in order to maintain the illusion! The French Revolution might well have been engineered, not by the Masons or Bavarian Illuminati, but by the secret organization that works through all of them. This is the mistake the author makes again and again: “Global Illuminati” = Bavarian Illuminati; that the entire plot derives from a known secret society.

When she comes to the Protocols of Zion, she really lashes out, blaming conspiracy culture for events like the Holocaust. She points out correctly that the Protocols, in the form they were published, are a fake. Then she gives a list of 19th Century sources for the idea. The so-called “Simonini Letter”, the novel “Biarritz” by the anti-Semitic postman-turned-Prussian-spy Herman Goedsche, the French book “Dialogue in Hell Between Montesquieu and Machiavelli” by Maurice Joly. In the last example the words of the Protocols are exactly uttered by Machiavelli. I was waiting for the author to announce the actual origins of the entire idea, but she didn’t. It is possible that the Protocols are simply a product of various authors plagiarizing each other, but there must have been an original inspiration behind it. As I’ve said on web forums, and in this article: , I believe that this inspiration was a real document. It was not anti-Semitic in its original form; that form was fabricated, paraphrased from the real document by whoever who first discovered it (It was first published by Sergei Nilus), to falsely vindicate their own bigotry. They simply copied it out substituting “Elders” and “Goyim” for something like: Olympians and Sheeple. The original document has since remained secret. The author returns to the Protocols again in order to make some truly libelous comments about David Icke.

The last part of the book looks at modern conspiracy theories, and it’s here that the author really loses the plot. She ridicules the people who see hidden symbolism in the Great Seal. She naively states: “No conspiracy theorist seems to question why an allegedly secret group would choose to make such a public display of their presence and intentions”. This question has been addressed and answered many times by the “conspiracy theorists” she so dislikes. When she gets round to talking about David Icke the author makes a factual error. She states that David’s first book is “The Robots Rebellion”. Not true: it is “Truth Vibrations”; and he wrote four other books after that one before putting pen to paper for “The Robots Rebellion”. (He wrote two books before “Truth Vibrations” as well: “It’s a Tough Game, Son!” about football, and “It Doesn’t Have to Be Like This” about environmental issues.) This is nitpicking, you might say. Well, no it’s not because she quotes her source for all David’s work as the historian Michael Barkum. In other words she has herself done exactly what she scolds conspiracy theorists of doing: relating the words of other researchers as fact. She riles about the stupidity of historians who read the works of Nesta Webster and take it as fact, when she does exactly the same with Michael Barkum. I doubt if she has investigated David Icke’s work deeply; she can’t have to make such an obvious error. She also chides him for using the Protocols of Zion, saying that his writings disturbingly echo Nesta Websteer. Hardly! Would Webster have written “The body is merely a temporary spacesuit for the immortal soul; this makes all racism grotesque. It’s like Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin arguing over who’s got the best spacesuit!”? (Not that those two ever really walked on the moon, but we'll discuss that in a later article.) David has explained again and again his very sound and innocent reasons for quoting the Protocols, but nobody seems to listen!

The books bibliography is very biased; of all its 67 titles, only one is a contemporary pro-conspiracy book: “Rule by Secrecy” by Jim Marrs.

All in all, the author attempts to prove that all conspiracy theories are nonsense by showing that the overt fronts of various organizations are not behind the major events of history. Of course they’re not! You have to look behind the scenes at the more subtle forces that operate above all others. Human historical actions all have one thing in common: they are about the domination of the mass of our species by a tiny elite. Not Jews or Jesuits or white people or, as Karl Marx said, “A class struggle”, but above that; a dark, sinister cabal who use racial conflict and the class struggle… and anything else… to get what they want!

AHH! Save us from these evil "Detainees"!

Fourteen people were at large in Oxfordshire untill they were recaptured yesterday They've been convicted of armed robbery and they have... no time at all left to serve on their sentance. You heard me correctly. Fourteen people are free for no oustanding crime at all!

Maybe I've missed the latest bulletin from the Ministry of Truth, but aren't people supposed to be set free when they've finished prison sentances anyway? Perhaps the real crime they've at large for is being (tabloid cockney accent) "Asylum-seekers". Well I'm afraid if members of the human race want to travel around their home planet then I don't consider that a crime. If I encounter any of these people I'll wish them all the best. I will NOT report them. No doubt I'll end up in trouble myself for that, but if keeping your freedom in the country means depriving your fellow humans of free, unlimited access to all parts of their home planet then I'm better off in jail.

Biometrics in Schools in the Media

Here are some media spots for the school fingerprinting agenda, including interviews with me on my own experiences. I'm glad that Baroness Walmsley and the Liberal Democrats are opposed to it, but I'm not going to vote for them because voting is a waste of time. I'll explain why later (Sorry, you have to cut-and-paste the links):

Biometrics in Schools

Have any of your children come home from school and told you that the teachers are trying to take their fingerprints? The chances are that if they are then this is the first you'll hear about it! Schools are creating a biometric database of all British schoolchildren. Why? Well it's probably because the govt want to create a similar database for adults, but the current adult population are against it. Heard of the Nation Identity Card scheme? That's it! They're even calling it "Blair's (or Brown's now) Poll Tax". So the logic is: "If we can't get this generation we'll get the next one. We'll brainwash the kids into thinking fingerprinting and biomentric identification is normal and everyday".

The New World Order want a database of every human being in the world for "The Beast". Once that database is complete the state will have total control. you won't be able to unlock your front door without permission from the Beast, or rather whoever programs it. Check out this excellent website for further information:

Tuesday, 7 August 2007

Let's just cut to the chase! Here's the "Crazy" Stuff":

I'm also very worried about a political movement that seems to be gathering force at the moment in every country. It is known by various names, most commonly the New World Order. It is planned to take the form of a single open world government (we already have a secret one!) where individual liberty will be abolished and the population will just be slaves to a Fascist Elite. The New World Order will have no money; all financial activity will be controlled by a computer called "the Beast" which is rumoured to lie in an underground military base in Belgium. The Beast will also control the population through biomentric ID cards, or even subcutaneous microchips. Independant nation states will be reduced to the level of counties or districts in the single global state. There will be a global police force to attack and destroy any person, group or culture that gets in the way of the New World Order. It will be armed with nuclear weapons and chemical and/or biological weapons too. We're talking a real world like the one George Orwell tried to warn us against in "1984".

The above statement will have already branded me a "conspiracy theorist" in many people's eyes. If anyone thinks that then that's their right. I don't care. All I care about is the future of our world.

The Purpose of this Blog

I've started this blog as a place to store and display all my thoughts and feelings that I hope might be useful to anyone reading it. These could include my literature, poems, or news reports. I'm a Hospital Porter (I should mention this now in case I haven't already) and I'm very VERY proud of it. I feel that all people who do so-called "menial jobs" should take a good look at themselves and ask themselves a question: "If I feel like I'm lowly and inferior then why is it? Is it some inhearent, factual aspect of my work or is it simply convention?" Con-vention, with the emphasis on the "con" is a complete con! You can always tell a con-vention because if you ask someone why it exists the answer will be: "It just is" "That's just the way things are" or similar statements. In other words: they don't have a reason; it's just a groundless value that is upheld out of social habit. Why shouldn't Hospital Porters, dustmen, street-cleaners, toilet attendants feel just as proud of what they do as airline pilots, doctors, lawyers, soldiers, businesmen?

What is a Hospital Porter?

A healthcare professional who is an essential member of a life-saving team, who should be proud of who they are?

Or a lowly menial worker who needs to hide themselves away and live the shame and obscurity they deserve?

This is my first entry on this blog and I think it's best to start out by geting down to it straight away: I think the former, contrary to conventional society which thinks the latter.

Glad we've got that sorted out! See ya!