To be is to be contingent: nothing of which it can be said that "it is" can be alone and independent. But being is a member of paticca-samuppada as arising which contains ignorance. Being is only invertible by ignorance.

Destruction of ignorance destroys the illusion of being. When ignorance is no more, than consciousness no longer can attribute being (pahoti) at all. But that is not all for when consciousness is predicated of one who has no ignorance than it is no more indicatable (as it was indicated in M Sutta 22)

Nanamoli Thera

Monday, December 8, 2025

Greg Ellis - The Respondent

 PRELUDE

Fate is fickle.

A simple, three-word cliché that describes the fragility of our lives and the speed with which everything we think is real can become an illusion. Before March 5, 2015, this simple truth was little more than a philosophical abstraction for me. I appreciated its implications. But I’d never experienced it, never endured a dramatic and unforeseen shift in fortune that I could not navigate—until that fateful day six years ago. 

One moment I was a successful actor and producer living in an expansive Hollywood home with my wife of twenty years and two young sons I adored. But everything changed with a knock on the door by police, the first engagement in a battle with America’s unscrupulous and unstoppable family law cartel that has raged on for years and left me with scars, my family in ashes, and my boys without a father.

This book emerged from this devastating experience. Part memoir, part meditation, part manifesto, The Respondent is the story of my fall from grace—including the many ways I was the author of my own demise—and my consequent descent into despair and confusion as I was ushered through the gauntlet of the suffocating family law system. 

But it’s also the story of a slow emergence and rising. An awakening, both intellectually and emotionally, and ultimately, a catharsis. James Hollis, in opening The Eden Project: In Search of the Magical Other, describes this journey from tragedy to self-awareness like this: “In Greek tragedy, one feels the earth shudder when a protagonist claims complete self-knowledge. At that moment one may be certain that the gods begin their work—to stun the person back to the proper humility of Socratic questioning.”

The spirit in those words lit in me a fire of curiosity that has brought me to uncomfortable truths, not only about myself, as I exorcise many of the demons that have clipped at my heels for decades, but about society at large. I believe America is in the grips of an epidemic that rages in plain sight and yet remains invisible to so many. The shocking reality is that 4,000 children are being ripped from their parents in American courtrooms every day, 1 in 3 children doesn’t live with their biological father in the home, and 40 percent of those children haven’t seen their fathers in more than a year. The fabric of society fraying as an unfeeling $60-billion-a-year family law system perpetuates the tragedy. 

Fathers have a reputation for stoicism that belies a more complex reality in which we feel the pain of family separation every bit as deeply as mothers, a reality made clear by a grim statistic I restate more than once in The Respondent. Fathers who have become ensnared in the divorce system kill themselves eight times more than mothers. Pause and let that sink in for a moment. For every child who loses their mother to suicide during or after divorce, eight children lose their father. This is nothing short of a national health emergency demanding an honest accounting of the conditions driving such despair.

The Respondent is not intended as a vehicle for vindictiveness. But I believe we are all willing participants in a shameful, social kabuki dance, mindlessly fortifying the most destructive narrative of our era—that women, merely by virtue of being women, are the fairer sex. I realize this is provocative to many in our current social climate. But before jumping to judgment, I hope you’ll come with me as I visit not only the darker side of my story but also the shadow of our collective psyche in an attempt to answer this question: What is driving us to devalue fathers and family and perpetuate such a draconian divorce system?When I walked into a dreary courtroom in downtown Los Angeles for the first time more than half a decade ago, I passed from a world of rights and justice to a star chamber of withering and reflexive judgment where due process is extinct and the presumption of innocence is an illusion. In crossing the legal Rubicon from citizen to pre-judged villain, I no longer occupied the skin of a complicated human being. Greg Ellis was dead, and in his place stood the nameless Respondent, present only to receive the slings and arrows of a society determined to exact its pound of flesh in retribution for male sin writ large. 

The Respondent is my humble submission to the struggling dialogue. My hope is that you find it to be many things at once: a white-knuckled ride through a dirty swamp, an intimate inquiry into love and separation, an exploration of my failings as a modern man and my trauma as a boy, and a helpful (if incomplete) map pointing to a more humane and collaborative future, not only for forsaken fathers searching for redemption and justice, but for the whole village of people who love them: aunts, uncles, cousins, grandmas, and grandpas. If we are to fashion a better world for our children, there is no more urgent project than rebuilding divorce court, revitalizing the image of family, and recasting fatherhood as the foundational and heroic role of a lifetime.

We have all been The Respondent—the person summoned to respond to the allegations of a petitioner or the provocations of our times. This book is my legacy petition. I am The Respondent. And this is my story.PART ONE

Fear

“I’m sick of this shit. 

I’m gonna harm the children.”

CHAPTER 1

THE NOCTURNAL

TERRORIST

“If the eyes have no tears, the soul has no rainbow.”

My body is limp and naked but for a thin, sullied sheet strewn around my waist. I’m on my back, my arms hang outstretched in a submissive crucifixion. My hair is matted and caked with dried blood around my right ear, my eyes clenched shut with fear.

The downpour is relentless.

Then my body flinches, my nostrils flare. Small expressions pop and twitch as I recover consciousness. The invisible straitjacket of sleep paralysis loosens. The dream recedes. 

And then my nightmare begins.

Desperately parched, I pry open my cracked lips to take in the water, only to be shocked by its bitterness. My senses now tripped into awareness, I peer up and shock turns to disgust as it dawns on me that the rain is cascading from a penis protruding from a tangled forest of pubic hair. A naked man is pissing on my face.

I can’t avoid the gruesome reality confronting me any longer. I am no longer a man with a family and a career forged over forty years of toil and triumph. I am now but an inmate sprawled in a bed of a dark holding cell, a scrap of tissue stuck to the boot of a legal system as foreign to me as a distant universe.

What a difference a day makes. I wouldn’t blame you for not believing that—a mere twenty-four hours before my unwitting experience as a human toilet—I was pitching a project to a Hollywood studio head, meeting with Joe Pesci and Andy Garcia, chatting it up with Sharon Stone and playing golf with Adam Levine, all before strumming my two sons to sleep on a ukulele in my beautiful Los Angeles mansion. You also could be forgiven for not understanding why—instead of striking back at the unspeakable violation with all the fury I could muster to reclaim at least a shard of dignity—I lay my head back down, shut my eyes, and submitted to the degradation in full.

Reclamations would come, but only after many years of my self-respect being starved, stripped, and assaulted, and endless efforts to uncover who I really am and how I wound up here.

But for the moment, with no reserves left, I would accept the piss.

•••

My fall into oblivion had started eight hours earlier at around 3:30 PM on March 5, 2015. My wife, Dana, was out of state on a business trip and I had given the nanny the afternoon off so I could spend quality time with our two boys. Charlie was ten at the time, Smith eight. Everything seemed so normal. We were laughing and joking in the playroom when the doorbell rang. I walked down the stairs, opened my front door, and found myself face to face with two police officers from the LAPD.

“We received a call about your sons. Are they here?”

What a strange question, I recall thinking. Why would the police be at my doorstep, seemingly randomly, asking about my sons?

“We just need to know they are safe.”

“Yes. They are upstairs. I can assure you they are safe.”

“Sir, we received a call that you threatened to harm your sons.”

“That’s nonsense. Who called you?”

“That’s confidential information. We just need to know they are safe, sir.”

“Confidential? If I’m to be accused of making threats to my sons, I’d like to know who’s making the allegation. Who called you? What danger are they supposed to be in?”

They were silent. I was baffled and unsettled—who could possibly have called the police to report that I’d threatened my boys? We stood there for a moment, locked in a bizarre standoff, an ominous look in the eyes of the officers garrisoning my door. Hoping to break the impasse, I moved again to defuse the situation, reassuring them that my sons were fine and that there was no reason for concern. Uncomfortable with the simmering hostility and sensing there was nothing left to discuss, I reached to shut the door. But one of the cops stepped on the threshold to keep the door from fully closing, and the first pangs of genuine anxiety struck. I didn’t know it then, but I had already migrated miles away from the world of suburban comfort that was mine just minutes before.

A shudder moved through me. Like midnight canaries in a coal mine, my mind went cold and my heart darkened. Panic was setting in, and I responded by gripping ever tighter to routine. I began making dinner for the boys, hoping that the act of domestication would calm the gathering storm. It didn’t. The police did not enter through the open door; instead, they meandered around my lawn in what felt like a predatory sortie. I thought, if I remained calm and measured and demonstrated normalcy, the police would surely realize their time was better spent elsewhere.

As the police began circling, my friend Patrick Fabian arrived, and I took immediate solace in the fact that someone else would assure the police of my benevolence. Patrick checked on the boys upstairs and reported to the officers that both Charlie and Smith were fine. But his reassurance fell on deaf ears—the officers responded with barely a shrug.

My stomach tightened. In the kitchen, I discussed the situation with Patrick and, after a few minutes, returned to the front door, determined to reason with the police. But there would be no reason, no negotiation. To the contrary, at that moment a sergeant walked up the garden path to join his fellow officers, bringing the assembly of law enforcement crowding my front door to five officers in total.

The newly arrived sergeant took his turn interrogating me about Charlie and Smith’s physical wellbeing, and my plaintiff response betrayed a mounting frustration.

“Sergeant, I’ve made no threats to my sons. They are safe, playing upstairs, and there’s a witness who’s corroborated that fact. You have no warrant, so please leave my property. I would like to know who called and lied about me threatening them.”

The sergeant cleared his throat. “Sir, we received a call. You were reported to have said, “I’m sick of this shit, I’m gonna harm the children.”

Ten short words—barely a sentence. And yet, strung together they formed a horrendous falsehood that was about to change my life forever.

It defied belief. Someone couldn’t seriously have called the police and told them I was a threat to my children. It has to be a big mistake, I tried to tell myself. And yet, beneath the shock, I sensed that someone had called the police and had lied about me. Not just any lie, but the worst, most carefully manufactured deceit.

The slowly developing interrogation continued, and, after a few hours of probing, the veneer of civility collapsed and the assembled force of officers broke the line and entered the house. They questioned me further, but that was a mere pretense. Before long, I was informed that a SMART (Systemwide Mental Assessment Response Team) from the DCFS (Department of Children and Family Services) was on their way. 

Then I was handcuffed.

Somehow, I felt as if I was both wide awake and sleepwalking through this surreal moment. I stood in the living room of my California dream home that represented four decades of labor. My children were upstairs. Did they witness any of this?

My front door yawned at the manicured lawns, the bright lights of the interior spilling out past the handful of officers and onto the street where neighbors were doing a half-hearted job at hiding their morbid curiosity as they moved along the sidewalk at a snail’s pace.

Then the DCFS arrived and supplemented the existing police force, establishing a preposterously large crew to restore law and order to a situation lacking in neither. They evaluated me for approximately half an hour. I answered all their questions honestly—too honestly, it would turn out. Suffice to say that the right to remain silent is pointless unless you keep your mouth shut, and anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.

The DCFS agents, having interrogated me, left the room to compare notes with the police. I awaited their verdict, still holding onto a sliver of hope that this would end peacefully with me bidding the cadre of officials a good evening. Soon they returned, set three items in front of me, and told me to pick one to take with me.

Take with me where? They wouldn’t tell me.

I was presented with a stark choice, one I had to make immediately. I could take my wallet, my phone, or a drink coaster with an image of my wife as a baby (a Christmas gift to her the previous year). I chose the coaster, and was soon ushered out of my home, essentially for the last time.

As I was led to an unmarked police car, my wrists burning from the shackles and my back in considerable pain from a recent surgery, Patrick agreed to watch my sons until Dana got home from the airport. I glanced up at Charlie’s bedroom window to see his silhouette. I wondered if he would sleep, what nightmares might haunt him, and what he must have been thinking as he watched his father being led away in handcuffs.

•••

Without offering a seatbelt, they drove me at breakneck speed, siren blaring, weaving through the Thursday night rush hour traffic of Highway 101, in and out and off and on the hard shoulder. The wild maneuvering buffeted me around so relentlessly that I eventually slid off the backseat and onto the floor. Wedged between the seat and the floor in the footwell, I was in agony, both physically and psychologically. I let out a guttural cry. The glass partition slid open.

“Please pull over and help me up.”

No response.

“Where are you taking me? I did not and have never threatened my sons,” I said from the floor.

“We’re nearly there.”

The glass partition slid shut.

I was jammed on the floor for another ten minutes until, mercifully, we stopped. As I was yanked out of the back, I caught a glimpse of a sign—UCLA Medical Center. 

I was pulled to my feet and led inside like a common criminal. One of the officers checked in with reception while the other remained at my side. I continued pleading my innocence and asking why I had been detained. 

The DCFS’ silence, in the wake of my plea, was chilling. We sat for an excruciating hour before they led me to the emergency room area and told me to sit in the hallway, which I did for yet another hour with not another shred of information.

My thoughts turned to my wife, Dana, who suffered from panic attacks and was due back from her trip. She would find the allegations ridiculous and fight for my release. I worried about what our young sons would go through without Dad to sing them to sleep and make them feel safe. It was my responsibility, as their father, to provide them with a sense of security, and I was now powerless to protect them. How could a single phone call and its lie unleash all this damage in just a matter of hours? 

As I waited for some sort of clarity or explanation, things only worsened. Instead of receiving enlightenment from someone—anyone—I was stripped of my clothing, told to put on a gown, and led to a tiny room to give a urine sample. I looked at myself in the mirror. What stared back at me was a broken man, defeated and depleted, wrists red and bruised from the handcuffs, back spasming in pain, eyes animated by terror. The night caught up with me and I collapsed, slamming my head on the porcelain sink and crumpling onto the cold tile floor.

I lay semi-conscious on the ground, my head split open, blood trickling along the floor into a puddle. The timed light in the room clicked off and I fell into darkness. I peered hazily through the crack at the bottom of the door where the light shone through. My vision slid in and out of focus as I teetered on the brink of consciousness. There was loud banging on the door, but it faded as I struggled to stay awake. I rolled onto my back, pushed myself toward the corner of the room and, using the wall as leverage, willed myself upright. I swung my hands up in front of me toward the sink. I managed to get close enough for my fingers to grip the porcelain, and I pulled myself to a standing position, my body protesting the forced rigidity of being upright.

“What are you doing in there?” a DCFS officer yelled. The banging outside intensified.

I staggered, fell toward the door, and, in the same motion, turned the knob to unlock it before stumbling out. I was led to a nearby cubicle and instructed to sit and wait.

After an hour or so, still handcuffed, I was led to the rear entrance of the hospital and strapped to a gurney by two nameless men in white uniforms, who slid me unceremoniously into the back of an ambulance. I protested again.

“Where are you taking me? I have a right to know where you’re taking me.”

Again, silence.

The doors slammed shut and darkness descended on me, both inside and out. I was terrified beyond thought, stripped of clothing and control. My head pounded. My back ached. My wrists burned.

The ambulance eventually slowed to a stop. The back doors swung open and I saw a dimly lit compound with perimeter security fencing. They unloaded me from the ambulance and wheeled me toward the front gates. One of the orderlies swiped his security card over a keypad at the front door, and I was ushered into the stark building, through two more sets of doors, and down multiple cavernous corridors. It was deathly quiet but for the squeaking of the gurney’s wheels. We passed through one last set of security doors, then turned into a mess room with tables and chairs. They finally removed the handcuffs and a rakish man with a clipboard appeared, suggesting he was about to take control of my forced incarceration. 

I was petrified.

My protests continued, though their force waned as I faltered. “Where am I? Why am I here? I need to know my sons are all right. You can’t just lock me up!”

“5150. Threatened his children,” the DCFS officer casually remarked to the rakish man, who pushed the clipboard into my midriff and ordered me to sign.

There is something uniquely punitive about the burden of paperwork amid a personal trauma of this magnitude. I had been forcibly removed from my home, falsely accused of threatening my children, and I was about to be involuntarily admitted into what was clearly a mental facility. And yet, somehow there were still forms to complete, and the dreariness of its normalcy only emphasized the extraordinary circumstances—the bureaucratic state, in all its bland menace, taunting me, forcing me to stipulate my own subjugation.

For all that, I was too incoherent to decipher what was written on the document and far too traumatized to care. The orderlies in white took all my personal belongings (the coaster, my watch, and my wedding ring), and gave me a pillow and a bed sheet.

“Please, tell me where I am,” I pleaded. Finally, an answer came.

“You’re being admitted to Del Amo Psychiatric Hospital.”

I had no idea where that was or why I was there. I had lost my orientation in the world, forgotten my place in it. I felt extinguished.

But the orders continued. I was told to stand. Through another door stood a short, robust man awash in facial hair, armed with a chunky set of keys hanging from his belt strap. I shuffled behind him wearing only the itchy, bloody gown, clutching my pillow and bedsheet. He led me into a stark, sterile holding space with two tiny, thick, barred windows and six beds that bore the look and feel of mortuary slabs. The one in the left corner was mine.

This small, rotund man in whose charge I was now placed—and who literally held the key to my fate—placed the plastic bag with my clothing into a little cubby in the wall. With that, he left the room and shut the thick, steel door behind him. I heard the jingle of his keychain, then the turning of the lock. He looked back through the frosted glass of the watch window. A flashlight assaulted my eyes.

“Go to sleep,” he commanded.

I placed my pillow on the slab and lay down, unruffling the bedding over the bottom half of my body. I tried to slow my racing thoughts and my breathing so that I might settle in for sleep inside the nightmare.

But the terror and disbelief and confusion would not relinquish their hold. My senses were raw and heightened, but my mind was dull and confused in an unfamiliar way. When I had awakened that morning, I could never have imagined the day would lead me here, alone in a psych ward, considered some sort of menace by faceless authorities and trapped in a legal spiderweb I’d never dreamed of. I knew I wasn’t crazy or a danger to myself or others—especially my children. Yet here I was, like R.P. McMurphy in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, the sane man trafficking among the ill, more convinced by the minute that this place could drive anyone to an emotional apocalypse.

Why? That nagging question persisted.

Why would someone make up such a story about me? I attempted to reconcile the impossible. Who hated me so much that they were willing to perpetuate this monstrous falsehood to the police and try and tear apart my family and career, and, most importantly, leave my sons without a father? I was with them on the day of their births, cutting their umbilical cords, embracing them, sharing the love and unbridled joy with my family and friends.

“I’m sick of this shit, I’m gonna harm the children.”

Those ten words kept ringing in my ears. Their author had used them like a weapon and condemned me in the process. I wondered where he or she was on this same night, probably sleeping comfortably in their own bed.

Harm my children? Is there a greater assault on a man’s integrity? 

I finally, gratefully, fell into slumber. 

It wasn’t long after that I woke to that rain of piss, and fresh horrors beyond.

Sunday, December 7, 2025

I want to say that this ‘West’ is not a thing to be ‘conserved’

 So if you ask me to help ‘defend the West’ now, I will reply that, though this place is my home and the home of my ancestors, I can’t avoid the reality that the modern ‘West’ birthed the Machine, and is building that inhuman future. Something in our way of seeing contained a seed that unmade the world. I have been examining this seed now for hundreds of pages. Do I want it to grow? No. I want to uproot it. I want to say that this ‘West’ is not a thing to be ‘conserved’: not now. It is a thing to be superseded. It is an albatross around our necks. It obstructs our vision. It weighs us down.

Sometimes, you have to know when to let go.

‘The West’ has become an idol; some kind of static image of a past that maybe once was but is now inhabited by a new force: the Machine. ‘The West’ today thinks in numbers and words, but can’t write poetry to save its life. ‘The West’ is the kingdom of Mammon. ‘The West’ eats the world, and eats itself, that it may continue to ‘grow’. ‘The West’ knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. ‘The West’ is exhausted and empty.

Maybe, then, just maybe, we need to let ‘the West’ die. Let it die so that we can live. Maybe we need to let this concept fall away. To let it crumble so that we can see what lies beneath. Stop all the ‘fighting’ to preserve something nobody can even define, something which has long lost its heart and soul. Stop clinging to the side of the sinking hull as the band plays on. We struck the iceberg long ago; it must be time, at last, to stop clinging to the shifting metal. To let go and begin swimming, out towards the place where the light plays on the water. Just out there. Do you see? Beyond; just beyond. There is something waiting out there, but you have to strike out to reach it. You have to let go.

Forget, then, about ‘defending the West’. Think instead about rebuilding a real human culture, from the roots. If we have gone down a blind alley, then we need to back up, to turn around and discover where we went wrong. We need a counter-revolution: a restoration. We need to overthrow the emissary and put the real master back in his place. If we are attending to the world wrongly—if our way of seeing is up the spout—well, then we are going to have to start seeing differently. But first we have to try and unmoor ourselves from this one.

Where would we start?

McGilchrist would tell us that we should start by changing our quality of attention. This may sound nebulous, but it is anything but. If our left-hemisphere-dominated minds cause us to pay attention to the world in one way, then we need to train them, bit by it, to pay attention in another. ‘Attention changes the world’, he writes. ‘How you attend to it changes what it is you find there’.

What would this mean in practice? I think we know already. It would mean attending to the ways of seeing that were central to past cultures, but that Western modernity relentlessly dismisses or downplays as unprofitable, unrealistic, romantic and all the rest. Perhaps central to this is an effort to see the world as an organism rather than a mechanism, and then to express it that way, through art, through creativity, through writing, through our conversations. The last part is the hardest, very often, but maybe the most important too. If we refuse to see the world or its inhabitants as machines, if we are suspicious of rationalisations and dogmatic insistence and easy answers and false divisions, even for a moment, then we are making a start.

This is in effect a rebellion against a whole way of seeing, but that rebellion is also well established by now. I think that, at some unconscious level, we want to win it. Emotional, cultural and spiritual resistance to the Machine has been going on for centuries, and the need for it only grows more urgent. We can take part by going outside and praying beneath the moon, or just sitting in the grass and really experiencing the rain. We can seek to be reasonable rather than rational, and to distinguish intelligence from wisdom.

Once you try to view the world through McGilchrist’s hemispheric understanding of culture, you will probably find that it looks quite different. Look at the world of politics, for example, and you’ll soon notice that both ‘left’ and ‘right’ are, in McGilchrist’s hemispheric terms, both very much on the left. Compare a modern skyscraper and an old cottage, or a Byzantine icon and a Picasso. Or consider contemporary language compared to its older equivalent: nature versus biodiversity, mothers versus chestfeeders, people versus human resources. Consider countries, religions, stories, communities or families from both right- and left-hemisphere viewpoints. How do they look? How do they feel? Like complex, delicate networks of relationship—or like mechanisms to be deconstructed and rebuilt at will?

The attempt to live without the rest of nature, to conquer the world, to rationalise and remake it from the top down and bottom up: this began here, in ‘the West’. So here’s a thought: the alternative needs to come from here too. We started the revolution, so we need to start the restoration. We understand the Machine better than anyone, because it’s in us. We unmade the world. Now we are going to have to remake it again.

We Western people: we have to learn how to inhabit again. We have to learn how to live sanely in our lands. How to write poems and walk in the woods and love our neighbours. How to have the time to even notice them. How to take an interest in the parts without detaching them from the whole. How to remember that the Earth is alive and always was, and that no ‘culture’ which forgets that can last, or deserves to.

Beyond ‘the West’ there might just be another way of seeing. An older way. Beyond the West, we might find Europe. We might find Albion. We might find Cockayne, or Doggerland. We might find the mind that painted the cave walls. We might find hunters and clear rivers and countries and saints and spirits and painted churches. We might find shrines and pilgrim routes and folk music and fear of the sea. We might find ourselves again.

Could we even find home?

Paul Kingsnorth

Against the Machine. On the Unmaking of Humanity 

Saturday, December 6, 2025

From Winter Oak page

 


Elite pedophilia is the world’s best protected secret. And it makes sense, because the perpetrators need to ensure that you, the reader, will never focus on them. They prefer that we all keep busy with the many distractions they throw at us to keep us divided: dysfunctional siblings of the global family, with psychopaths and narcissists for parents. We should do anything but look to the source of Western society’s ills, which is the utter selfishness of the leadership, so extreme that it is an emotional disease, of which symptoms such as heartlessness and superiority turn its hosts into monsters. Those who do what it takes to belong to the power establishment are the most lost, the most emotionally infantile, the most broken, and the most evil among us. They do not deserve our trust, our confidence, our acceptance of their political savvy and expertise, or our admiration for their power or wealth—it is all smoke and mirrors. If we can absorb the reality that many of the most rich and famous rape and kill children with impunity, how can we possibly continue arguing and vilifying each other over differences of opinion?

from the book Quest for Love: Memoir of a Child Sex Slave
Anneke Lucas

All of us suffer, on a permanent basis, from the evil inflicted upon this world by the psychopaths in power. [1]

It is in the very air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, the society in which we are caged.

But most of us do not encounter members of the global mafia in our personal lives – they remain abstract, even slightly unreal, figures whom we merely read about.

This is not the case for Anneke Lucas, (pictured below) [2] a Belgian woman who, between the ages of six and eleven, was used as a sex slave by what she calls “the secret gang that forms the world’s elite, who put their own slaves and puppets in roles at the top of the global power structure of privilege and entitlement”. [3]

Her abusers were, she explains in her 2022 book Quest for Love: Memoir of a Child Sex Slave, “the most elite crowd in the country – aristocrats, famous politicians, doctors, judges, lawyers, top businessmen”. [4]

It cannot have been easy for her to speak about what happened, in view of “network rule number one: Never Challenge the Absolute Power of the Bosses”. [5]

Lucas and I were born in the same year, 1963, and so, while reading her account of events happening in 1973 or 1974, I pictured who I was and what I was doing at that age and at that time.

And the contrast between my own unremarkable English suburban upbringing – protected by the basic decency of all the adults around me – and her experience is, well… simply mind-blowing.

If I had heard her account a decade ago, when she first went public, I am not sure I would have believed her, so far removed is what she describes from anything I have personally encountered or imagined.

But in the meantime I have, like so many of us, become aware of the vast scale of systematic child abuse in this wretched world and the way in which it forms part of the system’s control of politicians and other key individuals.

I have read all about Jimmy Savile (pictured below on the left) – that great friend of the current British monarch – as well as about Ted Heath, Greville Janner, Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, with his links to that same monarch’s brother Andrew. I have also watched, and written about, the 2024 film Les Survivantes, which includes Lucas’s testimony. [7]

THE REIGN OF THE BEAST →
https://winteroak.org.uk/2025/10/24/the-reign-of-the-beast/

What can we do when our societies have been taken over by a gang of murderous psychopaths who, rather than stalking the corridors of power, should be confined in padded cells in high-security mental institutions?

The first step is to tear away the mask of respectability, even “superiority”, with which they hide their true character and agenda from the rest of us.

Says Anneke Lucas, whose book I presented in the second part [1] of this trilogy: “If we see the insanity of what is happening in the world, we have a duty to also see the insanity of those who are behind it”. [2]

“We regard these people as either better than us or as powerfully evil, but both of these viewpoints give them power, and hide their utter insanity”. [3]

“They do not deserve our trust, our confidence, our acceptance of their political savvy and expertise, or our admiration for their power and wealth – it is all smoke and mirrors”. [4]

Andrew M. Lobaczewski stresses, in the book on psychopaths that I have already described, [5] that such manipulative people have a need for self-concealment: “The pathological face must be hidden from the world somehow”. [6]

BREAKING THE EVIL SPELL
https://winteroak.org.uk/2025/10/27/breaking-the-evil-spell/

Something is smelling decidedly ‘off’ in today’s world, with nauseating levels of corruption, mass murder, lies, hypocrisy and repression. These three essays are based on three books I happen to have recently read, each of which provides fascinating but necessarily limited insights into the reality of contemporary society. Placed alongside each other, however, they can help us to identify the source of the odour.

“The French government has been totally captured by Israel. The president behaves like a Zionist agent. The mass media are controlled… I am astonished by the power of the Jewish lobby. It practically dictates the Middle East policies of France and of Europe”. [1]

“Here are people who control most of the mainstream media, who have at their disposal intermediaries in the highest spheres of the state, not to speak of considerable financial clout, and they cannot tolerate the existence of a little rebel group… These people have decided to attack all forms of pro-Palestinian expression. They are everywhere, they are powerful and above all are diabolically efficient. They must certainly be working with intelligence services”. [2]

The two statements above are fictional. Or rather, they are fictional in that they have been put into the mouths of fictional characters in a work presented as a fiction.

However, author Jacob Cohen clearly does not want his readers to imagine that the contents of Le Printemps des Sayanim (‘The Sayanim Spring’) bear no relation at all to real life.

He chooses to describe his book as an “account” (récit) rather than a novel and his double-edged disclaimer declares: “Despite the troubling proximity to reality of the related facts, all resemblance to existing persons would only be the product of a coincidence”. [3]

One such coincidence concerns the central fictional character Youssef El Kouhen, the history teacher of Moroccan background who becomes involved in Freemasonry in France and whose support for Palestine provokes reprisals from the Zionist sayanim who play a leading role in the organisation.

No connection here, obviously, to Moroccan-born Jacob Cohen (pictured), with a degree from Science-Po in Paris, author of a book exposing the activities of those same networks.

Cohen’s “fiction” begins with a page of non-fictional quotes describing the existence and activities of the sayanim, a volunteer force of millions of Jewish Zionists across the world who are deployed by Mossad to defend and advance Israel’s interests.

Here former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky states that this is the Israel intelligence service’s key asset – whereas a branch of Russian intelligence in any given country might need a staff of at least 100 people, Mossad can function with six or seven, the rest of their personnel being from civilian sayanim. [4]

Cohen has his fictional alter ego muse over the psychology of these fanatic Zionists, for whom Israel is the most wonderful country in the world.

THE STENCH OF THE SYSTEM: SAYAN
https://winteroak.org.uk/2024/11/04/the-stench-of-the-system-sayanim/

Paul Cudenec

Revised 2025 Definition of ‘Zionist’


i. A follower of the ethno-cultural nationalist movement that emerged in the late 19th century and aimed to establish a national home for the Jewish people.

ii. A person who today defends or champions the Israeli state.

iii. A person not resident in that state who nevertheless prioritises its interests over those of the country in which he or she resides.

iv. A person who maintains that Jewish people have the moral or historical right to occupy Palestine.

v. A believer in Jewish exceptionalism and/or supremacism.

vi. A person who defines opposition to Jewish 21 exceptionalism or supremacism as “anti-semitism”

vii. A person or group deliberately exploiting their Jewish identity and/or connections in order to advance their own economic or political interests at the expense of the public as a whole.

viii. A practitioner or promoter of so-called “Jewish philanthropy”.

ix. A person who considers it acceptable or even commendable for the Jewish 0.2% of the world’s population to wield disproportionate economic, cultural or social influence over the 99.8% non-Jewish majority.

x. A person who seeks to classify any criticism of activity dominated by Jews (such as banking, mass media or property development) as an “anti-semitic trope”.

xi. A person who seeks to censor criticism of the activities of certain Jewish people or families (such as the Rothschilds) on the basis that this is necessarily anti-semitic.

xii. A person who claims that any suggestion of a group of very rich and powerful people secretly controlling the world, whether or not a Jewish dimension is mentioned, is effectively anti-semitic.

xiii. A person unable or unwilling to explain why the suggestion, per se, of a secret group controlling the world should automatically be deemed anti-semitic.

22 xiv. A person who frequently warns of anti-semitism while not accepting the reality of Jewish prejudice against non-Jews.

xv. A person who insists that the deaths of Jews in Nazi-controlled Europe in the 1940s represents a totally unique historical event to which no other can ever be compared without committing an anti-semitic hate crime.

xvi. A person attempting to establish the events of October 7, 2023, as a lesser but similar “Holocaust”, any questioning of which should be regarded as anti-semitic “denialism”.

xvii. A person seeking to instrumentalise historical Jewish suffering in order to justify, promote or advance a contemporary agenda or project.

xviii. A person who claims that anti-Zionism, or indeed this current broader definition of Zionism, amounts to anti-semitism.

Having set this out, I now feel free to continue to refer to the single global mafia as Zionist.

[1]https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/cliffords-tower-york/history-and-stories/massacre-of-the-jews/
[2] See, for instance, Mees Baaijen, The Predators versus The People, https://thepredatorsversusthepeople.substack.com/
[3] https://www.tribusconscientes.com/post/for-localism-and-the-love-of-humanity
[4] https://winteroak.org.uk/2023/08/25/phoney-anti-fascists-target-the-real-thing/
[5] https://winteroak.org.uk/2025/01/17/the-truth-about-davos/

ZIM Unzipped Investigating and Opposing the Zio-Satanic Imperialist Mafia 
Paul Cudenec

Authenticity: A Quality To Defeat Quantity

 



I use the word “authentic” quite a lot in my writing: it describes, for me, an essential quality that is at the heart of everything I consider good.

Like many adjectives, it means slightly different things in different contexts, but its most obvious use is as a synonym of “genuine”.

Its opposite, in this case, would be “fake” or “false” and so we might conclude that “authentic” relates mainly to veracity, to truth.

But there is more to it than that. If, for example, I bought some “farmhouse cider” and later discovered that it was produced in a large factory on an industrial estate next to the motor-way, I might judge that this was not authentic “farmhouse cider”.

However, what if the product was truthfully named “cider produced in a large factory on an industrial estate next to the motorway”?

Would that surprising veracity mean that the product was now authentic?

Not for me, no – so my understanding of authenticity evidently goes deeper than the truth-fulness, or not, of the label attached to some-thing.

It reaches, in fact, into that something’s origins, the source from which it has emerged.

An authentic folk culture, for instance, would be one that had been handed down from generation to generation and which, while it might have changed a little over the decades, represented an obvious continuity from the past.

Its opposite, a fake folk culture, would be one that had been cobbled together by the local tourist industry to attract visitors and sell trashy souvenirs.

While describing this pastiche version as real folk culture would obviously be deceptive, the actual core inauthenticity derives not from that deception but from the origin – the essence – of that so-called culture.

My dictionary tells me that “authentic” comes from the Late Latin authenticus, which in turn came from the Green authentikos, from authentes, meaning one who acts independently.

This provides an interesting insight into the spread of meanings associated with the word today. I would say that these are “trustworthy”, “first-hand”, “just” and “natural” – with the opposite concepts being “untrustworthy”, “second-hand”, “unjust” and “artificial”.

That set of negative qualities seems to me to very much describe the world we live in today, a world that is far from being authentic.

There is certainly no place in this society for “one who acts independently”: laws, restraints and obligations are imposed on us from the outside by a system that has deliberately made us completely dependent on it.

And much of our contemporary culture is every bit as inauthentic as the fake folk culture manufactured by the tourism industry.

This is because everything in our society has to serve the hunger of one sole god – Mammon.
Value has been replaced by price, creation by consumption, quality by quantity.

And, while some kind of weakness in the human mind must have allowed this situation to come about, it is certainly not due to a positive desire of the majority to live this way – it is not because we generally and instinctively regard material wealth and power as the most import-ant elements of our being.

Far from it. Many people are screaming out against the hollowness, the ugliness, the hope-lessness, of this society in which we are trapped and are yearning for a different kind of world.
This industrial society is not authentic, because its roots are not in our hearts, in our dreams, in the archetypal tendencies and desires that stir our blood and guide our tastes and pref-erences.

It is not authentic because it does not form part of the beautiful becoming of the cosmos, the harmonious symbiosis of all the living parts of the Whole.

It is, rather, an aberration – a civilisational wrong turn that has led to the construction of a massive prison-system, a world-occupying and increasingly “inclusive” work camp designed to extract wealth from enslaved peoples and from a violated Mother Earth.

We all know who the slave-masters are.

They are the psychopaths who have built a global empire based on war, crime, slavery, drugs, plunder, usury, blackmail and deceit.

They are a tiny group, with a twisted, callous, life-hating outlook, who have somehow managed to get a stranglehold on the whole of humankind.

There is nothing they despise more than the notion of authenticity, which describes everything they are not.

It has much the same effect on them as a clove of garlic waved under the nose of a vampire!
They are afraid of people who act independ-ently, who are genuine, natural and committed to justice.

They are even afraid of people who think in those terms rather than obediently adopting the anti-values of their rancid reign of quantity, those who understand that authenticity is the quality of belonging to the natural order which they have overturned and whose past and potential existence they deny.

This is why I think we need to adopt the value of authenticity as a pillar of our philosophy of resistance and renewal.

We need to speak again its good old language, shout out loud the words the slave-masters would rather we forgot.

Let’s call for magic and for mystery, for spirit and for soul!

Let’s share tales of our ancestors, our folklore, our myths and our dreaming!

Let’s talk once more about essence, instinct, intuition and the inborn!

Let’s cry out our love of truth and beauty, of honesty and humanity, of wisdom and withness!

Let’s sing the praises of the natural and the organic, the rooted and the real!

Let’s declare ourselves to be partisans for life itself and for the victory of its affirming authenticity over the grim grey forces of artifice and death!

Paul Cudenec

The Global Gang Running Our World and Ruining Our Lives

Friday, December 5, 2025

Hans Driesch


“The object is not the mere sum of its attributes: it is their unity – it is all the attributes together”

Hans Driesch (1867-1941) was a biologist who developed a humanistic and internationalist holistic philosophy in defiance of the Nazi regime in his native Germany.

His embryological research at the start of the twentieth century helped challenge the mechanistic model of life that had come to dominate Western thinking under industrial capitalism.

In a crucial experiment, he destroyed one of the blastomeres of a sea-urchin egg at the two-cell stage of development and found that what happened next contradicted the expectations of the machine model.

Instead of a half-animal developing out of the two egg halves, the half developed into a whole larva that was half the normal size.

Hans Driesch vitalismThis research led Driesch towards his influential theory of organisms as “harmonious equipotential systems” which adapted to the needs of a given situation via a purposeful teleological principle he termed entelechy.

He explained in The History and Theory of Vitalism that this was neither an energy nor a material substance: “Entelechy is an agent sui generis, non-material and non-spatial, but acting ‘into’ space, so to speak; an agent, however, that belongs to nature in the purely logical sense in which we use this word”. (1)

Entelechy allowed a possible happening to become real, he said, without itself providing the energy required for this to happen. “Entelechy only allows that to become real which it has itself held in a state of mere possibility”. (2)

His friend and scientific colleague Jakob Johann von Uexküll commented in 1908: “Driesch succeeded in proving that the germ cell does not possess a trace of machine-like structure, but consists throughout of equivalent parts. With that fell the dogma that the organism is only a machine.

“Even if life occurs in the fully organized creature in a machine-like way, the organization of a structureless germ into a complicated structure is a power sui generis, which is found only in living things and stands without analogy”. (3)

However, it was in opposition to Uexküll’s often-similar theories that Driesch established his own distinct world view.

Uexküll had developed a holistic model of animal behaviour that saw the organism and its environment as a single, integrated system, which he termed the Umwelt. This did not fit well with Nazi scientific theories, which focused on inherited traits and regarded all mention of “environment” as suspiciously left-wing and anti-German.

Uexküll shared the radical organic understanding of the way that natural communities had been replaced by artificial states, which prevented the proper functioning of human society. But his thinking did overlap with Nazi ideology in one area, in that he suggested that a healthy state, or a monarchy, acted as the necessary “brain” of a social organism.

Driesch spoke out against his old friend’s theory after Uexküll published his Staatsbiologie (Biology of the State) in 1920, and insisted that a state was not in any way an organism. It totally lacked the autonomous and creative sense of purpose, the entelechy, which animated living entities.

Instead, the only collective human organism that Driesch was prepared to recognize was a concept of humankind that recognized no national or völkisch boundaries. He wrote in 1922: “The fact that mankind can create states qualifies it to be in a certain sense a single ‘organism’; however the empirical individual states are, in their logical essence, much more like rocks than like some special construction in the context of the organic world”. (4)

Driesch maintained that the concept of wholeness, on which his philosophy was based, arose from pure logic: “For the object is not the mere sum of its attributes: it is their unity – it is all the attributes together”. (5)

entelechyBut he was criticised by Max Wertheimer, and others in the circles around Gestalt Theory, for what they regarded as the unscientific basis of his vitalistic biology. They objected to his idea of a non-spatial life force, entelechy, guiding the development of an organism. Wertheimer commented that Driesch had “gone over to the camp of the spiritualists”. (6)
At the Prague International Congress of Philosophy in 1934, he was attacked by Viennese logical positivists Rudolf Carnap, Hans Reichenbach and Moritz Schlick, who not only took issue with the concept of wholeness itself but also wrongly equated Driesch’s holistic organic vision with the fascism he so deeply opposed.

It is true that Nazi ideologists initially showed an interest in Driesch’s work. Anne Harrington writes: “During the early, most influential years of Nazi holism, Driesch was a consistently useful resource for a range of holistic scientists with Nazi nationalist leanings. Even those who rejected his vitalism could still hail him as a midwife to the new era of ‘ German wholeness'”. (7)

But this interest flew in the face of Driesch’s own emphatic opposition to the Nazi regime and his determination to forge a philosophy of vitalistic wholeness based on internationalism and humanism.

Driesch travelled extensively in Asia after the First World War, with the deliberate aim of widening his cultural horizons. Harrington notes: “He believed that studying foreign cultures could be an important avenue for discerning transcendent principles that united and guided all individual human communities, regardless of their surface differences”. (8)

In 1927 Driesch declared himself opposed to all “cults of statehood” (9) and in the years leading up to the Hitler regime he repeatedly spoke out against the rise of nationalism.

He used a series of newspaper articles to argue that entelechy recognized no national borders, that the only biological whole that we belonged to was the human species and that militarism and war were “the most terrible of all sins” against the vitalistic principles of life, holistic co-operation and higher development.

In the light of this, it is not surprising that Driesch was among the first non-Jewish German professors to be forcibly retired, at the age of 66, when the Nazis came to power in 1933.

After this, he received no more invitations to speak or hold seminars within Germany. He continued to hold occasional lectures abroad until the spring of 1935, but then all public speaking and travel privileges were taken away from him for the rest of his life.

In 1985, historian of psychology Eckhart Scheerer wrote that Driesch had identified “the biological necessity of reason” and added that his entelechy hypothesis had “made it possible for him to fill his theoretical biological-holistic world view with humanistic spirit”. (10)

1. Hans Driesch, The History and Theory of Vitalism, trad. by C.K. Ogden (London: Macmillan, 1914), p. 204.
2. Driesch, The History and Theory of Vitalism, p. 205.
3. Anne Harrington, Reenchanted Science: Holism in German Culture from Wilhelm II to Hitler (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999), p. 51.
4. Hans Driesch, Philosophie des Organischen (Leipzig: Engelmann, 1922), p. 573, cit. Harrington, p. 61.
5. Driesch, The History and Theory of Vitalism, p. 189.
6. Harrington, p. 124.
7. Harrington, pp. 189-90.
8. Harrington, p. 190.
9. Hans Driesch, ‘Zur neueren Vitalismuskritik’, Biologisches Zentralblatt, 47, 1927, cit. Harrington, p. 190.
10. Eckhart Scheere, ‘Organische Weltanschauung und Ganzheitsspsychologie’, Psychologie im Nazionalsozialismus, ed. by Carl F. Graumann (New York: Springer Verlag, 1985), p. 40, cit. Harrington, p. 190.

https://orgrad.wordpress.com/a-z-of-thinkers/hans-driesch/

Your government wants you dead


On the very first day of 2025, The Acorn warned that the British population was under attack from Keir Starmer’s regime, which even appeared to want them dead and was poisoning their food, freezing them to death, polluting their water, bombarding them with radiation, jabbing them to death and encouraging them to commit suicide.

Half way through the year we see no reason to change our minds!

For instance, the UK Parliament, which is under the control of the zio-imperialist mafia, has just approved the legalisation of “assisted suicide”, aka euthanasia for non-profitable units of human capital.

Commented blogger and former lawyer Clare Wills Harrison: “We are a failed nation whose NHS can’t even offer adequate care. Now it is to offer death as a service”.

One citizen journalist remarked: “No joke here. Keir Starmer is a psychopath and he is doing Aktion T4”.

This refers, of course, to what Wikipedia defines as “a campaign of mass murder by involuntary euthanasia which targeted people with disabilities and the mentally ill in Nazi Germany”.

If you doubt whether the “involuntary” element is relevant here, take a look at the chilling list of amendments to the bill that were rejected during its passage, as compiled by that same amateur sleuth, “eyuplovely”.

https://x.com/eyuplovely/status/1936788757727895645/photo/1

This shows that Parliament rejected amendments which would have ensured “doctors only discuss euthanasia if the patient explicitly requests it first”, would have insisted on “proof of non-coercion” and would have introduced the eminently sensible safeguard of allowing family or next of kin to challenge the state-sanctioned killing “if they suspect coercion”!

When you add to this the fact that MPs rejected the idea of excluding from the suicide scheme “those who might choose euthanasia due to financial hardship”, we are looking at something very dark and ugly indeed.

This all seems to be part of a convergence between ZIM’s pseudo-democratic fiefdoms and the openly totalitarian ones that it created and ran in the 20th century, such as Nazism and Soviet Communism.

Meanwhile, MPs have also voted to decriminalise abortion up to full-term pregnancy.

Ben Rubin of UK Column went online to say this was undeniably giving the green light to the killing of viable human beings – of children in fact.

Condemning the “hideous agenda” of what can only be described as a death cult, he declared: “These people are pure evil… We are ruled by soulless demons, psychopaths, who place no value whatsoever on human life”.

When tyranny is disguised as moral necessity

Satanic inversion is a key aspect of the brainwashing and gaslighting techniques used by the ruling criminocracy to control and manipulate us.

From its Commonwealth operation’s mendacious self-depiction as “a compelling force for good” to its US branch’s absurd claims to “defend democracy” across the world, its language is never far from the Orwellian satire of war being peace and slavery being freedom.

What has been less obvious to most of us is the way in which the system has been gradually manufacturing a highly complex totalitarian apparatus around its inverted notion of ethics.

Fortunately, the blogger known as Escapekey (whose work featured in The Acorn last year) has been on their case and explaining, in some depth, what they have been up to.

In a key June 2025 essay entitled ‘The Complete Architecture’, he says he has discovered “deliberate replication of governance mechanisms that defined the worst totalitarian regimes of the 20th century”.

But, he adds: “The difference is scale and sophistication: where Hitler, Stalin, and Mao operated at national levels through crude political apparatus, this system operates globally through technical expertise and ethical mandate, making it far more insidious and potentially irreversible once fully activated”.

He says that in this globalist mechanism, “science” is positioned as the source rather than subject of ethical frameworks across all aspects of human experience.

Non-compliance with this false god of “science”, creator of all ethics, becomes literally unthinkable, with dissent and resistance appearing not just wrong, but immoral.

The “ethical” framing also gives enforcement bodies “moral” authority to destroy careers without legal process, he stresses.

And he notes we saw this in operation during Covid, when refusal to toe the line was represented as some kind of moral failure.

“Healthcare workers were fired during COVID-19 not for illegal activity, but for ‘ethics violations’ — questioning vaccine mandates, discussing alternative treatments, or prioritising individual patient assessment over standardised protocols”.

Likewise, he observes, scientists face “ethics reviews” for challenging the official climate narrative.

We might add that opposing the official pro-Israel line or the power of the transgender industry is also presented as “hate crime” and thus an ethical “offence”.

Escapekey writes: “Information control operates through the weaponisation of ‘fact-checking’, ‘content moderation’, and ‘media literacy’ frameworks.

“Alternative perspectives are eliminated not through overt censorship but through ethical frameworks that define dissent from expert consensus as ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation’“.

He explains that the model for all this is the “clearing house” one, first perfected in the British banking system – providing an obvious clue as to who is behind it!

This involves a deceptive veneer of decentralisation, while in fact power is controlled at the centre – such as “local” banks being subservient to clearing banks, which themselves are subservient to the central bank (the Bank of England).

He writes: “The pattern was methodically exported: the Federal Reserve replicated the British model in 1913, the Bank for International Settlements scaled it globally in 1930, and the same template now governs virtually every aspect of modern life”.

And he warns: “The systematic merger of law and ethics represents the completion of a governance model that defined the worst totalitarian regimes of the 20th century.

“Hitler’s dictum that ‘the total state must not know any difference between law and ethics’ was implemented through identical mechanisms under different guises across Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, and Fascist Italy — despite their supposed ideological differences.

“The pattern was consistent: undermine existing institutions, attack traditional sources of authority, create permanent crisis requiring expert management, replace legal frameworks with ethical mandates, eliminate dissent as moral failure rather than legitimate disagreement.

“The result was arbitrary rule disguised as moral necessity — exactly what we observe today at global scale”.

https://winteroak.org.uk/2025/06/30/the-acorn-104/

Electoral fraud: the illusion of democracy

With big elections looming up all over the place, I thought this would be a good moment to remind people of what a fraud they are, on many levels.

i. Captured parties.

It has become very obvious to very many people, particularly since Covid, that the main political parties everywhere are all controlled by the criminocracy. No politicians are allowed anywhere near power unless they are signed up to the whole agenda of totalitarian “sustainable development”, public-private “partnership”, pouring money into Ukraine and pretending that Israel is not carrying out mass murder in Gaza. Control of the political parties has been in place for a very long time indeed, not just by means of bribery and blackmail but also through infiltration by the public-funded “intelligence” services set up to serve the criminocrats’ interests. Even the smallest and most insignificant political group is targeted and it is only a matter of time before any new initiative, no matter how genuine, will be taken over. If it cannot be successfully turned in a direction that suits the powers-that-shouldn’t-be, it will be destroyed from the inside by bitter disputes and splits, playing on existing fault lines and personal weaknesses.

ii. Why parties anyway?

A month or two ago, some friends and I secured a meeting with our local deputé (member of parliament), who is in the main left-wing opposition party, La France insoumise, to ask him some questions. High on our list was the threat of the WHO treaty, giving unprecedented control to a global body in the case of a future “pandemic”. Since he hadn’t even heard of the issue, one of our group explained it all to him and then asked him whether he agreed with us, in principle, that this was a worrying prospect. He wouldn’t give a personal opinion, insisting that he was committed to a collective outlook and that, basically, he would have to go and find out what the party line was before he could answer. This raises the question of to what extent an MP belonging to a political party really represents the people who elected him, or whether he in fact represents the party whose line he defends and which is in turn controlled by other interests. What is the purpose of the party system if not to prevent representatives from speaking and voting from their own convictions, or in response to the views of their constituents?

iii. The problem with representation

A deeper problem here is that of representation itself. When a population accepts to be “represented” by a politician they are essentially handing him a blank cheque to act as he (or his party) sees fit. He is under no legal obligation to carry out the promises on which he got elected and, when some new issue arises, is not expected to return to his constituents to seek their opinion. This clearly does not amount to democracy. One of the big demands of the Gilets Jaunes here in France in 2018-19 was for citizens to have the right to call for a referendum on important issues, with the direct voice of the public thus taking precedence over the indirect filter of the controlled “representative”.

iv. The shaping of opinion

There are issues even with this notion of direct democracy, though. One of these is the way that public opinion is itself moulded by mass media that are owned by the same criminocrats who control the political parties and, thus, the elected representatives. Covid showed us how effectively the majority can be conned by constant full-spectrum propaganda. These techniques could equally be used to sway a referendum. At election times, “opinion polls” relayed by corporate media form part of the manipulation, their real aim being not to reflect public opinion, but to shape it. If, for instance, a “problem” party was doing well and clearly had a chance of coming to power, the polls would announce instead that they had virtually no support and that people would do better to vote for one of the lesser-of-two-evils options. No real democracy seems possible without an independent media to properly inform the public.

v. Centralised society

A further barrier to democracy is the centralised nature of our societies – centralised nationally, transnationally (such as Europe) and globally. Power flows from the top downwards, not from the people upwards, as would be the case in an actual democracy. Agendas are imposed, institutionally, and elected representatives on any level can do very little to affect them, even if they wanted to. The prime example of this is the “development” and “economic growth” which is the motor of the criminocracy’s expanding wealth and power. The “need” for this has been written into the structure of our social organisation to the extent that public opposition to some new proposed monstrosity will always come up against a centrally-imposed brick wall. (For more on this, see this article). Real democracy would involve the localisation of decision-making, the end of global corporate imperialism and the restoration to communities everywhere of the right to shape their own destinies.

vi. A rigged game

Given everything I have been describing, do the criminocrats ever need to physically “fix” an election? I don’t know, but I am sure that if they felt the need, and had the ability, they would do so. We should not be so naïve as to imagine that they would simply stand back and watch, with a wistful shrug, if a population anywhere voted in a government that represented a genuine threat to their power and interests. If the worst comes to the worst, there is always the option of assassinating troublesome political leaders. Or of declaring yet another “emergency”, suspending elections and switching to the kind of direct authoritarian rule favoured in Nazi Germany or the USSR. At the end of the day, their “democracy” is merely a device with which to distract and control us and, while it has served their purposes well, they do not consider it indispensable.

https://winteroak.org.uk/2024/06/25/the-acorn-94/

Paul Cudenec