Other Dimensions (In There)


The human mind possesses three distinct aspects of operation. Not only can it sense the present, that is the existential circumstances physically surrounding it, but it also possesses the ability to ‘remember’ the past, and ‘speculate’ or ‘plan’ for the future.  This can be expressed as:

  1. Memory of past events (through the use of imagination).
  2. Awareness of present events (through direct sensory perception and cognitive interpretation).
  3. Speculate about future events (through the use of imagination).

Using this model of assessment of mind activity, the function of ‘imagination’ appears to be used at least two-thirds more than direct perception. This is because awareness of the present does not occur in a cognitive vacuum, but is dependent upon past experience (and conditioning), and on certain cultural and social ideas about what is expected as a desired trajectory of future events. The perception of the present for most people, therefore, is entirely dependent upon past experience, with the caveat that present experience also serves as a possible basis for perpetuating past experience, or indeed changing it in the future (through ‘new’ experiences). The activity that the average person experiences in their mind. i.e. light and dark, images of various kinds, feelings, sensations and emotions, as well as will-power and direction of thought, etc, are all termed ‘qualia’ and relate to the totality of the personal experience of consciousness. An interesting point to consider, is that of just ‘why’ the human mind developed the abilities to think in three-dimensions, and what its possible use. For instance, what possible evolutionary challenges in the past, served as the foundation for not only ‘matter’ becoming imbued with ‘life’, but also for that living matter to a) become ‘aware’ of its own presence, and b) extrapolate from that awareness, what the past must have been like, and what the future might be like.

Of course, the activities and experiences associated with debate, law and politics, etc, demonstrate that the agency of human ‘memory’ is not always ‘correct’, and even if past details can be recalled collectively, not everyone doing the recalling, necessarily ‘agrees’ upon the ‘meaning’, ‘intention’, or ‘direction’ of those events being remembered (as interpretation is a matter of opinion). This is where human cultures have devised various methods of arriving to somekind of an agreeable ‘consensus’, so that everyday culture and society can proceed in an expected direction, but what of other realities? Do other realities exist? Mathematics and advanced science suggests that there might well be other realities ‘out there’, but the capacity for the human mind to ‘imagine’ and ‘think’ guarantees that all kinds of different realities can exist within the human experience of consciousness. An interesting question is to the validity of these inwardly generated states of being. Are these inner states as real, for instance, as the table and chair in-front of you now?

Such a question is valid because its answer helps define ‘truth’ within a certain context. A person who believes in a religion, or some other type of explanatory mythology, will also assume a priori that what they think they know, is the ultimate (and most precious) understanding of the universe, that is made more so by a lack of corroborating evidence on the physical plane, and the ‘disbelief’ exhibited by those who exist outside of that particular thought community. The fact that there is no evidence, and that others do not experience reality in the same manner, suggests that whatever these altered states of consciousness might be, they cannot be considered the ‘only’ manner in which reality can be perceived or interpreted. Does this understanding ‘invalidate’ these altered states? Not necessarily, as the evolutionary reality of these states must suggest some beneficial purpose for humanity – beyond the usual bounds of conventional belief systems. Yes, it may be true that a particularly ‘fundamental’ religious view was relevant perhaps 500 or 1000 years ago, or that theistic religions in general operate through an ‘inverted’ mind-set (mistaking thoughts in the head for physical objects in the external world), but in reality, the modern human mind is able to operate on a number of different planes at once, sometimes exhibiting ‘inverted’ and ‘non-inverted’ tendencies in quick succession (a number of modern scientists, for example, profess a religious faith, etc). The point is that the human brain’s capacity to think in three-dimensions should not be limited to, or defined by, the logical absurdities associated with conventional religious worship, or peculiar states generated inwardly. It may be the case that subjective human consciousness could well develop the ability to directly perceive objective material reality – without the intermediary of mathematics – but such a state would be rarefied and lie outside of conventional science and religion.

Other Dimensions (Out There)


The main stumbling block with analysing the idea of witnessing another reality, is ensuring that what is experienced, is not a product of the malfunction of the human brain, and its ability to perceive, cognise or interpret. An individual could be suffering from any number of internally generated psychological and physiological conditions, that interfere with the usual process of sensing the material environment. Such divergence away from normal function in the brain (and body), obviously leads to an internally generated view of the physical world, that does not actually exist ‘out there’. If a group of people appear to share a ‘visionary’ experience, it cannot be rejected out of hand, that all concerned are suffering from a perceptual ailment, or that the group is engaging in a ‘cult-like’ activity involving peer pressure, mutual conditioning, and interpretive reinforcement (i.e. a group hallucination). From a scientific perspective, these issues cannot be ignored whilst attempting to establish the theoretical principle of the existence of different planes of reality. Of course, belief systems effect how the world is perceived simply because that is one of their primary functions, but ‘belief’ does not necessarily equate to correct perception or interpretation of reality. Although theoretical physics postulates that other dimensions may exist (i.e. ‘String Theory’ and ‘Quantum Theory’, etc), these realities are mathematical probabilities, and not the product of sensory observation in the usual or mundane sense. In other words, the only manner in which these realities have been understood to exist, is through the use of numbers as cognised by the human brain. This is very different to the structure of religious or spiritual visions of other realities, which always appear to be like this (mundane) reality – but ‘ideal’ in nature. This can be ‘ideally’ good or bad, depending upon belief ad circumstance, but there is no scientific reason why other dimensions should be in anyway ‘familiar’ to human beings and their cognitive sensory array (which has evolved within a particular environment), or even ‘perceptible’ to the human mind in the ordinary sense.

Email: Help with an Exorcism (6.5.2017)


I received today, an unexpected email from the UK entitled ‘Help with an Exorcism’. As this email contains private information from ‘D’, I will not post it here (but I am posting my email responses to it). This email explained that the individual in question (and their family), suffer from a ‘generational’ curse, which they interpret as ‘demonic’ possession. ‘D’ (who is intelligent and sincere), explained that doors open and tables move on their own, (together with other objects), and the family ‘hears’ demonic voices. ‘D’ further explained (in a subsequent email) that the family had sought medical assistance, and that as the family is open-minded, they had also consulted Islamic and Hindu practitioners – with the spirit bothering them being described as stronger than a ‘Djinn’. Of course, although I respect other people’s experiences and opinions, and listen with a compassionate ear – this does not mean that I necessarily subscribe to what they think. I do acknowledge, however, that ‘fear’ is a great motivator in human affairs, and that once a mind-set is in its grasp, the individual concerned can suffer terribly from its presence. I do not ‘believe’ in ghosts, spirits, demons or gods for that matter, and interpret such notions as being the products of an over-active imagination, often inspired and encouraged by archaic systems of theistic worship (which usually includes the ever-present threat of ‘divine’ or ‘demonic’ punishment). Furthermore, it is my considered opinion that such entities can be cleared-up by a radical transformation of the functionality of the human mind, which (providing the individual is healthy), can be produced through meditation and other forms of mental discipline and specific forms of education.  Obviously if mental illness is involved, the issue might be as simple as a chemical imbalance causing all kinds of unwanted and distressing experiences. Of course,I have never met ‘D’, but I offer here a highly ‘generalised’ response to her plight as an indicator of how logic and science can be applied to the paranormal. I very much view my approach as being one of the use of clarity of thought, as a means to over-come disturbance of thought. Below are a number of my emails to ‘D’:

Subject: Re: Help with an Exorcism
Date: Saturday, May 06, 2017 09:12
Dear D
Thank you for your email.
Have you considered medical help? Belief can be a powerful stimulus – but the human mind can be subject to all kinds of dysfunction. The reason other methods have not worked, may be because they are non-medical. Will power at a distance cannot affect the inner workings of a mind (or ‘minds’) that is generating certain impulses of a disturbing nature. Of course, this non-religious approach may not be what you are looking for, but I think it is worth consideration.  I suspect that science is the answer – and not theology. As for the Buddhist philosophical approach, the Buddha teaches that all experiencable states are generated by the mind of the individual – and that when a group experiences visionary perceptions – each individual in the group is internally creating the conditions for said projections. Your problem ultimately stems from the outer material conditions processed by the inner workings of the mind – change those outer material  conditions and what the mind has habitually generated will change. These are my initial thoughts and I am open to further discussion on this matter.
Kind Regards
Subject: Re: Help with an Exorcism
Date: Saturday, May 06, 2017 10:19
Dear D
Thank you for your interesting reply.
For what it is worth, I have studied paranormal activity for over a decade, and have not found any genuine cases of paranormal activity. Generally speaking, an individual (or group) state that they can see, hear, taste, smell, or otherwise ‘feel’ sensory stimulus that is not discernible by an objective observer. In other words, what they think is happening is internally generated and has no correlation to the material environment. On the other hand, as is easily discernible in popular entertainment, many misconstrue physical phenomena as having a non-material basis. A door opening on its own, for instance, can be viewed in any number of illogical ways – including invisible spiritual forces ‘making’ it move. However, if you are immersed in a theological view of the world, material science will seem illogical, and theology will seem correct. My scientific words will come across as ‘not understanding’ your plight, and my view of theology as being illogical, as denying an eternal truth. I can assure you that I am doing neither. I must advise you, however, that genuine Buddhism is a perceptual science and not a religion. It does not accept a god concept as being central to creation, and advocates a logical approach to the interpretation of existence. Meditation strips the mind of greed, hatred, and delusion, and allows the ‘enlightened’ practitioner to perceive a) the empty nature of the mind ground (or perceptual essence), and b) the fact that there is no eternal ‘self’ or ‘soul’. As the Buddha rejected superstition, generally speaking Buddhist monks and learned lay-follows do not recognise the theistic concept of an ‘exorcism’. However, in some places such as Thailand, for instance, on very rare occasions, a Buddhist monk might recite a Buddhist sutta at the bedside of someone who is psychologically and/or physically ill, in the hope that by hearing the words of the Buddha, the (usually very poor) person can straighten their mind and purify their karma (or ‘willed’ thoughts and activities). You sound like a very well educated and sincere person, and if we can move beyond one another’s initial differences in approaching this matter, perhaps our communication can generate somekind of benefit.
All Best Wishes
Subject: Re: Help with an Exorcism
Date: Saturday, May 06, 2017 10:32
Dear D
Just a thought – have you contacted the Society for Psychical Research (SPR)? This is UK based and I am a Member. This organisation studies paranormal activity and might well be able to offer you the kind of advice and help you require.
Tel: 0207 937 8984 – Email: secretary@spr.ac.uk
All Best Wishes
Subject: Re: Help with an Exorcism
Date: Saturday, May 06, 2017 11:18
Dear D
Thank you for your interesting email.
May I enquire as to your ethnic-cultural background? My family is Anglo-Chinese and although I look European, other members look Chinese – but we are united by a common cultural approach. We practice Chinese Ch’an Buddhism and our root teacher is Master Xu Yun (1840-1959). Ch’an penetrates the ’empty mind ground’ and returns all senses to their non-perceptual root. This clears-up all perceptual matters – as all ‘stills’ in the mind and body. As demons are linked to activity of the deluded mind – any apparent demonic possession also ceases. This is why the Buddha spoke about all kinds of gods and spirits in the unenlightened stage – but stated that they all cease to be generated in the enlightened state. Yes – any number of beings can exist in the unenlightened stage – but do not exist (in a dualistic sense) in the fully enlightened state. Certainly, once greed, hatred, and delusion are uprooted, there is nolonger any negative energy for ghosts and spirits to be created in the mind, body or environment. On the other hand, as delusion is over-come with loving kindness and compassion, even in the deluded state, demons can be struck down with the sword of wisdom. The question is ‘who’ knows this?
Best Wishes
Subject: Re: Help with an Exorcism
Date: Sunday, May 07, 2017 05:12
Dear D
Good idea! The SPR certainly has many decades of experience dealing with this type of phenomena and may well be able to assist or advise you in a manner applicable to your needs and situation. Perception and experience are the essence of human existence, but of course, there is a scale of sensation that spans happiness, neutrality and suffering (to varying degrees). Being stuck in any of these modes of sensation can be problematic, even more so if the perceptions and sensations are of a highly fearful, strange or unusual nature. Whatever the case, and regardless of any outcome in this matter, I think it is important to recognise that perception is as much inwardly generated, as it is a matter of external sensation.
Best Wishes

Mind Science


Modern science (which was known by Buddha and the ancient Greeks), purports to objectively ‘measure’ physical matter, and ‘investigate’ its nature. This process is juxtaposed to the state of idealism, which is the observation of the interior of the mind, and the projection of what is seen onto the objective world – mistaking the former for the latter. What is important here, is the acknowledgement that whatever model of perception an individual lives within, it is the agency of the human mind that is the prime-mover of understanding. In theory it is entirely possible to exist only within an ideal world, where an individual consciousness is completely detached from the external physical world. This would require the maintenance of the physical body (and brain) to sustain the functionality of the mind. Of course, if everyone did this, and reality was redefined as a consequence, it would ultimately mean that the physical world would have to be abandoned. The paradox here is that everyone’s physical body would have to exist within a special machine that would require continuous maintenance. This would mean that some human beings would have to remain in the objective world to look after those who have abandoned it for what amounts to be a fantasy world. On the other hand, the world of imagination has to be side-lined for the human mind to focus on the scientific observation of physical matter. This would appear logical because ALL human beings are born not into the world of imagination, but firmly into the physical world. However, imagination does possess a very important function in that it can speculate and create the next stage of objective science. Imagination is also the natural home of religion. Religion itself has created a sophisticated view of the external world that only exists within the interior of the mind itself. In a very real sense, religion represents an ‘abandonment’ of the objective world, but as it does not possess a technological science, the body of religionists cannot fully leave the physical world whilst their bodies are still alive, hence the requirement for mythological visions of heaven and after-life, etc. The point that might well be missed by humanity pursuing this dichotomy, is that consciousness itself is inherently linked with the fabric of the universe (multi verse) itself, and that neither objective science nor religion has been able to establish an effective method to realise this connection. The science of the future will probably be beyond objective science and religion. Although it is possible that religion could make this breakthrough, it is doubtful that it will due to the current state of religions preventing any progressive developments whilst always seeking political power and converts. Modern science, on the other hand, definitely does possess the ability to transcend these barriers of perception, but again is hindered by political and economic constraints. In the meantime, individuals can choose to progress human evolution by deciding to think beyond the current socially accepted limitations of perception. This may not be easy – as sometimes the powers that be will attempt to oppress any progress in a certain direction that might deprive a privileged minority of their power and influence. In reality, progression requires bravery, insight and resolve.

A Non-Threatening Mystery


The problem with the agency of ‘mystery’ as a conveyor of meaning, is that it is premised upon ‘not knowing’. This means that in the process of acquiring certainty, uncertainty becomes a prime mover. This differs from modern science in as much as the method of knowledge acquisition is dependent upon the eradication of ‘uncertainty’, as a means to secure ‘certainty’. Of course, a scientific mystery is different from a religious mystery in as much as it indicates an area of research not yet clarified through logical investigation. A religious mystery, on the other hand, provides a type of emotional support lacking in the scientific method, but does not supply a similar robust intellectual response. Yes, theology can be sophisticated, meandering, complicated, obscure and dogmatic, but it can never be scientifically ‘proven’ to be correct or to even exist – but such is the nature of reality. For some, for instance, the prospect of space travel can appear mysterious because it is unknown, but this does not mean that it is ‘unknowable’. Religion, by its very nature, is known only through its ‘unknowable’ nature, and herein lies its attraction for many people. It is not a matter of being ‘anti-religious’, but rather a matter of understanding the difference in how the human mind functions within the two systems under discussion. The problem with theistic rapture, is that the experiencer can stay in a dark cave for decades, and end his or her life staring at what is believed to be the divine, whilst contributing nothing to the scientific development of humanity. Poverty, illness, famine, drought, illiteracy and homelessness are not resolved by this approach to self-absorption. Although somekind of inner freedom is hinted at, nothing changes on the outer plain. Science, strictly speaking, does not require religion to function, and the same can be said for religion and its relationship to science. Both systems exist in parallel, but the battle in recent centuries has been which paradigm should direct human affairs – and secular science has proven its material worth by making human life better. Of course, with regards to the technologically-led destructive nature of the arms industry, a case can be made to suggest that science (at least in part), has contributed immeasurably to the over-all suffering of humanity, quite often in some of the most brutal ways imaginable. This criticism of science (and one of its uses) is undoubtedly true. However, the monopoly upon social destruction is not owned exclusively by science, as the Christian religion has had its fair share of committing mass atrocities over the last thousand years or so (the same observation and criticism can be equally levelled at numerous other religions). Perhaps it is better to state that humanity has a thread running through its genetic programming that has the capacity for immense violence, and that this capacity has been activated and operated in a vicious manner at various stages of its evolutionary development. This being the case, it is this propensity for violence that needs to be developed out of the human system as a means to secure a better future. This is where the various peace-orientated ideals contained within most religions and spiritual paths can be useful for the further evolution of humanity. This need not clash with the scientific paradigm, but exist peacefully alongside it. Although science may pursue a non-religious narrative, this does not necessarily mean that science is ‘anti-religious’. In reality, as religion cannot be ‘measured’ or ‘quantified’, it is of no interest to the scientific method, and exists outside of it. As science does not operate through the agency of ‘faith’, religionists should have no opinion about it, and yet the world is full of individuals that purport to support religion or science from a diametrically opposing position. This is not useful or helpful for the development of humanity, but this is not the complete story, as many religionists today study science, and many otherwise hard-nosed scientists profess a religious faith outside the laboratory. An appreciation of nature, and the sheer randomness of its creation and functionality maybe termed a non-threatening mystery that does not compromise the material essence of modern science. From the scientific perspective, religion can be explained scientifically (through the auspices of psychology and psychiatry, as well as secular philosophy), and need not necessarily be an issue that requires confronting, even if it does not obviously contribute toward the scientific method.

Teaching Evolution Effectively to Transform Human Understanding


Evolution is an established academic fact, but as this is a new field of research, Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection is an unfolding process that requires modification as new evidence comes to light. Unlike the ready-made teachings associated with religion, academic theories are in many ways a work in progress. Theology, with its central premise of a divine entity, does not require improving – only understanding and accepting, because such a teaching premised upon the authority of tradition, does not require updating or changing. In fact, any attempt to alter or modify theology is met by the various established churches with the charge of ‘blasphemy’. However, science is not at war with religion as certain academic or religionists would have the world believe, as each understanding of reality is distinct and not reliant upon the other. For dogmatic religion, science premised upon the collection of objective evidence is anathema, whilst for established science, religious belief is irrelevant – this is why the two realms of interpretation really have no connection. What is required in today’s progressive classrooms is a greater emphasis upon evolutionary theory, and the clarity of thought this brings humanity. This should not be a problem for religion, as such institutions teach exclusively theology in their churches with no reference whatsoever to modern learning and understanding. This being the case, it should be established under law that the school classroom is secular – whilst religious teachings remain the sole enterprise of religionists and their specialist theological centres of learning – with no confusion or conflating of the truth. Believing in religion is not a problem, but such a belief should not be used to ‘high-jack’ the secularist agenda of rational and logical thinking. A problem prevalent in the US (but less so in Europe due to Socialistic-type education systems), is that of religionists deliberately pursuing a path of conflict by attempting to infiltrate the institutes of established sciences, and through the strictures of theology, seeking to dislodge the rational agendas being taught. This is an attempt (primarily by the religious right), to replace secular ‘logic’ with theological ‘faith’. This is a battle that does not exist. Religionists are perfectly welcome to continue to pursue their theological path, and in so doing, should leave the academic community alone to pursue its rational agenda. In today’s post-modern world, it is secular science that is making the world a better place to live for the entirety of humanity – differing economic systems not withstanding. If a religionist truly believes in the theistic entity that lies at the heart of theology – then that faith should be so strong and unshakeable that systems of modern logic will not affect it at all. This principle can be seen in the lives of professional scientists that retain a religious faith in their private lives, but which keep the two dimensions entirely separate. Children and young people must understand how a rational and logical mind functions, and this must be conveyed at a young age, primarily through a secular education system. In this way, the stupidity of a lack of critical thought will be avoided. The following video demonstrates the cultivated stupidity of a young American who uses the language and conventions of a modern education to ‘attack’ evolutionary theory. The lack of understanding is palpable and reflects the current ‘anti-intellectual’ agenda being pursued in the USA. What this individual fails to see, is how his own mind is operating. He cannot help but make a fool of himself by ‘projecting’ onto Darwinian evolutionary theory, the limitations implicit in his own religious belief system. Perhaps the greatest ignorance is not understanding how our own minds work. The academic Laurence Krauss is lecturing superbly here – and his progressive performance makes a mockery of the ignorant commentator’s attempt to belittle and ridicule:


Inverted Nature of Intelligent Design


‘In recent years, many creationists have chosen to recast their argument in the form of “Intelligent Design.” Somewhat subtler, they do not reject the idea of evolution but claim that it follows a plan set out beforehand by a superior intelligence. There again, the “theory” seems to lack a scientific basis, since one of the principle arguments against Darwinism consists in declaring that the world is too complex to be understood.’

(Jean-Baptiste De Panafieu: Evolution in Action -Page 20)

The argument of Intelligent Design is illogical, and tantamount to placing the cart before the horse. The horse must already exist before the cart is designed, and then the horse must be placed in-front of the cart, for the cart to function. Intelligent Design is a mistaken attempt at interpreting the origin of life on the planet, and remains logically ‘flawed’ regardless of how sophisticated the explanation becomes (i.e. ‘irreducible complexity’), or the amount of money that backs the theory. At its base, Intelligent Design inverts human logic, and turns reality on its head. For the agency of ‘intelligence’ to exist, there must first be a properly functioning brain. A brain that does not exist obviously cannot generate intelligence, just as a brain that has not evolved to the level of producing cogent thought, cannot produce intelligence. In the case of the evolutionary development of the brain, for instance, there appears to be a logical progression from the simplistic to the complex (although it has to be said that within general evolution, things do not always get more complex as they find the physical form most advantageous to surviving in their existential environment). The point is that things never appear in a ‘complex’ fashion, with no observable evolutionary history as this is illogical and impossible. Intellect does not, and cannot, stand alone in the universe apart from the human brain that produces it.

Intelligent Design has its basis in the inverted theology of theistic religion, which states that a mythological being – as an act of will – instantaneously ‘generated’ (from nothing) the entirety of existence in its already and fully developed form. According to this theory, the universe did not ‘evolve’ over billions of years, but has rather appeared all at once in its perfected and complete form. This is taken as being ‘proof’ of a god-like ‘intelligence’ at work throughout physical existence. Charles Darwin exposed this theological theory as being entirely redundant in his 1859 ‘On the Origin of Species’, which rejected god’s will and replaced it with the agency of natural selection. Existence is not a grand scheme of divine intelligence, for rather the accumulated reality of innumerable and fortuitous accidents that have been ‘selected’ because they collectively benefit the species. Although it is true that humans use their intelligence to build machines of various sorts, it is also true that the ability to build machines only occurs after the brain has evolved to the state where the intelligence capacity possesses the ability to conceive of such machines, and work-out how to physically produce said machines – prior to this development – there can be no intellectually generated machines. Intelligence precedes machines, but the agency of intelligence itself does not stand alone in the universe, as it is not self-produced and is the product of discernible stages of previous evolutionary development. A fully functioning brain precedes intelligence, just as there are logical stages in the evolution of the brain itself, which acquires ever-more complex and sophisticated functionality as its structure developments.

Intelligence cannot be the fundamental building block of the universe simply because the capacity of intelligence is a random development thrown-up through the general theory of evolutionary development. Therefore, intelligence is a product of biological existence, and not its foundation, just as the intelligently designed cart does not produce the biological entity of the horse that pulls it. Biological life, of course, is often described as ‘mechanical’, or being ‘machine-like’ in its cellular structure and functionality, but other than a convenient allusion, this should not be taken literally, as biological structure did not come about through the agency of the human intellect, but rather through the complete accidents that comprise the developmental process of natural selection. The comparison of biological structures to machines is incorrect if taken literally, as no matter how sophisticated a machine of iron and steel is, it is never ‘alive’. Biological life itself is an accident of tremendous import and sophistication. A human cell cannot be separated into its constituent parts and then reassembled in good working order – as can a machine used in agriculture or printing, etc. If a machine of iron and steel is taken apart (to be cleaned or repaired, for instance), that machine can be reassembled and work perfectly correctly, but if a human cell is taken apart, its life-function ceases immediately, and it can never be re-animated. This is because it is not a ‘machine’ in the human sense of the word, and was not developed by any form of intelligence, human or otherwise.

Paranormal: Understanding the Inverted Mind


‘The basis of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet found himself or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being encamped outside the world. Man is the world of man, the state, society. This state, this society, produce religion, an inverted world-consciousness, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of that world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in a popular form, its spiritualistic point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, its universal source of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realisation of the human essence because the human essence has no true reality. The struggle against religion is therefore indirectly a fight against the world of which religion is the spiritual aroma.

(Karl Marx: Abstract – The Introduction to Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right)

Religion fulfils the role of providing a sense of profound but otherwise undefined, wonderment for humanity. Following the strictures of Judeo-Christian theology, the religionist view separates the world into the dichotomy of ‘matter’ and ‘spirit’, with spirit being assumed to be the real world, and the material plane presented as the ‘false’ world. The two world are assumed to exist side by side, with the existence of the spiritual world being sustained through the agency of ‘faith’ due to the lack of tangible evidence. The main problem with this model is that the spiritual world of religion is only known and conveyed within the confines of the physical world. This means that religion is only known through that which it is thought to transcend. The material world, although appearing to theology to be transitory and ultimately unreal, is in fact the very vehicle within which religion is generated and perpetuated. Although there is every form of evidence for the existence of the physical world (with regard to it being ‘sensed’), there is no similar evidence to ‘prove’ in the material sense that religion ‘exists’ either on this plane, or any other.

Modern science is irreligious because it is reliant upon the correct observation and recording of physical phenomena. When physical phenomena is correctly categorised and understood by the human mind, the human mind is nolonger functioning in an inverted manner (which sees spirit directing matter), but fully comprehends the fact that physical matter is manipulated through the agency of logically observable cause and effect, and that it is this law that governs the physical processes, and which dictates what happens in the world. As human beings possess an advanced intellect that is capable of planning and building, the world is moulded and transformed through directed human labour. This is just as true for architecture, as it is for medicine, or physics, etc. None of these important subjects are premised upon blind faith, but rather upon the most pristine and clear use of logic and reason. The human mind assesses the exact state of matter, learns how and why it changes, and is able, therefore, to manipulate the direction of that change. It is the power of the human intellect that is able to perform this task, and develop methods that lead to a better physical world for humanity to inhabit. However, as humanity has lived under the directorship of the Christian church for over a thousand years, the habit of gaining comfort from a blind faith is difficult to break.

The paranormal industry is a modern attempt at recreating the mystery associated with theistic faith, or established religion. Its nature is always that of implied ‘other worldliness’, that is never proven to exist, and this is its attraction. Even before the advent of the internet, the paranormal as a subject was known to be a big seller. Today, the paranormal is proliferated throughout the world and generates millions of dollars of income for certain individuals that peddle such a consumable. The paranormal is used as a form of ‘infotainment’, where a story is presented that implies at the very least an unsolvable mystery, and at the very most, as proof of the existence of a hither unseen spiritual realm. None of this transcends the material brain that generates it, and is therefore, a product of the material world. Simply imagining another realm does not mean that this alternative realm exists, regardless of how the facts on this plane are manipulated in a attempt to prove its existence. Every so-called paranormal event has an explanation within the physical world that does not involve religiosity. This is also true of those situations which are baffling at the moment due to a lack of evidence and understanding. A aeroplane that when missing around 60 years ago, for instance, the disappearance of which attracted an immense body of folklore developed around UFO abductions – is found hidden from view in a crash site on the side of a remote mountain. Despite how many times logic and reason triumphs over uninformed speculation, the power of theistic religion always retains its attractiveness to a certain type of human mind. This is odd when it is considered that ‘mystery’ (i.e. ‘not knowing’), is preferred over ‘certainty’, even though humanity has benefited immeasurably through the certainty of ‘knowing’ (i.e. science), and suffered equally immeasurably from ‘not knowing’ (i.e. ignorance).

As a concrete example of the inverted mind at work in the realm of the paranormal, the following entertaining story will suffice:

1815: The case of Diderici Who Vanished into Thin Air!

In 1815, a singular event occurred at the prison of Weichselmünde in Poland. A valet named Diderici had been imprisoned for impersonating his master after the latter had died of a stroke. On this particular day, he was one of many prisoners shackled together in a line and walking in the exercise yard of the prison.
Inexplicably, Diderici began to fade from view. In later interviews with prisoners and guards, it was determined that — in full view of the men both in front and behind the prisoner — Diderici became invisible; and moments later, his manacles clinked to the ground, slack, showing they were no longer holding anything. Nothing more was ever heard of Diderici.
The Real Story of Diderici

A prisoner named Diderici did in fact go missing at Weichselmünde prison, but in 1812~1813, not 1815. Due to a previous escape attempt, Diderici had to wear heavy iron fetters at all times. When the prison was surrendered by the French back to the Prussians in 1813, the roll of prisoners was checked and Diderici was found to have the word ‘missing’ written next to his name. When the commandant was questioned about where Diderici was, he offered up his guess that the heavily-weighted prisoner had possibly leaped or fallen into the Vistula River while walking on the walls of the fortress at a moment when he was not being watched… which sounds suspiciously like it wasn’t accidental, though it is also true that Diderici had attempted to escape once already. Perhaps he had tried again, successfully or not. So he did not vanish supernaturally in full view of witnesses, as the legend attests.

(Both Extracts From: http://anomalyinfo.com/Stories/didericis-actual-fate)


Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) – Deconstructing a Trotskyite

Author Christopher Hitchens

‘Of course, I do everything for money.’

(Christopher Hitchens)

Christopher Hitchens was born a privileged bourgeois (i.e. middle class) person, who was educated in Britain’s public school, before attending Oxford University and reading philosophy, politics and economics. As a student, he was a Member of the Labour Party, before being expelled in 1967 for opposing the Vietnam War. It is logical to assume that at this time in his life, his ideological viewpoint was defined as Marxist-Leninist, as he certainly espoused an opposition to capitalist war, imperialism, colonialism and racism. However, all this changed when he encountered the work of Soviet dissident Victor Serge, although it is certainly true that Hitchens had been taken with the works of George Orwell before that time. His conversion to the religion of Trotskyism can be traced through a foundation laid by George Orwell’s anti-Soviet writings, confirmed and strengthened by Victor Serge’s direct ideological inv olvement with the counter-revolutionary movement of Leon Trotsky. When Trotsky’s power grab in the Soviet Union failed in the mid-1920’s (following the death of Lenin), Trotsky switched tactics to that of attempting to’bring down’ and ‘destroy’ the USSR from within, fuelling discontent and rebellion throughout a Soviet population whose lives had improved immeasurably since the 1917 Russian Revolution. The capitalist West, seeing an opportunity to destroy the Soviet Union, assisted the Trotskyite movement from without, in an attempt to ferment a counter-revolution that would destroy Soviet Communism, and initiate a modern (bourgeois left) capitalist society administered by Trotsky and his cronies. Victor Serge was one of these cronies – whose counter-revolutionary activities are falsely eulogised by the Trotskyite left, where every villain is transformed into a hero.

The defining feature of Trotskyism is its dishonesty. Trotskyites share a common ideological bond with Adolf Hitler in that both assume that ‘lying’ is a legitimate political activity. This dishonesty is most obvious in the reluctance of Trotskyite groups and individuals to openly admit their ‘Trotskyite’ affiliations. This is a mainstay in the Trotskyite left’s ability to continue to attract and recruit the politically naive, and the easily led, by ‘pretending’ that they alone represent the ‘true’ Communist movement. If this were true, why not clearly state on all descriptive literature that such movements are ‘Trotskyite’ in nature? Trotskyites do not openly advertise their ideological affiliations because they know that as soon as it is understood that they follow the bourgeois left ideology of Trotskyism, it is also understood that such movements do not, in fact, follow revolutionary Marxism or Leninism. Trotskyites do not clearly state their ideological affiliation because such an honest and open policy would immediately indicate their bourgeois, corrupt, and counter-revolutionary status. The point of such people as George Orwell, Victor Serge and Christopher Hitchens, is to sully true revolutionary working class politics, and replace it with a bourgeois sham, or parody of ‘revolution’, where everything stays the same for the workers, but the White middle class feel better about themselves. A study of the life of Christopher Hitchens, is in fact a study of the ‘fetishisation’ of the revolutionary path of the working class, by a White, privileged, middle class man, who thought that what he had to say as an individual member of the bourgeoisie, was more important than the ‘collective’ revolutionary path of the working class. The hypocrisy that underlay Hitchens’ later political mercenariness, can be clearly discerned by his backing of New Labour’s neo-colonial ‘oil’ wars in the Middle East, and his whole-sale abandonment of anti-racism and peace activism (strong elements within Marxist-Leninism).

As his Trotskyism allowed for the distortion and misinterpretation of Marxism, Hitchens became something of a mouthpiece justifying ‘Islamophobia’ from the British left. This essentially racist attitude mirrored that of Trotsky, and as the mainstream press in the West was busy peddling anti-Muslim racism, Hitchens – as a White member of the privileged Bourgeoisie – was invited to express his anti-Islamic views throughout the UK and USA media – gaining much right-wing support in the process. Hitchens’ racism toward non-White people was camouflaged by a thin veneer that masqueraded as a Marxist critique of religion. However, this perversion of interpretation demonstrates exactly how Trotskyites misrepresent the very Marxism they claim to uphold. This is because Trotskyites exist within a ‘deluded’ interpretation of material reality, which is in fact a ‘mirage’. Trotskyites actually occupy a parody of historical materialism, where they firmly operate through the very inverted mind-set that Marx exposed as the basis of the bourgeois class. This is why the Trotskyite interpretation of Marxism is not ‘Marxist’, but rather a bourgeois inversion designed to disempower the working class, prevent the working class from uniting, and present ‘racism’ as real, religion as ‘evil’. Marx never said religion was ‘evil’ (as he rejected such Judeo-Christian notions as ‘good’ and ‘evil’), as Hitchens’ suggests, in fact Marx stated that theistic religion is a product of an inverted imagination, and that once this is abandoned, the human intellect begins to function the ‘right way around’. The working class throws-off the yoke of inverted religion ‘collectively’, and not with a personal age to grind, as suggested by the behaviour of Hitchens throughout his life. The bourgeois delusion that Hitchens presents, is that of a White bourgeois, who can, through the weight of his class privilege, gain access to State media and perpetuate his particular creed of middle class sentimentality. His pointless middle class ‘fetish’ attacks on religion (often facilitated by an equally ‘Trotskyite’ BBC), were only matched in their deluded sophistry by his attacks on the USSR and its history. These two attacks often ‘blended’ when Hitchens tried to laughingly convince the Western world that Lenin and Stalin were ‘religionists’ that founded and administered an ‘atheistic’ Soviet State. His lies about the Soviet Union are many and numerous and would justify a separate study. Suffice to say, Hitchens was a bourgeois Trotskyite who dedicated his life to destroying any genuine working class revolution by reducing all politics to the fetish of the capitalist individual.

Keeping the ‘X’ in Xmas!


I am a secularist that believes in two important attributes in society, (in this order of importance):

1) Scientific Socialism

2) Freedom of thought within a progressive society.

Progressive Scientific Socialism has to replace destructive capitalism, that is an a priori essential – but if an individual or group wants to follow a religious belief within a Socialist context, they should be allowed to do so unharassed – providing it is understood that theology cannot be used in a political manner.  Once that is established, religiously minded people can believe whatever they want – after-all, such belief will not affect the premise of secular science. Evolution and gravity will continue without interruption.  I do not agree with the concept of a capitalist Xmas – nor do I believe that children should be indoctrinated with capitalism and Christianity.  I think my declared ‘beliefs’ are modest when compared to a virgin birth, or an alleged disembodied spirit that cannot be seen in the physical world, but which apparently controls everything in that world.  Occasionally, I get harassed by theists for my use of ‘Xmas’ over ‘Christmas’, and this does show a terrible lack of education in the more ethereal minded amongst us.  Although it is true that ‘Xmas’ is often used as a ‘secular’ preference to the theistic ‘Christmas’, its history may not be what you might expect (and certainly not what many theists believe it to be).  ‘Xmas’ is a Greek term that breaks down in this manner:

1) Χ = represents the 14th letter of the Greek alphabet ‘ξι’ (pronounced ‘chi’).

2) mass (is a religious celebration).

X (chi) is used as a short expression for the word ‘Christ’ – and when placed together with ‘mass’, maybe originally interpreted to refer to an abbreviation for ‘Christmas’.  I know this because of science, and not religion.

%d bloggers like this: