Sharpen - The Articles


Please note:


If you have any observations regarding any of the articles, you are welcome to comment.

An opportunity is given at the end of each article to so do.

However, I am not open to abuse or spam. Any comments will be read before downloading, any abuse is therefore a waste of time.

These articles are written in good faith, as replies should be.

Since I am English, the spelling is English, not 'American' English.



These articles were written by me. They belong to me. Taking them as your own (or even parts of them) in any manner whatsoever, is plagiarism (stealing). Referring to them with your own ideas is fine. I can't stop anyone using/copying them, since they can be copied. It's your choice, your responsibility.


Peter K. Sharpen

(Cert.Ed., Dip. Special Education.)

Copyright © Peter K Sharpen, 2003, 2004


Viewing these pages.

These pages were written to be viewed at 1024 x 768.However, as most people view at 800x600 they are constructed as such.

If you have problems viewing these pages, go to the <View> tab in Microsoft Internet Explorer, Netscape and scroll down to <Text> and choose an appropriate size.







My Declaration


What's Appropriate Behaviour?


Australia -A personal perspective


Back To Basics




The Comfort Syndrome


Aren't Women Really in Control?


The Duplex Notion


Is Fear Based on Ignorance?


Letter to John Howard


Rules, Laws and Justice


The Limitations of Man


About Love


Are We Monogamous?




The Older Person


Philorexia Nervosa




The Veneer Syndrome


Could Life Be Simpler?


Does Speed Kill?


To Whom It May Concern




Why Is Man So Violent?


How Can I Change the World?


I Believe that...




All of us...


Where's My Dad?


Biological Memory


Who or What is God?


Are You a Stress Freak?


No Fault, No Blame


Do Not Vote!


ANZAC Day and similar


Application Form


Driving in Western Australia


Gifts and Magic


Why I am a happy person


The World is a mess-why?


Will I be born?


The whole world is a scam


We are born


Australia's new defence forces




Anxiety -Panic syndrome








Better people




In search of a Christ


What is Stress?


World War Three?




Global or Local?


Male Genital Mutilation


War on Nail-files




Risk Factor

















These articles date from 1966 (The Limitations of Man) and have been added to as time went on, therefore they are in no particular order of chronology (although most probably are, especially the later ones).

Ever controversial, they are what I feel strongly about. It is, unfortunately, a sad world that we live in and for me, one of the only ways that I can get this sorrow out of my soul is to write down how I feel. It is part of my nature.

Many, or most, of these articles have a recurrent theme. It's just another way of looking at things.

I owe the essences of these articles from my wide reading and viewing the personal experiences of a great many people, dead and alive. Their lives have given me comfort and discomfort but most of all, inspiration.

To those who have 'shuffled off this mortal coil' and those to come, I give my sincerest thanks.

Please click on the number of an article you wish to read, anywhere and read as you will. If any of these articles invite you to comment productively, then they have served their purpose.

Peter K Sharpen


United Kingdam

August, 2004



Back to Contents







BE IT KNOWN to all and sundry, that I, Peter Kenneth SHARPEN, born a free person and named (without consent), on or about 8.30 a.m. but on Wednesday, 5th July, 1944, do hereby make the following DECLARATION:

That I, being said Freeborn person on this planet called Earth, do hereby disclaim/disallow or otherwise prohibit any other person* or groups** (known or unknown to me) by their so-called/assumed or self-imposed/assumed Control, Right, Authority, Will or otherwise, to take control over, by or in any manner or means whatsoever, my person by this said so-called/assumed or self-imposed/assumed Control, Right, Authority, Will or otherwise.

Further, that I am, therefore, subject to no-one person or persons' said so-called/assumed or self-imposed/assumed Control, Right, Authority, Will or otherwise, unless I desire it and make a written statement to that effect, without coercion and either sign my given name, attach finger-prints, retinal patterns, a supply of my DNA, or any other means of establishing my unique identity (or any one or more of these), accordingly.

I therefore reject any notion whatsoever, whysoever, by whomsoever, whensoever or howmsoever that this is otherwise.

So be it.


Peter Kenneth SHARPEN

Dated: Sunday, 19th December, 1999 and for ever after.

* Person includes any parent, friend, acquaintance, despot, dictator, individual of a group or any individual defined in a language, written or otherwise.

**Groups include any more than one person, all forms of gatherings, governments, dictatorships or any group defined in any language, written or otherwise.




Back to Contents



Collins English Dictionary (1974) defines: Appropriate adj. Suitable, fitting

You may question, suitable for what; fitting for what.

The word 'appropriate' is very important in our daily lives. Its importance lies in how people behave towards themselves and others (this includes all fauna and flora).

How people behave towards others is determined by a number of factors:

1. How people act towards others: this may be in fact or fiction. In other words, acting towards another entity may be as close as possible to the nature of the person without particular thought, or a deliberate act of presentation with a specific intention in mind.

2. How people appear to others: this is the way that one presents themselves, including dress, make-up, visual adornments and so on.

3. How people react with others: again, this may be a fact or fiction, depending on what reaction one wants.

In a sense, they may all be the same...


To be able to exist, we need to communicate with others, (which we need to do to survive, like it or not). We must be able to be ourselves as we want to be but respect (because of their opinions) the entitlement that others wish to be themselves also.

It's pretty simple.

If we act in a way that causes concern to others, (that is, they are not comfortable with us in some way) then we are acting inappropriately, like it or not. That is, unless we are determined to be totally negative.

We may feel that we are correctly behaving (because we may be self-centred) but other people may find that they are not comfortable with that. We therefore need to learn to modify our reaction/s with them, therefore making both ourselves and them, feel comfortable. This is a learning process. If we are not able to do this, then we have a problem that usually might have to be solved by some-one else. Hopefully, this will be a guidance, which is what learning should be about (in my view).

Simply, appropriate behaviour is reacting with the environment in a way that everything within that environment can be itself without the control of others.

Inappropriate behaviour may be equated with trying to take control of others to suit a personal goal and this is not sound if you want to remain an individual and survive in any sort of society (which you may or not like).


Conformity is having others control our lives to the extent that we do what we are told or we conform because we want to or it may be painful not to (in some way).

Appropriate behaviour is not necessarily conformity.

It may be, only because we are acting appropriately and so are others; a sort of conformity bred from all acting appropriately; a sort of general consensus which may not be conscious.

Why we need to be aware of appropriate behaviour?

We need to be aware of appropriate behaviour in all sorts of ways and most circumstances. What is 'right' or 'correct' in one situation may not be 'right' or 'correct' in others. Again, this is part of the learning process and it is a question of asking other people (whatever age you or they are). By asking other people (anything!) we can then weigh up (for ourselves) the consequences of each of our actions and try to act appropriately (for us or them).

If granny doesn't like how we dress and we want to get on with granny (maybe because she gives us things our parents don't), then we dress to please. (Supply and demand, or even demand and supply). That is to say, if we want or need something, we need to act appropriately. It may not be how we want to be (or act) but if we want it badly enough, we need to act appropriately. If we don't want to act in a particular way because we feel we want to be independent, we have a problem. Acting appropriately, is, then, our decision.


Independence is the way we feel we should be. We are our own person. No-one should tell us what to do. Great! I agree. I have my own Declaration to that effect.

However, this has nothing to do with survival, in a sense.

We can be independent of others. We can be own person (however we conceive that to be). We can be independent in a crowd or on our own (if we so wish). But to survive in the world, we need to act in an appropriate manner when we deal with others who do not have the same ideas.

This does not mean that we give up our independence. It means that we are conscious of how we am acting for our own independence. In other words, by 'conforming' we am not conforming! This is because we are conscious of the way we are acting, therefore we are independent.

Further, it does not mean that we am 'sucking up' to others. It merely means that we are conscious of our behaviour. Conscious is the key word.


Rebellion is the way by which most people try to get away from the control on their lives by others. Like independence, it is a rather warped perception. It is also another view of independence.

Rebellion consists of going against what is seen as 'normal'. It is an act of independence.

As an example, take body jewellery. The act of adorning the body is as ancient as Man/Woman. It was and is, an act of making ourselves 'different' (or even the same) from others, depending on the culture.

To be adorned by body jewellery (including piercing, tattooing, wearing rings, bracelets, necklaces, clothes and so on) is, apparently (since most of us like it or need it or want it), pretty 'normal'.

We all want to be different.

However, we know we are nearly all the same. We seem to be based on a presumably set design (according to a tradition). We have two legs, arms and so forth and various bits that distinguish us from being male or female.

We have been brainwashed into believing that others, without the same body parts or parts that may not function in the same way as ours, are 'different'.

This also goes for the 'mind'. Not so, I am afraid.

Summing Up

Acting 'appropriately' is our decision as a person, an independent entity.

Acting 'appropriately' depends on whether we feel the need to control others (and why we need to control them). Is it for our own selfish ends?

Acting 'appropriately' means making life happier for everyone and every so-called 'thing' (including the flowers and trees and cockroaches, slugs, sharks and so on) without compromising our independence.

Acting 'appropriately' means making our own lives happier because we care about ourselves and hopefully others.

Acting 'appropriately' means doing to others what you would like to be done to yourself.




Back to Contents



















(A personal perspective)


Especially: The Pathetic Country.

The land of the G.A.R.O. (Great Australian Rip-Off) .

Australia is a stolen/taken land.

It was stolen/taken from the indigenous peoples who occupied it, (as all lands are stolen when they infringe upon the prior inhabitants, whomsoever they may be and for whatsoever reason they occupy the land they live upon).

The invaders of such lands, whatever or whomsoever they may be then set out to dominate those whom it only had the power of Might to subjugate to their own ends.

Witness all invasions.

Australia is typical of a land so dominated (not necessarily in this order) by:

* its vast size limited by little intellect, integrity or loyalty.

* a political/judicial dictatorship not concerned with the public it is supposed to serve and for whom the public have supposedly 'voted' (read, in their terms, "democracy")

* very poor advertising and slogans containing the word 'your' or 'our' ('Your ABC, 'Our Prime Minister') and so on. These messages are a form of intimidation. They are designed to make you fit into their patterns of behaviour. These slogans have the same emotional control as the concepts of "Family' and so forth. They maybe 'yours' they are certainly not mine!)

* hedonistic (pleasure), drugs, sex (usually poor quality and animal in respect only of immediate gratification), and weak lager (in small doses).

* over-eating and over-indulgence.

* controllers of others' affairs about which they have no notion.

* desecration by these individuals.

* kicking, throwing, hitting or otherwise manipulating some kind of ball (which I believe is called sport).

(Note: It comes to mind that most, if not all sport concerns the use of phallic symbols, balls or holes; jumping, riding, running (away from, probably), and into recent history, hugging, kissing and so on.)

* chewing/eating and the constant drinking of fluids in the vain hope that they will not cook their already cooked brains. (I encroach on their comfort zones.)

* the control of (usually American) televisionised films, most often to their detriment.

* the pathetic and insubstantial.

* a lack of any sort of culture other than the vulgar and crude.

* the ransacking of itself (ores, minerals, wood, ozone layer and so on) for the ends of the greedy 'entrepreneurs'.

* making a fast dollar through gambling.

* racism but trying to prove otherwise; unsuccessfully.

* technology that few know how to use.

* educational systems they bought cheap because they didn't work elsewhere.

* a veneer hiding a lot of shoddy goods they no longer produce (thanks China!).

* soap operas designed to keep people away from the realities of life created by controllers.

* junk foods.

(Note: I use the word 'dominated' which of course does not include those (humans) who are doing their work to benefit every form of life species on this planet, for the purpose of the planet (not themselves).

Like many others, Australians are proud of all this and fly flags (like most 'nations' ) to promote their inanity.

Those who practice independence from this profanity are pronounced 'doomed' and are thus ostracised .

Australia is not alone, here. Nearly all, if not all, 'countries' are the same.

So, you may ask!!

Why do I live here?

.......I choose to do so.

I am a free-born subject; subject to none and with no subjects under me.

I do so because at this present moment it suits me personally.

I certainly do not wish to associate myself with Australia's so-called 'culture'; heaven forbid, or any other culture that presents the same problem's to me as an individual.



Back to Contents  






















When we are conceived, the product of two individuals results in the creation of a new individual. From that moment of the gelling of the sperm and ovum the resulting zygote as a new individual or entity, receives and emits data. This receiving and emitting goes on until we die.

To die means to no longer receive data (at least In the same way that makes us self-aware) but we still give it out, since in some way we go back Into the earth or the world about us.

Whilst in the womb, we may have no consciousness, (that is we are not aware of our existence), but we still receive data (from whatever source).

Since we receive data, it becomes one with us. We have no control over it. When we are born and enter the 'world-as-it-is' we begin to have some control over the data we are receiving. This process is what is known as the sub-conscious, but we must beware that our concept of the sub-conscious may not be correct. Just how far our control is our self-awareness is open to question. Be that as it may, we are slowly but gradually becoming more self-aware.

This process of self-awareness (in Man) is what separates us from other life forms. That is to say, other creatures are aware, but not in the same degree of self-awareness that Man is (as far as we know).

There are professed to be two (at least) parts of the mind, the conscious (self-awareness) and the sub-conscious (the part that directs our bodily functions and so on). These two functions are not separate, but work closely together. That is, they shift constantly back and forth. The so-called 'mind' (I believe) is a reaction between the two,

We are conscious (self-aware) of our bodies and minds but it has been shown that we are dictated very directly by the sub-conscious. It plays the most important role In what we are or may become.

Since data has been received since inception or conception, this sub-conscious dictates what we do and how we react to new stimuli (data, experience or whatever you want to call it). This is sometimes known as cellular memory.

But cellular memory is more important than that. What cellular memory is, is that all the data that has been received since conception is found in every part of the cellular structure of our body. (Analogy: It is known that a hologram may be shattered into a million pieces, but each piece has the whole original picture within it). I also feel that the walls that surround us hold all the emanations (data) from us, including emotions as well as the actual words spoken.

Our whole body contains all the data (from whatever source) we have received. It is therefore never forgotten. Although no cell of our body is the same cell after a number of years, we still retain the essential 'Me' or 'I'. As the cells receive more data they 'age' and this is distributed throughout the body and we 'age' (get older). (Thought: if we take a cell of our body and clone it, do we get the baby or the wo/man?).

Questions might be imposed here:

1. Are we a product, therefore, of our data? That is, do we react because we do, because of the data we received at an early age?

2. If that data seems incorrect now because of circumstances and maybe our unhappiness, can we change it or is it fixed forever and we can do nothing about it?

The answer to the first question is 'yes'.

The answer to the second is "yes'.

The reasoning to the first question is this:

We do receive data. This data may be totally sub-conscious (because we are not aware of its incoming). Therefore we have no control over it at the time. (As time goes on we can filter data to a certain extent we can ' switch off' to various experiences that lead to data reception) . It is this that leads us to the concept of levels of awareness. (There may be an argument here).

It's pretty obvious (to me at least) that we operate on different Levels of Awareness. If this were not so, then no-one could perpetrate crimes against another, for example. The data received, drives the individual, it is the accelerator of our lives.

The reasoning to the second question is this:

The fact that we are self-aware (conscious) means that if we are aware that we are programmed by the data input into us (albeit sub-conscious) we can have some control over it.

The concept of self-control is vital. Without it, we are lost.

This concept of self-control/awareness has often gone by the name of "free will', But are we free to will? It has been said that free will is the 'feeling' that we are free. I thought this correct but now I really doubt it because I ask: What is directing this thought, the data I have received?

The path to finding this answer is to find out (as much as is possible) what it is in our early data that directs us.

Our early history of data input is the most important factor. It is in the earliest years of our experiences in the world that are laid down the patterns of later behaviours. (The plural is significant because it implies change and possible changes). It is an understanding of these that can lead us to change them, consciously. We must bring the sub-conscious to the surface (conscious). How we do this depends on the individual and the teaching (the means by which we can learn about them). It matters not how, as long as we can become aware of what early data is driving us.

The fact that we receive data also means that we give out data.

This is a new ball game in this monologue.

The universe, as far as we know it, is made up of electro-chemical radiation.

As far as we know and understand, the universe is made of waves of energy . Energy is the on-going force which drives everything. It moves forward and therefore changes as it accumulates (feedback).

Waves are not tangible. They cannot be seen but they can be reacted to. (We cannot see radio waves, but interpreted, they can be heard).

The body is a receiver. It receives data in the form of waves. Because we are wave receivers we receive data in the form of waves. It therefore follows that we transmit waves of some kind, since life itself in the influx and outflow of energy, otherwise we would be dead.

We are electro-chemical beings.

The waves that we give out are dependent on the waves we have received. If those waves are positive,

then we give out positive waves. If those waves are negative, then the waves we give out are negative. This is simplistic, of course, the waves we give out are a mixture of both.

Frequency modulation (FM) relies on a carrier wave (basic wave). Upon this wave are superimposed changing or modulating waves. This gives us the sound (experience) that we hear; a complex arrangement of waves that make sense (and music, for instance).

If the waves we give out are part of data that was our inheritance, we will give out signals that will be received by an other who is in tune with us (ABC out; ABC in). In other words: if I like women, women who would liked to be liked by men, they will like me in some way (I hope!).

In the '60's all this wave theory was linked to 'vibes'. Giving out the 'wrong' vibes was very common as was giving out the 'right' vibes. It is the same thing. 'There is nothing new in the Universe' said the Scribe. 'You get what you pay for'.

If you radiate charm you acquire charming people. If you radiate malice, you get malice.

But you need to understand what drives you before you can alter your radiations. Smile and you will be smiled at. Sneer and you will be sneered at. Give love and you will be loved.

Therefore it important to try to understand what drives one.

To recap so far:

The Universe is made up of a spectrum of electro-magnetic waves (which we cannot see, but by way of scientific means they can be demonstrated).

These electro-magnetic waves are transmitted and received by matter (the stuff of the Universe) since that is what matter is made of. The universe is therefore a transmitter and receiver of these electro-magnetic waves.

As we are part of the Universe, we are composed of matter. Therefore we transmit and receive these waves, which we will call data.

Data produces information. Information is a combination of data which we can make sense of (numbers and arithmetical symbols are data. Letters of the alphabet are data. We can combine them to make sums or words depending on how we combine them...maths or language.) Remember that data is plural (more than one. The word datum refers to the singular or one).

As individuals we receive data from the earliest point in our existence. This data is imprinted in every cell of the body since it is made up of matter and receives and transmits. It follows that transmission of data from ourselves impinges on the total Universe about us, since the Universe is made up of the transmission amid reception of data.

The fact that human beings are aware of being aware (in varying degrees) means that we are, in some ways, able to have an influence on the incoming and outgoing data. That outgoing data corresponds to the waves of energy that we give out. It is the awareness of giving out waves and our ability to change or modify them that makes us human. (It does not mean that we are better or worse than other species, merely that we have the ability to change outgoing data).

In the earliest times of our (Wo/Man's) evolution we have endeavoured to change the data which assails us. We have struggled to find that which is inherent in us. That which is inherent in us is the data we have received from the Universe which makes us what we are. We often call this 'Self-knowledge' or some-such. In this respect we have invented gods to help us. We have invented strategies to help us overcome the dilemma of what is what we perceive as 'real'.

In our day and age, because we are alive (inputting and outputting data) we feel the need more and more to find out who we are and possibly why we are here (although, in my view that is a moot point).

The 'Who we are' is our life's goal, whether we are 'conscious' of it or not.

That 'conscious of it or not' is very important and depends (in my view, at least on the level of awareness of ourselves that we are at.

We as individuals, need to find out, as far as possible, what it is that drives us.

What drives us, is the data that we have received from our conception. The closer we get to that, the more we, in our conscious life can have some control over it.

By trying to understand what that data was, the more chance we have of being able to control it or come to terms with it so that we can go forward in our lives.

To go forward is to be positive and have the motivating force that is life. If life is stagnant and does not go forward (that is, we give out no further data), then we die or are dead. That is, we give out waves but do not receive them on a level of consciousness that is life (input/output).

Control of our lives means that the very small part of us that makes us aware of being aware, can change the data we have received at our earliest times into something else. If that data is negative (because our experiences have proved it so and does not make us feel 'good') then we can change it. We can change it using various techniques that have been used over many thousands of years by all races that exist and existed.

To be in control means to be able to use that part of the brain/mind to influence past and present incoming data.

email: sharpen@f2s.com__

Back to Contents 



Censorship, has and always will be, a sensitive and emotive issue. Censorship is control; a very dangerous area for those who will not be controlled.


The problem that any sort of censorship faces are the questions: what, how, when, where, why and by whom (but not necessarily in that order). These are the issues which must be carefully considered by everyone.


What do we censor?

How do we censor it?

When (from at what age do we censor it)?

Where (from what) do we censor it (newspapers, magazines, Internet)?

Why do we (?) censor it?

By whom do we censor it (individuals, parents, partners, those supposedly elected)?

Individuals must decide on the above questions with respect for EACH item that they might deem to be censurable.

There are many inappropriate devices by which others may be influenced, not the least of which is a nannyistic section of the population who deem to call themselves the Government.

In a democratic society (which Australia professes to be) the PEOPLE are the government. These people are forced (by Right of Might) to elect (mostly by default) from different groups of individuals (who have absolutely no notion as to what they are doing or why they are there, except to make money off the people they are supposed to SERVE), to 'govern' them. Leave me out of this nonsense.



Censorship is very selective. Like all issues, there are (most often) vested interests. This is why the world is in the poor state it is, with no reprieve for those who do not need its dictates. Until such time as there is proper management of the world's resources (all of them) there can be no issue that can be resolved to their fullest extent. It seems that those who deem to take control of others have no intention of changing the legacy or prior generations for the betterment of all.

We should all be selective in what we consume, whatever that may be. There are many things that I find offensive in the culture. I choose not to seek them out. There is a need for a filter of some kind that, as a tool, we may use to prevent ourselves from this material.


In terms of parental responsibility, there appears to be a notion that parents are responsible for what their children get access to. A great number of parents are not responsible for themselves or their siblings. This requires an educational approach. not the wailing's of a body of individuals.



I think a decent, usable set of guide-lines needs to be drawn up, which will enable people to decide for themselves what it is that may need to be restricted. This includes all forms of advertising, books, magazines, films, television shows, indeed, any sort of media whatsoever.

Like rules, censorship of any material needs to be agreed upon by as many people as possible. This produces a set of guide-lines and a present standard of behaviour that is acceptable. This is not so at present because not everyone has the opportunity to a fair say.

I would be happy to take part in such a resolution.




Back to Contents 



The Comfort Syndrome



I am writing this article because I am guilty. I am guilty of some (if not many) of the things relating to the Comfort Syndrome. I am therefore not deprecating anyone, nor wanting them to feel guilty. These are my views on what I understand to be true. They may or may not be your truth. They are set down to enlighten you if you have not thought about them already. If they relate to you or you know all this, then it may refresh your memory. My concern is with human understanding of myself and others. I hope it is yours, otherwise you would not be reading this at all.

Other reasons for writing this article may become apparent when (and if) you read it.

I am concerned, here in Australia (particularly the area in which I live), that most of the population is overweight. This is not to make for a pretty sight and is a reflection of the numbers of people obviously not happy in or with themselves (for whatever reason). This 'over-weightedness' (obesity) is becoming the 'norm' and is being heavily subsidised and perpetrated by manufacturers of what (rightly in my view) is known as 'junk' food.

Everywhere, at the moment (and heed my words 'at the moment') the scape-goat of society is the smoker. Soon, in another sense, it may be the consumer of junk food. Where would oil and sugar manufacturers go then? Why do I think this? I think this is because it is sad that people do not know why they do these things.

I am a smoker (and ignore the gross, unscientific and obscene warnings on cigarette packets). I do drink (and have drunk to excess in my time). I recognise that these activities are 'comfort' things. I have refrained from over-drinking (because that was a conscious decision I took), but I still smoke and I still drink. I hope that I have come to terms with these things because I have thought about them and realise what I am doing. I am conscious of what I am doing.

Please read on...

The Comfort Syndrome

The Collins English Dictionary (1974) defines:

comfort (kum-fort)-n. solace or consolation; ease of body or mind, or whatever causes it.

solace (sol'ass) n. comfort in grief, consolation.

consolation (kon-so-lay-shun) n. the act of comforting; that which comforts; solace; encouragement.

The Sharpen English Dictionary (unpublished, 1996) defines:

comfort (kum'fort) n. something familiar with which we feel safe and produces feelings of 'all-rightness' (I'm O.K.) whether we are conscious of them or not.

Comfort is realised in objects or beliefs which feed our senses and make us happy.

These objects or beliefs, (real or sometimes imaginary), make us feel good; therefore they are positive.

What is imaginary becomes real (when it is believed) and therefore, an object.

An object is something that we latch onto. Something that takes on (almost but not always) a tangible existence. That is, can be touched directly and produces something inside us. This is an emotion.

An emotion is something that does something to us. In the sense of comfort, it is something positive, that is good and makes us feel well, comfortable, safe and so on.

The word 'safe' is important.

Comfort things make us feel safe.

Collins Dictionary (again): safe (say'f) n. free from harm, injury or risk; unharmed; unscathed; unhurt; sound; protected; sure; trustworthy; reliable; prudent.

Sharpen (again): safe (say'f) n. unharmed; unhurt; protected; I don't want to know, I want to be in my own safe world (but I don't know what it is) where no-ne will hurt me or harm me or know that I exist because I am unsure of who or what I am or what I want; hidden.

hidden (hidd-en) adj. secret; what is not known to others; what goes on before we are born or as we are born; what is known to us consciously , sub-consciously or unconsciously and what 'drives' us.

The first experience of comfort (after we are born) must probably be being put to the breast for milk and comfort. This is the mothers' comfort as well as the baby's. If this is not so for an individual, that is, it is bottle-fed or has a 'wet' nurse, it misses a great deal in early comfort in the 'real' sense. (That is, mother's breast is best, others second best or not best at all.) The reason being that the foetus derives comfort from the mother's heartbeat and the goings on in her body (of which she may not be aware but the child is). It's the closest that the child can get to being 'safe in the womb' (where it had all these things). It's just born, after all!

Some mothers/parents indulge in the use of objects as 'comforters' after the child is weaned from the breast (or the bottle, which although supplying some of the needs of the mothers' milk begins the trend of more artificial comforters).

These objects still have comfort effects but they lack the feel of the body; the warmth of the body and the 'soul' (whatever you think that is) of the person that bore them. They remain objects that comfort but they are not 'natural'. They have no substance other than that they appear 'normal'; that is they feel okay at the time but they don't satisfy the needs of the child. They are therefore false and negative.

Objects of comfort are not real. Having said that, they are 'real' but only in the sense that they comfort. But this is not real comfort, for they only satisfy immediate feelings or the needs of the parents, not necessarily the child.

Instant gratification is for the immature (young children who have not as yet realised anything beyond their immediate universe). Some people never seem to move from this stage and it may be carried on throughout their lives. The developmental process of the individual would normally move from the stage of instant gratification through life's education to a state where individuals should be able to cope with their place in life. However, this developmental process seems to be prolonged, hence the need for long-term comforters.

The 'security blanket', the 'dummy' are not real (except in the sense that they are material objects).

The most common objects are the 'security blanket', the dummy, the drinking of cans of 'Coke' or some other drink, the hats that (mostly) boys wear; the chewing of gum, the conforming to others' expectations (of body jewellery, tattoo's, others' politics, gangs, others' control etc.).

But there are more subtle comfort things. Things that we may not realise are comfort things. Things like smoking (of any type), drinking alcohol, needing one person to replace another. These are psychological comfort things. What may start out as some kind of 'bravado' end up as comfort things.

There are other physiological comfort things like those associated with forms of body language: hugging oneself (crossing arms or legs) or touching oneself (in any form). These are usually normal and positive.

We all need comfort. We must obtain comfort in any way that we see fit for us. As long as we appreciate that that is what we are doing. As long as it is our decision to use these comforters, there is no harm to us or others. It is excesses (or what we perceive to be excesses) that lead to problems and feeling of guilt and so on. This is usually the result of listening to some-one else who hasn't come to terms with them.

What's this article about?

It's about realising that certain of our behaviours that may worry us are concerned with trying to find comfort. If we know them (behaviours) then we can change them if they concern us or are concerning others. The concern of others would be a mutual agreement as to what may be changed on either side, not one side. One person's comfort may not be another's'.

A cause of concern to me is that certain objects are being accepted, which is not fulfilling the needs of individuals and is leading top a situation where personal comfort (and thus selfishness) is not environmentally friendly because people are not living together with others. The individual rules but not in a group, where a person should, if that is the nature of Man or if there is to be any mutual living together.

It is interesting to note that comfort things are (usually) centred round the mouth.

The first thing inserted into the mouth is the involuntary sucking of the amniotic fluid by the foetus. The next is probably the insertion into the mouth of one or two fingers by the foetus. (Ever noticed which finger/s might or are inserted? I always remember my index and middle finger being inserted into my mouth. One of my daughters always inserted the middle two. For some babies, it's the thumb. (Curious...?)

After the baby is born, the first thing inserted into the mouth is a nipple, natural or otherwise.

The mouth is the centre of initial comfort. Nothing is otherwise. Acceptance of exploration by the hands (and possibly feet as well) of the mother from the child is the next stage of comfort. This is mutual co-operation and mutual comfort. It's a two-sided comfort. A natural comfort that has, in my view no equal. It's a male baby's (non-sexual) erection. It's a female's what? Tell me, I don't know.

As the child grows, it needs (or is forced in some way) to find independence for itself. What was once a mutual comfort becomes the comfort of one individual for itself. The force is applied by the circumstances of the parents, initially. They enforce a regime of dummy-sucking, security blankets, all aimed at the mouth. I am not saying that all these things are deliberate and I fear they satisfy the parents more than the child (especially in the case of dummies which must be thrust into the mouth. Other devices such as security blankets, bits of teddy-bear and so on are normal. I am not talking of stimulus and response; that is too technical and worries me more than a bit.

It is because all these things are aimed at the mouth that chewing, sucking and any other mouth movements is considered by the infant to be a comfort that this may extend into later life as the insertion of anything into the mouth is a comfort. Thus drinking, smoking, sucking a pencil/finger, or eating, equate with comfort, especially in times of stress. (By the way, I think stress is a reaction to not feeling comfortable)

Eating is a necessary function of the body. Excessive eating is not a function of the body, it is a result of not feeling comfortable or happy with oneself. The worry is that people ingest food (that is unnecessary) to produce a feeling of comfort which they should not need if they were happy with themselves.

If people ingest such food (readily available as 'junk' food, i.e. food that is not necessary and caters for their perceived needs) they become victims of the providers.

It is the excesses of 'the need for food' that lead to physiological and psychological problems that end up[ in a descending spiral of guilt and self-dislike. Whether this self-dislike comes first and therefore needs comfort, or the other way round may be either a moot point or a chicken and egg situation. Nevertheless it is real because it is all around us. We can see it. And it's a strong person who can.

There is another form of comfort which struck me and that is noise. When I thought of this, a great number of things entered my mind.

Noise is something that we don't like. We can easily equate this at a basic level when we thing of music. It is common to say that music we don't feel comfortable with (for whatever reason) is 'noise'. Although that is simplistic it has the elements I am talking about.

I don't like noise if it offends me in some way. That may be because I have been brought up without any (which I was) or otherwise. The barking of dogs, crying children, screaming women or children in a move, music on the phone, digital watches, reversing noises of a truck and so on. All these things are not natural to me and cause offence. It seems that everything has to have a noise associated with it. Some of these are 'good', most (in my view) are 'bad'. It seems comfortable to say: 'I am here'. Even electronic devices seem to have the need to say: 'I am here, listen to me.'

Most of this noise is unnecessary. It is pollution, pure and simple.

I admit to being a bit paranoid about this, but then I grew up in a house where crunching a sweet was not tolerated. I understand the problem. I know success when babies are brought up with a bit of noise and are happily sleeping.

This is fine up to a point. The problem lies in the forced comfort aspect of noise. It's the replacement of listening to the world of Nature, and indeed listening to our own bodies as well as a modicum of the noise of modern life which is what I call 'false' noise. It seems to be part of the 'Nanny' society that some individuals wish to impose on us to their own ends. It's also part of the 'aural wallpaper' that pervades the society in which we are forced to live unless we complain.

By this 'false' noise I mean the 'music' thrust upon our ears down the telephone, or in a shopping centre, or lifts, or whatever. We don't need this noise. We have only come to have to accept it because we can't turn it off.

I could easily be tempted to alter William Congreve's statement (from The Morning Bride): "Music hath' charms to soothe a savage beast" to Music has charms to dull the beast and deaden the mind'.

And noise took a new turn with the invention of the 'Walkman'. It has taken tax-payers money for scientists to determine that these devices are now causing hearing problems. It was obvious from the beginning that they might be dangerous, without costing a cent.

All these types of noise are contrary to our lives as humans in a society. They are solitary. They make us selfish and not caring of others.

Are the needs of comforts different between girls and boys?

This seems to me to be an interesting question that I don't know the answer to, though I suspect they are, very much so.

It's close to the truth, I think, that mean are always nearer to childhood than women, as women have a better survival mechanism...built-in. They, (after all) have to bear their offspring and look after them no matter what their circumstances are.

[There is a joke which says that men are easier to psychoanalyse because when asked to go back to their childhood, they are already there.]

This has its serious side because, although men set out to prove their masculinity, a woman never has to prove her femininity. I think, therefore, that men need more comfort than women in a lot of ways (although they pretend not to a wrap up their need in ways which are secret to them (or they think they are)) and exclude women (who probably see through this anyway).

I am not denigrating a man (I am one!) but I do realise my own shortcomings and those of others and I am prepared to admit it. Acceptance of this is one way of coming to terms with what we are and realising our needs.


We all need comfort. What worries me is that this is being exploited. What worries me is that having been exploited we then assume that what is, is right, or the 'norm'. What worries me is that we are using objective devices to cover the basic comforts that we need or are being offered to us.

These include spurious things from outside our senses and things that we do not really need but are offered to us at a profit to those who know what I am talking about and want to exploit it for gain. These 'spurious objects of comfort' include hats, chewing gum, cigarettes, noise, dummies, and any other object which can be put into the mouth. They are not the natural things that offer us comfort but are deliberately produced or accepted and promoted as 'comforters'. They are the lazy wo/man's way of doing things. Man is lazy. If he can get something for nothing, he will. We are all guilty, but this should not make us feel guilty.

Some of us want to be independent of others' control of us and make up our own minds. The production, exploitation or promotion of comfort things is another's control of us if it is not our desire.

Given a choice, few of us would ever elect a group of amateurs to 'govern' us. We would not be that stupid, nor would we need to. We are brain-washed into believing that we need to.

"Given a choice' means that we are able and should, make our own choices and not be dictated to by others, otherwise they have control of us, which we don't want.

There are, of course, people who want others to direct them. This is fine. But we must not give the impression that everyone is like that, most of us aren't. The so-called government is the master comforter; the nanny who says I will look after you if you obey me. Nuts.

The 'Comfort Syndrome' refers to things which are implanted in the minds of people. These things do not refer to the real comfort that we need. They are spurious at least; false at more ; dangerous (to the individual) at most.


email: Back to Contents 




Controllers are people who feel the need by or for whatever their circumstances to have some force or influence over others for their own subjective needs.

Control of others can be both positive and negative.

This control by one or many, is to subjugate one or many to ideas and behaviours that they, the controllers have with or for a purpose which the controllers may or may not be aware of.

It is very complex.

Authority, which is usually self-imposed, takes many forms, from the concept of government of a mass of individuals, to the authority of one person over another. Authority is rarely positive for anyone else.

There are the controllers and the controlled.

Those that want to impose their will over others are controllers and those who are imposed upon are the controlled.

We all operate on many levels. Many things 'drive' us to perform the behaviours that we have.

These drivers may be conscious, sub-conscious or unconscious.

We cannot always have knowledge of these 'drivers' but they are there and the more we can see into ourselves and delve into the past (but not live it!) the more we can hopefully learn about ourselves and to break certain chains that bind us to what we do, how we react and how we live our daily lives.

It is assumed by many (men and women) that it is the male who dominates society.

Taking a turn-around of thought, my argument is that it is really women who have the ultimate control and it is fear of this by men that they pretend it is not so. That is the basis for this dissertation.

I want this article to remain as positive as possible. I will try to leave little room for negative thoughts, though they must necessarily appear, if only to emphasise the positive.

As a male, I am prepared to 'bare my soul' in the pursuit of answers to all things. A better understanding of men honest enough to do this, might result in a much better world, where mutual co-operation of the sexes by understanding will eliminate a 'war of the sexes' (read: emancipation, whatever that means) and whoever stated that nonsense, anyway?

The mother is the bearer of children. That is, a female bears a child. The male is the author of a book. He is the necessary factor in the bearing of an offspring. Purely biologically, he determines male or female depending on something over which he has no control, the sex of the child (which is in his genes).

His role is determinator of sex and the genes that he carries (that are part of his being). Other than that, no man or woman has charge or control of the sex.

Thus the male is very important. But once having been important, his role is left up to the conception of the child within the womb of the mother. It is now up to her to control the factors that will provide for a viable sibling (child, embryo, foetus or whatever science calls the growing child).

A child is born.

It's first inkling of life on this planet is squeezing through the birth canal into the open. Traumatic enough! But then it is then subjected to the mores of science. The cord which is attached to the mother/womb is cut. The symbiote is no longer. It exists in its own right. It is alone. It knows only of the comfort of warm water; the comfort of the maternal pulse; the comfort of words spoken through flesh that it cannot hear (?) but feels.

Then it is on its own. Not alone, mind. There is a lot of difference.

But it is on its own and dependent. Of course; it is a human baby. It is not weak, though, as many would have us believe. It is on its own and needs food, warmth, comfort, reassurance, and will accept these things from any body (body being another living organism) that gives these, natural or no.

The any body is a mother. This does not imply a female human, however. It could be any body.

Usually, however, the dependent infant depends on its natural mother. That mother then begins to control the life of the infant.

The infant depends on the natural breast. This breast gives the infant the sustenance it requires in its natural proportions at the right time. The breast supplies the food, the comfort and the maternal pulse. Without this, everything else is second best and in Chaos Theory supplies the 'Butterfly Effect' that continues throughout life, producing a further and further disadvantage to the child.

The female is in charge by natural means. She has no control, whatever over this.

If, however, the female decides that she does not want to feed the child from her body, she need feel no guilt (she has 'hang-ups' she doesn't know about or can't come to terms with etc.) then that is fine as long as it is conscious. A new regime must be placed in order to give the infant a proper place in the world. The mother must realise that she can't or won't give her body to the infant. She is in control.

The problem lies in the fact that once in control, the mother has a responsibility to that infant but much more than she feels.

As soon as you introduce artificial means to satisfy an individual, you unleash a vast number of variables which will affect that individual throughout its life.

Every man loves a tit.

A woman's sexuality revolves around the breast. If that breast was natural (as a baby sucking on it), a man will go for it. Even if the breast were artificial ( a bottle), the man will still go for the breast. It is his comfort. (I deny any man that will not admit to it, even as a joke. A joke is the element of truth).

A woman's initial control is her breast.

A breast is therefore a woman's responsibility.

Sorry, it's tough out there. You as a woman have a breast (the two become one in this essay).

Both girls and boys relate to that.

A cuddle is to the breast.

The woman is in control.

Although she doesn't know it, the woman is always in control, although she doesn't always realise it. Men do not like to admit it.

The reason that men don't like to (or won't) admit it is because he makes himself feel more important in the respect that he feels the need to provide. Although this need to provide is in our history, it does not make it a truth. It is merely a denial of a truth.

I submit that men are basically fearful of the woman (and thus deny to themselves her control) and work towards a pretend universe in which they are in control.

There really is no need to worry about this. It's not likely to turn into an Amazonic society, certainly not over night!

The fact of the matter as far as the woman is concerned, (when she realises she is in control) is that she has a far greater responsibility to the world than she may care to have. Thus begins the concept of better understanding and mutuality.

Women need to be cared for; they may not want to control.

But the control I am talking about is not necessarily direct control of the male. It is a handling of the situation with a woman's touch. It is a realisation of that control. Not the mother saying: do as you are told I'm in control. Rather a knowledge of the situation that she is in control and should use this information with tenderness, not to be in charge.

The man is not subservient to a woman; he is an extension of her life. It is living in mutual harmony that matters, not who is in control and why.

That is the essence of what I am saying.

It is when both partners of a relationship understand why they are like they are, that they can live harmoniously.

The reason for writing this article is to break down the barriers that have existed since we became aware of being aware. That there is not a truth in man's delight in putting down anybody, let alone the opposite sex.

Control can be power and usually is. All the horrible things that man does to wo/man are based on fear and that fear creates something (I don't know what you'd call it) that makes people batter each other physically and mentally.

I feel strongly that if we realised where the real control lay, we would not have to have women's movements to prove a point that is not there anyway (in real terms) and that that movement now lowers the man's credibility to such an extent that he feels sickened by it.

Women are thus using their direct control of men's' affairs. This is not leading to a harmonious society but one that is full of conflict and negative behaviours.


By their nature, women are in control. This does not mean that they need to exercise direct control of others, merely that they are simply the bearers of control.

This puts an enormous responsibility on women but it need not be a trauma. The trauma comes with the expression of this control to subjugate others. That is, to directly control by using it (as a weapon).

A realisation of this control is the first step to a harmonious society and can only be positive.





Back to Contents 

















Men and women seem to be totally incompatible. How they ever come together to make a partnership seems to be a miracle of animal magnetism and media presentation of this anomaly. Drawn together by sex, they go to incredible lengths to hold together something that is not workable.

There must, therefore, be a reasonable way to break this chain of what seems to be: 'I'm married, therefore you must be', (especially if some-one is pregnant). the number of humans (wherever they are subjected to Western thought) who live in misery because of this notion must be enormous. They live in misery.

This is the subject of the Duplex Notion.


A family should be a unit of individuals living together for the mutual benefit of those within it (that is, harmoniously). This is the ideal. Ideals, however, are hard to realise but positive action forwards (that is, thinking about it) must be made to realise that ideal.

None of us are taught marriage-hood or parenthood the same way we may have been taught housewifery (I wonder if there is a male equivalent of housewifery?). There are no experts, only sufferers. The knowledge of these things comes afterwards (when often too late), not before.

Marriage is based on ancient (and misguided, in my view) ideas that no longer have relevance. These ideas certainly have not kept pace with the modern society in which we are forced to live. Human relationships are still in the Dark Ages.

These ideas are perpetrated by our parents (who knew as little as we do, or less), self-authorised religious groups, political dictatorships ('government'), and the media. These ideas are false. There are vested interests in perpetrating the myth of family. They generate money. They make people spend more than they earn. They perpetrate the myth that everyone has a right to have children. This is absolute nonsense.

The Problems

When we get over the initial fascination of marriage ('I love you; you love me: whoopee!' (which is a religious concept, not a real one) we are then being forced to breed, purchase myriad quantities of houses, food, clothes, fancy nappies and so on. We call this marriage. The love/lust is gone. The honeymoon, as they say, is over. Get on with the job. But what is the job?

Sooner or later, the couple realise that they want their individuality. They need their space. They didn't talk about this, so it produces conflict. Somewhere along the line we have lost control of our own lives and are in some way controlled by others.

I always had this notion of the two-is-One syndrome but retaining our own individuality. This has proved disastrously unrealistic (in my case). Once the rot has set in, the marriage as we thought of it, has gone. We might try to change things (move away, start a 'new' life etc.) but this does not work because we haven't sorted out the things that caused the problem in the first place. The problems must be confronted and if not solved, then other measures must be put in place, whatever they are, for the benefit of the individuals, themselves. If these issues are not, as they say, addressed, then conflict and 'open warfare' will ensue. The final cut.

Now, is the time to reappraise our situation, whatever. We must find out why we got married (or whatever) and whether we still want this or not. There is no guilt or shame for these feelings. they are positive ways of looking at our problems.

We all need our space, however narrow that may be. This concept of 'space' has, unfortunately reached cliched proportions. Nevertheless, space is very important. VERY important.

The problem with a lot of people getting married is that, apart from the fact that 'society' demands it (in its own weird way), is that no 'ground rules' are set for subsequent behaviours of the couple. A friend of mine, many years ago, maintained that both he and she (or she and he) had a least one day a week when they did their own thing, if they wanted to. Makes sense to me. That is without the jealousies that may be involved (because of 'hang-ups' of the other partner 'having some-one else' or finding some-one else). If jealousies become apparent, then the marriage lives on the abyss of disaster already.

The worst possible marriage is where a couple 'live out of each others' pocket'. If for one reason or another one partner goes, the other is left in 'limbo', without a place to go; hanging in mid-air, saying: Where am I? Some people jump from one relationship to another without thought of why the first partnership died, hoping to find what was lost or never there. This is not being in control of your life.

A Possible Solution

The Duplex Notion

Inevitable though it might have been, I tried everything to get back my wife after she decided, for her own reasons, to leave me. I didn't want the finality of it (the divorce). I even considered living apart but be able to get together when we wanted (for whatever reason). This notion, many years later, has become the Duplex Notion.

After talking to a great many people and hearing their successes and failures (for goodness sake, not all marriages are failures) I have developed this simple idea. It seems to make a lot of sense if you really think about it.

Imagine the scenario. Two people want to get together to share part or most of their lives. They buy or rent a duplex. They each live in one home. They can get together at mutual convenience. They have their space, their own individual homes. They have to be invited in. This last statement is crucial. The concept of being invited in means that the person inviting has the control of saying yes or no to the visit, thus domestic violence could be reduced because one or other partner can tell the other to leave and after one incident can close the door upon the other, then decide what to do from there on.

When and if children are born, they can share the parents in a way that is impossible when they are all living together. As each parent would have their own life-style, the children will share much more. I know it sounds radical but thinking differently, it makes sense.

What this couple has, could be the best of all worlds. They can have their freedom. They can have space to move around. They can go where and when they please. They can share the children with a quality life. Their loyalty towards each other can be built on trust, not jealousy. (If some-one is going to cheat, marriage will not prevent this). Whatever can be done in one home can be done better in two.

Think of the happiness when the two meet. This is the same as courting. There would be perpetual courtship as long as the relationship lasted. And if it doesn't last, then so what? It wouldn't last anyway. The children don't have to suffer. In fact they are better off with the parents living apart; they get two homes, two different types of love and at any time, everything can be shared.

You can think of more benefits than I can for this scenario. It makes sense if you discuss it. And, if in later years, when the sane children have grown up and you decide to sell the two houses and buy a small one for you both, then this article will have been worth the writing.



Back to Contents 



Fear is defined as being that unpleasant emotion aroused by a feeling of impending evil or doom. Ignorance is defined as having a lack of knowledge.

Fear is a basic instinct in man, whilst ignorance is based on the premise that man has some knowledge of his environment including the knowledge of his fear. Animals have only a low awareness of their fear based on their instincts, whilst man can discuss, because of his communicability, his fear and attempt to rationalise it, hence fear based on ignorance or not knowing something, causing the fear.

Since fear is a basic trait of all human beings and is a feeling produced from sensory perceptions, then it follows that the more knowledge that one has, the more one can reduce fear to the minimum.

Man is a highly developed sense-receptor. Whatever impinges on his senses is translated into some action, one of which is fear. Fear is a widespread disorder, affecting the whole body and characterised by breaking out in a cold sweat, faintness and the hairs on the back of the neck standing on end and caused by the sudden release of adrenaline into the bloodstream causing constriction of the peripheral blood vessels. mainly, it is an emotion caused by these things and manifesting itself in some form or other. The depth of fear depends on the strength of the original stimulus. In other words, if one is able to see what it is that caused the fear, then it can be reconciled and rationalised. The longer one cannot see the object of the fear-instigator, then the greater the depth of fear will be.

Man is (supposed to be) a rational animal. By this is meant that he must rationalise everything with which he comes into contact. If he cannot do this, he becomes afraid. Fear takes many forms and if a man cannot rationalise it, the end result is a break-down of his mental faculties.

It follows from this that man should have knowledge. Since he is not an animal who cannot communicate and lives only by instinct, he can have knowledge of many things and can understand his environment, whatever that may be. He can then fit himself into the picture and he is happy, or not afraid. If a man cannot rationalise his existence , then he tends to invent a world in which he is not afraid; and because a man is self-centred, he is usually in some roundabout way the centre of the universe that he creates.

Knowledge is many things. It is whatever we want it to be. It must be distinguished from fact since not all knowledge is fact or verifiable truth. However, an increase in immediate knowledge of what is around us, is of much use. To be able to place ourselves in the world around us, is to be less afraid. Better placing of ourselves in this way will prevent us from being afraid of the future and of the past.

The more aware we are, the more we will perceive and the better able we will be to guide ourselves along the path towards a lack of fear except that which is our natural instinct and our heritage, since fear, or more specifically the feeling of fear is a natural prelude to survival, since being afraid we are in a position to defend ourselves if the need arises. Fear in this form is not under the control of the will of the individual, it is dictated by the hormone glands and so fear creates in us the victim of ourselves. A better understanding of fear will enable us to rationalise it and control it (except that part of fear over which -we have no control), since it is Man's aim to control all things.





Back to Contents 











This letter/Article was written to: John Howard

(One time supposed Prime Minister of Australia)


I reserve the entitlement to communicate with you directly.

(You should also be minded that you are required to reply.)

As the so-called 'leader' of this so-called 'Nation', so-called 'Australia', I would refer you to these certain matters of import.

[Note: the use of the word 'his' is for convenience. The word 'his' equates equally with 'her'.]

1 This land upon which I choose to live as a freeman and sovereign to myself only (i.e. without subjects and subject to none) was and remains a stolen country, like most countries on this planet earth. (There should be no comfort in that 'stolen').

2 The fact that this country was founded a 'colony' by some nation/s is no excuse for the continuance those founders, whomsoever they may be, that this is or was the 'correct' thing to do in terms of what is assumed to be 'rational' animal dealings.

3 This land (so-called 'Australia) was founded by some humans animals and on the premise that "King/Queen, Country and God" (an invention of said humans), were on their side (i.e. had some 'right' to taking over others' land; always by force and to the detriment of the native population and the decimation of the country) they took charge.

This charge of the land was also based on the premise that all aboriginal peoples (the original definition) were not 'civilised' by said 'humans' and therefore they were of little consequence to the 'ends' (i.e. willful stealing) of these 'humans'.

4 The fact of Australia's domination upon the indigenous peoples was dependent on the fact that 'Australian' aborigines did not set boundaries to their land. Boundaries were a conception by other nations who invented 'fences' to preclude/prevent others from entering their land. These nations devised (and still do) various unhealthy means to procure this result. The Australian aboriginal did not have this concept (which has led to their demise).

5 The then continent of 'Australia' assumed the aspects of its parent thief (usually regarded as England) and also assumed its 'Right of Might' and 'Authority' of the 'King/Queen' and 'God', its subsequent 'laws' and therefore a necessary judiciary to implement these laws .

6 It also assumed the notion of 'Democracy'.

7 It is mindful to repeat the notion of this so-called 'Democracy' as laid down, viz.:

Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

(Note: This is certainly not a concept that any 'government' 'Australia' has accomplished.)

8 No-one with a brain-cell count of more than two (which excludes politicians with a brain-cell count of certainly less) believes this to be a truism in view of the way 'politicians' have handled the world (in any shape or form) since the concept was established.

9 The island continent then becoming known as Australia, instead of pursuing its own way of life, presumed (because it had no mind of its own) to follow its 'home' nation. Australia had a unique opportunity to be itself, work with the indigenous population for the good of all. It failed miserably and continues to do so, relying on tried and tested failures in other countries to take as its own and for which the tax-payer pays a very high price.

10 According to the Charter of Human Rights, every person is a freeborn individual. An individual has no innate obligation to submit to any authority that it does not claim, without coercion, to be its own, since none of us decides to be here, on this earth, at all. We are here because that is the nature of our animal heritage, nothing else, despite claims, by some, to the contrary.

11 The world as it is at present, is devolved from the aspect of control. That is, certain individuals claim to have control of others. These individuals have no control of themselves and feel the need to control others. To do this, they invent ways controlling others to satisfy their inadequacies as individuals. They invent spurious 'gods' of whatever kind to frighten those they should protect, if they are better survivors, so that they may control them. Such controllers go by a variety of names: Kings, Queens, Presidents, Popes, Lords, Chiefs, various 'gods' and so forth.

12 The notion that these controllers are doing things for others' benefit is absolute nonsense. This is a nannyistic principle where these controllers claim to be acting for the good of the population. This morally bad for that population as well as, in most cases, 'criminal' (in terms of the definition of 'criminal' which controllers have defined for themselves).

13 Now, by their assumed Right of Might, these controllers have led the rest of the population into a fantasy world which believes that there is no other way than to follow them. They have been brain-washed into believing that voting for them to control them, is the 'way to go'. Poor fools they are. But not fools, only misled. Not stupid but naive. Controllers control everything. And because they recognise each other, they have grouped together to have total control.

14 What do people 'vote' for? They vote for things about which they know nothing (since controllers do not allow them the knowledge of, or for what they might vote). This is carefully hidden amongst a plethora of garbage about which they know nothing because they are not taught these things. (Children are taught that 'this is the way things are' not what they might be.)

15 There is no choice in a vote for a party political dictatorship. Each is as good or bad as the last. The evidence is the mess the world is in.

16 Politicians may claim to be 'professional'. They steal inflated salaries to prove this. (A professional is one who is paid for his work based on his accumulated knowledge and accepted wisdom by his peers and thereby authorised).

17 However, most politicians are amateurs. They should therefore not steal money to pursue their acts upon the population at large. (An amateur is one who is not paid for his contribution.)

18 A politician is a SERVANT of the public. A servant is one who abides by the wishes of his employer. It is a servant's contract to serve his self-appointed master. It is part of the work-place agreement. It is the master who sets the salary/wage, the servant who says 'yea' or 'nay' to that salary/wage.

19 However, once 'voted' for, a politician assumes the right of dictatorship ('You voted for me; now this is what you get, like it or not!'). This is a nonsense. What a politician may have decided he wants to do (for himself; albeit the few who have aims to the greater good (and who are quickly eliminated from the Control Equation)) he does, despite his promises to the contrary. Therein lies his control. Brainwash the public (who on earth are they anyway?) into believing he will do them good and five minutes later he is taking this away. Hence my concept of Right and rights. A pure philosophical nonsense. Still we have to live with Plato's Ultimate Right; fallacious.

20 Once 'elected', politicians then can invoke their judiciary to make sure that everyone else complies with their dictates leaving them (the politicians) to rip-off the public they are supposed to serve, to their heart's content accompanied by lies (In Winston Churchill's words, terminological inexactitudes) as to why this is so. They invent 'laws' and 'taxation'.

21 Taxation has always been the bug-bear of the population under a controller. We all know that taxation is theft. In terms of the judiciary set-up by controllers, it has always been so and is to be applied by the self-assumed Right of Might of controllers. Taxation is to swell the coffers of the controllers, not to serve the public good, again, contrary to what they imply.

22 To placate an ignorant public controllers apply 'laws' (backed up by their judiciary) to implement 'fines' when these self-made laws are 'broken'.

23 Most races of people live by rules. These rules are self-regulating. They aim at survival, pure and simple. Most races of people live by rules because they work (in the sense of survival).

24 Laws, on the other hand, are invented to protect the controllers because they can have a power (Right of Might or the Bully System) over those who break them (the ultimate is termination of existence). Inquisitions are about laws, not rules. Laws are not self-regulating. That is why they are dangerous to survival, not, as generally perceived (via brain-washing) to be the opposite. Laws rarely, if ever, stopped anyone from doing anything. Rules do. Laws that cannot be policed are absolutely useless.

25 Break a rule and you can get physically hurt. Break a law and you get a fine or incarceration (with all its subsequent help; no mind the victim) and yes, also, physically hurt (but that is not part of the law).

26 Politicians have set themselves above the population they claim have 'voted' for them. I would like to see the 'real' count of voting for any party political dictatorship.

"How to Lie with Statistics' was one of the first books I read doing my 'A' Levels over twenty years ago. Australia (at least) does not seem to have gone beyond that book.

27 Politicians seem to think (forgetting they are servants of the public) that they can (after being 'voted' for) dictate whatever they want and all must agree. As a freeborn sovereign I have never agreed to this notion and hence why I have never voted in my life and have no intention of doing so, since I have no choice, it seems. I am master of my fate, whatever anyone else says to the contrary.

28 In what George Orwell's words might be:

All politicians are dangerous.

Most politicians are more dangerous than others.

29 What a 'country' (or a place where a group of people might decide to live) might need is possibly, management. Management is a concept borne of experience in working relationships (i.e. survival). Experience is knowledge gained by living over a number of years and teaching that experience to others who learn from this and add their own unique personalities and experiences (about which no-one can have knowledge). In this way, we may also learn more ourselves.

30 This is certainly not the world in which we live. Successive groups of individuals who self-claim to be 'leaders' (there is no such thing: there are born followers, not leaders) have desecrated this planet Earth for their own ends. They have depleted the Earth's resources in pursuit of their controlling of others' lives. They have minimalised human integrity for their own selfish ends. They are hysterics; the Born Victims.


31 Under no self-indulged 'right' or entitlement (voted for or no) have politicians or any others who deem to control (i.e. those who set out to dominate and to dictate to others, by whatever means they deem to have control), to coerce or determine the outcome of any other individual's life by any means whatsoever.

So say I,

Peter K Sharpen

4th November, 1999


There are many issues that need to be addressed to you and your cronies. These will remain the subject of further correspondence.




Back to Contents




Rules, Laws and Justice



are a common agreement by individuals, as to the way in which a certain action or actions should or should not take place for the betterment or entitlement of those individuals.

Rules are moral (that is, pertaining to our conduct and 'reasonableness' in relation to others about us) in the sense that they reflect values (or actions) which are consistent with the survival of those individuals and for the betterment of those individual lives without imposing our individual wills, whims or fancies upon them.

Rules are self-regulating. That is, they require no interference from those who would deem to use them for their own purposes (e.g. financial gain or control).

Laws :

derive from rules but are acted upon by certain self-proclaimed persons who would deem to use these rules for their own ends and thereby exert their control. These self-proclaimed persons are the controllers of others. They become by their own will, whims and fancies what they choose to call themselves, an Authority.

Thus laws become the fare of and for these controllers.

Attached to these then 'laws', are the notions of regality/regalness/god-given prejudices and so on, depending on the wills, whims and fancies of those who are able to effect the consequences of not abiding by them.

This becomes, the Right of Might so effected by these individuals and justified by their claim to some 'authority' they invent outside themselves (i.e. a god, king, president, and so on).

To instigate their then assumed authority, thereby, were invented 'lawyers'; (those versed in the laws of the Right of the Mighty). Without these 'lawyers', individuals (it would appear) have no standing on their own or by their own rules. The laws of the Mighty now replace the rules of a society. Thus laws are not self-regulating. To them are added adjuncts.

So now we are forced to be driven by a Law/yer-society, whether we want it or not, since it is driven by the Right of Might (bottom line: we can beat you up and put you behind bars where you can't get out, or kill you (in the name of such a law)). The invention of 'Judges', further extends the aim/s of laws and lawyers. Under the auspices of a 'judge', lawyers are able to play out their games with impunity. Lawyers never lose. The individual my well lose since the rules are now laws and governed by the Mighty.

Since we are forced to live in a law/yer-driven world (the Right of Mighty), as opposed to a self-regulating one of our own rules, we are endangered as individuals and a species. That is, unless backed up by a 'lawyer' versed in the self-proclamation of 'laws', we (the hoi polloi) have no standing. Our individuality and self-regulation has gone.

Some people have developed a litigious society in which we (humans) want no part. We want the rules back. Disobey the rules (each person's need of liberty, free thought, lack of control by another) and you suffer the consequences. Take my liberty and you forsake the liberty of yourself. Plain and simple.

Rain-forests have been depleted by the production of paper scratched upon by hordes of lawyers/solicitors/barristers/judges in the quest for what they call 'justice'. Justice is in the eye of the lawyer/judge depending upon the excessive fee charged.

There is absolutely no point in either a rule or a 'law' unless it can be monitored (by the populace) and the breakage acted upon. Those people who so wish, break rules and/or laws despite their instigation. The resultant rules and 'laws' are of no value to most people who don't need them anyway, as they behave in an appropriate manner.

We all suffer because of the few. If the few digress from a path of reasonableness, then they must accept the consequences: not the mass suffering because of the few.

The 'law' is couched in terms which are generally not meant to be understood by but the few so couched in such terms. This is because it generates income for those people who deem to administer such 'laws'.

Rules are not about income. They are about a reasonable way of living together without 'let or hindrance', (even if this seems simplistic because those who deem it simplistic have vested interests in making money from rules turned into 'laws' by them).

Laws are about income because of a vested interest in controlling people to conform to behaviours that are determined by a minority of individuals working against those who conform to reasonable behaviour without the necessity of being told what to do or how to behave. This is the origin of the Nannyistic society.

Having 'laws' which cannot be upheld (for whatever reason) makes a nonsense of having them in the first place. Laws or rules will be always be disregarded by those who do not act appropriately. If these rules or laws are regarded by those who do act appropriately (that is, for the betterment of individual lives, whatever that may be) then we would not need them anyway.

A rule is public. A law is specific. A rule is self-regulating. A law is not.

Rules are made up my common agreement. A law is made up by persons deeming to control others for their own gain.

The public, therefore, need to design the rules and guide-lines for acceptable behaviour. They also need to determine the 'punishment' of and for those who do not conform to them. This matter should not be left to others who would deem to control them by their own whims and fancies and financial gain, nor some nannyistic principle which benefits them personally.

Laws are not for the protection of the public-at-large. They are manufactured by self-assumed/supposedly elected controllers (those who pay the police/army for their benefit.


What is Justice?

Justice is a quality.

It is defined as (variably), that which derives from straight; exact; complete; equitable; true; founded on fact; proper; well-deserved (that is, according to Collins English Dictionary c.1974).

A quality is defined (in the same dictionary) as: a particular property inherent in a body or substance; the essential attribute, or distinguishing feature or characteristic of anything; capacity or position and so on...

These definitions leave little to go on. Look them up in your favourite dictionary. Do they make any more sense?

In my view, justice is the reaction/s of the common (free) person to forms of behaviour that are not in agreement with the rules that they (the common people) have set down for living equitably with others. An equitable agreement is one that is agreed by the common people. (Common people are those who are born free (as we all were) and who live according to the principals which make their lives bearable in a hostile environment (if that is how they see it)). As I said in a previous article, some people need rules. A law is often made from these rules but enforceable by those who make the laws (the 'rulers'), not by those who make the rules.

As I said earlier, Laws are made by rulers (self-made and often elected! authorities/controllers of our lives). These laws made by such people and backed up by their own self-called Right of Might (i.e. bullying by any description you can imagine and includes, warnings, fines and so on).

Justice is NOT part of the Law. The Law states an outcome on the evidence presented. If evidence is lacking or not presented, then the law cannot consider a proper verdict. That evidence may not be heard for a number of reasons that are only led by the foibles of the individuals presenting that evidence. The law states that justice must be seen to have taken place or be done. If the proper evidence was not presented because of the way the 'justice' system works, then there is no justice, seen to be done or otherwise.

In no way is the law infallible. This is because the law is rigid. The world is crinkley, not linear. Thus the law cannot be seen to be justice to any party, the 'winner' or the 'loser'. The law is not infallible because it can be interpreted in a number of ways, which is why lawyers make an extremely good living, to the detriment of everyone except themselves. A lawyer never loses financially, only the client. In a bid to make the law less interpretable, the ascending spiral towards total chaos without the benefit of the knowledge of Chaos Theory, means that the law is getting even more ludicrous, and in my view, less just than it ever was.

There is time for the public to tell those whom they call the 'Government' to get their act together and start to serve the public, which is why they are there (for those who vote for them).

Personally, I don't need rules or laws. What rules I follow are obvious anyway and therefore not rules. Laws have never helped me in all my life; in fact, just the opposite.

The law is that the fast 'buck' rules, O.K.?




Back to Contents





The first thing we must realise in any engagement of philosophical thought is of the limitations of man. This is something which we tend to underplay. The limitations are that Man has set himself unanswerable (unverifiable) questions and has bound himself in a language which is unable, by its very nature to communicate sense-perceptions. But by asking questions of this nature (which he has every right to do), he feels impelled to answer them in some way, to satisfy himself that there is nothing left unanswered, despite the consequences of not making himself clear; being bound by the language that he uses. Firstly, we must get Man in perspective, so that we can understand his limitations.

What we must also do is to unbind man from the classifications of his thought. It is by naming that the real world is lost. Most philosophical treaties 'label' the thoughts of those that appear to have the same ideas. That is, there are (apparently), Subjectivists, Monists, Objectivists, Rationalists, Idealists &c. It seems that in our dilemma we have to classify thus to satisfy some need. Because certain Subjectivist ideas seem incorrect to others, we tend to disregard all their ideas. What we must do is detach our selves from this and agree that Subjectivists may have some points which will add to the whole (philosophical knowledge). This means that if I think some points are valid, I should be able to agree with them on those points without being 'branded' a Subjectivist. If any movement purports to be an end in itself, the it of no use. There should be no 'classes' of philosophical thought, since this destroys the very nature of the subject. By naming anything (although by virtue of our 'symbolic' nature we do in some respects) we destroy what it is to us as individuals and with philosophy this is contrary to the very nature of the subject.

In everything that we do, we seem to get out priorities wrong. C.E.M. Joad (Teach Yourself Philosophy) maintains in his chapter on Ethical Philosophy that because he has come into contact with 'great' minds, he is led along certain paths of thought, feeling, apparently apologetic that he might himself have something to say or add. He says: "...the later speculations of this book own no better authority than the initiative of the author." I feel impelled to comment that the views of Plato, Aristotle or Kant also "own no better authority than the initiative of the author". Here, Joad is underestimating his position. He has every right to indulge in whatever speculations he wishes, as we all have. If I do not agree with Kant or Plato or the Archbishop of Canterbury, am I a fool or an idiot or a lesser mind? Why? Because they are supposed to have a better mind than me? If you think they have, a better mind than me, on what do you base your assumption? Can you verify that assumption?

We do underestimate ourselves. This leads to better things. But, however, so do we overestimate our selves. Sometimes grossly. We assume; we project images of ourselves on others; we accept all manner of 'truths' which we know inwardly are false. We deceive ourselves.

What is Man and his world? We can classify this being as Man. This is fair enough, providing that we realise all the potentialities and make-up of this man. The only reason that naming destroys is when we forget the characteristics of what we are describing. For example, we look at a tree. It has certain characteristics, individual points which make it different from any other tree. Suppose we take off in a helicopter. Firstly the tree fades and all we see is a group of trees; a copse. The tree has lost a little of its individuality; it is blurred by distance. Suppose we go yet higher; the tree has gone and all we can see is a forest. The individual tree no longer exists until we get closer. So by calling the tree a copse, then a forest, we have 'destroyed' the original tree. The same idea applies to Man. It is fine to classify thus, as long as we do not lose altogether, the man's individuality. We must realise what an individual man is. But we must remember that we are more than the sum of the individual parts. This 'more' is, in fact, the man. So before we begin, we have 'destroyed' Man by trying to break him into parts. There is, of course a usefulness in breaking things down into parts. With Man, for example, we can sort out individual elements of a disease, but we must never lose sight of the fact that he is a whole person, that each individual element makes up a whole, thus treating the 'whole' person.

Everything is the cause of everything else. The chances of anything happening are inconceivable, and showing a diversification which denies the existence of any universal motivating force.

It is (apparently) useless to ask: "Does God exist", since we are dealing with three variables. Does (1); God (2); Exist (3). By attributing time (1), name and qualities (2), and existence (3), we move the experience from a non-verbal--and therefore a factual one (to those who perceive it) to a verbal plane which destroys this by asserting or inferring something which cannot be verified by communication.

By trying to prove the existence of God by divine interpretation of certain experiences, we move it further into the realms of the verbal plane which is governed by the scientific rules and principles of verification, which as yet, have not been able to prove either way for or against, the existence of God or a supreme being.

When people realise that God is a name for a series of insights, feelings (emotions) and all-knowing qualities which we all perceive, and that by naming (and giving Him human qualities and attributes--i.e. we project and associate our ideas into something which we cannot know and which cannot be verified by observation) we destroy the very nature of the experience or feeling.

Feelings (truth, good, evil, beauty and so on, which are inter-related in the same way that all forms of energy are related) are purely personal and non-verbal. They cannot be communicated. They should not be brought to the verbal level (by projection and associations). They should be sought after, experienced and not talked about.

It is senseless to talk about those experiences which we might regard as divine, since the talking 'destroys' the experience of them (1) they are relative experiences to the individual (subjective) and (2) what you might regard as divine, I might interpret as something else. That it may be divine to you (since it is a feeling and perceived by you and therefore cannot be false, since it obeys no laws); it is inferential to me because I cannot verify the assertion that to you it is factual. Therefore we must take these experiences as we find them; not read into them something that is not there, which may also falsify or 'destroy' them as a feeling. These 'flash-in-the-pan' experiences (whatever they are), make life worth living by accepting them for what they are we should naturally behave in a manner which is non-verbally perceived by those around us.

Man is limited because, as I have said, he has set himself unanswerable questions. However, they are only unanswerable to Man as a group and only because he cannot communicate his sense-perceptions to others and so verify the truth of those perceptions (if he gets them). We must postulate the existence of levels of existence and knowing. These are a grading of levels from non-verbal to higher abstractions ( the 'Inner feeling' of a tree, i.e.. its moving beauty to you, which you only 'feel' and cannot communicate to others) is non-verbal; the tree you speak about to others is the first verbal level and the less you talk of the tree (i.e. copse, forest, jungle) the higher the abstraction, the less 'reality' it has. Of course the 'reality' is one of the problems philosophy has set itself. I do not think we will ever know the 'absolute reality' for the simple fact that like everything else, it is relative to the individual. What is reality to me may not be reality to you, especially if I am paranoid!

I think, and at present believe, that 'feelings' (deep, inner feelings), below a certain level of consciousness but which manifest themselves in emotional well-being or 'flash-in-the-pan' feelings of euphoria) are the only important thing. If this seems selfish, it is; but the point is that if I am able to perceive beauty, good, truth or whatever (which are these inner feelings) then they will manifest themselves in my better personality. The world should be populated by personalities, not as we conceive Man. It is toward this we should strive in everyday life. We can only assume tomorrow. We can only know now, this instant. We all feel that we are doing our best

or using our time to its best advantage. What we must do is act by it. It is consciously easy to do or not to do something we feel we should. This is will-power.

The fact is the fact of knowing (feeling). 'I don't feel it is right,', you say. What you might say is: 'At the present time, due to past happenings and present circumstances and knowledge based on the evidence before me, I do not feel this is right.' And based on your assumption, it is right, for you. It may not help me because of differences in my personality and past experiences, etc.

As I said before, everything in the Universe is relative. Therefore everything is right or wrong according to its relation with something else. We are victims of ourselves and circumstances. All Man has above the animals is an awareness of being aware. Our bodies are not extensions of our minds they are the receptors which make mind what it is. It is impossible to conceive a mind without a body, as it is impossible to perceive something which does not affect our sense-perception, however well developed it is. Those that cannot see infra-red light cannot imagine what it is like. There are, of course, higher perceptions, but we cannot, if we cannot perceive them ourselves, verify that they exist, so there is always doubt, and unanswerable questions.

So Man is a highly developed sense-receptor who is able to communicate some of his ideas, but his limitation is that he cannot communicate his real' inner feelings and thus he will remain in a dilemma of never being able to verify any of the answers he may have discovered, especially answers as to what 'reality, good, right, wrong, beauty' are. He can only hope that by better expression of himself as a personality he can instill non-verbal

perceptions of his personality in others. Whether they perceive what he expresses in himself, he can never know.




Back to Contents






I think it is about time that we all might be acquainted with the concept of what the word "LOVE" means.

Love is bandied about in all the types of media that we possess and usually relates to an ideal situation that does not, in fact, exist.

Surely we must distinguish between love and lust.

Love is what you feel before sex, not during sex and hopefully afterwards.

The act of sex is not love.

Sex should be an expression of love.

The world is not ideal. It has harsh reality brought about by greed and fear, not by love.

If we capitalise love with "L' we get a Platonic Form which is only to be striven for, but can never be realised.

Our human feelings are made up of many loves, (small 'l'). There is love of a brother, sister, mother, father, friend, a place, country, car, pet, the world, the universe and so on. They are each unique.

An idealistic 'Love' is not possible in the real world (whatever that is to us) because we lose sight of the little 'loves' that make life worth the living. A person who is destitute and jobless can thus find these 'loves' in his/her world where striving for a complete Love would be impossible.

Those of us in more fortunate circumstances can perhaps find many more forms of love and are perhaps more able to contemplate the philosophical 'ideal'.

Idealised love is comparatively recent in history (mainly a Victorian concept). This is the attitude of the naiive. The ultimate Woman, the Knight in Shining Armour.

The world is about Change (like it or not...there is no harm) and our ideas about love must therefore change. What we loved yesterday, we do not necessarily love today and may not love tomorrow. Was this not love then? Yes, it was.

For some, love is eternal. But that does not make all loves eternal otherwise there would be no change and nothing to look forward to.

If people were aware (or needed reminding) of this changing aspect of nature, they would not feel guilty of, for instance, breakdowns of relationships, marriage, boy/girl-friends and so on.

The idea of a multiplicity of loves does not demean them or take away their powerful forces. It heightens the concept of them and makes them real. It gives them a new quality and dimension.

We ought really to get away from the concept of an Ideal Love. Perhaps we would inject a little more of our world into music.

The old romantic notion (Victorian) of boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl is so hackneyed as to be unbelievable.

The fact that so much penny-dreadful material is devoured by so many people is an escapism that should really disappear rapidly and it is up to writers (who are supposed to be creative and all-seeing) to produce literature in keeping with intelligence.

There is a place for titillation but it should be kept in its place. It is not a substitute for real life (which is far more interesting, anyway).

It's what I love, not what you love anyway. In other words our selfishness. This is a negation of love, anyway, upper or lower case. I rest my case.





Back to Contents









The 'we' in the title refers to male and female humans. The word monogamous ('mono' means single, 'gamos' means marriage, that is, one marriage).

Personally, I am using the word monogamous to describe the notion that once paired, human partners stay married for life; that, (according to Western civilisation, at least), we should. The operative word is 'should' because it implies more than it says: 'should' is an invented term that implies that according to human rules, it must, which implies also a notion that it is a 'natural' law. 'Natural laws' are, of course, inventions of Man which may or may certainly not apply in our concept of life as we perceive it.

The fact is, that partners, most often, do not stay paired for life. Some other animals apparently do. These other animals are not subject to the mores of our society, however.

I do not personally believe that we must remain with a 'chosen' partner for the rest of our lives because some-one else says so. That 'some-one else' being the person/persons who deem to control our lives). I believe that if a couple decide by virtue of their relationship (and its development) to stay together, that is their choice and that's fine. It does not, however, mean that all couples need to be locked into a partnership that is not working or is clearly not viable in other ways.

What we need to do, is to rethink what we are involving ourselves in and make other plans (other than marriage) that satisfy the individuals. The notion that Society is the major player in this game of life, is incorrect. Society is made up of individuals. What those individuals do, affects the society, not the other way round. (Controllers, of course, would not like to see this happen!)

The rationale behind this, is that for some reasons, others have decided what individuals should do. This gets back to the argument regarding controllers, (a point I keep coming back to in my articles).

The whole idea of marriage, in my view, is to tie two people together for an extended time (usually life) for the benefit of others, not that of the couple. It is around this, that the ludicrous nature of the marriage ceremony is perpetrated.

The partnership of two people should be their decision alone, whatever the polarity of views on 'right' and 'wrong'. A partnership is based on the physical needs and wants of the individuals, according to their biological make-up. There is some, or more physical attraction and the satisfaction of the urge for intercourse. All perfectly natural and how we came to be designed (for want of a better word).

As yet, the word 'love' does not come into the equation. I have written at length on that subject (see Article: About Love). Love is something which grows between two people (and can conversely grow out again). This, I submit is all quite natural. Love is not a 'thing' to be defined. It is a set of feelings which can fluctuate like any other emotion. It's: I love you NOW, at this moment in time. That moment of time can be extended as long as the emotion is felt. At other moments this may not be true. Love is, therefore, a continuum is mistaken. This continuum between negative and positive with no fixed point in between and infinity at either end is a nonsense.

It seems that since we are born, we are controlled by others' ideas about how we should behave. This is not all negative. No-one gets a choice as to whether s/he should be born. Also at the same time, we learn to control our environment for ourselves. But as we grow, we find that more and more, we are subjected to the whims and fancies of others, that have nothing to do with our wants and needs as individuals. We seem always to be 'told' what to do (sometimes, 'asked') under some threat or coercion; even, supposedly, 'in our best interests'!

I firmly reject all these notions. Even as a small boy, I rejected these things. I did not know why then but I know now that controllers have never served me in any shape or form that was positive.

Controllers are sometimes subtle about the way they draw you into their scheme of things. The idea of love as a reason for marriage came about during the Victorian era. Before that, marriage was some sort of business arrangement for other purposes (even the begetting of children). This, of course, is perfectly all right but it has created a more complex situation with which we must deal.

What is marriage? As far as I am concerned it is an invention concocted by certain people to meet their own ends (not the ones to be married). Wrapped in a nebulous cloud of mush by the controllers who invented the Church (in any of its forms), and who also invented a Supreme Being onto which all manner of nasty human behaviours could be blamed *, we have the marriage ceremony. This ceremony is nurtured by the political dictators because it suits them. The idea is that people can be controlled better (and a point picked up by manufacturers and so on, who make millions from this fiasco) if they are locked into this idea (perpetrating the monogamy concept) of marriage. A relationship, whatever it is, has nothing to do with a ceremony, it's a purely personal thing.

Despite what other people say, individuals should be allowed to do what they want. They will do it anyway (despite occasional lapses into being conned into being controlled) and no laws made can redress this situation. Rules OK, Laws KO. Rules are self-regulating. Laws are made for politicians and lawyers. Controllers do not want self-regulation, that is why they bear arms and create the notion of Right of Might, Right of God and so forth. (see Article: Rules and Laws)

I have made it my life's work (if I like to look back, so far. It was not a conscious effort.) to be what I am. I have never made any pretensions about the way I have behaved. I am well liked. I have a lot of friends. I never had to buy a friend yet. Perfect? No pretensions here, either. Just me as I am. You draw those to you who are like. You can make mistakes about people but that is only because you have faltered and sub-consciously agreed to be controlled by them. Big mistake. I made it.

Maybe I should write and article on God The Supreme Scapegoat. The notion of God is a question of belief. We cannot, as yet, either prove for or against its existence, so there is no point trying, if that is our sole purpose in life. At the end of our lives, we might find the answer. It is a question of semantics.




Back to Contents











I may be inventing a couple of new words here, so I had better explain what I mean by them.

Nannyism is the construction of a society which is governed (for want of a better word) by those who would deem to know best by their own authority.

Nannyistic pertains to anything which is part of nannyism.

We may have heard of a Nanny State or a Nanny society. It is quite frightening.

A nanny is once removed from our mother and has a control of both the mother and her grandchildren. A nanny is usually a nice old lady who only wants the best for her grandchildren. She is mother to your mother and therefore has a different relationship. The concept of nanny, then is some-one who wants the best for you. You can go to her in times of trouble, or just to visit. You can say 'hello' and 'goodbye'. She will look after you.

There is a pretence (at the top, that is, the politicians who 'govern' us) that making laws are good things which will take care of everything. That's why there are so many laws. Well, except for the fact that they make lawyers rich and the rest of us poor. But some might say this is cynical.

The nanny state is therefore one rich in laws that guide us through our every day so they we never have to worry. We are looked after and the World is a rosy place.

There are, of course laws for nearly everything. But don't worry, those things left to us as individuals will soon be made into laws so that we will have to worry even less, safe in our beds we know that if some-one robs us or rapes us, then there is a law to cover it (albeit too late for the act).

Laws, like the ones nanny makes, are kindly things. They make you feel safe.

But not all of them. In fact most of them are designed to punish, make you feel guilty or at least worry. But they are there to look after us, nanny says so and she must know because she is older and wiser.

So, in their wisdom, the law-makers (older and wiser) sit in quiet contemplation as to what they can make up next, so that we won't have to worry any more. This is nannyism.

Those of us earning a living, earn too much. Most of it must be taken away for those individuals and couples who are not working but are spending their leisure breeding. But, of course, nanny must have more grandchildren. In fact it might be wiser to take all our earnings and give us pocket money. Not too much mind, nanny can only afford a little. Just enough for a few lollies and perhaps a new jacket once in a while.

It stinks. Fight it at all cost before there is a law against free speech. You know you mustn't answer nanny back, she will tell your mother and mother may smack you.

Remember too, that laws which cannot be policed (by any means) are useless. Laws are really as silly as the people who make them.

But, you cry, we must have laws to protect us!

I agree there must be some rules and guidelines in our society as it is at present. I agree that some people need rules to govern their behaviour. What I worry about is that we are being governed by politicians who make laws (not rules) to justify their corruption, their incompetency and their penchant for needing money to waste without consultation of those for whom the laws are made.

We have lost sight of the fact that this is supposed to be a democracy and that the governed are in fact the governors. It is, still a democracy, they tell us that, these amateur dictators. But it is not a democracy. It is a political dictatorship under the guise of being a nanny who 'looks after us'.

It's time we woke up to this fact. We can not 'let it ride': the nanny will take over, slowly and surely it will, in its insidious way.

And this nanny will not die unless we do something about it!




Back to Contents




The Older Person


There is no such thing as an old person. Attitudes to age are determined by social and political mores. Forget the euphemisms (words meant to say something that seems less disagreeable than the one we all know and love/hate) like aged, old person, elderly and so on. From birth to the grave we only get older. We are always older than some-one else.


Older is what most people think of in terms of retirement. Retirement seems to be another euphemism for getting old. "Over the hill" is fifty, so what's left?

This is the scenario: You get married. You have kids. The kids grow up. They have kids. You are grandparents, therefore you are old, have nothing better to do than look after their kids while they enjoy themselves. Nonsense!

Alternative scenario: You get married. You have separate interests (if you don't, get them quickly!). You have a life together which is not living out of each others' pockets. You have kids because you want them. They have kids. They know you have a life so they don't impose on it and they look after their own kids (and enjoy themselves) and you enjoy yourselves. Get Neil Simon to write the screenplay!

Retirement is Death / not Death

For many men, retirement (early or "normal") is literal death. Why is this? It is precisely because men have no interests beyond the mundane. They have few practical interests that take them beyond their working world. The male chauvinistic opinion is that they (men) are "men". The hairy chest and so on. Men behave in a certain way (usually pathetic if they rely on the control of their wives or others). They read newspapers (heaven forbid!). They watch sport on television (even more heaven forbid!). "The remote's mine!" All this is pretty corny but often true.

A person needs an interest that is above and beyond their work which should be started earlier in life. An interest is not a family. A family is self-produced and therefore exempt. An interest is something that may be shared with a spouse/friend or a friend but it is sacrosanct to that person. An interest is something that is started in more youthful times (at whatever age). It is ongoing, not a "five minute wonder". It must also be realistic.

An interest derives from pleasures found in a more "youthful" state. It should not result from that portrayed by any media. The media seeks to control. It says, watch this sport, eat this junk food, read this paper, do this thing, contribute to this lottery, gamble, drink and so on. Nonsense! Get rid of these cravings. Think for yourself.

Women and Age

After the children have grown up and gone away there is often a vacuum, but a lot of women realise that they can now start to do things for themselves that they have shelved during the years of bringing up a family (and often the husband!). They begin to realise that they now have a New Life and they want to go ahead and live it. If the husband is not conducive to this, there begins a rift often ending in divorce.

Conversely, many men seem to think that when the children have gone, they can relax and begin a "quiet" life. In a word, deadly. It begins the rot that can only end in misery, especially if the wife is now embarking on her New Life. Realisation of this alone could prevent a two-way split, however that may manifest itself.

Death or Going Away of a Wife

It's pretty sad that because two people live so close to each other, without having separate interests, that when the wife dies or goes away, the husband is so devastated that he often finds no reason to go on himself. It is precisely because he has nothing else in his life that this happens.

Women cope better than men in this respect because women seem to have a stronger instinct for self-preservation. It is biological rather than psychological. However, it is there. Men seem not to have such a strong instinct. Either they have lost it, or they have allowed so much more control over their lives that they can't live without this control. This is why men often get married again soon after a divorce or death. I am not saying women don't do this but they can cope much better.

Being Dynamic

I constantly use this expression when discussing things with my dear sister (who is "older" than me). Being dynamic means having things to do. This means action. Reading a paper, watching the television, listening to the radio and so on, is not action. It is a respite from action.

All humans are creative. Being dynamic means finding something to create. Something that is on-going, something that could last another life-time. And remember, being disabled never stopped people from being creative. There are thousands of things to do and be.

I live on my own because that is my preference. My sister lives with her husband. My sister and I are about to start a new business, fancy dress hire. I already have another business restoring old photographs and making CD's for other people. I have already done enough to fill two or three life-times of most people and I still will go on until the end. I will never grow "old" because I keep my mind active and positive. Anyone can do this.

Uses for Older People

I believe that we most of us need to change our attitude towards the concept of being older. We are all older than some-one. If we share ourselves with others, they will see that we have something to offer them and they will accept it gracefully. It is us who must bring about this change, not expect others to change. At present, the thinking is the wrong way round.

In what I call "civilised" societies, that is those who retain as much as possible of their nativeness, the older people are called "elders". These souls are revered because they have knowledge and wisdom or just that they have lived and experienced things. We all have this ability. We must use it.

For example, with so much "father hunger" brought about by the sicknesses within our society, there is a great need for boys and girls to "bounce" off some-one older, especially a man. Although the young need to be taught this, it is up to us to go out there and do something about it. This is being dynamic, not letting some-one else do the job for us. This is taking control of our own lives, not letting others do it for us.


Age is the process of getting older. You do not get old, you get older. Age should be measured in wisdom, knowledge and experience, not days, months and years. All of us have distributable wisdom, knowledge and experience. We need to be dynamic enough to distribute it. Being dynamic is being creatively active. If you live with a partner, to survive you need separate interests as well as common ones.

Remember, it should be "I can", not "I can't". "Can't" usually means don't want to. Always try to turn negatives into positives. I've proved it can be done.

Have a great (active) day!




Back to Contents 



We have nearly all heard of the expression anorexia nervosa. This means loss of appetite due to reasons of 'nerves'. 'Nerves' means psychological reasons. A patient manifesting the symptoms of anorexia nervosa persistently forgoes food ('hates' food) for various psychological reasons that are well documented. The lack of food to the body has dire consequences for the individual, especially in terms of the body's ability to perform its basic functions.

Have we considered, though, the other side of the story?

I have coined the expression philorexia nervosa to indicate that there are many persons who 'love' food for various psychological reasons. This surfeit of food also has dire consequences for the individual in terms of the body's ability to perform its basic functions.

There has been much talk and written material on anorexia. How much talk has there been on philorexia? What learnéd works have been written on the subject of the compulsive eater? What is the basis of the argument? If the argument is somehow the society in which we live, what is causing the problem?

I am not sure that it is Society's ills that is in question here (although it may be). I think more that it is the individual's concept of him/herself. You can like or dislike yourself, depending on how open you are to yourself and how much you want or would like to admit to yourself, about yourself.

There is a difference between anorexia and philorexia that is more important than their opposites. The anorexic may be wanting to keep slim for reason of being the 'ideal' wo/man (whatever that means) but the philorexic is some-one else entirely. Whom do they address? The anorexics want to stay in shape for their reasons, the philorexic do not seem to have a reason. They do not seem to care about their problem or they hide it under some guise that eludes me. I would genuinely like to know.

There used to be a saying: 'Inside every fat person there is a thin one trying to get out.' Why? What has the thin one got? Is the 'thin one' anorexic with their own problems?

There was another saying: ' Fat people are happy (jolly, or whatever)'. Why, how?

In both cases (anorexic or philorexic), who is trying to prove what and why? Are these souls trying to prove anything, anyway? NO. Both factions are trying to say something about the times in which they live. But most of all, they are saying: 'I don't like myself.'

Why don't they like themselves? They don't like themselves because they don't know who they are or what they are about. They don't know what place they have in the world about them. They are sensitive and look inside themselves and they don't like what they see and they cannot handle it, or cope with it. Like all of us, they find ways of coping. They have invented their own strategies for dealing with the problem. They diet excessively, they overeat. The rest of society feels sorry for those human skeletons who masquerade as 'slim' people; they have no such feelings about those who over-indulge. Those who over-indulge are encouraged. Those who are can you feed them and make money?

Why don't people like themselves? Because they fear. Fear drives wo/man. First fear, then guilt. A descending spiral of self-dislike. Conflict! To conflict with yourself, that is to deny yourself and what you are, strengths and weaknesses. Very sad.

There is no guilt that is not visited upon you except by others. Nor shame either. They are words invented by others so that they might have control of you. They are the sad ones, whoever they might be; the self-imposed 'authorities'. If you listened to yourself you would be better off.

Philorexia nervosa is a sort of disease. It is not easily curable. The cure will not come from doctors or psychologists or psychoanalysts. If any cure is to be had, it is to realise that you are a person. That you have needs and desires. That these are not easily attainable. Society tells you to hurry; it does not tell you that you have a lot to learn before you bring forth other beings which will be thrown into the same maelstrom of thoughts, doubts, learning, that you have entered through no fault of your own.

There is a message about life. It is very simple. GO SLOWLY about that which you desire. Do not be rushed by anyone, ANYONE. Therein, I think, lies salvation.




Back to Contents





I have purposely written the leading capitals as lower case since there is a distinction between 'Right' and 'right'. When Plato wrote about 'Forms' (The Republic) he alluded to Universal Forms. That is, put simply a Triangle (capital 'T') was a conception, in the mind, of the perfect shape of a triangle. This is unattainable, except in the mind because when we actually draw a triangle it has some distortion even though we may use the most sophisticated tools to draw it; thus we have infinite triangles (small 't') which can only allude to the perfect Triangle. In Chaos theory, the world is crinkley, not linear.

Thus, the concept of a Universal Right (or Wrong) must be distinguished from the infinite rights and wrongs that we speak of.

Since we are not God but gods, we cannot execute a Universal Right, only rights.

My argument will deal only with rights and not wrongs (although the argument equally applies).

What are 'rights"?

Whatever rights are, I do not believe that they are 'there' in the universe. They are created by Man for his own ends.

Really, the notion of rights is quite simple. There are none. Since they are 'given' (usually those who assume power), they can be easily 'taken'.

We might say we have a 'right' to this or that but we must realise that rights are only transient. This applies to Basic Human Rights, through to any other rights that are given or assume that we have, by some natural means.

After all, what is 'right' for one person, may not be 'right' for another. This is simple logic.

Words end up in Laingian knots.

I have the right to smoke

I have the right not to smoke

I therefore have the right to tell you to smoke

You therefore have the right to tell me not to smoke.

Who is right?

Substitute 'smoke' for anything else; the logic applies.

rights may be one thing but people do the opposite anyway, for whatever reason. I might think I have a right to [peace and freedom] but this can be shattered in an instant. What means the right then? Substitute [peace and freedom] for anything else and you have the story. So where do we go from here?

We need to understand fully the above observations. We must not let others fool us into believing that there is anything but human nature. Whatever rights you think you might have, they have no reality other than that you believe you have them.

rights can be taken away. The right, for example, to the dole money can be taken away, for example. Tradition plays no part in legislation.





Back to Contents 











Veneer (ven-eer) n. a thin layer of valuable wood glued to the surface of inferior wood: a thin coating of a finer substance.

(Collins English Dictionary).

Veneer (ven-eer) (Aust.) adj. a thin layer (often inferior) applied to something more inferior to cover a G.A.R.O.

(Sharpen's Dictionary of Cynicism)

G.A.R.O. (gar-row) (Aust.) n. Acronym for Great Australian Rip-off.

(Sharpen's Dictionary of Cynicism)

The modus operandum of the veneer syndrome is that of 'Justice must be seen to be done' principle, whilst nothing is done of any import, hence the veneer.

The more bureaucratic a country, the more veneer is applied but not in thickness, only quantity. Hence, the bigger the problem, the more veneer is applied in the need to hide it. Examples of this veneer abound. A good example is the election of committees. Each committee must meet the rules. A deep structure of human resources headed by a chair-person, treasurer, member, associate members and so on. A significant amount of paper must be generated so that the depletion of the rain-forest of the world can go on un-checked. Minutes (often hours) must be kept. But most of all it must seem that decisions, no matter how ridiculous, are being made; even when there aren't any. This is very important to maintain the Veneer Syndrome in all its complexity to keep non-productive people in some sort of job that has the Veneered title of Executive (or whatever).

This whole structure must be seen to be working, even if the population aren't. It also helps to hide the inefficiency and/or corruption of public servants whom they choose to be called the 'Government'. Since this institution (which they have installed) is so unwieldy, the Veneer Syndrome reaches its highest point.

Laws, of course, are very important to maintain the Veneer Syndrome. They make it possible for the Political Dictatorship (in their words, the 'Government') to make it seem that things are being done.

The policing of such laws as 'speeding', for example, is easy. Buy a few thousand dollars-worth of cameras (at the public expense) and zap the buggers. Print the statistics of spurious notions regarding speeding as a worse offence than murder and you have a lovely veneer. It also makes revenue and hides the fact that the under-trained police have little competence to do much else.

It is the nature of a party political system to hide the real issues of our society with trivia (veneer). As I said, the veneer is not even of good quality; often it is quite transparent (which defeats the object of a veneer).

The veneer is, of course, often perpetrated by those who are themselves inferior and thus would not know quality if they saw it. Their loud voices and actions cover up their lack of self-esteem and other qualities (which they lack, obviously).

'She'll be right, mate.' is the surest veneer of all. Whoever 'she' is, won't be right until we overcome the fear of our existence.

To overcome that fear of existence we must determine who we are and work hard to find ourselves. No stone must be left unturned, otherwise we allow ourselves to be dictated to by others. This is a sorry day.

It is fear that drives Man, not Freudian sex and aggression. It is fear of ourselves and for ourselves that drives us. We cover it with any sort of veneer that comes to hand, shallow or otherwise; beautiful or coarse.

This fear must be turned to the positive.

` No man has a master that he does not decide he wants (if at all).

Politicians are a prime example of the Veneer Syndrome but they are not alone. We all carry with us the folly of past generations, like it or not. It is up to us as individuals to break the chain of unhappy thought and go forwards.

If the quality is with us, we do not need veneer. We can be ourselves and I am of the firm opinion that we have the makings (said of people rolling their own cigarettes that they might enjoy).





Back to Contents 



Can Life Be Simpler?


Positively, I believe the answer is yes.

Please note: In this essay, I will use the word 'Man' for the sake of convenience; it, of course refers equally to women.

Since the very beginning, when Man first appeared on the planet in whatever shape or form from which we are derived, living has always been difficult but that conception arises solely because we have invented the word 'difficult'. Without the word, life is life and you live it as you can or fall by the wayside and die.

When we began to acquire the ability of an awareness of being aware and began to use a language to communicate our thoughts and feelings, we also acquired the ability to use that language (along with our constantly-found new experiences) to look further than the physical world we lived in.

Language is the key to our survival; especially when we invented a means to write it down. The ability to see what we had spoken or thought, has been the key to our dominance (rightly or wrongly), since thoughts and ideas could be easily passed from generation to generation. Since certain races of Man seemed to be in more of a hurry than others to accumulate knowledge/data, they began to dominate other races who were not so inclined. What I mean here, is that instead of passing knowledge/data by word of mouth, deed, singing, dancing and so on, the notion of the written word became very important to what we choose to call 'civilisation'. "Civilisation', of course is only an idea.

The problem arises when we let language take over our natural other behaviours, namely, survival and rely on it to control our lives.

We have let our lives become complicated and less simple.

There is a notion that the strongest or fittest survive. Here we already have a mis-use of a word. The word is 'strongest'. Where fittest is appended to the phrase, strongest means stronger in the sense of survival, not, as is generally accepted, stronger in physical stature or what we choose to called intellectual ability. It is this notion of physical attributes that has caused the problem in our lives, i.e. controlling other people. The word for this is bullying.

There have always been bullies. The problem is that they have been allowed to take over the world, which is why it is in such a very sad state, no other reason. All so-called 'authority' is based on a Bully System. The very rise of any 'society' (for want of a better word), is based on a Bully System. "You do as I say because I am stronger, or I will beat you up/lock you away" and so on. This is the notion behind the society we live in because, for some reason, we have let the bullies take over. They will continue to do so, until we put a stop to it.

So entrenched is this Bully System, that many people believe it to be a truth! So entrenched is the Bully System, people actually vote for bullies who pretend to 'look after' them! Thus, the Nanny State. It ain't yours. It's theirs. These people don't give a hoot for your welfare, however much rhetoric they whine. Some people do not even have a choice, which is why there are pathetic wars to try to change things. Unfortunately, we seem to have lost the ability for sense to prevail and other bullies take over and we are back to square one.

Remember, the bullies have become what some people choose to call 'leaders', that is, Kings, Queens, Popes, politicians and other types of dictators/controllers (even in so-called 'families'). These people are, if not actual bullies themselves, certainly derived from bullies. Remember, also, that there are no 'born leaders', only perhaps, 'born followers'. These people have managed to change things around so that they believe they have some sort of 'right' to inflict their bully behaviour on others and invent all sorts of nonsense to back up their behaviours (apart from their bullying).

I am not promoting anarchy (although that might not be a bad idea) but the world will remain complicated so long as we let bullies tell us what to do.

The 'average' person (I hate that expression but it is convenient) is okay. There are some who will not 'play by the rules' but they can be dealt with.

The world is complicated because we have allowed ourselves to be herded. One method of herding is to invent an institution called 'marriage'. The notion of a romantic marriage is a Victorian one. Before that, there were often sound reasons to get married (not necessarily in any good faith)

I have no objection to a romantic marriage, of course but that is relevant to a sound reason, not a reason deliberately chosen for the controlling of other people. Around this, we have built an whole range of activities which have nothing whatsoever to do with the 'joining' of two people.

Other methods of herding. include, the church, armies of all types, towns, cities, work-forces, unions, secret societies, various movements and so on. This is not to say that people shouldn't get together for common reasons (clubs, gatherings to share common interests, and so on; these do not generally lead to bullying/control tactics (unless they are part of a wider organisation, e.g. the church, with its vested interests)). I doubt if the local stamp-collecting society would bully you into buying stamps!

The world is a place of diversity of species (flora and fauna), diversity of space and conditions. This is the very nature of life. On its own, the world shapes itself. What Man has tried to do (mostly unsuccessfully, is to make it a static, linear world, (which it is not and never will be). This is the notion of change. Change is the essence of life. We have rigged a society or societies in which change, is a dirty word. The world is crinkley, not linear. This should apply to ALL things, including codes of practice. However, this does not suit the controllers since by their very nature, they do not want change as it frightens them and forces them to think beyond their meagre capabilities.

By creating this (nearly) static world, the bullies have led themselves into a situation which they can only make more complicated. The invention of 'laws' has led us into a situation that is very hard to get away from. I deny the necessity for 'laws' because they do not work for the 'common man', they work for lawyers (at whatever level they choose to call themselves). Rules, yes; laws, no. This notion is carried further in my essay Rules and Laws.

Can life be simpler? As I said, I believe it can but only if we resist the bullies of this world by peaceful means. Maybe there are not enough people who want to think for themselves but I don't think so; they tend to give up against a tide of sad humans who deem it their 'right' to control others. Resistance to this notion can only be spread by the very words that others use against humanity. Refusal to 'vote' for people about whom we know nothing is a start (note: in most, if not all, Western societies, we are coerced into this, with threats of violence, i.e. fines, if we don't). The problem here is that those people who are capable of managing a system (if that is what the public actually want, without being coerced in some way) are wrapped up in the same world that gestates them; (in other words, they are making good money in a Company, somewhere). There must be a way out of this impasse, this paradox.

I am not in a position to provide an answer to this but I am positive that there are many people out there who can solve this for the BETTERMENT of the human race, not its degradation and desecration in the name of some spurious 'progress'. Progress only to our demise.

Those people who could provide answers, would be those conversant with:

Humanitarian principles

The Theory of Chaos

The understanding of Semantics

The means to communicate, i.e. proper 'people' skills

The ability to care for others

There is no 'omniscient' power. That is a belief offered by bullies/controllers. Any such power comes from within a person, acting as he must, through no other reason than he must. There will always be deviants but that is a fact of life. At present we are living in a society produced by deviants and extolling their virtues by the fact of everybody else having to conform to their deviancy and the mass of good-caring folk having to suffer because of the few. This is societal nonsense.

Most people, who do not have pretensions about their status (which are based on Fear) are 'good' people by any standards. The few deviants, seem to rule the world. It is time these deviants were put into place.

I have appended a list of Positive and Negative words which might be considered by the reader, any one of which could (and should, in my view) be the subject of discussion. They are not listed in any order (that would be virtually impossible), nor is one necessarily the opposite of the other.






Putting down

Abiding by 'rules'


Abiding by the 'law'

(non-self regulating)





Helping others



Being 'told' what to do

Leading towards knowledge (teaching)




Being as 'truthful' as one can

Telling lies to extort a behaviour from the recipient





These are just a few ideas. There are many more. They each revolve around the other. Like life, they are not separate compartments. Naming something does not make it so. Naming something is a convenience to our ignorance (not our understanding).

Most people seem to be obsessed with letting others 'look after them'. This is lazy and these people only bemoan their lot. Time is to do something about this sad, negative world we live in. If others do not wish to try to better the world, then that is their lack of responsibility, they deserve what they get. But please don't inflict this on attitude on me and those like me. No person or persons, living, dead or otherwise, has the entitlement to control another life-form for whatever reason given. Like it or not, we are all born free people, whatever anyone may say to the contrary. If they don't think so, that's their problem; they must solve it without recourse to controlling others because they cannot control themselves.





Back to Contents 







Does Speed Kill?


I am not discussing a drug, I am discussing the notion of a body coming from a state of rest to a state of movement and the means whereby.

As everyone (?) must know, any change in motion of a body must result in a change of that body's state. That change results and reflects in the effects upon that-body-in motion from a state of rest to a state of movement.

In other words, get up too quickly and you may bump your head. Option: don't get up.

Life itself, is a risk. Any movement could result in injury. Option: do not move.

The notion that speed kills is a spurious one.

Speed is the acceleration (movement) of a body from a resting position (non-movement) to a motion forwards or backwards during a particular time. Speed is the amount of movement from rest to movement in a particular time.

In itself, 'speed' is only a word. The word 'speed' does not kill. Acting (movement) at speed may do so. As I said, Life is a risk; we need to move; that is a consequence of our biological life. A fly must fly.

It is important to remember that going too slowly may be as dangerous as going too fast in a given situation. The problem is the speed only in relation to an outcome. It is that outcome that is in question, not the speed of its performance.

'Driving' a motor vehicle.

I have single-quoted 'driving' since this notion of propelling oneself in (or upon) a mechanised vehicle (self-propelled or otherwise), is one that is familiar to most people in what is chosen, here in Australia at least, to be called a 'civilised' country. Of course, 'driving' is the operative word (in both senses). 'Civilised' is another matter.

Most people do not drive (see definition below). Most people propel their vehicles with a gay abandon that does not include this definition. Death and injury 'statistics' 'prove' that.

To Drive: (a definition):

a) The ability to get a stationary vehicle into movement without preventing the egress of another.

b) The ability to consequently propel that vehicle (by whatever means commensurate on the properties of that vehicle) onto/into a described path with the intent to get to some destination (the Task).

c) The ability to consider other drivers' equal opportunities of using that same path (and possibly at the same time), without hindering the other 'driver's' course (commonly called 'courtesy' and what are considered to be rules to that effect to prevent danger to oneself and others).

d) The ability to consider these 'rules' as appropriate to the Task. That is, considering the other road-user/s intent (i.e. completing the same Task as you). These rules are self-regulatory, they do not need 'laws' to confirm them. "'Laws are made for 'controllers, not for the general public who pay heavily for them").

e) The ability to drive to the conditions of the roads. THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT. It is held in the least regard by 'drivers' in this country (and other countries). The conditions of the road (path to destination) is a fundamental. It is not taught; it is learned. It is not taught, therefore, it is LETHAL. The responsibility lies with those who 'teach' and those who let them.

'Governmental' Restrictions on the use of a road-user's entitlement of egress

'Speed' restrictions, were once considered to be part of the rules to which behaviour on the roads was conducive. They were statements by people who travelled the roads, using their expertise. In other words, they were the parameters which helped motorists decide on the appropriate method of negotiating their task to get to a destination.

Nowadays, these 'speed restrictions' are indicators (from those who deem to control us), to generate revenue from their spurious and incongruous usage and the means by which this is effected.

The subject of having a 'police force' (the word 'force' is paramount to political control of the people for whom your are servants) is the subject of another letter.

I am specifically referring to Australian 'drivers' because I choose to live here (though less so in view of the serious desecration of this country by politicians). I have driven extensively over most parts of the world. I attach no 'blame' to a country's inability to observe rules of behaviour (whatever they may be).

My observations are that Australia is a country of restrictive practices; not only in driving.

However, 'driving' is my thrust here, not the disgusting political/police state this so-called 'country' has become.

Australian 'drivers' have little or no concept of lane discipline, parking (i.e. backing into a space rather than driving into it and backing out), the negotiation of round-a-bouts, they have very little or no consideration of /for other road users, pedestrians, cyclists (motor or otherwise), or signalling intentions of their movements. Whether these subjects are part of the 'Australian Idea' or whether they are consequent upon ignorance, is any one's guess.

My observation of deaths on roads in WA, are at least, borne out by the amount of 'crosses' on the road-side of perfectly straight, negotiable roads in fine conditions. This indicates that there is a real problem. These 'accidents' are ONLY related to speed in the sense that the owners of those vehicles cannot or have not the driving skills to allow them to proceed to their destination. There may be other factors (drugs, drink an so forth). If at fault, it is the instructors of these people who have failed in their duty to instruct correctly. If, at fault, it is the persons who allow the instructors to teach.

Teachers of others' (as with all teachers) must be competent in their own skills. They must have a wide experience of driving conditions in other countries than this one, where the weather (for example) is a major factor in getting from A to B.

Would-be drivers are not taught to drive at 'speed' or on 'Freeways'. They are rarely taught to drive at night (with its consequent dangers of reduced visibility and distance-spacing and so on).

Teaching people to drive at low speed does not give them the skills required to drive at high speed. Teaching people to drive at higher speeds does give them skills to drive at lower speeds. The bonus is, that they can also drive at higher speeds in better safety.

Reducing speed, especially with a population of non-carers to other road users, is more dangerous than reasonable speeds and in view of the safety of motor vehicles in general, it should be obvious to anyone with more than one brain-cell, that it is driver education that is important but only when the educators have the skills to teach. I doubt most of them.

Time. I think, to get your act together, Minister. If it's for the 'too-hard basket', get another job.


Peter K Sharpen.




Back to Contents 




















I return your Traffic Infringement Notice until a satisfactory explanation of the following points have been made to me:

1. I demand to know within what limits (in terms of yardage, or whatever) was your camera placed between the 90 kmph zone and the 80 kmph zone and what allowance (%) was made for a reduction in speed to that zone. (I think this is part of your strategy of making drivers brake as they enter a restrictive area. This is, of course, bad driving practice).

2. I demand photographic evidence of the alleged infringement without having to attend any office.

3. I demand to know who is responsible (named person/s) for setting the speed restrictions on such a road or indeed any roads. These speed restrictions on your roads are neither congruent nor in the manner/matter of safety; they merely generate revenue, which is not the matter for the 'police'.

4. I demand to know by what entitlement you waste my money on such devices as you install by the side of the road, or encourage individuals to hide behind bushes and point their (silly) ray guns at road-users.

I am not an Australian (thank goodness) but have a 'legal' entitlement to be here, therefore, I can handle a motor-vehicle. I do know how to negotiate round-a-bouts, keep to the left when driving; am cognisant of lane discipline and courteous behaviour to other drivers (and pedestrians, cyclists and motor-cyclists) and I am used to driving under all types of conditions (which Australian 'drivers' have absolutely no notion whatsoever). Unlike Australians, (who are known to be aggressive, lacking courtesy and any other road functions, mostly including BASIC driving skills) I do know how to drive.

As a matter of fact, I had to slow down in the 'prescribed' area and indeed did so, since I needed to turn left at Gillmore Avenue to return to Rockingham.

Your 'laws' are your own. They are no concern of mine. I always use the road correctly, unlike most of the population. I do know HOW to use the road. I have driven successfully in most parts of the world. I understand lane discipline, methods of negotiating round-a-bouts, and all the other restrictive methods that you apply to the Queen's Highway.





Back to Contents 





















Self-help-What is it?

Self-help is a way of trying to reconcile one's life in a form that is acceptable, relevant and comforting to the person thus asking for help in their life. It should not be emotional.

I am frightened by the titles and content of the material available to people who require help with their own person because they (these books) generally rely on an emotional response from the reader. 'Men who Hate Women', 'Women who Hate Men', and such titles. I deplore this means to inveigle a reader to subject their minds to this nonsense. The titles, by the way, are usually conceived by the publishers, not the authors; the content may be somewhat worthy.

Be wary of your purchase.

I have struggled (and still struggle) with my identity. Who am I? What am I? Self-help books only condemned me to do what I have always done, think for myself and allow my body to be the reason and judgement for what I do. Of later years, I have relied upon my feelings. My life (and others) is the better for it.

So this is just another self-help booklet? No. It is not at all pretentious. Its what I think and above all, what I feel. Nothing else.

Self-help-Can it help?

Only if you want it to and are prepared to look into yourself; the only worthy cause.

Self-help-Does it work?

Only if you want it to and are prepared to look into yourself the only worthy cause.

Please read on:



We are born upon a planet which we have called Earth.

No-one asks to be here. But since we are here, we have claim to our own person. No-one else (in any shape or form) has any claim on our own person for whatever reason.

After we are born we are then forced to enter into a World which has been created by others to our detriment. We are (unfortunately), then part of the history of this World and the disasters incurred therein and thereupon this Earth.

The Earth works (positive). The World doesn't (negative).

I am part of this earth, I am not part of this World (the author).

Despite the horrors perpetrated by the World, the earth carries on in its own way because it must be 'positive' and is self-regulating. It must be positive because it 'feels' (in its own way). Because it 'feels' it must; it has no choice. Those feelings must always be positive and foregoing and changing because that is the nature of the earth.

The World does not work because it is negative; it is not self-regulating. It does not 'feel' because it is the subject of emotions. It attempts to make itself static. We are often caught in the dilemma between our feelings and our emotions because we do not understand the distinction between them since we have never been taught. This leads us to our unhappiness. We are unhappy because we have been taught emotions (like and dislike) and we live in these emotions, mainly, and not our feelings.


What are feelings?

Feelings are what we experience within our bodies. We all know what they are because we feel them. Feelings make us comfortable with ourselves and because of that, others. They evoke pleasures. No guilt, no shame. We feel to eat; we eat. We feel to evacuate our bowels; we do so.

Feelings are the only reality we can know because they are inside us. We are the only persons in our body. Feelings do not evoke emotions.

What are emotions?

Emotions are not inside us. They are outside of us. They are provoked by others to us for their use to control us. Emotions make us like or dislike something. They may provoke feelings but they are not feelings within us. Guilt and shame attached.


There is a frightening thought that you are alone in your thinking and actions and behaviours: I've been there.

The 'feeling' thought is that you are not alone. Others will have thought as you do, acted as you have, whatever it is. They've done what you do, whatever. Whatever your feelings are, that's okay. That's positive because feelings can't ever be negative. Only when you mix emotions (which come from outside of you) and feelings do you come to grief. Emotions are not feelings. I, (the writer) have feelings, You (the reader) have feelings. These feelings are basic to our nature, they are us, as individuals as another form of animal. These feelings are about our sexuality, both in terms of our gender and our nature.

These feelings are part of us, whether we like it or not. That is because the 'like it or not' are emotions which were imposed upon us since birth.

If I feel something is correct or not correct, (that is, appropriate or not appropriate), then I react in some way to their influence, positively. Since this is positive, then my actions are regarded by others as feelings for them to feel and they are positive. These must be positive feelings.

The feeling I get from these outside behaviours is the correct one, for me. It can only be a positive one, since feelings can never be negative, otherwise they become emotions, which are not feelings.


It is because the World at present is driven by emotions (negative and not self-regulating) that nearly everyone is so unhappy and therefore make others unhappy; being driven by the same drivers In this way, our lives are controlled by others.

The way to a better World, is for us to live true to our own feelings. As I said before, these feelings are positive and self-regulating; thus do we become happy and it is this happiness that exudes from us to others, there being no driver required. In this way, our lives are controlled by us.

The feeling person is not subject to any other outside influence. The feeling person does not need 'laws'. The feeling person abides by mutual rules for the comfort of everybody.

The emotional person is always subject to others' control, there is no way out. The emotional person is subject to 'laws' (and rules) to the discomfort of everybody.

It is surely not an easy task to revert to our feelings for the guidance to our lives when, for so long, we have been used to obeying the wishes of others. I don't think anyone really wants to be controlled by others. That's because, somewhere deep inside us, our feelings are there, trying to surface but are being controlled by the emotions of others that we have been taught from Day One.

We are (homo sapiens) all what we then call 'human'. We all have feelings. That they have been or become suppressed is a sad condition of our lives. Be that as it may, or may not. It is up to us, if we want to, to revert back to our feelings. 'If in doubt, don't'; goes the old adage. This is the feeling side of our nature, thus recognised.

The way to approach any situation is to ask yourself: 'Do I feel it is right?' (The so-called 'gut-feeling'). It's also called 'female intuition' because it seems that biologically, women are better with feelings than men. This, I think, is because women have a better survival instinct than most men since they had to look after the man (classically providers) and children (classically defenceless until mature).

Feelings, since they are positive, can never lead to an incorrect decision. It is the emotions which lead to possibly incorrect decisions. I would have to say that a possible positive decision based on emotions, is probably driven by feelings, flaring up to exert their influence! A mixture of the two (unsurety) provides a difficulty. This difficulty is only overcome by reference to a feeling, not an emotion (like or dislike). No-one said life was easy!

Please remember that there is no Truth, only truths. There is no Beauty, only beauties. There is no Justice, only justices. These things are only inside us; they are not outside. Ghost in the machine. God in the machine. The machine is us, here, now. The people we love and have loved are inside us because they evoked positive feelings. when we call upon these people (for help, for example) we are appealing to the feeling part of us that remembers how they felt about us. Thus, when I call upon my dead father for help, I am appealing to the positive thoughts he left within me and his answer will be there.

It is my experience that feelings never change. Emotions can and do. I still have the same feelings about my own self, that I did when I was old enough to be aware of myself, stripped of emotional content. Think about this hard enough and you will probably agree. If you don't, perhaps you are not ready to live without emotions.

We have been taught to live by emotions to such an extent that feelings have been relegated to the pathetic, wimpy behaviours This is not so. The greatest men and women have driven themselves by their feelings, not by their emotions. Their actions have been mostly misinterpreted by others because the others were driven my emotions. The greatest men and women have performed positive, practical, works for the benefit of others because they were driven by feelings, not emotions.

Fear drives Man because it is based on ignorance of experience, emotional content and lack of knowledge that do not allow feelings to rule.

The unhappy, emotional people are afraid to allow their feelings to surface, lest they lose control of others. They fear loss of control of others because they won't let their feelings surface. It's a viscous circle.

Day in, day out, the world appeals to the emotions via the media. Whatever the excuse for their behaviours in presenting their own tailored version of what happened or is happening is absolute nonsense and totally useless to the feeling person. This world they have created, means nothing. It does not account for the beauties that surround us. It accounts for nothing that is positive or what is sensed the human animal it has degraded. Their notion, incorrectly, is 'Nobody likes good news'. That is because people act on emotions (which they adhere to), not feelings, which are our genetic heritage. What is the point of worrying ('stressing out) on something over which you can have no control? You are here, now: You have a life to live. Why try to live through the fake lives of others, or through those you cannot change unless you personally can do something practical (and I don't mean an 'arm-chair' action)?

The world can only change by local action. The most local, is you. There is no point whatever in concerning yourself with a global view of the world since you can not affect it globally. Change back into feeling mode (the mode you were born with but very soon lost).

You will not be disappointed.


In the light of the statement that feelings are not emotions, it should become obvious that most marriages have relied on an emotional context and therefore fail. There is no secret to the notion that human beings have feelings for each other, and that these can be very strong. The feelings are positive, therefore we are looking at love and not Love. That is, there are many types of love which stem from feelings towards another. Only when emotions come into play (like and dislike) do problems arise.

No-one loves another all the time, with the same degree of feeling. That is because feelings fluctuate due to the enormous amount of data that is constantly bombarding us. We have to live as well as love.

The pressures on a couple who have strong feelings for each other are tremendous. Those pressures have nothing to do with the feelings the couple have for each other, that is their private affair. The pressure is to get these two individuals together under some pretext of those feelings (which they equate with Love) lasting for eternity. Remember that the notion of 'romantic love' is a recent one.

Having a couple perform a certain rite to 'conjugate' their perhaps living together, is a matter of control and tradition invented by controllers. It is outside the couple's feelings and is therefore not relevant to them. Marriage ceremonies are for those surrounding the couple, not the couple themselves: Their feelings matter, nothing else, Since the rite of marriage does nothing to keep a couple together, (since it has no control of the couple's feelings), it is a nonsense with no value to feelings whatsoever. Because of the 'hype' surrounding the marriage rite and the existing emotions that are perpetrated by outsiders, those feelings that the couple once had, often break down over time. The couple is forced into a situation where their feelings are swamped by others (these others' expectations of the marriage, ensuing children and so on). The couple then pretend that all is right with the world, irresponsibly have babies and performing other acts to then 'keep the marriage together' for others' sakes. This rarely works and the couple split leaving probably another human being to be worked upon by an emotional society that cares not a jot for an individual's feelings. The circle continues. Rites of passage are about control, they are not about human feelings.

All flora and fauna have feelings of some kind, even if they are merely (in terms of human thought) only chemical/electrical bonds. The degree to which those feelings are developed is a matter of environment and natural selection outside human control, although the pretence is otherwise. (Human: try anti-cycloning a cyclone!)

Only human beings have developed emotions; to their potential downfall, (unless they realise otherwise).

It is my belief, therefore, that a persons' feelings are NEVER the province of others, by whomsoever, by whatsoever by whysoever, or whensoever.

I also believe that the concept behind what I have just said, is applicable to all walks of life, not necessarily marriage.


Life is merely (!) the influx and outflow of energy. I do not believe that there is anything mysterious about this. In a sense, surely magical! We are all individuals because we are all created differently. That is the nature of sexual reproduction; variety. It follows that we all have differing levels of awareness of our surroundings. We do not all see things the sane way, hear things the same way or sense things the same way.

People vary considerably in what they feel, therefore. There is the old adage that 'you can't show red to a blind man'. He can, though sense things that sighted people can't because his faculties have developed along different lines. How do you communicate if you are deaf and blind? The answer must be touch and feelings. John Varley wrote a magnificent short story called 'The Persistence of Vision' (1978) which illustrates the point. Somewhere along our line of evolution we have lost the ability to communicate with feelings and they have became displaced by emotions (like and dislike).

An emotional way of life will only keep us unhappy. As I said earlier, the media do all they can to keep the emotions rolling ( AT YOUR EXPENSE), though they often try to show otherwise. All the magazines you may purchase are intimidating, bullying and worthless. They say absolutely nothing but what they tell you want to hear. Who gives a damn! You have no control over these people's lives; what do they do for you? Nothing. It doesn't work for those who want to be happy. It works fine for those who want to mull in their own unhappiness and foist it upon others.


Death is a state devoid of inflow of energy, thus do our feelings die. If there were a life after death, it would surely be on a level of awareness that we do not now possess or understand and is therefore irrelevant. The notion that life is so unhappy in this world that there must be a better place, is poor thinking and based on emotions, fed to us from birth. These are not our feelings.

If you live your life working with your feelings (and it can take a long time, since we are led to work with emotions) you will never go backwards because you will always look at your feelings and yourself and remain positive.

You must question yourself: Does this give me a good feeling? If it doesn't, get rid of whatever is causing the problem/emotion (you may need help for this). You can safely drop the emotion even if it seems contrary to what you previously thought. You will no longer fear death because you embrace life (however it is for you). You won't know when you are dead. You don't know you are asleep; you just are. If you have ever had an accident, you will know how quick it happened. Fell over? Banged your head? It's that quick!

We fear death because we have been led to believe, erroneously, that there is a place after death. There isn't. No-one dead has shown conclusively, that there is a life after death. I have to say I get a bad feeling when I hear people promoting this 'life after death' notion. I do not think it is a comfort. I think the opposite; it breeds a fear in people (designed by controllers). We all say we don't want to die, especially when we embrace life. But death is part and parcel of life. Things die around us and within us, every minuscule part of a second. The fact is, we won't be conscious of our death, anyway. That seems to be the fear that others put into us. The only people who are conscious of our death are the living. So why be unhappy about it?

Those who fear death are not embracing life. Life is now, this moment. Past and future are inventions to help us cope with life; they don't exist 'out there'. They don't help us cope with life. 'Life is for the living', wrote John Denver. He's dead but goes on living in us because his music lives within us as a pleasant feeling. I liked the feeling of the line (and his songs, bless them) and because it gave me a pleasant feeling, I remember it, along with the song.





Back to Contents



















Take any history book (and that includes the Bible. Doubtfully a history, but significant in many people's minds) and it is a history of violence. Violence, defined as 'any act upon another, whether flora or fauna, that restricts, in any shape or form, the passage of others through the course of any part of their lives'.

Look anywhere in the World and it is killing, maiming, raping, warring, bestiality, hurting, blaming, bullying, guilt, duty; a thesaurus of words in the negative; hurtful, shameful acts of violence perpetrated upon others by other 'human beings'.

This is the sad history of Man, apparently. His achievements (positive acts and behaviours) pale into insignificance; his victories are madness and violence, not the opposite. In using the word Man, I include women, but please forgive me the simplification of using the one word to encompass both in this essay.

The question I ask myself, is: 'Why is Man so violent?"

And this is probably the hardest essay I have ever written.

I am not presenting an essay on present-day violence and why people now act as they do; however these people act now, is a legacy from the past behaviours of Man, perhaps the essence of Man even, I am not sure. It am trying to understand this; that is the subject of this essay. I am not sure how this essay will end... Thoughts and feelings to paper...


The 'herd instinct'

It is believed that Man, as an animal, forms herds (of some description). Herds are groups of animals that act with an accord of living together for mutual benefit. Man's legacy (like every other flora or fauna) is to reproduce. Very little more, nothing less. The nature of Man's reproduction is based on 'sexual reproduction' (as opposed to 'other means of reproduction); and the ability to make changes to a species by a random set of principals (i.e. sexual reproduction) that allows for individuality and eventually, a group of animals that accepts change and individuality as part of the nature of the beast (homo sapiens).

Homo sapien means creatures that have thoughts. ft is believed that homo sapiens are the only creatures that have thoughts but this is a moot point; we don't know if other animals' have thoughts because we can't communicate with them sufficiently well enough.

Homo sapiens are considered to be the only creatures that are aware of being aware. No-one can know, for sure, whether we (homo sapiens) are the only creatures thus endowed (as yet).

As a group or groups or as an individual, Man had to find food and shelter. Man is recognised for his 'hunting and gathering' abilities. Women do the same, with different definitions of 'hunting and gathering'. As an animal, Man is the same as every other animal (or flora). He is; he finds a mate, he breeds, he has to feed his 'family', he has to find shelter. He has feelings because he is a feeling being (animal). He has no emotions (originally) because these emotions are outside his feelings; he is not aware of them. He does what he does because he has to, there is no choice. We have not gone beyond this; we mostly pretend that we have.

Man fucks. He has 'sex' with another, usually female. That is what he is here for. He looks for a mate (the nature of the beast) and he fucks. Pure and simple; no mystery here. He produces babies through his mate. Eventually this children, siblings or whatever, do the same, they fuck or they are fucked and so on.

It is upon this same notion that all life since seems to have evolved in all its nonsensical way.


Most animals and plants have a natural way of culling. Culling is the way which animals and plants restrict their over-growth by way of natural 'pruning' of their species. That is the way that Nature works. Left to itself, Nature works (very well) to include all possible variances which lead to a healthy planet. It has no choice. It is directed by no-one or no-thing. It is the nature of life. It may have feelings but certainly not emotions. (Emotions are Man-derived)

The problem, it seems, is that Man has not developed a natural means of culling the species (unless you condone his warring nature). Quite the contrary; the development of Man seems to be steeped in trying NOT to cull the species but allowing (not from natural selection) but to allowing for all forms of disarranged life to continue. Whether this is a/the natural consequence of Man, that is, that he will demise because of this behaviours, is a good question. May be Man has developed, seemingly, in consideration of his behaviour so far, to get rid of himself; who knows. Apart from 'natural' disasters, Man goes on fucking until he is sure to over-growth and kill himself (Man) in the process (by the means of over-population).

Where over-population exists, it seems naturally to lead to a vying for territory. Whatever the reasons for this over-population (even on a small scale), the territory does not exist that will satisfy the greater herd. Food must be obtained. Living-space must be obtained. It is the expense to which this 'is 'obtained' that is the nature of Man's violence to the earth.

Given his awareness, Man needs to control others to get his needs, especially when they include living space (lebensraum). His feelings go 'out of the window'. He desires to get what he wants and by whatever means he can devise. And Man is a devisor. Clever enough to design tools and weapons for killing what he needs in relation to his basic needs (food and shelter) he can then devise tools and weapons to kill others of his species; not far removed from his needs as provider.

Man goes to war on his fellows. No more the face-to-face confrontation (this becomes too difficult (the First World War) and so the 'killing-at-distance' prevails, the culmination of which was dropping the atom bomb on the Japanese (World War 2).

Herds create (negatively) notions of power. They invent hierarchies of controllers within the structure of which they feel safe, except when some disagree and they are ousted to be replaced by other herds who do the same thing by another name. The larger the herd becomes, the greater become the hierarchies (aka bureaucracy), thus the less the individuals in the herd have their input and frankly, the less they matter, since it is supposed that in bureaucratic/political terms, the 'greater good of the herd'.

Those not of the 'herd'.

It is to be probably, (though I personally doubt it, as a positive person) agreed that most people follow the herd instinct.

Be that as it may, there are others of the human race who do not follow the herd instinct. These individuals come about the same way their counterparts do. They are the product of couplings of humans as part of the heritage of sexual reproduction (variety). They are therefore as worthy to be called homo sapiens as anyone.

In various parlance, called 'outsiders', 'anarchists' and so forth, these individuals have been the creators of the earth, as some of us want it. These are not the negative people, they are the positive.

Herds do not create things except to eventually destroy others (flora and fauna) because they become to big and thus unwieldy. Individuals do create things (ideas, art, data, writings and so forth). These individuals are (usually) persecuted by the herd because the herd works one way (towards self-destruction), the individual another (instruction). The herd is therefore negative; the individual positive. The herd is negative because it runs around all over the place, driven by fear. The individual is positive because he stands still and listens to the earth. The best part of the World (as opposed to the earth upon which we all live), is produced by individuals despite the herd. Without the individual, the World would have long since deceased if the herd had its way.

The herd does not like the individual because he poses a threat The threat is the realisation that the herd is a purely animal thing which can have no future except extinction because of its nature.

The herd WILL fail because it is a growing herd. It is a human herd without a sense of culling, without a sense of purpose. The herd has a spirit which will destroy itself because of its nature. It is only the individual who may succeed. The individual with feelings that have been so often relegated to the pathetic.

Individualism (in the sense of a feeling person and not an emotional person), is a self-regulating mechanism because that individual, who has 'feelings has also self-control and self-discipline, integrity, loyalty and feeling for others. An individual will not allow himself to be controlled by others who prey on 'individuals with their self-imposed emotions because they are part of a herd. to which he does not wish to belong; his feelings are against it.

The herd is not self-regulating because it relies on the hierarchy of a 'pecking order'. The individual is a no-no in this scheme of things. Some sort of order must prevail, they say. There is no order. The universe is not linear, it is crinkley. What appears to be straight is only a concept, not a reality.

Time, methinks for a positive move to a MERITOCRACY. That is, those that have the skills do. (They feel, therefore they do). Those that don't are often sad, lazy people, who could but don't/wouldn't/can't care. These people can be accommodated. Democracies always ends up as political dictatorships.

With groups of people, there is possibly a need for some management. Management to co-ordinate the best uses of people, not to dictate behaviours. There are such people with the requisite skills. So-called 'primitive' societies did this quite successfully (the Australian 'aborigines', for example, were pretty successful for 120,000 years). Modern societies don't (because they are politically driven). We would still have the technology we have now but there would be less people and a great deal more of the natural resources that have ended up at the bottom of some ocean.

Bottom Line

I think what I am saying, is that the world is too full of people (the 'wrong' people). That is, we are over-populated given the nature of the herd. The earth itself might possibly withstand the onslaught of the human race until the food and space finally give out or the herd instinct degenerates further into global warfare and we are doomed in whatever way to obliteration. But before that, the misery of a growing herd, with no purpose except to procreate (for that we can be grateful to a church of some sort, the greatest controllers of them all for their own ends) will produce an unhappy world for everyone. The so-called 'right' to have children, is an irresponsibility. It is an invention. It is a herd invention which will be the downfall of the whole human' race. The motto seems to be: breed and be damned. Time we came to terms with this notion and pursue it sensibly.




Back to Contents 

















Pre-amble and definitions

Earth is a name that we, the organism Man, has given to the place (planet) upon which we live.

Man includes both sexes, man and woman.

World is the situation that Man is subjected to, created and dictated by others who deem to control us for their own purposes by the process of bullying.

I feel that the distinction between Earth and World is crucial to our understanding of ourselves and our place on the Earth and in the World.

Ourselves, are the individuals we are.

An Individual is a unique being. S/he is a combination of genes from a variety of sources neither with consent nor control. S/he is thus a free individual; free of/from anything/everything in the universe that deems to control that freedom or uniqueness.


A possible history:

I must state at the very beginning, that (as far as I am concerned) we, as individuals, cannot change this World in which we are placed, except only locally. That is, we cannot change the World globally, except by local means. This local effect can, however, be what is known as the Butterfly Effect. The Butterfly Effect is the notion that the beating of a butterfly's wings can have a global effect; that a small difference made locally, can have a global effect by its very action.

Here I am, born on/of this planet called Earth into a World (The World), created by others. The Earth is the chosen name by these people, of the planet upon which we live. Man is the organism who has an awareness of being aware. All organisms have an awareness, even though it may be only a chemical/electrical one. Only Man, it seems, has the feeling of his awareness; his awareness of being aware. To what extent other life-forms are aware of their awareness can only be conjecture. Man senses; Man feels. All life-forms sense, how much (or to what degree) they feel we do not as yet know.

Because of this awareness, Man has evolved to utilise his senses (however limited or unlimited in relation to other life-forms) into feelings. These feelings have been the motivation for his actions towards to Earth upon which he has been put. Whether these developed feelings have a survival value or not is probable but I, personally do not know. In the early evolution of his species, these feelings were not a problem. He did what he did. He made fire, tools, procreated and so on.

As he progressed, through the years, he seems to have developed, however, a system of likes and dislikes. These likes and dislikes, became what are known as emotions. How, I do not know. But it was the conception of likes and dislikes (emotions) that have and will be (unless something is done to rectify this), the ruination of Man. Emotions kill. They kill the individual, the herd and the race of Man.

Now is Now

Notions of changing the world are the basis for our inevitable downfall as a race of creatures. This is because there has been a mix-up between our feelings as creatures and the notion of emotions.

Feelings are very local; they are within us. We, as individuals have feelings depending on the development of our senses. These senses, are traditionally, touch, smell, hearing, and sight. Given that we all have varying degrees of these senses, depending on the circumstances of our conception and birth, our feelings about the earth we live upon will all be slightly different. For example, we don't all have the same degree of sight, or hearing or whatever.

Applying an emotional context to these senses, is therefore, ludicrous. No-one can be correct or incorrect, since we don't all have the same degree of sense, therefore we can't have the same degree of feeling upon any one of them.

I believe that through a miscarriage of sensual justice, we have attached an emotional quality to these inherent senses by applying words such as 'like' and 'dislike'. It is all very well to say to some-one "I like you." meaning I have positive feelings about you because you smell nice, taste nice and so on; but it behoves us to append a dislike as well. This may all be very well but this like and dislike has been carried too far. Instead of seeing the world in the shape of feelings, we have gone outside these feelings to say we like or dislike everything. What has happened is that we have gone from our inner feelings and taken them outside ourselves; to distance ourselves from our internal feelings. In other words, no longer do we rely on our inner feelings (which can never be incorrect) but rely on external emotions to live our lives by. This is our downfall. This will be our downfall as Man creatures.

Now we can 'like' or 'dislike' something or some-one. We are divorced from our feelings. We can now achieve anything we want. We can tell people to like or dislike something, and divorced from their 'real' feelings, they will perform actions that they could not perform if they were in tough with their feelings. Thus war is made; on whatever, by whatever, and howsoever. It's the 'killing at a distance' syndrome; the pressing of a button to change other individuals the way you want them; not by feeling but because of emotion; where you can't see what is happening to the individuals you deem to change for your own selfish purposes. All politicians, despots, or any controller of any sort whatsoever of other individuals, are here in this description (and definition) have never benefited other persons in any way (not yours to reason how or why). That act has ALWAYS, sometime or other been passed onto some-one else. If you are driving, for example, and you allow the passage of another vehicle before your own, that act will be reciprocated by the other driver, sooner or later. It can't be helped; the other driver will have no choice.

If you FEEL it is correct, it is. If you act upon an emotional decision there are always doubts about the action. This doubt about the action leads to all those words spouted by those (who have forgotten/lost their feelings), as duty, obligation, cowardice and so on.

Our major learning curve will be to let our feelings take over from our emotions. We will then not worry about global events over which we can have no control. We will disregard the news, magazines portraying individuals we can no nothing about, television programmes that delineate all that is emotional, not relevant to our sense and feelings and all other forms of literature which make emotional inroads into our individuality. This media, is the answer, if you want a downfall in your life. The media has everything to answer for. It is emotional and has nothing to do with individual feelings.

Only the individual has changed the world. The individual has acted through his feelings. If you want to change the World (even your own world) then chuck the emotions out of the window, start feeling.




Back to Contents 





I BELIEVE that...


...I am a free person, born on this planet chosen to be called Earth but not of this World which was created by others for their own selfish ends.

...only I, have the entitlement to control my life.

...controllers cannot control their own behaviours and therefore feel the need to control others' behaviours. This they do by bullying others. 'rights' can be taken away at any time by these bullies or controllers whomsoever they say they are and for whatever their reasons for saying so; therefore rights do exist in actuality.

... the World is controlled by bullies.

... the Earth is controlled by no-thing or no-one, spiritual or otherwise.

... the 'Law' is a bully because it is devised by bullies.

...the 'Law' protects no single person or group of persons in any 'real' terms.. It protects only itself by bullying others' at others' expense.

...the so-called 'agents of the Law' therefore, comply only with the bully system.

...there is no justice, beauty, truth, or any other quality, other than that which I feel in myself.

... emotions are not feelings. Emotions derive from 'like' and 'dislike', and these we are taught to us. They are not feelings. Emotions are outside our feelings and therefore outside ourselves.

...feelings are wordless and therefore they endure; emotions do not.

...I am the only person in my head, no other persons' thoughts, should prevail except for those which may, from other persons' experiences, add to my security and well-being, which I will ultimately decide. That decision will then be my responsibility alone and I will not prevail upon others in any form of blame/obligation and such-like.

...only I am responsible for my behaviour/s.

...only I am responsible for my own happiness/misery.

... my responsibilities are to myself first.

...that there is do 'duty', 'obligation', 'loyalty'. towards others unless I feel it in myself to behave so.

...that life on Earth is change. That the World tries to make things static. The Earth upon which we live changes; thus do we live, and die.

...there is no god except that which is inside me.

...fear drives men and women. It is this fear that accounts for all behaviours.

...positive behaviours only, are our salvation.

...negative behaviours are our destruction.

...there are persons who may wish to harm me. These persons are very unhappy people. As controllers without self-control, they are very dangerous to me and cause me to feel unhappy, therefore unsafe and unhealthy in a variety of ways. These people are very sad people. They should be dealt with by their peers, not by an assumed authority. This used to be so but has been taken over by others who dispense their so-called 'justice' from a distance. This is not 'civilised' and does not help me; it is a pretence they have devised to make them feel good about themselves, which they do not, really.

...there are many people who also wish to help me. These people are happy people, who wish for my safety and health on this earth. We should seek out these people for their help, whoever they are. We should also help them to help us. These people work very hard (often without our knowledge) in their hope for us to be a better person. Like it or not, these people care about us. We all know the people who care for us, because they are always there to heal our hurt, help us to help ourselves, whoever they are. We know who they are because we feel good about them and they make us laugh.

...we want to be independent from others but need others to help us become independent. That is the aim of 'proper' teachers, whoever or whenever, they may be.

...asking for help is a great strength in ourselves. It does not represent failure but success. being, human or otherwise, can know everything. Everything is too much for us. We can know a little about a lot, or a lot about a little. Perhaps never the twain shall meet.

...we learn a great deal each day, even though we may not realise it. Realising this may be of great help to us.

...that some-one finding us after a long time of not knowing where they are is the most rewarding experience one can have.

...that I love dearly my chosen family.





Back to Contents




















As usual, I was thinking, between a sleep and the next one (I hoped). During this impasse betwixt, I heard my stomach rumbling and it seemed to tell me something. It did. It led me to this little essay.

Now I'm not a believer in a god that is external to me (such a god would be a controller and I'm very much against controllers or those purporting to be any sort of 'authority').

It's possible that there may be a god inside me but that is pure conjecture, (never any sort of 'fact' since it is unverifiable). I do not know and may never know. Frankly, I don't want to know.

However, it was the 'voices' that assailed me, both aurally and inside me that are my subject.

I do not eat very much; eating is a necessity for Life, not a 'god' to be blessed (i.e. eat to live; not live to eat). This sparcity of eating (or a vegetarian diet, with which I am in no way enamoured), causes greater peristalsis than eating a diet full of 'sturdy' food (AS MUCH IN A DAY AS IS POSSIBLE). This is not a dieticians' way of putting things but what's a dietician anyway?

Peristalsis, is the natural mode of the intestines. The intestines digest the food we eat. They work with special muscles to move the food around the gut, thereby extracting the nutrients, putting on the fat (if we eat the wrong diet) and later act to remove the garbage from the system. During this process, they (the intestines) make sounds that are audible to us in quiet moments. They also enable us to fart, thus removing unwanted gas from the system. (I will not be led to the conclusion that since politicians use their arses for a brain, or that a fart is their rhetoric, that's your conclusion.) This is a serious essay.

However, during the process of peristalsis, sounds are made, which, in quiet moments, may reveal themselves as words or sayings.

This is the notion of this essay.

I'm sure that last night my name was called. I woke with a start (as one might in an 'out-of-body' experience). Was this a word from God? or was this a word from my bowels which I claimed as a word and not a sound of my own peristalsis? I don't know. I'm sure that I heard other messages, as well. All seemed relevant to my particular situation.

Giving further thought to this (as is my want), I went on to extrapolate this:

Now, understanding that the diet of 'Saints' (or anyone else purporting to receive messages from 'God') was probably not the best and given that they may have not understood the notion of peristalsis (nor perhaps 'listened' to their bowels), may they not have been given messages by said bowels that might have contributed to their thinking that this was the voice of God?

Hmm, it leaves me wondering...




Back to Contents 
















(No fault, no blame)










Assumed Non-life-Rocks, clouds etc. We have no knowledge of awareness.


Life simple - Bacteria, viruses, lichens, plants etc. We have no knowledge of awareness, only response to stimuli.


Life more complicated - Animals. We have limited knowledge of their awareness.


Life, more complicated still - human beings. Human beings have adapted to have an awareness of being aware. They can control their existence in many ways more than other animals (more often than not to their detriment and possible demise). This does not mean that the human animal is more important since 'nature' works to its best advantage despite the creatures is produces through the process of natural selection; it has no preferences.

Life is the input and output of various electro-chemical reactions leading to a dynamic ('doing'). The resultants are changes which produce the variety of life on this planet. What we call death is not merely the reverse, it is merely a lack of input. This input may be called energy, which is the combination of electro-chemical stimuli. In death, we still output these reactions but there is no dynamic.

Human beings seem to be different from other animals because they are dynamic on a different level. They have a consciousness (and sub-conscious) that does not seem to be apparent in other animals. They are aware of being aware and can consciously control a lot of their environment. Other animals do not seem to be able to do this. This essay relates particularly to human animals.

Early input/output

Zygote: Input from a male to a female resulting in a fertilised ovum (egg).

Embryo: Input from mother + Input from father towards the mother. Basic output, (earliest unconscious biological memory).

Foetus: Input from mother + Input from father, maybe more output, later unconscious biological memory.

Birth: Severe input from mother, secondary from father (if present at birth (if the father is not present, he still has an input depending on the relationship between the parents)), later unconscious biological memory)

Early years: Severe input from both parents (if present); most if only one parent , still later unconscious biological memory and an increasing sub-conscious biological memory.

Later years: As the independence of sibling/s increases, (almost always hampered by the unconscious and later developing

sub-conscious biological memories, plus now those memories which the child has determined for itself plus also a struggle to be independent from the parents:

All this leads to Levels of Awareness



High level Low level


Thinking, sensitive Unthinking, insensitive



Ability to change



Higher Lower

An individual's identity is based on the data fed to it as from the above table. It is my notion. It works for me, perhaps not for you. My concern, however, is WHO AM I? and WHY AM I AS I AM?

The earliest data available to us of our existence is not available to us directly (i.e. consciously as we normally define 'consciously'). As human animals, we appear to have three levels of consciousness. There may be, of course, be several more and certainly they are not isolated. That is, they are part of a continuum (i.e. they merge into each other and are not separate):


The unconscious is what we are not aware of but we are influenced by.


The subconscious is that which lies above the unconscious but may still not be available to the conscious (our awareness of being aware).


This is the state we are in now, (however that may be defined in terms of our relationship with the world upon which we impinge). This is our awareness of being aware. The conscious state is constantly undergoing change depending on what is happening at the time (i.e. a particular time and circumstance) via our sensory mechanisms. This is total and dynamic. The body is a total organism where nothing is separate; everything works together.

Biological memory

The notion of biological memory, is not mine. I remember going to a seminar once where it was talked about.

My reason for writing this is to put into perspective some of the things in my life that have caused me some pain and feelings of regret in some of the behaviours that I exhibit/have exhibited.

Some of this may be a repetition of what I have said before but this essay is a reflection in context.

When the cells of our body are destroyed, either by accident or biological design, they are replaced. None of us ends up with the same cells that we started out with; at some time, they are all replaced by new ones. Some aren't but, by and large, they are.

Now since the cells are replaced by like cells, the nature of them must be 'remembered'. This is not news; the DNA remembers.

The notion of biological memory is that cells not only remember the way they are supposed to be (except for cancer cells who want go and do their own thing) but that they also retain another memory; the memory of what happened at the original time of conception and anything that happened afterwards, hence biological memory.

However, it is the whole being, whether morulla, embryo or foetus, that remembers. This may be conjecture. However, I will use an personal illustration.

I have this dream sometimes (maybe an anxiety dream) where I am going through a tunnel that is very narrow. I am very frightened. I 'know' at the end is a lighted room. It has no exit except a window. I know that I am going into a space less claustrophobic but I am still frightened. There is no end to this dream, I merely wake myself from it (survival?).

The fact of my birth was that I was born of a very scared woman. I was born during an air-raid on London in 1944, one month after the V1 bombs (doodle-bugs) were sent by the Germans. I was born in an air-raid shelter during such a raid. It is a pretty good assumption that my mother was frightened enough not to want me born at this time. However, she is giving birth to this organism against her will. I ask merely if this is the consequence of my dream?

I was a crying baby. I was frustrated. My mother was frustrated. She did not know what to do. I was succumbing to her frustrations. I was also not breast-fed properly as her milk did not 'come down' as they say. Did I not carry on this 'biological' memory into my own life and children? The answer is 'yes'.

Thus there may be regrets, but no blame. Who blames the blamer?

I am not proud of the way that I treated my children during their first years. Hands up! Guilty! What I am concerned about is that perhaps my biological memory of such events that have happened to me have passed onto my children. The crux of the matter here, is that we have no 'real' memories until we are about four years old. What's gone on before that, it would seem, is a biological memory. That memory is carried into our future life through the new cells that we make as part of our biological function. I believe that we do retain this information, otherwise, how do we react as we do, to similar circumstances? We don't consciously know what we are doing because it is a memory that is sub-conscious.

'We all make the same mistakes.' Why? Because we don't break chains by force but by examining the weak kinks and trying to put them correctly (and perhaps, in their place). This can only come about by trying to come to terms with our biological memory. I think this is with us throughout our lives. I still get bad feelings when I hear children crying and screaming. I am not really enamoured with babies and having them. I do not get the rush of adrenaline when I hear that people are parents, grand-parents or some-such. "Oooo! I'm a father/grandfather!" does not, I'm afraid (even if this grates on sensitivities) give me any excitement. It's a fact, or a truth.

Parenthood is the product of a union of two people, whatever the reason and the reasons are bounded by that biological memory over which we have no control. What happens, happens. That I did not treat my own siblings as I should have (given a better biological memory and a better tutorial) is still and always will be, a concern of mine. It's a concern I will have to live with until the end of my days.

Biological memory is not about excuses; I make none for my own behaviours. It's about what has happened to one through no fault, no blame and how one subsequently acts. If we can understand this, I feel, then we can break the chains that bind.

One loves one's siblings, no matter what. If one doesn't, there is something seriously wrong and I wouldn't want to comment on that in this essay. I have always loved my siblings and always shall. Whatever has been done by them or to them is very important to me since I made them. It is my responsibility, whatever I might say otherwise (which I don't, of course).

I did not make a mistake marrying my wife, whatever else may have followed or what she might say. It was part of my own naiveté and my wanting to have a partner; to be part of some-one else and in my un-wisdom, 'two together as one'; (that idyllic relationship from which dreams are made, but not the harsh reality). Ever a dreamer, I went the 'full hog'.

Both my children were born of love. Of that there is no question in my mind. I am sure that I was conceived in the same way. My mother has a great deal of good qualities (although she is a controller). I know, in her own way she loved my father. But she, too, had her own biological memories and carried them forward into her life with him, as did my father. They carried on into mine and my children.

I do love. I love too much, sometimes/often and it can get me into strife. I love the children I teach and have a hankering for young girls (and older ones!) as well as the boys. I'm not talking paedophile, here, heaven forbid! but I attach my love to them. It is because I have a quality of non-sexual behaviour (probably because I'm too shy) that people I meet feel that I am 'safe'. I could 'have' a great number of women, desperate for my attention but I don't. I have never treated women as sexual objects. I have no sexual relationship with women (or men) because I could not see how they could live with me. I am very unconventional. I need my space. I need my space because that's what I've grown up with. I never wanted to be a loner but that's what I am. I prefer my own company because I don't want to let my 'shadow' self out. Ruth knew that (for her own reasons). We never married (though I asked her) and that was probably very wise. I owe a lot to her, she was great fun in many ways and she understood the need for space.

For better or worse, my space has enabled me to stand back from the world as it is presented to me (not good) and allowed me to produce poetry, music, articles and so forth in the perhaps vain hope that I hope will help others in their quest for consolidation into the universe that they never asked to be part of.

Jean Genet was a French homosexual. His major book "Our Lady of the Flowers" was written in prison. I always remember what Jean Paul Satre wrote (in paraphrase): His books seem to be negative but they always lead to the positive.

Thus so with my own works; my poetry, my music and so forth. There should always be a positive end to our negative behaviours. What appears to be a negative, is, in the correct hands and mind/s and so forth a positive, a way forward. Nostalgia is great when it's a way forward, not a living in the past.

No fault, no blame; only understanding. Nature, that is, the world as we entered it by whatever means, works in harmony. Man doesn't. By some quirk (perhaps) of this Nature, some mutation that occurred that was not directly anathema to survival, Man has evolved into a growing negative and anti-survival mechanism that not only is self-destructive but also destructive of the Nature that bred him.

Having said that, we are all conceived in a world that may have come before us ('may' since we have no direct knowledge of this except through our unconscious/sub-conscious/conscious). We have no knowledge of this, certainly no control, whatsoever, of these supposed/maybe even historically supported events at conception. Thus, we may not or cannot be sure that any history comes before us. We will/may never know any of the truths about this; they are a question of faith and truths as we may glean from any knowledge and experience that we might discover later and append our own dictums for ourselves, not what others might say.

What, and all we can know (as far as our senses allow) is that we are alive in some way (some people do not even have this allowance). To be alive is to be aware that we are, since the words are our language support this.

Given that we have a consciousness (that is, we are aware of ourselves) we have some control of our lives. We must be very conscious, at the same time, that there are elements of our persons that we need to learn about which affect us in other ways.

Given the table listed above, we have all come through a similar process. That is, a conception, a pregnancy and a birth (however that is accomplished). The knowledge of these initial events is mainly unconscious; that is, we are unaware of them. However, there are myriad events during our conception and (our mother's) pregnancy that may contribute to an unconscious and sub-conscious memory and at the same time, a biological memory as we develop in the womb. These events have a profound effect on our later behaviours that are at first unconscious but come into the subconscious of our being.. That is, we may later recall them in our own behaviours. [*Why are we as we are?]

As we develop from a morulla of cells into an embryo and later a foetus (terms as described arbitrarily by 'scientists') we must (if we are human and have an awareness of being aware) become conscious, in some way, of our existence. This knowledge, I believe is 'written' in the cells of our bodies and, as they inevitable 'die' and are reproduced, that memory is carried forward into the new cells; hence the 'biological memory'.

*Why are we as we are?

This really is the same question as: Who am I?

We are as we are because our fathers and mothers conceived us, whatever their motives, reasons or circumstances.

In their turn, they are as they are (or were) because of their own mothers and fathers and so on, backwards in time to such an extent that all information that might possibly help us in our quest is lost in history; again, for whatever their motives, reasons or circumstances.

If we have a problem with this, or if we need to find out more about this, it is very difficult. It is very difficult because we can never know what led to our conception in the first place, nor what came before. All would be conjecture in any sense.

So what am I?

I am a product (an adding together) of two humans. [unconscious]

I am a product of sexual reproduction which allows for change and diversity. [unconscious]

Therefore, I am unique.

I have knowledge of my birth. [unconscious and sub-conscious, possibly conscious]

I have an awareness of being alive since birth [unconscious and sub-conscious, possibly conscious]

I have an awareness of being alive since birth, even though I may be malformed, brain-damaged and so forth. [unconscious and sub-conscious, possibly conscious]

I have an awareness of being able to control my bodily functions to a moderate degree that will, unless biological mal-formations preclude this. [unconscious and sub-conscious, possibly conscious]

Given the above; I'm alive!

To be alive, is, according to most humans, the process by which we survive by whatever means.

To be alive, is to be able to procreate; that is, to prolong our species, by our most natural means, i.e. sexual reproduction (unless some malfunction precludes this, by which token we are still alive).

To be alive, is to be able, as far as possible, to become independent of our parents (as the biological means of our existence) and make our own way in the world.

To be alive, is to be able to change and accept change.

Note: I fully understand that there are many humans who do not fit into any exact description of any definition of being alive as in the 'definitions' above, hence the notion of Levels of Awareness. We are not accountable to anyone for this truth; it is part of the process of evolving; no guilt, no blame.


Preamble and possible definitions (all questionable).

The word 'live' has two soundings. The 'i' may be a long sound, as in the word 'strive' [live] or a short sound, as in the word 'give'. My sounding here, is as 'give'.

The dissertation/monograph given below is not a slant on any given text. The texts referred to are examples only of literature written or recorded by those with the ability and knowledge to encrypt such knowledge for the benefit of communication with others.

In my view, there are two important books which have shaped Man, as he is (as a particular animal). They are the 'Bible' and the 'I Ching'.

Long before the 'Bible' came the Book of Changes ('I Ching'). The I Ching is a book of wisdom, not a work of 'wisdom' that the bible was to become due to it's changes only to satisfy those who deemed to change the knowledge gathered for their own ends.

I am NOT decrying what may have entered the bible, nor extolling the virtues of the I Ching. I am merely stating what I have researched.

I am no believer in a god nor otherwise. I am merely a researcher of myself (and thereby others) to determine the best for them and myself

A vast number of people believe willy-nilly in the bible (as they may have it in any of its many incarnations). I understand that there are many truths in this book (as in any book ever written). I also understand that it (the bible) contains many injustices and behaviours that make it a plethora of questionable validity and cause for concern. The bible is a book or books given to misinterpretation since it is a conglommeration of stories most often without any shred of experience or evidence inherent and more so written long after the event/s.

The bible is a book which you read for enjoyment, spiritual comfort, quite good stories (as far as they go) and may be the word of a god (we shall never know; nor is it important that we know, as that is a question of belief and faith).

What I am saying here, is that the bible, as it is written and read, is a stagnant part of the vast majority of lives and the basis upon which a number of societies are founded. That is why it is becoming less and less relevant to those of us who are alive. dynamic and therefore, not stagnant.

The Book of Changes (I Ching), however, is no such book. What it does or can do, is to make one realise that life is change, not a stagnation. Stagnation is what controllers want. Controllers have a level of awareness that is not relevant to the rest of us but they are clever enough to make (some of us) believe that they are correct. They do this by coercion, bullying, nannyistic rhetoric and didactic statements. They have invented the tool/essence of the bible (as a religious faith/truth) to control others who are less well informed (because they are less well informed) because they are too busy living a life from which these people can extract their living by coercion, bullying, political rhetoric and so on to get what they want without having to do the hard work. They then assume an 'authority' backed up by their bully force (which they pay from the profits of those they have so coerced/bullied etc.). This is the Might of Right, the Right of Law and so forth. What might they what to achieve? It is certainly not for the benefit of mankind. It only gives satisfaction to their own self needs and wants.

All of this is calculated (unconsciously, subconsciously or consciously) to make everyone else unhappy. Thus they wage wars upon others to perpetrate their myths (and greeds) and make more unhappiness. Unhappy people need to make others (not perhaps unhappy) unhappy. This, for a short time only, makes them happy.

The bible is very (I might say) is often used against people for the purposes of power and control by those who seem to need power and control. Many people believe and have faith in this book, written as it may have been by those who want/ed to share their knowledge and experiences and dreams with others to the common good.

Such a book as the I Ching is not. Both books (I am not saying that they are contradictory!) may be used for certain ends; however, one is used for power and control, the other has no such pretentions. Have you ever heard of a confrontation between peoples over the I Ching?

My major concern is that of the control of one human by another, for/by whatever reasons they may choose.

Who can we believe?

Truths are properties of beliefs. They are personal and although they might be shared with others this is only inferential knowledge for them. They should not be foisted onto others for our own greed (which is what it is).

We can only believe what our senses tell us. However, these senses can be modified by either biological processes (modifications by direct experience or malfunction) or direct control by another being (some form of' brain-washing' or whatever word you want to call it).

Given that Man has the capability of communicating to other beings using speech, writing and art, these are the forms of communication that are most used and encouraged. They are the tools by which we communicate the feelings that come from our senses. The word 'tools' is critical since they can be used appropriately or not appropriately.

Given that large proportions of the general public (i.e. Man) have been subjected to these tools of communication since birth and given that high levels of awareness of these people is suspect, the use of these tools has been to coerce others into believing what these people want.

Whether there are any truths, is a matter of non-knowledge, since knowledge comes from personal experiences that we gather from our senses. Belief is a question of personal behaviour, of interpretation of that incoming data and our reactions to it. We can try to force our beliefs onto others but what they believe we can only infer, we can never 'really' know.

We have been brought up ('brain-washed') into believing the written word. 'It's in black and white'. Since we have developed a more visual stance, we are strongly led to believe the 'viewing' (that is, pictures, films, videos and so forth). Unless we actually sense our world for ourselves, we can only infer what others think, say or do. Any knowledge that comes from other beings, therefore, can only be inferred unless we have directly experienced it (sensed it).

I believe (sic!) that a belief (a truth to us as individuals) is wordless. It evokes a feeling within us. This can only be shared in a truth (not inference) by our behaviours as manifestations of that belief.

I feel that this is the same for a faith, whatever that may be and all other qualities for which we have names (or words). This is a matter of contemplation, not the tools of communication.

It's a sad truth that words and images can and are manipulated to ends that are mostly negative. Why this has come about is not something that, I believe, is explainable.

One of my major criticisms with the Truth is that we have words at all. We have come to polarise words and make certain of them objects and give them capital letters. I refer to such words as Truth, Justice, Right, God, Devil and so forth. Their is Truth so there is Untruth. We have failed to maintain the realisation of the continuum of such words. That is, there is no Truth only truths, no Justice but justices and so on. Life is a continuum. It is a participle, ongoing, not stagnant. The world is constant change; it is a moving picture, not a single frame. "Answer 'Yes' or 'No'. That is not what happened; it was between 'yes' and 'no'.

What we learn (including beliefs, faiths etc.) is gleaned from our sensory mechanisms and the behaviours we learn from those around us. This learning can be manipulated by others and as far as I am concerned this is why the world is such a sad and dangerous place. At the same time as learning, we must not forget (since we have this capacity as human animals) is that we also have an animal nature. As far as I am concerned this is most often the better part of us.

For a belief to be of real value to ourselves, it should remain wordless (since the nature of words unnecessarily complicates things (since they must be defined and defining is a personal thing), a feeling that we have that makes us comfortable and happy. A belief is not an emotion, it is a feeling. They are certainly not the same.


I have a real problem with these. The problem lies with a belief that they have a part to play in our lives. I'm not so sure. Prophecies tend to stagnate life, to stifle change and that things can be changed. The first book of wisdom, the I Ching, is not a book of prophecy, nor does it contain prophetic material. It is, however, used to prophecise.

The Runes were originally an alphabet used for various purposes; they now are used mainly for prophecy and divination.

The Book of Revelations in the Bible, does, however contain prophecies, so does Nostradamus, the Tarot, Astrological data and all other forms of divination.

It seems there is a need for some sort of prophecy or divination for most of us. I certainly am not immune. There is a comfort (and non-comfort) in this 'knowledge'. It's all a question of belief, which is personal.

I strongly feel that prophecies and divinations are the work of those who would deem to control others.

Controlling others for their own ends gives me (and has always given me since early youth) very bad feelings. Controlling is the very nature of 'authority'. This is always self-assumed unless it is given. It rarely is. I do not believe in the spreading of any 'Word', whatever it is and by whatever methods are chosen. The phrase 'leave me on my own!' comes to mind very strongly, here. If I want to know anything, I will search for it, thank you; and I will find it when the time is correct.

Fortunately, I was not 'brain-washed' as a child. I have always been very independent of everyone. This is probably why I am not a very 'social' person. However, I taught myself most of which I know by reading the words of others, being in contact with those persons (who by some miracle I can't and won't explain because I get good feelings about positive magic) have crossed my path. I live to teach non-violence and the ways of the earth as I feel it should be, but not by coercion, I hope by example.

World peace

If there could be, it would be wonderful, I don't have a problem with that at all.

The problem is that until humans start to think for themselves instead of living their lives through some-one/thing else (who doesn't exist, usually), or through prophecies and divinations, or being persuaded, coerced or otherwise 'brain-washed' by the controllers, this can never be.

Controllers are never positive. They must be shunned. The choice is yours. You do have a choice, it's called free-will. That free-will is a dynamic. It goes forwards, is change and not stagnation. It is a continuum of spirit, which is the essence of our personal being.



Looked upon simply, the world is simple.

Back to Basics.

Basics are a matter of personal experience and education. If education is defined as a 'learning curve' then we all get education (whatever our circumstances).

The world (which we call 'Earth') upon which we live is the one upon which we exhibit our behaviours.

Our behaviours are the way in which we react with other creatures. Those behaviours are a direct result of the union of two cells. These two cells retain the data of the original parents (and their ancestors, whomsoever they may be). It is from these that is determined our individual nature and our subsequent behaviours towards them.




Back to Contents









It is a sad reflection of the way we have allowed our society to 'develop' that produces the realism that a greater than ever number of children do not have fathers or male rôle models.

We have allowed too many people to control us and tell us what we should and shouldn't do with our lives. We are dominated by the media of these folk, whatever their pretensions might be (usually they are selfish, since they suffer from the very gist of this article).

We live in a female dominated world, whatever people might say before thinking seriously about it. I would refer you to the article Aren't Women Really in Control.

Until this is rectified, things will get worse. The implications of a dearth of male figures in families and in school-teaching are far-reaching. As a teacher, especially of children with learning difficulties, I am constantly reminded of this notion.

My policy of 'no fault, no blame' is important here. I am denigrating no-one, I am merely putting a scenario which is open-ended.

This article relates mainly to boys but nothing precludes girls. At present, I believe that women are the better survivors. What I would like to see is a turn-around for boys and men.

There is a great deal of research being done regarding the notion that boys are underachievers in many ways. They appear to develop later and as often misconstrued, always remain 'little boys' throughout life. This is a sad, sexist joke that has become a cliché.

Why don't boys grow up? Because they often don't have male rôle-models with whom they can interact. Third-party models (pictures, magazines, films, T.V.) are no substitute whatsoever from 'bouncing' of a real man. It doesn't matter that the model is not a particularly 'good' one, we must all start to learn. As long as people act appropriately (and the majority of us do), they serve as models for behaviour and ways of thinking. Most people, left alone and uninterfered with, are fine.

The notion that every other man is a paedophile or in some way wants to hurt others is spurious. It shows only the sadness of the person advocating this. I repeat, most people are fine. I have come through nearly 58 years of having lived in most circumstances (in different places throughout the world) without meeting anyone really nasty. One, I avoid those I don't have an empathy for and two, I'm a nice bloke, so I meet nice people. There is nothing strange in this.

The modern scenario for a great number of boys is that they are often the member of a one-parent family, they go (too early) to school, they are reared at school mostly by females in their early, most informative years.

The fact that the most important years are the first five, is crucial to the understanding of why any one person acts as they do. It is what is learned during this time, consciously and subconsciously, that affect everything we do from then onwards. We can't erase this data but, with understanding of its nature and the fact it 'is', we can change it. That is our legacy. It's a natural one, not a man-made one.

Boys and girls differ in most respects apart from the obvious. The move towards unisexuality is a great danger and has no survival value. In point of issue, it has the opposite effect. There are lots of things that boys and girls can do together, that's fine, natural and obvious. There are a lot of things, however, that are specific to a sex and should be. They are private. This 'I know all about you' is an infringement of personal liberty, whichever way round it goes.

When marriages go wrong (for all the above reasons) it is often the boys who suffer most. Girls, also lose out on having a male friend and never learn to 'bounce' off a man (if the mother has particular views of her 'ex' then these will be passed onto the children, whatever). The children then make the same mistakes and the circle closes, the chains bind.

Boys are very sensitive creatures. Any so-called 'macho' behaviour is merely a cover-up. Any cover-up by whatever child with rebellious behaviour, is a cover-up. It is a cover-up of a lack of communication; that is, sensitive communication. There is no point in discussing sex without the knowledge that feeling go with it. The mechanics are crude and are often taught crudely. They have less value since the teachers are bound by the same rules as all the above. The circle closes, the chains bind.

It has become a truth that boys/men tend to take longer to assimilate things. This is probably a survival mechanism to prevent over-reaction or making an error that leads to a problem. You can't just rush out in front of an animal you want to kill for food; you need to do some homework first or you will be the one possibly killed. This does not infer the opposite for a woman. The notion that a woman can assimilate things more quickly, is also a survival mechanism.

We should realise that men and women are not opposites but complementary. Given that more people recognised this, the world would have been a happier place long ago. The notion of opposites is a spurious one and contributes to the polarity rampant in the world. Good, bad, black, white and so on.

Since we can't erase any experiences (either before birth or afterwards) but can change ourselves to accommodate them; this is the only way we can break the circle and rid ourselves of the chains that bind us. It's not up to others, it's up to ourselves. If we wish not to change, then we accept the responsibilities that go with that action.





Back to Contents 
















The notion of biological memory, is not mine. I remember going to a seminar once where it was talked about.

My reason for writing this is to put into perspective some of the things in my life that have caused me some pain and feelings of regret in some of the behaviours that I exhibit/have exhibited.

Some of this may be a repetition of what I have said before but this essay is a reflection in context.

When the cells of our body are destroyed, either by accident or biological design, they are replaced. None of us ends up with the same cells that we started out with; at some time, they are all replaced by new ones. Some aren't but, by and large, they are.

Now since the cells are replaced by like cells, the nature of them must be 'remembered'. This is not news; the DNA remembers.

The notion of biological memory is that cells not only remember the way they are supposed to be (except for cancer cells who want go and do their own thing) but that they also retain another memory; the memory of what happened at the original time of conception and anything that happened afterwards, hence biological memory.

However, it is the whole being, whether morulla, embryo or foetus, that remembers. This may be conjecture. However, I will use an personal illustration.

I have this dream sometimes (maybe an anxiety dream) where I am going through a tunnel that is very narrow. I am very frightened. I 'know' at the end is a lighted room. It has no exit except a window. I know that I am going into a space less claustrophobic but I am still frightened. There is no end to this dream, I merely wake myself from it (survival?).

The fact of my birth was that I was born of a very scared woman. I was born during an air-raid on London in 1944, one month after the V1 bombs (doodle-bugs) were sent by the Germans. I was born in an air-raid shelter during such a raid. It is a pretty good assumption that my mother was frightened enough not to want me born at this time. However, she is giving birth to this organism against her will. I ask merely if this is the consequence of my dream?

I was a crying baby. I was frustrated. My mother was frustrated. She did not know what to do. I was succumbing to her frustrations. I was also not breast-fed properly as her milk did not 'come down' as they say. Did I not carry on this 'biological' memory into my own life and children?

Thus there may be regrets, but no blame. Who blames the blamer?

I am not proud of the way that I treated my children during their first years. Hands up! Guilty! What I am concerned about is that perhaps my biological memory of such events that have happened to me have passed onto my children. The crux of the matter here, is that we have no 'real' memories until we are about four years old. What's gone on before that, it would seem, is a biological memory. That memory is carried into our future life through the new cells that we make as part of our biological function. I believe that we do retain this information, otherwise, how do we react as we do, to similar circumstances? We don't consciously know what we are doing because it is a memory that is sub-conscious.

'We all make the same mistakes.' Why? Because we don't break chains by force but by examining the weak kinks and trying to put them correctly (and perhaps, in their place). This can only come about by trying to come to terms with our biological memory. I think this is with us throughout our lives. I still get bad feelings when I hear children crying and screaming. I am not really enamoured with babies and having them. I do not get the rush of adrenaline when I hear that people are parents, grand-parents or some-such. "Oooo! I'm a father/grandfather!" does not, I'm afraid (even if this grates on sensitivities) give me any excitement. It's a fact, or a truth.

Parenthood is the product of a union of two people, whatever the reason and the reasons are bounded by that biological memory over which we have no control. What happens, happens. That I did not treat my own siblings as I should have (given a better biological memory and a better tutorial) is still and always will be, a concern of mine. It's a concern I will have to live with until the end of my days.

Biological memory is not about excuses; I make none for my own behaviours. It's about what has happened to one through no fault, no blame and how one subsequently acts. If we can understand this, I feel, then we can break the chains that bind.

One loves one's siblings, no matter what. If one doesn't, there is something seriously wrong and I wouldn't want to comment on that in this essay. I have always loved my siblings and always shall. Whatever has been done by them or to them is very important to me since I made them. It is my responsibility, whatever I might say otherwise (which I don't, of course).

I did not make a mistake marrying my wife, whatever else may have followed. It was part of my own naiveté and my wanting to have a partner; to be part of some-one else and in my un-wisdom, 'two together as one'; that idyllic relationship from which dreams are made, but not the harsh reality. Ever a dreamer, I went the 'full hog'.

Both my children were born of love. Of that there is no question in my mind. I am sure that I was conceived in the same way. My mother has a great deal of good qualities (although she is a controller). I know, in her own way she loved my father. But she, too, had her own biological memories and carried them forward into her life with him. They carried on into mine and my children.

I do love. I love too much, sometimes/often and it can get me into strife. I love the children I teach and have a hankering for young girls (and older ones!) as well as the boys. I'm not talking paedophile, here, heaven forbid! but I attach my love to them. It is because I have a quality of non-sexual behaviour (probably because I'm too shy) that people I meet feel that I am 'safe'. I could 'have' a great number of women, desperate for my attention but I don't. I have never treated women as sexual objects. I have no sexual relationship with women (or men) because I could not see how they could live with me. I am very unconventional. I need my space. I need my space because that's what I've grown up with. I never wanted to be a loner but that's what I am. I prefer my own company because I don't want to let my 'shadow' self out. Ruth knew that (for her own reasons). We never married (though I asked her) and that was probably very wise. I owe a lot to her, she was great fun in many ways.

For better or worse, my space has enabled me to stand back from the world as it is presented to me (not good) and allowed me to produce poetry, music, articles and so forth in the perhaps vain hope that I hope will help others in their quest for consolidation into the universe that they never asked to be part of.

Jean Genet was a French homosexual. His major book "Our Lady of the Flowers" was written in prison. I always remember what Jean Paul Satre wrote (in paraphrase): His books seem to be negative but they always lead to the positive.

Thus so with my own works; my poetry, my music and so forth. There should always be a positive end to our negative behaviours. What appears to be a negative, is, in the correct hands and mind/s and so forth a positive, a way forward. Nostalgia is great when it's a way forward, not a living in the past.

No fault, no blame; only understanding.



email: Back to Contents 



God is a number of things, dependent upon us individuals, as a believer, for whatever reasons that believer may want to believe.

A believer is a person who has a personal interest in such a belief.

A god is either/neither male or female, unless we believe it as such.

A god is something beyond these sexist forms. God is an amorphous omniscience, a personal experience: or not.

A god (THE God) is a spiritual belief in a form of an anthropomorphological 'something' that comforts one. This belief is instilled in us as babes, like it or not. Some grow out of it, others don't. It is very strong psychology and brain-washing. It has no worth unless we have discovered this belief for ourselves. It is part of the 'Comfort Syndrome'.

The notion of Salvation

What on earth, or otherwise is salvation? Salvation of what and to whom? I'm not reading a dictionary. What is salvation? Why would/should I need it? I'm a good bloke! I don't hurt anyone, I do the best I can for others. I'm there if you need me. What do you want I should be? A believer in some nonsense regarding a Christ/son of God (not a daughter!) that no-one has knowledge of, except personal experience, whatever that might be? (and whose very existence is subject to a myth with no possible verification except that of the believer?)

Most 'ordinary folk' are fine. Left alone to their own devices they need no gods, no redeemers, no-one but themselves or those they choose to live with them. They lead their lives, quite satisfactorily without recourse to 'gods' or any other controllers.




Back to Contents






Freaks are people who thrive on things (positive or negative).

Some people thrive on the notion of 'stress'.

They assume that because there is word for their feelings of 'stress', it is real (and it is them, because they believe it).

Give something a name and it is so.

Sorry, but not so.

'Stress' has become one of the best work-related diseases after the 'bad-back' problem, to exclude people from work.

Most of this is total rubbish, or whatever term is used in your vicinity.

Words aim to describe. They do not describe. Whatever you say something is, it is not.

Example: What is a tree? It is a piece of wood (etc.)...end there. It is therefore not a tree but something else, a piece of wood and so on. Crude example, but effective.

Calling something as important as a feeling, by a word, does not reflect the difficulties that the definition is supposed to include.

I may have certain 'symptoms' which I describe as a 'cold'.

I feel lousy.

I have a headache.

Some-one near me sneezed.

and so on...

A cold is defined by these symptoms; therefore, I have a 'cold'. Manufacturers of drugs recognise these 'symptoms' and produce drugs to their profit to 'counteract' these said symptoms. Placebo.

A placebo is a device which in itself is nothing. It is a psychological device to inveigle the taker/ingestor to believe that the product will work. It will work if you believe it. Otherwise, it won't and is a sham, as much of medicine is.

email: Back to Contents 



This essay is really about our so-called 'human' and particular language/s as an experience, expression, extension or product of our peculiar 'human' animal behaviours and our development by natural selection.

This is not to say that other animals, or other animate (moving) creatures (as we define them) nor even inanimate 'objects' (as we define them) have no language. Language is a means of expression and communication; so then are any other forms of active behaviour. Since every object in the universe (itself included) is changing, it may then be considered active and therefore have a language and communication.

Natural selection is the means by which we have achieved our present 'status' or 'sate' as human animals, insofar as we, as human animals, record them in our minds or otherwise; and by the very nature of our sexual behaviours that are peculiar to our species as 'human' animals, we reproduce.

If your belief is contrary to this notion of natural selection (as defined by Charles Darwin and others), then read no further. A closed mind, is not that of the author.

I believe that all life (as defined by human animals) has communication skills (however these may be defined).

'Life' as we 'humans' call it, can possibly best be defined simply as the 'inflow and outflow of energies'. Those 'energies' are those wordless, undefinable things that make us alive. Our 'death' is merely a possible failure of 'inflow' of energies but still the 'outflow' into a natural earth.

I believe that our communication skills enable us to communicate with our environment whether animate or inanimate, as we define these terms.

Less-'modern' Men (including women, of course), were/are hunter-gatherers. (I believe we still are but by different methods) We have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of our ancestors' behaviours; their individual behaviours or togetherness behaviours are most often, unknown to us. (Consult aborigines of any country (local peoples) and they will show you, probably, quite ably). We assume a relationship with these people from a more present knowledge than of old. For example, who says women are the bearers (of our children), men are the providers? If anyone knows (for sure!, it's your personal truth) then let me know. Let the world know. You can't or you won't.

There are many words that seem to assume a responsibility for our behaviours. The notions of 'Duty', 'Obligation', for example. The word 'behaviours' has, fortunately, been reduced to small letters and a plural. That is, we have no 'Behaviour' as an ultimate description of our reactions to the world (singular) but various 'behaviours' (plural) that we exhibit during our changing times. Change is the key. The use of CAPITAL letters to denote polarities such as Truth and Untruth are polarities which circumvent the continuum between them. Life is a continuum. It is a participle (that is something ongoing and happening, now; it is not static or non-moving). There is no ultimate or Ultimate Truth, only truths. Their is no Untruth only untruths. And so on for all moralistic or words which describe qualities ( like good, evil, beauty and so forth).

These are complex sentences. They are complex because they contain words that need explanation/definition.

The explanation/definition of words is a purely personal one based on the experiences of the use of these words. Most, (if not all), dictionaries (which proclaim to define words and their meanings) define words dependent upon their authors, their experience and the regurgitation of material they have come to believe). The explanation/definition of words is much of the cause of today's unhappy world, full of the people who use them. It is not a notion that the earth upon which we live, has.

Words evoke images in our minds and these images are relevant to a particular person (an individual) who showed them to us. For example, the earliest word that a child learns is probably 'Mum' or some local derivative (possibly based on the easiest of sounds 'mmmm'). The image thus evoked or invoked in the child's mind is determined by the how, when, why and so on of its first and subsequent use. If this 'Mum' is associated with a tit and milk and comfort, then the word always evokes this memory (it becomes part of the biological memory we carry to the grave). If the word is associated with a negative, then this is the feeling that is invoked in the child. Being a 'Mum' is the largest responsibility a person can take, make or break. Being a consistent, positive 'Mum' is the best a child can have. But it has to come at the beginning, not anywhere afterwards. Sorry, it's almost too late (it can be open-ended, it may be repaired but we can never be sure).

So this essay, as most of mine are, is about language. That is, the written and spoken language. There are many, many languages and along with those languages, local changes (dialects). I don't mean, necessarily, physical languages, such as English, Russian, Portuguese, Hungarian and so forth. I mean the language of our bodies; body-language in many guises. These include the most important language, feelings. Feelings are not emotions. Both are important. Feelings are often described as emotions but they are not the same thing.

To emotions, we attach words (which need to be defined and their definition is personal). Feelings are personal and have no words. Feelings are what we have and react to by our behaviours. I feel happy, I act happy. I feel bad, I act bad. It's as simple as that. I feel happy, I act happy, others feel happy. I feel unhappy, I act unhappily, others feel unhappy.

This is always personal stuff. There is no god-head. I am positive because I enjoy the earth of nature. I deplore the World of Men. I therefore try to (it's not easy given an input of negative behaviours from so many people) act in a positive way; this make others act in a positive way, although one seems to be losing a battle of some kind. (That's being cynical; but cynical has its place.)

The reverse is a truth also. The sad thing is, that the world is acting in an unhappy way. (The earth is quite happy and goes on its way). Nature's language is pure and cannot possibly be negative, since it works fine left alone. This unhappy nature of the World is what needs to be changed.

It seems very strange to me that the negative seems to be the norm. I have no idea why this should be.

The human animal, with its communication skills, seems, somehow, to need to attach some sort of responsibility to others of its kind (or non-kind) and not to itself. How this may have come about historically is certainly a mystery to me. In other words, we do not seem to want to be responsible for our own behaviours. Hmmm....

Thus have men (and women) have invented certain 'gods' (an ultimate authority but who knows why) who are responsible for their behaviours in some way. ("It's that Adam bloke, he started all this nonsense"..."Spare ribs, they only get in your teeth!") This is a great way of 'passing the buck'. Whatever these gods may be or represent, they are invested with powers which 'normal' people seems to lack (as their awareness of being aware dictates). It may be, it seems to me, that since any one man (or woman) has the in-built mechanism to survive, he/she goes by the best road possible. Given that man/woman is a survivor in his/her own right and may be realising their possible shortcomings, he/she is then given to allowing others to think or speak for him/her self. This, of course, leads to the downfall of such a creature. The bigger the bully will survive.

A bully is an individual (or a group of similar persuasion/s) who is aware of certain individual's weaknesses, (usually their humanitarianism). By means of a language (carefully controlled and self-defined) both verbal and non-verbal, they are able to coerce others into a belief that is theirs alone; (probably and most certainly not yours). This is most often by a physical strength, not a reasonable, moral one. That is, 'Do as I say, or I will beat you up!' (Or whatever words they use (Whatever god says....etc.))

Enter the unhappy breed, the controllers. I disown these creatures. They work through their greed (an extended version of the reasonable needs of others) and their own vulnerability as creatures who fear the earth and themselves (mostly) and others who merely want to be left alone to their own devices. They control because they can accumulate an 'army' of followers who are as unhappy as they are; whose greed is theirs; whom they can pay money to control others and whom they can coerce to 'vote' for them in some so-called democratic ('will of the people) nonsense that perpetuates their myths and their bully behaviour. (Why should I shout for them and wave silly flags for their bullying behaviours towards my friends and me and call where I live a Nation? A Nation is certainly is not!)

There is no democracy. Democracy is supposed to be the will (I assume 'free-will') of the majority of people. This 'will of the people' is not borne out by the rhetoric of politicians calling democracy! Democracy is the 'will' of the people. But this 'will' is never heard! If you believe it is, you are living in a fantasy that will kill you, physically/and or mentally. Democracy was once defined as: Government of the people, by the people and for the people. Better it had been defined as: Management of a people by competent individuals (with proven management skills), by common consent of all people (not the statistical few). Then it would also have been for the people. Statistical analysis is another sham; another rip-off.

Your 'democracy' is delivered to you by those who are unhappy. These people will never make a safe world! They do not have the abilities/skills to do so because they are sad, unhappy people who fear for their own existence. Thus fear and unhappiness drive these people to destruction and their negativity will drag, unwillingly, the rest of us who are not unhappy to their destruction and ours, who don't want it!

Gangs of individuals (so-called governments, kings, queens, despots, dictators, lords, ladies, gods, christs' and so forth), led by this common unhappiness of or in themselves, lead inexorably to our total destruction. Whether they are smaller gangs who terrorise individuals or larger groups is of no matter; they destroy themselves and others (most often the innocent). Their mentality is of destruction, not creation, whatever they think or say. They think they are strong because they can kill, not by their own individual hands (i.e. their own personal physical strength) but by weapons created (by others) for the killing, which at least, is 'killing at a distance' i.e. pressing a button and never seeing the consequence face to face. These people could never actually kill at close range (i.e. vis-à-vis), they do not have the 'balls', as they say.

Fear destroys because fear is most often unhappiness with oneself (and we are possibly all guilty of that for some reason we know or don't know). They think us poets are weak. These bullies have no strength beyond their muscles. They cannot win a fight for life. It's these people that invent the words they throw at us, like 'duty', obligation, 'for King and Country', 'for our children' and all that nonsense. These people don't fight, they get some-one else to do their dirty work, then claim them (and themselves, of course) to be heroes.

But when we fight (us poets), we ignore the bully; he will go away; ultimately. He will go away because he has no sustainable strength or argument. We have, us poets, writers, songsters, creative magicians who want no answers but are happy in what we do. We have a strength they can never dream of.

This does not reflect the 'do-gooders'. Do-gooders are controllers in their own right. They also want control of others. Do-gooders, include religious fanatics (such as missionaries), who want to foist their inaccurate beliefs on others. Although they proclaim that they work for humankind, they work for themselves, since what they do is invade the notions of others, who have particular reasons to their beliefs and usually local ones. The object is not really to make a 'happy' world in which we can all grow and nurture as individuals (who may or may not want to belong to a particular group for a particular reason), it is to make others cow-tow to their beliefs, all or nothing. They kill, maim, hurt others in this quest by the most diabolic means. Once again, the history of Man speaks.

Somewhere/somewhen, this chain of unhappiness must be broken, if any of us place a value on our individual lives. Most of the people born, even though disabled, (as we all are in our own way), are perfectly fine left alone without those who deem to take control of us, whatever they may say their motives are. The motives are theirs, not ours. As I've often said before, controllers are those who take charge of others without their consent. They control others because they cannot control themselves. They are usually some kind of bully. Why do we need bullies to guide us? Their end is greed for themselves. By giving these controllers sanction to control (as part of our free-will) we not only end up with these people controlling us as individuals but the rest of us who have no desire to be controlled at all. In other words, if you value your freedom, don't vote for a controller. If you feel the need for some management in some aspect of your life, then appoint a manager who has valued and tested management skills.

For example, if you have a cold, you go to a doctor whom you hope has some management skills of your problem. You would not go to a carpenter, who may not have the skills. And vice versa. If the doctor does you no good, you find another. If the carpenter does a lousy job you get another. It's free choice, not a political coercion.

The major problem is that we have been led to believe, over many centuries, that a political dictatorship by a controller or controllers, is the correct way to go. It isn't. A truth is, it can't be. Controllers have nothing to offer others; nothing but negative activities or notions and your personal unhappiness.

The meek (weak) are the controllers. Without the strength of the hunter gatherers they cannot eat; they do not have (or are too lazy to use) the skills. This strength of the hunter/gatherer lies in the persistence to look after flora and fauna that are edible and produce food for us to exist at all (what we consider to be sustainable growth). These hunter-gatherers take, from the earth they tend, only what they need. Controllers eat off the backs of these persistent souls who want only to do their job. These hunter/gatherers are not interested in controlling others for their own means. Controllers get fat and fat-headed from over-eating. Controllers only get rich off the back of others for the same reason. Our whole human history is evidence of this, no quarter left unturned.

Self-regulation is there, it has just been forgotten because we have been coerced/bullied to believe that we need others to look after us. Hence our 'nanny' states. These states, however, have no interest whatsoever in the charges they are supposed to 'represent', whatever they might say or however they come to represent.

The concept of 'Nations' and 'Nationalism'


Individuals are those people who are bound to no other person, their concept/s, their notion/s or otherwise by any means whatsoever. They are their own people. Individuals have no masters, gods or otherwise. They act according to their own motivations, not those of others who would deem to control them.

That is no to say, of course, that they do not react to others. On the contrary, they react most definitely and for positive ends. Individuals want to change an unhappy World into a positive earth, where everything is for the good of all.

To less than individuals (i.e. individuals or groups with some other, mostly negative purpose), this is a naive dream. To the individual, this is a possible reality. Anything else is destruction.

Groups and Group Psychologies

Groups (i.e. more than one person) are a number of people who have similar ideas. Groups can operate as positive or negative members of the larger group of humans.

The largest group of human animals, is the so-called Human Race. This group is split into many sub-groups. These are defined by other groups according to their likenesses, positive or negative. The sub-groups can further be defined in terms of smaller groups, until the final group (as it is defined) becomes a duo (two people). Prejudices against other groups are made for whatever reasons by one groups against another, usually from fear. Prejudices, of course, are negative; they have no values on the earth.

Nation and Nationalism

A nation is a particular group of peoples. Peoples includes every type of person/individual, from whence they came, usually by migration. A nation has set boundaries for its people/s 'fences', (a concept of European history). The word 'nation' is a notion/concept of those who wish it to be so. Outside of this, there is no 'nation'.

Nations seem to adopt a peculiar feeling for some sort of icon, usually a flag of some sort. This icon then separates them from others. These 'nation's' boundaries (most often expanding to others' territory, without their consent and for whatever reason) then determine the behaviours of the groups (not often individuals) and cause problems to and for the rest of the world, especially the individuals, (who want none of this nonsense).

Thus do we get 'nationalism'. This is the ultimate horror/terror of so-called 'humans'. The waving of nationalistic flags, the desecration of others' entitlements to survive on their own merits without the coercion and bullying of others. Nationalism breeds wars. There is no escape from this notion. 'History' has proven this. The 'history' of the 20th Century, is a history of wars, conflicts and other negative behaviours. It is not a century of 'peaceful co-existence'. Individuals have tried to correct this but to no avail. The notion of 'Nationalism' and its negative aspects seems to win. Nationalism breeds wars because it has a group psychology that is unhappy, negative and sad, whatever it proclaims otherwise.

Nationalism breeds terror and terrorists. They may well be our demise as a 'human' race because they seem to have control. That control is a belief of those who bow to the media, which in itself has become negative. We 'ordinary' people don't want this. We are happy in a sad and unhappy world created by controllers and despite them.

I am most certainly not a 'bible-puncher'. There are, however, as in any book, a wealth of statements that are a truth and in this book., whoever said it, "What ye sow, so shall ye reap', is a truth. This is a truth, in my belief, that peoples commit themselves to.

If any 'nation' comprising of immigrants, nomads and otherwise is committed to the destruction of others (by whatever means they devise) or by their pig-headed, ignorant, arrogant attitudes or negative behaviours and their acceptance of a one-creed philosophy and flag-waving mentality, then they deserve what they get. They have brought it upon themselves. But not the innocent, who are by definition innocent and individual.

Migration and Immigrants

No so-called Nation (however defined) has ever developed without its immigrants. Immigrants are those people who settle in other places from whence they are born and/or bred. All immigrants have their own cultures and sub-cultures which they take to their new home. (Home being defined as the place that they wish to live). This is what a so-called 'Nation' is all about. It is a variety of individuals (born by sexual reproduction which is the basis of our 'human' nature) who choose to live in a place that they consider they are now part of. However, the notion of 'When in Rome' does not always apply. I believe it is a spurious notion derived from those who would coerce others to believe them and not ourselves and force them into 'nationalistic' behaviours.

Immigrants are different from nomads (although nomads may be immigrants!)


Nomads are peoples that travel their earth only in search of sustainable materials for their existence. Nomads gather only what they need during the correct seasons for food and comfort. The nomad is the hunter/gatherer of any age. This certainly does not preclude his intelligence, which, probably, far outweighs that of many self-indulgent so-called 'intellectuals'.

The earth belongs to no-one, god or otherwise, assumed or believed in any philosophy. Therefore no one person or group of persons has any entitlement to claim otherwise. As individuals, we may choose to live where we wish upon this earth. The notions of 'Territory', 'Country', 'Nation' and so forth, are notions created by humans; they are assumptions of the ignorant; they are not a reality nor a truth; they are created by controllers for their own ends.

'Territory' is a larger amount of ground than 'place'. Animals (including humans) have their 'territory'. They also have their 'place'. A place is a particular spot where they feel comfortable (not their 'place' in a hierarchy of human circumstance), the same way that a cat, for example, will complete several manoeuvres before settling to take rest.

All animals (including humans) have a 'comfortable' place of rest. Their 'territory' is a function of their 'space'. 'Space' is what we consider, as animals, to be the area in which we feel most 'comfortable'. If another animal 'invades' this space, we feel threatened and react accordingly.

Occupying another's' 'territory' or 'space' without consent, is the act of a bully. We correctly get incensed when a person invades another's physical body without consent. We call this act, 'rape'. It is the violation of another. Most people will not accept this behaviour. Why do we then allow others, on a 'grander' scale to do the same thing? But that is history. It is also current history.




Back to Contents 

















Voting, is a notion that, in itself, seems to be a positive move towards a better World (that is, it has nothing to do with the earth upon which we live). It is called, in common parlance, Democracy. Since, in Australia, at least, people are fined for not voting, there is no Democracy. Since voting is a personal activity or behaviour and freedom of choice whether to vote or not is up to the individual, Australia cannot claim to be a Democracy. Or it may be called a 'forced Democracy' which is a negation of terms.

Political bullies

The notion is that by an individual voting, a particular set of people will determine your future (without your further consent, and without further regard for your safety or otherwise, especially since you know nothing about them).

However, it has become, in reality, a placing of your life in some-one else's hands.

Those hands are NOT the ones you need to be placed in. They are the hands of those who wish to control you, not help you. They pretend otherwise, with their nannyistic or other notions, but they are only very unhappy *, greedy people who cannot control themselves (let alone others). These people have negative skills, they do not have 'people' skills, i.e.. the skills to work with others in harmony. They do have, though, the necessary means to control; by bullying and/or employing bullies to help them on their way. These 'bullies' are variously known as the 'police', 'army' and so forth. Other bullies, perhaps even more powerful, are the religious ones.

Religious bullies

These people use the basic fears of people (which is their fear for survival and is part of their animal heritage) to inculcate them into some notion that their is some sort of god-head who is in charge. These people are deadly and like a plague, widespread over their world. And like a plague, reek havoc and death. Whatever their claims to the contrary, they need to control.

Whilst armies, navies and air-forces maintain an increasing escalation of 'fighting at a distance' (their distance, not ours) because the weapons they produce to destroy themselves and others, these religious fanatics aim at the very levels of our spirituality. Both types of bullies will incinerate the earth as well as the World by their activities. Both varieties form the sickest, unhappiest of mankind.

For any sake, don't vote for them to control you. Refuse them access to your person. Admit them and you suffer the consequences, as well as all those whom you have positive feelings for.

*Unhappy people

The world seems to be populated by a majority of unhappy people.

For whatever reason/s (and usually not their fault - no fault no blame) they are driven by the fear pertaining to their own existence and therefore seem to need to convey this message to others: I'm unhappy - I'll make you unhappy.

They are on a path of self-destruction and need others to follow; therefore they will be your destruction also, if you allow them. These people call themselves the so-called 'thinking' ones (at some low-level 'thinking'), the 'intelligencia'.

Most humans are bred by intercourse alone, as all animals are. There is, more often than not, any thought to their production, only the event of their birth. We seem to accept the 'runt' in a litter of animals that are not 'human'; we do not seem to accept the 'runts' of human animals.

Individuals as opposed to the 'mass'.

As teachers (and we are all teachers) we try to teach independence with one hand and mass behaviours with the other. No wonder no-one is sure where they are in the scheme of things! In school we teach independent learning skills and then expect students to act as a nation; 'to the glory of...(whatever nation, party or whatever)'.

There are always at least two ways at looking at the world. There is the 'everything is 10 out of 10' and deduct points for inappropriate behaviours, school. Then there is the 'everything is 0 out of 10' and add points for appropriate behaviours, school. It's the 'glass half-full or half-empty' syndrome.

Where a national pride (for example) is indicated, comes a chicken and egg situation. My own belief is that it is the individual who creates a nation, not some spurious philosophy dictated by some-one else.

What you see is what you get but is it the correct message? I don't believe so.

A family lives in a street which has front gardens. They decide to really do something about their garden and eventually produce a delightful state. Another neighbour sees this garden and decides he will do something about his plot. This escalates until the whole street looks pretty. Now a person walking down the street sees all this wonderment. What might she conclude? What national pride! Nothing of the sort. It was individual pride that started the chain-reaction and (perhaps, if you believe in such things) 'caused' the national pride notion.

Humans copy behaviours; that is their nature, otherwise how do we learn? Not because we were taught, but because we listened (eyes, ears, taste smell and touch). There is both a positive and negative side to this. At present, it seems that the negative (unhappy) side has taken control. Hence the unhappy world we appear to live in. I, personally, refuse to be part of this. If I were part of it, I couldn't do my job satisfactorily. I love my job. I love the children I work with and I love my colleagues (in all walks of life) who make their own refusal to be unhappy. I bend to the child in me that wants to be acknowledged, who has things to say, since ageing is in the mind. I don't ever want to forget I was a child, happy, or even unhappy.



All humans are creative. No disability disallows this, however its expression. However, again, there are two ways to look upon this. Creation for the positive; creation for the negative. The negative worries me. If we had spent as much of our human/earth resources as we have on positive things, rather than negative ones, we would not be in the world-state that we are in now. This notion is a real worry.


It seems to me that blame (the passing off on some-one or something else for our own inadequacies or self-satisfactions) is a need for unhappy people. Thus, I use the phrase 'no fault - no blame' constantly, in my essays to find some truths.

If we are tuned to the earth and not the World, we would find the need for the word 'blame' redundant.

Whom do you blame?

You are here; somehow alive. You have a survival instinct, once born and whatever level of consciousness you exhibit. There can be no blame. Whom do you blame? What is your belief? If some so-called god created you, is he/she/it to blame? Blame, in this sense can only be attributed to your Prime Mover; the Original Parent, or whatever.


Religions are patterns and behaviours of personal beliefs. They are most often laid down from birth (but often otherwise) until possible questioning by an individual, where they remain with us until our demise. Religious notions are most often enforced upon us by others. They are therefore, not part of our individuality but part of our 'conditioning' by those who would deem to control us. Religious instruction is often very strong. It aims at the root of our being, our fear, our individual spirituality; thus are we controlled.

Religious beliefs (coming from others and enforced by their sanctions and injunctions) are the most frightening of all, they have reeked more havoc in World history, than anything else. In my view they are to be despised. More innocent people have died because of them (or been physically mutilated e.g. male and female circumcision) than any wars perpetrated by other demoniac behaviours. I am proud to be me, (an animal); not a so-called 'human being'.

Religious beliefs may also come from the experiences of an individual at a particular time in their lives. These then, fulfil the need/s of the individual. They act as a drug that placates (as does a 'head-ache' tablet or any other need for help). If this is the case, then I have no problem with that; it works, it's fine. But please don't impose this (your) revelation upon me unless I have had a similar experience and have an empathy toward you. (If it's yours, it can't be mine).

Migrants and Nomads

Migrants are people who travel from one place on the earth to another to settle and live out their lives in a place other than that in which they were born.

Nomads are people who travel from one place to another in search of food and sustainable living quarters for a period of time and then move onwards. They may or may not travel to other parts of the earth.

The earth belongs to everyone/thing upon it, however defined. On the earth, boundaries do not exist. In our World, they do. Therein lies a problem.

Animals have territory. That is, the place upon which they reside at any given moment in time or times. An animal finds its 'place' by its feelings. These 'feelings' are most usually by unconscious/subconscious means, perhaps some form of 'instinct'. A cat or dog (for example) finds its place by its feelings of comfort and safety, as do 'human beings' (being animals). Don't you have a favourite chair? There is no question about this; it's what we do.

Nomads, generally, have no inclination or thought about where they go to next, except that they have 'read' the earth and know by experience where to go to find food, lodging and safety, particular to their circumstances and for their survival.

Migrants are different. They make conscious effort to move to another place for their own reasons that do not necessarily include their survival at the basic level of nomads. I am a migrant. I have observed other migrants. I have observed the countries to which they go and know of the reasons for their going.

Nomads are not unhappy people seeking some better way of life. The rove because that is their nature, their survival. They have no boundaries, as the earth is theirs to travel upon unhindered and where they feel safe, nurtured and have food and lodgings.

This is not so with migrants. Many are not happy with their present situation and tend to go somewhere where they feel they might be happier. Unfortunately, the place they go may or may not be worse than the one they come from. They do not read the earth, they read the World.

There are modern migrant 'countries', namely America, Australia and New Zealand. Those people, unhappy in Europe (for example) made their way to these countries. They had already been dominated by the forces of man-power in the form of weapons that these others could not construct (or had the need to) and other persecutions which they did not want). These people may have been the object of their unhappy controllers, elected or not, (most often not) but a truth is that they wanted to be in control of themselves, had no notion how to accomplish this and therefore lay claim to others' territory ' without any knowledge or experience of how they were to accomplish this.

They carried with them the notions of their forbears, since that was all they knew. These people have dessimated the local populations and have done ever since their atrocities are legion. They have often been made in the name of Jesus and other 'spurious' names. They are to be deplored. Do not vote for these people or things.

In view of their attitude towards the natives of these countries and the fear that they may not be accepted, they first sought to de-nativise those countries.


The writings of earth people are the bibliography. This includes any person who has committed their views in any way whatsoever to our human state in a positive manner and whatever their supposed 'qualifications'.

My own researches over many years since I was a young boy have inclined to those who gave me the inspiration to carry on.

My reading advice is:

NEVER read a book that has a negative title: Why Women Hate Men and so forth.

NEVER read a book that claims to be a Self-help Book unless you check, very carefully its contents page and it is positive and does not preach.

ALWAYS read a book with a positive title or the sub-title: Manhood- (A Way to be Positive.)

ALWAYS read a book's introduction and contents. Disregard anything that appears negative unless followed through.

If a book is out of print, search for it. The Internet, local swap-meets, book-finders. It will turn up when you are least looking for it.




Back to Contents 












ANZAC Day - and similar


soldier: a man engaged in military service.

Military (service): a. pertaining to soldiers, arms, or war.

(These definitions come from Collins English Dictionary, 1974.)

I immediately observe, of course, that 'woman' is not included in the above definition of 'soldier'. I therefore add this, as of my free-will.

Also, in this essay, I am regarding all Military personnel (Army, Navy, Air-force and so forth) as 'soldiers'. No person presuming to be in the pay of the Military, is exempt, so this must include all personnel such as those in 'Intelligence', ancilliary staff and so forth.

I submit that the definition of 'soldier', is, at least in 2003, a misnomer. Even considering that the Salvation Army (for example) has, for many years before 1974, had 'soldiers' to pronounce their adherence and allegiance to a god but in no way (as far as I understand and know) implies violence, which the word 'soldier' or 'Military' bring to mind given dictionary definitions and the reality. I am therefore, in this essay, using the word 'soldier' to mean the original dictionary meaning, with my provisos as declared.

A soldier is one of many things, not the least of which produce two notions, viz.:

a) A soldier is a person who desires to conform to the rites of his self-elected controllers by enlisting. Thus s/he accepts the consequences of that action and the responsibilities. These are the disillusioned 'Flag-wavers', the 'Red/White/Blue' brigade; the 'Stars and Stripes' brigade (stripes off your back!). But not the 'black', unless they are useful).

b) A soldier is also a person who does not desire to conform to the rites of the so-called controllers but is none-the-less drafted/conscripted/hi-jacked/enlisted or otherwise coerced/inveigled into a plot to use him as such. They do not, in my view, ever become 'soldiers'. Also, such 'soldiers' are generally known as 'cannon-fodder', which is mostly what they become.

In either case, the word 'soldier', of course, does not account for the personality of such an individual, nor their individual proclivities as to their own notion of what they are joining or may be asked/made to perform.

Put it this way, some people, for their own reasons, wish to join up for the Forces i.e. the Military. They may join for any number of reasons, altruistic or otherwise. However, the crux of the matter is that having joined, (considering they have done their homework and realising what they may have let themselves in for) they are then subject to the rules and regulations of the outfit they have chosen. In other words, they have to take what comes. They have made the choice, they must accept the responsibilities of that choice.

This may be not always true, as, seeing what they might be having to do, may open their sensibilities and they may rebel.

Whatever else these soldiers do, they fight under the control of politicians of some kind (whether kings or presidents).

The 'other' soldier, the person conscripted (by whatever means) is of major concern. These 'soldiers' are not where they are put because they want to be. They may feel right about the 'Cause' (because it has been embellished to account for their sensibilities, viz. the old adage 'women and children first'), but equally, they don't want to fight; nor, of course, should they be made to.

These soldiers are the people ANZAC Day (and similar) should be concerned with, therefore, we should honour them not with accolades of how brave they were but with a deep sense of sadness for these unwilling souls who were killed by those who sent them; the enemy within.

Most decent people, which accounts for probably 99 per cent of the population of the world, have no interest in a War, conflict, act/s of terrorism, or whatever the local jargon is. These acts of aggression are created by controllers for their own greed. and also feed off the greed of others; copy-cat stuff. They may even be the scape-goats that controllers want to justify their means of aggression; all of which is mostly lies.

We can often be made to be aggressive, even if we are pacifist. That is part of our human nature, I believe. The controllers are good at this and will stop at nothing to make others feel aggression, even towards the innocent. They will stop at nothing, I say. They will kill their own to make their point, for them. There is overwhelming evidence that this is precisely what the Americans achieved on so-called September the 11th (I think we have forgotten the year, except those who lost innocents).

The 'soldiers' who were inveigled into this, were the innocent people who were killed. They were killed to justify future 'wars', (Afghanistan and then Iraq and onwards). Worse, they were killed by their own side!

In a sense, of course, all soldiers who are conscripted (compelled by whatever means, including lies, subterfuge and possibly/probably no real threat) are killed by their own side. Not only that, I submit that this action was premeditated murder.

I don't think I am saying any new here, but I do believe that we have been made to forget what evil people are those that send people to war, whether they have enlisted or been compelled to fight.

What we have to do, (despite all the hatred against protesters by those who know no better, the 'couch-soldiers'), is to protest however we can. This has to be done peacefully, otherwise we are as bad as they are.

With 99 per cent of the world peace-loving, how have we allowed a few despots to rule us? We have allowed others to make ourselves to think globally but we cannot act globally. This is not within our human abilities (any more than we are able to conceive the speed of light). Within our abilities, though, is our excellence at thinking and acting locally.

It's the local that becomes global, not the other way round. It's the small local actions that lead to increases on a larger scale. These small local actions are most often most seen in violence because that is part of the mechanism of the controllers, usually via their media, that leads us to believe it is a violent society we live in. I do not believe this. I believe that most people are honest and good and positive. However, they have allowed themselves to be swayed into believing lies.

We all understand that violence breeds violence, likewise, goodness breeds goodness. The latter is not what controllers want; it would not suit them at all! So the goodness is played down and the violence takes front page. This is what they tell you, you want. And you believe it because you have been conditioned since birth to believe in so-called 'authorities'. This is all, in my opinion, rubbish.

As individuals, we are ultimately responsible for our own choices and the responsibilities that go with those choices. It's no good blaming someone else, the, 'I didn't-ask-to-be-born', syndrome. If we allow others to make the choices for us, then that is our choice also. We must accept the consequences and accept the responsibilities.

No-one has an entitlement, under any circumstances, to make a choice for any other fauna or flora where it is for personal advantage, either for ideas/ideals or bits of ground. The notions of these are suspect since they are personal and how far away is an advantage?

We are, however, entitled to make decisions but again, not for personal advantage. The 'personal advantage' is the crux.

As with something like ANZAC Day, we are told: 'We must remember them!'

Those who lost folk in all our controllers' wars and other carnage, will remember them, we don't have to be told or reminded. We don't need a special day! Every day we remember those we have loved and who are no longer with us. In the same breath, we are told, however, that war is evil. Why do these people then continue their machinations? What are they trying to prove by their ceremonies? That they are the evil ones who caused the wars in the first place. We are not stupid, we know. A great many people forget that their folk went away (and never came back) for reasons which no-one with half a brain would want in the first place.

'Our glorious lads' (who come home), 'Our glorious dead' (who don't) are other epithets. This is nonsense!

If you want to fight dirty, that is your choice, accept the consequences and responsibilities. If you don't want to fight, resist with everything in your power bar violence. Violent, you are the same as the persecutors.

God is within the machine, not out of it.

I wrote the following poem back in the 1970's for my then wife. In context with the above, read it as you will:

In the song of Life

the words don't rhyme;

music falls on tone-deaf ears.

The baton falls,

the conductor's gone to sleep

but the musicians play on,


even though the music's there.

But some notes ring true, my love,

just a few;


I love you.

Peter K. Sharpen


email: Back to Contents


There is a notion that one should read everything, including the small-print before signing anything. Please read carefully. Enjoy, or be very alarmed!


Notes for your guidance:

All questions are mandatory, IN OTHER WORDS, THEY MUST ALL BE ANSWERED, IN FULL.

Failure to complete any one part of this Application Form in full, may result in one or more of the following:

Failure to instigate any employment

Failure to redress any complaint.

Failure to accept positive comments.

Failure to consider this application at all.

Subsequent and in view of this, penalties may be incurred, as thus:

a fine equivalent to ONE YEAR'S SALARY OR WAGES may be made.

a term of imprisonment not less than ONE YEAR of your life (any benefits, monetary or otherwise, may be with-held).

Death by any form/forms as required by any laws pursuant at which you reside at the time of your signing of this application form.

(The discretion of the persons authorising this Application Form is sacrosanct and final. No further correspondence will be entered into.)

Notes on filling out this form, (to assist you better):

Please circle all entries where required (penalties may apply if not properly circled, ticked or otherwise completed).

Please give full details, where and when they are required.

If unsure, or have no knowledge, or claim to have no knowledge, or cannot remember, please indicate why on a separate sheet including, on the sheet, the appropriate number relevant to the question/answer. These should be signed and dated.

Additional note: Answers such as 'unsure', or 'I don't recall' are NOT permissible under the terms of this Application. They will therefore encounter more severe penalties.


Please indicate the precise nature of your application (A1):

A1- I am applying for______________________________________

(Further pages may be appended, marked A2, A3, A4 etc. All pages must be signed and dated.)


Country of Origin______________________

Country of Residence_______________________

Country of Alliegence______________________(If none, please state reason (on a separate sheet signed and dated)

(PLEASE enter all relevant details or CIRCLE/tick (where appropriate) ALL RELEVANT ENTRIES)

B-APPLICANT'S Personal Particulars


FIRST NAME_____________

SECOND NAME_____________

ANY OTHER NAMES, ALIASES, NICKNAMES________________________________________


AGE ( AS OF THIS APPLICATION) Years__Months__Days__

PLACE OF BIRTH (Precise locality)______________________

TIME OF BIRTH (Hours/Minutes/Seconds)_______________

(If not known, please state why on a separate sheet, signed and dated)

NATURE OF BIRTH Normal Caesarian Forceps Other (please specify on a separate sheet, signed and dated))

STATUS Single Married Separated Divorced Partner

SEX Male Female Other (Please attach chromosomal Certificate (suitably notorised)

SEXUAL PROCLIVITIES: Heterosexual Homosexual Bisexual Trans-sexual Paedophile Other

(Please specify on a separate sheet, signed and dated)

SKIN COLOUR White Brown (Black) Ochre Other (please specify)__________________

EYE COLOUR Blue Brown Green Other (please specify)_____________________


Birthmarks (please state type and location on body (please include photograph))

Piercings (please state nature of piercing, the location/s in the body (please include photograph))

Tattoos (please state exact nature of the tattoo/es, and its/their precise location/s on the body (please include photograph))

Disfigurements (please attach separate sheet, signed and dated and please include photograph)

Religion Protestant Catholic Baptist Jehova's Witness Muslim Other (please specify on a separate sheet, signed and dated)



Please attach a recent copy of your hearing assessment. (Form HA1)


Please attach a copy of a recent sight test. (Form ST1)


Please attach a recent profile of your ability to smell. (Form SM1)


Please attach a recent profile of your ability to taste. (Form T1) or adapt to tastes (Form T1a)


Please attach a recent profile of your ability to adapt to touch. (Form TO1) or to adapt to touch (Form TO2)

B(a)- ARE YOU AN ADOPTED CHILD? Yes No Don't know (If 'yes' give full details of your adoption (including papers relevant to that adoption)).

If 'no' then go to B(c)-ADDRESS/S

If 'don't know' then please explain, in full (please use separate sheet signed and dated).


If 'yes' please give details of your orphan status, including full details of your carer/s (on a separate sheet, signed and dated).

If 'no' then go to B(c)-ADDRESS/S



Street Number




Post/Zip Code

Length of occupation (days)

If this is your permanent address, please answer (in full) these questions:

Do you live with a parent/s? Yes No

If 'yes' then go to E-Family Particulars

If 'no' then give full particulars of those with whom you reside. (please attach a separate record of each or those persons with which you reside on a separate sheet, signed and dated).

Do you live with relatives? Yes No

If 'yes' then give full particulars of those with whom you reside. (please attach a separate record of each or those persons with which you reside on a separate sheet, signed and dated).

If 'no' then go to next question.

Do you live on your own? Yes No

If 'yes' please state why (use a separate sheet, signed and dated)

If 'no' please state with whom you live, giving name/s of those with whom you stay and why.

Are you a squatter? Yes No

If 'yes' please include any material that permits you to squat. (Penalties are incurred if you do not have the right to squat)

If 'no', answer the following question:

Are you a Gipsy? Yes No

If 'yes' then please indicate the nearest place we can contact you within the next 24 hours.

If 'no' then please continue.


On a separate sheet (signed and dated) please list ALL your residential addresses since birth.



First name

Other names, aliases, nicknames (please state)

Nee name

Married name

Date of birth (please attach certificate or certified facscimile)

Present address

Present telephone number/s (including mobile)

Present e-mail address

Present Fax number

Present Internet URL


Place of birth, including time and location (full address)

Place of death (if relevant) including time and location, full address and full details of nature of burial.


First name

Other names, aliases, nicknames (please state)

Date of birth (please attach certificate or certified fascimile)

Place of birth, including time and location (full address)

Present address

Present telephone number/s (including mobile)

Present e-mail address

Present Fax number

Present Internet URL

Place of death (if relevant) including time and location, full address and full details of nature of burial.


Please attach relevant details (in accordance with the above) of all your relatives up to and including your grandfather and grandmother on separate sheets (signed and dated).


As of the date of this Application are you:

Employed Self-employed Awaiting employment Unemployed Working Part-time Working as a volunteer Too young to be employed

On a separate sheet (signed and dated) please list all your employment history (paid or unpaid) from the earliest age.

Please use the format below (which may be copied and pasted to each page).

Exact dates (dd/mm/yyyy) Starting Leaving Company/Individual Reason for employment Reason for leaving


As of the date of this Application, please state (on a separate sheet signed and dated)

Every school you have attended, including

Pre-Primary (Kindergarten)








Please use the format below (which may be copied and pasted to each page).

Exact dates, location (address), subjects studied, Grade for each subject. Certificate, Degree, other (specify)


As of the date of this Application, please state (on a separate sheet dated and signed):

It is essential that you reveal all details of your health. To help you we have compiled a list of requirements. Please append all relevant materials. Please use the format below (which may be copied and pasted to each page).

List all pre-birth/birth/post birth defects (e.g. variations from the norm, haematomas, genetic defects bone breakages, severe traumas, nightmares, day-mares, anxieties, panic syndrome attacks etc.)

List all doctors, paediatricans, obstetricians, gynaecologists, mental health consultants, psychologists, psychiatrists (consulted from birth either by others or yourself), hearing/sight/taste/touch specialists, chiropractors, physiotherapists, sports injury therapists, dentists, opticians, hearing specialists and include details of spectacle makes, hearing-aid makers, prosthetic makers and so forth.

List all hospitals, clinics, medical centres.

Have you ever received Emergency treatment? Yes No

If 'yes', please state: When Where Why on a separate sheet dated and signed).

If 'no', then please continue.

To serve you better, please append these documents:

A recent eye test

A recent audio/hearing test

A recent taste test

A recent touch test

All x-rays taken for the purposes of:

tests for lung cancer

tests for cancer (e.g. mammogram)

tests for spinal problems

other (please state)

A recent chromosomal test

A recent retinal pattern

A recent blood pressure test

A recent urine test result

A recent blood test

A recent cholesterol test

A recent finger-print sample


Please attach also any cat-scans and state the purpose or reason for this/them

Please attach also any readings from:








Playing Cards

Oija boards

Other (please state)


Please state (on a separate sheet dated and signed):

All your hobbies and interests. These must be as detailed as possible. They should include:

Reading (e.g. Fiction, non-fiction, biographies, auto-biographies, poetry, short stories, novels etc.)

Writing (e.g. Fiction, non-fiction, biographies, auto-biographies, poetry, short stories, novels etc.)

Drawing/painting (e.g. oils, acrylics, crayons, pencil, pen-and-ink, CAD, etc.)

Sports: Active Passive (state specific sports/sports)

Films/videos/DVD (state preferences, e.g. Adventure, drama)

Computers: Software/Hardware/Games

(state type of games you like to play)

Watching T.V. (state types of programmes you like to watch)

Listening to radio (state types of programmes you like to listen to)

Hi-Fi (state types of music you like to listen to)

Fetishes (please state which and your involvement)

Other. Please be specific (penalties apply).




Please state you religion, e.g.














Other (please state)

Have you been: Baptised Christened Other (including none)

If Christened please append certificate (or Certified facsimilie)

If Baptised please append Certificate (or Certified facsimilie)

If other (or Certified facsimilie)

or explain in detail (on a separate page signed and dated)

Are you a circumcised male of female? Yes No

Please attach evidence (e.g. photo, doctor's certificate, tribal evidence)


Are you politically active? Yes No

If 'no' then please explain why , in detail and on a separate sheet signed and dated).

If 'yes' then please answer the following questions:

Which political party do you align with? (Your country of residence)

In terms of political jargon, are you:

Right Right of Right Center of Right Left of Right

Center Right of Center Center Center Left of Center

Left Right of Left Center of Left Left of Center

A democracy is, according to Abraham Lincoln, Government Of the People, By the People and For the People. Do you believe this statement to be correct? Yes No

If 'yes' do you agree to the dictates of this form of government/management? Yes No

If 'no', please explain why (on a separate sheet signed and dated).

If 'yes' , please explain why (on a separate sheet signed and dated).


Please state your native tongue__________________________

Please state your preferred language______________________

At what level do you speak other tongues? None Beginner Fluent Expert

(Please state how and when you began to speak another language. e.g. you wanted to learn it, you were forded to learn it)


Note: A drug is something that we ingest (drink, eat, smell, taste, hear), and upon which we may rely mentally or physically to lead our lives. All things in the universe are drugs when we


NOTE: Please do not answer any of the above questions.




Back to Contents

Driving in Western Australia



It is well known, globally, that Australian drivers are amongst the worst in the world. They are aggressive, discourteous, ignorant and with little driving skills that contribute to road safety. They also drive totally inappropriate vehicles for their needs, the needs of others, and for the roads as constructed, thus, those of us with the necessary skills are deprived of our pleasure in driving.

This lack of driving knowledge and skills, is encouraged by those who deem to create the road systems, because they also lack the knowledge and skills of even a driver, as well as those of designing roads.

From the outset, I wish to make it plain that I do not want to travel on roads at high speed (although it would sometimes help to hone my skills). I have always been a careful, courteous and considerate driver, who has driven in more conditions than most Australian drivers will ever see; hence my expansive skills.

Road use is first and foremost having the skills to be behind the wheel of a vehicle, whatever it is. It is also, a positive attitude.

These are my observations:

Most 'crosses-for-losses', as I call them, are found on straight four-lane highways. Most accidents resulting in these reminders of lack of driving skills, happen at night. This has nothing to do with silly speed restrictions; it has to do with the inability of drivers to cope with any speed as well as the 'speed' many are taking in drugs. Reducing speed, should imply the drug, not the velocity of a vehicle. The fact that a driver may be under the influence of drugs, alcohol, a bad time, is part of the lack of skills that cause their demise.

Wide roads, no traffic

Driving Habits

Aggressive (reflects the nature of a great deal of 'Australians')

Thoughtless (same)

Lack of manners (road and otherwise)

Driving Attitude

Apathetic (couldn't care less..I'm on the road, stuff you!)

Ignorant (There is no excuse for ignorance).

Driving skills

Less than adequate (couldn't ride a bicycle without hurting someone).

No sense of road manouvres/positioning (Hopeless sense of directing a vehicle).

No sense of other drivers' behaviour (Couldn't read a book without asking someone what the title meant).

No sense of direction (Mostly right-hand lane, which is the overtaking lane)

No sense of lane positioning (same)

No sense of driving at speed (hopeless after 110 kmph...much as the 'police').

No sense of driving at night ( blind in daylight).

No sense of using brakes/handbrake ('That's what brakes are for!.)

Driving with headlights in broad daylight ( 'I can't see you. Can you see me?')

Pulling out in front of traffic (You're not supposed to be there!)

Driver Instruction

It's obvious that driving instructors fall foul to the same inexperience as the drivers who they purport to teach. Unless a driving instructor has experience in a majority of driving modes, then he/she has no qualification to teach others.

Driving to Conditions, not restrictions

Those who constrict, most often do not know or understand the conditions in which they are driving.

Use of unreasonable vehicles on the road

Four-wheeled vehicules

Mini buses for towing over-numbers of children to school

Overuse of traffic calming

Obstructing the highway

Ludicrous speed restrictions

No monitoring of students who fail to use appropriate crossings set up at schools, only the monitoring of a perfectly ludicrous 40 kmph. (Who thought that stupidity up?)

No definition of a built-up area for the equally ludicrous 50 kmph restriction is some areas. (Thought up by the same imbecile? What drugs were he/she/they on?)

Downright dangerous 'Vehicles must turn left'.

Downright dangerous three lanes into two

Designated as 'Black Spot' areas. Road makers and law-makers are to blame for them!


Pathetic use of 'police' in trying to curb dangerous driving.

Are generally 'bully boys' until they are proven innocent of the charge.

'Police' are not entitled to 'target' anything but to uphold rules of positive and negative conduct.

No 'police' presence on the roads, except for 'ray' guns , whilst hiding in bushes (the easy basket) to extract even more revenue from an over-taxed public.

No recording of vehicules emitting dangerous products of combustion.

Over-use of sirens, especially late at night and early morning.




Back to Contents 





A gift is something given for the asking of no return. A gift can be anything the receiver/perceiver feels is given to them. Thus gifts fall into as many categories as a person feels that given to them, is a gift.

Magic is a quality which is felt by the perceiver, therefore it may be magic to one person and not another. Therefore, also, it is subjective. It is amorphous. That is, it has no particular form. To be magic, something has to be not understood and to remain magic, it, in my view, cannot be questioned.

Some gifts are magic. These are not tangible gifts in the sense of a 'present' (for a birthday, for example). The gifts I am talking about are mainly those that are given to us a human beings in the shape of what we call 'talents'. They become tangible, not in themselves, but in the realisation of them and turning them (honing them) into skills and the using of these skills to produce original works, whatever they may be, but, of course, preferably positive.

Both the words 'gift' and 'magic' have been afforded definitions which become dubious. Hence notions of gifts as tangible 'presents', 'white magic' and 'black magic' and so forth. These are not what I mean. I am looking at the simplistic view, the notion of gifts and magic as something we are given that we may not or do not understand. We don't have to understand them, as I say, the notion of them is destroyed by definition.

Our personal Gifts are Magic. They defy our so-called 'logic'. They are therefore, in my view, not open to questioning.

That some people are capable of creating the modern technologies of this world (albeit an evolution), is magic, pure and simple. Those who possess these gifts often require no more than a pleasant 'Thank You.' Others, rely on their negative outlook of the earth in general and want to make something of the fact.

Any gift that someone has, especially creative ones, is magic. 'How did I do that?', one asks one's self. If you try to question it, the magic is lost. Naming something lends itself to making something static. If it's static, it's not alive. Naming maybe useful but it does not explain anything. Words are static symbols of communication. They do not explain. The more words used, the less explaining. 'I am going to smile,' does not explain anything. Producing a smile, does. The recipient/s 'feel' you inner self and you are communicating your inner self. They may not understand your smile but they feel it, react to it and that is magic. Back to Contents 



I am a happy person because I struggle to be positive and look to the natural earth about me to sustain this; the natural earth does not let me down. I refuse to be sad or to be made sad by someone else.

In these days, and the days of yore, it seems, happiness has never to have been regarded as something that we should 'like' or even aspire to. I believe that if you are happy, you are independent. I believe that if you are happy, there is less control over your Self. This 'happiness', is, therefore, in some people's minds, a form of hedonism: the selfish pleasure of getting the best for oneself without regard for others.

I refute the notion of this last statement, most profusely. I could even write a book about it. Instead, I will tell you why I am happy.

I am happy because, as I said, I refuse to be sad or to be made sad.

The World, created by Men, is a sad place. Who or whatever, made Man and the World, was a sad case. But that notion is as much crap as the men who invented a language to describe this.

We will never 'know' how we were created; that is a belief. Fair enough, but it may not be a truth. The notion that we were in some way 'created' by some amorphous 'Body' is also spurious and open to many questions about which the answers can only be a belief.

We are here; that is all we can know; it is also a belief based on our senses. We are 'here' only insofar as we have any personal data of our presence upon this earth and insofar as our personal senses determine this data. Our senses, none, little, better or best, determine our view of the earth and indeed the World.

You can read this essay. What if you were blind? This article would be nothing at all, unless translated into something that you could sense, in some way.

Given a modicum of senses, which reveal to you your view of the earth or World, what do you want? That is a crucial question.

Should I shout and say: 'What do YOU want?'

So, Needs and Wants. What's the difference?

To begin, there are needs. (You are entitled to add to this list.)



Oxygen to breathe as determined by the nature as animals.

Other natural chemicals supplied within an earthly environment for survival.



Clothing, (perhaps), against the elements (rain, sun etc.)

Subsidiary Needs:

A partner to reproduce a line of siblings via sexual reproduction.


Anything that is personal to us but is not really necessary for our personal survival.

It's nice to have a mate (for many reasons!). ('Mate' in an 'original' sense, is one with whom we would copulate to produce a new person (deliberate or otherwise). However, in my view, this is not a necessary condition of a 'human' person or of 'human' behaviour/s'.)

Having a 'mate' is not, therefore, in my view, a necessary prerequisite of being a 'human being'. Many human individuals do not feel, for one reason or another, that procreating is a necessary condition of being a human. That is a choice given them by their appearance upon this earth.

Personally, I was married, once. My wife and I produced two beautiful girls. We were part of the process of 'Getting married', 'Having children', 'Living until death do us part' and so forth. Like many, this spurious notion did not survive. That's mainly because the notions that prevailed about marriage and so forth, were crap before we started and produced our various 'hang-ups'. We were 'sucked in' to this crap and we responded extremely well... the marriage ended in divorce, the children were taken from their biological father and the rest is sad (and like most, a long story).

A 'mate' is also a friend with whom one can communicate. The communication is part of our survival, also, as individuals. Thus to have a 'mate' (a sexual partner) and a 'mate' (friend (of either sex)) is altogether beautiful.

At present, I do not have a sexual partner, but I have lots of other mates (male and female).

So why am I a happy person?

This stuff, about me, was all over years ago. I mean, over twenty years ago. Since then, I have had little inclination to repeat myself, as many others often do. Those people often repeat failed first marriages, children and so forth. That's not for me. I haven't turned my proclivities to other means of having sex (homosexuality, or 'casual sex') either. That, as said, my personal sexuality is not an issue here. However, there are very few women who would appeal to me, given their own peculiar aspects about how they feel about themselves. This feeling is mainly fake. I have very bad feelings about fake. Therefore...

... why am I a happy person?

Do you know that the World, as assembled, is by those who desire to control others, and is a fake/scam/conspiracy of some sort?

Do you know that these same people own all that is necessary to make your life (and millions of others) a fraud and misery?

Do you know that these same people make you AFRAID and that is where/why they have control? (Fear is their greatest ploy.)

Do you know that these are the people, some of whom (your god forbid!) vote for?

Do you know that the television you watch, the radio you listen to, the glossy magazines or the newspapers that you might read are full of the lies that your 'authorities' want you to believe? (They are your 'authorities' as soon as you vote for them.) These 'authorities' own the drivel that you read and believe. That's why you are sad.

That's why I am happy. I don't allow this crap into my life.

There's a cat that 'lives' in a house across the road from me. It's not 'my' cat. It's not 'theirs' either. Cats are themselves. They live and do as they please. We only pretend they don't.

This cat visits my house. It has found a place to enter. It has found its own place to sleep and does so, readily and regularly.

I love cats. They are no substitute for a cuddle (that's what we want to do). They let you cuddle them but they are in control and you can feel it. It's a question of, I think: 'This guy's going to give me something I want, I'll indulge in this nonsense.'

But at the same time, this cat is sleeping in a corner ('it's' corner, mind you, it's made the decision, not you!), thrown one leg in the air, snoring so you can't hear it, and happily planting unknown stuff you don't want to hear about or feel about.

Mundane? No! This is real life. This is why you are here. Not to count the endless bodies of those who have suffered maiming and death from the controllers. You can have no impact here.

Your impact is with the earth you live with every day.

That is all you can hope for, really.

I am happy because I can think (and do) locally, where I can do some good or have an effect.

I refuse to listen to the global view because that is most often lies and conceit and over which I can have no personal control.

A global view is most often a view shared by controllers. It takes away a personal perspective.

Do a good deed to a fellow and you are instantly rewarded by a positive manner. This leads to an act of positive behaviour by that fellow (you may not see it, but it happens) and progresses (if you want to extrapolate or carry that notion to a conclusion) to many other acts of positive behaviours by others. You, as a person, cannot fail to achieve something positive by your initial action.

They same is true, of course, with negative behaviours. However, they lead to a demise of your personal character and subsequently, the death of the World. The earth doesn't care, since it has no notion of care (or a language to support it); it does what it does and survives long after you.

There may be a need to join groups of others with similar ideas. This 'group' may be productive (creative or positive) or non-productive (destructive or negative). These notions depend upon your views of both and that, in itself, is a problem with the interpretation of the language we use.

The problem with groups is that they produce an identity and usually, some sort of name. They then become some sort of 'gang' (positive or negative). This, in my view, however, negates the group as a group of individuals. In fact the word 'group', and its name, then discards the individuality of its members. It becomes 'all for one and one for all' without recourse to its individual elements. Thus is born the phrase: 'You are either with us, or against us.'

That's a polarity. Black or white. Yes or no. There is no in-between.

Life is not a polarity. It is the 'in-between' (the grey areas). Life is not linear; it is crinkly. Life is the greys between the black and white. Thus can there be change (you can change shades, you can otherwise only change black to white or vice versa). Change is what controllers don't want! They can't control change and they can't compute it. Controllers need something static; something that does not change. If it changes, they can have little or no control of it. Do the same things every day and someone will cotton on to it and be able to control it.

Some of these people will rob your house. They know what you do and when you do it. So when you are at the back of the house, they come in the front. You lose.


We, as humans (not apart from the flora and fauna of this planet earth who know nothing about this?), live in fear because that is what the designers of the World have dictated. Using their Means of Might, coercion, scams and anything else they can use to control others with their vast experience of their misdemeanours and crimes, including murder, 'experiments', genocide and anything that can or will kill/maim even their compatriots, they have reduced the earth's population of human animals to one of fear of almost anything. The weapon of fear is the most powerful of all weapons and they know this and use it to their benefit and your detriment (unless you realise it and react positively towards it, to destroy it).

To this end, certain peoples have amassed vast resources of weapons (to kill or maim) and other weapons \(chemical/biological) to cause fear, (real or not) to kill or main psychologically. You do not have to have a weapon to kill or produce fear, merely the means of conveying it to the people.

What do people fear most? They fear the safety of their person first and then others close to them, in that order. They do not fear the safety of those at a distance. They may pretend to, but that is the notion of those directing them, hence the garbage about some 'star' or other, who is of no consequence except to those about them and in personal contact.

Controllers have been for some time now, been engaged in 'new' propoganda efforts and using the language you are familiar with. That language is 'war'. We seem now to be plagued with the 'War on...' syndrome.

The word 'war', is, of course, from past history, itself plagued with notions of stone, arrows, cannon-balls, bombs, destruction, torture, death and everything else deadly. Thus we all react, if we don't start thinking for ourselves.

Thus the 'War on..." syndrome has the same fear-provoking requisites (especially from those less able to defend themselves or those who are too careless to want to) that lead to them voting for those whom they believe will 'look after them'; the benevolent grandmother.

We do look for a benevolent 'grandmother'. She's the one who gives us things our parents never would in the same way. She can get away with a few extra 'sweeties', because she can take or leave us, at her whim. She's lovable but she is also not always there. Thus is the 'Nanny' state that controllers understand and you may not. They can play on this knowledge.

My own biological grandmothers are dead, biologically. (They are still alive in my mind, though.) But I'm not looking for another one or two. What's gone is gone, biologically. I can't replace these ladies, certainly not with those who would pretend to be them or like them. And especially since I do not know them personally. I especially don't take sweeties from strangers.

I am a happy person because I don't know these people; nor want to, actually. My experience shows that these 'pretend' grandmothers are neither to my liking, (so far as I can have any knowledge of them). These 'new' grandmothers only want to give me sweeties so that they can inflict their will/s upon me, which was not so, and probably wasn't with my biological counterparts.

I think the main thrust of my argument is that we are local people. We live in what is called a locale. That is, we live locally (sort of side-by-side) with people with whom we can have actual contact of some kind. Being thus, we are liked or disliked (depending on the nature of those persons with which we react locally). At least they know us and can make their decisions about us, and us them, of course). Shun or be shunned. Like or be liked. Mutual or not.

I am happy because those about me, who react to me, are positive. The others, I have no care except for their well-being if they are in some sort of trouble or need some help. It is their decision if they want to react with me. I am available for those who might need me. That, as I see it, is my station in life. It is not imposed upon me and never has been. It's my decision and my responsibility for having made that decision.

Thinking globally, is a great mistake. It opens one to enormous amounts of inaccurate data.

Thinking locally, allows you the opportunity to actually do something that can give you pleasure. Hedonistic, maybe. Pleasure, definitely.

ACT LOCALLY...... THAT'S GLOBAL_________________

email: Back to Contents 



There are so many reasons but they can be encapsulated into one central statement. Some people feel the need to control others.

The notion of controlling others seems to be the nature of some of mankind. I have no offering as to why this is so, it has been a mystery to me since conception (it seems). That is, I have always resented some-one's control over my person (being, soul, or whatever).

The notion of its seeming prevelance maybe because the man-animal has developed from the wild (i.e. the natural world as presented to him) to deciding that he must control his fellows as he wants to control the earth/environment that bore him. The notion is, of course, spurious.

Controlling a (perhaps) 'hostile' environment, man, (descended from prior animals), and by using a so-called 'brain' through which he developed his lacking senses into one of thought.

Thought is a process about which we know nothing in other animals except surmise, but something which we seem to have developed (by limited means) and by which we call this heritage 'reason'. If thought is (a) philosophy, then man is a 'reasonable' animal. That the 'reason' is spurious, maybe so. Hence, (then maybe) a false philosophy.

Man developed through contact with the earth upon which he lived. He clothed himself (as necessary) against any elements detrimental to his comfort and developed fire for warmth and a cave in which to live (for more comfort). His needs were simple. He needed food, shelter and (possibly) a mate. His 'finer' thoughts were not of generations hence, they were immediate and needed fulfilling. Thus it is with all animals. This is called 'immediate gratification'. It is this 'immediate gratification' that fills most people's minds. It is the basis upon which, for example, we base the notion of 'marriage'. That is, having found someone with which one can copulate, one sees this as an end in itself. One commits, therefore, one's Self to the notion. This is also spurious, poetry aside.

Thus fulfilled (warmth/coolness, shelter, food, mate), a man may have felt the need to protect the plot of ground upon which he lived. Some built fences, others not, depending on where he lived and those surrounding him. These others determined his need/s but might not satisfy his wants.

Man is a strange animal. Some are quite able to fend for themselves without the help of others. Some are unable to do this. The mess in this world relates to the latter: those that, for some reason, cannot or do not want to, fend for themselves.

These are those about whom this essay is written.

Whatever your religious beliefs, powerful though they may be, and depending upon your brain-washing from birth, they are only based upon words i.e. sounds. Words are the means by which, with limited senses, the man-animal communicates to his fellows with like sounds and interpretations. In themselves, they are meaningless. They are sounds. If you listen to another language other than your own (and of which you are not familiar), that is all they are; they have no coherence or meaning to you, otherwise.

Using words to another animal, e.g. cat, dog, rabbit, mosquito and so on, means nothing to them, except the sound they perceive (and at whatever level that may be to them). If portrayed in a similar manner (if possible), the other animal responds. Do you think talking to a frog in like sound is stupid? But it responds. In my view, this is beautiful.

When you talk to a loved one, do you talk in the King's English? No. You utter 'silly' expressions and make 'silly' noises. Your loved one responds. This is 'silly'? To others, it might be, because they do not understand the level of your communication.

Someone said that we are like onions. Onions have layers (when cut, they also make you cry). Is your communication with others the core, or the outer layer? The deeper to the core you go, the more onions make you cry. That is their nature.

Man has become the skin. On an onion it does nothing but hold the inner layers together. But an onion communicates to all its layers, therefore it is an onion and not something else.

However, man has more control over his layers. That is why he has survived so far, (and this may be his downfall, if he is not careful). It is certainly not his physical strength. Man's physical strength comes from the fact that he can create weapons to feed his control.

However we were placed upon this planet we choose to call Earth, is really no matter. We will never 'really' know. We may surmise, produce theories, or believe in something. What is important is that we are here. We are conscious of our existence. How much other animals are conscious we will, again, never know. We can only surmise etc.

We need to realise that we are only a minor fraction of the plethora of fauna on this planet. We were not the first, we will not be the last. Why should we be? We are living as tenants. We pay our dues

email: Back to Contents



This circular has been sent to households, over all the known world.



In view of the recent discovery that a six-month-old foetus has the ability to regard its future environment outside the uterus, (TIMELY MAGAZINE Vol.32 p.38), we have prepared a Questionnaire which will enable authorities to decide upon the outcome of a pregnancy.

Without the interests of corporate media, we give below, the article for your perusal:



Scientists have discovered that, given the correct dosage of a radical new dictionary (Dictoxin D-beta), a foetus of six months maturity in utero, is able to absorb knowledge through the use of a probe, containing the medication, directly into the hind-brain. The specific technique is a privately-guarded secret at present but WHO are very interested. The dictionary knowledge (in any language) will enable the foetus to accumulate a language even before it is born, thus enabling it to communicate, via the probe, to authorities who might request the information.

"It is a break-through," notes a Prominent Scientist. "Now we can communicate directly with a foetus before it is born. We can be prepared for any of its defects without the use of other methods and this must be a relief to a host who may have to undergo several investigations that may be, in some way, painful to her. Better than that, the foetus need not be in a human body; it can equally be done in a test-tube."

The Ministry of Your Affairs has therefore produced the following form to be filled out, via a scribe, for evaluation.





Please Note (in Plain English, or your chosen language): 'Host' refers to a Human Person or a foetus conceived by other means, including a test-tube).

All answers are mandatory. In other words, each question must be answered by a tick (ü) in the appropriate box.

Question Answer

How do you identify your sex ? Male Female Both Neither Other Not sure

How do you identify your nationality? White Black Mixture*

* If mixture, please identify your preference:

White Black Both Neither

In which country might you be born? [ ]

Would you like to be born? Yes No Leave it to me Leave it to you Depends on conditions

Given your answers, which the Ministry of Your Affairs will know to be true, an evaluation will be made as to whether or not to terminate your foetal state.


email: Back to Contents











Ironically, given from where most scams originate, the word was 'invented' in the 1900's in the United States and means trick or con.

The more I read in the alternative media, the more I am aware that everything I read may be a scam or part of a scam. Who is to believe anything any more? Or, perhaps, who ever did? This leads me to believe that only I am real (actually the title of a poem I wrote in the 1970's), since I am here and doing things. I am not drugged, coerced, brain-washed, over-weight or anything else; I am merely me. I admit that I was a bit brain-washed but since giving up television, radio, news and other paltry media, I am much better now, thank you.

Why is that? It is because I am me and do not allow this plethora of garbage to enter my body or mind. I have never been a political animal. Politics is the study of how to control people for your benefit and to the detriment of others. I refuse to be part of this; it is my choice and I accept the consequences, (so should you). Neither have I ever been a flag-waver, patriot, nationalist or anything else. I've no interest in 'Countries', only the land upon which I live (the earth, I won't even give it a capital letter).

I'm back on my old track. Controllers.

Because of their lack of something (whatever it may be) these people want to rule the World (globally) or if more locally, YOU. They obviously can't control themselves, so they decide to rule others, with very heavy ulterior motives, or as they are known in jargon, 'vested interests'.

These are the people you vote for. I say 'you' because I don't vote for them and never, ever, have. That is my notion of independence. The notion that if you don't vote, you can't have a say in their scams, is spurious, to say the least.

What can I care about people I can have no knowledge of; their peculiarities, their sexual proclivities, their 'bad' marriages, their bloody awful children? Let these people alone to suffer their stupidities if they are not prepared to learn some truths? I had to work through mine, on my own.

Who cares about some 'princess', or some other so-called 'named' person who is not in contact with you as a personal being?

If you do, you are not living your life but some-one else's, over which you can have no control. Why live as someone else? Why take their problems 'on-board' when you have enough problems of you own to be solved, just to live reasonably? Because that's what you are told to do and you believe it. Don't. It isn't true. You are playing their (dangerous) game.

These people are as far away as those whom you might bomb you, without recourse to your finer points (or theirs, if they have any).

Living your life through others' (usually) fake existence's, is something you need to forgo, if you want to be independent. These fake things are for your consumption as idiots. Shame on you if you reply to them by listening to them. You are, of course, not idiots, unless you believe whole-heartedly the junk that is fed to you without trying to find out information which might change your mind. You might 'happily' change a baby's nappy because it's full of excrement. Why not change your mind for the same reason?

The earth works, as I have often said. The World doesn't. Wake up to your inner feelings.

I always said that so-called 9/11 was an inside job. I didn't really know why. That is because I am a cynic ( a person who weighs up the evidence. It's not necessarily negative, it has only been made to look so). But, without any knowledge, I said this and it has proven to be many truths. Everything else that follows or followed before (and which I can have no knowledge except from those who were prepared to state truths), becomes a truth, or truths. Truths to an individual thinking for himself, become beliefs.

The World is controlled by the controllers. They have the power of Might (which they need because they are often physically and certainly mentally weak) because they steal from the 'ordinary person' enough money to buy those persons who meet their ends (bullies). They succeed because they steal so much that they can afford any army of persons to follow them. The rest of you are merely 'cannon fodder'. Money is not only the 'root of all evil', it is the 'necessary' that allows us to buy fish and chips on Friday.

They do not call you 'cannon fodder'. They call you patriots. They wave a silly flag, sing a silly song, give you a line of bullshit and you come running. They gives you lies and you believe them. They give you good reasons for their behaviours. They give you images that they have prepared to make you sit up and vote, or join in or whatever else to give them credit for their obscene behaviours. They make you frightened because there are things you don't understand. They don't want you to understand. At the same time, they give you 'education' (on their terms) but expect you are expected to forgo this experience and believe their lies.

You are lied to. You are scammed to/too.

Controllers have the media in their hands (they buy them) and the media (some of them, (a lot of them?)) respond.

They feed you with credible stories of what 'others' are doing to them. These stories are lies and scams designed to make you think that your 'elected representatives' are there for your welfare. I feel very sorry for anyone who believes this stuff.

What you 'know' can only be local. That is, directly observable by you; or to be more precise, your faculties. Whether or not these faculties (generally, the senses) are the same as other peoples', is neither here nor there. This the rule of General Semantics. No one can ever be 'sure' of an observation, it is, after all, only an observation dependent on the state of your senses at the time.

Example: You look out of the window. You observe that the sun is shining. This information is delivered to you by the acquisition of a language to describe the events which lead you to this conclusion, and thence your observation of what is, to you, a 'truth'. It's not a truth to anyone else; their observations may be different. The notion that you agree with a partner at the time, that the sun is shining is not proof of your observation but adds credibility to it.

Now, if looking out of the same window, you see water coming from above, but have no actual observance of where it is coming from, what might you conclude? It is raining. Or is it? The sun is shining. Does it rain when the sun is shining? Yes, sometimes. But someone could be pouring water from above, from a watering can. You can't see them, so you conclude that the sun is shining but it is raining at the same time. However, unless you can actually observe the whole phenomenon, you can never be sure.

This is where the controllers come in. They understand this whole notion. They may act stupidly but they are not stupid, only dangerous to your well-being. Thus they have many ways to convince you that it is raining, not water falling from a can you can't see. That's because too many people are too lazy not to go out and simply, have a look. This would, of course, convince them that it was a watering can, not an item of 'news':

Here is an item of 'News', first aired on WOLFTEL:


From Our Correspondent many miles from you.

It was reported today that rain fell from a cloudless sky. This is a new phenomenon which experts fail to agree upon. Professor Aaron Storme said today that he had never seen anything like it. Officials said that it was a plot by terrorists to drown thousands of people in their own homes and introduced new legislation against this 'War on Rain'. President Despot Flowers said that the Nation need not panic, as he had the situation under control and that his 'crack' (sic.) Marines were ready for the enemy. 'We will cover every blade of grass, to combat this terror,' he said.

Of course, when the drought comes, he (the President) will wage a 'War on Drought'. This will ensure his re-election because the community will already have forgotten about the first affair (The 'War on Rain') and he can produce 'evidence' to support this, especially if contrived by his staff and his own controllers. He/they, may even be able to quickly launch another scourge (perhaps a new disease which will result in a 'War on SPA's') on his 'subjects' to emphasise the 'fact'. Better to further his/their ends.

Thus, one successful campaign of terror on his (brain-washed and therefore gullible) subjects, will be quickly be consumed by the media (not all bad, by the way), probably in tactics of escalation by false statistics. Given success on one count, you can't count the ones that follow.

Now, I don't want to get as paranoid about scams as I might do without the knowledge of them. But the knowledge of them strengthens my resolve not to have anything to do with these people who create them. I, as I said, am alive, not under the influence of drugs. I can observe through my senses, locally. I don't need drugs to heighten my awareness, it full-blown already, without their 'help'.

Thinking globally, is a grave mistake. The pun is intended. If, supposing we have any faculties at all, we view things locally and taking the opportunities given us, to accept them as truths, then why the need to accept things about which we can have no first-hand knowledge? What's the point? If you can help someone locally, that's the best you can personally do. You can't help someone a thousand miles away unless you are there. You might feel good in giving money, but what does that mean? Do you know it actually gets there? That's a belief. It may be correct but you can have no first-hand experience of it. A positive belief that your donation arrives at its destination probably means it, or some of it, even most of it gets to its destination but you can never be sure. It's called, I believe, a 'Bubble of Love'. I truly believe in this notion.

As most of us know, the is no winner in a 'War against Anything'. But why be a loser? Don't get involved in the first place. Keep out of the global (you have no control). Act locally, where you can have an effect. Believe the local, you can see it for yourself; if you look. Don't believe in the global, that's where the controllers are and they are liars par excellence. They know you are not there to see what they are doing, or observing. They feed you with lies and scams to aid their control of you. Don't let them! Fight them peacefully by having nothing to do with them, voting or otherwise.

If you can't vote for someone you know and trust, don't vote at all. It's your choice. Given that, accept the consequences but don't expect me to come along for the ride to my death and yours.




Back to Contents



















Or What determines our future?

(Big question!)


This essay is very basic. It relies on over half a life-time's observations, study, research and fear (instigated by others). It brooks no arguments that might lead to 'qualifications' (i.e. regurgitation of others' material, purporting to be 'facts' and are thus due for a 'Certificate', 'Degree', 'Medal', or some-such tripe; (these are philosophical arguments which may be contested by anyone)).

To reduce constant repetition, I am using these terms as defined thus:

earth (lower case deliberate) is the planet upon which we live for a short time. It is a place of natural flora and fauna, however created .

The World is a place invented by the animal 'Man'.

The word 'Man' includes 'Woman' as are both their entitlements. The words are part of the World, not the earth, which knows nothing or words.

A 'god', of course, is (probably) an invention of Man to explain things he cannot understand.

Humans are conceived during a moment of sexual activity, which we call (in the end) 'reproduction'. This is the nature of our particular species (and others, of course). The nature of that moment and the circumstances of it and the genes that contribute to it, determine our personal nature and, therefore, our future. That is because, from the moment of conception (or fertilised ovum/ova) we are already individuals and subject to all the influences of our host (mother) and any biological 'father's' influence. This remains our biological memory from the outset. Thus, whatever befalls our mother, we 'take-on-board', as they say.

Thus Humans are born via our 'mother', a horrendous task for her. (Of that, there can, in my view, be little question). The circumstances of that birth add to this already horrendous task. What these circumstances may add, might be a subsequent life of peace, charity, love, nurture, a full belly, a place to live and all things positive. They may also be the opposite, or a mixture of them (more likely). Probably, the proportions of that mixture are the most important.

Thus we arrive onto the earth; a concoction of genes and a myriad of pre-natal experiences, already, as we scream the earth's oxygen into out lungs. Who knows what that oxygen might also contain; clarity or poison; probably a mixture of both. For some, much of one, less of the other.

The nature of sexual reproduction is to produce individuals. Thus are we all different; a product of our genes and environment (before, during and after our birth). That is our nature; no one can take this away, yet. (But that's being cynical; we call it 'cloning'.)

So we arrive upon this earth, in our various incarnations; genes, environment, love, nutrition and so forth; or lack of it. This determines what we are to become, one way or another.

Determining our future is also the way our people (parents, relatives, friends, etc.) react with us; also, the environment in which we live, it's location upon the earth and the 'society' within which we live.

Our first experiences are vital. They may and probably do, explain the whole of our individual nature from then on; not only the World into which we are thrust but what happens immediately thereafter. Depending on our individual ability to survive, we are subjected to the whims and mores of others. This is our 'education'. Many are subjected to the humiliation of sexual abuse, especially that of sexual mutilation (some form of circumcision; sexual abuse par excellence), whether earlier of later, it goes from bad to worse. I believe that it is this sexual mutilation that is a great cause of our downfall as human animals. I'm talking of circumcision here, let's not be unclear (nuclear?) on this matter. Male or female circumcision is the controllers' first act of violence against humans. It does not end here, it continues onto and into our war-torn earth. I'm not going into the why's and wherefore's of this gross practice, that is well documented elsewhere. Needless to say, if Man is a sexual animal, then his/her private parts are most private. Cutting bits off, denigrates the sexuality, makes it continuously at the fore-front of thought (conscious or not, at a particular time), if it wasn't already. A person might lose a leg (however that comes about) and we are upset (they are very upset and pained!); cutting off the end of one's penis or ravaging a woman's clitoris and few seem to care. Sick, or what?

Then there is a 'god'.

Determining that there are things unexplainable, the human animal seems to need to create an amorphous 'person' or 'persons' who 'explain' our circumstances. These are often personified into icons, (God, Mary, the 'Cross', the 'Bible', 'Jesus' (or their various incarnations in other languages) even at the disrespect of those who claim these icons are not 'sacred', whatever that means)). This is always part of the two-faced nature of man (or is it?)

Other people turn to varieties of this notion. I won't list all of them but, for example:

Tarot, bump-reading, I Ching divination, astrology; in fact any form of divination or foretelling the past or the future or understanding things we can't seem to explain. The point of the matter is that we all seem to need (because of the bad feelings we have acquired throughout our lives) is that we want to know where we stand (in common parlance).

There is no doubt in my mind that any form of divination is usually performed by those persons who have a feel for the earth, not the World. It matters not a jot what means they have of accomplishing this apparent knowledge, or even why. I believe it is part of a 'magic' of which we will probably have no knowledge; and again, in my view, it doesn't matter. It is not part of our survival but our comfort.

There is a 'downside' to this. As in: 'A little knowledge (however come by) is a dangerous thing.' Controllers recognise these premises. What I would call 'spiritual' things they use for their own ends. They are sad people. They play upon certain weaknesses of humans to ply the trade of their (often mis-truths and understandings) for profit. Do you really think that the 'Astrologer' in perhaps, your favourite magazine or newspaper cares what he/she is saying? These people sprout BS globally. How can what they say possibly apply to an individual? It's your thoughts that count; just leave me out of it.

The reason for this amorphous omniscience ('know-all') is due to the notion that we cannot explain certain events in our lives. Why does the sun rise and set? What is a thunderstorm? What is a tsunami? Why do I live in a desert? Why are there bombs falling around me? Who the hell am I? And so forth. Horrors continue: small or otherwise.

There is a time when what we are presented with by others, is not good enough. We have learned that there may be better things for ourselves on this earth (Many of us might have given up the World as a sick joke). Not: 'The grass is greener on the other side of the fence', syndrome, but that I can change, am willing to change and am, as a human animal, willing to 'go for it'.


Being able to change is the first element of life. Life was to become nothing if not changed in some way. Some of us call it 'natural selection'. That is our nature (earth); it's not the World we live in, which was created by some humans for their own satisfaction, glorification, greed and so forth. They want to 'stabilise' the junto (a group of conspirators). These people, mostly, were sexually mutilated from an early age. They then want to vent their anger of this upon the rest of us (mutilated or not, un/subconscious or not). These are the people who want/need viagra, bigger penises and larger tits. These are the people who want to further mutilate their bodies with nipple-rings, tattoos and so forth. These are the people who want to mutilate the earth upon which they are priviledged to live but care not a jot about those whom they displace or the ozone layer which affords them their lives (such as they are). These people don't like themselves; they are sad and want to make everyone else sad. They are very clever at this.

I seem to be saying that these people who want to destroy us (and in a sense, themselves) are not responsible, in some way. That is not what I mean to say because we all have choices. We are products of a sexual environment and we therefore individuals with our own minds. Some choose to let others' lead them, some choose not to. By doing what they do to others, they are committing a sort of suicide.

The World appears to be really stuck with the notion of 'leaders', 'politicians', 'rulers', 'laws' and so forth, whatever our own 'politics' or 'religion'. It is time we disregarded these words and found a new way of keeping ourselves on this earth without the threat of some bully trying to make us as they are or at least condoning their behaviours.

These people have made sure they have the weapons ('weapons of mass destruction' and so forth). They are most often, in the beginning, words: (aka. 'The pen is mightier than the sword', rhetoric) but they use the sword because they are bullies without the proper use of the pen. Apart from their own rhetoric (which is easy, given a language), they feel words are a weakness, especially when they are spoken in positive and not negative; therefore they reduce themselves to physical arms, whether they be stones, arrows or missiles.

Bullies may have a physical strength (but this may be disputed). It is, in the 'bible' story of David and Goliath. (The 'bible' is often a good reference book, as is the 'I Ching' and many others.) Bullies also tend to group together. This gives them added strength. They become some sort of 'gang'. I beat up a (single) bully at school when I was very young; I was a weak boy (in lots of ways), but I beat him. It is not something I am proud of. If there had been two of them, it would have been another story.

But bullies (World), hopefully, will be replaced by the people of the earth. I suppose only 'time will tell', as they say. The only way to do this, for most of us, is to fill ourselves with positive things and thoughts. Refuse to let people make one sad. This means the most dreadful of 'give-ups'.

* Give up the newspaper.

* Give up the television.

* Give up the 'news'.

* Give up most other forms of media, except those that you have need for or want for positive entertainment. Most entertainment seems to be negative.

* Give up voting for people you don't personally know.

I believe that most people don't need power over others. They also don't want power (or bullies) inflicting power upon them. Most people are what we call the 'Salt of the earth' (sodium). The rotters need a place to rant from (podium). They are the odium. Society (if we need or want it) might need some form of management (by those with proven skills), it certainly does not need, or want, controllers (however they designate themselves with fancy titles, to your personal detriment).

Time, it is, to come from our self-woven cocoons and become butterflies and enjoy the earth. It can be done, but it needs to be done locally, and peacefully.

Past purveyors of this theory believed that such a 'revolution' came from fighting with a sword. I disbelieve this notion. I still, in my naivety, believe that humans can achieve a solution that leads to a positive end and can be accomplished, given due consideration to our thought processes that are not conceived through any form of drug that controllers administer. A local "Hi!", with a smile. That is the 'Butterfly Effect'.*

April, 2003





Back to Contents






Australian Reader's



To: The Population of Australia (disregarding those who arrive by means other than those set down by a 'White' Australia Policy).

Dear Citizens,

How are you? I hope you are well.

The recent developments (some call it a 'tragedy') in New York and consequently, the retaliation-fiasco in the Middle East have resulted in the fact that we need an army to make sure that Australia is a force to be reckoned with in this 'conflict', our so-called 'War on Terrorism'.

Since our Australian 'Army' (mostly bull ants without testicles), 'Navy' (several canoes without paddles and wrong creeks (or even creaks) (it's the dry season), a wind-surfer (high on speed)) and an Air-force pilot (a BALSA-WOOD GLIDER FANATIC, whose main claim to fame is a new twist to his rubber band for his propeller), leave very much to be desired.

Whilst in the past we have recruited (i.e. bludgeoned the innocent into cannon-fodder from the youngest members of society [We will remember them!] ), there are a number of changes that we must make to our existing recruiting policy, since we made you vote for us to be in charge of you.

We must all realise that the older members of our society (and there are growing numbers of these since they are the last post-war 'boom' ('there won't be another', 'it will never happen again.') are, at this stage in our history, going to put a burden upon the economy of your Australia by view of their burden on the public purse by way of pensions, Medicare and so forth, in the coming years. This, of course will affect the pensions and superannuation of those who claim control, i.e. your chosen government.

It has therefore been decided, by your government, that those persons over 50 years of age, should be the first to be recruited for our NEW AUSTRALIAN UNISEX ARMY *.

The logic/philosophy is a purely political one.

After the Last World War, that is, World War Two (or II), a great number of children were generated. At that time, the notion of 'Screw you" was directed at females, not politicians.

With our present knowledge, we, in our wisdom, have decreed that it is the children- 'OUR FUTURE'- who must endure, not the 'Older Person (they had Older Persons Year in 19-- and we have 50 cent coins to prove this).

These children, were/are known as the 'post-war boom'. These children, in our society, are therefore now over the age of fifty.

It is known through advertising experts that the nominal age for purchasing goods (and extending the coffers of politicians' self-assumed entitlements to rip-off the public domain) is within the 20's age-group, (when people marry, have children and need to care for them.) The older folks, as we now call them, are only responsible for themselves. They've 'had their day'.

It is therefore obvious that those people born in the 1940's , and who will be a burden on the outcomes of students now entering schools and colleges, should be those who can form a NEW AUSTRALIAN UNISEX ARMY (NAUA) to protect them.

There is no doubt that the over-50's have skills. It is these skills that we require for our NEW AUSTRALIAN UNISEX ARMY.

History has PROVEN, beyond doubt that, that those over 50 (which include most of the world's controllers) have the skills to reduce the animal Man to dust.

There will be rewards for those survivors in this conflict. Upon landing back on these shores of ours/yours, they will be given a public applaud, medals, Certificates and keys to any cities remaining. Remembrance services will be held each year for those who do not make it. WE WILL REMEMBER THEM.

In the initial stages, there will be a general 'call to arms'. Those respondents who act immediately, will receive special gift vouchers from Koles, L-Mart and Alcocoa (amongst others). In view of the amount spent by the over 50's on home improvements, Burnnings declined our request to sponsor us. They have been 'targeted' for blacklisting.

Should the conflict become more unstable, or escalate, then a 'general call-up' will be instigated, requiring any 'reasonably-abled' body to become a conscript, especially over the age of thirty (30). This will be legally binding and enforced by our caring police force. Anyone objecting for any reason may be liable to imprisonment, euthanasia or other forms of incarcerated treatment including mustard gas testing, common cold virus or other forms of biological testing.

Road-signs will then reflect that: 'Police are now targeting General Call-up Defectors'.

New road-sign will reflect: 'REMEMBER - Over 50's in built-up areas unless otherwise signed.' This will be for the benefit of the blind.

We have already in place a method by which machine guns can be mounted on wheel-chairs and planes that will carry the 'Disabled' logo on their transport doors.

It is essential that this letter be read fully. Further details may be made to your local government representative but must include a self-addressed and stamped envelope. The judge's decision is final and no correspondence will be entered into. However, a blank cheque, signed and dated may be sent to: via our secure server.

Acceptance of this letter by introducing it into your home from your mail-box, assumes that you are available for conscript and abide by the laws set down by your caring government..

To ensure privacy, this letter is sent in an unmarked envelope.

* Unisex includes any person over the age of fifty, male, female, she-male, transvestite, cross-dresser, nudist, naturist, homosexual, lesbian or of any other sexual proclivity or persuasion.

Signed, in his absence,

Ware Seegon

Ware Seegon

for John Coward

Feral Prime Minister




A blind version of this text is available in Braille. Please set your browser to:

A deaf version is available on CD or is downloadable. Please set your browser to:

(Please note, to hear this, you will need a pretty good deaf-aid and new batteries. These are available from any good store who can understand what you are saying.)

For those without the use of hands or feet, we do not recommend any of the above. If you are so afflicted, please get some-one to register you.

Dead people need not apply.





Back to Contents















For my daughters and anyone else interested.

CASE STUDY of an angry man, husband, father and grandfather.

I think this essay is for me rather than anybody else, so please excuse the self-indulgence.

I am an angry person. I have always been so. I don't know why, exactly, but it's a truth of my nature. I am also a happy person. Angry does not necessarily mean violent. Anger is a force. It can be directed in a positive way as well as a negative way. Anger is often (probably most often) due to frustration of some kind.

For some things, I have infinite patience and for other things, I have very little. I don't like things that don't work as expected. This is too much for those things that haven't even asked for my patience but they are consigned to the bin with much swearing and so forth. I'm not proud of this. I know it is a failing and therefore negative. This, however, is only true of material objects, not live ones, fortunately.

Where my anger comes from is a mystery to me; but it is there and I need to cope with it. It is sometimes not easy.

I think the anger comes from frustration.

As a very young child, I would bash my head against the cot into which I was placed. I can remember this.

I lived within the same room as my parents in a dingy ground-floor flat in Southend-on-Sea, Essex, England, having been born in July, 1944, during WW2.

I was born in an Anderson shelter during a doodle-bug raid. For my mother, a very sensitive woman (and what woman isn't!), it must have been dreadful. One cannot conceive (let alone give birth) to such a notion.

My frustrations came from my mother, who had endured bombings, being an ambulance driver during the Blitz and so forth. Tough for her; I admire her for that. And it all stemmed from a conception (about which I will never know) and a biological memory no-one can comprehend.

So I was frustrated, at the breast and later still. I became a loner then; it has continued, although I am also a survivor; an angry survivor at that.

It seems from 'Day One' that I was opposed to control over my person. I always hated 'Empire Day' and the waving of flags (even as a very small boy). I have retained that 'hatred' to this day. The 'hatred' has changed to a feeling, not an emotion. 'Flag-waving' is the cause of our present World predicament, especially as it is brain-washed into us (those that let it).

But, at present, leave politics out of it.

The anger that I feel against certain things, is more rarely with me these days, as I approach 60 years old. But it can rear its head at odd moments. It is nothing to do with any sort of drink, drugs or anything I can put my finger on, because its always been there, nesting under my personality. Anyway, I may drink a little but I don't take any drugs and never have done. I am disgustingly healthy and always have been. As I get older, I get more healthy, it seems. This may sound strange but I think maybe it is because I have generally found a way out from this anger. Reading these articles, the reader can see this anger.

In a sense, this anger is not 'channelled', since I have to write. It's always been inside me, though I only started writing when I was 12 years old. The fact that I write almost about the same thing every time but in different ways and perhaps contexts, is interesting. I think, by continually pursuing the same basic notions, this has helped manage my anger behaviour.

I am not a violent person, quite the contrary, I dislike any form of violence and refuse to be part of it, even by listening to others' violent behaviour.

I am a school teacher, qualified in English and teaching children with Special Needs. The latter I have been teaching for over twenty years. Students and young people keep me young. The trite notion that boys only grow into bigger boys, is a bit sad. What's wrong with a bigger boy? I keep young (in mind, though older in body) and my students relate to that. They see my overall happiness. I enjoy being silly and I don't have a problem with that. At least I'm not an older 'stick-in-the-mud'.

This overall happiness does not mean that I have led a charmed life; quite the contrary. But I, as I said, I am a survivor. I've done more things in my life than most would do in two or three life-times. I keep very busy. Even the other day I happened to overhear a conversation in a chemist shop I was passing through which went something like:

"I asked him what it was like to be retired."

He said: "I'm bored, there is nothing to do."

This is very sad. Sometimes I wish I could say that there was nothing to do, but I can't; there is always plenty to do. People ask me why I never watch television or read newspapers. There are two reasons: One, I can't find any value in either of them (it's mostly lies and fake, anyway) and, two, I have too many others things to do that are creative, not destructive.

So, I can't explain the anger in me. I feel that explanations sometimes cover up reasons, so I don't bother too much. Maybe a good rant and rave is as good as a bout of crying. Maybe this is part of our survival mechanism, I don't know. But it helps to get it off one's chest, as they say.





Back to Contents












ANXIETY - (Panic Syndrome)


Anxiety is primarily, a disquietude of mind. It causes a feeling of uneasiness, distress, apprehension and fear, at least. It is an 'absolute' as a personal set of feelings; that is, it is very real and stressful. It is based on, what I believe is the force that drives Man, that is, fear. We are constantly afraid. This fear is part of our inheritance as human animals; it is the reason for our survival, so far; therefore it is a survival mechanism. Without this fear, we would not have survived so long.

The consequences of this fear, also results in our anxieties. We are anxious because we, as Man, have the ability to think of consequences (i.e. to think ahead, or extrapolate). In other words, we can remember to a greater degree (we think) than other animals.

The mechanism for this is through our hormones, specifically, adrenaline, the 'fight or flight' hormone.

This anxiety may or may not lead to what is termed 'panic' syndrome. Panic is the result of not being able to cope with this/ these anxieties at a particular time or times. A syndrome is a set of symptoms (things we feel or cause us to feel), that is, it is not a 'thing' in itself but the result of a number of things.

If our anxieties were to remain on a 'normal' hunter/gathering plane, we might not exhibit anxieties which we might be able to cope with otherwise, perhaps.. Unfortunately, this seems not to be the case with the human animal.

The reasons that we become anxious are many. They may stem from early child-hood experiences (even biological memory), or any of those that come later. We may become anxious due to a particular trauma (even at a later date) that we do not remember.. We may become anxious from a build-up of events that are not consciously linked (much like a dream that seems real at the time but becomes disconnected upon awakening) but suddenly rears its often 'ugly' head.

The problem with anxiety states or 'panic' syndrome (as they may be read to be the same or similar), is that they are hard to get rid of. People rarely see them as something they need some form of therapy for, and even those who we feel should be able to help (e.g. the medical profession) are not always able to (unless they have experienced it for themselves).

Anxiety states are 'whole-body' states. They are not just something in the mind. They are 'real' states occurring through whatever is incorrect (at the time) with the rest of the body. So it is not the 'mind' that needs to be treated first (if that were possible) but the whole body. I believe it is the whole body that affects the mind.

I have suffered from anxiety disorder for a number of years. I have researched this and discovered a number of factors which can help but none that really helped me. There are a number of techniques one can try to eliminate the feeling when it appears (which it seems to do sometimes 'out-of-the-blue').

One of the main causes of anxiety syndrome is depression. This depression may be caused by the general sadness that we allow in our lives from sources over which we can have no control except by turning them off. That is, turn off the television. Turn off the radio. Don't buy newspaper and magazines (unless you use them for your entertainment only). Give me a point that any 'news' is relevant over which we can have direct control and I will retract my statement. Sorry; you lost! Other forms of depression result from improper indulgence. This means food, alcohol and other drugs. I lump them all together.

Within an already depressive state (if you listen to the 'news' or indulge in other people's lives, most probably fake, anyway), an overindulgence of any other intake into the body, one is ripe for an anxiety state/panic attack.

No drugs as they are defined by drug companies and however administered will help. They are a placebo to the lack of knowledge of those proposing them. They are a 'cop-out' from the reality that those prescribing them have not a clue about any treatment. They have not thought it through and probably don't have the ability to ('qualified' or otherwise).

The answer comes from very simple experiments that cannot harm you. Like all 'answers' I am not claiming a 'cure' or anything else. I'm merely stating what I have found works for me. There is no reason why it should not work for you. Without writing a text-book (which you probably wouldn't read, anyway), the results of my experience can be checked against anything else written (except for the retrieval of cash from your wallet).

Given that most people's diet lacks certain necessary nutrition and the plethora of junk about this diet and that, this vitamin or that, this herbal remedy or that, this regime or that and so on, ad nauseum, I feel that we should listen to our bodies. They belong to us, it's all we have whilst alive. "We live in our own head', as a colleague once said to our students. We can't enjoy anything without this function in some way, even is we are disabled.

I know when my body needs a substance. It might be chocolate. I go and buy a bar of chocolate and 'chill-out' on it. It satisfies my needs at the time and I don't buy another one for ages. If I buy it and eat it incessantly, then I have a problem. This is purely an example.

Because I am basically happy (I never watch television any more, I don't have a radio (I sold it), I've never bought a newspaper in 58 years, I have no interest in the fake world we are (almost) forced to live within, I detest 'aural' wallpaper when I go shopping, I have no interest whatsoever in anything I don't have some control over, I've never voted for a politician in my life, I detest flag-waving, 'national' anthems, rhetoric and so forth. I prefer to be me. I'm not so bad, either, like you, when you get rid of all the crap that makes you sad.

An answer is sugar (or even better, glucose).

I was talking about anxiety!

I've seen all the stuff on sugar. I've seen all the stuff on salt. I've also said that we should listen to our bodies. I don't always heed when it (my body) calls. I then become anxious and silly things make it worse (it depends on the original causes for this anxiety which may or may not be know to you).

I have found that a couple of spoonfuls of sugar (any variety will do) placed, preferably under the tongue (it reaches the bloodstream faster) and within less than an hour (during which you do something active that takes your mind of yourself) and you feel much better. Much better. Your body is saying: I need sugar. Indulge it. The brain needs sugar to work properly. However, if you take glucose, put three teaspoonfuls into a small glass of water and drink it. Glucose is more readily absorbed than cane sugar. Both work.

The listening to others about what is and what is not 'good' for you is dependent on some-one's thinking at the time; it's not necessarily a truth for you, depending on your circumstances.

This, of course, is not any sort of answer for a lot of people. They have their own reasons for being as they are (their own 'agenda', as they say). Some want to change, others don't; that's their prerogative.

If you look for positive openings, they will appear magically. If you stay with the negative, that will last an interminable and most often unbearable lifetime.

You might try this simple experiment with a dose of sugar. it might work. If it does, then let me know; I'd be happy for you and myself.

The routine:

If you feel 'not quite right' then take two teaspoonfuls of sugar (or a small glass of glucose).

Go and do something that is active and takes your mind off things.

Within about fifteen minutes you will feel a different person.

If you do drink alcohol, make sure you drink at least a pint of water before retiring. It will prevent hangover (through dehydration) and allow your liver to recover. Taking a spoonful of sugar will also help your liver to recover. No other artificial aids will need to be ingested into your body. The less drugs the better!





Back to Contents















Note: It is traditional to use 'he', 'his', or a male form to represent humans. I am not a traditionalist. His or her is correct. However, for simplicity's sake, I will stick to the traditional; please bear with me.

Please, as they say, excuse the French. The 'french' is lower-case; I have no problem with the French as a people; but my personal, positive, experiences are not part of this essay.

I just said, 'as a people'. People are a product of the group amongst which they live. They are individuals as they were when conceived and born as such. Their (individual) proclivities are such that they wish to be themselves and (perhaps) live with others as or in a group.

Notions of 'French', or 'English' or 'American' and so forth (with capital letters attached), are usually far from people's minds when they are in the business of personal survival. The notion of having capital letters attached because of their place of birth, requires people (if they so wish) to become part of what we call a 'nation'. Like me, many people may not choose to be part of a 'nation'.

Now a 'nation' is a long way from an individual. It is therefore appended with a capital, viz. 'Nation'. So now, an individual, born in a certain country (any country) and who aspires to this notion, becomes a 'Frenchman' or an 'Englishman' or whatever.

Given that there is agreement that a person's individualism is now to be incorporated (in my view, eroded) into a mass of individuals (i.e. a group), they then should/must bide by the notions of the group for their survival. Rules or 'laws' are set up to establish this. People lose their individuality, as such, and become part of a larger organisation upon whom they then are coerced in some way to rely on the Nation for their survival. In other words, they become part of a Nation.

Man is a strange animal. If he were part of the 'ordinary' earth of animals, plants and so forth, he would be perfectly happy, chugging along and making the best of things. However, this, apparently was not to be so. Whatever a 'designer' of the universe you might choose (if any), made it sure that Man was to be different. The difference is called by various names, e.g. 'reasonable' and so forth (or he has 'will'). Man is a 'reasonable' animal, we are told (by whom?). The truth that we cannot define 'reasonable', except in individual word usage, causes the chaos within our ranks either as individuals or groups because the meaning is different for both individuals and groups.

Individuals are really not part of this essay. Individuals will always be so. Within a group they may be tolerated but not often accepted since they are classed as 'outsiders' and not part of the collective (group). It is their independence from the group that gives the group itself a viability, as is my belief. The independent person can have truths about a group that the group does not have about itself, otherwise it would not be a group with a group mentality.

I did a study of groups many years ago in the 1970's for my leading to a 'teaching degree'. That was 'bull-shit'. Every one of us teaches, every day. We do not need bits of paper (which is what it amounts to) to prove this, only the authority of our peers.

Groups, have, as they say, a dynamic. With individualism gone to three or four winds, the group has now an identity (Nation), especially if we give it a name (some type of 'gang', which implies by definition, something negative, I believe). A name signifies importance to a lot of people, especially with a capital letter attached. French, English Katmandouish, American and so on and so on interminably. Groups therefore, need to elect, of have forced upon them, some person (oh, dear!) an individual who claims to be able to lead them in a battle for whatever it is that is flavour of the moment and claim their salvation from the harm of spurious others, who actually pose no threat to their survival as individuals or a group.

Hang on, I've just said that the individual is lost in a group situation! What am I saying? An individual. No that's not correct. This person is not an individual. He is the product of the group's idea of an individual. In his own right he is not an individual since he has joined the group. Words are bull-shit.

This person, (born of the group), is usually a person who realises, probably with the aiding and abetting of others of like mind, and with the power of personality (in a first instance) to sway the rest of the group to his way of thinking. His way, of course, is with the backing of his cohorts. It is not individual thinking but a sub-group of those upon he is presuming to load his power. His (their power of rhetoric (aka. 'bullshit')) and a probable means of power by way of some sort of force (paid for by the stealing of their money or goods) to fund their behaviours.

Thus is born the 'ruler', sometimes called a 'leader', which I believe, is a misnomer. Now there are, of course, many types of 'ruler'. There are those who have the best interests of the group (or Nation, or whatever you want to call it), at heart and those who only have their personal ends to follow. This is not individual. These people are born of the group for one reason or another and they see an opening to use the group for their ends. Without the group, they would be totally lost because they could not survive as a true individual (who can and does survive without much recourse to others).

Of the first type of ruler, the one who has the best interests of his group at heart, we know very little. Like individuals, they are chugging along quite nicely, thank you.

Of the second type of ruler, we have a plethora. These are the people who use words more than most, who are empty vessels making loud bangs and those with little substance at all. Unfortunately, these people are the most dangerous. They are dangerous because they can apply knowledge of the most negative things to creating a nation of zombies.

Since I remain an individual, I cannot understand the mentality of these people. What they see as an end (if they ever do) is beyond my understanding. However, in the meantime, they create havoc for the rest of the world (and the earth) and because there are differences in a nation because of geographical location and therefore the development of different race groups (via evolution), they seem to want to fight each other for possession of something, albeit a piece of ground or whatever.

I do not believe that Man, as a whole, is a violent animal, probably the opposite. As individuals we are fine. When we become groups, with the group dynamic or mentality; that's when the trouble seems to start. It's not that groups are negative per se, it's that the group is exploited by a member(s) for his own ends and has the physical strength to carry out his 'will'.

Leaders cannot survive on their own, since they are born of a group. Therefore, there are no born leaders, only born followers.

If in a group, people see skills in a person that are necessary for their survival , they will elect a someone or two to perhaps guide them. This is democracy. This is the first type of ruler.

In the case of a group where a person has not been elected because of his skills but has taken over the group by some means, then this is not democracy. However, the second seems to prevail. The so-called leader (and his cohorts) then manipulate the group and afterwards pretend that this is democracy. The group is given one or two (or none) options whom to elect. The option differences are minimal. They are certainly not connected to the survival of the group (or part of it) if it doesn't suit them. Hence the beginnings of National bull-shit.

Bull-shit is lies, pure and simple. More than that, though, it is embellishments of some truths, perhaps, which make the bull-shit sound plausible. Because large populations (Nations) are so far spread, it becomes increasingly more difficult to establish a total rule. If a population is large enough and spread far and wide enough, then sub-groups form within the main core.

Sub-groups then establish their own identity and leaders, where necessary. This creates diversions and divisions of the main politic. There may evolve leaders better suited to his job (and possibly, of course, ones who are more benevolent to their clients).

However, the 'big boss', does not like this state of affairs. He no longer has total control over his minions (he can't, remember, bear to be alone, otherwise he can't survive, his only method of survival is to have his mates around him. If they perchance dissent, he has them done away with).

Thus emerges the notion of using Man's best weapon, fear. Fear is primal; there is little we can do to allay fears except by accumulating data which can lead to a knowledge of truths. Some data and knowledge we cannot have, or have not the wherewithal to understand it.

We think that, having seen the devastating effects of a nuclear bomb blast (the worst bomb we can imagine, so far), that we have seen devastation. A nuclear bomb may kill and maim hundreds of thousands of souls. A word of fear can kill or maim millions of people. This is the effect that the un-benevolent leader wants. But nothing is happening enough to produce this fear. So he contrives it, using bull-shit.

Events like September the 11th in America (I forgot which year, it's unimportant, apparently) were not the first to get people to rally round the Nation (i.e. Leader). However, this event was bull-shit, par excellence. It was engineered by the America Leader, his cohorts and no-one else. The fact that most of the deaths were needless did not worry the Leader of that country. What's a few deaths of one's own group to the majesty of power? ('I'm not sure of why I want to do this, I'm not very clever, only dangerous to my group and all others'). It had been done before and will be done again (unless we realise it and stop it).

Fear of 'terrorist' attack/s then brought the country to its knees, praying for some salvation for their 'sins'. They got it. An attack on an innocent country that had nothing to do with the bull-shit that led to its demise.

Then, following closely on the heels of their pre-organised, original terrorist attack on an innocent group of people, they followed through with their terrorist attack on an innocent country (never mind what was going on internally). These same people then invent another scare, that of a disease of which there was no know cure (ha! ha!) and an escalation of bull-shit that further brings the World these people have invented, to its knees fearing the worst.

Goodness, if you can't see past these moronic leaders, get some a pair get a pair free (not the rose-tinted ones).

Despite all the killing (which can never be redeemed), the Leader then proclaims victory for his version of democracy (read, totalitarianism). This Nation believes it is the Policeman of the World, bringing liberation, peace and harmony. Bull-shit, yet again. As we all know, policemen are paid by the Leader (from the money they have extracted from the population under penalty of some pretty harsh treatment) to do his bidding. The same with the Armed Forces. 'If I can pay a large enough force, I can rule the World'; that's their motto. 'I think I will call this the Right of Might. That's enough capital letters to give me support.'

Beware the Word, it might be the last you hear. Do you want to die from bull-shit?

You will probably not die by a bomb but by your fear of it. You will still die from bull-shit.

Do not be afraid; that's what those who deem to control you want. Life is a risk from pre-conception. If it weren't a risk, we wouldn't be here now. As I've most often said, fear drives Man. It has, according to the language we use, a negative and positive side. Fear makes us survive but it also makes us vulnerable. It makes us vulnerable because we understand something of it. We can and are, as Shakespeare said: 'Frighted by false fire.' (Hamlet)

Every day we take a risk. We never know when we will 'Shuffle off this mortal coil'. (Hamlet)

What's the point of worrying (the feeling of fear)? Go about your life as you would, without listening to the World, but listen to the earth, it speaks louder and clearer than the World and has the truths.

What we must not do, is to believe what we are told without examining the data. By this, I mean examining as much data as we can get hold of ourselves, not that which is presented to us through media (data merchants) which are owned by the Leader. There is plenty of data available that has more truths than the corporate media. It's our responsibility to ourselves ultimately, then our closest. We've been 'brain-washed' into believing the printed word (and now the visual word). The two are not necessarily complimentary, compatible, nor even go together, if it suits a leader.

We should look for proof; that is, we should look for truths, as individuals. This is the scientific method: to try to disprove, not to prove. That way, we get to truths; there's never an Ultimate Truth (of anything else that is Ultimate); that was one of Plato's follies.

Do not join groups if you don't feel it correct to. If you do, that's your choice as an individual and you must accept the consequences. Examine all data before you do anything. If you are too lazy, that's your choice also and the consequences are yours.

I was born in England. That makes me English, yes? No. I am english, that makes me an individual.

None of the following is selfish (that's a 'leader's' word)

I am a way and a truth.

I fear the earth and will survive because of it, because I am positive.

I believe in myself first (and therefore others).

I refuse to be made sad by those with whom I don't agree.

I refuse to listen to those I believe offer me nothing but sadness.

I refuse to believe in the fear made upon me by those who deem to control me.

Nationalism breeds war.

Flag-wavers and those singing Nationalist songs are sad people, they do not allow a mind of their own.

Your might like to contemplate these two poems that I wrote back in the 1970's before all my present knowledge.


Necessity of the invention is the mother.

Such it is.

We invent hope

through fear

We invent faith

through fear

We invent purpose

through fear

We invent all

through fear

We are afraid,

therefore we invent our lives

through fear.


Time saw them in a senseless world,

mindful children made into sages,

creeping through a history of ages.

Time saw them stop and listen,

to the sounds that filled the air;

It saw them struggle

against the earth that put them there.

Time saw them grow and nurture,

fighting all against One

and One against all,

where symbols won.

And Time saw them pass;

gone into the aeons of its ceaseless self,

where Life grew dusty on some hidden shelf.

Peter K Sharpen




Back to Contents





DEATH (natural, accident and injury)


From 'The Kipper and the Corpse' :

Dr Price: I don't understand. He's been dead for about ten hours.

Basil: Yes, it's so final, isn't it?"

Sybil: Basil!

Basil: Well, wouldn't you say it was final, dear? I'd say it was bloody final.

(Fawlty Towers by John Cleese and Connie Booth (from The Complete Fawlty Towers, Methuen)) (c) 1988.

(Emphasis on 'final' is the author's, from the actor's intonation)

Lyall Watson wrote a book called the 'Romeo Error'. This book changed my way of thinking about death.

But it didn't change it that much.

I no longer have the details but I did read in a Salvation Army paper regarding the notion of an after-life and how it was all 'better' when we were dead (providing we did the 'right' things whilst alive, of course). I replied to this article referring it basically, to an offence against life as it is (and as they supposed, God-given). I received no reply.

I am no longer concerned with this ludicrous notion of an after-life.

We are here; or we are not here.

Here, is conscious; not here is not conscious.

It is the fear of dying and what might come after that we conceive in our naiivity.

It is the notion that we will be sort of 'conscious' after our death that makes us afraid. Yet you do not fail to go to sleep, even with a mind full of 'troubles', eventually. The body decides, not the mind.

An 'after-life' (in my view), is one that lives on within a living person as a notion and nothing else. In other words, and as an example, my father, my friends/relatives who have died, live on within me. They do not look upon me from above (as they say, heaven forbid!). They live with me (and all those living) and within me, not outside of me. Thus I call upon myself and their memory to uplift me. Of course, they do. As relatives, especially; but as friends, also. They answer my questions and because they are like me, (or like me), I get the correct answers. They like me and are like me because I am like them and have liked them. Reasons do not matter. This is spiritual, not concrete.

Let's face it; none of us knows when we will die, despite any calling to an occult, a 'god' or otherwise. We only pretend so, so that we can feel comfortable. (We all need a father?)

We never know when we will have even the slightest accident. These things happen; they are not pre-ordained or anything else; they just happen. At least, that is my argument.

The simple fact of the matter is that we don't ever know what will happen next. Very few (I might say, indeed, none) of us know what will happen in the next moment. We are all aware of this, even with our disabilities (and I exclude or include no-one and everyone).

Our personal survival depends on doing things. That's what Man does (woman as well, of course; she is included as a majority of Man as an animal).

It is doing things (hunting, gathering, looking after) that are positive and ongoing. These, alone, keep us alive as an animal. Ever notice another animal, other than a human, who is not doing something? You can't see the grass grow but isn't it doing something? Even dying?

Sitting in contemplation (which seems to be allowed only to Homo Sapiens, though I doubt it) is fine. How do we 'know' that other animals don't do this? Of course they must, in their own way. But sitting watching others is only productive when it means you will do something yourself. Passive watching (without some interaction) is sure death of the spirit and is not living; it is death of the spirit which one once had.

The point, then, I ask, is why bother about death? It won't solve current issues (living now). If you go to sleep and wake next morning (or whenever), you should say, 'Here I am. All is right with the world.'

Despite what you might be taught to think, this is so for everyone, even those in apparent imminent danger of annihilation.

As one gets older, the notion of dying increases, especially as we find it harder to cope with the notion of some people leading us into a 'war-zone' (whatever that may be) about which we may have little or no choice.

Look: some truths are these:

We have little or no control over those who take us into battle for their own ends.

We have little or no control over those who tell us, for their own ends, about our 'well-being' unless we deny them by not listening.

Listen to your body. It will tell you when you need something. If you do not heed the warnings, you may be on your way out.

If an accident, or death comes to you, you will either survive (accident) or you will not (death).

If there is a 'life' after death, then you won't know it. You won't be conscious of it, otherwise you would be alive. Death (not being aware/conscious of being awake), is death of the consciousness. There can be no 'after-life' if it is a conscious one. 'Life' is being conscious of the fact, however we perceive it. Death is not a 'realisation', it is nothing short of not being able to be conscious of life.

There is absolutely no point whatsoever is supposing that our 'life' will continue on any other plane of existence. These are all words propagated by Man. The 'Pearly Gates' cannot exist if we are not conscious of them and have a realisation about them.

People's beliefs are what they are told, or what they have come personally to believe through their experiences. Beliefs are strongest when there is trouble now, or ahead. This does not mean that they have any credence, in the long run. They are part of our comfort zone.

If you believe, then so be it. What your beliefs are, so be them. Please, however, do not inflict them upon me, or anyone else. Beliefs are personal; they may be shared with the willing but not inflicted. Whatever your beliefs, they are your responsibility since they are your choice. I may agree or disagree, that is my choice also, and my responsibility. We are correct only to ourselves, not others.

Giving comfort to someone else, is listening, not foisting our beliefs on them. Like advice, you don't have to take it.

When a loved one departs from their consciousness and is no longer available to us as a life-form, they become within us much more than before. They were always there, since we have a memory of them. Now, that memory is a memory only. However, they continue to exist within us and they are still available to us.

Death is not an end. Apart from the fact that bodily we depart into the ground (or sea) some way, we live in a memory of the living. To me, this is a comforting notion. To keep the memory living, we must do the best for ourselves to ensure this. email: Back to Contents

EVERYONE needs...

(Peter K Sharpen)


Everyone needs a friend.

Everyone needs someone to talk to.

Everyone needs to be heard.

Everyone needs to discover their father.

Everyone needs to love something.

Everyone needs failures to succeed.

Everyone needs a goal.

Everyone needs some love.

Everyone needs some positive critique.

Everyone needs encouragement.

Everyone needs a 'put up' not a 'put down'.

Everyone needs a truth.

Everyone needs a 'hand up' not a 'hand out'.

Everyone needs a faith in real terms.

Everyone needs respect; but it is earned.

Everyone needs a sense of humour.

Everyone needs to laugh.

Everyone needs to cry.

Everyone needs a good rest.

Everyone needs to dream.

Everyone needs to protect someone.

Everyone needs to feel protected.

Everyone needs to give something positive.

Everyone needs to be forgiven, unconditionally.

Everyone needs not to be controlled by others.

Everyone needs sanctity.

Everyone needs their space.

Everyone needs their own place of quiet.

Everyone needs a gift.

Everyone needs to give.

Everyone needs ...





Back to Contents











We must not forget that between 'good' and 'bad', their is a continuum. That is, there are no absolutes such as 'good' or 'bad', merely shades of grey between the two. Any one person fills a certain shade of grey, thus there is no 'black' or 'white'. Therefore, there are not 'Good people' or 'Bad people' but a multiplicity between the two extremes. Hence the title of this essay.

Better people are those generally referred to as 'the salt of the earth'. They are those people or persons who make claim/s to nothing, desire little and hurt no-one (as far as it is possible for them). They have no pretensions, they do not try to control others, they live by rules that they set for themselves to live their lives out, despite it was given to them most often unwittingly.

The world is (nearly) full of these people. 'Full' is the operative word. Whether it was his phrase or not, Billy Connolley called them, the 'ordinary people'. No-one can cap that.

It is, if I might use his phrase, the 'ordinary people' that are the main-stay of any community, albeit described as 'civilised' or 'savage'. In my view, the more the savage, the better, since savage means aboriginal or native, i.e., those closest to the earth upon which they live, not a World as described by others.

Better people, are, however, naiive. That is, because of their nature, they believe (or would like to believe) that all others are the same as themselves. This is, of course, not a truth. There are other types of people. These, in terms of the 'good' defined above, are the worse people.

The worse people, are those who, in varying forms, wish to control others. For their own reasons, they have determined that the better should be subjected to their whims and fancies. They become bullies.

Bullies set out to make others conform to their own ends. They do this by buying their friends (one way or another) and then subjecting the better people to their mores and wiles.

They do this in very subtle ways, nowadays. They invent a notion of democracy (government by the people, for the people, etc.) and then force the better people to elect them as their representatives. Of course, the better people fall for this (they see better in everyone) and then, that is their downfall.

The bullies then invent 'laws'. That is, rules turned upside down and round-a-bout that they then claim are for the 'good' of their subjects (well, you voted them in!). These laws then have sanctions put upon the so-called transgressors that generally include some form of incarceration (which the better pay for) in some dubious jail/gaol or otherwise, or monetary punishments for which most of them do not pay because they can't in the first place (so the better pay for these as well). Other bullies, the do-gooders then make out that these poor souls need to be reconciled with society, so they give these people everything that the better people do not have. There is no disagreement that these worse people need some reconciliatation but it is not within their nature (for long) to be able to demonstrate their new-found reconciliation.

Get real! These anal sphincters, for whatever reason give grief to the better of us. They get better treatment than the 'ordinary' people. They get a home, bed, heat, television, a way of making a living, without any cost to themselves except their situation. We all have a situation. We don't all want everyone else to look after us. This is the sickness of the world.

The sickness in this world is a greed for what some don't have and don't want to work for; therefore they steal it.

Rules work, as I have said before, because they are set by mutual agreement, not by bullying. They are mostly community based which makes them workable.

Laws do not and cannot work because they are more global and virtually impossible to 'police'; therefore they are useless in 'real' terms'. It's a question of 'If you get caught', which is a very immature notion.

Better people, because of their nature, have been smothered by the bullies and lie at the bottom of an ocean of lies, deceit and everything else that is worse that is thrust upon them.

Let's face it, if you work your back off, some-one will realise your potential and earn off it. They will not work, they will only reap the benefits of yours. Hence kings, queens, despots, presidents, popes and so on ad infinitum et ad nauseum. These people require a hierarchy to exist; this is 'pass-the-buck' territory. Who names names? They want you to, because they want to control you. They won't name themselves!

The only way to change the world is to name yourself as leader (assuming you are a 'good' person). If enough people do this, the system will have to fall and maybe the so-called 'meek' (that is, the 'good') will inherit the earth.

At present, the word 'meek' needs to be changed to 'weak', for it is those who control our lives.

An end to the 'sickness' within a society can only be achieved by the acts of those who oppose it by peaceful means.




Back to Contents 



















CDR means Compact Disk Recordable. This is (the now familiar) CD. The CD that you play on your player has data 'burned' upon it by a laser. The technology is not important but the effect is. The notion of 'burned' is important since burning leaves scars. It's these scars that are re-read when you play back the CD. These scars are with us forever.

Human - CDR refers to those memories that are 'burned' into us since (and probably before) conception.

When we are conceived, we are the product of a male and female 'germ-cells', that is a single sperm and an ovum (that is the nature of Man/Woman, however stated). Be that as it may, the nature of either and both is the result of a sexual reproduction that has gone on for since sexual reproduction became the normality for the human creature.

We can never know the initial sperm and ovum conjugation of our own individual history of our being. We only are the result.

Because we are thus unique, we behave in an unique manner. We have no choice in the matter.

After conception, we have the gene-pool knowledge of our ancestors, (whomsoever they might have been), within our being. This knowledge becomes our biological memory; a memory that is held in every cell of our body until we 'die'. Although our body cells are continually dying and then replaced, this biological memory survives, which is why we still remember.

In other words, we are not composed now of the cells that we were born with but they still retain the memory of the ones replaced. The knowledge of those cells has been recorded forever.

After we are born (that is, expelled from a haven of (comparative) safety into a room (whatever that room might be) of light and noise, (other than that of the mother's own body sounds) we are immediately confronted by very different feelings, for we are now born. These feelings are for security and the need for sustenance; immediate gratification.

After our birth, there a number of parental scenarios:

We are rejected by the mother.

We are rejected by the father.

Father may not be available at birth or for some time afterwards.

We are rejected by both.

We may be claimed by some-one else.

We are accepted by the mother.

We are accepted by the father.

Whatever case, we are still here, on earth. We are born and have life (influx and outflow of energy). We also still have a recorded message of our birth and immediate after -events, even though we most often cannot remember them.

Over the next few years, we record (never to be forgotten), the messages and experiences of those times. They become part of the biological memory that lives with us all our days.

It is these early and later experiences which predict our eventual fate. Over many of them, we have no control and they are recorded by us, whether we like it or not. This sounds fatalistic. It pre-empts the notion that we do not have control over our lives and that Fate takes its course; we are dealt a hand of cards that cannot be altered once dealt.

However, it is not the hand of cards dealt that matters, as much as how we play them. It is how we play them, that we can have control over them.

Early and later experiences may not have been pleasant for many of us. This however, is a not a reason to accept them and 'go along with them'. Since we can play cards depending on our abilities, we can have control how they are played. This modifies the other players in the game, as well.

We can also change the way we play, with the experiences learned. This is how we progress (or not, as the case may be). I believe that it is by making mistakes that we learn. If we learn by our mistakes playing, we can do nothing but progress. If we don't learn by our mistakes, we lose. If we play another's game, we also lose .

The object of playing cards is to play as an individual but also as part of a team, whatever the card-game being played. If we don't play as an individual we are of no use to the whole game as it is being played.

Card games that are solitary are not, in my view, games except in the sense of personal satisfaction. What I am referring to, is community games.

As with cards, so with memories/experiences. We are dealt them after they have been shuffled around the gene-pool. It is how we play them that matters. If we like, we can toss in the cards and change them.




Back to Contents


















"Don't be a Christian, be a Christ." W.T. Stead

What did Stead mean? What he meant was that one should not be a passive player but take a dynamic rôle. In other words, don't follow but take a lead. This does not mean control over others but merely take a positive stance in your life, rather than rely on some-one else.

The notion of Christ as the son of a god, is part of a belief system. A belief system is not a Universal Truth but a truth to a believer. This belief system is called a religion. Religions abound in the World of Man. They take control of everything that Man does in his world. In terms of World Peace, religions have much to answer for. There is no World Peace and likely to be none so long as Man blindly accepts his fate as metered out by those who run the religions.

The basis of a religion or belief system is that there is some amorphous omniscience that directs everything and that this is not to be questioned. Questioning is called philosophy.

In itself, a religion often has great benefits for its believers. This is part of their 'comfort syndrome'. However, it is the passive nature of religions and their dictates, which are a cause for concern to those of us who do not have such a belief system. Imposing a set of beliefs (and dictates) upon others, is an invasion of privacy and its variety of bodily mutilations (in any form whatsoever) are nothing more than criminal acts as defined by the Law (moral and otherwise). Admittedly the Law was set up by controllers to modify Man's behaviour to suit the controllers' needs; however, it stands, useful or not. As an aside, rules are better because they are more local and are a consensus of opinion, not dictates. Rules work, Laws don't.

It appears to me, as I watch films and so forth, that Man is looking for a Christ. That is, the author of the work is looking for some-one that will lead them to a better life than the one dished out to them. They use their actors and locations to portray this. They are, in other words, looking for a 'saviour'. A saviour is one who saves. What they save one from and to, is another question. Whether they may or can accomplish this, is still another.

There is another element in this equation of life. That is, the reality of such a figure. A male figure most often and traditionally represents a god (the father). The earth (planet or whatever) is most often regarded as female (Mother Earth and so on). In this scenario, the Father is dominant and the Earth Mother, the subservient (since he created it). Accolades abound in poetry and song to both, equally, however. ("Everyone loves/needs a tit").

The importance of a father-figure, however, is so strong to all human persons, that it does not seem to matter if that figure is tangible or not. Tangible means that which can be recorded by the senses, however they might be apparent in any given individual. If something is tangible, it can be felt by an individual. If it can be felt, then it is real to the feeler. If you have all your senses (and that is by no means absolutely 'sure') then you are lucky.

What's real?

Personally, I see life through a pair of spectacles (They're quite posh. They are self-darkening and have multiple focal lengths.) What's real?

Personally I taste (?) a lot of food through a plastic plate of false teeth. What's real?

My friend is blind and sees only blurry shapes (or whatever). What's real?

The reality is what a person feels through whatever senses he has (and their condition at the time), his ability to cope with them and his ultimate survival value. What is real, is real to an individual based on his responses at a certain time. To others, this is merely assumption or non-verifiable evidence. Don't base your own life on this latter premise.

The World, the earth.

Being part of this World is one thing. Being part of this earth is another.

Being part of this World means that you concur with Man's dictates (whatever they may be) and are therefore controlled.

Being part of the earth means that you work within its parameters; you neither control or are controlled.

If you reject dictates, you are more likely to be part of the earth and have moved a place to the right. (I don't mean 'right' as correct'.)

It's always your decision, if you allow it. Vote for some-one (especially those you have no knowledge of) and you stand to lose everything to their foibles, indiscretions and so forth; history has proven to believers that most of these are negative due to greed in one form or another. Sadly, these people are born of human stock. (You may define 'human'.)

If you are looking for a saviour (Christ figure/Father figure/Mother figure), or indeed, feel you have found one and that that saviour satisfies you and makes you feel positive and leads you to do positive things, then fine. But remember, you are looking at an ideal, a Platonic Form that does not exist in the realities I have mentioned.

When placed in a difficult situation, you can only save yourself. Whatever you may call upon to help you is only an extension of your ability to survive.

Remember that belief in anything, is personal. It may be shared but must not be forced upon others (they will resent it eventually). People who pedal their religious or any other beliefs on others are very sad people. They are not really convinced about their own arguments and need reinforcement for their belief, or, they are out-and-out controllers. These people are mis-guided missionaries, who, when they can't inflict themselves turn to violence.

Whatever your proclivities, remember that you are an individual and that also, everyone else is. Do not follow others; they may lead you to where you don't really want to go, despite yourself. Lead others by an example of things that you can better yourself with (feel better about yourself and be happy) and these can only be positive.

Thoughtfulness, courtesy, not being in a hurry to end your life; these are paramount to your success in living. There is no other life you will be aware of.

"What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, the master calls the butterfly." Richard Bach.

"The only Robocop is you." Peter K Sharpen




Back to Contents 







What is Stress?


I believe that the word stress is merely a convenient way of explaining away certain behaviours and feelings that people get when they are bombarded by a plethora of data from which they cannot construct information. This leaves them confused and unable to cope.

The notion of stress (the feeling of the inability to cope) is that it contains s number of issues (data) which are at logger-heads with each other and appear to be un-resolvable at the time. This leads to anxiety.

Any sort of relief from this feeling of not being able to cope (i.e. some sort of 'stress' management) must reflect the knowledge of the above points. Most 'stress' management programmes do not address this. The issue would be to treat the various factors producing the 'stress'. One cannot treat the whole thing but the individual causes. In other words, performing certain rites, such as meditation, may alleviate the feeling for a brief period but it does not help in the long-run. Unless the issues can be resolved individually, then there can only be temporary relief.

I have been to a few 'stress' management courses (not something I would normally do, but part of my work) and they have done nothing for me at all (except annoy me). One thing is that I do not suffer from stress because I do not allow myself to be bombarded by useless data over which I can have no control.

This useless data is what is produced by the media (especially, corporate media; that is, media that is owned by one or a very few people and over which only they have control). It is mostly negative. Without some positive thoughts, the negative ones conflict with each other, providing the ground for the so-called 'stress'. Positive thoughts tend to stick together and do not conflict.

I believe there may be some (small) entertainment value in media (T.V., radio, newspapers, magazines and so forth) but otherwise it is negative and useless. We have enough to think about living our own lives, without worrying about other people over whom we can have little or no control.

Dreaming is a natural remedy for resolving everyday conflicting data. When the day is finally under the bed-covers, we dream; every night, at various times. The myriad data of the day is resolved into dreams that seem to make sense at the time but not later. Thus 'dream interpretation' is highly suspect, in my view. The most well-known dream interpreter was Freud, but then he only analysed people with severe problems, not 'ordinary' people.

Here's a little story I read years ago in a Reader's Digest magazine; I loved it!

A man went to bed and dreamt that he had solved the mystery of the universe. When he awoke he could not remember the answer. Determined, he put a pad and pencil by the bed and eventually had the same dream. He managed to wake and write down the answer. Satisfied, he went back to sleep. In the morning, he awoke and remembering the dream, he reached for the note-pad. On it, he had written: 'The skin is mightier than the banana'. Interpret that as you will!

A possible strategy for feeling better able to cope with your life

Forget listening to the news, reading newspapers and so forth; forget listening to the constant racket from the radio. Choose your time to listen to what you wish to hear. You do not need all this other stuff. Try is for a few days, the withdrawal symptoms will soon disappear. See how much better you feel. If you don't feel good, nor will those others around you.

'But I'm in a stressful job,' I hear you say. Why? What elements of your job cause you to feel this way? Unless you can determine what they are, you cannot feel better. These things will not go away until you try to understand them. What is happening, is that you are probably taking in too much conflicting data, most of it some form of back-ground noise. Perhaps one thing at a time. Some people can take in more, most can't.

Replace negative thoughts with positive ones. You know thoughts are negative when they make you feel 'bad'. The opposite, for positive ones. It may take time but it is the only way to remain sane. Everything you have ever experienced from pre-birth is recorded. This recording stays with you every second of your life from thereon. You cannot erase it (if you could, you would not be the person you are now). However, you can change your neural pathways for the better and make new ones. Positive experiences (and how you look at different experiences is up to you) make new recordings. Enough of them can block the negative thoughts and leave you feeling that your life is worthwhile. It is surprising how small a positive thought has to be to make you feel better. Looking forward to doing something, for example, that you like doing can take a large chunk of negativeness away.

It does not matter what awful experiences you have or have had, these can all be changed by creating new, positive ones.

It is your choice to do this. Time perhaps, to take a look at yourself but not be frightened by what you find or what others may or may not think.

email: Back to Contents 




Definitions, according to Sharpen (at least).

Words: are devices which we use to communicate with others, written (in some way) or sounded vocally. These are often mis-interpreted by others even in the 'same' or a similar language. (This is often the result of what we call 'humour'). They share little with words devised by other persons who have different structural mouthings or writings (i.e. languages). Translation is difficult, (if not impossible), which leads most often to conflicts between peoples living even a close (if that were possible) distance away.

earth: the 'planet' (given words) that we share for a limited time with its lets and mores. Part of a system within which we call the universe. Nothing else does.

World; the place upon this earth which is created by the 'mind' of Man.

Mind: a function of a brain.

Truth: As an Ultimate, with a capital 'T' , non-existent.

truth/s: Without a capital letter, a possibility, given first-hand evidence from an individual's personal senses, whatever they may be.

Controller: an individual who would deem to control others due to a dysfunction in being unable to control him/herself.

Data: bits of knowledge.

Information: bits of knowledge (data) made into what we come to believe as coherent 'truths' or knowledge.


The earth is here, as what we (as Men and Women) call a 'planet'. Without ever knowing how, what we call 'life-forms' began to appear. First very 'simple', then more complex. That is how things evolve or change from one thing into another.

The creature, which later called himself 'Man', was a product of this evolution of life-forms.

His 'strength', in the scheme of things, lay in his ability to control other life-forms to/for his own purpose. His strength, in terms of a 'physical' strength, was more or less than other creatures who were either 'stronger' in terms of physical attributes or 'stronger' in terms of their ability to adapt to their environment faster than Man could achieve. Other creatures, he subsequently called 'lower' forms of life (e.g. bacteria and viruses from which Man, in the first place, evolved). The word 'lower', is of course a moot point and not necessarily a truth.

Having evolved, Man, seemingly, (but not superior to other life-forms... why should he be?) and having developed a brain (without conscious involvement) brought about a means of communication with his other beings, that led him to a belief that he was stronger, wiser (whatever that means) and more powerful (because of that belief) than other life-forms.

He, therefore, (with a language to communicate beyond the grunts and snarls of his 'lesser fellows'), invented the World.

What Man failed to realise was, that, without other life-forms (and the way they developed alongside him), that he was reliant upon them for his own survival. It was (to be, or not to be) a symbiotic survival. The notion of 'alongside him', therefore, is crucial.

What we call 'Nature' (and adding provisos, such as 'Mother Earth' and such-like, are merely words of comfort to us, knowing that we survive only because of the way that the earth presents itself to us as hopefully positive, (that is, it doesn't chuck tsunamis at us and volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and so forth). Without beliefs to the contrary (various gods and so forth) we have little help in claiming our survival (for all our intonations to the opposite).

What we call 'Nature' is merely the way the earth (as on any planet) is developing within the universe. From what and towards what, we will never know, in a truth. Therefore, I believe, we invent beliefs to account for our lack of comfort in not knowing why we are here.

Why we are here, is a moot point. None of the creature Man, knows. Some believe in 'something' that 'knows' (some sort of omniscient 'god-being'), others, not.

Beliefs in extra-terrestrial objects give us a sort of comfort. We, as Man, seem to need tangible comfort, (that is, something we can feel or get hold of physically), since we have not developed enough in brain-power to see or seek otherwise. This 'tangible' comfort requires some visible and physical means of support. This support is shown by Man (whom we choose to call Human Beings) by these visible and physical supports. These are my notions of the 'Comfort Syndrome'; the baby dummy (dummy breast), the bottle of water or 'Coke', the base-ball cap, the security blanket and so forth. These supports do not exist in a spiritual World, which mainly rely upon notions or ideas, rather than visible or physical evidence. Thus might Man believe in gods, whom he cannot see and cannot feel in a tangible self. Also are created anomalies such as: Thou shalt not worship Mary icons?

Why we are here, raises questions of 'purpose'. Why, given that we are products of our environment, should we need a purpose? A 'purpose' is only because we can't understand ourselves and why we seem to be here. There must be a reason, we say, Why? 'Purpose' is another word in our dictionary of why-are-we-here that really says nothing and means nothing.

"I am searching for myself." is a very common phrase. "Who am I?" is another. Why bother? You are here. We are here because that is the nature of human sexual activity; there, I believe, it ends. We have to make the best of what is given/allotted to us; that is a life-form with certain characteristics. Once given, little going back. Survival is what we do as best we can, as individuals. We can't leave it up to others; we are (ultimately) on our own. We can't leave our existence up to someone else, a 'god' or otherwise.

Given that we are here, as individuals (which we are), we must make the best of our living to ourselves and not rely on others to give us comfort, but to fend for ourselves.

Comfort remains in an external breast to feed us and give closeness to the heart of that with which we lived with for the nine months or so from our conception to our birth.

This pre-birth comfort remains in our biological memory that makes us later use symbols and artificial aids to remain faithful to that memory.

What is serious about our independence is that we often fail to understand the need of others to proclaim that independence. We fail to see that to be independent, we need the comfort of others. When we have left the womb we begin our independence. That is the nature of being a human animal. From then on, we are on our own, despite and in spite of, the contributions of our supposed 'nearest and dearest'.

Given that we are all products of sexual reproduction, the mingling of genes and chromosomes and a subsequent biological memory of events during our inter-uterine growth, we become unique human beings. That is/was the strength of our survival. To change this is a cause for considerable concern.

The earth culls or restricts 'those' creatures (or 'that', if you include what are termed as inanimate objects, like trees and flowers) that are unsuited for survival.

Man, in his 'wisdom' does the same thing, but with ulterior motives. These motives are not of the earth but the World he created for his own ends. They are selfish and greedy for those ends.

The history of the World seems to show that the creature called Man seems to have strong tendencies towards self-destruction.

The history of the earth also shows that Man, as a creature upon it, is merely that. Notions otherwise, are all suspect.

The creature, Man (including woman, of course), since his inherent weakness in terms of physical strength, developed over aeons a weapon for survival called a brain. That is not to say that others creatures do not have a brain but that it has not developed as the Man creature's because it was not necessary. Animals are animals. They do what they do. That is the measure of their survival.

The animal/creature that we call Man has done exactly the same thing. The notion that Man is in any way 'superior' to other creatures is spurious sublime.

Man developed techniques of/for using this 'brain' to survive. This development led to an awareness of being aware. This also led him to believe that he was superior to other creatures because he could bring about their down-fall or use them for his own ends. In other words he used them, originally, to give him food, clothing and take their place of cover from the elements as his own. This he developed into techniques of being able to control them otherwise.

Thus is Man born, the creator of his own destiny; already to the detriment of the other creatures with whom he shared the earth (but that is a Man concept, of course).

To share something, is to have a common agreement as to the sharing. Sharing, is a gift. A 'gift' is given (and received) only if the recipient agrees to the exchange. 'I accept the gift' (and exchange my thanks). The expression, 'It is harder to receive than to give', is very appropriate, here. The reason is that there may always be considered to be 'ulterior' motives. That seems to be the negative way that humans look upon life. This is sad. The reasons seem to be unknowable.

Man needs to share his existence with other flora and fauna. They are, after all, the reason he is on this planet and stays here. Without them, he cannot exist in his present, or, I believe, his future existence or some sort of state.

At the present time in Man's history, he seems to want to share with the earth only so much as he is willing to give. That is very little, and the earth does not respond with 'I accept the gift'.

Man is a greedy animal. Whether or not that is part of his survival may well, also, be a moot point or one to ponder upon.

To the extent of his greed, Man exploits the earth. He grabs more than is needed for survival because he fears his demise and he is greedy.

Man's brain, it seems, may be the instrument for his survival, so far, but his demise, later on.

So what of World War Three? you ask.

There is no WW111. We live in a World War Three. Any World War is only a continuum of all other wars (whatever they may be called and for whatever 'reason'), since Man inhabited/'progressed' upon the earth.

What, then, is a war?

A 'war' (you can retrieve your Thesaurus, somehow, for other words to describe the same atrocity), is a means of establishing your 'bully' power over others, if that is your proclivity. War is not necessarily a large or larger group of people trying to exert their pressure over others. War can also be a fight one-on-one. That is, you take what you can, via your strengths and against their apparent weaknesses, for your own ends. The 'size' of a war does not matter. The 'nature' of the war does not matter. The 'issue' of the war does not matter. The 'victims/innocents' of the war do not matter. What matters, is, there is war.

The problem, therefore, is not the/a war. The problem is the determined efforts of greedy, desperate humans (and those who support them in any way), to bully others by such means as to get them to submit to their wiles and fancies. You rent the hovel (at your peril and exhorbitant rates which they make sure you can't afford); they own the palace. After all, they have the bullies to make sure you submit to their desires.




Back to Contents 







From a bunch of religious fanatics (not all of them) sailing to an unknown land because they felt 'persecuted' by others, we now have a land that wants to dominate all others for their own ends and to the exclusion of others who do not bow to their dominance and somewhat spurious ideals.

The so-called 'Pilgrim Fathers' had no compunction about ridding themselves of the native population of the land they were about to invade. No, they are not the only ones. They did it in Africa. They did it later upon a land known now, as Australia. These people did it wherever and whenever they found somewhere that they thought was better than their own place of birth. It was/is, the 'Grass is always greener' syndrome. Bugger the previous inhabitants, we want it and we want it now. We are victims.

Having landed on new shores, these people immediately went on to:

1) devastate and obliterate the native/aboriginal peoples, where possible,

2) to claim their so-called right (or what they imagined to be their so-called right) to encroach upon these native/aboriginal peoples,

3) to convert those whom they wished to keep alive for their own benefit and then convert them (using bully or terrorist activities to contain them) to some spurious god or gods that they 'believed' in. We are talking missionaries, the world's best terrorists. Whatever their notions, this is what they ended up doing.

Let us get a few things straight. I've been a migrant. I have some knowledge and forethought/hindsight about such things. I'm am, also a thinker.

I've written about migrants before. There are a variety:

People who are fed up with the life they have.

(I didn't like the constant cold weather).

People who feel they want to change their circumstances.

(I needed a change).

People who will always be dissatisfied, where-ever they are.

(I've met a lot of these).

People who want to explore the planet.

(There are other places to visit).

People who are greedy when they know somewhere else has a potential they don't have.

(I'm not greedy).

People who are persecuted for whatever reason.

(I was not persecuted).

Any other reason you can think of.

(I was young, there's a world out there).

People are fine as a group until they are 'led' by others or let themselves be led (no born leaders, only born followers). The 'leading' is the crux. Most people do not want to be led, they want to get on with their lives as best they can. The more 'leading' the more the leaders are in control and lead us to their own ends, usually negative, (for us, at least). Give these people control and they will happily take it. Whatever they say, it's not for your benefit.

People are fine as a group because, without controllers, they are self-regulating.. Given that self-regulation Man as an animal would be far better off. So would the World as created by them. There would probably be less killing than there is without this self-regulatory process. That's because self-regulation works by mutual agreement about rules. Whatever we think about rules, they work. Laws do not work and can never work because they are made by controllers and many people will not be controlled. They are at best airey-fairy notions that apply to control of others, not others' welfare. It's also because rules are local, whereas laws are global. Local works, global doesn't. You only have to look around you to see these truths.




Back to Contents 







Global: that which encompasses the whole planet.

Local: that which encompasses a personal part of it.

earth: the planet upon which we live (not the same as World).

World: the earth as the animal 'Man' has created it (not the same as earth).

Nations: groups of people with titles such as, British, American, Slav and so forth.

Nationalism: a sense of being part of a Nation.

It seems to me, that we are being led to view the World in global terms. I have a worry about this, which has prompted me to write this essay.

Whilst I recognise that we may need to see the World in such terms, for particular reasons, the worry is that we are being led on this path, for reasons that are, to say the least, spurious and by those who proclaim it, even more spurious.

One thrust of my argument is that we are being led away from personal perspectives and actions and, one way or another, to give those over to others which some people elect to manage for them.

I believe the reason for this is to make people feel, not individualistic, or even Nationalistic but Globalistic. What this does, insidiously, is to take away the individualism which created a perhaps, better part of the World. The only people who want this are the controllers, who, with their warped psychologies and perverse behaviours, feel the need and get a 'buzz' out of 'managing' large groups of people for their own ends. These controllers want a static World that they can control. Individuals have little or no place in it because they could usurp them (given greater brain-power but lesser ballistic notions).

This view is highly cynical, of course. It is a view, however; I'm not going to a war over it.

What I would, like to do, is to get people to understand that a global view is one over which they can have very little or no control as individuals. And individuals are what make up societies, of whatever they comprise and however large or small.

An analogy to describe the two methods of thinking (Global/Nationalistic v. local) is easy. None may be total, of course. That is to say, it will never be one thing or the other; that would be unfair to both sides. The notion is that there is an intertwining and continuum.


As individuals, a man and his partner have a house. They also have a small garden at the front. They live in a street where other people also have a small front garden.

Over time, these gardens have become rather droll and uninteresting. Some have been let go and do not present an aesthetic view of nature.

Let's say our man's name is John (and his partner is Mary).

One day, the sun is shining, the birds are singing and there's nothing much to do.

Says John: "You know, Mary, that front garden could do with some work on it."

Says Mary: "Dear John, you are so perceptive. Now I know why I stay with you."

So they arm themselves with the accoutrements of gardeners and set forth upon their little patch of garden.

Some time goes by before they have finished. They have made a lovely job of it and they are proud of their little achievement.

Later, Doris and Bill, their neighbours come by, walking their little dog, which they call Weeweeupatry.

Says Doris: "Oh, Bill, look what John and Mary have done! Doesn't that look great?"

Says Bill: "Brilliant! Maybe we should do something like that?"

And so it goes on. Other neighbours then see Mary and John's and Doris and Bill's, (perhaps more modest), efforts, and they begin to see that they would like to do the same; so they do.

Within a few short weeks, the street now looks entirely different; lovely and well-cared for. All's right with the World.

Now, a number of things are implicit here. If you've grasped what I said earlier, they may be explicit, in which case you are ahead of me, good stuff!

However, I will say this, anyway.

What is happening here? Is it Global/Nationalistic or local?

Correct. It's local.

Where was it local?

Correct again. It was at John and Mary's house.

What was its effect?

Correct! Well done! It was the effect it had on other locals in the street.

Aside: This was a positive effect, seen and done.

The hard question:

What might the effect be on the next street?

Brilliant! And correct. Other streets might take on their own gardens, in their own way.

Result? All gardens in the neighbourhood are now lovely gardens that they can share in their 'community spirit' or otherwise (as they so please). 'Community spirit' is local, of course.

What might we conclude from all this activity? (We are looking, remember, in terms of global/nationalistic and local.

Is this a Global/Nationalistic activity?

Correct. No.

Is this a local activity?

Correct. Yes.

How local? (More difficult)

Correct, yes, there are more than one answers! Well done!


Local (to individuals)

wider local to even more individuals (Community).

Now, before I go on, is John and Mary's thinking (given the scenario above) a Global/Nationalistic one, or a local one (to them)?

Correct, yet again! It's local to them.

How do we construe this? Are they thinking of themselves, the street, the Nation, the World?

How do you do it? Correct again. They are thinking (not selfishly) of themselves. The effect is passed onto others who act upon it. (Except those people at Number 38, they didn't sense of pride....)

Now, is this personal pride or National pride (or even Global pride)?

Well it could be all three, couldn't it? But it's probably the first one, personal pride. But what it could lead to is National pride, or even, Global pride. It's a question of which comes first and what's publicised later (and by whom).

I'll expand that. Who knows about John and Mary's garden?

Multiple choice:

a) John and Mary

b) The neighbours

c) People living in another town

d) People living in another country

e) People living in another galaxy

There is no correct answer. There are, however, probabilities. Those are that a) and b) are probably correct. c), d), e), maybe correct if the publicity of their achievement were made known to the World in some way and others acted upon it. In that even, the same philosophy would apply, is it local or National or Global?

The object of this exercise is to show that pride in one's personal achievements can only be local to start with. How others see it, is their own concern. You may see John and Mary's achievements as personal, or that they had National or Global pride and that's why they did it.

What I am also saying is that we can only have an effect on others if we act locally. They see, feel, hear and so on, as individuals. What happens afterwards is up to them that follow. At present there is little, if any, 'feeling at a distance' only killing at a distance. That is, I'm developed enough to kill you with a bomb when I'm hundreds of miles away, although I can't sense you but I am unable to make you feel happy when I'm hundreds of miles away and can't sense you.

John and Mary are not leaders (that's a spurious afterthought). They are only followed (perhaps) by others. What's missing in John and Mary's dialogue in the front garden, is their reason. This dialogue is missing because it was not part of the conversation. If it had been, the scenario would be useless.

You can see John and Mary's act as local or however. Their reasons are their own; this is crucial. Their actions were not part of a so-called 'government's' edict. It was a conscious act to better their lot. They didn't steal the shovels they used. They didn't beat up an old lady for her shopping basket to put the weeds in. Their pride was their own. Others 'took that on-board' as they say. It's another person who attributes the actions of individuals and then claims they are part of a National or Global pride but it's their (John and Mary's) decision as individuals that matter.

The problem we have is that those people without a personal pride insist on making their own failings the part of a Global/Nationalistic network of lies, prejudices and fake living, which they not only foist upon but bully people into behaving as they do.

Thinking globally, where we can have no personal control over events, is a notion of those who haven't got a clue about personal pride or personal control. They might claim that they do but their actions preclude an understanding of this.

Humans require personal response, not response at a distance. Personal is eye-to-eye contact.

Response at a distance requires measures of communication that are always impersonal.





Back to Contents 







Imagine this scenario:

"Excuse me?"


"Would you mind if I cut the end off your dick?"

"Oh, no! Go right ahead."

Or this:

"Excuse me, Miss?"


"Would you mind if I cut out your clitoris?"

"Well, it's not much use. You might as well."

Can you imagine that happening to you?

Both practices happen, every day. The former scenario is still much more prevalent. The latter scenario has been outlawed (by some) but is still practised. Both the above scenarios show consent.

The reality is that there is no such consent.

Male genital mutilation (circumcision) is removing the foreskin from the penis. This practice is world-wide. It involves three notions:

1) Religious practice

2) Medical reasons

3) No particular reason, it's just done

All seem to be confused. They may be intertwined, as a 'reason' for the practice.

My stance, as always, is about Control and controllers, and in this instance, religious control leading to medical approval for the practice. The philosophy and medical reasons are spurious, to say the very least. Where is it written and by whom, that the end of a man's penis should be sliced off? The Word of a sick god, perhaps?

Let's face it, men came onto the earth as animals. However they developed, is not in question, nor needs to be a question.

Men came 'fully-equipped'. They did not come without a foreskin. The simple truth is that it was there for biological reasons (otherwise it wouldn't be there). But there it doesn't always stay.

The foreskin is not a vestigial organ like the appendix, which is merely so only because Man walks upright; the appendix was an aid to digestion in animals that walked on all fours.

My thrust here, is not for or against circumcision (although I am personally against it on humanitarian grounds, amongst others), but why?

Let's ask a question: What is the most sensitive part of a male's anatomy? Answer: his penis.

(A penis is the way by which a female gets impregnated. That's sexual reproduction).

Let's ask another question: Do people remove the foreskin from other mammals? Answer: No. You might question why.

Another question: Why do we do it to humans? The answer is more complex.

I believe, the answer is control. I believe that is as simple as saying: "He will comply (with us) because we have control of his penis (a.k.a. manhood). This so-called 'useless' piece of skin will seem less than cutting off a finger (or toe or some other part of the body), which would make him more conspicuous. Thus this individual will conform to our practices because he is like us. This is our symbol of faith". Every time he looks at his penis, especially to urinate or copulate, he will remember.

This practice is done so young, usually, that some sick people believe the child does not feel pain. Where do they get that notion?

Circumcision is de-masculinising. Such a male is no longer a 'normal' male animal. Try cutting the end off a bull's dick and see where you get. You won't get a compliant bull who believes in your fantasies!

Given the truths, which I won't go into here, as the information is readily available if you look for it; circumcision is a method of making males comply to an assumed 'authority'. It matters not a jot where the idea came from, a truth remains. The lies persist.

I am not saying that circumcised males are not 'whole men'; they are as best they can be, of course; most men are. There is so much evidence that circumcised males are striving to achieve their sexuality through criminal damage/mutilation/actual bodily harm and so forth, to their most sensitive and private parts, it's not true. Stories are legion. "I want my foreskin back!"

The fascination with a man's (sexual) appendage is such that he almost always feel inadequate when it is not equated with others. Men buy vast volumes of crap pills that will do nothing for them except as placebos. Viagra pills to enhance the sexual favours of women, pills for a bigger penis, stronger erections, bigger sperm count and so forth. 'Bigger is better' and so on; so much bull-shit. All this data was in my e-mail 'in-box'; it went straight into the dustbin is where it ended up, without my reading it.

Whether religious or medical, there is a ritual of circumcision. What I believe is that those who have undergone such ritual practices and maybe later realise their own truths, are those who, already mutilated, have to find ways to satisfy their horror, shame or other psychological distress for their own state. This my be naiive, but why should it be?

"But, my dear fellow, it's much more complicated than that."

"Clear off!" (Or words to that effect.)

Most migrants to other countries take their practices with them. Most migrants are not aware of their independence as human beings. They have long accepted the rule of others (The Rule of Might (read bullying)). They therefore, accept practices which are usually, not in their best interests. This has happened in Africa, America, Australia and many other places.

The migrants to these countries took with them their sadness (although they may not have realised it as a sadness). They really didn't discover New Lands and took on the native but rather took the old with them. Certain things had to change because of the differences in geography, but rituals and practices hardly changed. The fact that even some of the natives engaged in these practices may have led to their belief that they were 'correct', but read on, dear reader.

It seems the 'reasons' behind these practices and rituals have been either lost or clouded over in time. These things are 'just done' and few question them.

Such mutilating practices upon a human body date, we know back to Man's first ventures on the planet. Whatever these reasons were, they have no bearing on the reasons now. If we haven't developed at all, then why call ourselves Homo Sapiens?

So, I suppose, is the legacy of male penile mutilation. It may have started with Homo Nonsensicus for some reason known only to them and has been perpetrated ever since as a valid practice. Again, haven't we progressed at all?

Some of us have come to believe that the disgusting practice of mutilating a female of the species is just that, disgusting; then why not males? Who's making the rules here? Certainly not innocent babies (circumcised) and now devoid of their (human) birthright (not to be violated by any means).

I'm not citing particular religions, or whatever, because that is unfair on those people who practice these activities without ever being near a religion.

Let's be frank, here. If I were to go out into the street, grab your baby son, take him to my house, determine if he isn't already corrupted, find he is intact and without anaesthetic cut the tip of his penis off with a piece of sharp stone (without anaesthetic), what would you think?

If I were caught afterwards, because I would return him to you (not quite so intact), what might I be accused of?

At least:


Actual bodily harm (A.B.H.)

Causing unnecessary suffering and probably a host of other things.

What would my defence be?

I acted in my faith.

I wanted him to be like me.

It's just done.

He had phimosis.

Who would my jurors be?

Circumcised males

Uncircumcised males

A fair combination of both

Women who were circumcised

Women who were uncircumcised

A fair combination of both

Who would be the judge and lawyers, solicitors and other hangers-on?

As above?

What would your verdict be?

He acted in good faith

He's a paedophile

He should be 'put down'

He's a monster

He was only acting on 'orders'

and anything else you can think of.

Our lives should be those of mutual consent between us and others. If we are not able to do this, then we should be left alone. If this isn't instigated, it isn't properly human (unless we redefine 'human'). At this level, rights or non-rights don't apply.

There are 'laws' governing the notion of consent but they don't amount to anything (as few 'laws' do). Horrors go on all around us every day about which we have made no consent (except by not replying to them in some peaceful way).

If you can find evidence of the following scenarios, I and thousands of others would like to have the source.


"Hi, doc!"

"What's the trouble?"

"Look, it's a bit embarrassing, but I have this curious skin on the end of my dick. Do you think you could remove it?"

"No problem, Mr. Falus. Will that be cash or credit?"


"Good morning, Mr.Gyno, I was wondering..."

"Yes, my dear, what is it. Please sit down."

"Thank you. It's like this (coming to the point quickly). I have this little 'button' in my thingy, which makes me feel all sort of wobbly and stuff when I touch it. Do you think you could get rid of it for me?"

"My dear young lady, of course. Will that be cash or credit?"

The trouble is, we are too lazy. We love a tit. We love the comfort of a tit that is given to us without our asking (that's probably a statement that could be made into another of my articles). Thus some elect those who purport they will look after us (fine if they do) or they are subject to controllers who bully them into their ways of thinking ('thinking', of course, is a moot point). The latter is more prevalent; observe what is going on around you.

I may be extrapolating too far, but I do believe that a great number of the World's problems relate to this kind of un-consented bodily mutilation. People will feel mutilated/abused when confronted with even the faintest notion that they have been 'got at' without their consent. Why otherwise do we teach people (i.e. give them an education which we often pretend is for their benefit)?

How does a circumcised male teach boys and girls about the effects of being circumcised and not being circumcised? The opposite may of course be true. However, the un-mutilated male has a better kind of truth if the truths are examined. If he doesn't like the truths, he can have himself dealt with, it's his choice, consent and responsibility..

A penis is designed to give pleasure, preferably to both partners. That is its pre-destined job. Without that pleasure, the act of sexual reproduction would undoubtedly fail. The same goes for the female. This is basic biology. It has nothing to do with love-making or anything else. Anything else is the private domain of the participants. I make no moral stand here; I'm not talking about morals. I'm talking about mutilation for some-one else's ends (please excuse a pun).

Any act by any human/s upon any other/s without their consent is morally criminal, at the very least.

The psychology behind mutilation would be very complex and I'm not sure if it is worth pursuing, in the long run. This psychology would best be perpetrated and reported on (at length) by those probably with something to hide.

There are truths.

Seemingly, willy-nilly, males are being mutilated every day for some spurious 'reason/s'; worse, there is no 'reason'. Those being thus mutilated have (most often) made no consent in the matter. 'Medical' grounds are more than spurious material for the pursuance of this desecrating act of violence..

As a parent, with a responsibility and duty of care of/for your off-spring, look for evidence as to why you might want to perform this act of desecration/mutilation upon your sibling, male or female.

There is, as I have said, plenty of material and resources available, especially on the Internet, regarding this matter. You might forget the latest game, television programme or other mindless occupation or chat-room to find it. Your baby is your responsibility.

To begin with, you make its choices. These live with them for the rest of their lives. Would your cut off its foot to salve your conscience of an after-life (or other spurious belief), or because you believe your priest (or whomever) that it is the 'correct' thing to do?

If you do not heed this essay, at least, I think you are morally irresponsible. I'll say no more.




Back to Contents 











War on Nail-files


And there I sat; the long haul to the UK from Australia, and a broken finger-nail.

I asked the passenger seated next to me whether he (for it was a 'he') had one but he replied that he had had to give his up at Customs, along with a plastic knife he'd used to put tuna onto a biscuit for lunch.

He spoke quietly to me, (my nursing the broken nail that I attempted to chew off but wasn't wearing my false teeth). He said that although Customs had removed his collection of nail-files (which were to be the subject of a Nail-file Expo in Manchester) he had managed to secrete a set of useful tools in his hand-luggage which had escaped Custom's attention. Thus I was able to remove the offending nail-chip and relax, undaunted in my seat. (I'm pretty naiive and didn't think to perceive him as a potential terrorist.)

I felt sorry for him. His raison d'être for leaving Australia was now nullified, having lost his nail files. However, he later confessed to having a penchant for biting the toe-nails of various women with whom he had been in contact with previously, in Europe, nail-files aside. (He must also have had a set of sound teeth, lucky devil.)

Now there's a thing. How many nail-files, I wondered then, have been confiscated by Customs officials around the globe from people with such broken nails, hang-nails and other reasons for carrying them in the first place? Was there now a World glut of semi-used nail-files and had my shares in them fallen drastically?

In all innocence, what had the humble nail-file got to do with terrorism? If I were confronted by a person wielding such an object at me and threatening to take away my hard-fought-for aisle seat, I would probably collapse laughing. A Stanley knife might make me think for longer but the same would probably apply in the end.

It's hard to imagine that these 'weapons of mass destruction' are laudable, in any circumstance. Takes an American, I suppose....

"Hey, Buddy. How's about you handing over the plane? If you don't do as I say, I'll file you to death." Sounds like a government clerk.

Well, anyway, I managed to secrete the elastic band that was holding my file (not 'nail') of notes together into my stow-away baggage, (fearing that I might be caught trying to strangle my nearest neighbour with it and attempting to take over the aircraft). I did flick him several times with it but he refused to react as he was trying to sleep. I also managed to hide my Swiss pen which contained not only one, but three coloured inks, the combination of which might have given rise to noxious fumes, further endangering the lives of the other passengers. (I'm not a chemist, so I wouldn't know the outcome of this mixture).

Fortunately, my passenger-neighbour, had heeded the airline's warning to turn off his mobile phone, which was now, fortunately, not emitting microwaves which would fry the aeroplane's computer. I further disregarded him as a potential terrorist.

Well, we gained the air. It was a bit of a worry when the pilot announced on the intercom:

'Sorry, folks, I can't get it up. Maybe you should have flown Viagra Airlines." We did realise it was a joke, eventually, as the plane took to the skies. We were off on our flight. Singapore was first. It would be my first fag for six hours. I dreaded the thought of smoking in the toilet; even I, had no wish to include my own passive smoking on my agenda, let alone set off the smoke alarm, which would probably have heralded the inclusion of an air-sea rescue in our itinerary. Mind you, I knew where my life-jacket was, courtesy of the in-flight video. I was, however, a bit worried about the whistle you were supposed to blow so that people could find you in the shark-infested waters in the dark. (Do sharks eat you in the dark?) Maybe it would signal a strike of US NORAD planes (off-course, of course) which would obliterate all the nail-files stowed in the hold-luggage as well.

Singapore was sparse of SARS. It had recently, yet again, come off the WHO list and didn't appear on the WHEN list or the WHERE list or even the WHY list. A few people wore masks; they were the cleaners who emptied the over-full ash-trays in the smoking lounge. (They, obviously, didn't like passive smoking either).

Then it was on to the UK. Thirteen hours of consulting the I Ching and Runes to find out if we would get there in one piece or even in peace. No Mecca this time, I was flying Singapore Airlines, not Royal Brunei. No prayers this time, only our own; a wing and some, possibly.

Swollen ankles, even less nail-files than got through the first Customs check in Perth, less Stanley knifes (why Stanley)? There are plenty of other manufacturers. Mostly they come from China. (Wasn't that the place SARS was supposed to have come from?) Is, therefore, China a 'weapon of mass destruction'? or is that the USA, who seem to know all about them? ...And no sign of them finding my friend's miniature tool-set, either.

Ankles still swollen, I, arrived at Heathrow Airport along with my other passengers and children terrorising their parents. We were all tired and nail-bitten (those that had teeth). Thirteen hours is a long time cooped up with 300 other potential terrorists (even without their nail-files), but, I might add, still with their plastic spoons with which they ate their ice-creams. Whether or not they had still managed to keep their nail-files or Stanley knives (or sets of miniature tools), I have no idea.

We, therefore, arrived safely; hard-(nail)-bitten travellers, but safe.

Blast! I've just broken a nail, again. Now I'll have to wait until I can get my suit-case out of the baggage-hold before I can find my nail-file and clippers.

But, hang on! I'd forgotten about the sheet of sand-paper that I always carry in case we came down in the desert. It was my map for survival; and my nail's salvation.





Back to Contents 













Procedures should be laid down for the following:

1. to aid/circumvent possible consequences of actions which may not be suitable for a particular workplace.

2. to placate those who devise them as a means of 'covering their backs'.

They are laid down by:

1. persons who have had personal experiences of the actions which afflict others and can therefore offer advice.

2. persons who feel they know best (but usually don't have any knowledge and/or experience i.e. controllers)

3. by persons who are 'employed' to create procedures (e.g. politicians, who have no knowledge other than departed upon them by 1, or 2, above).

Procedures are rules. Rules are for the commonplace.

Laws are different. They are the bully tactics to preserve a Right of Might.

Procedures should be made by those who actually have personal knowledge and experience of a number of actions and behaviours common to human beings.

Procedures, as laid down as rules, and are meant to be followed, if any sort of 'justice' to the parties involved is to have any meaning at all in the survival of the Human Race, as it is defined.

Procedures should be designed to aid human development and survival. That is, they should be a positive means to achieve an outcome that is satisfactory to the individuals concerned, whether they be corporate or otherwise.

Therefore, if procedures are not followed, there may be injustice to and for all.

Justice, of course, is a notion to provide a common approval for behaviours for the survival of mankind (good or bad as defined by philosophers). It should know, no bounds.

If a procedure is to be included in a defined set of circumstances, then it must be followed, if any sense of justice prevails.

So, intrinsically, failing to observe procedures should negate the original incident.

Therein lies a problem.

Are potential instigators of an incident involving a specific incident sufficiently knowledgeable to be able to follow such a system of procedures? If the procedure is not clearly defined in terms of Plain English, and if there is no communication of this, does their failure to follow such procedures preclude them from not making them in the first place?

In other words, people should be made aware of the procedures of their certain actions before they embark on their own method of communication to an assumed 'authority'. However, given that their communication is in ignorance of any procedures, should they then be castigated for not having followed them? Or indeed can their claims be nullified for not having followed any procedures?

Given that a procedure is instigated by a body but is not publicised in such a manner that an 'ordinary' person can be acquainted with that procedure, where does it leave the instigator of a complaint? Given that also, what is the position of the person about which the complaint is made?

Complaint procedures from all parties included in any form of contract of/to work should be made explicit in the induction of a work-person to the/a work-place. This may seem like tedious work for the/an employer but it is essential in the resolution of a (possible) work-place dispute.

In other words, if you own a business and employ others to work with or for you, you must make it quite plain from the outset, what the requirements of that work placement are. These details should be made in Plain English. This is a total situation, not a temporary one.

So that you can conduct your business as you would wish, your employees must be given the:

chance to work

a salary agreed upon by both (with upgrades if necessary)

terms and conditions of that work (times, clothing, etc.)

a grievance procedure that works

a complaints procedure that is equitable to all

a communication channel to air views without come-back

Failure of any one of these may result in a situation that is

1. not viable as a work situation

2. the subject of a litigation

3. bad feelings and guilt for both parties

  1. more expense than you want to deal with




Back to Contents 

















Definition: A risk is something that is usually taken:

1. as part of an animal's on-going evolution (no choice),

2. something a human does without due regard to personal development (ignoring incoming data) (human choice),

3. something a human does with reference to incoming data and extrapolation as to the consequences of that data (human choice).

Risk is dependent on the data available to us, how it is processed by the mind, and subsequently acted upon with due regard to the possible consequences as far as they may be extrapolated.

Some risks are inherent in our nature as human animals. They must be taken with or without our consent.


In other words, we may be confronted with a situation about which we know little. How we react to it is dependent on the data we can glean about that situation and how we might react to it.

Risks are with us every day of our lives.

For example:

We risk not getting up in the morning, depending on the circumstances of the night before or what happens during the night about which we may have no choice.

We risk rising from our chair.

We risk danger in driving to work and so on.

Risk is with us all the time. It is what makes us human. To lessen a risk depends upon our incoming data and how we react to it. That data is personal.

Creating risks, is the domain of the fool-hardy and scare-mongers. These people have the data (which they have created) and which they claim as knowledge, with which to scare themselves, or others into believing that there are risks that are not even there in the first place.

If I personally, take a risk, I am should be acquainted with all the data that is possible for me to get at the time. I know the risks of driving, I therefore try to avoid risks or at least be aware of them, so that I can act/react appropriately. I admit that this is sometimes difficult but heed is better than nothing. It reduces the risk (that of not knowing or having personal control over).

Without data we cannot create information. Data is not information; it creates information.

Taking risks without due thought to any incoming data can lead to disaster (the death, or injury, ultimately, of the risk-taker). People who take risks for a living, own their own subsequent living styles to the measure/s of that risk. Some people take pleasure in taking risks. They are often accounted as heroes; usually by those who would not consider them (the risks) in the first place. They are not scared, mostly, but possibly wise. Usually, also, they have some data about the risk but not all, therefore, they take what is known as 'calculated' risks. Be it on their head/s.

It's a risky World because we are in it (like it or not). The Earth is risky enough without others of our species who make it riskier. There are enough risks of our own without others putting in their own, for their own sake.

Would you approve of someone who wanted to put you at risk of death? I doubt it, but people do. They vote, for badness sake! There is no incoming data that is personally relevant. There's no data of the proclivities of these people you vote for. Then there's blame when the voting turns to data which turns out to be lies and risk-taking on the behalf of the voter.

What is a voter? A voter is a person who relinquishes the entitlement to be in personal control. A voter may have the best ideals but whom is distracted/detracted by the lies of those who presume to know better; those who have no experience or knowledge of those for whom they purport to 'lead'. Badness knows, these people should have been aborted before their first scan.

I have no problem with people who want to take risks without due thought (those that 'apparently' take risks are usually those who have thought out the consequences, therefore, there is no risk). But leave me out of your calculations. With no thought, you could be in my risk area and I could die. I don't want to, yet. After-thoughts/words/ceremonies do not matter; I'm dead anyway and then, nothing matters.

We cannot wrap infants/'vulnerable' people into cocoons in a nannyistic State to reduce risks. This is crap.

To live our lives we must all take risks if we wish to survive. Survival is taking risks but with an amount of data which will limit those risks to manageable. Trying to reduce risks, with incongruous stupidities will not reduce them, it will, in my experience, only make them worse.

The notion of 'believe in yourself' might have become a cliché but that is what it is all about. It's all about personal responsibility. No matter what degree of 'brain dead' you might be and under whatever circumstances, you make decisions, they are yours. If you choose to procreate, then the decision for that is a combined one. You are then both responsible for the sibling you have created. It's then your responsibility to gather enough data to be able to help that sibling to maturity. It's not someone else's; it's yours.

One can only reduce risks of failure of some kind by researching data equivalent to that risk. No one can regulate that for you, only proffer data and support. Given that, it is your responsibility, no guilt, no blame. Make a wrong choice, you need support and advice, perhaps.

Personal experience shows that you can rely on no-one else. Only you are inside your head (as a colleague observed). If you allow others to invade this, it's your decision, no one is forcing you; and then it is your choice and only you are responsible.

If by some means others force you, then you are no longer yourself, and that is very sad. It happens to a lot of people. You must find ways of getting out of the situations.

Personal behaviours cannot really be changed. They might be modified by threats, coercion, bullying or other means but in the end, they destroy what is you as a person. Some of this modification may be reversed but in essence, you are no longer yourself. This is the sad way that humans treat humans (and other animals).

Realising this, is data for you to digest. Realising this, is data to make you aware of your own personality, which is invariably 'good'.

It is your personal responsibility (should you so wish) to allow/disallow incoming data to affect your personality. 'Only I am me', I wrote in the 1970's in a poem. If you allow incoming data that is not personally researched but merely imported into your mind as printed words or television pictures and words as they appear, then you have failed in your responsibility to yourself and any others for whom you choose to have a responsibility. The same notion also goes for those persons who choose to live on their own. Without personal research, accepting the values and truths of others is denigrating the one thing you personally have, your own integrity, your own personality, which is as valid as anyone else's (despite whatever else they might claim to be otherwise).

None of us asked to be here. We are all the consequence of the sexual reproduction of our species. There is no fault, no blame.

But being here, as our progenitors were, we have a responsibility given to us to survive. The responsibility is inherent, it is not given by anybody (unless you believe in some form of amorphous omniscience). Thus, no fault, no blame.

All of us have disabilities, more or less. Even with modern technology we cannot determine the outcome of a birth as 'perfect-for-the-rest-of-your-life'. Without intervention, dear old 'Mother Nature' deals with these things in her own way; it's just that Man plays 'god'.

No one will ever know what will happen next in their lives. This is the risk factor. Without it, we would not have been human. Without it, dinosaurs would not be what they were, or still are, if birds still fly.

Reducing risks is great, up to a point.

However, obviating risks is a personal issue. It depends on the research data that is available for the person concerned. The more data, the more truths available.

Legislating against risks is non-productive, except in lawyer's terms because laws need to be enforced and they can only be enforced by bullying. Thus litigation for reasons of personal gain, will eventually fail. The problem with laws, is that they are global. They take no account of anything between the polarities of 'yes' or 'no'. Thus they impinge on everyone and no-one.

Rules, on the other hand, are local. The consequences are local and therefore meaningful because they can be enforced. Being philosophical about this is unproductive. It's a mind-exercise from which little can come about.

No fault, no blame.

If I do something, of my own accord, without reference to warnings against, then who is to blame? Only me. It was my choice, my responsibility, my loss. Tough.

If suitable warnings were not forthcoming, I should know better than to perform an act which was potentially dangerous to my person. Do it? My choice, my responsibility to myself (and possibly others) as survivor.

Living, is getting on with things. Worrying, is not getting on with things. Worrying about risks and how to prevent them, is a matter of getting on with accumulating personal data.

Living is getting on with things for yourself. That done, you will automatically be of use to others. If you can't have or take personal control over situations, you are wasting your life. We can only have control over local activities, not global ones. If some despot wants to blow up the World, it will be done despite anything you can do. Better get on with your life as long as you have it. No one knows when they will 'shuffle off this mortal coil'.




Back to Contents