How the US Prepared for the Failure of Apollo 11


In 1969, Nixon dominated the White House, and the above instructions were prepared (as a standby) in the event that the Apollo 11 mission to the Moon failed.  Mission failure was defined as losing contact with the US astronauts, or the the obvious (or apparent) death of those astronauts.  (Source: NARA).  It was further stated that any and all recordings of the astronauts calling NASA desperately for help (or sounds of death and destruction) were to be permanently suppressed and never released into the public domain. A similar decision had been taken by the US government when in 1967, three US astronauts died whilst training for Apollo I.  US astronauts were to be portrayed as super-human pioneers not hindered by normal feelings or understandable fears. Of course, this was a myth designed to paint the US capitalist culture as ‘superior’ during that country’s Cold War propaganda offensive against the Communist Soviet Union (a regime the US painted as oppressive, but one which out-performed the US in every aspect of space exploration). The US cares nothing about the evolution of humanity, or indeed space exploration, and indeed only cares about monetary profit and its continuous accumulation.  The US anti-Russian racism is evident from the fact that in the case of the death Soviet Cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov in 1967, the US had no reservation about making the tape public, of Komarov’s last desparate broadcasts, as he hurtled to Earth in the doomed Soyuz I space-craft, due to a failed parachute mechanism. Although US claims that he cursed the space-craft are pure fiction, as he was too professional to have done anything like that.  Instead, in his last moments, he frantically performed all the difficult technical tasks required to properly re-enter Earth’s Orbit, but ultimately was betrayed by a faulty parachute mechanism. Obviously the lives of Soviet cosmonauts are not equal to those of US astronauts.


The Family of Soviet Cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov Mourn

Chinese Language Source Text:

Pick a Bethlehem, Any Bethlehem…


I came across this gem today:

Archaeologist Believes Jesus Was Born in a Different Bethlehem

This research suggests that the Bethlehem venerated by modern Christians today, is NOT the assumed Bethlehem that Jesus is believed to have been born in – an Israeli archaeologist suggests. What I find surprising is how eager the Zionist ideologues of modern Israel are to disprove Christian belief, whilst enforcing a rightwing (and generally ‘ahistorical’) version of Jewish religious history (which has seen Palestinians killed in the past, in its propagation and protection).  As religions are mostly myth, there is no reason for any of them to possess an objective historicity such as that associated with the development of the water-wheel, or the combustion engine, for instance.  Religions, at least in there original form, have been vehicles for the exploration of ‘inner’ space, an essentially psychological device that does not require historically observable markers in the materiality of the external world. It is only through the politicisation of religions, that sees a priestly-elite abandon the inner search, and replaced it with the grasping and wielding of external political power (such as in the case of various Jewish sects and the Church of Rome, etc), that a legitimising historicity in the external environment becomes important.  Modern Zionist Israel, for example, possesses no historical legitimising in ancient Palestine, but tries to compensate for this lack of material presence through the brutal use of military arms in the area. All these issue must be taken into account when assessing the often bizarre world of Biblical ‘scholarship’.  This is a netherworld where the usual standards of objective academia are viewed as being tainted by the ‘devil’ – but I say ‘no’ to this nonsense.  The human intellect is more than capable of dealing with this subject and shining a rational light upon it.

Inconsistencies to watch-out for whilst reading this article:

a) Jesus is referred to as a ‘Nazarene’ in early Hebrew Biblical texts – meaning ‘healer’.  This was incorrectly translated into Greek as ‘Nazareth’, and mistakenly interpreted to mean the birthplace of Jesus.  However, modern archaeology has revealed that during the supposed life-time of Jesus, Nazareth either did not exist, or was a place of Jewish burial, and not a place of routine habitation. Conclusion – Jesus did not come from Nazareth.

Nazareth – The Town that Theology Built

b) There is no objective evidence that a man called ‘Yeshua Ben Yoseph’ (Joshua son of Joseph), was ‘born’ or ‘existed’.  His Hebrew name has been rendered into Greek as ‘Jesus Christos’ – (Son of Zeus – the Anointed One).  In other words, although discussed in this article as being proven to have existed, the historicity of Jesus remains highly suspect.

Jesus Never Existed

c) The ‘no hypothesis’.  Rational academia (and science) works from the principle that ‘nothing is happening’, or has ‘been established’ as happening, (or has ‘happened’ in the past), until verified objective evidence has been gathered, assessed and agreed to be correct.  Much paranormal and religious ‘scholarship’ is in fact, an exercise in pseudo-academia, where the subject matter is assumed to ‘exist’ and be ‘correct’ a priori. This is the inverse of the ‘no hypothesis’, and is nothing more than the attempted legitimisation of personal opinion and bias, and the twisting of objective facts to fit this imagined reality.  This article assumes too much without prior proof. Jesus could not have been born in  different Bethlehem – if he was not born at all!

Jesus had Many Brothers and Sisters


Robert Beckford

Early Christianity makes no mention of the virgin birth, the resurrection, or the idea that Jesus was god on earth. In fact, the early Christian texts talk of Jesus not as the son of god – but was a human-being who was a ‘servant’ of god (if you believe in that sought of thing). The above documentary in an interesting exploration of how the received Biblical (i.e. Church-constructed) history has been developed over centuries, and altered to present a very different version of events than those found in the earliest Judeo-Christian texts.  Mary Mother of Christ was not a virgin, but she was very prominent and over-shadowed Jesus in many ways, with Mary Magdalene was central to the mission of Jesus on earth, etc.  This is all held together by the fact that John the Baptist was more prominent than Jesus until John’s death.  Robert Beckford clearly explains how the received Church teachings are the product of centuries of deliberate editing, censoring, and misrepresentation, to create a very different version of Christ to that recorded in the earliest texts.  This ‘new’ version extracts Jesus the man out of his large family context, and devises a purely ‘divine’ mythology for his existence.  My criticism of this documentary is that it assumes a priori that Jesus the man existed – when in fact there is no objective evidence to back this assumption.  Regardless of the historicity of Jesus, the early texts state that James (the brother of Jesus) took-over the running of the Christian Church, but the later ‘Roman’ Church wrote James out of history and replaced him in importance with Peter (the first ‘pope’), dismissing the tolerant theology of James (which stated that anyone, holding any belief, could be called a ‘Christian’), and replacing it with the intolerant thinking of Paul (a man that never met Jesus – and who was anti-Jewish). Finally, Robert Beckford makes extensive use of modern Israeli academia in his documentary, but makes no mention of the Israeli oppression and systematic destruction of the Palestinian people, some of whom represent the descendants of the earliest Christians in the area.

The Bourgeois Construct of Cultural Marxism


When Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels developed their theory of Scientific Socialism in the 19th century, they systematically and completely exposed the highly exploitative economic system of modern capitalism as it functioned in the UK, Europe, the Americas and throughout the world (via European imperialism and colonialism) – and the capitalist system has never recovered.  When Marx clearly explained that theistic religion was premised upon an ‘inverted’ mind-set (through which theology falsely assumes that mind or spirit creates matter), he gave ordinary people the means to correct their own false consciousness, and see through the oppressive nature of their capitalist inspired existence.  Marx and Engels revealed how the bourgeoisie (middle class) had built-up their economic, political, cultural and social power over hundreds of years, usurping the upper classes as they progressed.  This middle class remained deliberately small in number, whilst ensuring that the working class remained far more numerous, but possessing very little real power in society.  This disparity in numbers ensured an endless supply of mindless workers trapped in a cycle of poverty and degradation, that possessed very little formal education and could not see through the nature of the oppression they routinely experienced. Marx and Engels brought an objective and scientific analysis to the capitalist system, clearly defined and explained how it worked throughout his collected works (but particularly in Das Kapital).  This shocked the capitalist State, which desperate in its efforts to retain bourgeois hegemony, started to grant certain and limited rights to workers, in an attempt to prevent those workers from uniting and over-throwing the bourgeoisie.  Although this process of placating the working class was more or less slow and relatively limited toward the end of the 19th century, following the successful Bolshevik Revolution in early 20th century Russia, the liberal reforms started to gain momentum.  There limited experiments in granting union rights at work, and redistribution projects through equally limited welfare payments and pensions, etc.  This type of liberal compromise probably reached its peak in the UK with the 1945 Labour Party government that initiated a broad and fully comprehensive welfare and health system, and similar social experiments in Europe. Even in the US immediately following WWII (and the stunning Soviet victory in the East), various (but short-lived) and highly discriminative welfare schemes existed for returning US (White) soldiers.  The liberal premise of attempting to prevent a Socialist Revolution by granting the workers just enough money and health care to prevent them collectivising and rising-up, is the origin of the term ‘Cultural Marxism’.  Cultural Marxism, regardless of what the bourgeois system may have told you, has nothing to do with Marx or Engels, and does not derive from within their theory of Scientific Socialism.  Cultural Marxism has been a self-imposed straitjacket manufactured by the bourgeois system in its ongoing efforts to control the working class, and keep it in a subordinate and easily exploitable position.  These pseudo-welfare systems in the West have come under ever more criticism and attack in recent years from the bourgeois system that gave rise to them, which has led to an intensification of their dismantling and annulment since Communist China’s embracing of Socialist market forces in the 1980’s, and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.  The bourgeois system now perceives the workers to be in one of their weakest positions for hundreds of years, and has made its move by depriving the working class of all the concessions it previously granted. However, the historical impetus built-up over-time – which suggests that the bourgeois system should at least provide a reasonable standard of living for its workers – has been ‘inverted’ by the very same bourgeois system that created it, and made to appear as if it were appearing ‘outside’ of the bourgeois system, enacted from an external source (i.e. ‘Marxism’).  Cultural Marxism is in reality the bourgeois system mimicking various elements of Marxism – whilst insisting that Marxists are ‘forcing’ them to do so.  This is yet another example of the bourgeois system manufacturing realities that do not exist. Nowadays, whenever a fascistic bourgeois government inflicts pain and suffering upon its own people – which attracts criticism for that treatment, usually from other elements of the bourgeoisie – the very same bourgeois system replies with the false assertion that such concerns about the welfare of others is the product of a ‘Cultural Marxism’ enforced from the outside, designed to bring-down the capitalist system.  What they are complaining about is the historicity of their own political and cultural duplicity.

Institute of Inner Sciences



An investigative institute of collective minds, unhindered by locality, structure, or commercial interests, that has no hierarchy of authority, with the participants of which agreeing to pursue an objective scientific analysis of what it means, from an empirical position, to travel through ‘inner’ space in all its aspects. This science, by its very definition, must stand ‘aloof’ from all competing and alternative theories, whilst remaining thoroughly ‘detached’ from all religious and philosophical perspectives.  Other than analysing inner exploration from a scientific perspective, (discerning the ‘real’ from the ‘imaginary’), the institute would also be responsible for the eventual preparation and training of individuals to undertake specific guided ‘missions’ of inner exploration, similar to the cosmonauts and astronauts that explored outer space in the 20th century.  Such ‘inner’ explorers of the psychic fabric will be a new type of pioneer for the 21st century.

Keith Allen’s Unlawful Killing (2011)

I support Mohamed Al-Fayed and his battle to get justice for his deceased son, and his battle to reveal the fact that Prince Philip was educated in a military college in Nazi Germany.  This is an excellent documentary about the 1997 death of Princess Diana – and the subsequent ‘cover-up’ of all the facts that point to her demise being a product of ‘murder’ – probably ordered by the British royal family.  She was ‘removed’ because the British royal family, being as racist as they are, did not want a ‘Muslim’ being anywhere near the royal lineage in the UK.  As her marriage to the cheating Prince Charles broke-down, she developed a relationship with Dodi Fayed, and there were rumours that she might have been ‘pregnant’.  It is revealed how Britain is still a ‘monarchy’ with democratic pretensions, with the royal family still running everything at the public’s expense.  The establishment still defers to the royal family, and does whatever it wants, despite the myth that the royal family has no power.  Furthermore, Keith Allen reveals how the British press operates a system where a story is decided before-hand, and the subsequent facts edited, distorted, or ignored, to make them appear to fit the pre-conceived story required by the British establishment.  Another reason Princess Diana was unpopular, was because of the fact that she was undermining the profitability of the military-industrial complex, by working to ‘ban’ the use of land-mines throughout the world. The media seems to operate this was more or less continuously, but since the election of New Labour in 1997, this mis-reporting increased, and in 2010 with the election of the Tories and Lib Dems, reaching a fever-pitch of misrepresentation (as a means to cover-up the death and destruction inflicted by sudden benefit and medical cuts, and the UK support for neo-Nazism in the Ukraine).

Alternative Right – Nazism for the 21st Century

The so-called ‘Alternative Right’ in the US is in fact simply a new wave of populism amongst the White Supremacy Movement (that has been encouraged into the mainstream by the election of Donald Trump – a President that openly expresses racist attitudes and opinons).  This movement has its ideological origination in Adolf Hitler’s book entitled ‘Mein Kampf’ (My Struggle), which is a tome designed to facilitate Hitler’s anti-Semitic and anti-Marxist rants, and make those rants easily accessible to the general public.  This book provides an incoherent ideological framework for the political movement known as ‘National Socialism’, that binds its lack of underlying logic and consistency, with the requirement to ‘lie’ to the masses, as a means to politically manipulate their opinions and choices toward racism and hate. One vital point that must be understood, is that ‘National Socialism’ is not the ‘Scientific Socialism’ as devised by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels during the 19th century. Hitler identified Marxism as his number one enemy, and his hatred of Marxism led to his disastrous invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941.  The problem Hitler had when he came to power in 1933, was that Marxism (and Scientific Socialism) was very popular amongst the German working Class.  Hitler had to appeal to the collective instinct of the German working class, whilst quietly moving German society ‘away’ from any and all forms of Marxist influence.  His compromise was to use the word ‘Socialism’ in an entirely new (and anti-Marxist) manner.  Whereas Marxism rejects all forms of racism as a bourgeois sham designed to keep the working class disunited (replacing it with ‘internationalism’), Hitler rejected ‘internationalism’, and instead advocated a blatant ‘nationalism’ premised entirely upon racial identity as defined by the State. National Socialism is not Marxist Scientific Socialism or Communism – it is the exact opposite.  National Socialism (or ‘Nazism’), is in fact simply a form of non-liberal democratic capitalism, whereby a social-military elite take over society and operate a limited re-distribution of wealth toward the general populace, whilst continuing to exploit that populace and deprive it of any real political power.  Nazism is a totalitarian, capitalist dictatorship that oppresses the working class by mobilising the entire population for conquest through war – this is how Hitler transformed Germany and eradicated unemployment.  Originally, Nazi Concentration Camps were places where the German unemployed were sent to work ‘freely’ for the Nazi State prior to being conscripted into the Nazi military – only later were they used as extermination camps for German Jews, Communists, Romany, Gays, the Disabled, and political dissidents, etc.  Mass murder was the preferred method through which Adolf Hitler dealt with the problem of ‘diversity’ within Nazi Germany. Wealth production was solved by invading over countries and ‘stealing’ that country’s wealth, resources and land.  After ethnically cleansing and exterminating millions of racially impure people from the lands surrounding Germany, Hitler then moved racially pure German citizens into these areas, occupying the homes of those who had previously fell victim to Nazi troops. The Concentration Camps of Nazi Germany existed to solve the problem of ‘diversity’ as Hitler perceived it. For National Socialists, ‘diversity’ is the root of all evil because it feeds into the non-racial ‘internationalism’ advocated by Marxism.  As Nazism is an extreme form of capitalism in decay, Marxism naturally opposes such an ideology – as can be seen by the all-out war the Soviet Union pursued to finally crush it in Europe during WWII (at a terrible price in human life).  Nazism continues the oppression of the working class, and prevents the working class within a particular country, linking-up with other chapters of the working class around the world, and over-throwing the bourgeoisie that exploits it.  Hitler’s ruling elite represented nothing other than militarised adventure capitalism.

Raul Salutes Fidel Castro’s Tomb





Original Chinese Language Source Article:

US Marine Corps: From Citizen to Unthinking Trained Killer

Every year, the capitalist system of the United States ‘recruits’ ordinary young men and women into the US Marine Corps.  This is an elite front-line military unit (linked to the US Navy), the members of which are trained to be highly aggressive in the face of the enemy, because the US Government uses them as ‘shock troops’.  This means that US Marines are often the first US troops encountered by any enemy – and that encounter is designed to be destructive in the extreme for that enemy – both psychologically and physically.  Physical standards are maintained by intense training schedules and routines, with any perceived or actual ‘weaknesses’ leading to individual recruits being arbitrarily and immediately discharged.  This creates a self-contained (and fictitious) sense of ‘achievement’ within a psycho-physical environment, cut-off from ordinary life. The US Marine Corps is not democratic in any way, but is hierarchical and despotic in nature. This is a very different set-up to the ‘People’s Armies’ common within revolutionary movements, or the military of Socialist States. Whereas Communist soldiers discipline themselves toward the common-end of liberating the working class from capitalist oppression, the US Marine Corps ‘brain-washes’ the youth of the United States to fight for, and kill in the name of, the capitalist system.  This typically ‘oppressive’ means of training capitalist armies is invariably (and falsely) presented to the volunteer as ‘fighting for freedom’.  It is a funny type of ‘freedom’ that deprives an individual of his or own self-determination.  What is distressing about the recruitment process of capitalist nations, is that the youth of those countries is misled into becoming unthinking killers for the capitalist system, when in fact, if they had not undergone this kind of psycho-physical conditioning, they might well have retained their sense of moral direction, and actually spoke-out against many of the atrocities committed by the US Marine Corps, either on or off the battlefield.  US Marines have been known to rape, torture and murder civilians both in peacetime (see the Okinawan rapes, some of which involved children), or the killing of harmless wounded on the battlefield (or in a mosque, etc), examples of which are included below:

US Marine confesses to raping Japanese tourist in Okinawa

Okinawa Rape Suspect’s Lawyer Gives Dark Account : Japan: Attorney of accused Marine says co-defendant admitted assaulting 12-year-old girl ‘just for fun.’


Stan Laurel’s ‘Golliwog’ Reference


There is a timeless and healing quality to the humour generated by the comedy duo who became famous as ‘Laurel & Hardy’ during the early and middle eras of the 20th century.  Stan Laurel (1890-1965) – a British citizen whose real name was Arthur Stanley Jefferson – eventually teamed-up with the American Oliver Hardy (1892-1957), and the rest is history.  Although Oliver was very much the ‘straight man’ whose life was blighted by the infantile and often naive attitudes of Stanley, whose character today might well be better described as suffering from ‘learning difficulties’.  In fact, despite this on-screen relationship, the reality off-screen was that Stan Laurel wrote and produced the shows and films, and Oliver Hardy would turn-up, learn his lines, play the part and leave after the job was done!  In reality, Laurel & Hardy’s on-screen persona were the exact opposite of their real-life relationship – and perhaps this inversion of reality served as the basis for their perennial humour. Whatever the case, it is interesting that their humour was not reliant upon the common racist attitudes of the time, despite the fact that non-White characters were often few and far between in their sketches. This did not mean that, for instance, African-American characters were wholly absent, but when they did appear, the characters mirrored how ‘White’ America still viewed ‘Black’ America at that time (i.e. Black people were domestic servants, or lived in barns and worked in fields, etc).  Of course, these broader issues of American sociology were often not the product of the non-American writer Stan Laurel, but were innovations inserted into the film scripts, by those paying for the productions (as a means, it was thought, to make the films more applicable to a ‘mainstream’ [i.e. ‘White’] audience).  However, in a 1957 interview, Stan Laurel explained that one of his first proper acting roles on the stage in 1907 England, was to play the part of a ‘golliwog’ in a dream sequence (for a production of Sleeping Beauty).  Stan describes this golliwog character as being primarily a ‘rag-doll’ that possesses bushy, curly-hair,  a ‘black’ face with a white mouth and eyes, and wears multicoloured clothing, white gloves, etc.  There is no trace of racial malice in Stan’s ‘matter of fact’ description (something to be expected of a friend of the well-known British Socialist Charlie Chaplin), but there is also no ‘awareness’ of the racist history that underlies such ‘toys’ as the notorious ‘golliwog’, the name of which suggests that a Black person (i.e. ‘wog’) is ‘happy’ (‘golly’) to be depicted in that degrading manner. The concept of a ‘golliwog’ grew out of the subjugation of African-Americans in the US, which spawned a toy or doll for White children to play with.  The term ‘wog’ represents a dehumanising caricature of a Black person that presents their existence (and function within society) as being ‘sub-human’ in nature, and not to be included within the remit of what it means to be ‘civilised’ and fully human. The fact that such an entity is believed to be ‘happy’ in such a state (like a mindless animal), is further indicative of the racist nature of the description.  What is particularly disturbing, is that these ‘golliwog’ dolls embodied the entirety of the ‘White’ race’s historical prejudice, discrimination and hatred toward Black people in general, and that this ‘racism’ was passed on unquestioningly from one generation to the next, by White people to their children, when those children were given these dolls to play with.  Golliwog dolls embodied the attitudes of Eurocentric racism, and serve as a vehicle to transmit that racism to further generations within society.  If Stan Laurel was aware of this, (and he might well have been, reading between the lines), he decided to be honest in his 1957 interview (and not ‘hide’ his acting past), and not introduce issues of ‘race’ and ‘racism’ into the narrative.  What I think is important is that many ordinary White people do not know about the history of racism and sometimes are co-opted into modes of behaviour that they may not even agree with, if the implications were explained. This is why I believe that a progressive Socialist education system is the best means for all ethnic groups to progress together and collectively throw-off the burdens of the past. My view is that Laurel & Hardy exhibit a generally ‘progressive’ attitude to life that remained extraordinarily ‘aloof’of the quite rampant racism of their day, whilst remaining, in many ways, very much a product of the times within which they lived.

Interesting Reference:


%d bloggers like this: