Category: Ethics


Christianity and Veganism – Either/Or?

Today I went to a Zizzi restaurant in Newark.  All I wanted was a glass of wine but I thought I had better at least buy an Italian bread bucket, as it is a restaurant not a pub.  As a vegan I was not thinking that the fining process for the wine had probably involved the use of animal or fish products.  I wasn’t thinking, all I wanted was a glass of wine after over two weeks not drinking anything.  In the end I had two glasses of wine, sea bream and tiramisu.  Some vegan I am?  Yes, absolutely.  I keep wanting to ‘eat normally’, ie, not vegan, and sometimes I give in to the urge.  The last two or three months I have given in a few times.  Until tonight, over the last two weeks I have been OK and stuck to the straight and narrow path of being a vegan.  It’s been better for my digestion as well.

Today, before this, I was thinking that the reason I am a vegan is that eating non-vegan harms animals, even just using their products, given the farming methods used, and that it brutalises people, especially at the extreme end of those who work in slaughter houses.  I wanted to be a vegan because I wanted to affirm myself as a human being who does not harm or cause suffering to animals and is not in any way involved with it.  There are people who say they would never harm a fly who eat meat and fish and their products regularly.  They are in denial.  Other people are being paid to do the dirty work for them and they buy the sanitised product at the end, and obviously recognise no link between themselves and any harm or suffering caused to an animal.  If they say they would never harm a fly and mean it, their thoughts and feelings lack clarity.

At the moment, though, I could joyfully abandon veganism.  I often crave foods that are not vegan, the vegan equivalents are just a bit harder to get hold of and a bit more expensive, and there have been times when I have eaten seitan when I have wanted to cut into some real flesh.

Christianity and Veganism – either/or?  Apart from two years in my teens I have always considered myself a Christian.  Even during the first years of being hospitalised I sometimes had difficulty seeing myself as Christian, but in those days I considered myself to be in a bad place in my life.  In my teens I embraced a life without God for two years.

The one thing we know about the things Jesus ate, if we believe the Bible, is that he ate fish.  For a few years now I have held to a position in my thinking if not always in my practice, that abstinence from all things animal is morally superior to indulgence.  So I was asking myself earlier today, where does that leave Jesus?  If it is better not to eat flesh or any of its products, where does that put the Saviour of the world, morally?  I get embarrassed when I don’t eat vegan.  I would be embarrassed to give up my vegan position, and have often seen my slips as sin.  If my slips are sin, did Jesus sin in eating fish?  Yet I have seen my veganism as part of my Christianity.  I have thought a great deal of the vegans I have met, robust and beautiful people.  Is it enough to say that Jesus was a man of his time and ate flesh without sinning?  I think vegetarians and vegans existed in those days as well.

I don’t know about veganism, but vegetarianism is an important part of some Eastern religions.  When the apostle Paul wrote to the Romans he recognised that some people did not eat meat and saw them as the weaker brethren with weaker consciences, and said that if his eating meat caused any of them to stumble he would never eat meat again.  There is no reason in the text to believe he did not mean this and it seems possible that he might have become vegetarian himself, because undoubtedly there were people who would have been stumbled by his eating meat.  I’m wondering if I am making too big a thing of this in believing that holding to a position that veganism is morally superior and preferable is incompatible with me calling myself a Christian in the traditional sense.  The kind of Christianity I have believed in says that Jesus was sinless, yet He ate fish, at the very least.

Advertisements

Society Aggressively Anti-Christian

Said the pope on his visit to Britain.

I think I can see what he meant.

While I’ve been in Nottingham, particularly, everyone who passes me shouts ‘Oh my God’.  Well, not everyone, obviously, but enough people for it to be remarkable.  I sat in a pub last night to use the internet and people were asserting themselves at the beginning of conversations saying ‘oh my God’ loudly in the usual tone I’ve become used to.  It is like spiritual rape and burglary.

I sat in Starbucks the other night and they were playing songs about grace and mercy and sorry and things.  I am sitting in Caffe Nero now and the songs have the same feel with open use of Christian/religious references.  One of them just said something about don’t preach about morality.  There was a song that said something about ‘nothing short of a divine intervention’, at which the person behind the counter tapped, then tapped again a few seconds later – aural interventions.  He said something to someone about ‘they just accept it that is how it works/we pass it off’ or something like that.

They are messing around with their own oral output as well.  I feel sick.  I feel seasick.  Because it is marking every place I go to in my own mind.  Moments when I doubt/think are marked by fluffed speech.  These people are unscrupulous, money-grabbing thugs.

While there are some people in society who might be doing this stuff stupidly and innocently and naively, not everyone is.  I came in here for a cup of coffee and to use the internet.  It seems to me these people are playing spiritualism games.  I’ve hardly been able to think.  I’m sitting here with my earphones in, with no audio on, because I don’t want any because I need to write an email.  I only put my earphones on in the first place to try to escape this spiritual distraction, this domination and power game, this grabbing innocent and vulnerable people by the throat.

It got me thinking about J K Rowling and the fact that she is supposed to be a Christian, and has said that that is what drives her work.  Some people have leapt on to that as if it is reliable truth.  Perhaps the same people who, if an American politician said it, would express open doubt and say it was a cynical statement to win votes.

I was embarrassed when I first saw that J K Rowling said she was a Christian.  I haven’t read her books, that is true, I only know what has been made of them by the film industry.

But as a Christian, and someone who is involved unwillingly in and adversely affected by the phenomenology accompanying society’s present behaviour, I have to say that I believe drawing on witchcraft and wizardry for your stories is completely un-Christian and anti-Christian in fact and effect.  J K Rowling, and her advisers, if she has them, and I suppose she must have, are not naive.  They have played on the lure of the supernatural to create their millions.  I know that in Deuteronomy 18 in the Bible it speaks against witchcraft.  I can’t see how an honest Christian, who must have been made aware of this and heard the criticism since she started writing, if not before, can have continued against it and in spite of it.

But this selling thing in Caffe Nero.  It is violently aggressive in tone, challenging, superior in vocalisation.  It is absolutely deliberate.  I find myself wondering what training these people have had both for the job and away from the job. It sounds viciously cynical and destructive and potentially violent.  The people who use it use it for psychological attack and are effective in that way if no other, but it seems to me there is more to it than that.  There are waves.  Maybe these people deliberately create the waves.  There is also a mirroring in their tone of voice, which goes all over the place, of every change in my  mind’s approach to a problem or question.  If I get upset they approach me with fake assumed innocence.  I have been in enough of these places to know it isn’t a one off.  Some people near me just got up to leave and I was physically afraid to be left on my own here with the staff.  Every strong thought I own someone goes (approximation) ‘erwerawerawera’.  Deliberately fluffing their speech. It isn’t clever but not only that, where I am sitting it is frightening.  I paused in my mind to give them the benefit of the doubt and one of them laughed quietly.

I have said this before, they have taken my money, they are offering internet use.  But they are so competitive I can’t see how anyone can concentrate who has something they need to work on.  If they are going to be rubbishing around like that is it MY duty to ask them if they are ok, and to consider that I might have got things backwards?  I need to write an essential email of complaint.  I have nowhere private I can go to do it.

Is this just Nottingham feeling so inferior they are trying to put on what they see as London slick, or what?  Also, I believe deliberate practitioners of occultism can successfully project thoughts that present as your own to express.

Or am I personally just so far out of the loop that I am making up these explanations for these strange and hurtful and inconvenient occurrences?

They back off then start all over again, this time or next.

A while ago I made a new blog out of the blog entries and forum posts that I had copied and saved from my Premier Radio blog, which was where I started blogging.  I’ve been meaning to put the link up for ages so here it is: http://premierchristianradiorejects.wordpress.com/

There is a big thing about veganism and me trying to think it through as a Christian who since my teens was brought up to believe in the sacrificial death and atoning blood of Jesus.  It hardly seems necessary for me to say now that I don’t believe the death of Jesus was required arbitrarily by God as a thing in itself, but that it was necessary for Jesus to give Himself up to death as an act of love.  At least that is how I was thinking.  I’ve begun to see it more politically recently.  That when Jesus said that no prophet ever died outside of Jerusalem He wasn’t being acerbic or sarcastic but was speaking a fact, and that that was what He meant when He said no one takes my life, I lay it down myself.  He laid it down by going back into Jerusalem when He knew they wanted to arrest Him.  If we believe in a literal resurrection, though, that was a miracle of God, in a way that His ability to give or withhold His life once they had Him was not, given that He did not call angels to stop the whole thing.

That was my favourite discussion topic that I started on that blog.  Without looking I don’t remember what else is there.

Omni-Scramble

What I meant to say yesterday when I said I had been talking in the lunch time about courage of convictions etc was that while I was talking one of the women behind the counter said ‘anyone for bread and butter’ and a man who seemed to be staff of some description who had seemed to be listening to me and being affected suddenly snapped out of it.  I took her to mean that they had to protect their jobs.  Cleaners have been interfering with my conversations, making mocking faces, collusive smiles and things.  I feel softer and more yielding than I should because of the vocal tone of the constant assault on my ears.  It is completely reminiscent of a devoted ‘hallelujah’.  Nurses have been saying things like ‘baby’ inappropriately, and ‘bear with me’, one of them kept repeating in one conversation.  The Malaria/Malaysia man went into a really rough regional accent when I started to speak intimately with another patient.  Normally his accent is quite educated.

I feel bad about the details I put up yesterday.  Of course it could all be complete coincidence – er, what am I saying???  Even if it is, is the fact that I am finding it hard to copew with a sign of my over-sensitivity, or is finding it hard to cope with completely normal?

There I am locked up where I don’t want to be, where reports of harassment have not even received a written acknowledgment, and I have said what I said about namesakes dying to the staff without it being treated as an abnormal occurence in itself, and I live with the shadow of the syringe hanging over me, a constant threat for many years.  Without that threat my behaviour and thinking would not be so weird.  Most people can make mistakes and do or say stupid things without it mattering, but if I do, I am constantly in fear of the medical consequences, even if I am not under a section.  Most people can collapse emotionally without feeling threatened, whereas I am communicating in a way which is almost professional in order to try and prove that I am not mentally ill and to compensate for the lack of professionalism among the staff.  They blank me often.

I was watching the news and it was talking about the need for more midwives.  I thought and said to those with me that the real problem, at least in nursing as a whole, is about attitude and honesty and openness more than numbers.

From what I heard of the nurses conference a few days ago I thought they had a real rabble attitude, like people ringside at a boxing match.  That is also evident on the wards.

Just generalising now, because I can’t remember all the details of what was said, but I think that, instead of being militant and working to rule, etc, we need professionals who will go the extra mile and say ‘yes, we will do that, we are not going to bay, etc, but also we want the changes.  Hopefully that would still receive the same news coverage and publicity.  Some people have a problem realising that their militancy, if it belongs anywhere, belongs in their meetings, and not being manifest in any way towards the people they are employed to care for.  Unfortunately the militancy, where it exists, is often not switched off on the wards, or wherever the profession is worked out.

Staff are meant to be a locus of normality on the wards, but often they wear a mask, even aggressively throw one in your face.  And they don’t ask you questions which might suggest that the things you have said are real and not mental illness.  I feel my staff are operating their own vigilante clique.  I’m wondering at what point it was agreed to do so.  As soon as I entered the ward on the 1st May, even before assessment, people were miscommunicating all over the place.

They regularly use our quiet lounge for their meetings when there are meeting rooms available.  I challenged it once when I was in there, and I was successful on that occasion and they left, even if in a bit of a fluster.  But they haven’t changed the practice.  And our quiet lounge is through the TV lounge, and people can see in and look in, from both the TV lounge and the office on the other side.  There is no privacy in any shared space, all the rooms have big windows.   Staff look in and stare quite obviously and deliberately, I think, and I find that unduly invasive and unsettling.

The excuse I was gven for them using our quiet lounge was that it was more convenient for them when they are short staffed to be right by the office.  Apart from anything else, that to me says there is a multi-tasking mentality even about interviews with patients, and I think it is inappropriate in a situation like ours.

But the other day I came out of a meeting with my psychiatrist, and I was very emotional and shaken because I had just had to fight very hard to communicate with two people who were saying they thought I had an illness that needed treating and they were considering a section 3, and I opened the door and had to walk in that state through the TV lounge where 4 other women were sitting, facing the door I was coming out of.  I felt very uncomfortable.  If there is bullying it can very easily be the walk of shame.  Thinking about it, I think it is a fearful situation altogether.

To me the arts are the best way of dealing with mental distress, especially music.  But we are talking about not having enough money to fund the arts, while people who report harassment don’t even get their letter answered, and are sometimes treated so badly by the police they are reluctant to approach them in time of need, because they, if anything like me, find the anger to which they can be roused in a situation like that if officers abuse their position frightening in its possible consequences, let alone any ideological objections to enlisting the help of the police which some people might have.  People not getting their letters answered or their complaint properly dealt with are put into hospital and drigged or threatened with drugs, sometimes also being abused by the staff and other patients, and it costs about £700 a night, the last I heard.  But we can’t afford to fund the arts.

If people didn’t believe in the drug approach to the distress of a person, hopefully they wouldn’t go for the job in the first place???  Would anyone sell their soul that much for a living?  So how they feel, having chosen the job, is not my responsibility if they will not communicate.  I am my responsibility, and so are those who trust me.  Another woman today told me something similar about her home situation which wasn’t dealt with.

As we know with the Leveson Inquiry, media people stalk people.  Some do, anyway.  Organisations do.  But so does the psychiatric system, and that also damages lives.  And it seems to me that things shouldn’t go that far anyway, and that the treatment and attitude on the wards is what causes a lot of the behaviour interpreted as mental illness.  We are their bread and butter, after all.  They have a vested interest in people being admitted for treatment.  If more time were put into resolving the reported problems in the furst place, including organised stalking, the stalking could be dealt with, especially if their were fewer people afraid of professional abuse and the shadow of the syringe for speaking out and saying they have a problem in the first place.

The way our country deals with its people’s problem’s is unbelievable, Brave New World-ish.  You couldn’t make it up, except someone has, and made it what is supposed to be an accepted reality!

Memo to self

To achieve anything of importance you need your own private space.

With what is happening around me when I try to use a computer in a public space, or even stand and look out at the fountain I walked beside after my degree ceremony and reconstruct memories and remember who was with me, I can’t even remember what it was I considered so urgent that I needed an extra hour on the internet before I did anything else.

Officials have been so unethical and unprofessional in their handling of my situation and the way they try to access it that they have left me vulnerable in every way.

I’m going to get a tee shirt made up saying ‘Am I the only person who is not allowed to cry and scream in anguish without being arrested or put in a mental hospital?’

If anyone else wants to use it, feel free.  Your design will be unique to yourself (or your company, if you will go that low).  If anyone wants it for company purposes I might hope that they would approach me so I can share their profits.

Basically the police seem to be standing back and letting things get out of hand until I crack and start giving it back to my aggressors, at which point the police move in to take advantage of the situation to establish a contact with me which, because I do not accept where they want to go or yield, ends up in me being arrested.  They stand back while trouble develops then take advantage, rather than making an honest approach to what they want from, for or with me.  I still have bruises on my wrist from Monday night before the clearing of St Paul’s, which is 9 days ago, and no handcuffs were used.  There was no need for force, apart from making my opinion of what they were doing to me known verbally, I offered no physical resistance.  They acted in anger and malice.  Also dishonesty, I think.  They told me not to go back to my tent, supposedly by that time knowing that clearance was scheduled, so even if I hadn’t been arrested I would have been in breach of their instructions if I had gone back to my tent for any reason, even though it was the only place I had to sleep and had no money for anywhere else and they probably knew I would need to get my things.  As it is I seem to have lost everything I had in there.  The City of London police told me anything unclaimed had been taken to Heathrow and I should contact the Metropolitan Police about how to get it, but a CAB staff member phoned them for me yesterday and they say they know nothing.

Continued from ‘Police Stop and Search Slashed’ post.

Some time after 6am I found myself confronted by two police women asking me what I was doing there and, as I tried to explain, they talked me down and I thought they were rude, so I persisted in trying to explain until I got upset and they said I wasn’t being very nice.  They said they were trying to help me, all I could see was that they wanted to move me on, and I felt as if I had been a specific target.  I just thought they were really rude and unintelligent in the way they communicated and I was trying really hard to make them understand how I was feeling and how this was not a permanent or particularly chosen situation for me to be in, that I had tried to get a crisis loan and the systems had been down, and everything else I said in the post I referred to in my opening line.  They were pointing at me and being really provocative and aggressive.  Not violent, aggressive.

The next thing I knew they were calling backup, and 2 male officers arrived.  The way they looked at me and treated me and teased me about the way I was behaving, I lost it.

There was a male member of airport staff with a white shirt sitting opposite me, he had been there for about half an hour.  He had been speaking, it seemed to me, for my hearing, even though he must have been about 25 feet away.  He was lounging backwards and eyeing me and his body language was challenge and domination.  He continued to watch and listen intently, almost as if he was theatre audience or in a court room, while these police women were talking to me, and he was freaking me out.  I told the police I wasn’t going to talk to them anymore while he was sitting there doing what he was doing and until he was removed.  He was just eyeing me determinedly, but they refused to deal with him.

One of the male officers said loudly at some point, ‘all women are crazy’ and I wanted to make it stop and make it unsaid and take him to task but there seemed to be no way to do it.  I didn’t know how to handle it.  I was horrified and couldn’t believe he had said it.  Eventually they were dragging me out of the airport and he was continuing to be provocative.  I was objecting and he was saying ‘no one cares’, and it felt like a personal and emotional invalidation.  I had recently heard on The News Quiz on Radio 4 that 700-900 officers in the Metropolitan police have criminal records, including GBH.  Someone has told me since this incident that people with criminal records are not allowed to join the police and the records might have been gained while with the police, but I don’t know.

Anyway, I was wound up and swearing, and the same man said ‘if you swear once more I will put you under arrest’.  So I said, not feeling able to back down at that point, ‘OK then, fuck off’.  It was funny, he should have laughed and seen how inappropriate he was being himself.  The woman officer at the station I told as i was leaving laughed when I recounted it, and that felt like a real relief.  But instead he just said straight away, ‘right, you’re under arrest’.  At some point he put handcuffs on me.  My right wrist was black and purple for almost a week afterwards.

I said they were acting illegally, and that while I might be on the wrong side of the police, the police were on the wrong side of the law.  I said they were illegal, he said contemptuously ‘we all know what you are.  I asked him what and he wouldn’t answer.  I kept pressing him for an answer and he wouldn’t say.  I started shouting the odds again about the figures for police with criminal records, addressing the people around me, and he kept saying ‘no one cares’.  I said that wasn’t true.   I get one incident mixed up with another so I’m not sure how much I said on that occasion.  So I won’t make it up as if I can.

Every time I spoke they were speaking into and over me, if that makes sense to people.  I said they had killed my father, that he had committed suicide, but that I wasn’t going to commit suicide, I was going to blog.  At the same time that I was saying I was only 11 years old when my father committed suicide, he was saying, ‘I bet he killed himself because of you’.  I’ve heard that only one other time in my life, from a class mate straight after his death.  I was outraged, like an animal in pain.  He had no right to say that, but no matter how much I objected and kept trying to say they had no right to do what they were doing, they just kept mocking me and talking me down.

When they took me out of the van they gave a skewed account to the desk sergeant about what had happened and I said it was a misrepresentation.  They were being strict and confrontational, I said I had an appointment with the housing people about getting emergency housing at 11am (it was between 7.30 and 8am) and the sergeant said ‘I think you are going to miss it’.  I said ‘I bet you’re going to keep me here until it is too late for me to get a crisis loan today as well, aren’t you, so I will have no money tonight either, so what do you expect me to do and what good do you think you are doing?’

I felt I was being treated unfairly throughout and was angry and trying to be heard, but they were deliberately ignoring me.  I’m not sure if I had mentioned the harassment and vigilantism at this point or not.  But somehow it came about that the man who had been saying the things I have written started saying with seething anger, ‘she is going to come up to the desk and talk to you like a lady’.  I said ‘I will start acting like a lady when you start acting like a decent man’.

They insisted I take my watch and therapeutic magnet off.  I said I didn’t want the disorientation of not even knowing what time it was, but in the end I relinquished them, and my necklace which I won in a Crisis at Christmas raffle, because the way they grabbed my hands it felt as if they might break my fingers if I didn’t.

At 8.10am they put me in a bare cell with a bed shelf and mattress, a blanket and a toilet.  There was no toilet paper.  They said they would get me some breakfast but I got nothing until lunchtime, by which time I hadn’t eaten or drunk anything or been to the toilet for over 12 hours.  I had not been offered a drink during this time.

They told me at the beginning of the morning that I could see a duty solicitor.  I left without having seen one.  They were reading something at the beginning while I was upset and shouting and they said ‘that’s a no, then’ to something I didn’t hear.

Soon, after not having slept all night, I started to fall asleep on the bench.  As soon as I did I heard a male voice shout out, and they were banging.  This happened several times, that one of them shouted out as soon as I began to fall asleep.  I felt desperate.  I later saw that there was a camera on the ceiling pointed straight at my bed.  I wondered how closely they had it trained on me.  Over the last 2 days I have thought seriously that they were deliberately using sleep deprivation and I believe I am right.

Their idea of a vegan lunch was chips and some vegetables, no protein.  I gave up trying to eat it, I was so upset.  I asked if i could have a cup of tea with my soya milk, but they said no, I couldn’t have anything which had come from outside the station, even though they had no soya milk and didn’t offer to get any for me.

Several times, at least through the afternoon, a male officer would walk up to my cell door, stop outside and cough hard and significantly, and walk away again.  It frightened and angered me.  I kept feeling screaming and hysteria rise into my throat which I had to control, because I knew expressing it would do no good.  I kept wanting to speak to them like friends and ask for their help.

On the ceiling inside the door there was a sign that said there could be a monetary reward for anonymous information leading to crime.  When I saw it I said something about bribery and corruption.

I have felt over the last couple of days that they had me there expecting me to ‘talk’.  But they never asked me any questions.

Later in the afternoon I said something about a cup of tea and that I was a vegan and didn’t drink dairy milk.  The officer was angry and rude and dismissive.  He brought a cup of tea, even though I had said i didn’t want black tea, and I also didn’t want water, which was all they would offer me instead.  So when he turned up with this I wondered what it was and asked him if it was black or if it had milk.  He said it was powdered milk, and put it down on the floor rudely saying ‘it’s tea, do you want it or don’t you?  You either want it or you don’t’.  I ‘said’, ‘I’m a vegan and have been for 4 years.  That is my life choice and you are being abusive and disrespectful’.

There were no books, nothing to write with, nothing was offered, and I was harassed constantly and not allowed to sleep.  I was a wreck.  After all that and everything they had put me through in the morning, I think at some point I asked them when the solicitor was coming and what we were waiting for, and the officer said we were waiting for a doctor, because they thought I needed a mental health assessment.  I started shouting angrily and hysterically, saying after everything they had done to me and without having seen a solicitor, they wanted to subject me to a mental health assessment, and I said all they were really interested in seeing from me was naked fear.

When the doctor came I was taken to an office with an open door, and as we were talking the police started to interfere again in the same way as they had been doing before when I was speaking, but pretending it had nothing to do with me.  I had asked for the door to be closed for privacy, but the doctor had refused and said it wasn’t necessary.  When the interventions came I started to be afraid and panic, and they kept them coming until I was unable to control my fear.  The doctor refused to recognise what was happening, and he ended the interview telling the police, after I had gone, that he thought I needed a mental health assessment.

I didn’t find this out until several hours later when I asked again what we were waiting for and when the solicitor was going to arrive.  All day I was not told that I would not be seeing a solicitor.  They said we were waiting for a mental health team because the doctor had believed I needed an assessment.  Again I became angry and hysterical.

Before my father died we had a dog, which survived his death by a few years.  When he was alive my dad used to take him out with a big stick.  I think there was a nail in the stick at one point.  I used to tease my dog with the stick and thought it was really funny when he went running under the settee screaming.  I have realised in recent years he was terrified and been really upset at myself for what I did.  He would come out all docile and upset and exhausted, qlmost as if he was crying and telling me he was upset.  Loving and trusting me and telling me, his tormentor, that he was upset and frightened and taking comfort from me.

That is how I felt when they started talking about mental health teams.  I thought they did it to make me scream, and they got that much, at least.

The mental health team decided I didn’t need to be in hospital and told me the offciers were going to try to find me somewhere to stay that night.

When the evening shift took over a woman came to my cell.  She seemed nice and sympathetic, and when I told her what the offcier had said about my father killing himself because of me, she seemed genuinely shocked and said he shouldn’t have said that.

I can’t remember all the order of how the last part of the day happened, but she told me that, because I had been arrested, they had the power to take my DNA and fingerprints.  I believed that saying she had the power was not the same as saying it was something they HAD to do, so I asked her if she was going to do it.  She said a male officer was going to do it.  She said he was a ‘good lad’, and I wondered what that counted for with people like the police.  What would this ‘good lad’ do with people who were not me?

I didn’t believe there was any point trying to resist or persuade, and I don’t know how I let them do it.  I knew throughout that it was unjust and an assault and although she kept trying to keep it light, I felt as if I was standing there having to pretend it was OK for them to rape me and believe the people doing it were ‘good’.  I couldn’t lash out.  They forced it through knowing as well as I did, I believe, that they had no right to be doing it and it wasn’t OK.  It was all a pretence and they were demanding a pretence of me. I was not at liberty to say how repulsive and abusive it was, although we all knew it.  I had to stand there and pretend that this enormity was a small and inconsequential thing, not an act of illegal subjugation and domination.

Afterwards, when I was standing at the desk, I saw a male officer behind a glass screen sitting in front of a computer.  I wasn’t sure if he had been there all day, he was acting as if he was part of the next shift.  I started watching him while he was watching his screen, and wondering what he was doing or reading or looking at.  My attitude was open, and as I watched, I saw him begin to smile and his smile got bigger and happier.  I thought he was reacting to me and I looked around and saw a camera immediately above the desk.  I realised he was watching me and immediately switched him off and turned away from the camera.  As I did his features darkened.  His number was ID 24.  A few minutes later he came out and said he was leaving and finishing his shift.  But I realised he was observing me at the desk through the camera.

After he went the woman officer tried to contact the out of hours crisis loan office, but there wasn’t one in that area, and no loan could be arranged.  Also they couldn’t arrange somewhere for me to spend the night.  Before I left she started talking with her colleague who was going to run me to the bus station.  She was talking in ways I felt I recognised, about ‘her 2 year old’ and that she was ‘vain’.  She seemed to be commenting on my bodily reactions that she could see from behind.  She talked about something being ‘back breaking’.

I had already talked to her about people talking in code.  I believed she was talking about me.  I thought she must be, she couldn’t possibly be calling her own child ‘vain’.  I couldn’t, at that time, believe she would do that.

Her colleague ran me to the bus station in a van exactly the same as the one I had been brought to the station in, and I sat in the back, exactly the same as before.  I felt it was a deliberate re-enactment, reversed, of what I had been through in the morning.  I almost felt as if they were saying that, if I had responded differently, I could have received (more) help.  I thought they had said I could hang around the bus station with everyone else, because there were people there all night.  But when I sought to clarify this as I got out of the van she said she hadn’t said any such thing and that I could be picked up for doing so, that it would be best if I didn’t.  But she knew I had no money and nowhere to go.  I wondered if she had been trying to get a last second capitulation from me.  I wanted to go back to the airport, it felt like the right thing to do and my right, but I was afraid and didn’t, I got on the tube.  I was upset and disorientated.

They had held me for 14 hours in sensory deprivation conditions, constantly harassed and banged at and coughed at and deprived of sleep, deliberately, I believed, and subjected to mental cruelty and torture.  In all that time I never saw the solicitor I had been told I would see.

11.41 am.  I’m blogging after more police harassment at Starbucks, 99 St Martins Lane, WC2.  I want to laugh now.  I think I bring it on myself by not responding to their attitude and insistence on getting the last word with a sense of humour.  I think it shows I am not a good citizen, not having a sense of humour when they behave this way.  I’m not sure how they would react if  I were to laugh instead of outdo them and get upset and tell them they have no right to do what they are doing, etc.  I might feel better myself, if I could approach it with a sense of humour.  I feel I should say I am sorry for not respecting them in their job, and just laugh, then it would all be behind me and the world would be all right again.  That if I had done that years before I might not now be a 51 year old menopausal woman having to come to terms with the fact that I have not had children.

After 4 nights without a bed and people keep coming at me psychologically and leaving me feeling assaulted, I committed the crime of falling asleep after a cup of tea and a bag of nuts, which is all I can eat in Starbucks.  A little while before the police came I heard someone banging things around me, and that was obviously their idea of trying to wake me up.  I don’t respond to that kind of thing, though.  Also I find it hard to stay awake at the moment anyway, being aware, as I am, of the kind of psychological harassment I am getting from sales and security staff, let alone ‘ordinary’ people in the street.

The police woman, CW 2598 or 3598, with subsequent things from them after I got her number ‘m not sure if I have remembered it right, came in and told me I couldn’t just sleep there.  That it was coming up to lunch time and I couldn’t just occupy a seat without buying anything.  I said I had had a cup of tea there and I buy quite a lot of stuff and no one had tried to wake me.  She said they had.  I suggested I could go to the toilet and get another cup of coffee, then, as they do, she turned control of the conversation back round to herself by asking me what my plans were after I had just told her, and when I told her again she said OK and just stood there.  I asked her if they were going to stay there while I bought the coffee and she said yes, that they wouldn’t be doing their job otherwise.  So I was expected to buy a cup of coffee, hand over my money to these people, under police watch.  I snapped out of my drowsiness and said I would rather write to the company and complain about harassment, but that I was going to the toilet first.

I went in, used the toilet, brushed my hair and brushed my teeth.  Before I was finished the male officer (there were 3, 1 man and 2 women) knocked on the door and asked me if I was going to be long.  I said no.  When I came out they were all sitting there waiting for me.

I passed them and went up to the cafe staff and told them they hadn’t spoken to me or tried to wake me before calling the police.  She was acting as if she didn’t understand what I was saying, and said they had tried to wake me.  I said I was prepared to buy another cup of coffee, if they asked the police to leave first, that I was not prepared to do it under police watch.  Someone said something and I said I had the right to buy another cup of coffee.  One of the officers said the staff there also had the right to ask me to leave if they wanted to, so I asked them if they wanted me to leave rather than buy another cup of coffee, and they said they wanted me to leave.  The police then took control as I tried to walk past them freely and dsimiss the situation and walk away with some dignity, the woman whose number I have mentioned kept ‘backchatting’ me, so I went up to her to look at the number on her lapel.  I couldn’t see the letters, they were hidden, and she didn’t offer the letters, so I moved the strap, and then she began to get defensive and angry, saying I couldn’t just touch her strap to get her number (why not, after everything they do to me?  This isn’t just about doing a good job, is it?)  So we had a small argument and in the end I told her to stop the sass and the attitude and began to walk away, and as I did she kept it coming.  The male officer started making mocking gestures at me.  He kept it up for about 5 minutes.  I stopped in the street and said that I was not now acting illegally, just standing by a lamp post, and they stood there with me. They did not want to leave me in peace or in control, or acknowledge my rights with any semblance of real recognition or sympathy.

They crossed the road, still making gestures, and I shouted after them, saying they were supposed to defend the weak, not harass them, that they were supposed to be a service to the whole community, not just the money makers, I said they despised us and we despised them (where are all the people who hate the police when I am the one getting harassed?).  I said they were hand in glove with the money makers and the mafia, at which point the male officer making gestures looked as if he was about to come back over, but stopped.  I thought he looked angry.  I believe I spoke the truth.  He went back to the gestures, with a couple of men standing between us and just looking in my direction smiling and finding it ammusing, even though I was obviously distressed, and I shouted at him that he was not supposed to be standing there mocking me with his gestures and that he would have gone to a Victorian insane asylum and mocked people there, as was the sport in those days of a Sunday afternoon.  That is the way it was opresented to me, anyway.  Maybe it wasn’t just the Sunday sport.  Maybe they could do it any time.

People talk about putting the mockers on people.  The Bible says that God will mock, and that he who sits in the heavens will laugh.  I have often wondered down the years if this mockery from people in authority that I have been taught to respect and trust is actually a legitimate part of their approach to people in some circumstances, and thought that my problem with it shows I have a problem with and a bad attitude towards authority.  That my heart is wrong and my dispositon is wrong and that I am rebellious and ‘a bad lot’.  I have thought on many occasions that they would have turned and done everything they could to help me, if only my attitude had been right.  I feel that, over the years, I have, in pride and arrogance, rejected my own redemption from all these wondeful people in society that have said they want to help and that I have accused of harassment and stalking.  How arrogant and selfish of me.  That these people, who are also suffering with me and trying to reach out to me for themselves, for me and for others being caught up in my situation, should have arrogant, proud, independent, ignorant, selfish, power-loving little me shake my naughty fist at them and say ‘no, it is stalking and harassment, you have no right and unless you come to me with the words of your concerns openly I will not respond to you’.

I’ve offended my leaders, i’ve lost Tommy, so it feels.  I want to see his face loving me, and can’t see how he could be anything but ashamed and disgusted with me, as well as hurt for himself.

i burn with shame.  I think I have played an unforgivable and selfish game, and that the consequences I am now suffering in final loneliness and childlessness are my own fault.  I think I am on the scrap heap where my leaders said the disobedient end up.  Yesterday I felt the problem was me and always had been, and had never been anyone else’s.  To some extent and in some respects that has to be the truth.  They used to say that you can’t just think of yourself as being as good as everyone else.  But that was what I did in my teens.  I used to think, look, I  can speak in tongues just like you.  I used to sing the songs and as I was singing them think this isn’t the way it is for me, but I never voiced that to anyone.  Except I think I did to Diane.  I can’t shift this self blame, and no one can help me to.

 

Police Stop And Search Slashed

The Evening Standard, Thursday 20th January 2012.

There it was, sitting on the front page of the Evening Standard, and I wanted to read it and knew I had to pick one up.  It is a free paper these days, so that was not a problem to me, even with under £20 guaranteed me to live on for the next 7 days.

I noticed several people within a minute doing the same thing, and smiles on faces.  Quiet smiles, but undeniable happiness and joy, nevertheless.  A tangible relaxation and relief.

“Police Stop and Search Slashed”, it said.

I couldn’t understand why everyone was not shouting on the streets with joy.

That is the power of a headline for you.  The keyword was ‘slashed’.  It didn’t say ‘ended’.  It was about an hour later, after making a happy fool of myself and parading my newspaper down the streets and shouting out like an Old Testament prophet (for I felt that was the power of the spirit within me) that we should all be having parties in the street and organising a whole month of street parties to celebrate a victory for civil rights, that I realised we had not all been sprung out of prison after all.

Singing and dancing in the streets.  Expressing and perpetuating the happiness and relief that was obvious in the people around that newspaper stand.

——————–//——————–

The whole and actual story is that the aim, at the moment, is to reduce the number of stop and search incidents and make the facility a more effective tool, perhaps concentrating on geographical areas of high crime.  The goal is that the ratio of searches to crimes detected should change, with the former coming down and the latter going up.

It is acknowledged in the article that there are many community leaders who still see stop and search as a valuable policing tool, without which violence and crime might increase.  Interesting, given the evident joy and relaxation on people’s faces.  That was how I saw and perceived it at the time.

We need to celebrate every small move in the right direction in the restoration of civil liberties.  I think organised street parties would not be a bad way to show that we are onside with this move and that we are happy about it.  Happiness does not produce violence, and from what I saw, we are happy.

When weak people resort to violence it is an expression of fear and outrage, in my opinion.  In physical powers for violence and the authority to allow certain officers to get away with abusing those powers, at least temporarily (some of them might hold the opinion that being brought to justice later for those abuses is a price worth paying for the ability to carry them out in the first place), the police are not the weak party.

The article also said something about the fact that the police should be calm and professional in carrying out searches.  This much should be obvious, and it should be obvious that any officer who is not able or willing to meet those standards should either not be working on that day, or should be relieved of their position permanently.  If it doesn’t happen already, I believe that a daily assessment should be made of an officer’s state of mind, maybe family circumstances etc, and their ability to operate those powers responsibly and respectfully with everyone they approach.

We, the people, need to allay the fears of our leaders, insofar as they are real fears, by showing appropriate joy at this development.  As far as the fears are hypocritical in themselves, we need to disarm the people who tout them dishonestly.  We will not resort to violence, we will show our approval and joy at this decision.  Our joy unbridled disarm people using this excuse hypocritically, and in some cases expose them, and that is necessary.

Personally I wonder how far the presentation of this decision as being intended to improve race relations is truthful and accurate.  I know this is not just a race issue.  This is a police and people issue.  All races suffer and have suffered from the employment of this power.

To bring the story back down to my sad, sole self again, as is my habit, twice this week, on two consecutive days, I was an object of unwelcome police attention.

The first time was Tuesday morning at Heathrow airport.  I was there the first day because I had tried to apply for a crisis loan at about 2.30 pm on Monday afternoon.  Without it I could not afford a roof over my head that night.

I had held the line for about 20 minutes waiting for the phone to be answered.  By the time I got through I told the person I thought it might be too late for the application to go through anyway.  She said her systems were down and it wasn’t possible to start an application and to call back in an hour.  I said that, by that time, the offices would have stopped making payments, and she told me that alternative arrangements would be made for paying out, since their systems were down.  I asked her if she knew that and what the arrangements would be, and eventually she withdrew that assurance, saying she had spoken to a supervisor who had told her that it was not possible to make alternative arrangements for paying a crisis loan for that day.

So with the little money that I had I looked on the internet for a cheap dormitory room.  The best I could come up with for the price was a mixed dorm, which I would rather not have if sharing a dorm is a necessity.

After paying the online deposit I realised that the hostel did not accept cards for payment of the balance.  That was a problem for me.  It was 6pm, I did not have any accounts with the minimum of £10 that would make it possible to take money from a cash point.

I checked the money in my pocket and realised I was 65 pence short of what I needed to pay the balance.  So I went to the Co-op nearby, where I knew I could get some bread labelled vegan and that I would enjoy eating, and bought some food with my card, which was the best and most practical thing it was good for at that point.

While I was in there I hatched the idea of asking someone if they would let me pay for one of their items with my card and them give me the cash, if they had been intending to pay by cash, but no one that I asked had been intending to pay by cash, so I gave up asking because I felt embarrassed.

Eventually I wondered into Charing Cross tube and rail station and walked up to a food outlet.  I saw a man getting money out to pay for his purchase, and asked him the same question, explaining my situation.  He just said he would give me the 65 pence, and actually gave me 70 pence.

Even then, I realised I did n’t have enough money for the key deposit, which is usually about £5 or £10 per stay, and I hoped that the proprietors would be sympathetic and understanding and allow me to stay anyway, given that I could pay for the room itself.

However, when I got there one of the first men I encountered was a staff member whp came up to the desk referring to someone being a ‘stupid, dumb cunt’.  When I told him a minute or two later that I had found it disturbing as my first encounter, he said someone had put an empty plate into the microwave and something about a fire or a fire hazard, and passed it off that way.

After he had gone I discussed my situation with the girl on reception, and she asked for ID or some sort of security.  I said they could look after my laptop, if they wanted to.  That was after I had suggested one of my account cards as identification.  She rejected both of those suggestions.

She said I needed government-issued photo identification, like a driving licence or a passport.  I pointed out that I was British and that this had not been necessary anywhere else I had been over the past 4 months, and that I didn’t drive and that I had lost my passport which, as a UK citizen, I am not obliged to possess anyway.  I told her I could pay for the room but not the key.

She said it was the rules that there had to be photo ID.  I didn’t remember seeing that on the listing and also said that they didn’t have the right to impose stricter rules than the law itself imposes on a UK citizen and that I thought they were acting illegally.  She had already told me that I couldn’t stay and checked it with her manager at my request who confirmed that, and I left with nowhere to go and not enough money to book something else.

So I headed for the airport, and I have already written about what was happening there in my last post but one.

(To be continued)

I’ve been back 4 months and dependent on outside sources for most of my needs, including food and drink, all that time.

So the time has come, sitting in Starbucks between Charing Cross and Embankment, the one half way between, not the one at the end right near Embankment station, to ask if this outbreak every time I go in happens only to me, or if other people get it as well.

As soon as I came in (and this often happens with Starbucks, any branch) they jumped on me immediately I walked through the door and when I asked for a minute they replicated my gesture (raised index finger).  Then they immediately went into a whole load of stuff about ‘baby’, in a singsong voice which felt like a confrontation, but it also has the air now of being caught out a bit in what they are doing.  That, when it is time to hand over the money, is when I start to resent the whole transaction, and I told them so.  Today is the first time I have been in here.  They were also talking about bags and reacting awkwardly and to me that says that, whether they meant that for me or not, they recognised the thing in itself when they do it in other ways.

I got quite cross with them, saying it was subliminal interrogation and harassment and they tried to make out they didn’t know what I was talking about.  So I said to leave it, if they didn’t even want to acknowledge they understood anything.  But I also said I knew they did understand because they were salesmen and I had done selling myself.

Every time they have banged a surface I have seen by their reactions that, even if that time was not deliberate, they were completely aware that they do do it deliberately.  They were loudly saying words like ‘crushed’, loading it all with significance.  I’ve wondered for ages if it is some sort of club selection/initiation/rejection procedure, that this place which I thought was just an open, walk in good coffee place actually operates a selection process, very aggressively and violently, if my experience is anything to go by.

