A collection of short stories and journalistic commentaries depicting my simple life
and how I fit in with the modern day universe of our times


I love a good banana. Nothing wrong with that I guess, many people will agree. 
But.... Who, does the banana love? 


LOVE BANANASocialTwist Tell-a-Friend



Some people have the misconception that cats never have to be bathed. That somehow they "lick" themselves clean. Well contrary to this popular belief, cats do NOT have some enzyme in their saliva that resembles Tide, Surf, Persil or Daz (with or without bleach).

Cats, like their nemesis, the dog, do get dirty and have a variety of odours, from smelling like the outhouse where you camped last year to the same odour as your dog's breath. (Remember, your dog will try to eat anything.)

Now we all know that cats HATE water. And we know that giving the cat a sedative to ease this process of a bath is out of the question. (see HOW TO GIVE YOUR CAT A PILL)

So, the best approach is both sneaky and direct. Remember now, this is not the dumb dog who can be led to the tub with lies and a trail of Kibbles and Bits.

Although your cat has the advantage of being smart, quickness and total lack of concern for you, you still have the advantage of size, strength, and the ability to wear protective garments.

1. First, dress for the occasion. A 4-ply rubber wet suit is suggested, along with a helmet, face mask and welders gloves.

2. A Bathtub with a glass enclosure is preferred to the one with a shower curtain. A frenzied cat can shred one of these in about 3.5 seconds.

3. Have the Kitty Bubbles and towel in the enclosed bathtub area before hand. No, blow drying the cat after the bath is not suggested.

4. Draw the water, making it a little warmer than needed as you still need to find the cat. Position everything strategically in the shower, so you can reach it even if you are face down or prone in the tub.

5. Find your cat. Use the element of surprise. Pick the cat up, nonchalantly as if you were simply carrying him/her to the supper dish. No need to worry about the cat noticing your strange attire, the cat barely notices you anyway.

6. Once you and the cat are inside the bathroom, speed is essential. In one single liquid motion, shut the door to the bathroom, step into the shower, close the sliding doors, and drop the cat into the water. While the cat is still in a state of shock, locate the Kitty Bubbles and squirt whatever part of him is above the water line. You have just begun the wildest 45 seconds of your life. Remember that cats have no handles and add the fact that he now has soapy fur. His state of shock has worn off and he's madder than a wet hornet.

7. As best, you can, wearing welder's gloves, try to field his body as he catapults through the air toward the ceiling. If possible, give another squirt of Kitty Bubbles with his body now fully exposed.

8. During the 5 seconds you are able to hold onto him, rub vigorously. No need to worry about rinsing. As he slides down the glass enclosure into the tub, he will fall back into the water, rinsing himself in the process.

9. Only attempt the lather and rinse process about 3 times. The cat will realize the lack of traction on the glass by then and will use the next attempt on the first available part of you.

10. Next, the cat must be dried. No, this is NOT the easiest part. By this stage, you are worn out and the cat has just become semi-permanently affixed to your right leg. We suggest here that you drain the tub and in full view of your cat. reach for the bottle of Kitty Bubbles.

11. If you have done step 10 correctly, the cat will be off your leg and hanging precariously from your helmet. Although this view of the cat is most disgusting, he will be in a much better position for wrapping the towel around him.

12. Be sure cat is firmly wrapped in towel before opening tub enclosure. Open bathroom door, put towel wrapped cat on floor and step back quickly, into tub, if possible, Do not open enclosure until all you can see is the shredded towel.

13. In about 2 hours it will be safe to exit the bathroom. Your cat will be sitting out there somewhere looking like a small hedgehog while plotting his/her revenge on you.

HOW TO GIVE YOUR CAT A BATH.SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend








1. Pick cat up and cradle it in the crook of your arm as if holding a baby. Position right forefinger and thumb on either side of cat's mouth and gently apply pressure to cheeks while holding pill in right hand.

2. As cat opens mouth, pop pill into mouth. Allow cat to close mouth rub throat of cat to encourage swallowing.

3. Retrieve pill from floor and cat from behind sofa. Cradle cat in left arm and repeat process.

4. Retrieve cat from bedroom, and throw soggy pill away.

5. Take new pill from foil wrap, cradle cat in left arm holding rear paws tightly with left hand. Force jaws open and push pill to back of mouth with right forefinger. Hold mouth shut for a count of 10.

6. Retrieve pill from goldfish bowl and cat from top of wardrobe. Call wife from garden.

7. Kneel on floor with cat wedged firmly between knees, holding front and rear paws. Ignore low growls emitted by cat. Get wife to hold cat's head firmly with one hand while forcing wooden ruler into mouth. Drop pill down ruler and rub cat's throat vigorously.

8. Retrieve cat from curtain rail, get another pill from foil wrap. Make note to buy new ruler and repair curtains. Carefully sweep shattered figurines from hearth and set to one side for gluing later.

9. Wrap cat in large towel and get wife to lie on cat with its head just visible from below wife's armpit. Put pill in end of drinking straw, force cat's mouth open with pencil and blow down drinking straw.

10. Check label to make sure pill not harmful to humans, drink glass of water to take taste away. Apply band-aid to wife's forearm and remove blood from carpet with cold water and soap.

11. Retrieve cat from neighbour's garden shed. Get another pill. Place cat in cupboard and close door onto neck to leave head showing. Force mouth open with dessert spoon. Flick pill down throat with elastic band.

12. Fetch screwdriver from garage and put door back on hinges. Apply cold compress to cheek and check records for date of last tetanus shot. Throw shirt away and fetch new one from bedroom.

13. Ring fire brigade to retrieve cat from tree across the road. Apologise to neighbour who crashed into fence while swerving to avoid cat. Take last pill from foil wrap.

14. Tie cat's front paws to rear paws with garden twine and bind tightly to leg of dining table. Find heavy duty pruning gloves from shed. Force cat's mouth open with small spanner. Push pill into mouth followed by large piece of fillet steak. Hold head vertically and pour a glass of water down throat to wash pill down.

15. Get wife to drive you to emergency room; sit quietly while doctor stitches fingers and forearm and removes pill remnants from right eye. Stop by furniture shop on way home to order new table.

16. Arrange for session with Psychiatrist for even daring to think about giving your cat a pill!


HOW TO GIVE YOUR CAT A PILL.SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend



Somewhere in the vast darkness a man coughed, a bird twittered an isolated phrase, a muffled voice spoke up. Many miles behind the front, thousands of lorries, wagons, gun limbers, horses and men moving endlessly along the Belgian Roads furnished a soft, pulsating background, like that of a kettledrum stirred by felt hammers while the orchestra relaxes and watches its score. Here in the advance zone of the dread Salient around Ypres hardly a man moved, nor did many even know or care that the old year was dying.

The officer standing beside the field piece watched the glowing second hand of his wrist watch. At the stroke of midnight he said “Fire!” The gun roared and a shell was lobbed somewhere into the German positions. A few seconds later there was a single, distinct, far-off explosion, following which a strained silence hung in the air. Then the enemy threw up anxious flares, ghastly green but of great beauty. These illuminated no-man’s land lingeringly, froze it briefly into the aspect of a charcoal sketch and then faded away.

The British battery fired nine more rounds in erratic succession, paused, and then another seven. Thus the New Year 1917, was advertised by seventeen shells, to which the Germans did not respond; and the rest of the night passed in relative peace there and elsewhere on the Western Front.

Needless to say, a cheerless morning dawned some hours later.


NEW YEAR 1917.SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend



                Heads were bobbing about and showing over their parapet in a most reckless way, and, as we looked on, this phenomenon became more and more pronounced.

                A complete Boche figure suddenly appeared on the parapet, and looked about itself. This complaint became infectious. It didn’t take ‘Our Bert’ long to be up on the skyline (it is one long grind to ever keep him off it). This was the signal for more Boche anatomy to be disclosed, and this was replied to all our Alf’s and Bill’s, until, in less time than it takes to tell, half a dozen or so of each of the belligerents were outside their trenches and were advancing towards each other in no-man’s land.

                A strange sight truly!

                I clambered up and over our parapet, and moved out across the field to look. Clad in a muddy suit of Khaki and wearing a sheepskin coat and Balaclava helmet, I joined the throng about half-way across to the German trenches.

                It all felt most curious: here were these sausage-eating wretches, who had elected to start this infernal European fracas, and in so doing had brought us all into the same muddy pickle as themselves.

                This was my first real sight of them at close quarters. Here they were – the actual, practical soldiers of the German army. There was not an atom of hate on either side that day; and yet, on our side, not for a moment was the will to war and the will to beat them relaxed. It was just like the interval between rounds in a friendly boxing match.

                The difference in type between our men and theirs was very marked. There was no contrasting the spirit of the two parties. Our men, in their scratch costumes of dirty, muddy khaki, with their various assorted headdresses of woollen helmets, mufflers and battered hats, were a light-hearted, open, humorous collection as opposed to the sombre demeanour and stolid appearance of the Huns in their grey-green faded uniforms, top boots, and pork-pie hats.

                The shortest effect I can give of the impression I had was that our men, superior, broadminded, more frank, and loveable beings, were regarding these faded, unimaginative products of perverted culture as a set of objectionable but amusing lunatics whose heads had got to be eventually smacked.

                “Look at that one over there, Bill,” our Bert would say, as he pointed out some particularly curious member of the party.

                I strolled about amongst them all, and sucked in as many impressions as I could. Two or three of the Boches seemed to be particularly interested in me, and after they had walked round me once or twice with sullen curiosity stamped on their faces, one came up and said “Offizier?” I nodded my head, which means ‘Yes’ in most languages, and, besides, I can’t talk German.

                These devils, I could see, all wanted to be friendly; but none of them possess the open, frank geniality of our men. However, everyone was talking and laughing, and souvenir hunting.

                I spotted a German officer, some sort of lieutenant I should think, and being a bit of a collector, I intimated to him that I had taken a fancy to some of his buttons.

                We both then said things to each other which neither understood, and agreed to do a swap. I brought out my wire clippers and with a few deft snips, removed a couple of his buttons and put them in my pocket. I then gave him two of mine in exchange.

                Whilst this was going on a babbling of guttural ejaculations emanating from one of the laager-schifters, told me that some idea had occurred to someone.

                Suddenly, one of the Boches ran back to his trench and presently reappeared with a large camera. I posed in a mixed group for several photographs, and have ever since wished I had fixed up some arrangement for getting a copy. No doubt framed editions of this photograph are reposing on some Hun mantelpieces, showing clearly and unmistakeably to admiring strafers how a group of perfidious English surrendered unconditionally on Christmas day to the brave Deutschers.

                Slowly the meeting began to disperse; a sort of feeling that the authorities on both sides were not very enthusiastic about this fraternising seemed to creep across the gathering. We parted, but there was a distinct and friendly understanding that Christmas Day would be left to finish in tranquillity.

                The last I saw of this little affair was a vision of one of my machine gunners, who was a bit of an amateur hairdresser in civil life, cutting the hair of a docile Boche, who was patiently kneeling down on the ground whilst the automatic clippers crept up the back of his neck.

Along a 27 mile sector of the Western Front, 21 incidents were recorded of British and German soldiers meeting in this way. In some areas the meetings lasted only for a few hours, in others they continued all day, and in certain cases they persisted until New Year and even beyond. “Just think,” one British soldier wrote home to his family, “that while you were eating your turkey, I was out talking and shaking hands with the very men I had been trying to kill a few hours before.”

Sadly, this was never to be repeated for the rest of the duration of the whole war.



OUR FIRST CHRISTMAS AT WAR.SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend



                It was August 15th 1914, the great war of Europe, WWI, was in its infancy and I was part of the first British troop movements into France. Leaving the transport ships behind us and marching into our camps in Boulogne, I studied my surroundings and couldn’t help thinking:

                Watch us as we pass, every man in our prime of life, not a youth or stripling among us. Our shirts are open at the front, and as we shout you can see the working of the muscles of our throats, our wide open mouths and rows of dazzling teeth. Every movement spells fitness for the field, for long marches by day and longer nights in the trenches.

                You can see us again, with our sun-kissed brown, jolly faces, full of laughter, and hear us still shouting and singing, "It's a long way to Tipperary, it's a long way to go," while the officers, with their quiet, confident smiles ride between, raising hands in salute to our French comrades in arms on the pavements.

                This morning’s daily says with justice: “The gallant bearing of the men, their confidence, fine looks, muscular appearance, as well as their splendid conduct, are of happy augury. If physical strength and a happy disposition, added to fine training, can win the day, these troops will add many a battle name to their roll of victories.“

                It’s a wonderful invasion I thought to myself. How many more thousands are to come, no one knows. Transport after transport glides into the harbour or ranges along the quay where the Folkestone boats lie moored, and out they come each man neat and clean, as for parade, hard and fit......


MARCHING BY FOR BATTLE.SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend


Its not big and its not clever folks, but just how slippery a slope is this drug taking lark?


The first step to addiction is inhalation.
DON'T DO IT - SAY NO TO DRUGS!!



Next there is a deepening of that dependency.
DON'T DO IT - SAY NO TO DRUGS!!



Eventually this leads to a total immersion in the drug for the addict.
DON'T DO IT - SAY NO TO DRUGS!!



After taking the drug, the addict appears chilled and relaxed.
DON'T DO IT - SAY NO TO DRUGS!!



This last photo shows the face of the truly addicted.
DON'T DO IT - SAY NO TO DRUGS!!




And its not long too, before everyone else gets in on the act.
DON'T DO IT - SAY NO TO DRUGS!!



No animals were harmed during the production of this government warning campaign.



DON'T DO IT - SAY NO TO DRUGS!!SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend



With the birth of the mobile phone and text messaging, twitter tweets and facebook feeds, is it now safe to assume, that all blog entries of more than 200 characters in length are considered far too over-facing to be read?

Discuss......


INSTANT MESSAGESocialTwist Tell-a-Friend



All around me there were unfortunate passengers screaming for help. They fell down, like myself, and some of them fainted. The deck became more and more downward-sloping every minute, and I rolled off into the water between the two halves of the sinking steamer. I was drawn down deep into the eddy, and began to be whirled round and thrown about in every direction.

                While under the water, I heard a dull, rumbling noise, which was evidently the bursting of the boilers, for it threw me out of the vortex about six or seven feet, away from the engulfment of the wreck. The stem and stern of the steamer had gone up until they were almost at right angles with the water, and the divided steamer was settling down.

                At this moment I was again sucked under, but I exerted myself afresh, and once more rose to the surface. I then saw both portions of my vessel go down rapidly, and disappear beneath the flood. A terrible commotion of the water ensued, and I was dragged under, together with the ship. I felt that I was going down deep, and for the first time I realised I was drowning.

                With the swiftness of lightening, all my past life flitted through my brain. I remembered my relatives, and it seemed as if I could see their grief and tears at the news of my death. My strength failed me, but I kept my mouth firmly shut, and tried not to take in the water. I knew that the moment of death from heart failure was getting near. It so happened, however, that the disturbance of the water somewhat abated, and I succeeded in swimming upwards again.

                I glanced around. The ship was no more. Nothing but broken pieces of wreckage, boxes which had contained our personal effects and provisions were floating about me. Everywhere, I could see the heads and arms of people battling with the waves, and their shrieks for help were frightful. It was impossible to describe the horrors of that scene, and the remembrance of it will remain with me for the rest of my life.

                Eight or nine fathoms away from where I was, I saw a life-saving raft, and I swam slowly towards it. Although my soddened clothes and the freezing temperatures greatly impeded my movements, I nevertheless reached the raft, and was taken aboard onto it. About twenty others were already on it, exclusively men. Amongst them was the ship’s mate, who assisted the Captain of our lost vessel, and he and I at once set about making a rudder out of two of the four oars on the raft, and we placed an oarsman on each side of it.

                We had been going about eight minutes when we saw the body of a woman floating by, motionless. I ordered the oarsmen to row towards her, but they said it was only a corpse, and we should do better to save some of the people who were still alive on the surface of the water. I seized hold of his oar, and as the woman floated nearer, I caught her with it, and dragged her towards us. I pulled her out of the water as far as her waist, and listened for her heart, which I found was still beating, though very slowly.

                We then raised her onto the raft. She was unconscious, quite blue, and with only feeble signs of life. We began to rub her chilled body, and bring her to her senses. She at last opened her eyes and enquired of me where she was. I told her that she was saved. Soon, however, she turned pale again, and said she was dying. She gave us the address of her family, to inform them of her death.

                She began to spit blood, and was delirious, but gradually a peacefulness to her terrors had returned, her breathing suddenly ceased and she was all at one with the vast ocean around us.


LOST AT SEASocialTwist Tell-a-Friend


With the UK facing its latest general election on May 6th, I thought it might interest you to know...

Millions of people from around the world are both concerned and frustrated over the political miss-happenings in their nations. They feel that something is wrong, but because of the ‘picture painters of the world’s press’, they can’t quite put their fingers on what it is.

Maybe you are one of those people. Something is bugging you, but you aren’t sure what it is. We keep electing new leaders who seemingly promise faithfully to halt the supposed world-wide advance towards communism, put the blocks on extravagant government spending, douse the fires of inflation, put the economy on an even keel, reverse the trend which is turning the country into a moral sewer, and toss the criminals into prisons where they all belong. Yet despite high hopes and a glittering campaign of promises, these problems continue to worsen no matter who is in office. Each new administration, whether it be Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Labour, continues the same basic policies of the previous administration which it had so thoroughly denounced during the election campaigning. It is considered somewhat bad form to mention this, but it is true nonetheless. Is there a plausible reason to explain why this happens? We are not supposed to think so. We are supposed to think it is all accidental and co-incidental and that therefore there is nothing we can do about it.

I think it’s time now, to finally put these myths to bed. I intend showing the world exactly what the truth really is, why things follow a ‘fixed’ path, why despite all our callings, things go on unchanged, and why we have no control.

Franklin D Roosevelt once said “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was always planned that way.” You can bet that at the time of this utterance, he was in a good position to know. It is my belief that many of the world events that are shaping our futures occur because somebody or bodies have planned it that way. If we were merely dealing with the law of averages, half of the events affecting our nation’s well being should be good for us. If we were dealing with mere incompetence though, our leaders should surely make a few ‘mistakes’ in our favour once in a while. It is my intention to prove that we are not dealing only with coincidence or stupidity, but with pure planning and brilliance. Here, we will learn how through planning and brilliance, things are being shaped through manipulators working on many levels with the sole objective of a unified cause – A Single World Government through means of Communism.

Those who believe that major world events result from planning are often laughed at for believing in the ‘conspiracy theory of history’. Of course, no one in this modern day and age really believes in the conspiracy theory of history. Either things happen by accident neither planned nor caused by anybody, or they happen because they are planned and somebody causes them to happen. In reality, it is the ‘accidental theory of history’ preached in the ivory towers of our learning institutions which should be ridiculed. Otherwise, why does every recent administration make the same mistakes as the previous ones? Why do they repeat the errors of the past which produce inflation, depressions and war? If you believe it is all an accident, the result of mysterious and inexplicable tides of history, you will undoubtedly become classed an ‘intellectual’ who understands that we live in a complex world. However, if you believe that something like 42,728 consecutive coincidences over the past 50 years stretches the laws of averages a bit, you will undoubtedly become classed as merely a crank. This is why the truth gets blurred and buried by means of a perverted form of Peer pressure. Let’s see where this takes us...

Everyone knows that Adolph Hitler existed. No one disputes that. The terror and destruction that this madman inflicted upon the world are universally recognised. Hitler came from a poor family which had absolutely no social position. He was a high school drop-out and nobody ever accused him of being cultured. Yet this man tried to conquer the world. During his early career, he sat in a cold cellar and poured onto paper his ambitions to rule the world. We know that.

Similarly, we know that a man named Vladimir Iliac Lenin also existed. Like Hitler, Lenin did not spring from a family of social lions. The son of a petty bureaucrat, Lenin who spent most of his adult life in poverty, has been responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of your fellow human beings and the enslavement of nearly a billion more. Like Hitler, Lenin sat up at nights in a dank cellar scheming how he could conquer the world. We know that too.

Is it not theoretically possible then, that a multi-billionaire could be sitting, not in a cellar, but in a penthouse, in Manhattan, London or Paris and dreaming the same dreams as Lenin or Hitler? You must admit, it is theoretically possible. Julius Caesar, a wealthy aristocrat, did. And such a man could form an alliance or association with other like minded men, might he not? Caesar did. These men would all of course be super educated, command immense social prestige and be able to pool astonishing amounts of money to carry out their purposes too. These are the advantages Lenin and Hitler did not have. Imagine then how much more successful our billionaire’s plans would be.

It is difficult for the average individual to fathom such a perverted lust for power. The typical person, of whatever nationality or gender, wants only to enjoy enough success in his/her job, to be able to afford a reasonably high standard of living complete with leisure and travel. He/she wants to provide for his/her family in sickness and in health and to give his/her children a sound education. 99% of the time, his/her ambition stops right there. He/she has no desire to exercise power over others, to conquer other lands or peoples, to be king or Queen. He/she just wants to enjoy life and mind his/her own business. Since he/she has no desire to rule over others, it is difficult for him/her to imagine how any others could possibly think this way. But we must realise that there have been Hitlers and Lenins and Napoleons and Caesars and Alexander the Greats throughout the whole course of human history. Why then should we assume that there are no such men around today with perverted lusts for power? And if these men happen to be billionaires, is it not also possible that they would use men like Hitler and Lenin as pawns to seize power for themselves?

COMMUNISM

Now before we carry on with our argument for our power crazed billionaires, let’s explore the birth of communism. The Communist Manifesto was written by (or for) Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels. Karl Marx was hired by a mysterious group who called themselves the ‘League of Just Men’ to write the Communist Manifesto as a demagogic boob-bait to appeal to the masses. If you go to the British Museum, you can find two cheques for several thousands of pounds made out to Karl Marx, signed by Nathan Rothschild for doing so. In actual fact the Communist Manifesto was in circulation for many years before Marx’ name was widely enough recognised to establish his authorship for this revolutionary hand-book. All Karl Marx really did was update and codify the very same revolutionary plans and principles set down seventy years earlier by Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Order of the Illuminati in Bavaria. And it is widely acknowledged by serious scholars on this subject that the League of Just Men was simply an extension of the Illuminati (High ranking Freemasonry) which was forced to go underground after it was exposed by a raid in 1786 conducted by Bavarian authorities. Anybody coming out of the Illuminati can tell you that the communist party is run by illuminists, not communists. History will show it. Adrian Pike – head of the Masons at the time, then the head of the illuminati – said that they needed to create a political party that would frighten the world and keep it's countries fighting – and that’s when in 1848, Karl Marx showed up.

Nathan Rothschild was a son of Meyer Rothschild of international banking notoriety. For a long time now, the Rothschilds have been associated with the Illuminati. Some even say they head it. In one foul swoop we have found the missing link between Communism; a tool developed and used by the Illuminati; a cartel of multi-billionaire, like minded people working together in a perverted lust for power.

Even though Communism is deemed to be no longer a threat, it is however important to see why it has been developed, and later on, we will see the reason for its demise. Communism, should have from day one, been called Con-manism. You see Communism is not run from Moscow or Peking, but it is an arm of a much bigger conspiracy run from the top offices of New York, London and Paris. The men at the apex of this movement are not Communists in the traditional sense of that term. They feel no loyalty towards Moscow or Peking. They are loyal only to themselves and their undertakings. And these men certainly do not believe the clap trap pseudo-philosophy of Communism. They have no intention of dividing their wealth. Socialism is a philosophy which conspirators exploit, but in which only the naive believe. Just how finance capitalism is used as the anvil and Communism as the hammer to conquer the world will now be explained.

WHAT IS COMMUNISM?

If you were to ask the citizens of America, the home of good old Capitalism, whether they were for or against Communism, we would find that a good 90% of the people are strongly anti-Communist. Those found to take an affirmative stand would qualify it by explaining that some places like Africa, Asia or even South America with their tremendous poverty, ignorance and disease could possibly thrive through a Communist dictate. But never in America thank you very much.

No surprises there then, but what if we were to now ask “What is Communism?”

Immediately a whole new situation has developed. Rather than the near unanimity we previously found, we now get a whole diversity of ideas. There are a whole multitude of opinions of what Communism really is all about. Whether you would agree or disagree with any of the definitions given, or as the case may be, you have one of your own, one thing is undeniable. No appreciable segment of the American public can agree on what it is they are so stridently against. Isn’t that frightening? Here we have something that everybody agrees is bad, but there is no agreement on just what it is, that they are all against. Now, in keeping with the fact that everyone appears to have their own definition of Communism, I am going to give you mine, and then I will attempt to qualify that definition.

COMMUNISM IS AN INTERNATIONAL, COSPIRATORIAL DRIVE FOR POWER ON THE PART OF MEN IN HIGH PLACES WILLING TO USE ANY MEANS TO BRING ABOUT THEIR DESIRED AIM OF GLOBAL CONQUEST.

You will notice that I did not mention Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, bourgeois, the proletariat or dialectical materialism. I mentioned nothing about the pseudo-economics or political philosophy of the Communists. These are only the TECHNIQUES of Communism and therefore should not be confused with the Communist conspiracy itself. Notice that I called it an international conspiratorial drive for power. That is because if we cannot grasp the conspiratorial nature of Communism, we just won’t understand it at all. We will be eternally fixated with the local levels of Communism. And that is not where we want to be at, at all.

CONSPIRACY

Now the easiest way to bring down the wrath of the liberal press establishment is simply to use the word conspiracy in relation to Communism. We are not supposed to believe that Communism is a political conspiracy. We can believe anything else that we wish to about it. We can believe that it is brutal, tyrannical, evil or even that it intends to bury us, and we would instantly win the plaudits of the vast majority of the world. But don’t ever, ever use the word conspiracy if you expect applause, for that is when the wrath of all LIBERALDOM will be unleashed against you. We are not disallowed from believing in all types of conspiracy, just modern political conspiracy.

We know that down through the annals of history small groups of men have existed that have conspired to bring the reins of power into their hands. History books are full of their schemes. Even Life magazine believes in conspiracies like that of the Cosa Nostra, where men conspire to make money through crime. You may recall that Life did a series of articles once on the testimony of Joseph Valachi before the McClellan Committee several years ago. There are some interesting aspects of those revelations which are worth noting.

Most of us did not know at the time, that the organisation was called the Cosa Nostra. Until Valachi ‘sang’ we all thought it was named the Mafia. That is how little we knew about this group, despite the fact that it was a century old and had been operating in many different countries with a self-perpetuating clique of leaders. We didn’t even know it’s proper name. Is it not possible then that a political conspiracy just might exist, waiting for its own Joseph Valachi to testify?

We see that everybody, even Life magazine, believes in some form of conspiracy. But, the question is: Which is the more lethal form of conspiracy – criminal or political? And what is the difference between the Cosa Nostra and a Communist, or more properly, an Illuminist? Men like Lucky Luciano who have scratched and clawed to the top of the heap in organised crime must, of necessity, be diabolically brilliant, cunning and absolutely ruthless. But, almost without exception, the men in the hierarchy of organised crime have had no other formal education. They were born into poverty and learned their trade in the back alleys of Naples, New York or even Chicago.

Now suppose somebody with this same amoral grasping personality were born into a patrician family of great wealth and was educated at the best of prep schools, then followed on at Oxford or Eton. In these institutions, he would become familiar with history, economics, psychology, sociology and political science. After graduating from such illustrious institutions of higher learning, are we likely to find him out on the streets peddling tickets to a numbers game, pushing drugs to school kids, or running houses of prostitution? Would he be getting involved in gangland killings? Not at all. For with that sort of an education, this person would easily realise that if one wants real power, the history books say get into government. Become a politician and work for political power, or better still, get some politicians to front for you. That is where the real power and the real money is.

Conspiracy to seize the power of government is as old as government itself. We can study the conspiracies surrounding Alcibrades in Greece or Julius Caesar in ancient Rome, but we are not supposed to think that men today scheme to achieve political power.

Every conspirator has two things in common with every other conspirator. He must be an accomplished liar and a far seeing planner. Whether you are studying Hitler, Alcibrades, Julius Caesar or some of our contemporary conspirators, you will find that their patient planning is overwhelming. Let’s repeat FDR’s statement: “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”

In reality, Communism is a tyranny planned by power seekers whose most effective weapon is the big lie. And if one takes all the lies of Communism and boil them down, you will find they distil into two major lies of which all others spring. They are: (1) Communism is inevitable, and (2) Communism is a movement of the downtrodden masses rising up against their exploiting bosses.

SURVEYS

Returning now to our American in the street let’s analyse our first big lie of Communism – that it is inevitable. You will recall that we asked our interviewee if he was for or against Communism and then we asked him to define it. Now we are going to ask him if he thinks Communism is inevitable in America, and in almost every case, the response will go something like this: “Oh well, no. I don’t think so. You know how Americans are. We might be a little slow sometimes in reacting to danger. You remember Pearl Harbour. But the American people would never sit still for Communism.”

Next we ask: “Well then, do you think Socialism is inevitable in America?” The answer in almost every case will again be similar to this: “I’m no Socialist, you understand, but I see what is going on in this country. Yeah, I’d have to admit that Socialism is inevitable.” Then we ask: “Since you say you are no Socialist, but you feel your country is becoming Socialised, why don’t you do something about it?” His reaction will probably run: “Hey, I’m only one person. Besides it’s inevitable. You can’t fight City Hall.” And so it goes in Britain, France, Germany and the rest of the world.

LIES AND EMPTY PROMISES

Don’t you realise that the boys in office are doing everything they can to convince you of that? How effectively can you oppose anything if you feel your efforts will be futile? Giving your opponent the idea that defending himself is futile, is a trick as old as warfare itself. In about 600BC, the Chinese war-lord/philosopher Sun Tsu stated, “Supreme excellence in warfare lies in the destruction of your enemy’s will to resist in advance of perceptible hostilities.” These days we call it Psychological Warfare. In Poker, it is called ‘running a good bluff’. The principle is the same.

How important is the “inevitability of Communism” to the Communists? Or rather more importantly, what do the Communists want you to believe is inevitable, Communism or Socialism? If you study Marx’ Communist Manifesto you will find that in essence Marx said that the proletarian revolution would establish SOCIALIST dictatorship of the proletariat. To achieve this SOCIALIST dictatorship of the proletariat, three things would have to be accomplished: (1) The elimination of all rights to private property; (2) The dissolution of the family unit; and (3) Destruction of what Marx referred to as the “Opiate of the people”, religion. That’s no resources, no reserves and no hope, for the people involved.

Marx then went on to state that when the dictatorship of the proletariat had accomplished these three things throughout the world, and after some carefully undetermined length of time (as you can imagine, he became very vague at this point), the all powerful state would miraculously wither away and state Socialism would give way to Communism. You wouldn’t need any government at all. Everything would be peace, sweetness and light and everybody would live happily ever after. But first, all Communists must work to establish SOCIALISM.

Can’t you just see Karl Marx really believing that an omnipresent state would just wither away? Or can you imagine that Joseph Stalin (or any other man with the cunning and ruthlessness necessary to reach the top of the heap in an all powerful dictatorship) would voluntarily dismantle the power he had built through fear and terror.

Communism would merely be the bait... the excuse to establish the necessary SOCIALIST dictatorship, where the individual would willingly bind himself over to a life of what can only be deemed to be slavery. Since any form of dictatorship is hard to sell in idealistic terms, the idea had to be added that the dictatorship was only to be a temporary necessity that would soon dissolve of its own accord. In order to swallow that whopper, the masses had to be naive, but millions of people around the world have already done so, and let’s face it, how many established dictatorships have you known to naturally dissolve?

SOCIALISM

The drive to establish SOCIALISM, not Communism is at the core of everything the Communists and Illuminists controlling them do. Marx and all of his successors in the Communist movement have ordered their followers to work on building SOCIALISM. If you ever go to hear an official Communist speaker, he never actually mentions Communism. He will speak only of the struggle to complete the Socialisation of an area. If you go to a Communist book store you will find that all their literature pushes the theme of SOCIALISM. It doesn’t call for the establishment of Communism, but SOCIALISM.

Today’s political leaders, are probably not particularly great readers of Marx, but you can rest assured that their advisors are all excellent scholars who knew him particularly well and could bring our leaders quickly up to speed. However they chose not to. It is beyond denying that it is these advisors that have aided the modern day rush into Socialism through their administration. Nearly every big name politician of the last 50 years has come through the ranks of establishments like the Tri-Lateral Council (TLC), the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) or the Bilderburg Conventions (BIL). REGARDLESS of their political stance, they have all been schooled (or brainwashed?) with the same philosophies. Is this why SOCIALISM seems so inevitable?

The chief SOCIALIST gains in the past traditionally come in under a Labour government who by nature, are a predominantly Socialist party. Then, for some unknown reason, whenever the Conservatives recover power, these Socialist gains generally remain on the statute books. Socialism grows more and more socialist, and by the same token, Conservativism grows constantly less and less Conservative.

During the time of the Nixon administration (yes, it goes that far back – even further), Walter Trohan, columnist for the Chicago Tribune and one of America’s outstanding political commentators, accurately noted: “It is a known fact that the policies of the government today, whether Republican or Democrat (Labour & Conservative in English money), are closer to the 1932 platform of the Communist Party than they are to either of their own party platforms in that critical year. More than 100 years ago, in 1848 to be exact, Karl Marx promulgated his program for the Socialised state in the Communist Manifesto ...”

And Mr Trohan too, had been led to believe that the trend was inevitable:

“Conservatives should be realistic enough to recognise that this country is going deeper and deeper into Socialism and will see expansion of federal power, whether Republicans or Democrats are in power. The only comfort they may have is that the pace will be slower under Richard M. Nixon than it might have been under Hubert H. Humphrey...

Conservatives are going to have to recognise that the Nixon Administration will embrace most of the Socialism of the Democratic Administrations, while professing to improve it ...”

You see, the establishment promotes the idea of the inevitability of Communism through its perversion of terms used in describing the political spectrum. Take a look at the following diagram. It should be familiar to you, because it depicts the political spectrum that we have all been led to believe in for a long while. I am 47 years old at the moment, and throughout my whole life, this is the only spectrum I have ever known.


We are told that on the far left of the political spectrum, we will find Communism, which is admittedly dictatorial. But we are also told that equally to be feared is the opposite of the far left, i.e., the far right, which is labelled Fascism. We are constantly told that we should all try to stay in the middle of the road, which is termed democracy, but by which the establishment means Fabian (or creeping) Socialism. (The fact that the “middle of the road” has been gradually creeping over to the left for the past 40-60 years has somehow been conveniently overlooked). Here is an excellent example of the use of false alternatives we are fed on. We are given a choice between Communism (international Socialism) on the left, Fascism (National Socialism) on the right, or middle of the road Fabian Socialism. The whole spectrum is SOCIALIST.

At first glance, it looks and feels right doesn’t it? But wait. This whole spectrum is absurd. Where would you put an anarchist on this spectrum? Where would you put a person who believes in a constitutional republic and the free enterprise system? These two chaps are simply not represented on this spectrum, yet it is used for political definitions by a probable 90% of the world’s people.

There is a more accurate political spectrum out there, although not many people are able to properly define it. SOCIALISM is, by definition, total government. If you have total government it makes little difference whether you call it Fascism, Socialism, Caesarism or Pharoaism. It’s all pretty much the same from the stand point of the people who must live and suffer under it. If total government (by any of its pseudonyms) stands on the far left, then by logic alone the far right should represent anarchy, or no government.


Before we go on, there are two things that immediately spring to mind that need a little further explaining. The first is that our major political parties are no longer spread from left to right across the spectrum. This is because we have just seen that they are all following the same remit, some maybe faster than others, but their policies show that there is not much difference between them. The next problem we have is our old friend Communism. If true Communism in its purest form were ever to materialise beyond the myth that has been created around it, then its natural place on the spectrum would be next to Anarchy with little or no need for government. (Shown here in white lettering). Sadly this form of Communism, seen rarely outside of a Jewish Kibbutz will never be realised and rests here purely for illustration purposes only. In its real life form, Communism must be taken for what it truly is. No more than a tool for entrapment into Socialism (shown here in black lettering). This is where Communism as we know it, belongs. It is however, interesting to note that with Communism theoretically at both ends of this new spectrum, was it perhaps Communism that helped inspire the previous SOCIALIST spectrum that we have all grown up with? Answers to that one on a post card please.

AMERICA CALLING!

The founding fathers of America revolted against the near total government of the English Monarchy. But they knew that having no government at all would soon lead to chaos. So they set up a Constitutional Republic with a very limited government. They knew that men prospered in freedom. Although the free enterprise system is not mentioned specifically in the Constitution, it is the only one which can exist in a Constitutional Republic. All collectivist systems require power in government which the Constitution did not grant. The founding fathers had no intention of allowing government to become an instrument to steal the fruit of one man’s labour and give it to another who had not earned it. The American government was to be one of very limited powers. Thomas Jefferson said: “In questions of power then let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Jefferson knew that if the government were not enslaved, then the people soon would be.

It was Jefferson’s view that government governs best which governs least. The founding fathers established America with the very least possible amount of government. Although they lived in an age before cars, electric lights and television, they understood human nature and it’s relation to political systems far better than most Americans do today. Times change, technology changes, but principles stand eternal. Primarily, government was to provide for national defence and to establish a court system. But the chains that Jefferson spoke of have long since been broken and America’s political agenda has been moving leftwards towards collectivist total government. Every proposal made by today’s political leaders, seems to bring us closer towards a more centralised government. This is not because Socialism is inevitable. It is no more inevitable than Pharoaism. It is like I stated at the beginning, it’s the result of careful, meticulous planning and patient gradualism.

BUT WHAT IS SOCIALISM?

Well I’m glad you asked. Since all Communists and their Illuminati bosses are waging a constant struggle for socialism, it’s finally time for us to define that term. Socialism is usually defined by a government ownership and/or control over the basic means of production and distribution of goods and services. When analysed this means government control over everything, including people. All controls are “people” controls. If government controls these areas, it can eventually do what Marx set out to do – destroy the right to private property, eliminate the family and wipe out all religion.

Like it or not, we are being Socialised, and everybody seems to know it. If we go back now to our American man in the street that we were interviewing previously, he might say: “You know, the one thing I can’t figure out is why all these very, very wealthy people like the Fords, the Rockefellers and others are so for Socialism? Why is it that the super-rich are all for it? Aren’t they the ones that will have the most to lose? I take a look at my bank account and compare it with Nelson Rockefeller’s and it seems funny that I am against Socialism while he seems staunchly in favour of it, actively promoting it even.” Or is it funny? In reality, there is a vast difference between what the promoters define as Socialism and what it is in actual practice. The idea that Socialism is a share the wealth program is strictly a confidence trick to get the people to surrender their freedom to an all powerful collectivist government. While the insiders tell us we are building a paradise on Earth, we are actually constructing ourselves a penitentiary.

Doesn’t it strike you as strange that some of the individuals pushing hardest for Socialism have their own personal wealth protected in family trusts and tax-free foundations? Men like Rockefeller, Ford and Kennedy (all Illuminists by the way) are for every Socialist program known to man which will increase your own taxes. Yet they pay extremely little, if anything in taxes themselves. An article published by the North American Newspaper Alliance in 1967 tells how the Rockefellers pay practically no income taxes despite their vast wealth. The article revealed that one of the Rockefellers paid the grand sum total of only $685 personal income tax during an extremely profitable year. The Kennedys have their Chicago Merchandise Mart, their mansions, yachts, planes etc., all owned by the myriads of family foundations and trusts. Taxes are for peons! Yet hypocrites like Rockefeller, Ford, and Kennedy pose as great champions of the “downtrodden”. If they were really concerned about the poor, rather than using Socialism as a means of achieving personal political power, they would divest themselves of their own fortunes. There is no law which prevents them from giving away their own fortunes to the poverty stricken. Shouldn’t these men set an example? And practice what they preach? If they advocate sharing the wealth, shouldn’t they start with their own instead of that of the middle class which pays almost all of the country’s tax bills? Why don’t these big boys give away their wealth, retaining only enough to place themselves at the national average? Can’t you just imagine them giving up their mansions, aeroplanes and yachts, moving into a £200,000 house with a £170,000 mortgage like the rest of us?

We are usually told that this clique of super-rich people are all Socialists because they carry a guilt complex over the wealth that they inherited and did not earn. Again they could quite easily resolve these supposedly guilty feelings simply by divesting themselves of their un-earned wealth. Of course all of the world’s wealthy are not to be tarred with the same brush, there are doubtless many wealthy do-gooders who have been given a guilt complex by their college professors, but that doesn’t explain the actions of these insiders like the Rockefellers, the Fords or the Kennedys. Their actions betray them as power seekers.

But these same people and their super-rich confederates are being hypocrites in advocating Socialism. It appears to be a contradiction for the super-rich to work for Socialism and the destruction of free enterprise. In reality though, it is not.

Our problem is that most of us believe that Socialism is what the Socialists want us to believe it is – a share the wealth program. That is the theory. But is that how it works out? Let us now examine the only Socialist countries – as according to the Socialist definition of the word – extant in the world today. These, amazingly, are the Communist countries. The Communists themselves refer to these as Socialist countries, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.) for example. Here in the reality of Socialism you have a tiny oligarchial clique at the top, usually numbering no more than three percent of the total population, controlling the total wealth, total production and the very lives of the other 97%. Certainly even the most naive of observers would have seen that Mr Brezhnev didn’t live like one of the poor peasants out on the great Russian Steppes. But according to Socialist theory, he is supposed to have done just that. Instead he lived a further lie, supposedly brandishing himself with the trappings of the rich, to enable himself to better mix with other world authorities. Do you believe him?

If one understands that Socialism is not a share the wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting Socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power seeking megalomaniacs. Communism, or more accurately, Socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite. The plan of the conspirator Super-banker, Illuminati insiders then is to Socialise a country, not Communise it.

HOW TO SOCIALISE A COUNTRY

Let’s start again with America. The founding fathers of America established a structure of government through its Constitution. The Constitution fractionalised and sub-divided governmental power in every way it possibly could do. The founding fathers believed that every branch of the government, whether at federal, state or local levels, would be jealous of its own powers and would therefore never surrender them to a centralised control. Also, many phases of life, such as charity, education, religion and policing were put totally or almost totally out of the reach of politicians. Under this system you could never have a dictatorship. No individual segment of government could possibly amass enough power to form a dictatorship. In order to have a dictatorship one must have a single hand pulling most of the reins of power. Once you have this, a dictatorship is inevitable. And later, those who control the President indirectly gain control of the whole country.

The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes noted: “Freedom is government divided into small fragments.” Woodrow Wilson, before he became a tool of the insiders, observed: “The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of government power, not the increase of it.” And the English historian Lord Acton commented: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Even though these men lived well after the formation of the American Constitution, the forefathers, somewhat way ahead of their time, seemed to understand all of these principles only too well.

But what is it that is happening today? Well, as we move ever leftward along the political spectrum towards Socialism, all of the reins of power are becoming more and more centralised at all levels of government. Most of this is done with money. Money is used as bait, and the hook is federal control. The Supreme courts have ruled, and in this case quite logically, that “it is hardly lack of due process for the government to regulate that in which it subsidises.”

Now, if you were part of a clique, and your clique wanted to control the U.S., it would be impossible for you to take over every City Hall, country seat and state house. You would want all power vested at the apex of the executive branch of the federal government; then you would have to control only one man in order to control the whole shooting range. If you wanted to control the nation’s manufacturing base, commerce, finance, transportation and natural resources, you would need only to control the apex, the power pinnacle, of an all Socialist centralised government. Then you would have a monopoly and could squeeze out all of your competition. If you wanted a national monopoly, you must control a world socialist government.

AND THAT’S WHAT THIS WHOLE GAME IS ALL ABOUT!!

Communism was never a movement of the downtrodden masses but was a movement created, manipulated and used by power seeking billionaires in order to gain control over the world... first by establishing Socialist governments in the various nations of the world and then consolidating them all through a “great merger”, into an all powerful world socialist super-state probably under the auspices of the United Nations. Do you find any of this hard to believe? Well let me inform you that the unification of Germany and the consolidation of the EEC are all a part of it. A trail run, so to speak. Notice the need for practice? Is not practice itself indicative of meticulous planning?

GAME OVER?

This day and age, Communism seems very much in demise. So, is there any particular reasoning for this or have we managed to buck the trends that we have been reading about? Surely if you have read the previous, then to ask such a question you have missed the whole point anyway. Yes, Communism is on the wane, but who needs Communism anyway? You see Communism has never been the objective. The real objective here was SOCIALISM. Something we all appear to have bought into anyway. We don’t need Communism. Communism takes the whole thing one step too far, where the dictators fade into oblivion, remember? And what happens when Communism collapses? Is it not true that the great democracies of the world pour in billions of pounds worth of aid in support of such a good cause? Who pays for this aid? We the tax payer have been duped twice, nay three times over, through the miss-guided ideals of Communism. We paid the first time through financial support of the cold war. – Strike one for the Super-banker. We’re sliding further towards Socialism through or efforts to repel Communism. – Strike two. Then we pay hand over fist, to deal out aid to the struggling ex- Communist communities – Strike three.

Happy voting England... Let's see if we can make a difference this time!



POLITICAL FAILINGS.SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Some of my more popular posts

There was an error in this gadget

Search This Blog

About This Blog

Its my own fault really, its all about what I see in the world, and how it all translates for me.

Please, please, please, dive in and enjoy this blog and all that I will ever ask in return, is you add a few comments whilst passing through.

And if you've enjoyed reading the contents as much as I have compiling them, help spread the word through your friends.

Thanks again for dropping by, hope to see you again real soon.

Need a little more?

  © Blogger template Shush by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP