Thursday, 28 June 2012

The Men who made us Fat

This is a new BBC TV series of which I've only seen Part 2:

The immediate thing which struck me is that the presenter focuses on just one issue of poor nutrition: amount. He comes back again and again to discuss the way portions and servings have increased in size and calorific intake. It's easy to get the impression that if only we ate a staple diet of regular size Big Macs and Mars bars we'd all be in perfect health! He also doesn't explain how cases of obesity have increased more than 20 years after what was predicted to be the obesity panacea: Aspartame, was introduced. However the super-size drinks shown were all sugar-based and the sugar-free factor was not mentioned.

No mention is made of how mealtimes in the home have changed, as well as eating out; and this I think is the biggest cause of poor nutrition. And this is due to economic changes that have altered our food purchasing, and therefore our eating, habits. Some years ago a household could survive on one income alone. One parent, usually the father, would go out and work while other, usually the mother, could take their time preparing a decent meal out of fresh wholefoods. Today both parents usually work, so nobody has the time to do that. Therefore it’s easier just to grab a frozen processed meal, often GMO, and microwave it. Microwave ovens reduce even further the already vitamin-depleted slurry that makes up the “TV dinner”. The rise in poor health as a result from this is portrayed in the programme as a problem, but for the Big Pharma regime, a legion of overweight diabetics with heart disease is a goldmine! Why would they want that revenue stream to dry up?

At the end of the programme there’s a short outro where the presenter sets the scene for Part 3, in which he’s obviously going to debunk the benefits of organic food. Expect another article from mew when this is broadcast! See here for my article about the resent anti-GMO protests:

Saturday, 23 June 2012

Richard Wiseman- Skeptocrat

Prof. Richard Wiseman has stated in a TV interview that he would like to see psychic mediums "legislated" and "regulated", see: . This is a very poor interview indeed; one-sided in the extreme. The programme is not necessarily obliged to provide another guest to give the other side of the story, but they could have had the presenters ask better questions! All Wiseman did was outline the points he made in his book Paranormality; see here for my HPANWO review of it: .   

It looks as if we're sleepwalking into a "Skeptocracy", a terrifying Orwellian scenario in which the will of the Skeptic Movement supersedes political democracy and is imposed on the sound-minded adult population of Britain, oblivious to our freedom-of-choice. I first came across this issue way back in 2007 when this thread appeared on the JREF Forum, discussing abandoned legislation enforced on psychic mediums by the city council in Philadelphia, USA: (As the archaic UK Witchcraft Act was dusted off to deal with the medium Helen Duncan in the 1940's) I immediately jumped into the fray; as you'll probably guess I'm "Porterboy". As always the dominant Skepperist membership used Skepdebating tactics which I found very frustrating and very difficult to deal with. (I've done an analysis of these tactics here: ) After leaving and coming back a few times I think I made my point. The "licensing" and "regulation" of psychics is simply a euphemism for suppression and restriction. This is ironic because very few psychic-believers I know of wish to regulate and restrict the activities of Skeptics. I personally would leap to the Skeptics' defence if this ever took place. Also, historically, it was Skeptics themselves who, like everybody in the scientific community, were on the receiving end of persecution during the centuries of Christian theocracy. It's sad therefore that Skeppers' cries for freedom of speech, human rights and civil liberties swiftly go silent when they move over to the prosecutor’s bench. Don't be fooled by the platitudes the JREF-members make like: "Psychics can still operate; they just won't be allowed to charge customers". They know very well that such a law would destroy the psychic industry as we know it, and this is their intention. I almost used a much harsher word in the title of this article to describe Richard Wiseman.

The justification for the Skeptic position is that they claim psychic mediums have never passed properly-designed experimental tests to see if their psychic powers are real. This is not the opinion of every scientist who has ever studied psychic mediums; in fact some claim that some psychics are indeed really psychic. However the Skeptic Movement has this self-image in which it has the right to speak for all science. This is false. To be a Skeptic is an ideological position, not a scientific one. This is Oxford Skeptics in the Pub's description of what a Skeptic is: “A skeptic is one who… rigorously and openly applies the methods of science and reason to all empirical claims… A skeptic provisionally proportions acceptance of any claim to valid logic and a fair and thorough assessment of available evidence, and studies the pitfalls of human reason and the mechanisms of deception so as to avoid being deceived by others or themselves". But this is not a description at all, this is a slogan. There are many people who use science and reason, including many highly qualified and experienced scientists, who would not be described as Skeptics; in fact they’re usually labeled “believers” (and would probably oppose these new anti-psychic laws). Then again there are people who know nothing about science and never use its methods who say things like: “Nah, I don’t believe in all that crap! There ain’t no such things as ghosts or UFO’s. It’s all in yer head innit?” Yet this person would be described as a Skeptic. So it’s impossible to avoid the fact that it is opinions and conclusions about certain subjects that separate the people called “Skeptics” from those called “believers” or “non-Skeptics” and nothing else; not methods, not science, not education, not qualification; see here for more details: . Yet it is this falsehood that is being used to justify the Skeptocracy! It's not just a local problem in Philadelphia either; it's spreading further, see:  and: .

The argument about whether psychics and mediums are genuine or all charlatans is not the issue here. The issue is civil liberties, freedom-to-worship and human sovereignty. We hear a lot about these issues in the media at present relating to people who've chosen to reject belief in anything supernatural, but how about those who have not? We all have a right to hear both sides of the story before deciding whether we, as free sovereign adult men and women, personally think psychic mediums are real or not, and whether we want to pay them for their services. The decision has to be ours alone whether we do so or not.

Thursday, 21 June 2012

No MBA's on Wikipedia

I was casually browsing Wikipedia the other day when I came across the page of Marcus du Sautoy, who has replaced Richard Dawkins the new Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford. See: As you can see, there is a list of his various qualifications, awards and honours on the fourth paragraph of the page. I was shocked and outraged that they had not included his MBA! This is despite the fact that his documentation and medal have been sent to him! See: . How dare Wikipedia omit that! I was drafting an email of complaint when I checked the page again and saw that somebody... I don't know who... has edited it. They have added onto the end of the fourth paragraph: "In 2011 he was decorated with the Materialist Bravery Award- Silver grade." Hopefully this addendum will still be present when you read this article.

I'm very distressed to see that Wikipedia have also failed to present the status of two other prominent MBA Laureates, Dr Susan Blackmore, see: , and Prof. Richard Wiseman, see: . The MBA emerged out of the perennial and intriguing question of what happens to a person when they die. Do we just stop existing when our body does? Or is there an Afterlife of some kind; heaven, hell etc? The answer is, of course, that there is no Afterlife of any kind because the mind and consciousness is simply the by-product of electrochemical activity in the brain and so when we die our consciousness ceases to exist forever. The reason people believe in Life-After-Death is simply because the prospect of ceasing to exist is unbearable and so humanity has concocted a mental safety-net to survive psychologically...

But... BUT Some people can face it! Some people have the courage, the fortitude, and general SUPERIORITY to face that reality... HEAD ON! They're EXTREMELY SUPERIOR people... And so I thought that they're valour, bravery, pragmatism and general GLORY... should be recognized. And so I devised the Materialist Bravery Award to honour them.
See here for background:

Obviously it's completely wrong to edit Wikipedia willy-nilly without the consent of the page's subject, and I would strongly advise against anybody doing so, but if somebody... whoever it might be... happens to amend the information therein to include the subject's MBA status, I would not be overwhelmed with righteous indignation.

Monday, 18 June 2012

JR Social Club Update

I've been back to the site of the John Radcliffe Sports and Social Club three months after it shut; see here for background: I had to sneak secretly into the hospital grounds because I'm banned from entering the site except as as a patient or vistor, and I took a few photoes through the windows. The place looks very forlorn and unloved. It made me feel sad.
Despite claims by the hospital's management that it was necessary to shut the Club as soon as possible because the building was needed for some new office or other, they don't seem to be in hurry to convert the site now... not now they've achived their goal! I think the Social Club was a threat to the "New Hospital Order", the one which is trying to break down the National Health Service by stripping its servicemen of self-esteem, comradeship and community spirit. Even as an ex-NHS serviceman I still feel strongly about that. At the end of the day they need our cooperation with that, and it's up to us whether we collude with the new mindset or not. We can keep our chins up and, as Arthur Seaton said: "not let the bastards grind us down!"

Here are the photoes I took:

Tuesday, 12 June 2012

Ben Emlyn-Jones on Alternative Future Radio- June 11th 2012

Ben Emlyn-Jones has been interviewed on Alternative Future Radio with Basil and Mark. See:
The programme can also be listened to on AFR’s YouTube channel. See:
(This was a good interview, but I think I talked too fast. My mind sometimes overtakes my mouth. Sorry about that. I'll try to speak slower next time.)

Ben has been featured on AFR previously and that programme can be listened to here:

Saturday, 9 June 2012


See here for the film Earthlings:

This is a disturbing and upsetting film that chronicles man’s relationship with our fellow animals (because it’s often forgotten that man is an animal too; we’re Homo Sapiens, a primate, that is a member of the ape family). I suspect that the scenes shown in the film are the most extreme cases, possible secret footage used as court evidence to get those farms and abattoirs closed down, but there’s no doubt that for the most part we do treat our fellow creatures with contempt and cruelty (I had to leave the room when it came to the whaling section). We see them as sources of gain through exploitation and are indifferent to their needs and the sanctity of their lives. Why? Because we can. We treat vulnerable creatures like that for the same reason we treat vulnerable humans like that: because we can; it’s that simple. As I’ve said many times before, we are being psychologically conditioned to be social Darwinists, (See: to see society as an amoral "dog-eat-dog", “might is right” morass. I’m glad Earthlings makes this point; it demonstrates that we cannot address human rights without addressing animal rights. The two issues are intertwined and inseparable. The Illuminati see humans as merely one more species of farm animal; if we emulate their attitude do we deserve better?

There’s a very dubious, as well as convenient, theory that says it doesn’t matter how we treat animals because they lack consciousness, they are not “self-aware”. The theory claims that humans alone of all creatures possess this peculiar and tenuous side effect of brain function. They site experiments like the “face spot test” in which animals have a black spot painted on their face and are shown their own reflection in a mirror; if they notice the spot this proves they recognize their own reflection and so are aware of their own identity. Animals which fail this test are apparently “unconscious”, unaware of themselves; although the proponents of this notion have never fully explained the details of this state of being. There are major flaws in this theory: Firstly humans are not the only species which pass this test; elephants, chimpanzees, dolphins and other cetaceans also do. Secondly, anybody who observes animal behavior will soon realize that it doesn’t differ that much from human behavior. Most animals, from dogs to ducks to donkeys, seem to be able to learn by experience and experiment; so possess intellect and memory. They seem to experience emotions: love, anger, happiness, sadness etc. They are social and communicate with each other; some even have simple political systems. The “un-self-aware” theorists will say things like: “They do seem to exhibit behavior that mimics human emotion…”; and the teetering tower of convenience grows even more precarious! This is also an unfalsifiable position; if behavior that mimics the experience of emotion can be used as part of the theory that no real emotion is present, then how can we ever know if any being, including humans, ever experience emotion. A woman weeping at her husband’s graveside might only be “exhibiting behavior that mimics emotion.” The dangers of this falsehood are obvious: Slave owners used to claim that black people have no soul! Anybody who has owned a pet, especially a dog, will scoff at this concept. Animals may be unable to comprehend many of the things that humans do, but they love, hate, are joyous, disappointed, inquisitive, bored, frightened, have friends, family and all the other things we humans do. They also suffer like we do; one doesn’t need a vast amount of brain power for that. We don’t know for sure what it feels like to be a particular species of animal unless we actually are one. Therefore we do know what it feels like to be one animal species: a human; this is why we know that the woman at the graveside is feeling real sadness. Why are we so certain that we know what the experience of being is like for other species?

You might now be expecting me to announce that I’ve become a vegetarian, but I’m not. I’m not a vegetarian and I do eat meat. I don’t think vegetarianism is a necessary step to eliminate animal cruelty. Even in this day and age it’s possible to obtain meat, eggs and dairy produce from farms in which the livestock is kept in a comfortable and natural habitat; they are fed an organic natural diet, given access to vetenary treatment and generally cared for by their farmers. Organic free-range meat is a little more expensive than regular brands, but it’s worth it I think, especially if you only eat a small amount, as I do. Alternatively you could eat game meat; that is meat from wild animals that have been caught in their natural habitat. Or why not hunt or trap animals yourself; this is not an activity for the squeamish, but after watching Earthlings you might find it more palatable. It’s ironic that animal rights activists often abhor hunting, even if it’s just hunting a species not in danger of extinction for food, but will go straight from their protests home to a nice pork chop from a pig kept its entire short life in an indoor pen and fed antibiotics and offal from other farmyard beasts. There are a lot of videos online claiming that man is naturally a vegetarian, that we’ve evolved to be a herbivore, see: and: The basis of this theory is that man has none of the physical features of predators like sharp teeth and claws, and an ability to run fast etc. However this doesn’t take into account that primates are unique because they’ve evolved high intelligence and grasping organs, like human hands, which show we naturally use tools to survive. Because we can make hunting weapons and traps we don’t need teeth and claws; in fact such anatomy would get in the way. I read a series of very detailed articles in Dot Connector magazine (see Links column on the main site) which explain that man is naturally an omnivore, a species which eats both meat and plants. We’re actually at our best when we consume 10 to 15% of our diet as meat. So don’t feel any qualms about eating meat from an animal that has been caught in the wild or has lived a happy life on a free-range farm. If this is in our nature why should we? After all if you were swimming in the sea and a hungry shark passed by, it would lose no sleep over gobbling you up.

Sunday, 3 June 2012

The Diamond Jubilee

Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Saxe Coburg Gotha Mountbatten this weekend is celebrating 6o years on the Throne of England, and unfortunately millions of ordinary people across the country and around the world are also doing so. The weekend of Diamond Jubilee festivities include a special horse racing event at Epsom, a Sunday cruise down the River Thames with a Royal barge, and a massive ceremony in central London around Buckingham Palace. The weather is chilly and wet, just as it was 59 years ago at the Coronation (following her official accession 60 years ago). It's raining on her parade, literally. Is Mother Earth trying to say something?

Queen Elizabeth II is currently 86 years old, but never seems to suffer from Alzheimers Disease, osteoporosis, or any of the other geriatric complaints that make millions of other senior citizens’ lives a misery. I bet she eats organic food and has access to hemp oil, Vitamin B17 and all the other medical marvels that we, the people, are forbidden from using. She is the incumbent monarch of the so called House of “Windsor” which is in fact the German aristocratic dynasty of Saxe Coburg Gotha, related to the Hapsburgs, one of the 13 bloodlines of the Illuminati. Far from being the epitome of everything we think of as English, she is primarily German; and Germany is the country Britain has been manipulated to fight during the 20th Century, in the two most destructive wars in history. She is not only Queen of England, but also of 18 British Commonwealth nations, covering one sixth of Planet Earth’s land surface. Secretly she rules many many more, including Ireland, the United States of America, Israel, Zimbabwe and India. She is without a doubt the richest and most powerful individual in the world… at least among our rulers who are on public display. 

Her income is incalculably large; even her official, overt property and capital is enormous; enough to feed every hungry person in the world a dozen times over, replant every felled tree in the Amazon 5 times over, and provide 104 pounds 47 pence for every man, woman and child in Great Britain. She owns 6.6 million acres of land, far more than the second biggest landowner on Earth, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, at 5.53 million acres. She is the biggest landowner in the United States and acquired her territory in a strange manner. She covertly bought up the land on which the mysterious and sinister Denver Airport is built, under an alias; this means every traveler who passes through this very busy airport unknowingly pays rent to the Queen through part of their airline ticket. The value of this land in raw capital, based on current estimates, is 17.6 billion pounds. 

Everywhere I go at the moment bunting and Union Flags can be seen in shop windows, outside pubs and bookshops. There are private streets parties going on, as well as crowds gathering at the official rituals as loyal subjects pay homage to this Black Madonna. This is the third such event during the 6 decades of her reign. The Silver and Golden Jubilee preceded it in 1977 and 2002 respectively. I was only a small child at the time, but I remember going to a Silver Jubilee celebration in my hometown of Lampeter in west Wales. I recall eating lemon meringue and being sick because of it! The Silver Jubilee was a major festival in Lampeter, even though this was in the heart of Welsh-speaking Wales at a time when militant Welsh nationalism was at its peak, and quasi-terrorist groups, with links to the National Front and the IRA, stalked the green hillsides. It astounds me how much adulation and worship this evil-eyed, reticent and ghoulish old woman manages to inspire. Those of a more sensitive and psychic nature have seen her take on a ghastly Reptilian form, nominating her as one of the Annunaki, the legendary “serpent race” who conquered the Earth in prehistoric times (David Icke, see the main HPANWO site’s Links column)

There are appeals for reason and resistance, in some places rising above the doting clamour. In fact during the Silver Jubilee this very irreverent song was number 1 in the charts: . It was banned from Radio One and Top of the Pops; one of only two occasions this has happened. Nowadays we have the Internet which makes it far harder to ban things. I don’t think this new song for the Diamond Jubilee will get onto Top of the Pops, but who cares!? See: