Sir Isaac Newton, to what did he refer when he stated, "a certain most subtle Spirit"?

Sir Isaac Newton, our most esteemed scientist, wrote his 'General Scholium' as an appendix to his ground-breaking Mathematica Principia [1713].

It is little known fact that the deeply religious Sir Isaac's writings and discourses upon the Bible are of far greater extent than all of his numerous insights and publications into mathematics, light, gravity, optics and other sciences put together. Mainly written in Latin his esoteric works are numbered in the millions of words.

In his General Scholium he makes his position clear regarding God. He explains that, given the chaotic nature and disorder of the Universe, for the six primary planets to have established themselves all in the same plane, each operating with respect to the others, "could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being." 

He takes care to elucidate his insight into the workings of this,  "Lord God Pantokrator or Universal Ruler" explaining that this supreme, all-knowing being had decided to place the planets at such vast distances from each other that they would maintain their orbits irrespective of each other. That the force of gravity, that he had so clearly defined, would not act upon these heavenly bodies and hurl them headlong into collision courses.

In his General Scholium the brilliant mathematician and scientist states that it is the hand of a supra-intelligent being that has placed the planets contiguous to each other. He finishes the Scholium with reference to a third influence, not gravity, not God, that he refers to as "a certain most subtle spirit" To what did he refer? Clearly it was not the aforementioned two forces, he delineates them in the Scholium prior to referring to the subtle spirit. So what is it?

Many have posited that he was referring to electricity, however his final words appear to rule out electricity per se, "...this electric and elastic spirit operates." He is referring to another entity altogether. It is too simplistic to say that he is speaking of 'electricity'. 

The subtle spirit, "pervades and lies hid in all gross bodies." It is responsible for the "force and action" by means of which, "the particles of bodies mutually attract one another at near distances..." the subtle spirit is not limited however to 'near distances' as his very next sentence explains, "...electric bodies operate to greater distances." Perhaps the science of the seventeenth century simply lacked 

"Mutually attract" conjures up the image of magnetism. It is not a word that Newton uses in his General Scholium. In his paper, "MAGNETISM IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY"  J.J.Ricker III states, "Newton’s almost complete silence on the topics of electricity and magnetism has been thoroughly researched, analyzed, and discussed by historians."

The pendulum swings back to 

...notes

http://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00135

Untitled Treatise on Revelation

If then the Prophesies which concerned the Apostolique age were given for the conversion of the men of that age to the truth & for the establishment of their faith, & if it was their duty to search diligently into those Prophesies: why should we not think that the Prophesies which concern the latter times into which we <3r> are fallen were in like manner intended for our use that in the midst of Apostacies we might be able to discern the truth & be established in the faith thereof, & consequently that it is also our duty to search with all diligence into these Prophesies. And If God was so angry with the Iews for not searching more diligently into the Prophesies which he had given them to know Christ by: why should we think he will excuse us for not searching into the Prophesies which he hath given us to know Antichrist by? For certainly it must be as dangerous & as easy an error for Christians to adhere to Antichrist as it was for the Iews to reject Christ. And therefore it is as much our duty to indeavour to be able to know him that we may avoyd him, as it was theirs to know Christ that they might follow him.

Thou seest therefore that this is no idle speculation, no matters of indifferency but a duty of the greatest moment. Wherefore it concerns thee to look about thee narrowly least thou shouldest in so degenerate an age be dangerously seduced & not know it. Antichrist was to seduce the whole Christian world and therefore he may easily seduce thee if thou beest not well prepared to discern him. But if he should not be yet come into the world yet amidst so many religions of which there can be but one true & perhaps none of those that thou art acquainted with it is great odds but thou mayst be deceived & therefore it concerns thee to be very circumspect.

Psalm 22 :

18They divide my clothes among them

and cast lots for my garment.

Quantum Mechanics

"...when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"

Luke 18:8

        "...when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"

The answer is that He has not.

CONSOLATION IN CHRIST

Is there Consolation in Christ?

Paul says, "“Therefore if there is any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and mercy, fulfill my joy by being likeminded …” Philippians 2:1-2.

Why the "if"?

Isaac Newton says,

Let me therefore beg of thee not to trust to the opinion of any man concerning these things, for so it is great odds but thou shalt be deceived. Much less oughtest thou to rely upon <2r> the judgment of the multitude, for so thou shalt certainly be deceived. But search the scriptures thy self & that by frequent reading & constant meditation upon what thou readest, & earnest prayer to God to enlighten thine understanding if thou desirest to find the truth. Which if thou shalt at length attain thou wilt value above all other treasures in the world by reason of the assurance and vigour it will add to thy faith, and steddy satisfaction to thy mind which he onely can know how to estimate who shall experience it.

EIGHT EVIL SPIRITS IN ONE!

In Matt, Mark and Luke is this remarkable statement by Christ;-

24“When an impure spirit comes out of a person, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ 25When it arrives, it finds the house swept clean and put in order. 26Then it goes and takes seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that person is worse than the first.”

Strange, I'd read the Gospels many times but never noticed this passage. I think I'm noticing it now as I'm applying it to someone dear to me.

Christ seems to be saying that if someone has been a bad person, if they are not careful, they can become far worse. A lot more evil than they had been before they tried to be good.

It's a funny thing for Christ to say. He clearly knew that this is what can happen to some people. Is there a way out for them? Is there a solution? He does not say that there is.

Christianity holds out hope of forgiveness. Where is the forgiveness? 

It truly is an incredible statement. It would seem to hold out no hope for the person afflicted with seven plus one evil spirits. Christ just ends by saying that is their "final condition."

COGNITIVE DISSONANT REDUCTION - Is it a form of Conscience? Can washing hands work?

https://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html

'Cognitive Dissonance', one of its effects is, "Doing things because of social pressure or a fear of missing out (FOMO), even if it wasn't something you wanted to do."

AND

"Forced Compliance

"Sometimes you might find yourself engaging in behaviours that are opposed to your own beliefs due to external expectations, often for work, school, or a social situation. This might involve going along with something due to peer pressure or doing something at work to avoid getting fired."

"Coping with the nuances of contradictory ideas or experiences is mentally stressful. It requires energy and effort to sit with those seemingly opposite things that all seem true. Festinger argued that some people would inevitably resolve dissonance by blindly believing whatever they wanted to believe."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

"Music is a stimulus that can diminish post-decisional dissonance; in an earlier experiment, Washing Away Post-decisional Dissonance (2010), the researchers indicated that the actions of hand-washing might inhibit the cognitions that induce cognitive dissonance.[25]"

Picture Macbeth's wife compulsively washing her hands, "Out damned spot." 

Perhaps you know someone who has a washing hands obsession. Perhaps the person in question is even aware of their obsession and may even frequently state it.

If we add into the mix 'Stockholm Syndrome' it really does start to explain why some people would appear to make the most incredible and unbelievable choices. Perhaps it also explains why they will readily join in with others in the mobbing of people who have done nothing to serve such treatment.

The ensuing feelings of shame and guilt can only be imagined.

When we find ourselves in the unfortunate position of having to live with people who are firmly in the grip of Cognitive Dissonance we can all to easily react to their behaviour, thereby reinforcing the very behaviour that is creating the problem. If we are a primary cause of the dissonance then it is a double whammy... we overreact, "AHAH!" you've just gone and totally convinced the crazed individual that their dissonant reasoning is correct.

Sadly, it may take those in the grip of the disorder, twenty or thirty years before they realise that their life of discomfort is down to misconceptions.

If you are ever unfortunate enough to end up in a position of inferiority or subjugation to someone suffering from Cognitive Dissonance then God help you, because nothing else will. You will be viewed with suspicion, measures will be taken to place you under surveillance, you are a danger to yourself and to society, There is nothing that you can do, no act of kindness you can make, that will dissuade your observer from critically analysing your every move and placing it within the a bracket that reinforces their suspicions and criticisms.

Should you dare to react to the policing of your life and voice your disapproval then you have committed hara-kiri. 

Did Lady Macbeth urge her husband to kill because of Cognitive Dissonant Reduction?

Certainly she had to wash her hands, I don't know if she felt that the action alleviated her discomfort, it would be fair to assume that she washed her hands as much, if not more, when she was awake than when she was asleep. 

Do such repetitive actions induce a numbness to the mind that allows it to cope with the dissonance created by the action? In several religions acolytes repeat, over and over, the same phrase to cause themselves to enter into an altered state, or a certain thought is fixed upon that facilitates the practitioner being able to alter their consciousness. Does a nondescript repetition, such as hand-washing, or placing all the tins in the cupboard with their labels facing outwards, give a smaller influence that allows the dissonant mind to forget itself, to have a few moments of respite before the nagging doubt again kicks in?

Pontius Pilate "washed his hands" before sentencing Christ to signify that he was not personally taking part in the affair. He was trying to appease his conscience or employ Cognitive Dissonant Reduction before carrying out the action. 

Is it only the action of 'hand washing' that provides the brain with the external stimulus that enables it to experience Reduction?

Somehow I don't think that facing the tins in the cupboard would work for Lady Macbeth. "Out damned tin" as she faces them the right way does not have the same ring to is as wringing her hands and "Out damned spot." 

Is Cognitive Dissonance a form of conscience? 

It would seem that it is, we experience varying degrees of discomfort when we lie, when we steal, when we hurt, when we kill. It is the Reduction part that is of interest, it explains how we can then try to explain away the action as being necessary - I killed in order to save lives. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287548535_Moral_emotions_conscience_and_cognitive_dissonance

"The differences between shame and guilt should be discussed. Shame is expressed clearly: flushed face, ears, and neck; averted or sunken head; closed face or eyes; interrupted communication; avoidance of the witnesses of a transgression." 

Shame, if not dealt with, turns into long-term guilt and inevitably that leads to depression. 

God's law versus the law of the land

Paul to Galatians 2 :

Paul confronts Cephas (Peter)

20I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. 21I do not set aside the grace of God. For if righteousness comes through the law, Christ died for nothing.

The law. It is produced by men and women to control the acts and behaviour of men and women. It is the product of thousands of years of the need to control people's acts and behaviour, to facilitate the smooth operation of society, to coerce those who wish to depart from the greater good to remain part of the greater good. 

In Viking times if I killed your brother then you could take me to court and I would have to pay weregild or 'blood money' to atone for the death of your brother. That is a direct recompense in terms of the victims family being compensated for their loss in terms of money. The crime is linked to the victims family, they are seen to be victims and must be given something to assuage their grief. In our more enlightened times the family stopped holding any place in law. It is only a recent innovation that the victim provides a "victim statement" to explain how they have been affected by the crime. That statement helps the court to determine the level of punishment that must be meted out to the offender.

The offender will be punished with only the merest modicum of compensation being paid to the victim or the victim's family. The state is seen to be the injured party, the actions of the offender have offended the state. The state is not acting as an intermediary, its court is not there to determine the crime and the compensation that must be paid, directly for that crime, to the victim, if the state determines that a crime has been committed it punishes the guilty. 

What is the state? The state is an entity that has evolved, it is an entity that sees itself as the true representation of the people's will. In democratic societies the political aspect of the state is the government of the people by an elected body, its term of office is limited to the next election. In non-democratic societies the ruling body is self-perpetuating. 

The legal aspect of the state can be a corollary of its political life. For example in the US the ruling power chooses the judiciary. In communist China the single party, the party, chooses the judiciary. In the UK the judiciary elects its own representatives, the judges. The corrupt elect the corrupt.

It is men, and to a lesser extent, women, choosing men and women to dispense justice. The justice is the product of evolution, and the men and women who are in the position of being paid ample sums for their interpretation of that written law, enact it as their whims and foibles see fit. Often the law, that is the product of a thousand years of testing is as close to perfect as may be obtained on earth, however the law has to have the intermediary of the judges that will place the correct law upon the crime that has been committed and then place the correct interpretation upon that law so that, if guilty, the offender will receive an appropriate punishment and, if innocent, they will go free.

Clearly it is at the point of judge that the system all too easily breaks down. Bias and favour must enter into the equation, it is impossible for one person to have exactly the same beliefs as the next. Nobody is able to act independently of their belief system. Perhaps the bias is overcome with a jury system? Introduce a number of people into the decision so that they will all cancel out each others biases? It is certainly better than a single judge except for the single judge presiding over the jury will still be in a position to apply influence. To lead the uninitiated towards the correct interpretation of the law as the judge sees fit.

This is the law of men and women. It is law the law of people. 

What is God's law? 

(to be cont'd)

2 Thess 1: Christ's Coming

5 6God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. …

NIV

Reality of dreams

... and does God reveal to us the deep knowledge. Did I see the stars of love or of hate? 

"“It means,” said Aslan, “that though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back, into the stillness and the darkness before Time dawned, she would have read there a different incantation. She would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward. And now—”

https://www.openbible.info/labs/cross-references/search?q=1+Corinthians+2%3A9

Psalm 31 (links to Cor:)

A Contentious Woman and a Dripping Tap are both alike. Discuss.

A Contentious Woman. Is it permissible to even use the term "Woman"? perhaps the subject "identifies" as "non-binary" meaning that they do not accept that they are a female human, they maintain that their gender is something else. Perhaps they prefer to use a different "preferential pronoun" to "she." Perhaps 'she' is more comfortable with "zee" or one of the other multitude of words that have been specifically created to pander to the lgbtq+ brigade. Crazed left-wing liberal "democracies" such as Prancing Nancy Trudeau's then enshrine the "zee's" and... (actually there's so many of them, 60 to be precise, here's the University of Wisconsin's table)

So take your pick, I'm feeling "xem" today.

Oh yes, the Nancy's enshrine the insanity into law. It is illegal to refer to me as "he" I am now "xem". 

When the bad men come for us in the middle of the night let us hope that the "xem" people and the "pers" people, and all of these other people that have not existed since the dawn of time will unite together to protect us.

Somehow I don't think that is going to happen. 

Question : Am I allowed to write what I am writing? 

Question : Have I committed a crime in expressing my opinion?

It would seem that is dependent upon the perception of the person that might be offended, according to the Metropolitan Police's definition...

“A hate crime is defined as 'Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.' 

I think I may be okay, I'm not targeting any individual, I'm simply generalising, giving an opinion upon a group, the lqbtq+ group. Hang on though, what if an individual in that group perceives my opinion to be offensive? I'm beginning to understand, I think, I'm only committing "hate crime" if I commit a recognised criminal offence, say assault for example, and my assault is motivated by the victim's disability (for example).

Thank goodness for that. I'm safe. For now. 

Can they get me on anything else?

“A hate incident is any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someone’s prejudice towards them because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender."

Christ knows. Oh well, I'll just have to take my chances. Should be okay, a "hate incident" isn't a crime, not yet anyway.  So it won't matter that the police will make a record will it?

“Not all hate incidents will amount to criminal offences, but it is equally important that these are reported and recorded by the police.”

Can't understand why but I'm getting such a "Big Brother is watching you" type of feeling. How many "incidents" are being reported and "recorded"? How many people are unaware that something they said, without realising the consequence, is now stored digitally upon computers and can be found and linked to within milliseconds?

Is 1984 now upon us? We're getting inexorably closer.

But I have digressed, correction, to have digressed I would have had to begun to at least talk about the topic upon which I am supposed to be writing, that of the "Contentious Woman and the Dripping Tap." I found it difficult to continue without acknowledging the difficulty of the word "woman." It is certainly a word that is capable of stoking fury on the part of those who have successfully lobbied against their being ascribed that term. Their pressure now makes it a potential crime for me not to adhere to new words that have been created to give them what they want - whatever that might be - I'm still confused by it all.

LGB... whatever... and there is also a "+" at the end of all those letters. What is the "plus" for? Is it some kind of (here's a favourite word) "inclusive" symbol? I dare not ask. I may offend. Without realising that I am offensive I have committed an offence. Record me and have done with me. I am a "-" (for those not versed in "doublespeak" I am a "minus"). I am a danger to my society, I am less than useless.

Take me, lock me up, throw away the keys. My life is an abomination (I almost used the term "abortion" - thank the Lord that I never mentioned that hot topic - if people want to kill unborn babies that's up to them. I'm not going to mention that if those unborn babies are placed upon incubators they will survive. No, I'm steering well clear of upsetting any sector of society that has legislated for the right to kill).

Sorry, still not getting very far with this...

Okay, I'm going to hope that the brief foray into the word "woman" has been sufficient to enable me to continue. Are any other individual words in the title of this piece likely to cause offence? I think I'm safe. I don't think they can. Perhaps though the combination of words is going to render me liable to prosecution?

"Contentious Woman" - I'm starting to get a bit of head spin now. If I use the term "Contentious Woman" is it an accusatory term? An accusatory statement? As in, "You! Yes, you! You contentious woman!" or am I okay considering that I placed the word "A" before the term 'contentious woman'? So I'm not making a statement that an individual woman (that I have not named or even alluded to) is not being harshly referred to as "Contentious Woman" I'm qualifying that I'm referring to "A" contentious woman. 

"But, my Lord, notice how he cleverly interposed the word 'A' prior to his use of the derogatory term. He did so to try to elude what he so obviously set out to achieve by the use of this discriminatory term."

My God! It's not just 'derogatory' it's also 'discriminatory' - I've had it - how can a mere 'minus' withstand the truth and justice that is going to be dispensed upon me? I have to accept responsibility for my error. I did not know what I was doing but that is not an excuse. I have erred and must be punished. 

"Dripping Tap" - that should be okay, shouldn't it? I mean a dripping tap is certainly annoying but it won't cause anybody to feel that they've been discriminated against, will it? Or, here's another beauty, "Marginalised" - will someone feel 'left out' because I've described the tap as dripping? Perhaps. Who knows. What about the 'tap' doesn't it have any rights? If we're going to be "Inclusive" why shouldn't objects be included? Who is it that says we cannot protect objects? And if we exclude some objects whilst accepting others that would be wrong, wouldn't it? So if I want to protect, in this instance the 'tap' then I must also agree that the 'chair' has to be accorded the same level of respect as 'tap'. 

I don't know what personal pronoun the 'tap' will want to be recognised by (sorry, I forgot to mention 'chair' it was an unintentional marginalisation) hang on, I'll scroll back up and pick the one that seems most appropriate for 'tap'... here it is... no, sorry, couldn't find one, but I did find one for 'chair' it is "ver." As in "ver chair" it has a nice flow and sound to it, the two fit nicely together. I am typing whilst I am sitting on ver chair. I am not forgetting "'?' tap" but I've noticed that my spell-check is agitated by the word 'ver' it is insisting upon giving it a red underline. I think that a warning to the tech giant that the liberties that they so rightly espouse for us are being eroded by their insistence upon the highlighting of my chair's personal pronoun is going to cause at the least, consternation, and, at worst, outrage. Yes, that should do it. Surely the tech giant will bring its own house into order after that? 

I think I should quite before I get myself into deeper water - not tap-water - I'm talking metaphorical water. I only started out to discuss the Biblical quotation, taken from Proverbs. around 1000 BC someone, probably a prophet but who knows, sat down and wrote down this saying. 

Oh dear, I've just noticed "BC" the LBCQT people will be incensed, no, hold on, it's not LBC... it's something else, but the anti-Christ people will be incensed, BC is Before Christ and that's politically incorrect, it should read, "BCC" as in Before Common Era. That is to protect the sensibilities of the newcomers to the West, the ones who have their own religions, the ones that cry out, "There is not God but Allah." 

So that they will not be offended we have altered time itself. 

And the atheists, we must not marginalise the atheists, I mean they've been crying out for years, "There is no God." At least the first lot have a God, of sorts. The second lot don't care for either of our gods. But now at least they're getting somewhere, if it wasn't for the first lot the second certainly wouldn't have got rid of BC. Who cares? What of it? It doesn't affect me. Does it?

Now, certainly, I am able to approach the topic of this discussion, having due recognition and "Respect" to every weirdo under the sun. [No I'm not going to, tempting though it may be, I won't discuss "Respect" with a capital 'R']. I'm going to do what I should have done right from the start and discuss the title!

Dare I discuss the title? In the Muslim world a man's word carries twice the weight of a woman's. In my world a woman's word gives her greater protection under the law. Certainly if a woman is dismissed from her job she can claim that she has been discriminated against because she is a woman. I cannot make a similar claim because I am a man. If I was a black person (I think that I have to say 'black' meaning every hue and shade of every colour, black being the all encompassing word for "non-white") then I would have similar legislation to protect me, but who am I to complain that I have been marginalised. I'm a white male. 

"Oh, what a crime, he must be a violent aggressive man to even utter the words! Fetch the police, this mad dog needs to be restrained before he bites someone!"

I'm sure the guy that wrote down the original saying, I imagine that it had been in common use before he wrote it down, didn't mean to offend various pressure groups, particularly those that are marginalised, ostracised, categorised and circumcised. In fact he'd probably also been circumcised, given that the Bible came from the Judeo world, so he had nothing against the "non-foreskin brigade". He'd just heard it and wrote it down, simple as that. If it was a man. Had to be. A woman wouldn't have written down a saying that criticised members of her own kind, would she? 

I don't know why, I'm getting a certain rhyme ringing in my ears, "Here I am sitting broken hearted, paid a penny and only farted." I always remember it, it was alongside another witticism scratched into the paint on the public toilet door, "If you can read this, you are now, bending over at the waist." That is the same level of attention that the interferences operate upon, they are like the dripping of a tap, a constant interruption that I can put out of my mind but are always there, if for one moment my guard drops then they are back, as irritating as Scottish midges. 

I've just noticed something, I said, "interferences" I've subliminally grouped the whole darn lot together as one, the dripping tap and the QT+ and the BCC, etc etc, are all one. Perhaps like many sayings in the Bible it is a metaphor. It represents things that upset and cause consternation to the majority. Is "Contentious Woman" also a metaphor? Maybe, but it seems a bit too direct doesn't it? I think I'm on fairly safe ground to stick with it as referring to an attribute of a specific woman. We're not talking about the whole of woman-kind are we? Or woman-kind and non-binary kind, even. 

Basically the saying is saying that if a "Contentious Woman" exists (and I'm not saying that she does) then she and a "Dripping Tap" are both alike. I can see what the writer's getting at, if there was a contentious woman then she would be having a similar affect to the tap. That's about as far as I dare to take it.

Requests to escape the repressive regime of Erdogan

Many people have contacted me since the publication of KURT LANGER : NEMESIS OF TERROR asking for help and advice. Several young Turks, who shall be nameless, knowing of my kayaking background, asked me for assistance in fleeing from the repressive regime of Erdogan.

Here is the advice that I gave them;-

Some thoughts. Some ideas...

The best plans are the most simple. You said that there are patrols – yes, there will be patrols, those patrol boats will rely upon their ship-to-ship radar to detect boats. A kayak cannot be detected by radar, it's signature is too small. Check this out on Google.

Here is a map of a possible crossing from Turkey to the Greek island of Inousses, off Chios. 

The distance is under 10km.

Here is a short trip that I have paddled many times

The distance is 4km x 2 = 8km.

In a sea kayak it takes 1.5 hours to make the 8km trip.  At that speed of just over 5km per hour, 10Km would take 2 hours. 

2 hours paddling is easy. There is nothing difficult to it. I have paddled that distance with old men and women many times.

A sea kayak is the fastest boat to paddle but there are other boats that would make the crossing more slowly. You will have seen 'sit-on-tops' on the beaches near Izmir that are used by holidaymakers.

These are all capable of making the crossing. A sit-on-top is a safer option if the sea was to get rougher because it is easy to climb back on. But it will be important to choose a dark, calm night.

Here is a fishing kayak...

A dark kayak is better than a light kayak.

Once you are in the area near to Inousses you are in the danger zone. They will know why you are there. You will need to buy this boat and use it near to Izmir. Try to use it where other people use such boats. Maybe hire the boat that you intend to use. A fishing kayak would allow you to practice under the pretence of being a fisherman. If you take a short fishing rod with you, on any boat, you are a fisherman.

You will not need much practice. These boats are so easy to paddle. You will need to go to the the spot where you will launch the boat from Turkey and check it is suitable. You can also spend all night there looking out towards Inousses, watching to see how many boats travel in that area during the night. All boats are lit, in the night the sound of their engines is very loud. That is why a motor boat is useless. A kayak is silent. 

Patrol boats will also be lit. If not you will hear their engine. Take binoculars.

I do not know if you have a car. If you do not have a car this will be more difficult. 

When the day comes you will strap the boat to the roof of the car – you don't need a roof rack – you can just put the straps through the windows, put some carpet on the roof. You will know exactly where you are going to launch from. Use a torch with a very faint light – light can be picked up by the human eye very, very easily. 

Your torch will light your compass. You have to travel on a dark night. An overcast night is the darkest, even starlight (in Turkey) is bright enough to see fairly well. Time the trip so that dawn will just be starting to break as you reach the island.

You will paddle at the most for four hours. That is not difficult. You can hire a boat for that time and practice. 

Here are some other thoughts... is it best to have a trusted friend take you to the launch site? That friend can drop off you and the boat and then return. Nobody has a clue where you have gone. If you take a car and leave the car it shows that you were in that area. If you take the boat there using your own car you can drop off the boat and hide it. You can return next day using the bus/bicycle. A bicycle can be thrown into the sea, a car will be found.

[Remember : Silence is your strength!!]

Don't tell anybody anything unless essential to the success of the mission.

These are all thoughts for you to think on. The plan will come from them.

The main town and harbour is marked in pink. You will need to paddle between the two islands then follow the coast round. The islands seem to be quite low-lying, no huge cliffs. 

Here are Google Images showing how close Turkey is to Inousses. Yes, it is easy to patrol but in the dark a kayak is a needle in a haystack. 

Begin work on this today. Don't delay. 

From the island of Inousses you can paddle along its coast and cross to the main island of Chios. Paddle during the early morning. The sea is usually calmest first thing in the morning, the sun creates wind, the wind creates waves. It is flat calm in the early morning.

Once you reach Chios you can get a ferry. https://www.ferryconnection.com/ports/ferry-ports/inousses-ferries/ 

Good luck

Geoff

The lead up to my meeting Kurt Langer revisited

I travelled across Europe for several months, slowly making my way east. It is a Europe that has changed enormously over those intervening forty four years. 

It might be a bit tedious for some but for others, so I'm told, the lead up to my meeting Kurt sets the scene and allows for some understanding of how the West has got to where it has now got to in terms of achieving something that was denied it for the previous two thousand years; the incredible achievement of home-grown or willingly imported terrorism. 

The ruling elites did not wade through the swamps and jungles of Vietnam, only one senator's son served in Vietnam. The hypocrisy continued long after the war ended with some senators even claiming to have served in Vietnam, they were found to be lying, but let's elect them to the Senate anyway. Against such hypocrisy and the voices of millions crying out for self-destruction even the shining light of the beacon of the USA dimmed. The world was in self-immolation mode and the ruling elites were going to ensure that it transitioned from strong, healthy democracies to anarchic outposts of third-world ghettoes as smoothly and quickly as possible. Led by such notaries as the German Chancellor, Frau Angela Merkle, who in 2015 single-handedly opened the gates of Germany to anyone and everyone from war torn regions such as Iraq and Syria then, after allowing in one million made it clear that her contribution was for “war and terror” when she said, “In many regions war and terror prevail. States disintegrate. For many years we have read about this. We have heard about it. We have seen it on TV. But we had not yet sufficiently understood that what happens in Aleppo and Mosul can affect Essen or Stuttgart. We have to face that now.” 

“We have to face that now” her voice rings with the same tones as the man she most despises, Adolf Hitler. On the eve of war Hitler was at his mountain fastness of the Berghof, waiting for the Pact of Steel to be signed with Stalin. In the afternoon he stood with his guests on the terrace and stared at the sky, it was in turmoil, an eyewitness described it as, “...blood-red, green, sulphur grey, black as the night, a jagged yellow.” The spectacle horrified and intimated the entourage, a Hungarian woman perhaps blessed (or cursed) with the ability to peer into the future felt she must speak, “Mein Fuhrer, this augurs nothing good. It means blood, blood, blood and again blood. Destruction and suffering. Blood and again blood.” Hitler was totally shocked, the vision and the warning had sent him wild, with a crazed expression, eyes staring remotely into the distance he uttered the fateful words, “If it has to be then let it be now.” He and Frau Merkle both knew that there would be no putting back the clock, that their actions would unleash forces of destruction. 

“We have to face that now,” as in 'now that I have allowed in one million this year, one million next year, one million the year after that...' Millions of undocumented aliens with cultures and creeds diametrically opposed to everything that the West stands for. Never in history has any state damaged itself so irreparably under the banner of altruism. Within days of Frau Merkle uttering her dirge women were being raped across Germany in the New Year celebrations, Stuttgart (that she had bizarrely predicted would experience “war and terror”) was just one of the cities where the invaders took women “those (captives) whom your right hands possess” as the edict from their prophet prescribes. The crimes committed that night were deliberately buried from public view and only surfaced after many months. Frau Merkel did not think to herself, “Perhaps this experiment might not work,” she continued to allow in floods of young, fighting age men, every route that led to Germany, roads and railway lines were filled with fit, well-dressed, strong men. Women and children were an absolute minority as the race to the Mecca of Germany where they would be paid to live, was on. Once settled the young male was able to send for each and every member of his extended family. Germany already had a Turkish population of “at least 4 million” making up around 5% of the population. The interraction between the Islamic Turks with strong links to Turkey, they continue to provide a powerful Islamist vote in Turkish elections, and the German working classes had been more than problematic, deaths had occurred, neo-Nazis had killed, the Turks made up 10% of the criminal gangs operating throughout the country. Against that background Merkle's actions... saw her being awarded for her humanitarian efforts, Time Magazine named her, “Person of the Year.” Perhaps the fireworks hitting Cologne Cathedral as a thousand women and girls were being raped and assaulted beneath its twin spires were in celebration of the award. 

It is incredible but, like the Hungarian woman that warned Hitler, forty-three years ago I met and fell in love with Ayse. She told me what was to come and I knew she must be right although I could not believe that it could happen in my lifetime. She told me it would and that I must give voice to her warning but I fear it is too late. 

Already our voices have been stifled. In the UK laws have been enacted to keep our mouths shut. Political Correctness is the vehicle driven by the Thought Police. Here’s how the the Metropolitan Police of London define 'Hate Crime' and 'Hate Incidents,'

“A hate crime is defined as, 'Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.' 

“A hate incident is any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someone’s prejudice towards them because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender.

“Not all hate incidents will amount to criminal offences, but it is equally important that these are reported and recorded by the police.”

Big Brother is alive and well and watching you. It may not even be a criminal offence but the police will become involved. What this “crime” achieves is the silencing of dissent. For instance, if someone was to write about the Armenian Genocide and the statements which are still being made today by President Erdogan regarding the future of the remaining 170,000 Armenians within his country [not mentioning the genocide of 1.5m Christian Armenians from 1914-17, undercover of World War I] it might be that a newly arrived person from that country could perceive that what is being said is offensive to them. It is for the police to decide if that is a “crime” or an “incident.” 

What is the meaning of these two quotes?

“Who are you then?"

"I am part of that power which eternally wills evil and eternally works good.”

― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust, First Part

[Samson killed the lion]... he turned off the path to look at the carcass of the lion. And he found that a swarm of bees had made some honey in the carcass. He scooped some of the honey into his hands and ate it along the way. He also gave some to his father and mother, and they ate it. But he didn’t tell them he had taken the honey from the carcass of the lion.

So he said: “Out of the one who eats came something to eat; out of the strong came something sweet.” Three days later they were still trying to figure it out.”

‭‭Judges‬ ‭14:8-9, 14‬ ‭NLT‬‬

I hope that the reader will have thought about the meaning of the two quotations. We normally just give them a quick glance, we take what they are saying at face value, but is there something more to them? A deeper meaning that eludes a quick inspection? I think that there may be (I'm not saying I'm right, but please, let me explain)...

In my own humble opinion, I think that what the quotes are saying is that evil produces good. That is purely a concept. It cannot be proved. Can the existence of God be proved? - only up to the point of the listener granting credibility to the proofs laid before them. At the point were they say NO the attempt ends. The same with 'evil produces good.' Only if the listener has perhaps had an experience that can steer them towards the acceptance of the argument, can the concept be acceptable to them.

We are rooted in our belief that evil IS evil. Of course it is, but what happens then? Do we remain trapped within the snares that the evil has laid for us? No, we suffer the evil and then a remarkable thing occurs, it is called 'Time.' Time enters into the equation, it has the capacity to wear down mountains. The evil is transformed by time. It mutates. 

What gives rise to this process is the energy contained within the evil. That energy has a latency within it that after it has been unleashed and has caused damage, destruction, disaster it has nowhere else to go, nothing else to do. It can only linger at the site, supreme in its victory, then, as time sets in, the victory is seen as hollow and empty. It is nothing, it is void.

Just as air rushes in to a vacuum, the space created by the evil must be filled. The tide has turned, good floods in. The last vestiges of evil are swamped, salt water washes the wounds. Cleansing them of even the tiniest taint of the putrid mass that was composed of evil. 

Yes, truly, Good comes out of Evil.

Love is patient, love is kind... isn't it?

Is it possible for us to subvert the truth? 

Why is the 'star-cross'd lover' able to bring hurt and injury to their soul mate for the sake of the satisfaction of their own neuroses? The answer is all too obvious, throughout history men and women have injured each other, knowing exactly what would be the consequence of their actions, and yet driven by the inner beast they set out, deliberately, to destroy their mate. In so doing they heap destruction upon themselves. Their lives must end at the moment they gain the victory, the ascendancy they so desperately sought. 

What is wrong with peace and harmony? For some people it is an unreality, an unachievable myth. Those that have it shine like the sun at midday, their faces glow with that inner light that entrances all who can bear to view it. Evil people must avert their glances, they hate to see the happiness exuded by the good. For them life is the passage from one hatred to the next. The hunted look of some tells the tale of the torment that the soul is undergoing. Sleep, perchance to dream is not part of their existence (for they do not live they merely exist) rather they are like Lady Macbeth, wandering somnambulists, pulled from their rest by the pain of their conscience. "Out, damned spot! out, I say!" is their credo.

We injure our loved ones at our own peril. Take care that in the days of your youth you do not commit hurt, you shall surely suffer all the vain days of your life. Bear no malice, keep no record of wrongs. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Above all do not give like for like. Let the love of your life inject their deadly poison into your veins. Take it and watch it course through your body, icing your heart, freezing your soul. You will recover, in time, your lover will never recover. Oh Lord, what forces drive us to such self-destruction. Is there no escape from the inevitable?

The harnessing of processing power by the modern-day writer, the linking of the brain with the computer, has created conditions in which literary works can be created that the greats could only dream of.

The skill of the writer is to create imagery, vivid sharp solid imagery, people that walk across space, moving from one clear background to another. The people need not be so sharply defined, the writer has to allow the reader to render the characters according to their own imaginations. There needs to simply be guidance to encourage that fertile process.

Flowery effervescence and intricacies that describe people and backgrounds to the nth degree are from a bygone age, before the modern mediums of TV and film existed. The reader cried out for detail, they wanted their imaginations to be used to delineate the tortoiseshell button from the teak, the hydrangea from the frangipani, the greyness of the slate roof was a concern to them. Those readers lived in the Golden Age of novels, when imaginations were the only means of exciting the brain with imagery that could not be viewed through the eye. Their time devoted to the books was great, there was nothing else to distract them from the world that is created by the writer, that comes to realisation and is embellished by each individual according to their own uniqueness.

The great writers were possessed with brilliance that enabled them to fabricate their worlds relying purely upon powerful memories that held the whole novel in their grasp. Theirs was truly the all-seeing eye. The words were placed onto paper by the writer by quills dipped into inks made from solutions of iron salts and tannic acid. There was little room for error, freedom of expression had to take place within the closely defined boundaries of the plot. Any process of editing was fraught with physical difficulty, scissors and glue, the cut and paste of the computer, were the means by which the novel would be rejigged and characters literally cut from the womb that spawned them.

Without fearsome memories and incredible intellect there could be no Dickens, Dostoevsky or Dumas. Lesser beings fell by the wayside leaving the greats to power on, creating worlds and exploring the furthest reaches of space, fighting with extinct creatures and nurturing the tenderest feelings of love and affection. The readers sat enthralled, reading by gas-light then the electric lamp. What would those writers have achieved linking the power of their omnipotent minds to that of the computer? The restrictions created by the physicality of the writing process are eliminated. Story becomes all, plot is a necessary but not an all-important requirement. The modern-day writer can leave behind the safety and security of plot and venture into their own imaginations, producing works that the geniuses of old could barely match. Errors can be eliminated with a few quick key strokes. The story becomes all, as imagination is given free rein, characters are able to develop with a lack of detail that would have been unthinkable to the Victorian or Edwardian, the backgrounds are as finite or infinite as the writer deems necessary. The computer, linked to the brain, is capable of producing works that the greats could only dream of.

Morass of Morbidity

I wonder if there are others like me out there? People who are unable to stomach the dross that is being churned out nowadays. To my way of thinking it does not even remotely resemble literature - unless that is the definition of literature is a joining together of words that fail to convey anything apart from inducing feelings of melancholy and despair.

Perhaps that is why I stick to good old classic literature. 

My dad was bought a book for Christmas. He is well versed in pulp fiction but could not finish it. I endured one sentence. How in the name of fiction can it receive accolades?! 

I have to ask the question, 'Have modern readers lost their minds?'

I have just placed KURT LANGER : NEMESIS OF TERROR onto Amazon. I think and am told that it has the quality of being "literature" as well as being a thumping good tale. It will probably go the same way as an earlier novel and settle beneath the morass of morbidity.

If my blog, tucked away here in some obscure reaches of the web, is ever found I imagine that daring to question what is presented as literature will result in a plethora of shocked comments, as in, 'You must be mad if you cannot appreciate what is so clear to us!' But there is little to worry about, the collapse of literature is reflected by the collapse of thought. Nobody will care a jot what I think.