JFK 60: Walking Into Your Destiny II

https://shows.acast.com/between-the-stools/episodes/jfk60

Welcome to Between The Stools on 26th November 2023. This is part II of Walking Into Your Destiny. (Part I was last week). I felt the need to link the Tudor changeover of 17th (Mary to Elizabeth) with the 60 year anniversary of John F Kennedy’s death on 22nd – the only time in our History Year that we’ve left the continent of Europe and come into living memory. In January, on the cusp of the History Year (which runs until next January) we thought of Elvis; we also spent two services of 2022 with Diana and Lennon. I see these as connected with today’s focus.

I set up the theme of destiny in our September service, although it’s been tacitly there all along. With today’s subject, we might see destiny in two ways: his presidency and his violent end. In contrast, Elizabeth I of England took the baton from her ill sister to reign for 45 years that are known as glorious; she lived to 70, which was considered then a long life, and she died of natural causes – unlike nearly all Kennedys since the middle of the last century. Yet there is not such a leap from 1558 to 1958. In both, there is dynasty building, empire building, an attempts at world domination, establishing a new era, at vanquishing an equal but opposite rival, and a fearful rhetoric to gain support for its brutal suppression. I’d like to think there’s a 3rd way of destiny.

“Of course I’ve heard of JFK. When was he on the throne again?”

This is a true quote, apparently said in innocence (although I suspect razor sharp concealed wit) from a British co-worker a few years back. I actually think that, whether the joke was on her colleagues or accidental, there is insight here. America does have a throne – on a four year basis with a much publicized contest, a game of thrones. This particular throne holder was especially given the royal treatment, before and after his death. Did he want more thrones under his, to be a high king? As I’ve written this, my focus and opinion has changed. Jack Kennedy has been oft rendered a godlike status – he even has a mountain named for him! – but this will not be a hagiography. Nor will it be primarily a biography – analyses of rifle trajectories and head wounds will not form a part of this service: as ever, I’m seeking spiritual insight. To my US audience, I want to warn that I may critique things that you hold dear. Please know that I do so with love and respect for you as individuals, especially those I know personally as spiritual brothers and sisters. And I’ve been as willing to critique my own country and its tenets and golden geese.

So with those caveats, let us begin….
with a few moments of silence and a prayer

Part I

This sermon was read with a 1960s pillbox hat, such as Jackie Kennedy was wearing 60 years ago

It occurs to me that true facts are rare. Quiz answers are usually a single word or name, but they can reflect the quizmaster’s beliefs and understanding as much as any real, uncontested truth. That is so for the story of JFK.

Yes, F stags for Fitzgerald; John was born on 29th May 1917; he was the second of nine children; his father Joseph, who served as the American ambassador in Britain, was from an Irish immigrant Catholic family; they initially lived in Brookline, outside Boston; his mother Rosemary lived to 104; his four brothers all ran for president; John was enrolled at the London School of Economics… then ill health soon terminated John’s studies. After another brief enrolment, Jack eventually went to Harvard and into the navy in the war. It seems that Jack’s time in England was significant and he published his first book – or rather, his father did for him – called “Why England Slept” which was his honours thesis on WWII and appeasement. It naturally did well because of the promotion and standing of the author’s millionaire father.

Yes, his wife was Jacqueline Bouvier, who later married Aristotle Onassis. Jack and Jackie had two children, John and Caroline (more died at birth). JFK was elected president in 1960, serving from the next year. He did not live to see the end of his four year term. The phrase ‘Bay of Pigs’ will occur in a quiz, but what he was responsible for and what to call that Cuban military event (was it a fiasco?) is not without contention. Nor are his policies. I wonder how well known NMAS 263 is. I bet you wouldn’t be asked to name Executive Order 11110 (it’s not in Wikipedia). I discovered it on 11.11 this year. I will come back to these, as they may be key to what happened on 22.11.

Note that his day of death is twice that of the month of his death.

A general knowledge question might ask who killed JFK. The standard answer is LHO – Lee Harvey Oswald. I would substitute other initials.

As I’ve said before, I don’t believe that any death of a celebrity by a lone gunman is ever the truth. I state this of Jill Dando, John Lennon, Gandhi, Martin Luther King. I wonder if suicides and sudden accidents or fast track terminal illnesses really were the cause of the demise of many others, and in that I include Princess Diana, Michael Jackson and Marilyn Monroe. Whenever someone dies after speaking out – Ulrich Mühe, who had a career of acting in films that challenged political narratives, such as The Lives of Others; Stieg Larsson, author of the Millennium trilogy (The Girl Who/With…) – I felt, as others clearly state, including the partner of the latter, that this was assassination. Like the others I’ve just mentioned, there was a reason to kill not just one Kennedy, and I think it’s important to see such incidents as a group.

All the above were set to expose or transpose the establishment.

(Jill Dando was a British TV presenter about to reveal the abuse of BBC children’s presenter Jimmy Saville; Stieg had a similar reveal on Swedish authorities)

Note how fast JFK was buried: 3 days later. Bear in mind that he died on a Friday. (Hence the 60th anniversary was yesterday, 25th Nov)

Like Anne Boleyn, he’d been in office 1000 days (1036 to be precise)

How many Kennedys have died in violent or suspicious circs? Arguably up to 14, the last being in 2020, if you add the cruel psychiatric treatment of John’s eldest sister Rose Marie – put away by her father against her will and knowledge, and not found by her siblings for decades.

I believe(d) that the Kennedys had and have important work to do. It is why I chose them today.

Simone Simons begins her memoir of Diana with a scoop. It was a tawdry attempt at attention grabbing – the shocker with her late father in law and the threats she received was of far more interest and moment. But I believe(d) that Diana’s brief dalliance with JFK’s son connected those families and their analogous missions, just as she was likened to Marilyn Monroe (with whom she shared a eulogy in song by Elton John – Candle In the Wind) who was Jack’s longterm lover. John Jnr died in an aircraft incident two years after Diana.

I think – or hoped – that Jack Kennedy was to do in the US what Diana had begun in the UK. Both had the potential to reach far wider than their own countries.

I saw this mission as more than that explicitly stated in JFK’s inaugural speech, which closed: “All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.”

It was studying that speech that began to make me turn my opinion.

Note how often he speaks of pledges. Is this repeated ‘we’ the American people, ‘his’ administration, or is JFK using the royal we?! He rarely uses ‘I’.

That famed address of January 20th 1961 is not a treatise on how he John Kennedy will serve the American people, mindful of other nations, but it’s a statement of globalisation, headed by him. His ‘liberty’ is a cipher for the brand he pedalled – a system run by corporations that they package as ‘democracy’.

I didn’t like his ‘ask not what this country will do for you but ask what you can do for your country’ which makes responsibility not his and ‘his’ government’s, but pings it back onto the people. We might question – which he did not – the notion of nation and government, under which most of us are forced to live and to pay on pain of punishment. His 1347 words, crafted by himself and his speech writer Ted Sorensen, oft address other countries, and try to create America the police and leaders of world, and make all nations promise to him; like a global christening ceremony, all are godparents whether they chose and are willing to be. Like Old Testament Joseph, he dreams that all sheaves bow to his central gathered corn.

Compare this oration with Elizabeth’s address to the troops at Tilbury before the Armada. I first found Kennedy’s speech in the same book.

From there, I became angrier at the Kennedys and went on a snaking journey towards a very different treatment today, far from my original reason to choose him, which I’ll explain in part 2.

What brought back my hope and interest was one of Jack Kennedy’s last speeches, that of June 10th* in his final year. In two years, he had changed from haughty hawk to diplomatic dove. (Today’s sermon is the same length as that speech)

I’m going to lead you into a pause to and then I’ll give a second part of my address. I’m going to play you some solfeggio music which makes me think of walking into destiny, as we thought of with Elizabeth I last week. It’s very cosmic sounding and I want us to think what Jack Kennedy’s cosmic role might have been…and on our own.

Music from solfeggiotones.com Body Healing Tones 1565hz

---

Part II

As I’ve stated before, I’m very interested in how things are presented in the mainstream – my research degree focussed on this regarding the Tudors. Hence I turned my lens onto those pointed at JFK and his family. There are many books – yes even a British bookshop will probably carry a tome on the Kennedys – and films and documentaries are plentiful and easily found.

The depictions of JFK are especially important as they can lead on how Americans see themselves, and outsiders see America; the credibility of the media, law and enforcement, and those secret ‘services’…and the notion of nationhood and government. I watched many: I comment here on a selection.

I wasn’t sure what kind of account I’d get in the 1991 Oliver Stone movie JFK. At a swaggering 3½ hours, I was quickly disillusioned that it wasn’t going to feature Jack Kennedy…in fact no-one close to Kennedy is anything but a distant grainy face in a newsreel. The chief actors played the New Orleans District Attorney Garrison and his team, and suspects. So much about JFK seems to focus on his death and its apparent mystery but I wanted to know about his life and what he might have done that made him a threat and target. I was already sure in general terms of who.

The movie JFK does say that late on that people ask – including the film’s current audience – who and how but not why. And it’s the why that matters.

I was impressed by Oliver Stone’s bravery and that of all the cast and crew, and that a mainstream Hollywood studio – Warner Brothers – made this well known film. For it clearly calls out that official 3 bullet lone gunman theory, and posits that the establishment themselves – the White House, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the system of law and order – all conspired to kill a serving president in a coup d’etat.

Oliver Stone has made several brave films (such as Snowden), and his commentary of JFK makes clear his deep research and commitment to this subject, which he twice returned to. He also personally interviewed Fidel Castro, who is essential for us to understand the other point of view and decisions facing Kennedy. (These are available as documentaries).

Ten years later, Kevin Costner again took a leading role in a film about JFK. Thirteen Days is about the Cuban Missile Crisis, which despite being Top Gun meets West Wing, did bring some nuance and complexity. I note its year: 2001, that of the Twin Towers. I also note that period was the run up to a new round of war, terrorism-seeking and a common enemy: now not communism, but Islam. The premise of weapons of mass destruction again underpinned military action in a watershed moment. America is shown – whether intentionally or not – to be an arrogant aggressor, demanding another sovereign nation to submit to it. I noted that whereas the USSR was demanded to remove its missiles from Cuba, it was unthinkable for the USA to remove theirs from Turkey (they were 6 months later). The film ceded that the peace found with Russia was “a victory for them as much as us.”

A documentary on Amazon Prime “JFK X – solving the crime of the century” (2023) says that was a staged death (with film special effect squibs to explode blood) and that he retired from public view. It was unclear as to why – to avoid the hand of the mob, or to be with a lover? It tried to undercut Oliver Stone’s film, but the years later commentary convinced me that the idea that Stone had realised this truth but felt he had to go ahead with his script had no basis.

A perspective on Marilyn (Mary – lin) Monroe, especially that offered in “The Mystery of Marilyn Munroe: the unheard tapes” (2022) shows both best known brothers to be serial adulterers and women users. I do not doubt that JFK had an affair with Marilyn, and it was clearly stated and offered proof that RFK did too – simultaneously. I no longer see the playboy epithet as unjust or even opinion – it is fact. I also see that Marilyn’s death was connected to the Kennedys: if they didn’t kill her, they lied about events to stop their duel relationship with her becoming public. The FBI was despatched to her deathbed suspiciously quickly and evidence disposed of.

I’m angry and shocked by the film Blonde (2022), which purports to be fiction but is based on real people. I found its intense unrelenting misery, missing Marilyn’s achievements, both unwatchable and unrepresentative. The scenes around ‘The President’ caused another writer to dub JFK a ‘monster’. But no evidence by the filmmaker or author of the book he adapted was offered to justify this. The gruelling marathon of surreal imagery could have worked in two negative ways: to denigrate the memory of Jack Kennedy, and remove suspicion in Marilyn’s death. Her alleged communism and knowledge of missile tests were removed. (Note what I quoted about her earthly role in my Diana service).

As I researched, I heard of ‘dirty’ campaigns and that money allowed pushy promotions and cheesy but popular jingles to push Jack to the American throne. I tired of being told that Jack was goodlooking – not in my view – he embodied all I associate and dislike regarding America.

I wasn’t sure if JFK and his family weren’t killed by the mob and the Illuminati or part of it; was the string of deaths a series of honour killings?

It did occur that Jack Kennedy was a Saul and Khal Drogo kind of leader. In the Old Testament, Israel asked for a king to be like other nations. God gave them one of worldly standard – tall and athletic and handsome. It’s generally considered that this leader was not a success.

Kahl Drogo of Game of Thrones, played in the TV series by Jason Mamoa, is a Saul-like leader, and in some ways, Kennedy-like. No, not in being 6’5 and well built – Jack was skinny and suffered secretly from Addison’s disease, giving him in pain and physical struggle. Like Khal, he seemed to fear letting his people know about physical weakness. JFK was different from leaders of yore who went into battle with their troops, not being the person with the best escape and protection. In Biblical times, and Tudor times, one faced your battle foe corporally – in Kennedy’s time as now, warfare is possible from a distance, on a screen, not experiencing the horror of those you strike. But Kennedy is popular because he was handsome, rich and charming with a nice wife, I’m repeatedly told. He could rally people, but that is not the same as delivering to them.

It was pointed out – and I’d seen it myself – that Kennedy is accused of many of the things that Trump is: sexual abuse, being rich; their speeches had some similarities – an arrogant belief in their country and their own place in it. During his presidential campaigns in 1960, Kennedy said that you are voting for the most important individual in the free world, ie. him. What is this freedom? Trump is a divisive figure – a broad range of people hate him, but Kennedy comes to us as a popular and good leader whose speeches are listed in special categories. Is that fair?
(Of course those opinions are also reversed).

I do see – or hoped to – a more positive link, as those who stand up to the establishment they were meant to head.

Whatever Jack Kennedy was and even became, I see his leadership style as OLD style – competition and hierarchy (being president and winning the space race), about greatness due to military power and material wealth. It’s about wheeling deals and managing how you’re seen and what is known. It’s a perpetual precarious game of cards.

I think the time is here for new leaders and a new political world.

I had seen that Jack Kennedy’s work was on a greater spiritual level, aided by the fact that channellings in his name have been published, and that these began during the coronavirus period, which was significant, encouraging readers in the ongoing fight against good and evil. Whether or not one accepts these channels by Losha as from Jack, it is interesting that this person was used during these trials. Kennedy explicitly likened and linked his mission with that of Diana.

I want to almost round off with mention of the Kennedy reign being called Camelot. I’d like to direct you to my thoughts on the film First Knight. Yes, Jackie and Jack were a golden couple, like Arthur and Guinevere, ruling over a mythical leading kingdom in fairness, enjoying the love of his people. But William Nicholson’s Arthur is called a tyrant. He’s flawed. I spoke of how the Disney style castle of the film may be a deliberate nod to the American dream, and how the values and ideals – and being built on an ideal – are true of both Authurian kingdom (as penned by Nicholson) and the administration of Kennedy, or let’s be honest: kingdom.

Lastly, I bring back that security memo and Executive Order. It’s speculated that along with the University speech of June ‘63, that these are what got Kennedy killed. The order stated that American money would be henceforth backed with silver and thus move away from the Federal Reserve. The NSAM stated that 1000 troops would be withdrawn from Vietnam, but it also clearly said that the new government there would be monitored and encouraged to develop along approved lines. I’m not sure if that university speech in Washington did call for total nuclear disarmament as some state, or if JFK did vow to ‘splinter’ and wind down the CIA (but he did plan to continue covert ops, according to the document I saw)…but here is what I do take from Jack Kennedy:

that we want him to have, and this is what impresses those who like him. We want an end to imperialist wars, of elites controlling our finances. We want people who negotiate for peace rather than bomb and shoot their demands. We want a flaming torch – like that on Kennedy’s grave – to be passed along the decades and across the lands that fights evil and brings in a new better world. Kennedy ceded that it wouldn’t be complete in his lifetime, but I would like to think that 60 years on, it is possible in ours…and not be forever passing the torch into a distant future. Nor do I think that torch is for conventionally recognised leaders alone. There have been dramatic shifts in recent decades, and indeed, very recent years. The time is coming and is now here when the world of Kennedy’s 6/6* speech is not swallowed by 666 but is coming into being. *(The University speech is dated 6th June but was delivered on 10th).

Our next meeting is on Christmas eve (8pm), with a medieval musical theme

Elspeth at betweenthestools@hotmail.co.uk

Thanksgiving Message 2020

I wrote an article a few years ago on the things in the US which I’m thankful for. This year, I have many more people and things to feel heartful gratitude for. I’m not sure that I should name them, for some are personal. I am also afraid of leaving people out.

This year especially, I am very glad of those who connected with me virtually – whether by direct contact or by engaging with your content. You have been a companion to me, when physical companionship has been depleted. You have helped nuture, inform of new narratives, and feel not alone, in both senses.

Thank you to the priestess temples – yes, you especially – wise spiritual leaders, those who held gatherings, those who have the courage to speak out, to empower and bring together; those whose faith compels them to speak truth and to campaign; those who offer light and sustenance; joy and refreshingly honest despair and how you transformed it; those who made me laugh and feel empowered.

Thank you to those who make your work available without charge. May you be recompensed richly in other ways.

I would like to offer something back to each of you: that today, with all its expectations and challenges, is abundant for you in ways that you cannot imagine, especially if you fear it to be depleted; that you experience freedom, not fear and restriction; that you have connection, especially if you expect to spend it alone.

Love to you all, wherever you are: but especially today to those across the pond.

Planned BTS sermons on 6th and 21st December

Trump L’Oeil: President Donald – ducky or decoy deliverer?

As a British woman, I resist US politics, for I resent being told that our younger but larger sister is in fact the center [spelling encroaching too] of the ‘free’ [ie Western capitalist, thus not free] world and that we must gaze upon it. Catholic writer James Alison wrote of 9/11 (see my words for that day here), there is One who invites us to look away. So I took up James’s wise invitation.

But my circle also often spoke of Trump – I banned him from discussions. People I knew were worried by and yet irresistibly drawn to this man. One told me that they spent an hour a day on him, which stressed them. Mailing lists I’m on, nothing to do with politics, suddenly felt the need to diversify to broach this dreadful new leader, who was racist and had committed sexual offences. Horror stories about the Orange Utan grew each day.

I will say that had I been an American voter four years ago, I would not have chosen Clinton or Trump. Hilary alarmed me as much as the potential POTUS who lends himself so easily to mocking effigies and birthday cards – which we have here too. After a while, so did Bernie Sanders.

I hoped that with such an extreme president, that America would be pushed to its limit, and like a heavily closed Jack In The Box, would rise back and knock away the fist that was closing it. I hoped that in that way, America would set an example, for I’m well aware that my own country is pressing on that old toy; I don’t know a country which doesn’t.

Late last year, when I heard of his impeachment, I was pleased, although I disagreed with the sanity test, for calling Trump mad was demeaning: for it wasn’t his sanity that was really the problem – it was his behaviour and policies. Even just before our lockdown, I was irritated at the eyes glued to a screen of Donald giving a speech in a weirdly empty cafe. I didn’t want what turned out to be the final weekend of freedom to be infiltrated by Trumpus. Although I will say that I had my back to the television, and I didn’t recognise Donald’s voice then, so I wasn’t actually offended by what I was hearing, until I turned round and thought: it’s the Ducky One. Can we go somewhere else please?

I’ve long nicknamed Donald as Trump L’Oeil – from the French term for those fake 3D paintings. I was intrigued that he made popular the phrase ‘fake news’ – but wasn’t he the king of that? Wasn’t all his Make America Great and tweet happyness all about trickery – or was such subtlety beyond this boorish billionaire, who seemed to embody the absurdity of plutocracy.

It was this summer that I began to see that my moniker for the president was actually prescient, not that I had any clue about that when I composed it. During lockdown, I’ve sought out wide news sources, and completely eschewed the mainstream media. A site which I have often found succour from made a comment about cap-wearing Donald J which surprised me.

This led me to put into a search: “Trump Lightworker” – I wanted to add a string full of question marks. But it brought up several direct results. Even back in 2016, spiritual writers had seen him as a mirror to the American people. I have to say – and forgive me, all the dear, lovely and entirely different Americans who have so enriched my life and supported me over many years – that yes, Trump embodies everything we outside the US think of you, when we think of you at your worst.

But then, there were people, and not those I expected, who were making Trump a hero. When he first got in, I listened to a spiritual community broadcast who mentioned that some of their listeners had voted for Trump. How could anyone open to the lightworking, planet vibration raising, and deep spiritual and personal growth of this ‘soul gang’ possibly support Trump, whose finesse was as farty as his namesake? I heard jibes here about someone undesirable, who probably voted for Trump – as if it was a sign of being an ungenerous, ignorant, dangerous person. We assumed that Trump supporters were red necks, like our English Defence League – right wing hateful nationalists a shade too close to Nazis and whose values puff up the system of unjust financial power. I noted that Trump’s website is full of pictures of the military, and his speeches full of his business success, as well as constantly whipping up patriotism, which means unfettered trading and World Domination.

Now I know that actually many people support Trump who are not the above. The kind of sites which I’ve seen speak positively of him are very much New Age, against the New World Order.

For many, Donald Trump L’Oeil is the chosen instrument of God to drain the swamp of political abhorrence, to expose the alligators of self serving corruption, to cease the influence of outside bodies (some say, literally). Which is why he did right in pulling out of WHO, because WHO isn’t interested in health, but control. Hence Trump is not a puff of personal pneuma, but the Trump Card. The card that wasn’t meant to be in the pack, let alone get pulled out on top and stay there…

They ask us to see the current climate from a perspective of long term spiritual and global history. This is the time that we all break free. This is the time of a real reset – not the one being schemed from Switzerland by elites. The Swamp has been filled with reptiles since early times, not always native ones, they claim. I know that’s hard to take on… not sure that I do entirely, but I have believed in principalities and powers all my life – although the New Age tells me that these are echelons of angels, rather than the dark side. But there are dark spirits, dark agendas, more than even the covert human level plots. And there are many of those, now coming out. This is meant to be their coup. It’ll be a coup in the other direction, say New Agers, and Trump is ensuring that.

Wow. Could this be true? I’ve heard lightworkers wonder if Donald knows that he ranks among them and if his higher self and earthly self are yet talking. Some think he is deliberately acting out a ruse. I can see that it’s possible that if Donald is an enemy of the Deep State, that the swamp would do everything to discredit him – from calling him Chief Alligator, to creating stories of sexual abuse, calling him insane, getting all the newspapers round the world to regularly diss him.

But could they all be wrong? Did he never want to build a wall across Mexico? Did he not order those deportations? At least we can read his twitter account and see what he really says. Did he not want to strengthen the military and punish those protestors during lockdown, especially those who called for the abolition of the police force?

I do know that his comments on HCQ, the medicine that is being banned, which is supposed to be highly effective against covid, were misrepresented. I am actually wary of any mainstream pharmaceutical medicine, and those who champion it seem as likely to be pushing a lucrative deal as much as those behind a vaccine. But: I do know that Trump was talking about a well known, long tried drug – not detergent, as some papers reported. I also saw how that was reported, the tone… and it convinced me that here is evidence that Donald is being deliberately negatively portrayed.

It occurs that the top sins have been levied at him so severely, that it feels like a smear campaign.

I watched a brief video of Trump’s pre election speech. It was overdubbed with powerful movie trailer music, full of heroic nationalism. I wish I had just been able to hear Trump speak without didactic distraction. But yes, his words did make for a big movie moment. The video’s post-er, like others, said: four years ago, I didn’t want to listen to this man. I was alarmed and disappointed when he got in. I didn’t vote for him. But… I’m wondering.

Could he be the man in fact we need to create this better world that we are now expecting?

I am not personally going to proclaim Donald Trump our saviour – that’s Jesus. And this man is fully human, and I won’t proclaim him divine. I’ve still several questions, which grow as I read and hear more about him.

One website, on the same day it ran an article with Trump holding a lightsabre, re-posted an article about grassroots legal support for those harmed by Trump’s immigration policies.

I also note that his campaign is ‘make America great’ – not good, not free, not returned to our original principles (although there are better ones). He has a focus on wealth and winning. But he did say that the Middle Eastern wars were wrong and that there was no WMDs there – startling for a man who confesses himself a hawk.

I’d rather see a dove.

I am surprised that one who thought of going to play mini golf under a blimp effigy to protest about Trump’s visit here is now considering that this man might be a divine instrument at this crucial time. I think that Trump, as Catholic archbishop Carlo saw, may be fighting on the same side, albeit with different weapons.

I asked during my sovereignty sermon: could I call Carlo – a brother?

Dare I call Donald one?

I will say this: that if Donald is here to consciously stop injustice, overturn self serving enslaving systems, and bring real freedom and harmony to his country, and beyond, then yes: I claim kinship.

Note that I say: if.

I pray and trust that the right person will come through for America next week, and that yes, they will be able to influence more widely. I trust that it is someone who will do that for good, someone beyond left or right, creeds, colo[u]r, and borders, and who doesn’t make new ones.

‘He’ may or may not share the name of a famous duck. I call the illuminati etc the Duck’s Legs. I pray that these are exposed and stopped, and that we henceforth have a duck which swims for the people and is directed by them. Of course, ducks can be decoys.

I’m aware that today is a rare blue moon.

Exciting sermons coming up on 8^th Nov, 8^th and 21^st December

1549 Kett’s Rebellion

During my Robin Hood phase, and unable to get to Sherwood Forest, I went to Nottinghamshire, and then to woods where other rebels gathered. Those woods have just been the backdrop to a play on the anniversary of that gathering, in Norwich.

And again, I’m led to decisive historic moments and battlers for justice. I haven’t forgotten Eliot’s Dorothea and Will – the more gentle kind of battlers – and I’ll pop up my article on their story shortly. I’m also returning to that famous forest so they’ll be more about Robin et al too.

But let me stay with Robert Kett – perhaps a name you don’t know, unlike Robin, or Boudicca, or Braveheart – our best known British freedom fighters, who’ll need little explanation, wherever you are reading this from. But Kett has much in common with all these. Perhaps he is Norfolk’s Robin. And let me link Kett, as the play did, with our current climate.

I’m not going to analyse the pantomime-like play, but its theme. The oft sung song reminded us that although the setting was nearly 500 years ago, it ‘could be any time’ – and ours. The mayor was doing a David Cameron impression. The mean ‘nobs’ all from the same school administered cuts to welfare and bullied plebs in a very familiar way.

*

The piece of news that I’m most thinking about from the last few days is the police shootings in America. I feel a little intrepid to comment, for it’s emotive and needs to be expressed well.

What I will say is that the  events at the Dallas protest turned the focus from the shootings by the police to the shootings of the police. I note that there was 1 officer for every 8 people at that demo, which is heavy. And that the demo which followed involved the police using smoke against the people.

The brutality of the killings – and sorry ‘fatal shootings’ won’t do – and the disproportion of the police’s reaction to the situations – over motor offences! –  has made me livid. I join those (isn’t that the whole world?) calling for justice and the curtailing of armed police and this heavy, ugly way of dealing with the public. A public who pay for the services of those who should be keeping us safe – but instead are unjust instruments of the establishment, and from whom we can be in danger.

I think many of us must feel that our growing resentment for the police, wherever we are, has been augmented by these shocking not even lone incidents.

I abhor that black people were the victims of these killings. It wasn’t hard to learn the names of the most recent ones – Alton Sterling and Philando Castile. But I noted that the day before, two more American young men were killed by the police, yet they are less talked about – I struggled to find their names. These both were from Latino heritage. It is significant that they too aren’t white – but also that the African Americans garnered the greatest attention.

Surely ‘Black Lives Matter’ should be ALL lives matter? I hope that’s a given.

There’s also a lesser known “Brown Lives Matter” movement.

I felt a huge de ja vu last night at the play, watching the king’s forces rush to stop the rebels in Norwich, who were slaughtered in battle or executed. Like the events of recent days, the aggrieved side, however we might understand their aggrievement, did things to their aggressors which I couldn’t condone.

But I did note that Kett’s army took England’s second city for a time. I know Bristol and York will want to squeal at this point ‘We were England’s second city!’ Can’t we share that title? But isn’t the point not a petty division (watch for those) but the empowering thought that people can hold a major city from the establishment.

Did the people of Norwich in 1549 feel any safer with the mob at the helm; was that their definition of democracy?

When I look at all those iconic historic symbols of independence, there’s a sadness that their effects were not only curtailed, but that were are still facing those issues, centuries later.

But did they fail? Should we give up trying to change the fact that, as the chorus sung last night “the many serve the few” and that the rich and powerful’s minority interest continue to crush everyone else?

No and no I do not. I do take hope from the fact that these names of freedom fighters are remembered and commemorated. We’re not cheering the mayors and earls who routed Kett’s group, we remember him.

Last night, we lit a beacon on a hill overlooking the city to not only remember the 3000 killed and hundreds hung in Kett’s rebellion, but all those who have struggled against oppression and still do – and feel under it. It was an exciting moment, to see the flames sweep in way I’ve never seen fire do before, to join with cheers and a banner.

Although not mentioned, we were asking and committing to the kind of world that Robin Hood, Boudicca, Braveheart and Robert Kett stood for coming into being. We are wanting a world which is against austerity, against unfair private ownership, and where the brutality of police and other law enforcers (what a phrase!) and the prejudice behind these recent incidents is history. We wish for justice and for reform – the sort that Will Ladislaw of Middlemarch wanted, the peaceful kind.

There was irony that I realised that no-one other than those at the play could see the beacon, despite its prominent position. Even knowing where to look, as I left Kett’s Heights I could just make out a tiny orange glow between trees.

It was also ironic that given this was a play about power to the people, the city council had to give permission for the beacon to be lit. A council that has many failings – lack of accountability and support to the vulnerable and providing basic reliable services; making heavy licensing laws which involve police in civil liberty abuses – but which also hung its flag at half mast for the recent homophobic shootings in Orlando.

Robert Kett, like Robin of Locksley, was one of the rich who instead of squashing the poor rebelling at his gate, joined and led them. In the play, the Mayor changed sides and opinions.

Out of the many warrior princes and princesses I admire, there is one who comes to mind who insisted on never killing, never using unreasonable force, and who stopped wars with love. She saw that forgiveness and change were more powerful than routing enemies. She saw too that the most powerful way to create change was through mind changing – and I add, heart changing.

I refer to my last post and that wonderful quote of Caroline Lucas, ‘where hope is powerful than hate’ – even when we feel we have a just cause; and that healing and uniting communities is more important than demarcation of difference, even self defining; brothers (and sisters) before otherness.

And as Kett’s county’s police motto says – we all need to feel our police’s priority is us.

US Things To Give Thanks For

I’m not American, but I wanted to use today as an excuse to reflect on all the things I do like about America. So here’s my favourite exports:

Wonder Woman

Clearly a much delayed role model, I talk about her on here. My favourite superhero, making hawks doves, though a little underdressed for this time of year

Sesame Street

The subversive kid’s show I didn’t appreciate till I had come of age. Witty, surreal, clever and hilarious. Milllllk!

Neale Donald Walsch

I have to acknowledge his place on my spiritual journey, turning the boat from the Mayflower to…this is where my boat knowledge lets down the metaphor… Magical Mystery Tour? Rainbow Warrior?… not quite either of those… but a ship willing to include a new path and wider crew, and some radical thoughts about the captain

Jo Dunning

My favourite spiritual speaker and healer right now. I love to tune into her monthly Quick Pulse seminar, even though it involves staying up til 2am due to time differences. Jo’s voice is calm and truthful and I’ve been very impressed with her – I’d not normally believe some of the things she offers, but something in my gut says I can trust her

Elaine Aron

Elaine represents a whole load of things that would only come out of America, but the rest of the world needs. Normally I would resist such a statement, but I’m only doing grateful today. I’m glad that America has identified things that some other cultures would never name or explore and champion. Elaine has a trait she has called Highly Sensitive Person, which she sees as neutral-positive that explains why some people can be overwhelmed. There are many things implicit in this about growth and acceptance that I think some of American culture can be good at encouraging and addressing.

The Constitution

Sadly not what it’s living by, but a beautiful and inspiring piece to nations everywhere – and I like being built, like Camelot (as per recent post) on an idea

Sasha Cagen

She who founded the Quirkyalone movement whose blog posts are wise and inspiring, celebratory of full personhood, of sensuality, of singleness, and seeking the very best of relationships

My US friends

My life has been touched by various Americans, I have some in particular in mind at present. They’ll get personal messages.

 

I shall eat sweet potatoes tonight in your honor with and without a U!

First Knight – Disneyland, Man Love and 2 Marys

These are three of the main thoughts I have after reviewing this film 19 years after its release, when it quickly became and stayed a favourite film.

Criticisms slipped in, but then I realised that what I thought were faults were actually hints of a different reading.

It is easy to see how beautiful, wise, good Guinevere wins the hearts of two men. But I never felt either really deserved her or were right for her. I also had trouble seeing the love between her and Arthur. I note Guinevere lost her father within the year and has only older men as companions – such as Oswald who keeps calling her “child” (far more bearable in Cold Comfort Farm), in Jacob, and then Arthur. Her mum isn’t mentioned, and nor are siblings. Ladies in waiting are given non speaking roles, and are a minimal presence. I hate Freudian missing parent theories, but Guinevere’s love for Arthur does seem to be similar to the love she may’ve felt for her late Dad: a deferent and quiet passion, unafraid but not quite equal, and not a sexual love. When Arthur greets his bride on the hill over Camelot, he arranges a military show to make an entrance, though it is not a public event (a grand debut was in Connery’s contract, but it undermines the relationship). They do not rush to greet each other, even though she’s suffered an attack en route, but he debonairly takes her hand as one would a political ally or dance partner. When they speak about their marriage the next day, there’s no physical contact until Guinevere gets out his scratch on his hand. Even when she is rescued from Malagant’s lair, the embrace there could almost be converted to beloved child and father. We never see a love scene or any other passionate kiss. At his death bed, I fail to see the look of love that Arthur notes is missing; this is again a daughterly sorrow at yet another older man leaving her.

Note he speaks of the love of Guinevere as sweetness, not passion, not a soulmate.

I felt we needed more to believe in this marriage, supposedly a love match, but I wonder if it is meant to be a will (not heart) powered steady devotion – a paraphrase of what she says to Arthur when she is discovered with Lancelot.

Lancelot appeals to the physical, courageous side of otherwise intense and sensible Guinevere, who’s already having to run kingdoms on her own as Lady of Lyonnesse. Guinevere, who wishes to live and die there (so having a great sense of settling), has been born into duty, no doubt with finery – though she says he’s taught not to put faith in it. Here comes a man without home or finery, a man who speaks his desires – but doesn’t act until the lady asks – ie gives not only her permission but initiates. He is not the body man of Lehman and Hunt’s sex obsessed essay on Titanic – the contrast is less crude than a physical macho hunk, for Lancelot is polite (compared with Mr Turner in my next post) and unthreatening. He doesn’t care about hierarchy and I think that’s what shocks Guinevere at the first rescue as much as his implication that he’d like a sexual thank you: because for him, pretty women are no better if they’re dairy maids or ladies, and he doesn’t care about monetary rewards. He’s not suddenly deferential when he learns who she is – why should saving a lady be more gratifying for him? Once I stopped expecting Lancelot to be a particular kind of man, I accepted him better.

Guinevere, like Rose in Titanic, is an action heroine. When we first see her, she’s playing a vigorous football game – foreshadowing Jennifer Elhe’s Elizabeth Bennet which came out in the UK a few months later – who is also corporeal and enjoys physical exercise (particularly under Andrew Davies interpretation). Guinevere doesn’t wield an axe like Rose, but she does escape being hacked The Shining style by one into her carriage. Like an agile Western hero, she grips unseen to the running boards and throws her world be assassin off the careering carriage, before leaping and rolling from it, then lying low and making a well judged sprint. She kills a man with a crossbow at short range. Later, she rides a spirited horse considered unsuitable for a lady by the king’s horseman, without a lady saddle; she throws a kidnapper off the boat; she has the nous to put a scrap of her dress on a tree as a breadcrumb trail to her rescuers; she twirls on a bridge over an abyss, she leaps over a waterfall and swims in the rapids.

But in all those examples, Guinevere swaps from Grace Kelly in Rear Window – remaining feminine but active – to distressed damsel. I note a powerful man – not a generic enemy – is in her presence each time. When Lancelot first appears, she’s gasping and afraid as the Malagant minion holds her. In Malagant’s slate mine palace, she is silent and compliant, again shivering as he undresses her and pushes her across the bridge to the oubliette with the slightest arm touch. And when Malagant attacks at the end, she rushes to Arthur’s bedside and never takes up a sword. But in front of Arthur and the knights of the round table, she does stand up verbally to Malagant when he attends a council meeting.

Now I’m coming to explain one of my themes. I see two Marys in Guinevere – Magdalene and The Virgin. Guinevere’s virginity is never mentioned but is prized, and there’s care for her never to even kiss Lancelot while she’s engaged (meaning that Arthur has the first experience with her) and for only a kiss to happen at Lancelot’s leaving – novel tie-in author Elizabeth Chadwick points out that such a kiss was only stopped becoming an act of love by Arthur’s interruption. Arthur, like Jesus, sees adultery of the heart as an equal sin. I see two readings of this story as allegory – one of the future, the other, the past.

As a wise spiritual ruler with a specially picked band of men, Arthur can feel Christlike. Guinevere could be his Mary Magdalene, but his relationship with her is more like mother son (or father and daughter) – linking to the other Mary of the gospels. Mary Magdalene is the naughty Mary, but some understand her to be the Kingdom’s co-creator, the enlightened one, not just the reformed demoniac/prostitute of tradition. Mary Magdalene might be the other side of Guinevere, the side who is drawn to the nomad (which Jesus was) who unlike foxes and eagles, does not have anywhere to lay his head.

But she’s also the one the villagers turn to for succour after two attacks from evil – firstly on bended knee, calling her Lady; and secondly for physical comfort after the forces of good save them – thus her Mary the Mother analogy is heightened.

Malagant is a Lucifer – once the highest of the elect, who left after a quarrel about supremacy and now seeks to terrify all Arthur’s people – a row, like in the Bible, which is never explained. I would like to have seen the “tyrant” speech of Malagant developed. In a way calm, kind Arthur is a tyrant, as is the portrayal of many monotheist’s God. Love me, and I’ll love you – cross me and there’s public judgement and death. You can only come into my kingdom by invitation, as Lancelot finds out (a bit like Calvinist theology). Arthurian god has a tempter, and both he and Malagant speak of the Law as the ultimate justice; Malagant claims he is the law, while Arthur points to something greater than himself, which is also potentially manipulative. Serving God, a country, a family or band of brothers raises the stakes and makes heavier the responsibility. The brotherhood/leadership dichotomy is a topic for another time, but I note these politically leading knights are not elected, they’re all military, and there’s no ladies – and despite having no head or foot, the round table does accommodate not only a king but a first knight.

And Camelot is the Kingdom, the heavenly city, built from his father’s legacy, a place, says director Jerry Zucker that we all want to live. Thus this neo Jerusalem is a place to aspire to, and not get cast out of for bad behaviour, or else you’re in the subterranean has-been of Malagant’s world. But it’s not just Jesus who is building a kingdom – there’s a currently earthly realm, like Camelot, which is built on ideals and ideas. Like a church, it’s not the stones themselves, but the people and dream that lives on – good job, for this fortress proves to be as robust as the cheese stall in its likeness that we see on the run the gauntlet day. That place is America. So the Disney castle look of Camelot makes sense – if it is intended: the American romanticisation of a medieval mythological ideal, the appropriation of a history they don’t have. Note the French renaissance windows: this is a new birth.

And Arthur’s existence is unproven, and so imaginations can set to work, inventing architectural details and costumes (is it coincidence that Arthur’s knights wear Star Trek like garb?). Saxons didn’t build cities so the only walls and gates around would be ex Roman – again, a great empire imposing itself, sophisticated on one hand, brutal and rash on another. Much like Arthur. His trial of Guinevere and Lancelot says – my personal hurts are a matter of state. I humiliate these people and call it an act against the realm, and I’m telling you – mess with mine or be unfaithful, and you’ll die.

Who the faithful are is my final point: the triangle is not the shape I’d assumed. Arthur is in love, but not with Guinevere. He has fallen for Arthur in a courtly ideal of unconsummated deep love that I call man love – not exactly gay (it’s so feeble that Hollywood is still not good at dealing with that in its mainstream films – yes Brokeback Mountain but think of Troy!). They couldn’t have been lovers or it alters the offence of Arthur’s discovery the love of Guinevere and Lancelot, whose “innocence” (ie lack of physical love) is important.

Arthur waits patiently for his wife to answer him and to formally marry him, but he rushes Lancelot onto his council with wedding like vows, preceded by a night of prayer and purification. This is man marriage. The scene when Arthur slips into Lancelot’s chamber and touches his bare back holds back from homoeroticism but I think the point is implied. Why, when Arthur discovers the near affair, is Arthur aggressive to Lancelot but composed with Guinevere? Because his love for Lancelot is the greater. He twice speaks of loving Lancelot to his face – “I don’t love people in slices” and “I loved you, I trusted you!”

Note Lancelot’s lack of aggression or even justification; he defers to his love, offering to die for him. In another Jesus paraphrase, Arthur brings up the theme that to die for another is the highest love (which can also be manipulative, it’s how any leader has got men to go to war) – and now Lancelot will give his life to serve his master and the kingdom.

And in Arthur’s last scene, he needs to make up to his two loves as much as they need to placate his rent heart over the discovery that the triangle does indeed have three sides. To prove the third one is most powerful, contrast Arthur’s goodbye to Guinevere to his send off to Lancelot. Arthur asks for his sword – not a phallic symbol, but as a shiny almost magical object throughout the film, to bestow a highest honour on a beloved friend. They hold hands and Arthur not only implies his blessing on Lancelot and Guinevere, he gives Lancelot the greatest privileges he can – being First Knight isn’t just political and military (I hope he doesn’t reign Camelot with only sword skill, and not state craft), it’s saying, You are my main man, I love you.

Mark Adam’s synopsis in Movie Locations of Britain started me on this road when he describes the film as Guinevere coming between Arthur and Lancelot (p151). I think he’s correct as both US and UK film covers have the two men as large and Guinevere in the background in the middle; and on the British cover, the picture of Guinevere is inside the sword, dividing them. So the courtly love here is Arthur’s for his knight; the nation state with universally applicable ideas is America, and this is the tale of taming the wanderer to become part of society rewarded by romantic love, brotherhood and knighthood – but does Lancelot lose something in becoming part of Camelot?

I look forward to getting the region 1 DVD and seeing if the extras support this, or whether this is my reading; but I enjoyed the film far more since seeing all this in it.

 

Princess Dianas

When I changed my viewing and research from the British Royals to Wonder Woman, I was expecting a complete change. But Wonder Woman is also a Princess Diana, and politics as well as changing roles for women are key to both subjects.

Although one is blonde, one is dark; one is real, one is fiction; one is immortal, one died young, these women do have certain qualities in common:

Compassion

empathy

immediate and genuine rapport

beauty – from within as much as pleasantly aligned features –  but not an object

respect

tall – about 6ft (though Lynda Carter needed 3 inch heels to be that height)

national representative

an outsider

One was an English born aristocrat who became the wife and mother of heirs to the throne of the same country, and one was born on a secret island and took on America as her adopted country. But both had to get to learn the ways of a new world.

But Diana, Princess of Wales was more complicated and with conflicting qualities. Even those who were fond of her don’t deny a darker side. She said that her own suffering enabled and fuelled her to reach out to others.

In the TV series, Diana Prince has no emotional breakdowns and her problems do not seem very menacing or last long; but contractions have existed in all manifestations of Wonder Woman since her invention 70 years ago, and these are used more in comic story lines. But Lynda Carter said that she played Wonder Woman with a vulnerability, and that’s what made her  – and the other Diana – so appealing.

George Galloway – I’m Not The Only One

I first found the Respect party when I did a search for alternatives to the main ones. I was  intrigued by a social justice, anti war eco driven new political group and wanted to know more about George, their best known MP. I thought I might support and learn from him.

I have come to see him as the caustic Caledonian  – Labour’s Lucifer.

I’m Not The Only One is a hard book to read – not because I can’t understand it, though he does have a wide vocabulary, and his own word “obfuscate” best describes his writing style with sentences constructed like this – but because of his tirade. After the introduction, I wondered if I could manage the rest of the book as I felt I’d been battered with an energy like Michael Moore’s, but more erudite and snide. Happily, the tone lets up a little, but it is still an intense diatribe, though profanity free. George is often very personal and insulting about other politicians. He rarely explains a situation so you only get the George rant, which feels off kilter and his long multi clause sentences seem to hide answers to or ignore the many questions a reader will have.

George spends much time aggrandising or in apologetics. He speaks of his love for Iraq, which at first was very interesting to hear a passionate description of this country  – one he claims he knows better than anyone else in Britain. But the other thread of this book is the love that jilted him, the Labour party whose exclusion after over 30 years of marriage was still very raw in this 2005 book. He defends various things said about him regarding Saddam Hussein, Mariam the Iraqi child he brought to Britain for leukaemia treatment; the War on Want funds; a transcript of his trial in Washington – but not exactly why the Labour Party claimed to need to put him on trial. He often depicts himself as a hero – and a victim.

He had not yet parted ways with Respect leader Salma Yaqoob; and this book is before his Big Brother/Jungle appearances, and that awful rape comment, which he refused to rescind. It is pre the infamous Jeremy Paxman interview when he’d just won the London seat, and though he happily put down Britain’s rudest current affairs presenter, George repeated what seemed a deeply racist and thoughtless statement for someone who claims to understand the Middle East so well. From his website, it seems his style and sentiment hasn’t changed, treating his recent Ed Miliband meeting in the same way.

Reading this book was like a rickety high speed train where you’re glad to get to the end of the journey – or disembark early.

I am surprised but glad that Penguin has published this – it shows freedom of speech being endorsed by a major publisher. For there are some shocking accusations is this book about the truth of US/UK governments and their behaviours, particularly in the Middle East. And sadly, I think they are true. And for bringing those horrors to our attention and daring to say such against grain going risky statements, I applaud George.

I do think that George genuinely wants a better world and has taken brave steps towards that. I’m just not sure about all his methods of getting there.

Whistleblower

is a 2010 film starring Rachel Weisz about the true story of Kathryn Bolkovac.

It’s the flip side of My Age of Consent post on Socyberty (link in previous post). I want to make clear that I take abuse very seriously. Whereas some young women manipulate older people and it is inappropriate to call what might be unwise and unhealthy relationships child abuse, this film is clearly a story of what is.

In fact the legal ages are irrelevant, as what is happening is horrific and wrong for anyone of any age. It would not be less shocking if these were over 21s, and no less horrible for those that suffered.

I am not going to make any explicit comments here, should anyone be alarmed. The film too conveys horror without detail.

One one level, I am impressed by the film. It is based on the memoir of an American former police woman who was sent to Bosnia in the late 1990s as a peacekeeper, and who uncovered wide spread trafficking overlooked and often used by personnel of international military, law enforcing and peacekeeping organisations.

First of all, I want to back up. Why is an alien country going into one already torn with civil war, to have a foreign military and police help them sort out their problems?! What right does another country have to go barging and interfering, setting themselves up as world police?! Do any of these countries exemplify a perfectly just, libertarian society? No!! In fact as I shall write in the future, I don’t think democracy is the best system; I am intrigued by Isonomy as suggested by a former lecturer. (This could end up going back into another summer of Wonder Woman, who upheld democracy – see my earliest posts). And I feel that the US particularly* is not in a position to show another country how fairness works; there’s enough corruption at home without spreading it to a land limping after years of guerrilla warfare.

Spreading that corruption is exactly what seems to be happening.

Even Kathryn’s contract was dubious – $100,000 for 6 months work – tax free. After the global financial problems and cuts, such pay makes me livid – why should anyone work even indirectly for a government and be exempt from contributing with such a high salary?! “Is this even legal?” Kathy asks in the film. It shouldn’t be.

Next, there is legal “immunity” for those working for the various organisations. In the film it is called Democria, a British registered international company recruiting army and police officers. There should never be immunity – if you’re wrong, you should be brought to justice.

I feel like I did after the Valerie Wilson Plame film, Fair Game – that I both admire the person for sticking up to a powerful system and telling the world what’s really happening; and dis-ease for their jobs. As much as I don’t support the work of the CIA, the peacekeepers (ironic title) are another shadowy force supposedly for the good of civilians. Anyone reading this very much will know my thoughts on the irony of suppressing liberty to protect it, of opaque organisations off public radar who want to hold secret courts  – yes I opposed that British proposal. (See https://elspethr.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/justice-is-restored-but-the-chickens-are-gone)

The verb ‘police’ is one I am uncomfortable with. Although I have seen police strap lines claiming role is support for the public, practice is one of non action when needed with heaviness when it is not.

Kathy wants better recruitment and training for those doing her work – and clearly she took her police role seriously and genuinely, as I’m sure many others do. But that shouldn’t be a surprise – people shouldn’t be getting through the recruitment net who don’t. She recognised the need for better cultural understating in her role, but I really feel outsiders should not be there, especially as she’s shown the UN to have serious corruption at its core. She claims some officers were actually running the sex rings, while the organisation wouldn’t allow inquiries.

Death threats are are sure sign that she’s right. Officials have made statements that Kathy is wrong, even that she deserved her dismissal… but why the threats if she was erroneous and had a genuine reason to be sacked? Why would she make such a thing up, and go to such a risk, especially if it only over sour grapes for a job loss?

I was pleased that the book has been published and a film made, with many well known actors keen to be involved, as well as being an opportunity for a first time director. But I can’t see that the Whistleblower got an airing in Britain, or perhaps as widely internationally as it might have been. It wasn’t nominated for any of the usual film awards, though it did get some humanitarian type ones. I can’t find a British release date for it, and I have checked my own film magazines and brochures – I don’t think it came to my city nor was it picked up by the major cinema chains. I found it in the library, a single copy, unlike the mass orders of some new films.

I am writing this partly to say, this is a film that needs to be seen. This is an issue that needs to be known – but what can be done to stop it?

And I am also voicing my mixed views. Portrayed by a favourite actress, it was easy to sympathise with the actions of Kathryn. Reading more about her, I felt conflicted and this is as much about keeping out of other countries and the immunity/tax free corruption as it is the atrocities being inflicted on young women.

*PS that was not meant to be an anti US diatribe. You know I criticise my own country enough!

Someday, I shall write an article called “Things I love about America”.  Several individuals will feature, including dear friends.

Contagion

A film with three of my favourite actors in is a treat that I don’t think I’ve ever had before. However, it turned out not to be much of a treat. It was just OK, and I agree with the reviews that say that there’s not enough characterisation and that breadth has precedence over depth – which weakens this story.

I didn’t agree with the billings about the disquieting reality of the film. The only chill I got was from an air vent in the cinema, and the thought of how much control is exerted by authorities, making the crisis worse. I can see the rationale behind quarantine and isolation, but this soon leads to economic problems, and the lack of what creatures most need –  connection.

I can believe that there would be looting – this is the nation that rioted over stocks of Cabbage Patch kids, so the final food and medicine is hardly a surprise.

The film feels like an authorised version where the officials are the good guys. It’s got some grey areas and tries to show a variety of issues (too many) but feels like the end of Source Code where the immorally resuscitated corpse gladly submits to serving America. (Knowing that story is written by an Englishman whose first film was a conspiracy story, I am now suspicious). This was another America speaks for the world movie, although it contains more than one European actor.

It reminded me of the last world war where peers as well as authorities imposed the desired behaviour on citizens, making them feel that they let down their nation by not conforming.

I dislike the idea that the outspoken blogger is the villain, when he could have been the saviour. There’s no government cover up or disturbing bio-warfare after all – the movie feels like it has been a wash your hands advert. The blogger’s critique is shown to finally be as dangerous and corrupt as anything he posts. But it is true that animals are sacrificed in the name of getting us a cure; and that the production of medicines and rare commodities became very lucrative during the times of disease and disaster. The public are controlled and what we know is controlled.

I am also suspicious of the medical world. I am sure that many in it are genuine in the quest to make people well and to help, but it crushes anything that challenges it with the support of the legal profession and the government.

Alterative therapies are gaining recognition but have to defer to conventional western medicine to avoid law suits and being closed down.

The film has characters based on the real life Centers for  Disease, who collaborated with the film. Looking on CDC’s website, I’m appalled by the statement under Global Regional Centers for Disease Detection, end of para 1:

“Most importantly, none of these outbreaks became a health threat to the United  States”

The CDC run round the world, intervening (or is that interfering) in other countries, imposing a beast practice (interesting typo, I left that in), and yet saying that their job is well done because no one at home got hurt – as if Americans are more valuable than Scots or Mexicans.

The CDC site feels very public relations – ‘we work for you 24/7’, ‘read our real life stories about why we do what we do….’ It’s all emotive, sensationalist, reading like a party political broadcast. It’s advertising.

Another disturbing quote is:

“The United States had a choice: gamble H1N1 would not kill in high numbers, or work as fast as possible to develop a vaccine and make it available to as many Americans as possible. In fact, there was no choice—the vaccine had to be made and distributed” (italics mine)

But what of the cynical view that vaccines make money?

My thoughts are – why is vaccine the only way to deal with  illness? The film says that it is slow to make vaccines – it took 6 months to control the disease. Methodologically, growing a disease to play with it and see if you can work out how to reverse or nullify it seems a very limited and quite strange way to tackle a problem, yet it is the prevalent if not only method in science.

I am horrified that viruses are created by government paid scientists – how can that ever be justifiable?

Can’t diseases be more than just hygiene related problems – what about a deeper problem?

What would spiritual alternative healers make of this?

What of ancient and native medical wisdom?