Mabon

Mabon

Comments 0 Comment

The Autumn Equinox, “Mabon”, marks the middle of harvest, it is a time of equal day and equal night, and for the moment nature is in balance. It is a time to reap what you have sown, of giving thanks for the harvest and the bounty the Earth provides. For finishing up old projects and plans and planting the seeds for new enterprises or a change in lifestyle. Mabon is a time of celebration and balance.

This is the time to look back not just on the past year, but also your life, and to plan for the future. In the rhythm of the year, Mabon is a time of rest and celebration, after the hard work of gathering the crops. Warm autumn days are followed by chill nights, as the Old Sun God returns to the embrace of the Goddess.

The passing of Mabon is inevitable and The Sun God should be mourned. We too, must remember that all things must come to an end. So the Sun God journeys into the lands of winter and into the Goddess’ loving arms, but endings are a good time to celebrate our successes, thank our selves and those who helped us, and take part in the balance of life!

Source: www.thewhitegoddess.co.uk

Masters of War

Masters of War

Comments 0 Comment

Classic song … brilliant lyrics .. well performed … nice video. There was a time when I thought this was too harsh. I still think Jesus would forgive them if they repented .. but they won’t. Bush, Blair, Cameron, Obama, McCain, Kerry, Hague; I am appalled by their venomous speech as much as by their acts. I would like to think that people are seeing these masters of war for what they are.

“Masters Of War”

Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build all the bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks.

You that never done nothin’
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it’s your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly.

Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain.

You fasten all the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion’
As young people’s blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud.

You’ve thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain’t worth the blood
That runs in your veins.

How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I’m young
You might say I’m unlearned
But there’s one thing I know
Though I’m younger than you
That even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do.

Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul.

And I hope that you die
And your death’ll come soon
I will follow your casket
In the pale afternoon
And I’ll watch while you’re lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I’ll stand over your grave
‘Til I’m sure that you’re dead.

The Report and its Spin

The Report and its Spin

Comments 0 Comment

The UN Report on the use of chemical weapons in the Ghouta region says two things. First that sarin was used and second that it was delivered by surface to surface missiles. While I haven’t been paying close attention to the US/UK corporate state media and politicians I get the impression that they are using these findings to suggest that there is clear evidence that the Assad regime was responsible for the attack. This is simply not the case as there is evidence that the rebels had and have access to sarin gas and to the missiles used to deliver them. Incredulity regarding the rebels using these weapons on ‘their own people’ is more than matched by incredulity over the government using them knowing that use would give the US and its allies the excuse to attack.

I’m not saying that it’s impossible that the attack came from the government side but I think it is more likely to have been a false flag attack. If the government side were responsible I would still hesitate before blaming Assad because there are more than likely rogue elements fighting with the government as there are more extremist elements on the rebel side. The demonisastion of Assad by the corporate state media to support the FUKUS (France, UK, US) agenda of ousting him is transparently silly. Assad is the leader of a government and a party and even in a dictatorship there is collective responsibility by leaders of government and party. Too, Assad is a head of state not a military leader and in times of war much power is delegated to the generals. Assad will have some say in strategy but overall the day to day conduct of the war, the tactics, will be the responsibility of his generals.

The Syrian government has agreed to give up their chemical weapons and this is potentially a good move because proper control of the chemical weapons in Syria will entail Russia as well as the FUKUS alliance ensuring control of rebel held chemical weapons as well as those held by the government.

Putin’s Message

Putin’s Message

Comments 0 Comment

Earlier today, on Facebook, I wrote the following:

It would appear that Russia, under Vladimir Putin, is more qualified to be the world’s policeman than is the US or the UK who are more the world’s vigilantes. In his New York Times article addressed directly to the American people and by extension to us, Putin claims that “From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.”
 
Cameron has claimed that, by vetoing military action in the Security Council, Russia has been ‘shirking its international responsibilities’. Not so, it is Britain, America and France who most threaten international law and Russia and China who protect it by refusing to turn the Security Council into a lynch mob. It is clear, across the alternative media, that Putin commands more respect than Obama or Cameron even if some still, theatrically, shake their virtual heads at the conclusion that the ‘Russian autocrat’ speaks more sense than their own leaders.
 
It was not Putin’s manoeuvre, primarily, that forestalled an immediate attack on Syria, it was the resistance of people in the UK and US who no longer bought the lies of the media and politicians and wrote in unprecedented numbers to their representatives in Parliament and Congress but Putin gave Obama a way to evade an embarrassing climbdown or a politically dangerous confrontation with his own people as well as a militarily insane intervention in Syria. In his New York Times article Putin is conciliatory, friendly but as a ‘critical friend’. I especially like his ending remarks:
 
“If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.
 
My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.”
 
The cynical among us will say that Putin’s appeal to ‘apple pie and motherhood’ and to ‘the Lord’ is well crafted for his audience. Nevertheless it is enormously refreshing to hear a world leader speak like this. Much more than Obama ever did, Putin has become representative of hope.

It’s been pointed out that Putin’s record on rights for gay people is not a ringing endorsement for the sincerity of his assertion that ‘God created us equal’.

I will admit to being somewhat taken with Putin .. some might say taken in by him. The anti-gay legislation and homophobia in Russia should be opposed but I have to ask how many countries has Putin invaded? Has he killed more people that Obama and Cameron? Russia has interests in the Middle East just as the US has. I can’t judge the man’s sincerity in saying what he does but I can go along with what he says on the issue of Syria and international law at least. The western media will do whatever it can to demonise Putin, he will deserve some of that but some will be western propaganda. I don’t excuse Putin’s anti-gay legislation when I give him fair credit for his international diplomacy any more that I excuse Cameron for bombing Libya and a lot more when I give him fair credit for supporting gay rights.

9/11 and The Reality Gap

9/11 and The Reality Gap

Comments 0 Comment

The gap between reality as perceived by mainstream media professional and reality as perceived by the public who follow discussions in the alternative media is enormous. I was listing to a phone in discussion on LBC this evening. The topic was the anniversary of 9/11 and one caller suggested that there should have been a proper inquiry to determine what really happened. The programme’s host was immediately dismissive saying “here we go again” and “we know what really happened .. two planes were flown into the Twin Towers”. “What about the collapse of Building 7?” asked the caller. “What is Building 7?” replied the host who then went on to assert that he knew more than the caller, that he had the facts and all the caller had was crackpot ‘conspiracy theories’. I found the host’s ignorance appalling – and this was one of the more thoughtful of the LBC presenters. I’ve seen this attitude so many time on popular mainstream media shows; anyone who questions the political consensus, the consensus being sold by the political elites, is maligned as a crackpot of some kind. The fact that large numbers of people question the official story on 9/11 elicits analysis of their supposed psychology rather than engagement with their stated reasons for doubting the official story. I begin to wonder if media pundits are instructed to stay away from discussion beyond a narrow consensus, to stay within a ‘walled garden’, or if they are chosen for their ignorance.

This same gap is apparent in the response of the general public and that of the media and political classes to the Syrian crisis and that gap is growing. A single example of this is the attempt by mainstream media and politicians to create a consensus that there is evidence that Assad’s government was responsible for the chemical weapons attack on Syrians in the Ghouta region. No such evidence has been presented only an assertion that this evidence exists whereas those who follow the alternative media, the analytical media, understand that such evidence as there is points to the rebel forces that the UK, France and the US have been supporting.

I think that we should redefine or rename the mainstream and the alternative media as the oligarchic media and the democratic media or something along those lines, the defining characteristic of the first is that it is essentially a ‘few to many’ dissemination of information and opinion while the second is a ‘many to many’ discussion of information and its meaning.

Elysium

Elysium

Comments 0 Comment

The premise of Elysium is that in 2054 the megarich live on a space habitat far above the polluted and overpopulated Earth. The poor live in terrestrial megacities and are very oppressed by the corporation bosses a bit like the contrast that exists now between the rich in rich nations and the poor in poor nations but more so. The plot is that the main protagonist ‘Max’ played by Matt Damon is an ordinary guy who is very oppressed by the megarich bosses of the megacorps and their robot cops and administrators. Max steals a ‘magic key’, they call it ‘computer codes’ but I know a magic key when I see it. He fights his way to the magic city of Elysium and uses the key to change everything so that the robots start working for everyone and sharing the world’s resources fairly instead of keeping them for the selfish few. Max dies but his job is done the world is saved and everyone lives happily ever after.

That’s it, that’s the plot of Elysium. The sets are very pretty and I would liked the scenery a lot more than the very childish plot. Honestly anyone over twelve should be embarrassed to have come up with guff like this. Then there are the fights. Big, long, noisy and improbable fights have become a new staple of these ‘blockbuster’ films.

Disappointing after the hype. A good core idea wasted. Maybe it could be rebooted as a TV series.

Irrational and Immoral

Irrational and Immoral

Comments 0 Comment

There are many things on my mind this morning; what I can and will share is my concern over the looming crisis in Syria. Of course there is no ‘looming’ about it for the people of Syria who have been caught in the middle of a civil war for the past two years but for those of us in the comfort of the western world what is looming is the sickening prospect of watching the US bombard another Middle East country and knowing for certain that it is as immoral as anything the Nazis did.

A few days ago British MPs stood up to their Prime Minister and voted against British military involvement. They voted against both Cameron’s motion to approve military action and the amendment of the opposition leader, Ed Miliband, to delay approval pending further conditions being met. Both motions were unacceptable to me and, fortunately, to a majority of MPs. A Labour shadow minister, Jim Fitzpatrick, resigned saying that he could not support the opposition amendment as “it essentially endorses the same principle: ‘If we can address certain issues, if certain conditions are met, military action can happen’. I don’t believe that it should under any circumstances.” Respect to Jim for that. Unfortunately I can’t give the same respect to my own MP Stephen Timms who replied to my email saying “Thank you for getting in touch about this. I don’t rule out that military action may be needed to deter the Syrian Government from using more chemical weapons on its own people. However, I agree with Ed Miliband that we need to proceed with care and caution. I shall therefore be supporting Ed’s amendment tonight”. Stephen’s reply was disappointing, not least because of his assumption that the Syrian government actually did use chemical weapons against their people.

Nevertheless Cameron has said that he accepts the verdict of the British Parliament and that there will be no British involvement and some people assume that’s the end of the matter. There are those, Like Boris Johnson, who are saying however that there should be another vote and that Britain should intervene if the situation changes:

We should be concerned about this but we should be concerned about American intervention in any case. We should be concerned because intervention is being sold on two contentious premises and one that is patently false. The contentious premises are:

1. That of the two sides in the Syrian conflict the Assad government is the worse, and

2. That the Assad government responsible or is the prime suspect for the use of chemical weapons in Ghouta.

The patently false premise is

3. That military intervention will do more good than harm.

It is this third premise that we should be concerned about. Assad has his supporters inside and outside of Syria and there is propaganda for and against him but when the missiles are launched it will not only be Assad and the Syrian government who suffer it will be ordinary Syrian people. Should the Syrian government retaliate, as they have threatened, they will be further attacked and Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah will be obliged to fight on their side. What Russia does is an unknown. But Russia and China can see where this is headed. There is NO good outcome for anyone apart from the global elites in beginning direct military intervention and if people are not very concerned about this then they need to become so before it is too late.

Compare Johnson’s political gibbering with what this American woman has to say in this video:

and in this:

Who are we in the west to ‘punish’ another nation she asks. I like what she says and the clarity and passion with which she articulates the rationally and morally obvious. We should be listening to her and to each other rather than to the politicians and mainstream media who, with some honourable exceptions, have lost all credibility.

Demo

Demo

Comments 0 Comment

The demo was small, maybe 150 people gathered at fairly short notice. I raised my voice with them in some anti-war chants directed at the doubtless sound proofed edifice that is the American embassy in Grovsenor Square. The protesters fitted the stereotype, passionate young women from the SWP and old men with beards and sandals. There were some Syrian Assad supporters, some of whom became very upset when a speaker said something negative about Assad. The key speaker was Jeremy Corbyn MP. I wish we had more MPs like him.

What is More Deadly?

What is More Deadly?

Comments 0 Comment

A friend on Facebook posted:

“What’s more deadly, a gun or a thought? A gun gives the opportunity but its the thought that pulls the trigger.”

I replied by quoting: Matthew 5:20-22

20 For I say unto you that unless your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.21 “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old, ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ and ‘Whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.’22 But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, ‘Raca,’ shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say, ‘Thou fool,’ shall be in danger of hell fire.

I think that Jesus did not mean ‘hell fire’ in any literal sense; he meant hell in the sense of a mental/emotional state. True non-violence is not just abstaining from violent acts but also from violent thoughts. There is a Zen Buddhist story that illustrates this sense of being in emotional hell:

A samurai asks a master monk to teach him about heaven and hell. The monk immediately slaps the samurai! Enraged, the samurai draws his sword and chases the monk around the room, intent on killing him. Finally cornering the monk, the samurai—face still contorted in rage—raises his sword for the killing blow… “That!” says the calm monk, pointing to the samurai’s anger-flushed face, “is hell!” In a flash, anger flees from the samurai’s face, replaced by confusion. “And that,” declares the monk triumphantly, “is Heaven.”

The thought, actually habits of thought, lead to action, to a will to kill. A gun or any weapon is a manifestation of that will, a symbol and a tool of that will; in a sense the weapon is the thought. A weapon is not just a gun or sword or bomb it can be a word; the ‘thou fool’ that Jesus refers to is also a weapon.


The weapon, shaped by thought, goes on to shape our thoughts and reinforces our will to kill.

I always found this scene to be the most disturbing in the Kill Bill films: