The Waterworld Tattoo; North Pole, South Pole, Himalayas

Quite a lighthearted post today. Last night I watched the movie Waterworld. For those who've never seen it, it's set in a watery future where, thanks to the melting of the polar icecaps, the whole world is now submerged beneath the ocean. What's left of humanity struggling to survive on the ocean's surface, drifting aimlessly on various floating contraptions.

It was also at the time the most expensive movie ever made (it's release came in 1995). It's an odd movie in a way and was generally perceived as a huge flop at the time. Although it's incredibly cheesy, for some reason I've always quite liked it. In fact, I remember years ago, when I was studying music at Middlesbrough College, having a friend who semi-ironically always claimed it was his favourite movie. Whenever he said this I kind of knew what he meant. You can enjoy it on two levels - you can laugh at it, but also get caught up in its epic adventurousness.

When I watched it last night it was the first time I'd seen the film in quite a long while. So I was interested to see if there was anything I'd missed, or that had went over my head, when I'd originally viewed it. In the alternative conspiracist world there's often this notion that truth is hidden in Hollywood movies. With this being the "most expensive ever made" at the time, I thought it would be worth a re-look. Especially with regard to the flat earth/alternative cosmology revival that's taken place online in recent years. This being very much an Earth-themed movie.

Anyway, what caught my eye this time was the tattoo map that figures heavily in movie. This is a tattoo that's found on the back of a young girl, which is thought to be a map showing the way to dry land. In fact, the entire movie revolves around the goodies and baddies fighting for possession of this young girl in order to gain possession of the all-important map.

The map is globe-shaped and contains an arrow pointing to a mountain situated at the top. The tattoo also contains what look like strange Chinese characters. (It can be viewed in the top right hand corner of the first image in this article).

Intrigued, I had a search online and came across the following Cracked article that explains the tattoo (along with a few other tattoos featured in movies).

5 Cryptic Movie Tattoos (They Didn't Think We'd Translate)

The article provides a translation of the Chinese characters (plus the one Japanese character also oddly included). They translate as map coordinates. Giving a longitude and a latitude for a specific location on the globe - that location being Mount Everest in the Himalayas.

However, strangely the tattoo actually gets the latitude and the longitude the wrong way round. The actual location of Mount Everest is longitude 86 degrees, 56 minutes and latitude 27 degrees, 59 minutes. The tattoo gives longitude 27 degrees, 59 minutes and latitude 86 degrees, 56 minutes.

The tattooed map also fails to give directions for the coordinates. Latitude goes from 0 degrees at the equator to 90 degrees at the poles. So 86 degrees could be either 86 degrees north from the equator, or 86 degrees south. Likewise longitude can go east or west from the prime meridian, going up to 180 degrees either way. So the location given could have been any one of four places on the globe.

The Cracked article states that the errors in the map are simply lazy mistakes, which seems completely reasonable given how complicated Chinese characters are for westerners to understand. Plus longitude and latitude are easy concepts to confuse. Plus plus ..it's just a movie.

However, it would be interesting if the mistakes were deliberate as it would mirror another geographical confusion I've mentioned on here before. Namely discussions about the "centre" of the Earth. On the famous flat earth map the centre is the North Pole. (Of course, there is no centre on a globe). However, in other cultures the Himalayas are often seen as the centre of the world. I've noted before the Theosophical obsession with the Himalayas in the 19th and early 20th century.

If we read the coordinates on the tattoo map as they appear, then all four possible locations fall at the poles. Two at the North Pole, and two at the South Pole (86 degrees being very close to the 90 degree north/south coordinate signifying each pole). So once again we have this overlap between the poles and the Himalayas.

Earth Agnostic: The Endless Forest

In this series of articles I've been considering the possibility that our stipulated model of the Earth may be incorrect. Is the cosmology we're taught actually right? Is the map of the earth even correct?  ..and if it isn't, why would this not be open knowledge? What's with all the secrecy?

One thing I've been considering is what would happen were it to be discovered that things were not as they first seemed. For example, let's say it's the late 19th century. The Heliocentric model is firmly enshrined as truth. The learned men of the day so confident they have it all worked out that they don't even think to question the fundamental concepts everything rests upon. Now what would happen if some discovery was made that brought this certainty into question? How would people deal with it? Would they even be able to cope with such a groundbreaking shift in perception? Would the leaders that were in charge tell the general public? Would the public be ready or even willing to accept the information being offered? And how would such a message affect society in general?

These thoughts and ideas overlap with something else I've been considering lately. Namely the idea that "conspiracies" - both big and small - far from being impossible or unlikely, are actually inevitable. I'm essentially working on a theory that states that conspiracies, even huge ones, can develop organically. An inevitable output that naturally develops from all the lies, errors and crimes that accumulate over time. So, just as the lies of a single person can often spiral out of control, as small lies get covered up by bigger and bigger lies, and so on and so forth. So too can the lies and errors of an entire social structure accumulate into bigger and bigger fallacies and untruths. Even to the point of reaching absurdity.

So for example, with my model, as one empire rises - let's say the British Empire - an empire of lies or errors will inevitably rise alongside it.

A good example is the Catholic Church. No doubt the Catholic Church originally began as a small movement, centred around a core set of beliefs and ideas. However, as the church grew and got bigger and bigger it became more and more complex. Now when any movement starts growing it becomes increasingly lucrative. It becomes economic. It increasingly becomes a part of the social structure - part of the economy, part of the body politic. Once people become invested in something, either emotionally or economically, it takes on a life of its own. The institution or idea - in this case the church - gets tied up with the personal and economic success of individual people and groups. Its success or failure meaning success or failure for these people, their businesses, organisations and families.

So, let's take the issue of relics. The blood of Christ. A piece of the true cross. The bones of this saint or that saint. As the church grows the market for such items becomes bigger and bigger. People and churches can make money displaying and selling them. So such items are found and displayed. Some may be genuine items - others may be frauds and knockoffs. However, people want to believe, and people also want to make money. So the relics keep being "discovered" and the people keep flocking to see them, and the economy keeps rolling.

Now as this goes on inconsistencies arise. As more and more relics get discovered it reaches a point where some relics contradict other relics. So you may have one church claiming to have found the tomb of, let's say, John the Baptist. Yet another church, in some distant location, may already claim to have the head of John the Baptist on display. With the actual Catholic Church it reached the point where there were countless duplicates of the exact same relic. Proving simply by basic logic that some, if not most, were indeed not relics at all. It was such inconsistencies that helped pave the way for the Reformation.

Now you can imagine a scene in medieval Europe. With one person, starting to get sceptical of what he's expected to believe, stating; "You know what, I don't think these are the bones of John the Baptist". And another guy then replying; "C'mon, so you're saying all the priests in the Catholic Church are part of some vast conspiracy to deceive us?"

Now, of course, in a way the second person is right. There isn't a vast organised conspiracy creating all these fraudulent relics. However, at the same time there kind of is a vast conspiracy. It's just that priests don't need to be told to lie about this or that. Their behaviour is dictated by the economic and social situation they find themselves in. If they're making a living as a priest it's unlikely they're going to rock the boat by biting the hand that feeds them, even if deep down they can see the inconsistencies just as much as everyone else. And if one does have a pang of conscience too strong to keep quiet, then that person will be driven from their profession pretty quickly by other priests that fear the economic repercussions of that one honest priest's actions.

So it just all keeps rolling on for economic and political reasons - the truth takes a back seat to realpolitik. The priests and true-believers have a vested interest in maintaining the system. The King and other aristocrats need their taxes, and therefore the support of the Church - and everyone just plays ball for the sheer practicality of it. Any criticism that does come, generally comes from people outside of the system (or the repressed within it).

So; the institution/social structure develops organically. The errors, lies and criminality likewise develop organically too. And when these errors and problems are challenged the structure defends itself organically.

To me this is similar to what we have with NASA and space exploration today. On the one hand statements are made claiming that we can't get past the Van Allen radiation belt, yet at the same time we're led to believe that man has been to the Moon. An obvious contradiction. An inconsistency that it's easy for someone like me, who's outside the system, to point out. However, people within the system - scientists, teachers, academics, etc - have to simply ignore this and pretend the inconsistency doesn't exist, or if pushed, make some kind of special pleading for it.

Now these people aren't necessarily part of some dark conspiracy. They're just fearful for their jobs, their reputation, the loss of their social status. It's simply not in their practical interest to acknowledge such things. They have bills to pay and families to feed. So the errors and frauds remain and accumulate. Each successive generation paying lip service to more and more error. Or, in the case of true believers, simply taking as fact things for which they have no evidence, or understanding of.

Anyway, I've digressed quite a bit from the original purpose of this article. Which I'll try to get back to - and that is; what would happen if serious evidence came to light challenging the prevailing worldview?

I've been trying to imagine a similar, conceptual situation to envision what could happen. I'm labelling this The Endless Forest.

Imagine there's a group of people that live at the centre of a huge, vast continent, situated in a huge and equally vast ocean. Now this continent is completely covered in forest, and is so huge that this group of people have never even reached the coast. No one has seen the seaside or the ocean. It's simply a concept they have no knowledge of. All they know is dense, seemingly unending forest.

Now what worldview would these people have? How would they envision their universe? It wouldn't be hard to imagine, even if we just do so hypothetically, that these people would come to envision their universe as just endless forest. Just as we have a vision of infinite space in mind when we conjure the word universe, they may similarly have a vision of infinite forest when they contemplate the entirety of their reality.

So what would happen if some of these people actually reached the coast and saw the boundless ocean for the very first time? How much of a shock would it be? How much would it shake their worldview? And what response would they get from the people back home when they tried to describe their tale?

Again, I wonder would the majority of people even be told. Let's say these intrepid explorers that have reached the edge of their world island return to their civilisation. I imagine the leaders of their respective community would be the first to speak with them. I imagine these leaders would also find it hard to comprehend what it was they were being told. Would they even believe it without firsthand experience? Imagine how serious it would all seem? What if it contradicted well held religious beliefs? Or contradicted the views of the intelligentsia and the leading class?

Of course, it's possible that every member of society would be allowed to know about this new world-changing discovery straight away, as soon as the explorers returned. However, I think it's also just as likely, if not more likely, that most wouldn't be deemed privy to such knowledge. I base this reasoning simply on my observations of most social hierarchies.

For example, if we look at the most basic - the family. Adults generally withhold a lot of knowledge from their children. Normally with the child's best intentions at heart. If a parent is struggling to pay the mortgage they may keep this information from the child - partly because the child simply isn't in the position to help tackle this problem, but also, more importantly, to save the child from the unnecessary worry that would come with knowing such information. In fact, in the past, a man would often even keep such information from his wife. Again the hierarchy; man > woman > children.

Another example is the workplace. Even in mundane professions such as shop or factory work knowledge hierarchies are easily observed. If there's an event or incident that has took place managers and other higher-ups will often huddle together in the office discussing the important information. Meanwhile the rest of the workforce is left out of the loop on the shop floor, wondering what's going on. Even the dullest of information is often guarded with passion by people invested in the hierarchy they're embedded in. Just think how many times you may have asked a simple question at work only to be told "that doesn't concern you"  - even though the information is often utterly mundane.

So I would guess that something as grand as the realisation that there was something vast and unimaginable beyond the forest would be equally restricted to the upper echelons of the social hierarchy. I would imagine that the people deemed important enough to discuss such things would speak privately about this new information, and make plans for further exploration and research to get a better grasp of what exactly was going on. They would leave the education of the people lower down til a later date. They might not even consider it necessary in the immediate future.

This would be the accidental beginnings of a deception. How long would such a deception continue? And to what lengths would people then go to maintain this deception once it's in full flow and people are fully invested in this new status quo?

Earth Agnostic: The Black & White Marble

In this article I'm going to talk about the geographer, politician and writer Sir Halford Mackinder (1861 - 1947).

It's largely due to Mackinder that the subject of Geography became a standard academic discipline. Before Mackinder geography generally wasn't taught as a separate subject. It was his zeal and passion for the subject that led to it being afforded its current status.

Reading up on this promotion of geography by Mackinder I found myself becoming a little bit sceptical, and I couldn't help but wonder if geography was specifically lifted to its higher status as part of some effort to promote a certain view of the world to people going through the education system. Of course, this is purely speculation on my part, and it could well be quite unfounded. However, it does occur to me that of all the subjects on the curriculum geography is possibly the least useful and the most speculative (my apologies to any geography teachers that may be reading). Most of the serious stuff seems to already be covered by the other sciences - and what's left is largely big on theory with little actual proof.

For example, geography is generally where we learn about;

• Climate Change
• Global Warming
• Over-Population
• Farming and Sustainability
• Conservation
• Plate tectonics
• The Structure of the Earth (Inner/Outer Core, Mantle, etc)
• Ice Ages and Glaciation

Now there are other less contentious topics that are part of the subject, and this is a bit of a selective list on my part. However, it does show that it's the perfect lesson for shaping a person's view of the world they live in. The first five topics on the list are quite controversial, politically charged topics. And the last three, though more in the realms of actual science, are also quite speculative. Do we really know what's deep beneath the Earth's surface? How far down have we actually been? And, of course, Ice Ages and Glaciation overlap quite heavily with 'climate change' science.

In fact, I remember as a child learning about these topics and believing it all wholeheartedly. They were taught as fact, not theory or opinion. I remember learning about things such as acid rain and rising sea levels and being genuinely fearful of the consequences for the world, myself and my family. The fear of doomsday-style catastrophism was imbibed in me quite strongly as I recall. Along with the guilt of being such a profligate drain on the planet and its resources.

Now that I'm older, and have realised that things such as "Climate Change" aren't as cut and dried as they were first presented, it's hard not to see this aspect of my education as little more than propaganda. Now I'm sure my teachers didn't see it this way, and I'm guessing they genuinely believed in what they were teaching - or at least feigned the belief needed to tick the boxes of the school curriculum. Either way though I'm fairly certain it taught me at the time to believe and not to think.

Moving back to Mackinder though, one thing I found which was quite interesting is the following. It's a photograph of a globe which appeared in his book Britain and the British seas (1902). I found the picture very striking at first as it appeared very similar to modern depictions of the globe. It could almost be a black & white NASA picture.

Although it's presumably just a photograph of a model globe, it's been photographed in such a way as to give the impression of something much closer to the reality. It's quite an impressive image. I think I'll dub it the Black & White Marble.

Another interesting fact about Mackinder is that he more or less invented the discipline of geopolitics. He was the originator of a theory called The Geographical Pivot of History. In this theory he states that whoever controls the area of land labelled the Pivot Area (see diagram below), which pretty much seems to approximate to Russia from what I call tell, by extension controls the world. Or the World Island as Mackinder would often label it. He believed that in order to control this Pivot area (now more commonly called the Heartland area) it was first necessary to control the arching corridor surrounding it, sometimes labelled the Inner Crescent.

He famously coined the following phrase;

"Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;

who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;

who rules the World-Island commands the world."

It was this theory, pioneered by Mackinder, that later led to ideas such as the Global Chessboard, and this fixation with Eurasia we often get from modern geopolitical strategists.

In fact, I first came across Mackinder in a book I recently read titled A History of the World in Twelve Maps by Jerry Brotton. It contains the following comment made following a talk given by Mackinder;

..Mr Spencer Wilkinson, lamented the absence of Cabinet ministers among the audience. They could learn, he suggested, from Mackinder's explanation that 'whereas only half a century ago statesmen played on a few squares of the chess-board of which the remainder was vacant, in the present day the world is an enclosed chess-board, and every movement of the statesman must take account of all the squares in it'.

Anyone familiar with this blog may recall that I've mentioned Russia and the Arctic Seas before. Speculating that there may be modern mysteries lurking there. So it's interesting that the same area of the world was of similar focus in these earlier works.

Finally, I should also mention that Mackinder was something of a believer in the idea that eventually we'd see a single one world government. Though this sort of thinking was de rigueur for progressives at that time, it seems worth making a note of. In fact, it's hard not to see in Mackinder one of the architects of the modern world.

The Squirrel King; Or the False Dichotomy of Rent Or Mortgage

[The Rent/Mortgage problem is a topic I've touched upon before on this blog. In this article I attempt to explain it in a way that most people will hopefully understand.

Also, for anyone that's came here via the YouTube video you may want to start further down the page; from the "This Is The Human State" heading.]

Imagine a squirrel. He just finds a tree and that's it. He has a home. If he doesn't like it he just finds another tree. Simple.

After that all he has to do is find some acorns. To eat, and maybe to put some aside for the winter. Some days he may collect quite a few. Other days not so many. Either way he can relax safe in the knowledge that even if he starts falling behind he can just pick up the pace a bit.

However, imagine he wasn't allowed to just live in the tree. Let's imagine there is a squirrel king or landlord who owns not just his tree, but all the other trees as well. And that in order for our squirrel to live in his tree he has to pay this Squirrel King let's say 5 acorns a day.

Now imagine our squirrel's situation. Every day, before he can even think about collecting acorns for himself he has to find 5 for the king. Every single day. Imagine the extra workload and the extra stress. Knowing that every day he has to find 5 acorns just to be in the tree, before he can even do anything else.

What happens if he falls behind? If he has a bad day and finds just 4 acorns. Or finds only 5, but is so hungry he needs to eat a few himself. Then knowing that the next day he needs to find 6 or 7 at least just to get by. Imagine the constant state of anxiety this squirrel would be in.

THIS IS THE HUMAN STATE.

And this is why most humans are in a constant state of anxiety.

Stressed. Depressed and unable to enjoy their existence.

We wake up every day knowing that if we don't find enough acorns to pay the rent this week, then next week we'll be homeless. We need to pay this toll every week just to have some place to exist. We're in a constant state of anxiety because of this. Paying to live, sleep and breathe. Never in a position to relax.

Now we automatically accept that it's normal to pay rent or mortgage every week or month, but is it normal, and does it have to be this way? No other animals live like this. In fact, even primitive human tribal groups and nomads don't live like this. I would say it's highly unnatural - and that it's the number one cause of human misery.

In an ideal world everyone should have their own space to exist. Somewhere to sleep, be, relax. Somewhere that belongs to them, that they don't have to constantly pay another human being for the privilege of using.

Now people may say, we can't simply give everyone a house, and I agree it would obviously be a little impractical to do this at this exact moment in time. However, once everyone recognises the problem we can at least start moving towards the concept.

We could for example make housing much much cheaper. It may sound a little crazy to people so unaccustomed to this way of thinking, but I would say that we should be pushing to make a standard house cost as much as a small car.

A young person should be able to save up for say a year and be able to buy a house outright. Then spend the rest of their life without the constant anxiety and stress of needing to pay rent or mortgage week in week out.

There would also be huge benefits for the government and taxpayer in doing this as well. One of the biggest costs when paying state benefits is the cost of Housing Benefit. If someone is unemployed they will get about £75 a week in Jobseeker's Allowance, yet maybe £120 a week Housing Benefit. If we had a situation where everybody already owned their own home that £120 bill for the taxpayer would disappear.

On top of this, if everyone owned their own home and wasn't constantly spending the larger portion of their income on rent or mortgage it would be much easier for them to save for a rainy day. Just like the squirrel saving his acorns for the winter. So maybe many unemployed people wouldn't even need the £75 a week, as they'd be in a position to put money aside for such periods of unemployment.

Again, this idea of super cheap housing may seem very alien to people. However, in this idea lies the solution that both the right and the left have been looking for ..but have been unable to see due to this false dichotomy of rent or mortgage.

People on the right of the argument tend to believe in home-ownership, but are too wedded to the belief that high house prices are beneficial to make it accessible to everyone. Whereas people on the left see the problem of high house prices, yet think the answer lies in state ownership, or even communism. The real answer lies in universal home-ownership.

Previous article on the topic; Rent, Mortgage and the Real Origins of Slavery

The Gender Spectrum Explained

I've been following the various controversies regarding gender issues with increasing interest over the last year or so. In the process my opinions have become a little more fixed, and I feel it may be time to express them here on this blog. Some of the opinions will no doubt offend some readers, however this is not my aim, so I hope anyone reading will appreciate my sincerity if not the content.

The idea of gender-fluidity in particular seems something shrouded in confusion at the moment. I would agree that there is some fluidity regarding gender, but that the fluidity isn't quite as fluid as many of the more vocal proponents of the idea often claim.

It might be easier if we imagine a spectrum of gender. At one end extreme masculinity, at the other extreme femininity. With a slightly blurred dividing line in the middle.

(A hypothetical Gender Spectrum where 100 on the left would

represent extreme masculinity and 100 on the right extreme femininity)

Now each of us are born somewhere on this hypothetical (and admittedly crude) spectrum. For instance, I myself am male. However, I'm not the most manly male you'll ever meet. I'm not especially muscly. I don't have a very deep voice. I don't have particularly masculine features. If I had to put myself somewhere on the above chart I'd probably reluctantly put myself somewhere roundabout the 40 mark on the male side. I say reluctantly, because as well as being male I'm also straight, and if I'm being truly honest I would have to say that I'd like members of the opposite sex to see me as being very masculine and consequently more attractive.

Now this gets to the point at hand quite neatly. I could make myself more masculine. I could go to the gym every day to build my muscles. I could change my diet and lifestyle with the aim of increasing the flow of my male hormones. I could even seek medical treatment and utilise medication. Likewise I could do these things to make myself more feminine. However, there is a limit to how far I can change my nature. No matter how much I try to make myself more manly I'll never be as manly as someone who was born at the far end of the masculine spectrum. And the women that I hope to impress by my endeavours may still view me as being less manly than the more brutish, lumbering jocks I'm up against.

Now, sadly, this is just the way it is, and there isn't too much I can do about it. I may think that the women judging me are being unfair, however I can't force them to see me as more manly. Nor would I want them to pretend they see me as being more masculine just to make me feel better. Though a little sympathy and consideration would be nice :)

If I was born around the 40 mark on the male side of this graph then to some extent I'll always be around that mark, whatever I do - though there is some fluidity, and I may be able to move myself a little one way or the other. Plus, because I'm comfortably on the male side, I'll always be male. And my underlying physiology will always be male, no matter how extremely I try to change this.

So, people can become more feminine or masculine, but the only people who can truly move from the male side to the female side (or vice versa) are the people born around the middle of this chart.

Of course, it should also be noted that there are people who are born with actual physical hermaphroditism. Where their gender is physically undefined or difficult to define. There are also other genetic conditions such as Klinefelter syndrome that can result in hormonal problems. (These issues go beyond the scope of this article and my knowledge on such topics is very limited. So my apologies to anyone reading this if I've misunderstood or misrepresented these issues in any way.)

My own feeling is that people born with actual physical, biological conditions that result in gender issues are often under-represented in the debates surrounding this topic. I feel it's important that everyone on all sides of the argument appreciate that in some cases these decisions are forced upon people, and the parents of people born with such conditions, through no choice of their own.

As for the more contentious issue of people that are born with no such physical condition, but who feel that they have been assigned, or have been born into the wrong gender, this is a slightly different matter. My honest position is one of scepticism. How can someone define what it feels like to be a certain gender? Or how a female brain thinks in a way that is fundamentally different to how a man would think? How can someone make this judgement without it being anything other than subjective? I may feel I think like a man, but without experiencing life through the eyes of another man, or indeed the eyes of a woman, how can I make a relative judgement?

However, saying this, I am very much open to the possibility that some people may have this exact experience, and may feel like the opposite sex from a very early age. I know one transgender person in my real everyday life who claims to have always felt "like a girl" from as young as three years old. I remain sceptical though.

What I would say is that I think it's fundamentally wrong for parents to allow children to be given gender reassignment medication or medical treatment if it's simply based on such feelings. To base such important and serious decisions on something so subjective, without any objective physical evidence to back that up is very dangerous and irresponsible in my opinion.

Of course, that's not to say that I have an issue with adults doing such things for the same reasons. In a free society adults should always have the freedom to change their own body as they wish, and I would always defend a person's right to do so - though I may disagree with their choices at times myself. However, to put an otherwise physically healthy child through such treatment is something I'm very much opposed to, and I can't stress that enough in this article.

I also feel uncomfortable with the idea of telling children that their gender is fluid in school lessons. Especially if it gives the impression that it's perfectly easy to transition from one sex to another. I think gay and lesbian children will be particularly confused by such talk. It's not too hard to imagine that a young girl, noticing that she's attracted to other girls and not boys, could easily come to the erroneous conclusion that she's a boy trapped in a girl's body. The idea that it's easy and completely routine to make such a transition would no doubt make the temptation to think such thoughts even more likely.

People often point out that sexual preference and gender are two different things, and they're quite right to do so. However, there is a little bit of correlation between the two. Obviously sex and gender are quite heavily linked - the very purpose of sex in nature being to procreate. So the two issues can't ever be completely separated.

It's also interesting to note, though I may be wandering a little off topic here, that there are benefits and disadvantages to being born on all parts of the gender and sexual spectrum. It could also be argued that it's beneficial to society to have people from all parts of it.

In my general experience there seems to be a bit of a balanced relationship between sex and creativity. For example, at both ends of the spectrum we have the same stereotypical image - at one end the dizzy, ditzy, but attractive woman, and at the other end the ape-like dominant male. The stereotypical bimbo and the stereotypical jock. Now both these stereotypes are generalisations and perhaps a little bit unfair as well. However, there is some truth to these generalisations, and in a general sense at least I think most people would agree they recognise these stereotypes. The people at the extreme ends of the gender spectrum also tend to be the people who are more successful with the opposite sex, and more likely to settle down and have children. A very important job in society of course.

Alternately we can also see that people towards the middle of this spectrum tend to be more creative and academic. Most pop stars and musicians, both male and female, have a tendency towards the androgynous. This is quite clear to see from Bowie to Lady Gaga and so on. Also, if you imagine say, a science laboratory, you'll probably notice that most the men working there are a little more on the geeky side than the musclebound. And likewise the women there will tend to be more serious than girly. Again these are stereotypical generalisations, and there are of course countless exceptions to the rule. There is though a certain truth to these observations.

Returning to myself. Though it's a little disappointing that I'll never be considered the most rough and manly of males to many of the women I meet. At the same time I probably wouldn't be sat here writing this article if I was more of a stereotypical unthinking hulk. There are benefits to both positions, and neither are necessarily right or wrong - just different. Wider society probably benefits from having this variation too.

The natural influence sexual desire has on society means that it can be hard for people outside the statistical norms of both sex and gender. We all have this innate desire to be found attractive. Or even just to simply fit in. So if we don't fit the norm it can be difficult, and the further from the norm the harder it often gets. Consequently the small fraction of people that are born on the blurred line of the gender divide often have it hardest of all. So it's important that such people are given the utmost consideration by wider society. However, it's also important that honest consideration is given. The reality is that there may be no easy answers for people born in such difficult positions. Pretending everyone is equally normal doesn't really work in real life. It just creates a false facade over an already existing reality.

I also worry that our desire to normalise people that are statistically-speaking not normal is kind of missing the point a little bit. Maybe this otherness should be acknowledged as other and celebrated as such. Androgynous rock stars are not normal people, and if everyone was normal there would be no such rock stars. Or poets, or painters, or original thinkers.

There are benefits to being different as well as negative consequences. Maybe both these aspects need to be considered when we think about the type of society we'd like to live in. I often think of how in India people born with physical differences are worshipped as gods. I'm not sure how true this is, or how practically useful this would be in reality, but in some ways it does seem like a more healthy attitude to have. Maybe it's because of our inherited western mindset that we have this situation where if a child is born, let's say hermaphrodite, we see the need to medicate the "problem" away so no one ever sees it, and so that the child can go through life appearing perfectly normal to everyone else.

Maybe if we had a different cultural heritage having a friend that was hermaphrodite would be no different to having a friend that was gay or lesbian. Maybe it would just be another natural variation of the human type.

A non-VaporWAVE Election Manifesto

Okay, so we're now firmly in the run-up to #GE2017 and it's all a bit backwards looking. Jeremy Corbyn, though he seems like a perfectly honest guy, seems to want to take us back to the 1970s, and the Tories seem to be offering nothing but the status quo ..plus Brexit, which I hope they're sincere about, but have my doubts.

It's like being given the choice between going back to the 80's or going back to the 70's. It's a retro-election of sorts. A cut and paste rehash of all the old stuff - #vaporwave 2017.

I genuinely have no idea how I'm going to vote at the moment ..or even if I will at all.

Anyway, in my frustration over the last couple of days I've been thinking about what my manifesto would look like were I to run. There's no doubt quite a lot of stuff I've missed out and a few things in here I maybe haven't quite thought through enough yet, but here's what I've come up with so far.

I have six main pledges;


#1 Abolish the BBC License Fee

This is an easy one. Everyone saves money, private enterprise can then expand into all the areas that the BBC is currently dominating with its huge unfair state subsidy.



#2 Parents given the Right to Choose their Child's School Hours

All parents will be given the right to send their children to school as much or as little as they see fit.

For example, if a parent feels the school day is too long and would prefer their child to only attend on the mornings they would be free to do this. This would give parents greater control over their child's education and well being. It would also help to free up time and resources. For example, if the parents of a class of 30 children all opted to only send their child to school on the morning or the afternoon it would effectively half the classroom size to 15 - meaning that the time spent at school, though shorter, would be calmer and more beneficial.

It would also mean that parents wishing to home-school their children, but unable to do so because of work commitments would be able to divide their child's education between home and school. For example, sending their child to school on the days that they're in work, but home-schooling on the days they have free.



#3 A "Living Space" Initiative

I would implement a massive building boom, paid for by the taxpayer and managed directly by the government. The housing would be made available to rent or buy at dirt-cheap rates. Under-cutting the lowest rents and market values in any given area that the housing was built. They would be made available to anyone to rent, but only UK citizens, born in the UK, who own no other residential property would be entitled to buy them. People in the age group of 20-40 would be prioritised, though the option to buy would be open to anyone meeting the above criteria.

The building boom would be a deliberate and continual one. The aim being part of a wider plan to extend the "living space" rights of UK citizens. The idea being that everyone should be entitled to own enough land/space to live on, and that no-one should be forced to pay another person, by rent or otherwise, to simply have a place to sleep at night.

"Living space" in effect can be seen as an extension of "personal space". A basic entitlement which we all intuitively understand.



#4 Homelessness Winter Pledge

Every year, between the months of September and April, any homelessness in any UK city or town would be considered a "national emergency" and funding would be prioritised accordingly. Plans would also be put in place to share such costs fairly in order to stop boroughs and councils from simply shifting homeless people from one town or city to the next as often happens now.



#5 Benefits Sanctions to be Capped at 50% of the Benefit

Any sanctions imposed on job-seekers to be restricted to at most 50% of the benefit. This would effectively create a bottom line safety net that any unemployed person would be entitled to whatever their circumstances or compliance.

This initiative would also act as the starting point for the gradual introduction of a citizens income for all UK citizens. However, this would be a long term aim beyond the scope of the next parliament.

Most would agree that all sanctions imposed on unemployed people are abhorrent, and even those who advocate their use and effectiveness generally view them as a necessary evil. The idea that sanctions, as they currently stand, mean the loss of someone's entire benefit and sole source of income is simply unacceptable. The above initiative would hopefully be something of a halfway house.



#6 Any Future "QE" Stimulus to be Fairly Implemented

In the event of any serious economic slump, if the government or the Bank of England deems it necessary to introduce another round of "Quantitative Easing", then the money will be filtered into the economy directly through the public, instead of being used to purchase financial assets.

Any "new" money created will effectively be "given" to the public. Every UK citizen over the age of 16 will have an equal share of the total deposited directly into their bank account. It will be deposited in installments over monthly periods for however long is deemed necessary. This will increase spending in the economy in a fair and democratic way. It will also help stimulate areas of the country in proportion to their general population.

EU by Stealth: How the Mainstream Media are Systematically Destroying UK Parliamentary Democracy

We all hate politicians right. They're just the worst. The biggest crooks. The bane of our lives. If only we didn't have them things would be so much better. Correct?

Well, actually, no. Why do we all hate politicians? - and universally so. Everyone, from left to right, from the most asleep mainstream sheeple to the full on "conspiracy theorists" like myself, we all share this common hatred ..and I think we may all be falling for one of the biggest psy-ops the Media-Intelligence Networks are playing on us.

First up we need politicians, we can't have representational democracy without some people filling the role of politician.

Secondly, is it fair to decry all politicians as bad, dishonest and dishonourable? Surely we the electorate should be discerning between the good and the bad politicians; the honest and the dishonest. And if necessary even standing for election ourselves - in which case we would hope that potential voters would judge us on our individual record and not simply revert to the mantra; this person is a politician, therefore this person is de facto bad and deserving of hate.

The successful functioning of democracy depends upon us voters using our judgement and discernment. When we decry all politicians as bad, or wash our hands of the political process altogether we're failing in our duty as citizens.

It's my belief that the mainstream media have played a big part in fomenting this collective apathy we have. So let's look at the many ways in which the media are undermining the political process. (In this article I'm writing from a British perspective, but I'm sure the same or similar applies in most other countries as well.)

One large event in Britain was the MP expenses scandal. Now I can't defend some of the ridiculous things MPs were claiming on their expenses, nor would I want to, however, the collective effect on the public consciousness was to deem all politicians feckless and greedy.

On top of this there are the endless scandals surrounding the fact that MPs often employ members of their own family as aides and secretaries (in fact, in France at the moment many politicians are coming under media scrutiny for this as well). Now again I wouldn't want to defend every instance of this kind of nepotism and I'm sure there have been numerous abuses, however the practise of employing relatives, if lost, will badly damage democracy. It will make individual politicians even more dependant on the state and the media, increasingly less independent, and consequently much worse at representing you.

In order to understand this you have to put yourself in the position of a politician. Let's say you're a decent, honest politician that has entered politics for noble reasons by getting yourself elected. You're something of an outsider and are new to the corridors of power. Now you need a secretary to help you do your job properly, however you need someone you can trust. You can't just put out an advert and hire anyone that walks into your office, you're doing a quite serious job.

Sure, you can get the person vetted by the intelligence agencies, but what if you don't trust the intelligence agencies? What if you're a politician that the state isn't too keen on? You're an individual politician in a complex political world - the only people you can truly trust and rely on are the people that you already know, in particular your close family members and friends. It would make perfect sense to employ these people in some capacity.

If I was a politician I would most definitely employ a family member as my secretary and confidant.

Not to enrich that family member, but because I would want trusted people around me. It would strengthen my position and make me more able to achieve my aims. I know for a fact that I would be weak and vulnerable if I allowed myself to be isolated and alone in the murky world of politics. I certainly wouldn't want to risk having a shill or spy working alongside me managing all my personal and business affairs.

Now however, thanks to the mainstream media, politicians are unable to utilise their own family members. Individual politicians are therefore more isolated and much more easy to pick off by their enemies than otherwise would be the case. They have to be state functionaries now. Professional employees of the state who are expected to act as such. They can't have an individual power base from which to challenge the state itself.

Another way the media continues to undermine the role of the British politician is by constantly denouncing any plans that there may be to increase their pay. In the aftermath of the expenses scandal it was suggested that MPs should have their pay increased - a perfectly logical response. The reasoning being that an adequately paid MP wouldn't need to claim on their expenses. In fact, the general view at the time was that MPs were claiming on their expenses under the impression that they were justified in supplementing their relatively meagre pay packet that way. In effect it was a fudged system where the expenses perks were off-setting the perceived low pay.

Now again, the pay that MPs receive may seem like quite a lot compared to the average pay of a UK worker, however if we value the democratic process we need to pay MPs accordingly. If democracy is important to us then the job they're doing must also be important and worthy of decent pay. They need to be financially comfortable enough to concentrate on that job ..AND they need to be relatively un-'bribe'-able.

Also it must be kept in mind that a politician may only be in their job for a few years  - if they're fearful of losing their job at the next election because of personal financial worries then moral purpose and dedication to duty may take a backseat. Even for relatively honest and decent politicians this may be the case, especially if they have a family to take care of.

The mainstream media also has a habit (in my opinion a deliberate habit) of attacking all honest and independent-minded politicians and giving shill or "career-politicians" an easy ride. Just look at the treatment politicians like Jeremy Corbyn or Nigel Farage get from the media compared to their more scripted colleagues.

The media also gives UK politicians ample opportunity to look like complete idiots. Take Ed Balls and Ann Widdecombe on Strictly Come Dancing for instance. Ed Balls was once one of the stronger figures in the British Labour Party, and he always comes across as one of the more decent ones whenever I read up on the Blair/Brown years (though his wife seems like an Orwellian schoolmarm XD). Now though he's dancing around on TV in spandex. George Galloway meowing around on Big Brother dressed as a cat also springs to mind.

It seems to my eyes that the British Parliament is being systematically undermined by the media, and that any genuine independent voices are being purged from within it.

We really need to start using our discernment, and to start believing in the role of the politician even if not in the politicians themselves.