ARRGG!

  
What strange necromancy is afoot? 

Surely dispensing with satan can't be that big a deal.    He's all wind isn't he?

Yet creepy visions, well, from the compliant shape TV keep haunting my mind.

Pictures of people with staring eyes who I can't tell apart, called millipedes or something.

Millibanks, Milibads?  Well whatever, my skin is reacting...what creatures of the dark do we have here in human form?

Tonight I sleep with garlic, the whole works....



It didn't work!!  I awoke with images of faces with an unnatural sheen, like Bin Laden, but these had staring eyes like black orbs.  They were images from yesterday's TV news !

Without even dressing or brushing my teeth I went straight to a dusty copy of 'Okkulte Phanomene Im Lichte der Theologie' (*)  by the little known devil hunter Abbot Weisinger. 

Nowhere could I see any references to this new brand of unearthliness.

I then turned to the older 'Personality and History of Satan' by the Englishman, Robert Brown, no relation to Dan Brown. 

Pages fell out, and as I put one back I was drawn to the Children of Belial - " they knew not Jehovah".  Well, the millipedes were brought up by a godless Marxist, with no allegiance to the faith of their race, let alone to the faith central to the British Constitution.  Also Belial could refer to both human and devil beings.

It awaits then, it would seem, for them to give themselves up to every species of abomination and wickedness.

Don't forget to make a punt if odds appear on Betfair! Well, already you'd get a blank stare if you asked them about reinstating Children's Human Rights, or stopping unwanted homosexual porn channels being automatically downloaded with freeview into normal people's homes, or ads for them popping up when looking up the weather on ITV teletext.

Luckily, the spirit of Belial hasn't had much success, at least on YouTube - most YouTube videos get more hits than millipede videos!!!


(*) Occult Phenonomen in the Light of Theology
  

My CD has No Reverse Gear

   
There's this belief amongst pagans that CDs are better than cassettes which were better than records.

They're not.  Each has advantages and disadvantages which the others don't have.
 
When records were replaced by audio cassettes, you couldn’t go right to the song you wanted to which you could do before.

You also lost the glossy record covers. The satisfying feel of holding the black shiny disk.  Romantic evenings were also more romantic with records.

If you're listening to someone on a CD it's tough if you missed something, you can't rewind a little bit on most machines.


As for DVDs at least new video cassettes worked - trying to get some Tesco value DVDs to run on my laptop is not relaxing.

CDs aren’t better than cassettes which are better than records and DVDs better than video cassettes.

They’re all different or parallel technologies.

Once upon a time technology progressed. Now it keeps starting from the beginning.

The only progress is that you’re poorer - having had the record, you  had to then buy the cassette and then buy the CD to listen to the same thing. Of course, with recordable DVDs, you have to buy different makes in bulk to find out which one works on your machine. You then need several recordings on different DVD makes for the same film to ensure you can watch it on other players.
   
Some people  even replace their entire collection of music by an identical collection of music every time the factory wants more money.  Particularly it seems amongst opinion formers who are treated as thinkers.

What we need is for all these technologies to co-exist together - it would boost the economy, and I'd be able to buy a twin cassette player again!
  

The Pope, Journalists, and that "illness"

            
Only the global village idiot, Peter Tatchell, could dismiss the Catholic Church by suddenly presenting himself as a champion of Islamic 'leaders'.

On TV he claimed that the Pope’s visit was an insult to the many Islamic ‘leaders’ who weren’t each given the same formal invitation - Islamic theology accepts that there are no formal Islamic leaders, meaning those who set themselves up as religious leaders of Islam are usurping Mohammed's authority over Muslims, under the Islamic paradigm.

He also claimed that the Vatican isn’t much of an independent State, so the Queen as Head of State shouldn’t have invited him here!!!

In his attempt at formal reasoning, he seemed to have nothing to say about the Queen as Head of the English Church - thus charged with safeguarding Christianity and the Christian country of Britain (presumably from people like Mr Tatchell). 

The Pope’s visit has, however, highlighted the puzzling claim that we live in a 'secular democracy', despite 74% of people describing themselves as Christian rather than godless (Census figure)!

What do proponents of the 'secular democracy' claim say when presented with the '74 % democracy' argument?  They say that the 74% aren't very good Christians so they don't count, so the country belongs to the godless, ie themselves!   

Britain is a Christian country under British Constitution even without the 74% figure!

It seemed about only 2% of those who turned out were protesters - presenting themselves as 'champions of children' but who support the abolition of the most basic of Human Rights - the right for an orphan to be found a new mummy and daddy, a task made easier in Britain by the banning of any normal person from adoption work in the interests of  satanic justice.
.

As for the Catholic Church, it is one of the biggest global health care providers, providing nearly a quarter of health care in Africa, running 5,246 hospitals, 17,520 dispensaries, 577 leprosy clinics, and 15,208 houses for the elderly and chronically ill etc. not to mention the central role the Catholic Church and the closely allied Church of England has played over the lifetime of the Realm.

Also, Catholic convents have produced the most exciting and desirable women – Anne Robinson is the exception that proves the rule.

Most importantly, I had a fine education under a Catholic teaching order.  I learnt right from wrong. In particular, that it’s wrong to sexually bully people - like criminalising us if we don’t let anyone into our homes to engage in rather unhygienic, not to mention unspeakably depraved, sexual acts if we do a bit of B&B.

At this point, I’d also like to remind Dr G,  the only person who’s reading this probably, and who keeps suggesting he’s fitter than me, that at school I coxed the rowing team in such a fit manner that our main opponent turned back without even having gone half way. The team from Bovington Army camp had left in humiliation before we’d finished the course and returned!

Also, the Catholic Church has given me great support in my belief that the Modern Cult of Sexual Deviancy and Faecal Sex is not a good thing. My belief stems from the Cult’s production of a global plague that predominantly kills members of the Cult (*), whilst the Cult’s unnatural beliefs and practices have rendered most of the Cult members who are still alive, suicidal or with mental health or personality problems.

If this real life satanic cult’s stranglehold on the West is to be loosened, the Catholic Church has a role.

The Catholic Church has also given me great support in my belief that if King Herod’s massacre of a few hundred babies for political reasons was wrong, then putting millions whilst still alive, topping the Holocaust, through a meat grinder as a retroactive method of contraception can’t be right either – however “hateful” the 'champions of children' above describe this belief.


So what am I leading up to?

Sadness. Sadness that I must criticise the Church.

I was saddened at Benedict telling journalists on his plane that “we know that this [paedophilia] is an illness, that free will does not function where this illness exists”.

Aside from travelling with dodgy company (that also forgot their job was to ask questions) it meant that Benedict can’t accept that priestly power can be corrupted into evil by priests.

The Vatican seems rusty on its theology. It’s true that the completely insane who speak gibberish all the time  are deemed by secular law and theology not to be responsible for their actions.   However, fallen priests were fully aware of the difference between right and wrong. Hell, they’re specially trained to!  They only seemed to think they needed help with the ‘illness’ after they were caught.

Evil comes first. It's a free will choice.  After evil is chosen comes the inability to control. 

Priests have the most real power in the Church because they deal directly with the people. 
They have more power than the Pope to inflict direct personal harm. 

The Church must apply or amend Canon Law to remove all such fallen priests from the priesthood if the Church is to regain the respect of many.   Ideally their conscience should prompt them to ask to be  laicized, as penance to help the reputation of the Church.

It's not as bad as excommunication!

However I believe what the Church really needs is Vatican 3. 

After Vatican 2 we had priests going on sociology courses!!  Social 'Science' is why student loans were introduced! Now it seems to be all about how normal people oppress satan's children!   Like bringing up the subject of personal responsibility.  

Under Vatican 2 even Tony Blair, Champion of Sodomites Abolishing Children's Human Rights, was admitted into the church, without even a "sorry about the past, chaps".

Not only that, I was threatened with excommunication, albeit in a gentle manner, by a Archbishop I shall not name, just because I fancied attending masses like we had at school - with the priest with his back to me so he couldn't see me having a quick snooze.  In fact the IRA got off much better than me from my letter, which was largely asking for them and their supporters to be excommunicated on Canon Law grounds of scandal, so that I wouldn't have to watch Gerry Adams, on TV taking Holy Communion, whilst my ears were throbbing with the pain of that awful noise they play at the start of  TV news..


(*) Apart from in Africa, because of the slave trade, according to some AIDS writers who regard the usual explanations as insults.
 

A NEW BRITAIN - from scratch !!!

    
A tremendous opportunity awaits.

Like the pioneers of America, we face a blank sheet.

Like the owner of a gutted out house, we can build a new interior.

Britain is finished.   Barely a vestige is left. 

We can build anew !!!

----
   

Mind you, if the 'Big Society' is to be a part of it then the Charity Commissioners need to be replaced.

Replaced by people who are in tune with the idea of the 'Big Society'!!

The Charity Commissioners thinking is that  "promoting moral and spiritual welfare of the community and religious harmony" means allowing fanatical political organisations like Stonewall, naming themselves after criminal events in America, disowned by many they claim to represent, setting themselves up as charities, to sit on the Government’s face to criminalise real charities whose objects only included children – not themselves!
   
   

 

 

Dr Who and Parallel Universes and God

  
Parallel universes are great misery for Dr Who who lost his girl in one.

It doesn't mean they exist though!!

Now it’s been realized for some time that if some values in physics (physical constants) were even just slightly out, the universe would be completely out and we certainly would be out of it, as atoms couldn’t form.

Some 'leading' scientists have claimed that this obviously means that there must obviously be an infinite number of parallel and totally different universes - each with the same laws but different physical constants!!.  And we obviously happen to be in the right one for us in an infinite to one chance. If you want to be really technical that’s actually a transfinite number to one chance.  Transfinite means infinity to a power.  The claim of course doesn’t even include the number of transfinite universes that have different laws anyway ignoring the constants.

They say the reason parallel universes exist is that firstly we're here. No argument about that of course. The second reason however is that it’s obviously easier to believe in an infinite times infinite number of different parallel universes, which we’ll never be able to prove exist, than just to believe in the one we’re in!  

The problem, they say, in believing in just the one universe is that it leads to things like the 'anthropic principle'
(google it, I'm only writing this as I can't sleep and am ready to go back to bed..) and the danger that it could lead to people believing in God (like all the great scientists did in the past, unlike ego trip charlatans of today).

Whether or not the 'anthropic principle' is an argument for the existence of God, the desperation of some to argue the totally absurd as serious science, shows to me how terrified some scientists are that God might exist contrary to their belief. They are ready to sacrifice all integrity just to stop people talking about God. Why?
    

Christian's Shouldn't Burn the Koran - Muslims Should

"It would have been most constructive if a Cathedral were in the building plans for Ground Zero"       
   

Any spiritual value in the koran was lifted from the bible by Mohammed. Any moral attitude comes from the bible. The power of the koran comes from the Bible. The koran however contains much harm, which is why Muslims should burn it themselves.

To the credit of many Muslims, however, they have left their faith after actually reading the koran.

They've left their faith even after it's been strenuously defended by Western politicians who haven't actually read the koran!


One Muslim on a forum said he left the Faith after reading of the Warlord Mohammed's promises of sexual rewards - part of the carrot and stick approach to deal with reluctant killers.

MOHAMMED'S CARROT and STICK APPROACH

- Those who stayed at home instead of following him into battle to massacre Christians and Jews would go to Hell. (Chapter 8, Koran)

- Those who followed him and died in battle would have wonderful Palaces in heaven full of virgins to bonk.

(This was the cause of 9/11 - the few real journalists on the Guardian even reported terrorists in Iraq explaining this motivation of theirs.  This also explains of course why terrorists are so ugly - handsome arabs can get girls without having to rely on Mohammed's promises.)

- Those who followed him and lived would share the earthly glory of the victors of battle.

-  Christians and Jews are the vilest people on Earth according to God BECAUSE they are sticking to the Old and New Testaments rather than updating to Mohammed's plagiarising of the Bible, so are eminently killable (Chapter 98 Koran).

(Mohammed's bible puts the humble Warlord as Head of Mankind, God's Second in Command, anyone not believing he's the most special person in creation being human garbage in the eyes of God .)


Surely other decent Muslims should start to hate their faith in Mohammed too?  Those who genuinely follow Islam for spiritual principles and love of good could start their own church, based on the original principles in the bible and anything constructive in the koran, assuming any of them have actually read all the koran.  This church could adapt customs Muslims are comfortable with.

Al 'quaeda represents the real Mohammed.  Everyone knows this.  Only a few people in America are demonstrating about it - such is the fear and intimidation Islam installs.  In fact Islam and the Gay Mafia are the two great pillars of terrorism in society.  No mainstream politician in UK or America would dare attack either Islam or homosexuality.  Terror Lives.

'Moderate' Muslims have created and keep going the infrastructure of Islam.  They are the servants of Al Quaeda.  Technically, in fact, the term 'moderate Muslim' is a contradiction.  All Muslims believe the koran is the speech of God, or else they are not Muslims.  All Muslims are fundamentalists.  Certainly on youtube few Muslims seem to have any problems with the core message of the koran - Islamic Supremacy, religious and political. Expressing shame over 9/11, rather than contempt towards protesters, is not the rule.

Attempts to produce a Modern Islamic Theology explaining away embarrassing bits in the Koran  are generally dismissed amongst Muslims.  This is in sharp contrast to the Catholic Church dismissing embarrassing bits in the Bible as not part of the central message and not relevant to today.


It would have been most constructive if a Cathedral had been fitted into the building plans for Ground Zero.
 
 

How to be a famous Scientist

     
Physics once meant British Physics – Newton, Faraday etc. Upright geniuses!!

This was before godless foreigners, including the Americans, turned Physics into science fiction.

Germans of course were the start of the problem. As a booby prize for losing the war (officially at least), well, the one before that as well (officially at least), everyone took seriously their claim that a cat in a box is neither alive nor dead until you look at it. This is quantum physics, invented by Germans.

The booby prize was made ultra special by getting everyone outside Germany to accept that the reason that doesn’t make sense to them, is because they’re dumb, and not intelligent like the Germans.

Then there’s Einstein, cocky wolf in humble sheep’s clothing.  He said you shouldn’t believe anything unless you can explain it to a child. Well, try telling this to a seven year old child “Hi, did you know that if your twin brother were shot off to space in a rocket, which then turned round, and came back twenty years later, when he comes out of the spaceship, he’d be eight years old and you’d be twenty. It’s all because of the acceleration he went through at each end – even if it was slower than you can take off on your bike.”.

If the seven year old then humours you and asks “How do you know?” try explaining to him that we know this is true because waves which are not waves and particles which are not particles have not done what people, who think that a shot cat isn’t dead until you look at it, think the waves, well, not waves, and particles, well, not particles, would do in a jam jar.

Unsurprisingly, physicists can’t actually agree on what theory says should happen in the simplest of thought experiments.

Take the case of the rod shooting over a slit in the table, where the rod and the slit are the same length if placed stationary side by side.  According to the genius Einstein, the rod would think the slit is shorter (so you'd think it wouldn't drop through), and the slit would think the rod is shorter (so you'd think it would drop through).

Hardly surprising then that some scientists say the rod wouldn't fall through and others say it would - some university physicists would tell you the rod bends into the hole .  Hardly surprising, when you have a paradox, that people argue different things.  Most importantly, when you can argue anything it’s hardly surprising that the theory fits the observations!!

From a paradox anything can be argued (as Aristotle famously pointed out).

As Professor Herbert Dingle, Bernard Levin's hero pointed out, "relativity has been accepted for so long despite its clear untenability.".

Now the reason foreigners were able to come up with such stuff is that Physics hit an impasse over a hundred years ago.  Suddenly everything stopped making sense where the very fast or the very small was concerned. It became a complete mystery as to what is really really going on in the universe or in the atom.

As we didn’t know what is really going on, this meant that British Physics, a serious subject, became stuck.  After all, it might even be impossible to encompass all physical laws using mathematics, or a finite number of mathematical sentences. In fact, why should it be?  All the upright, honest, British scientists who believed in God came out and said  "We're stuck".  

Foreigners and Americans of course had no qualms about making it all up as they go along. In fact you can’t get anywhere in Britain unless you joined them.

You’ll know this is true if you did ‘O’ Level Physics. You’ll remember you were told that if you were solving a quadratic expression to find the mass of a billiard ball, then you’ll get two solutions and you reject the negative one. You don’t say you’ve just discovered negative mass and apply for a Nobel Prize!

Well, not until you become a ‘real’ scientist. For example in ‘The large scale structure of space-time’ Stephen Hawking co-wrote, there is an example of several solutions to an equation. Each solution happens to be a universe! The book then suggests that we might be able to travel to other universes! If you wrote in your ‘O’ Level exam that the billiard ball has a sibling of negative mass and as we can't see it, it must be in another universe, you’d fail. If you were a real scientist, however, you’d get away with it.

You’d be famous !

NB This post is not to say that we can't use mathematical systems, however unaesthetic (developed by foreigners you see), to make successful predictions we couldn't before.  That is, as long as we don't act like mental patients who think maths and the physical world are the same thing and we restrict ourselves to the testable rather than the SF.  But being able to make predictions in this manner just shows further that we haven't the clue what is really going on.