The thing is, they are always going on about babies every time I walk in.  ‘Baby’ this, ‘baby’ that, ‘baby’ for ‘maybe’, and there are plenty of people who would find that difficult for all sorts of reasons – infertility, still birth, abortion, miscarriage, cot death, for instance.  Both men and women.  I am not the only person who does not need this, and it is, by its very nature, visceral and inappropriate to be used in a selling context.

I don’t normally get the answers I seek, on my blog.  But for what it is worth, this is my experience, and I wonder if this is something they do to everyone.  Along with that is other stuff.  God stuff, vegan stuff, camp vamp (as I’ve heard it referred to).  They are doing a heavy emotional display right now.  At least some of it is theatre.  Every time they say ‘yes’ my reaction is one that I would have if lied to or assaulted in some way.  They are playing right into my face now.  it is really insulting and hurtful and they can see I am hurt by my reactions, and the man just hid his face behind the counter.  They are team laughing and mocking and intervening, aural interjections in response, I assume, to my body language.  Their own body language is quite aggressive and contemptuous, strutting up and down in front of me, and one of them just (15.35 edit) said something about ‘stupid’ and is hanging around looking miserable, as if I am supposed to care how he feels.  The same one that . . .

. . . (One of them) just came over and ‘asked’ me if he could ‘ask’ me to calm down.

It is viscerally savage and dishonest.

Posted 15.23pm Saturday 7th January 2012, UK time.

I Agree With HIM!

“When I see bacon, I see a pig, I see a little friend, and that’s why I can’t eat it. Simple as that.” –Paul McCartney

My Imaginary Friend

I have a friend, at least in my imagination, that I always want to contact with sensitive and intimate information.

On Friday I was walking along Queensway/Bayswater Road and for some reason I was remembering the time when an old lady died who had always been in Church, never said much, or anything at all, that I remember hearing, but always, without fail, had a smile on her face.  I thought she was lovely and beautiful and serene.  I know nothing about her life.

I was remembering that, when I heard she had died, I went back to my grandparents’ house crying my eyes out.  When they asked me why I was crying and I told them, one of them said ‘what are you crying for?  She wasn’t family’.

I can’t remember who it was so no one can be betrayed by me saying so.  I can’t remember if and how I answered the question.  I know my feelings and crying were not affirmed.  For a moment in Queensway I felt the pain and the emotion again, and I wanted to write and tell my imaginary friend.

I believe my imaginary friend reads my blog.  Imaginary because we have never had a close up relationship, and imaginary because, except for when things seem very simple and obvious in his favour, I feel and believe and know that things are far too complicated.  It is imaginary because I am in denial, even having it as imaginary.

But there is pain in my heart as I am writing this, and it is always him that comes to mind when this kind of thing comes up and I want to tell him.  I used to write to him a lot.  Almost always, as soon as I started, I had to push through my ambivalence and anger to do so.  He knew that, I told him so.

I once heard him saying, in answer to someone’s question, that if someone attacked him (or something like that) he would hold them in a bear hug.  On my side there is often so much resentment, and on his there must be some exceptions, that even if no attack was involved not everyone would be treated equally.  Even if there are no exceptions for him, I think, apart from my imagination which tells me I am wrong in the strongest possible terms, that I would find it awkward and difficult.

 

 

My Autism And Me

This programme is 14 minutes long and part of BBCs Newsround series of programmes about/by/for children.

It is available until 4.59pm Friday 18th November, which as I write is almost 2 days.

The link is http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01773m7/Newsround_My_Autism_and_Me/.  Please catch it.  This is a subject close to my own heart and experience, in that I used to think I might be autistic myself, especially during my 20s.

I now believe I am not, and that it is another label we have been taught to accept which is a disservice to everyone involved.

I will write more later.  Although my blog is still on Bulgarian time because I am afraid if I change it it will change the dates on some of the posts I wrote in Bulgaria, it is 10pm here in the UK and I haven’t eaten yet today.  There are no cooking facilities where I am and I want to find some food.  I am posting it now because I want my readers to be aware of the programme and have an opportunity to watch and preferably record it before it is taken down from the site.

One thing.  The girl talks about feeling words.  Bleuler, who coined the term ‘schizophrenic’, said his senses crossed over so that he smelled sounds and saw smells, or something.  But Bleuler was a major psychiatric contributor and definer of people and psychiatric conditions while these kids are autistic.

Excuse me?

Edited:  written after midnight.  Some of my tag categories do not reflect the changes today.  Sometimes they do, but not today.  Angry, me?  Hurt at inconsistency, me?

1.  Yesterday morning on the bus to Heathrow (nearest tube), somehow I remembered the Gilbert and Sullivan line, “If everyone’s a somebody, then no one’s anybody”.

Many creeds and philosophies, including Christianity, insist that we are all someone in the eyes of God.  I don’t know the whole operetta or the context of these words or the writer’s intention, but there have been times when I have thought of the ‘madding crowd’ and taken these words as a contradiction of the ‘we are all equals’ position.  I have thought ‘yes, that is true, and how sad, that so many people press to be somebody that true greatness/quality/dignity is suppressed/frowned on/not recognised and respected’. But this time I thought of the quotation and berated myself/felt ashamed for being such a snob.  I thought ‘if everyone’s a somebody, then no one’s anybody – yes, exactly, and thank goodness for that.  That is the point.  Everybody IS somebody and no one is more special than anyone else, and that is a good thing’.  I am sure there must be a balance.  Recognising you are a somebody and pushing to be somebody are two different things.  When you push to be somebody you often put other people down in your own need to shine.  But when you know you are somebody and also that so is everyone else, you can let people be.

2.  The other one was the Bible, Psalm 1

1Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

2But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.

3And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.

4The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.

5Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.

6For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

Especially verses 1 and 2 I was thinking of.

I was watching the BBC News Channel and thought that retrospectively I understood why I had thought of those verses.  There was a lot about the situation at St Paul’s Cathedral, and I thought they were playing the role of the fool or court jester of Shakespeare’s time, mocking and mimicking.  Two of them were even wearing harlequin ties.  I felt sorry for the staff of St Paul’s and for their confusion.  I am sure they are intelligent people and know they are being mocked in the media, on reflection.  At the time I felt sorry for them because I thought they were getting confused being exposed to the mockery and not realising what it was, but they must do.

I don’t know any of the people there, but I can’t understand why the Dean felt his position there was untenable given the circumstances, and why he felt he had to resign.  I can’t really understand all the confusion they seem to be feeling and am personally sorry that he has resigned.  Maybe he felt torn between the demonstrators and the people objecting to them being there.

There have been times I wanted to go and join the demonstrators myself.  I have felt it would be an honour to be evicted from the property for what they are demonstrating over.  I’ve also wondered how much I am being manipulated by the media into thinking that way.  Apparently drink and drugs are involved now and I wouldn’t want to be associated with that.

All the news people going with the WWJD angle, as if it really matters to them, and the people being interviewed coming back with easy answers like he would be out talking to the crowds and wouldn’t call the police.  Apparently it isn’t the church that is seeking the injunction anyway.  The church should be this and the church should be that . . . but in a situation like this it is probably not so cut and dried.

I felt sorry for the Dean when he said he found it hard that the demonstrators seemed to think that he didn’t believe what they believed just because he didn’t express it the same way, and the man to his left started whispering into his girlfriend’s ear and messing around.  I saw the way he looked at them afterwards.  He seemed to feel frustrated.  The man was not for listening and was all for distracting his girl.

I would like to be there with the demonstrators, though.  The only way I could know if it is what I really want would be to go there.

We talk about Chinese and Communist Propaganda, and the Chinese talk about Western Propaganda.  In the middle of all that are people like me who hardly understand what good values are anymore.  People in the UK moan about their lot, and so do people in China.  Homogenised international standards and all that.

I don’t understand economics and economic theory.

But I was on the tube the other day and looked at the paper of someone sitting beside me and saw the headline and my computer (my brain/mind) started to work all on its own.  I thought that China only had wealth to loan in that way because it depends on slave labour of a class which is kept in shameful poverty and without opportunities and that the money should be going to their own people.  The wealth comes from people who have bought the products of slave labour, often people in the west who have bought them, and now the people in the west are going back to that same nation of China for further financial benefits/aid, at the expense of the Chinese slave class, so they can continue in their comfort which, while dependent on abject poverty and slavery, is illegitimate and immoral.  I thought, ‘we said we don’t believe in slavery’, but here we are again, looking to a country which uses economic slavery for its prosperity to help US.

Those are my thoughts.  If they are right, as much as I have come to enjoy the benefits of modern technology etc here in the west, I do not want the EU or my country getting aid from China.  Today I heard them on the news saying that China would be requiring a shift in attitudes towards their present culture and economic and governmental system, and towards human rights issues.  Are we in the west just so pampered that we think people who see themselves as OK in China are really victims of injustice and economic and human deprivation, or are these people really, as we have said in the past, slaves kept in appalling poverty and exploitation?  While it might, possibly, maybe only just, be laudable for some of them to be feeling that they are making sacrifices for China’s future (that’s what happens to people who are exploited by their fellows, they are later hailed as heros and loyal and sacrificial and selfless).

To my country’s leaders, to EU leaders, I for one ask you to please hear the cries and screams and outrage of your people, including me, the crying sense of betrayal and moral compromise into which you would take us, if you soften your attitudes towards China with regards to slave exploitation so that we and you can benefit from the gains of that exploitation.  I know it is easy for me to say this while there is still security and we still have our comforts, but please don’t take us there.  Please let our whole western system crash rather than take us back to such blatant reaping of benefits from slave labour.

I’ve said this before, I don’t understand economics, but I do know that a monetary deficit does not decrease the availability of the earth’s resources.  I don’t understand this.  It hurts not understanding, I feel stupid and as if I could be verbally demolished, but the resources are there, in the earth.  Food, building materials, materials contributing to creativity – But the man-made monetary and economic system is saying we are going to have to tighten our belts and live without them unless we can get a bailout, even from somewhere like modern day China?  With its pollution issues, its human rights issues, etc?

The Lord appeals to you, David Cameron, Christian, and to others (that is my way of saying my emotions are too painful to put into words with this medium) please don’t go there and please don’t take us there.

I’m thinking that, in the Bible, when Israel demanded a king to be like all the other nations that had rejected God – I’m thinking it is time to pull back and rethink and repent and think of a new way to do things.  Internationally we have all been keeping up with the Joneses.  China now is justifying its enormous pollution problem by saying it has a right to catch up with the rest of the world when it comes to manufacture and production.  We need to have different kinds of international relationships based on co-operation and benefiting each other with what we have, and less on competitiveness.  Competing to produce and sell the same trinkets really is laying the earth waste and wasting the earth’s resources, and it doesn’t appear to me that it is doing us much good either.

I am all for luxury.  But I think we need to revise our understanding of what luxury actually is.  If it depends on pollution and wasting the earth’s resources and creating such desperate underclasses and so much stress and fear among those who do not consider themselves to be the underclass, I think we have obviously got it wrong.

If everything the UK has ever said about our shame over past slavery is more than political posturing, we cannot take this route.  If everything you have told us about China is true you must not make us their debtors, for our own sakes as a nation and for everything the EU is supposed to stand for, and also for the sakes of the people being exploited by their own system.  People who can see no choices for their lives.  Not by their own fault, but by what they have been born into.  If we have hearts that function properly, we cannot do this to them, if we have been right about China in the past and our understanding has been given no reason for change.  If, on the other hand, China’s willingness to loan to us is an expression of their own recognition that they need to change, that might be a bit different.  But we need that made clear and explained to us.

China’s economic success is not a factor to be taken into consideration if all that is meant by that is that the government has a lot of money to lend while the people whose labour they depend on are struggling for their lives.  Economic success is only good if it does not make those who do the work for it suffer in that way.  This has to be accepted and understood.  We have to accept and understand that. Otherwise we are accepting blood money.  And like God said to Cain when he killed his brother, ‘your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground’.

Although I am selfish, I care.  I don’t want my lifestyle to depend on the fruits of such suffering, and I don’t want that compromise to be available to me or, as feels more to the point at the moment, forced on me.  I need an alternative.  I plead with my leaders for an alternative to what looks to me like such an atrocious possibility, that our economy should be bolstered by the finance from China as it is today.

‘Land of Hope and Glory
Mother of the Free
How shall we extol thee
Who are born of thee?

Wider still and wider
May thy bounds be set
God who made thee mighty
Make thee mightier yet’

May our bounds be set wider and wider, not through prowess and economic convenience and exploitation and compromise, but by restoring the gift of freedom and justice and dignity to all, and degrading and demeaning no one, or knowingly benefiting or accepting aid from someone else doing so.

God who made thee mighty (in whatever ways that is true)
Make thee mightier yet’

Thank you, UK, for every way that God makes you mighty to and for me.

God is love.  We are made in His image.

I love you, England.

I’m in a Taylor Walker pub near Paddington.  There have been lookalikes of Colin the pastor from Kingdom Faith whose last name I can’t remember at the moment, and there is a lookalike of David White sitting right by me and he has been there for about an hour while I have been here.  As I remember him from about 20 years ago, obviously, not as he would be now.  The look, the carriage, the mannerisms, everything.  Mobile phone conversation, not sure if real or not, or if so much language of church and business and therapy overlaps these days.

In the corner there is a nasty little runt in green who, when I laughed, made a point of saying to his ‘friend’ something about laughing and sounding happy but being manic or something and you need to calm down.   That is psychological violence and criminal harassment.  I said something about everybody being a closet analyst these days and not even admitting to it.  maybe because they are not good at it and are only using it for harassment and control and what appears like subliminal attacks, even though they are quite open and obvious.  I’ve heard of double bluff.  I wonder if there are any terms for bluffs that go deeper than that!

Nasty runt in corner has just upped and gone.

What is this?  Is this the latest fashion in achieving a sexual conquest or something?  Man, it’s grubby.

Of course some fire is random and other is not.  I was just listening to Melvyn Bragg and his guests on ‘In Our Time’ discussing Delacroix’s painting of Liberty Leading The People, and the woman contributor pointed out that a woman used to be seen as a blank canvas on which to project any ideal, and to round off one of the contributors said you only have to look at the painting to see what kind of revolutionaries they were, and my eyes were immediately drawn to the two guns in front of her and behind her.  My first impression was that one wanted to shaft her while the other wanted to shoot over her head.  On second sight I thought they might both be more hopeful and supplicatory, wanting to draw Liberty to them.

I thought about something I read in William Blake in my Romantic Poetry class, about letting something fly as it passes otherwise trying to control it you lose it altogether.  I can remember an old man with scissors in his hands and somehow, either in the poetry itself or in Alan’s commentary on it, the idea of clipping people’s wings was disapproved.

Clipping wings.  I don’t know.  On a winged animal is that something anyone would ever do for the animal’s benefit?  I think not but I might be wrong.

Surely it can’t be done for the benefit of a thought or emotion either.  I keep coming back to discovering that if I don’t censor my thoughts and emotions to myself, even if I don’t express them outwardly, after allowing the thought and the emotion which I might instinctively want to censor and letting myself think or feel it without trying to repress it, I will come back into my own equilibrium.  That obviously doesn’t apply if I think the people around me are hacking my computer, in my writing I hardly ever recover my equilibrium, but on my own while out and in my own self that no one sees I do regularly.  I just wrote that bit about hacking and the woman downstairs said ‘yeah, baby’, with a derisive laugh, and they have been interjecting all the time I’ve had my headphones on.  But yesterday all the women screamed just before I went to turn my light out, and that decision all happened in my head.  But they have all been on at me all the time I have been here, they have no respect for anything most people consider decent.  When I leave I will say which hostel it is.  It is London, 12.15 am.  But they haven’t stopped all night and probably don’t intend to.  They are saying hallelujah and dobre and coming out with all the old accusations and harassment and violently striking surfaces.  I know who is violent and it isn’t me.

I was thinking today about the law and not having to implicate yourself in a crime.  I think that should change, if you know you have committed one.  You should confess immediately when asked, in the presence of a solicitor, and not to do so should be considered to be wasting police time and public money and changing your plea half way through to guilty if you have dishonestly maintained your innocence to that point should not lessen your penalty or punishment, since those are the terms we still think in.

A criminal should not be entitled to the defiance of not implicating themselves.  Nor should the police and other authorities be allowed to get away with the dishonesty and misuse of power which makes people say it is preferable that guilty people should have the right not to ‘implicate’ themselves.  I think the experience of the abuse and misuse of power often comes before an individual decides they need to protect themselves that way.  I don’t know, which came first, the chicken or the egg?  Whose underhandedness was winked at first?

When a community knows that someone is guilty of a crime they disapprove of, and that the person is protected by the present legal right not to implicate themselves and therefore see no action being taken, in some cases their anger can be a legitimate thing.  Obviously if it gives rise to violence or vigilantism or reciprocal crime that isn’t true, but a good community should not be expected to bear the brunt of the criminal’s present right to withhold information unless asked.

As a consequence, our society has tipped over into a really unhealthy place.

I can’t write more.  The screaming last night as I went to switch the light off sounded like what you would expect a gaggle of witches to sound like and there was obviously a spiritual dynamic to it. I wanted to write more, but I am going to wait.  And then it might not come out the way I intended.  Because we are now rife with violence and witchcraft in our country.  Threat, harassment, spiritual theft, intimidation, vile, savage mockery and defiance and disrespect.  Both men and women, rulers and ruled.

I’m having an awful time at the moment, as far as being a vegan is concerned.

I keep wanting to give it up and go back to ‘normal’, happy, easily sociable and available eating.  The only reason I can’t and don’t is that I believe in my reasons for having become vegan in the first place.

So miserable!  I believe in my reasons, that I have no needs that require the death or utilisation of any other animal.  But recently I have wanted to rush straight back, with great joy, to being omnivorous.

I say ‘only one reason’, but that isn’t quite true.  Also my stalkers would never let it rest, and having made such a big thing about the rightness of veganism, I would be embarrassed.  I’d be confused myself, though, and I would also be doing an act of violence to myself to go back to being omnivorous.  People might get all chummy with me about having seen the light of omnivorism, and the error of my ways in trying to be vegan.  And sitting here writing this, right now, I can’t say for sure that I could never agree with that.  That would be saying that the life of an animal doesn’t matter so much that we can’t eat it, which is what I was brought up with, that we have God’s blessing to take an animal’s life for food.  I would like to believe that is true and feel I am just being proud and rebellious saying it isn’t.

I feel mesmerised, and also that I just can’t be bothered being a vegan anymore.  But as ever I don’t know what I feel and think as soon as I try to put it to print and think about it.  The same stuff is still happening.  I can’t tell the path from the scrub.

Internal tapes:

1.  Animals are for eating

2.  Christian Fundamentaslism is good or

3.  Christian fundamentalism is convenient because

4.  I want to eat what I can eat with fundamentalist, right-wing Christians

5.  I AM a fundamentalist, right-wing Christian.  If God says I can kill for ease and appetite, I CAN, and thank God for that!  If he says it I don’t have to think about it.  (what is this resentment I have against those who will not kill?  What is this need, what is this love, this strong emotion, I feel for and towards those who will not kill to eat?  It must be admiration, and more.  That the position of these people is where my heart is, the place I am challenged to recognise as right.  I would hate to convert someone from veganism/vegetarianism to being omnivorous.  I would hate to bring them down from their high place to such a place of shame.  And I would hate to have them validate my own).

6.  I AM a fundamentalist, right-wing Christian, in many ways, but also being a vegan, I could never fit in.  I would be teased all the time for being a vegan, and if I objected, it would be MY holiness called into question, and not theirs.  It could be fun and humorous, but there will also be those who go, in absolute conviction, for the fact that the Bible says that after the flood, God gave permission to eat meat, and re-asserted it later in the NT.

At the same time, in many arguers, there is a secret wanting to see it the same way as you do yourself.  It’s about liking and trusting and feeling safe, to some extent.  I was thinking last night that if someone says ‘thank you’ and a Christian says in response ‘it’s a blessing’, what the Christian is really saying is ‘I like you’.  It’s/you’re a blessing = I like you (or any other ordinary affirmation and expression of positive feeling/perception).

God IS, and we are dependent on Him.  But we are also dependent on air, for example.  We just breathe, it is automatic.  We don’t keep the air in mind and keep bringing it up AS need and essential.  If we did, it would demonstrate insecurity and that perhaps our supply was somehow threatened or contaminated.  In ordinary everyday life we don’t make constant references to the air to facilitate breathing or ANYTHING.  Or to our own bodies.  We don’t need to.

James 2:4 “Judges with evil thoughts” (NIV)

It’s not them, it’s me.  If I retaliate I might believe or feel bad or that I am wrong, but I am not as bad as them, they are judges with evil thoughts, people who have no right to judge in the first place.

I thought.

Then I thought again.  If Jesus said “judge not, that ye be not judged”, if we say someone else is a judge with evil thoughts, don’t we become that ourselves?  Is it true that, every time we judge someone else and their actionbs, we ourselves are judges with evil thoughts?

I know the context of James 2:4 is about showing preferential treatment to the rich and well dressed, but is this something that should be limited by that context or understood more widely?

I didn’t know it was Edmund Burke.  I think we need to re-think that.  If men, or women or children, do nothing in the face of evil, how can they be called good?  That does not make sense.  Good people do, the rest do nothing.  Do, not speak, not persuade, alone – do!

And for victims they do, openly, and accountably.  If they are politicians they should do it before the populace, not just each other.  Explicitly and openly.  No clowning, no play-acting – straight people.  If people under arrest clowned and play-acted the way these people do, they would be punished.  Or abused.  I think.  Or am I wrong?  Do the police have a sense of humour in these situations?  If they did, would it be appropriate?

If x, Why y?

People say Bulgaria is a developing country.  Often that kind of thing is said in the context of needing to make allowances for them.

Who is having to make the allowances?  people like me, who have to live with their dishonesty, violence, harassment, torture, accusations, hatred and interrogations.

It is dishonest for these people to plead that they are still developing, and dishonest for my authorities to back them up in that plea.

I have been here 21 months, and in all that time when I should have been resolving problems at home and buying the home I came here to buy, I have been trying to deal with violence and intimidation and psychological domination instead, from everyone, including authorities, including the British Embassy.

In two days I am due to lose the only home I have known throughout the last 15 years while this diagnosis of schizophrenia has been enforced every time I have said I am being stalked and harassed.  I have no other home.  These people open their mouths and sound like savages.  I could not live here.  They are deliberately criminally invasive and hateful and insist on saying ‘dobre’.  Every leva this country has had from me has been armed robbery.  In the end you feel they are saying ‘don’t say things like that’ and you are supposed to laugh it off and there is something wrong with you if you don’t.

If it is true that 90% of people here were against the communist regime, why is everyone a self-styled, amateur torturer and interrogator and inquisitor?

I would not sound so stupid if I was not now getting the ‘dobre teatro’ soup treatment poured all over me.  I mean every word I have said.  I only wish I could say it more effectively and feel it as I should, feel its truth and not be undermined in my mind.

Never ‘sorry’, only ‘dobre’, and I completely disagree with their ‘dobre’, which is harassment in itself and puts nothing right.

My own authorities have not helped, with their knowing I am still in receipt of benefits, maybe even making sure that I am, but not giving me the power of that knowledge.  Government and church.

I’m sick, I’m tired, I feel ill, I feel as if I should come home.  But what waits for me there?  They are going to take my home in two days.  Nothing better waits for me.  They are as blind and in denial and dishonest, between them.  I understand the language, the air is dirtier, things are more expensive, and if i insist on what is happening I could find myself back under an enforced mental health drugs regime.  I could.  No one has officially told me otherwise.

These people and their sick, hard, hateful, defiant and dishonest, lying dobres.

My boundaries have been so violated I feel I should be asking for help from the violators, instead of writing as I am.  That is completely inappropriate.  All of these people’s utterances are like a virus keying into my mind and emotions when they are operating.  I don’t want to believe that something that makes me feel this way is from God.

Edit note:

This appeared straight after mine on the Christianity board:  http://05varvara.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/vasili-belyaev-sofia-the-holy-wisdom-of-god-spasa-na-krovi-the-church-of-the-saviour-on-the-spilt-blood-st-petersburg-rf-undated-1890s/#respond

I tried to comment on the coincidence but no go.  Sofia, spilt blood, emotional and psychological violence, for me, in context.

Last time I tried to come home, on 2 consecutive days, I was stopped by the police at Sofia airport.  Held illegally and intimidated and insulted and shouted at and toyed with for 5 hours, them refusing to tell me if I was under arrest, insulting my passport, a doctor shouting and laughing in my face.  I’m afraid of the whole process and result of trying to go back to the UK.  I’ve also had an old landlord here, from Plovdiv and liviing in the UK (London, I think) threaten me with ‘trouble’ and that they know where I live in London.  I’ve had several people pass me here, some in cars, and say ‘Plovdiv’ as they have passed, shouted it, if in a car.

I’ve got a woman above me who keeps keying spoken dobres into my mind as I am writing.  It is either occult or hacking.  I lost my internet connection the first time I tried to post.  She has just done that nervous cough I have got used to in all situations where I write an observation like my last one.  The music is up very loud and has been for 2 hours, even during this legally quiet time of the afternoon.  No one cares about the law here either.  It’s a bit like the UK in that respect.  Men have just started shouting in the building.  So many coincidences, innocent or otherwise.

I need support and might find arrest and beaurocracy and red tape under the mental health act or something else, and upstairs they are purring invasively in a way which feels violent and illegal and disempowering.

Beaurocracy, invasively, and disempowering are being challenged by spell check.  How disturbing that such normal and understood words should be subject to challenge.

Bureaucracy?  Oh, OK!  Funny, I just checked the internet and the right version appears once on the first page.  The rest are misspelt the way I did it.

King David – Camera Snap From a War Zone

David said, ‘Let a righteous man strike me, it is a kindness’.  Is this the truth, or is it, like his affair with Bathsheba and ordering her husband to be killed in battle, a sign of emotional sickness?

Poor little guy, one of many sons, the youngest and despised, sent out every day to look after the sheep on his own.  With nothing but his target skills and his harp and singing and his idealised idea, in his loneliness, of his relationship with God, to keep him going.

When his father Jesse was asked by Samuel to get all of his sons together because he wanted to anoint one of them to be king after Saul, neither Jesse nor the rest of his sons gave David a thought.  He was out there with the sheep.  Samuel got to the end of everyone who was in front of him, the story says, and God said ‘no’ to all of them, and he had to ask if there was another son.  When Jesse said yes, he said yes but, not oh yes of course.  Samuel had to insist on him being brought in.

Later Saul kept trying to kill him, and he and Jonathan agreed a code that Jonathan would use to tell David that he needed to flee, if he thought so.  And David fled.  He got to a city and pretended madness, he lied to cover his tracks and people were killed in the wake of that.  Yet he said he would not fear.  He was very afraid and in denial, whatever his affirmations and confessions.  He said he was convinced of his own righteousness and that God was with him and knew him in his righteousness.  It seems to me his suffering and isolation had pushed him over the edge.  He felt he had to be perfect or something to be loved and approved of, and so he asserted that he was, exulted in it, and told God he was a perfect and righteous man.

And my teachers have believed his reported self-assessment.

It seems to me this is faulty interpretation and exegesis and shows no understanding of human psychology.

They are as much in denial about him as he was about himself, and as the prophet might have been who said God had said David was a man after God’s own heart, who would fulfil all of God’s desires.  And yet God had to tell David, when he wanted to build him a temple, that he was not the man to do it, because he was a man of blood.  He went around killing people and cutting off foreskins for trophies.

The Bible, reportedly, shows people as they were.  It doesn’t say that everything that came from his life and pen and lips were God’s truth.  The Bible, if it is true, is the truth about the people in it, and what they say is from God is not necessarily from God at all, and it is undiscerning and maybe a bit afraid to look at every word the people who are called God’s servants say and think they are all right and perfect and can all be synthesised into being truth in themselves, just because they are in the Bible and came from people who have been made, historically and by the will and judgment of men, both at the time and since then, into heroes.

When the Bible says God was with him, does it just mean that people loved and protected him?  The Bible was written by men, and men said that God was with him – because they had a warrior mentality?

David said I am for peace but they are for war.  So why did God say he couldn’t build his temple because he was a man of blood?  He was holding David responsible.  Or Nathan’s prophetic spirit and internal workings were.  Later David prayed ‘deliver me from blood guiltiness, Oh my God’.  So what was Nathan’s bag?  He put a real heavy on him, and made him live without formal punishment, which was obviously a psychological need and would have been appropriate.  (thought: unless man of blood is just referring to the thing with Uriah, then of course I am just being arrogant and proud again deciding it was about his killing sprees, which in the eyes of Israel were worth eulogising – Saul has killed his thousands and David his tens of thousands.  That was why Saul wanted to kill him – he was jealous.  It says the hand of God was with David because he was killing so many people.  Whose judgment was that?  Was it REALLY God’s?)

When it says the glory of the Lord filled the place and the priest’s could not go about their work, does it mean there was a sudden emotional and psychological crisis felt by all that no one knew how to handle? So they fell on their faces and worshipped until – what – released them?

I’m sure this could be taken much further.  I love the fact that it can.  But then who is God?  Who are you?  Who am I?  And what is good?  And how can we free ourselves of this evil and hero protecting mentality to pursue what is right and good, and not what is safe and cosy and cronyistic and cliquey and maudlin?

 

Desperate enough that this should be seen.  I know reading a blog does not hold you legally accountable, but in a situation like this, any authority which hides behind that is corrupt and indecent, though I have heard politicians in my own country’s parliament use that for derision of a fellow member.  I, on the other hand, am completely powerless and illegally diminished.  Please do not plead that legal get out clause with me.

I just let my neighbours have this, as reliably as I could using Google Translate.  This is where I have always stood, and repeatedly said so, and written so, though what I have written has been legally ignored with the dishonest excuse I have already mentioned.  I always know now that, at least here in Bulgaria, there is a whole mafia, physically dangerous or seemingly benign, that is watching what I write as I write it.  My upstairs neighbours love making me aware that they are a part of it.  I also said to them, at the end of what I am going to quote, that the fact the were up there now doing what they are doing, and not with the police, is a crime.  I also said that they are so indecent and sadistic using my little Bulgarian knowledge against me for interventions and emotional and thought control, they have no right to exist.  That is strong and maybe they are doing it unconsciously, but I don’t think so.  I have told them before I have little Bulgarian and they use that against me, so they are conscious.  If they think it doesn’t matter that is something else, they are selfish and stupid.

I know that authorities, legal and political authorities and church authorities, in both countries, know my exact address.  I also know a lot of what you know you know from my blog, or from what used to be seen quite clearly as illegal hacking, but is now being presented to me, in my case, as a grey area, and communication to the police which their website says will receive an answer in a number of days not being replied to at all.  This is gross.  This is corrupt.  The only victims of stalking you are interested in are the ones already in the public eye either through celebrity or through tragedy which has allowed you to make their names household words.  It is completely corrupt.  The rest of us can lose our homes and anything else, and be slandered and misrepresented and violently harassed, and rot in a mental hospital if we squeak when you don’t lift a criminal and corrupt finger to deal with your fellow criminals with whom I have to share close breathing space.  If I say I’m being stalked, you say that belief is a sign of metal illness, but if someone with the public eye and ear says it, you have to jump to it, while covering your own stalking, and run your exposes on the people who have failed to cover their tracks.

This is the word of the Lord.  Thanks be to God.  (Truth, in other words.  The bible says, ‘thy word is truth’.  So I suppose all truth is God’s word.  [she has just brayed ‘yes.  I’m not moaning, but this is exactly the kind of mentally and emotionally and spiritually violent abortion I am talking about.n  nThis woman is a gloating, free, sadistic, mentally and spiritually abusive criminal.  And you are deliberately nurturing and protecting her.  This makes me hysterical with pain and she plays on that as well.  My whole mind knows she is smacking her vampire chops on my blood.  You know it too.  One of them keeps tapping at all of my sentences and attempts to connect at this point.  This is their usual behaviour.  My stats say I have under 10 readers most days and no one is ever seen to comment.  I know there is other stuff going on, you all communicate it.  There is something illegal and abusively manipulative going on with my stats here, whatever the source of that manipulation.  Either that or there is a real and indecent and self-protecting indifference, maybe even under instruction from unspiritual and illegal church authorities.  If I slag off my church authorities or any other, right or wrong, these bastards above me love it.  It is like gloatingly, cruelly, maliciously and sadistically saying ‘you’re not supposed to criticise your authorities’].  I hear the cruelty.  I hear the dripping blood from her mouth.  This hallelujah and dobre sayer, these violent people, physical and mentally – are they being accepted by church authorities as Christian?  You should tell me, one way or the other.  In Bulgaria they say over 90% of the population is Christian.  I don’t know if they are accepting the self-definition and possibly deliberately misleading assertions of criminals like these who remain free to violate and abuse, or not.  It is something I do need to know.)

(Edit note)  I would have put this at the end, but when I tried I couldn’t create a new paragraph.  I found this interview with a non-consensual CIA behaviour modification program survivor.  I found it under the brainwashing tag, at the moment it is the featured post on that board.  As I said in my comment to the blogger, the final sentence of the interview hit me with the power of a whole world, emotionally.  The survivor said, ‘there are no good guys to root for anymore’.  That could be turned round and people could say ‘but that is obviously not true and in this technological age some surveillance methods are necessary which people might say are an invasion of privacy and while tragic mistakes happen we try to avoid them, obviously, and put them right as soon as we know’.  I have to say, if you really believe that is a right and justified position, why are you trying to hide your communication and activity towards me?  National security?  I have no personal security anymore, so it can’t be that.  So I suppose that might make me a traitor, and if that is true, then I am obviously sorry and I feel it deeply.  But coping with believing that, in that case, all my beliefs about the wrongness of your surveillance programmes is wrong itself, leaves me vulnerable and disorientated.  That and you keeping me as a fugitive with nothing but your sunny smile and your benefits, your illegal and evasively irresponsible sticking plaster on this atrocious haemmorhage, but which makes you feel you are at least doing something and me feel could be turned round on me as my criminality at any moment that suited you, or that at least I should be obedient and grateful and co-operative.  This vampire woman is going for the emotional blood of my throat.  She is making me want to beg, and when you don’t answer, that is part of their triumph.  If they are not going to be punished for this, that is evil.  They are treating me like a seance spirit they have a right to tap at and call up.  And sometimes, usually, it is more violent than just tapping.  And she keeps the psychologically and emotionally contradictory vocalisations coming, and you all look pretty and misty and tearful into your cameras.  That is indecent.  She is vomiting ugliness all over me.  I’m covered in blood, and it isn’t holy, and I haven’t shed it.

I had a pastor once, or I read it somewhere, who said don’t believe the devil even if he speaks the truth.  Recently I’ve wondered why not, as that enables people to ignore people they don’t like, and that can be cruel and cutting.  I would modify it to don’t assume the devil has a right to hold you accountable, even if he speaks the truth.  And don’t let anyone working on his behalf believe they have that right either. They are using their loud tv now.  We all know how it works, it has been happening and witnessed long enough.  WE ALL KNOW HOW IT WORKS.  STOP PUTTING US AWAY FOR SAYING SO IF YOU FEEL THREATENED.  STOP DOING EVERYTHING TO US SHORT OF MURDER.  STOP TELLING US WE ARE FREE AND PUTTING US IN MENTAL HOSPITALS FOR TALKING ABOUT OCCULTISM AND STALKING WHILE YOU YOURSELVES KNOW AND ARE DOING IT, EVEN IF YOU WANT TO INTELLECTUALISE IT AND BACK IT UP WITH SCIENTIFIC SMART(IE)S AND DON’T WANT TO FACE THE FACT THAT THAT IS WHAT IT IS THAT YOU ARE DOING.(end of edit note)

Oh, there were several time gaps between the conveying of the following paragraphs because of several things, not least Google Translates volume limitation.  They were active throughout.  The first thing they do when they hear me go to bed is bang on my ceiling, after a few minutes, and sometimes wake me up intermittently the same way.  Whatever time of the day or night.  And they still bang and comment whern I go to the toilet.  I daren’t go, they are so emotionally manipulative I think it is me that is wrong and it is my fault.  The way she is braying at the moment is making me feel she is bloody with her own blood and that it is my fault.

you are violent criminal stalkers and I do not welcome the knowledge that you are stalking everything I read and watch and listen to and write on the internet at the moment that I am doing it.  You are more like abortionists than midwives.  What results is mutilated and what should have been is never seen or conceived in my own mind, such is the trauma or the enormity of your position that such stalking could possibly be right.  I would like to know what Christian leaders you are getting your advice from, because they also know I hold this position.  Even while I am writing this, I can hear your comments and reactions, and that also changes what might have been said.  You are interfering with my mind.  I am sure you must realise, but are too proud and selfish to say so, that this is wrong and complete inhumanity and fascism.  This is Google translate.  I hope you will understand.  With you in this situation it is all I am willing to use. Brainwashing cult.
Stop deliberately dropping whatever you deliberately drop on my ceiling.  It sounds as if it could be rosary beads, usually.  You are violently and dangerously superstitious, and abusing the graces of Christian symbolism.  Stop all of your emotional manipulation and alteration techniques, all of which I am familiar with.  Stalking my typing keeps you on top of being able to do that, and I can’t say anything of my own or the way I want to say it.  Therefore I will give you nothing.  You only have what has been violently stolen by others and given to you, or what you have violently stolen yourselves.  First you drop what you drop, then make me hear you moderating and modulating the emotional tone of what I and everyone else around here hears coming from you, while I know the reason you need to do that in the first place, you violent stalking criminals, is that you are second by second criminally accessing my computer and all that happens on it.  This is first degree metal abuse and torture.  If Jesus had a grave, he would turn in it. 

 I don’t care what you are dropping, you are doing it deliberately and for harassment aqnd you have no right.  Stop your torture tapping even as I write.  I assume you know you are stopping my ability to deal with illegtal eviction procedings in my only British home?  It is in my emails.  That is part of your emotional arsenal and spiritual abuse.  You are disgusting and indecent, all of you involved in this.  I have 10 days before I become homeless in the UK.  I am sure you must know this.  whether you do or not, there is no excuse for your activity.  You can abort my mental connections and emotional appropriateness but you cannot silence my words.  But I cannot deal face to face with dishonest and violent people who have power over my life with those connections cut.  You are trying to make me dependent, weak and powerless, whatever it costs me, and however criminal you yourselves have to be.  If you are Chistians I suppose you want to chalk up a triumph for your brand of Christianity and take the credit for any rescue.  That is warped. 

This is what I wrote before the two unscripted emotional safety outburst you just heard.  You savage, harassing woman, you do not have my permission to vocalise or communicate to me in any other such way that you are aligning yourself, in your sweet little mind only and with no benefit to me in changes in your actions and output, in agreement.  Such communication is a violent verbal assault and insult.  And don’t clatter your dishes at what you know I have written and am going to say.  I think this will make a good blog entry for today.  I’ve copied it all to email, as you know.  

Link here.  Why is this not showing, WordPress?  Censorship, harassment, terribly cynical of someone, inhumanly so.  Frightening.  What is the agenda here?

Edit note:  It’s been taken off the Christianity page as well, and it was definitely relevant.

Look, this is embarrassing for me and it should also be embarrassing for you.

It should be embarrassing for you because you say you stand for free speech, freedom, openness and open society – don’t you?  Those of us who are regularly censored know that is not the whole truth, if the truth at all.

It is embarrassing for me because I believe in open authority and politics.  Anything less says the populace is somehow inferior or not well enough informed and doesn’t have the same right to information.  It casts secrecy over things which should not be secret.  The ‘wrongdoer’ sometimes doesn’t know that is what they have been identified as, rightly or wrongly.  It allows one group to identify itself as right against another they identify as wrong, including in international politics.

It says that the person or people the various authorities identify as wrong are the whole cause of the problem and the authorities, and those who establish, employ and use them, are good and right-minded people, and also pure in word and action, or at least justifiable and ‘not guilty’.  People are criminalised just by the approach of the authorities to them, whether they know it or not, and whether or not they are actually criminal.

I believe in openness.  We are all as good and all as bad, we are all to blame and we all have the same rights and responsibilities.  Mistreated people are angry, and some angry people do harmful things.  Unequal relationships are a form of mistreatment.  Unequal vulnerability, unequal disclosure, people in authority or positions of influence who see themselves as being authority rather than serving in administration of what is appropriate to their job.

This is all old hat and I believe all right-minded people agree with me.  With me.  (I said it twice because I couldn’t decide which would communicate most effectively, bold or not bold).  Every day WordPress and other media still use language and material packaged together in a way that is relevant to me in constantly updated ways.  This creates a feeling of obligation and relationship which, I believe, is inappropriate to my actual situation, especially where nothing explicit, by way of committed communication, is ever entered into.  My neighbours know this too.  Hence the violence and harassment, even if it is inexcusable.  To have this kind of fluffy, feel-good, earnest or even comedic communication in the middle of a violent and undefined reality is not appropriate and not helpful.  It makes the problem worse.  Sometimes it isn’t comedic, sometimes I believe I know it is downright sinister.

So you are playing with my mind and reality.  Me, one individual who writes my blog.  The problem is, you do this in domestic and international politics as well, and your designated baddies know that, some of them are vulnerable and some of them are not, some of them have power and in their rage or confusion with this kind of communication can do catastrophic things.  I’ve written about Gadaffi before.  He is in the news at the moment.  I watched a film recommended by a friend, called Zeitgeist, which talked about the language used by the media and politicians around 9/11, and watching the news I’ve been observing the same thing here, at least with CNN, the channel I can get on my TV here.  It is an agreed, asserted view for presentation which is short of whole and little short of legitimised playground bullying and retaliation.  A club for fighting cats and dogs and gossip circles and sending to Coventry.  Ooh, nasty.  I have news broadcasts in mind.  We are all influenced against the love that we are by watching and listening to this.  Some of us are targeted to be influenced, as individuals and groups, and not just what we believe.

People say he is detached from reality.  I felt sorry for him, he looked confused.  Is he detached from reality?  He’s been made the baddy for years and years, and the media says he is detached from reality when he says all his people love him.  But I don’t believe that.  I believe all his people do love him, even if many of them oppose him.  I believe that love is the basis of all emotion and behaviour in every human being.  Most of us don’t understand that, we are not taught to.  The Bible says God is love and that we are made in His image.  Therefore love is also the foundation of our personalities, if not the whole of who we are (as it is for God, in whose image we are made), whether we realise it or not.  When that knowledge is undermined, not recognised about each other, or otherwise becomes emotionally and behaviourally perverted, that is the problem.  Yes, Gadaffi’s people all loved him.  Yes, they fought him (it is a psychological truism to say if you fight with someone you love them.  They have power with you somehow.  Somehow they matter to you.  All emotion, at root, is a manifestation of love, even if it manifests as guilty political manoeuvring and fear of loss of power and position or anything else, or of exposure.  Even if it manifests as anger or hatred or violence.  It is all a sign of our basic feeling and knowledge of connection).

I cried, a little, at what I saw on the television about Gadaffi last week.  I think presenting the news in that way, without the human angle and understanding and acknowledgment on the part of the controllers of communication of their own contribution to the awfulness, is in itself dangerous to society and inhuman.  It helps to make the poor despots what they are.  They are not playing for sympathy. They truly are worthy of our sympathy (they feel like we do, feelings which should not be put down as being out of touch with reality, and wrestle with issues as we do), and our own acknowledgment of how we have contributed to who they are, rather than helping them, through identification with them rather than setting ourselves apart or thinking ourselves better or wiser, to become something different.  Politics should be personal, right to the top and across nations and ideologies.  We need to be able to understand each other’s ideologies and converse and debate and argue with knowledge and respect.  We have to understand each other’s versions of reality so we don’t say someone has lost touch with reality when they don’t conform to our own idea of what reality is or should be.  The view that someone of a different culture and religion or ideology has lost touch with reality should never be put out through a news agency, even if only said in frustration.  It is my belief that this is often, if not always, just a manifestation of ignorance, of not knowing and not understanding, and not knowing how to set about finding out.  Or not caring, which, moralising as I sound here, must be worse.

Christian Life College, where I used to go, talked about two different sonship states.  One, we are sons of God by creation, and for some, we are sons of God by being born again.  That is how it was presented.

I would say that even if we believe in heaven and hell and that Christians go to heaven after death, we are all the children of God by creation at least, if that is what we believe, and if we believe that, we have to know that, on earth, we all have the same rights, whether we have the same religion or not, and an obligation to respect other people and make sure we recognise those rights in all our dealings with them. Including the right to intimacy and vulnerability, and openness and full disclosure, to expect it and to give it, both ways, in every relationship which involves power and authority.

The New Testament letters of the Bible, written to Christians, says honour all men (includes women and children), and that if you do not love your brother who you have seen, how can you love God who you have not seen?  We all share the creation sense of brotherhood.

So we need to be more open, when it comes to power and authority.  You choose your friends, but in your established authority and power relationships you have no choice, either party, unless the person in authority is able to lose and give up their authority and power and everything that goes with it.

That is far more than I wanted to say, but it is now said.  And that is why I for one don’t like my mind and conscience and emotions being played with by the removal of potentially sensitive posts, whether ostensibly for my protection, better criminal-catching, or any other reason, especially when the only direct communication I get from the same authorities is that which takes away from me.

O . . .

(Public Health Warning: more mangled blood and guts, but also an attempt to address the issue of goading and chain-yanking, failed, unfortunately, on the whole, and I’m not the sort to incubate a post and try again.  I talk about the guy who got water thrown in his face by Spurgeon, I think, when he told Spurgeon he was perfect, and he got angry, which I think might have been the perfect reaction to Spurgeon’s mischief and therefore did not disprove his statement).

That is my open mouth, made silent with hysterical fear.

I’m living in Sofia now.  The woman above me screams hallelujah in the most hateful voice every time I feel I have a good communication and I can communicate it.

I want to scream for help and I can’t, it is that psychologically, emotionally and spiritually abusive.  I can’t express anything without feeling dishonest or that I am going to disintegrate or, if I am angry, be attacked, even physically.  She makes me feel she is my friend and I should ask her to forgive me and help me, whatever I feel she voices differently.  I said that because . . . well, if you read this blog, you know.  There is a man from whom the only vocalisation I hear is an angry or frightened throat-clearing.  That feels to me like part of the illusion, if it is an illusion, of their goodness.  If he spoke it might not persist.  But his vocal silence is also part of the oppression.

She is attacking my soul and spirit with razors and bludgeoning me with hatred which feels like a physical mallet to the head.

Combined with the banging . . .

So is this orchestrated, because it is happening everywhere I go.  Who is behind it?

The most torturous thing about this for me is the church’s dishonesty and use of these things.  Someone on Premier was talking about chain yanking this morning, and that is what she is doing and that is what Premier and the church have been doing for years – the way they have kept saying ‘crazy’, for instance, and pushing psychiatry.  This man said so this morning, he pointed it out himself.  What they have been doing is sadistic, cruel and abusive.  That must always have been obvious to them, surely, and if it hasn’t been . . . either way they are not fit to  hold ministerial duties of any description.

I don’t know if I’m imagining that when my recording was interrupted near the end this morning, John Pantry became annoyed because his attempt to build a bridge had been interrupted.  How would he have known, without illegal access to my computer?

Sometimes it feels like protection and I feel unworthy and shameful calling it criminal.  But it isn’t really.  It isn’t really protective.  They are keeping me imprisoned by their evasion of responsibility, procrastination, holding on to power, refusal to apologise officially, if not openly.

I don’t want a bridge back to the world where leaders are not first prepared to own their wrongdoing before I cross that bridge.  Own it where everyone can see, in a committed way. . .

One of the ministers involved, I think it was R T Kendall, but I’m not sure, told this story of someone who said to Spurgeon, I think, that he, the person speaking to Spurgeon, was perfect.  That he believed he was perfect.  Spurgeon (if it was him) said ‘oh, really?’ and threw a glass of water at him, and the man became angry, and everyone laughed at him.

The same chain-yanking.  That is hardly perfect, is it?

Now, was the man expressing imperfection to express anger in that situation?  Is anger a sign of imperfection?  But the Bible says Jesus was angry.  Our teachers have had it for ages that Jesus’ anger was different, that it was perfect and righteous anger.

It doesn’t say, though, that He ever pulled anything like this self-righteous, judgmental, proud, debasing, mischievous and malicious chain-yanking.  At least, not on true seekers and people who expressed something they thought they had grasped as a truth.

An exception comes to mind, possibly, in Mark 7.

Jesus Honors a Syrophoenician Woman’s Faith

24 Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre.  He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. 25 In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an impure spirit came and fell at his feet. 26The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.

27 “First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

28 “Lord,” she replied, “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”

29 Then he told her, “For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.”

30 She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.

I’m not supposed to criticise this man, but what was he about here?  If he wasn’t being provocative, it could be put down to insensitivity because of tiredness, or some sort of irritation.  Our leaders say He was correcting her attitude.  But if it wasn’t that, if it was a lack of perfect response, where does that leave us in terms of my Friend Jesus’ perfection?  He;s my friend, I can’t talk about Him and theorise about Him like this.  But I just have, and for the usual reasons it has to remain.

But back to the perfect man who got angry when the person he told threw a glass of water at him.

In the Bible David said that God’s enemies were his enemies, and that he hated them with a perfect hatred.  I’ve heard it said that David did not have the complete revelation that we have today.  Would they say that of this occasion?  No, not all of them.  There would be different opinions backed up with chapter and verse and personal experience they felt was surrounded with the approval of those that matter to them.  I know for sure there would be some who agonised more over the truth than to be satisfied with that low standard of agreement, potentially low, at least, but I don’t know how many.

I got to this stage with St Barnabas’ Church.  They opposed me in every way, locking down on me and preaching at me.  I had read a book recommended by a Christian counsellor, on boundaries, which said that negative emotions were a sign that something was wrong.  I was going home, time after time, feeling devastated, and one night in bed I was frightened by a feeling of hatred.  I was also angry, I thought they were opposing what God was doing in my life.  I find that a bit embarrassing now.

But that was the verse which came to my mind, and I embraced it, because I couldn’t get rid of the feeling of hatred, so I actively justified it.  Hindsight says if I had done this or that . . . but nothing within me which is saying anything gets much chance to be heard at the moment, it is silenced by the violence around me, and as soon as I can strongly own and express anything from within, the harassment starts without and I am left too hysterical to cope.  I’m trying to argue something when I want to scream and beg and cry, since every time I feel I can and should surrender I refuse it.  I feel I should go up to them, apologise and ask what the problem is, then we could begin to sort everything out.  That is what I see and what I feel condemned by.  Her hallelujah makes me feel joy, but what about the rest?  It is chaos.  It is also illegal, and they know what I think of that.  It is the word I am reacting to, not the people or their activity.  I feel she even steals, with her occult violence, the tone of joy which would be in my own voice if I said it myself.  That must be where the confusion comes in.  I can’t validate this, it is so wrong.  I’m not the only one who hears them, and not everyone rejoices, I am sure.  I don’t want to be patronised by people saying poor Sue, come home.  I want people to focus on the issue of chain-yanking, and if I could focus on it myself it would help!  I try to be serious and have to be humorous.  Why?  I feel thumped in the head and I can’t cope with the pain.  There is no point waiting for a better time.  It never happens.  Don’t get bogged down in the circumstantial stuff that comes pouring out just because I don’t know how to edit it away. They seem to feel it when I calm down and start justifying them in my mind, and I hear them say dobre with a smile.  But I know what they are doing and it isn’t OK?  Or is it here?  Is this a valid and acceptable expression of Christianity here?  If it is, I’m out of step.  I feel as if I want to join in, like a party.  Go up and say hello and bubble along with them.

It’s a form of psychological harassment and censorship.  Who wants to read the silage that I insist on letting pour out of me, or allow by default, instead of being a normal, generous, kind, forgiving, friendly person and neighbour?

The point I was going to make was that I think there is something wrong with the theory and theology of leaders who can make a good and positive thing out of this incident of cruel chain-yanking in one of their traditions major heroes.

If that anger from the man came out of a damaged emotional place, it was incredibly cruel for him to expose it in that way.  Granted I don’t know the whole story, maybe it was just a bit of robust male joshing. I don’t know how the man took it after his anger was over.  But what if it wasn’t from a damaged emotional place?  What if it was the perfect reaction to such mischief and malice towards what he believed God had said to him?  Then who is the laughingstock?  If there should be one at all.  If our emotions are appropriate to the situation then they are perfect in that situation, aren’t they, so what he said wasn’t disproved at all.  In a sense we are perfect, and not just by imputation.  In a sense, as individuals, we are perfect, if people don’t interfere with us.  But they do, when we are too vulnerable to resist or realise.  I can’t do this, I’m tired and hurt.  I can’t think and write it through.  I’m mixing everything up all over the place when I started out believing I knew exactly what I wanted to say and where I wanted to go with it.  I’m already editing after first reading, and that isn’t doing me much good either.  I am ill and traumatised, I must be, to put this abortion out.

Another thing:  I believe this thing we call robust joshing is itself a manifestation and denial of pain.  Or is it just a healthy switching off every now and again?  It must be.  It must be me that is crazy.  So someone invite me to come and have some fun?  To live your whole life in the perfect therapy session and healing moment after healing moment, at least one participant has to be perfect.  And where have I got this idea from that therapy and healing is all about deep and querulous and earnest talk and tears and quietly and meditatively going about your business? ‘Tain’t, is it?

But what if, instead of throwing water over him and laughing at his anger, he had accepted the statement with respect and watched his friend over a period and tried to understand what he was saying and learn something instead?

It is thump in the back salvation.  I’m wondering if I am being a pathetic wimp if I object to that.  The people I have felt close enough to to love over recent years, and want to model myself on, I am thinking possibly I have only seen them awkward and afraid and desperate and making an effort, because of me and my situation.  Maybe they too are back thumpers and I have just not seen it, and I myself need to enter the real world of rough and tumble where people do not always treat each other with reverence and respect and it is OK.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

OK that is it.  That is my communication after being butchered by upstairs and everything knowing my account/computer is being hacked is doing to me, turned into a bucket of unmentionable stuff and screaming.

Enjoy!

I left a comment on Tommy Boyd’s blog on Friday, about how the way people treat me sometimes makes me feel, emotionally, that I want to hit back.

At the time I left it, I was aware, listening back, that it seemed as if my comments were being tracked by the radio hosts I was listening to.  When it got to the time that I left that comment, the host who was on at that time said something sarcastically and derisively about unfailing love.

Apart from the obvious fact that it is God who is perfect love, and not me, I wasn’t aware he had access to my unpublished comments in the middle of me writing them anyway.  Well, I was, and have been for ages.   Unless it is a psychic thing, and I don’t think it is.  Sometimes, but probably rarely.

So it is stalking and harassment.  Hostage-taking and keeping, maybe.  And they love bomb you like a cult.

That kind of sarcasm, if it factored in something in Biology, for example, would be called an inhibitor or a limiting factor.  It is something I came across when I got interested in vegetarian food and was given a couple of books which went into detail about it.  Talking about available protein.

If I remember it right, proteins are made up of amino acids, the composition of which can be pictured as a star shape with unequal protrusions, the shorter ones limiting the availability, release and utilisation of the rest, and therefore the amount of available protein.  It was presented as a part of the idea of complementary protein, where, for instance, rice and beans complement each other and make more protein available when eaten together than is available if you add them up separately.  Wheat and milk is another one (that was vegetarianism, not veganism).  And there are others.  Some people say that is an outdated theory now, but the diet and nutrition industry being what it is, who knows?  I suppose if it was scientifically proved it must still stand.  It isn’t something which depends on individual metabolism, it is the protein available in combined foods, and that is testable in a laboratory (I think!) before the food enters the body.  Although thinking about it I am wondering how the necessary blending of the foodstuffs would take place apart from digestive breakdown, but that probably shows the limitation of my own knowledge due to inadequate study and experience.

But in relationships, I don’t want people behaving as inhibitors towards me in that way and thinking it is good or clever.  He went on to say something about ‘don’t cry, woman’, or something like that.  But by that time I wasn’t open to anything else which came from him, and I stopped listening.

PS – the WordPress system has just informed me that this is my 275th post and called me a dope.  Honestly!  “Dope!” – just like that.

I wrote it today, about an hour ago.  It wasn’t explicitly Christian, but I am a Christian and I have posted a lot of things on the Christianity board, partly because I wanted Christians to see.  First it started being moved down the page, then it disappeared altogether.  Scroll down, it is the post before this.  I don’t understand or agree with these rules, if that is what they are.  I’ve used the ‘copy post’ facility so this has all the same tags and categories.

I’ve also updated my ‘My Stalkers, And Other Animals‘ page today.  Check it out.  It’s heavy.

PS straight after posting this I checked the board again and the original post had reappeared on page 2!  Before that I had checked about 6 pages.  But even then they position and reposition things.  Frame and reframe.  It is almost like freemasonry.  But I feel bad saying that, because I feel I should be grateful for the protection of myself and those involved.

Question:  SHOULD I feel bad?  I’d be interested to know who thinks what and why.

On the 3rd, the next day, I walked down Vitosha Boulevard in Sofia and passed a doorway with blood spattered in front of it, just like the reports of mafia shootings, though of course, it might not have been.  There were a couple of police in attendance, no panic, seemed pretty routine.  Lots of big drips of blood.  Straight after my post the day before, on the popular boulevard I was walking down, though I didn’t think it was in any way linked with me.  I hope not.  If other people are going to be hurt because of what I write . . . I hope that wouldn’t happen.  I can’t get my head around the possibility that I might be that significant.

Film Gomorrah Link.  Not downloadable via iPlayer, other recording options possible.  Available until 2.29 am Wednesday 3rd August 2011 UK time.

Documentary – Italy’s Bloodiest Mafia Link.  Downloadable via iPlayer and available until 12.19 am 3rd August 2011 UK time.  If downloaded via iPlayer or other options offered by the BBC site this is available for 28 days after download and can be re-recorded to a permanent format using other software.

The Scoop Radio Interview Link.   Not downloadable via iPlayer, available until 5.02 pm 7th August 2011.

I just noticed these today and two of them have almost expired.  So far I have only watched the documentary and by the look of it the film is about the same group.  The documentary made the same comments as my own observations and thinking have pieced together with regard to the relationship between the mafia and the state.  I appeal to the sources I learned to think from to forgive me for forgetting that this is not a product of my own brilliant mind, because in my situation I feel as if my observations and thinking are unique to me and my own direct observations.

I’m in a hotel.  I’m still getting a woman’s ghost voice.  This has happened many times.  People always say there is nothing happening and no one there that I have described.  Fortunately I now book through Expedia and can write a review of the hotel.  People seem to be angry around me, slamming doors after the documentary finished, and slamming again just now, so I’m wondering again if my internet connection is being hacked.

Two facts made an impression on me from the documentary about a group in Italy.  One was the mafia equivalent of the three wise monkeys, hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.  Maybe that is where it came from in the first place.  People who speak out against the mafia become isolated by friends and family, and it cost one man in this documentary his marriage.

The second was that one of the people interviewed said they entered into a blood pact, swearing on the Bible.  I didn’t know the Bible was involved.  I’ve always felt the confusion of a religious pull with it and now maybe I know why.  It would make sense to me anyway.

I’m quite isolated myself, and one of the men in the documentary talked about having the sign of the cross made at him, and said it was the same as saying they wanted you dead. I’ve had that done to me, and that is how I felt as well.  That and that maybe they were trying to protect themselves against sexual temptation or something.

I need to do some research on the Bulgarian mafia.  That is obviously the thing in my own mind.

The Italian documentary said that if a person stayed in that city for a month it would be impossible not to buy something that would fund the mafia, that they were involved in drugs and business and prostitution, and extortion was mentioned a few times.  They said 15 year old boys were involved so they could have all the right clothes etc, because otherwise they are nothing.  To me another reason for radically lessening the hold of the fashion industry on the media and advertising.  The media creates ‘the valley of the dolls’ surely, among people of that age, all the pressure, media and peer, classification of what is good and bad, in and out.  Good image and bad. Fashion is pushed and dictated beforehand.  It is decided that something is going to be the look, before it is even on the streets, then people are persuaded and pressured to go get it.

They also showed a football recreation ground that was a gift from a mafia boss.

It looks as if the film and the documentary are about the same mafia group in Italy.  The names are almost identical.

I haven’t heard the radio interview yet either, which is available until the 7th.  That is about a journalist called Jake Adelstein who chose to write a story about Japanese organised crime in spite of risks to himself and his family.

This is the ‘more programme information’ paragraph on this series and on this particular interview (underlined emphasis my own):

“Startling stories from behind the headlines. Neil Mackay – the Sunday Herald’s multi-award winning Home Affairs and Investigations Editor – hears from fellow investigative journalists about the biggest stories of their careers. What on earth drives them to pursue a scoop well beyond the point of their own safety and possibly their own sanity? After uncovering a scandal including a top Japanese Mafia boss and the FBI, Jake Adelstein was told “Erase the story. or we’ll erase you. And maybe your family too” Neil Mackay hears why Jake did decide to write the story despite the risks to him and his family.”

I have highlighted the ‘possibly their own sanity’ phrase because I am wondering how those threats are posed and if I would just be being egotistical to identify myself with this.

Bulgaria

If the way these people have treated me is typical, they and their country should self-destruct, and I hope to see it in my lifetime.

The Importance of Alternatives: Critical Psychiatry and Narrative Therapy.

I found this yesterday under the antipsychiatry tag.  It seemed to me that adopting an approach like this would be approaching something like sanity in the way mental health users are treated.  However, when I brought up the question of talking therapy at the hospital I was in, with a nurse, it was resisted and dismissed as a bit of an oddity, and me as a bit of a twit, or a strange and funny person.  Or crazy, maybe.  Who knows what they did with the suggestion afterwards?  I did have the leaflet in my hand from their literature rack, but the nurse I spoke to appeared to have no time for it.

The author of the post makes the good point that narrative therapy differs from psychoanalysis in that it is not prescriptive or didactic and the patient is not presented with an interpretation with which they have to agree.  It’s about exploring different ways of seeing and interpreting things in your life, and those ways come out of the patient’s own narrative with the therapist.  It sounds a bit like counselling to me, in that sense, and the post goes into far more detail, so I think it would be good to read it.  It has an audio interview as well, of about 5 or 6 minutes.

The author’s name is Jim Brooks and information about him can be found on his about page, which I was going to link to but have changed my mind, because I want you to read the post.  You can read the about page when you get there.  But he has studied pharmacology and is now studying for an MA in Science Journalism, so expect a well-written post.

I’m Sorry But . . .

Today I feel emotionally sick and out of step with everyone, even with my own sense of decency.

Is there a time I should just shut up and let people get on with it?  Just for a day maybe, or a week, or maybe I should cut my tongue out and never be able to speak for the rest of my life!  Now there’s a thought.

As much as I truly admire the people who work so hard for our security and am very touched by the happiness and satisfaction some of them I have heard speaking today are expressing, I still find it repulsive that anyone can be happy about and rejoice over someone else’s death.  No matter how much they or others close to them have suffered.

As I said, I feel emotionally sick.  I still can’t have a thought or emotion begin to materialise without the people upstairs start their stuff.  The uncanniness of it is doing a number on me, along with some of its deliberate and markedly repetitive illegality when they bang just after the boundary line every day.  I wondered after I typed those last paragraphs and thought maybe I’m being a bit too squeaky liberal to be real.  Perhaps I should join the celebration, for reasons of my own it feels like a bit of a weight off of my shoulders as well.  Maybe all decent people are glad, and I just don’t have that level of freedom to be able to enjoy it with everyone else who is also decent.

But I remember stories of days when missionaries went among cannibal tribes, eyes wide open, taking the risks.  And dying.  No political pull outs.  Died for their peaceful, loving, non-violent beliefs, killed by the enemies, in lifestyle, that they had gone to live among and convert/evangelise/win for Jesus.

Jesus said, so the Bible tells us, if we choose to believe it (or it might have been Paul), ‘render to no man evil for evil, but overcome evil with good’.  Armies and governments and terrorist groups are made of many people who, individually, would be identified as ‘a man’.  I’ve heard it preached and taught that war is a different kind of situation to which that does not apply.  That sometimes peace has to be fought for, and that that is the justification for war.  But how can you fight for peace with weapons of war?  If you do the same you become the same.  The act of war causes and deepens wounds in the psyche, personally and nationally, which make it more likely for physical warfare to continue to be embraced as an option.  People don’t repent, they go into denial and justification, and that isn’t something which makes for a future where this is less likely to happen.

We need to be transformed by the renewing of our minds (Romans 12), and that means to establish new habits of acting and thinking. I’ve noticed that when I take a step to do what is right, I understand how wrong the former thing was and how wrong its support structures and rationalisations.  Especially if I thought before that the right thing was the wrong thing.  In my early days as a Christian I was taught that pragmatism and compromise over the truth were not acceptable approaches to living the Christian life.  That belief has not abandoned me, even though these days the church is more at ease with ideas of necessity and pragmatism.  I’m not sure why that is.  Maybe I just haven’t moved on as I should have done.

However, I believe that the spread of peace depends on abandoning war as an acceptable way of ‘maintaining’ ‘peace’.  If war is not an option, we have to go further in building international relationships.  Not ‘so far and no further’.  So far then ‘how very dare you, sir?’  Peace is not compromise.  Peace is Shalom, whole and vibrant.  Peace is love, not polite, formalised, ritualistic functionality.

If war is not an option, outraged people with hurt egos can’t issue a call to arms, pumping out buzz words ten to the dozen that make you feel ashamed and embarrassed to disagree with them.  People who do not embrace armed conflict as an option must surely be easier people to approach.

If we want to talk about the brave people who die in the pursuit of peace, and lay down their lives, I think there is more chance of healing for the world and of leading by example if those people lay down their lives in refusing to kill, rather than in trying to maintain peace and security for their own group by killing people and groups who are seen to threaten it or who strike at it.  If we lay down our lives for peace, sacrifice our lives in being actively peaceful and refusing to engage in war.  Let our own lives be taken rather than kill an aggressor.  Rather than a few being brave for many, I believe we all need to face it and trust for ourselves.  That way we relate with love for all, even for our enemies.  That is how peace is built.  We are governed by peace because we are founded on peace.  It isn’t the result, but the whole structure.  As long as we need to protect our lives, we live with fear.

This is what I should do, not what I do.  I am protecting too much, things and goals which wanting to achieve make me careful for my life.  Crazy things, like seeing the end of coercive medicine in the mental health system, a change in understanding and an end to labelling.  Even more, I don’t want to die on my own, maybe never to be discovered and with my life seen as worthless and full of failure, and something to be despised and not missed.  That is my craziness, wanting to hold on to my life until I feel it is worth something, not so guilt-ridden and not so isolated.  That is how I feel under the present abuse.  Too guilty to die, and guilty for hanging on.  Sorry for coming back to myself, but on the other hand, I think facing and coming to terms with yourself is a necessary part of being able to embrace this lifestyle choice anyway.  So no, I’m not sorry, really.  You have to come back to yourself to lay your life down by deliberately committing to non-violence.  I know so.  I’m only sorry I can’t express it better because of what is going on in my life at the moment.  I could possibly express it if I chose my own advocated actions, but under the abuse I can’t do it in words.  The option for me seems to be to surrender to and make myself vulnerable to my abusers (who might only be abusers in my mind anyway), or not to be able to express it in words.  But I do have a problem with my abusers if that is the point they are trying to make  by their abuse.  ‘Join us, we’ll teach you the way of peace and non-violence by making you pass through the fire of our violence’.  Jesus didn’t use violence.  The Bible says the devil can appear as an angel of light, and that means his presentation is appealing and persuasive.  But trust goes to the cross.  They present as Christians, and everything I try to say is aurally countered, either actively or with silence.  Or is it all a product of my own fear and darkness?  The Bible says in Christ there is no darkness, it also says the darkness becomes light.  To me that doesn’t just mean that a light shines removing the darkness but that, where Christ is, the darkness itself, even the darkness of violence, is light.  That is the conviction of my heart and soul.  Love, my love for those who do me violence, makes even the violence a source of light and something into which I should walk.  And these words are darlings I refuse to kill by putting them into action.  The violence and exclusion/silence, because of the ‘hallelujahs’, feel like a call, a ‘trial by fire’.  But also, post-communism, it feels somehow inappropriate.  So why am I arguing so much?  Have we talked our way out of needing to pay the price, by invalidating the price asked and demanded as torture?

New readers take note, some of these people are named on my blog, most are not, in most cases because I don’t know them.  And when I say ‘imaginary friends’, some of them are friends in both my imagination and their own, and most of them are friends only in their own imaginations.  And obviously, throughout this communication, ‘friend’ can be substituted with ‘enemy’.

Or, to all stalkers and computer hackers everywhere.

(Shall I do it Kafkaesque? I think this is Kafkaesque, but I’m not sure).

They always say that, you know.  It wasn’t my fault.  I didn’t want to do it. They made me.  I had to do it to keep my job.  I was just obeying orders.  Yes, I knew people were real people, yes, I knew I was contributing to suffering and in some cases, most cases, authorising or executing people’s deaths.  I became a really cruel person to cope with that.  I couldn’t handle my conscience in the job any other way.  They disgust me, these people.  I, I, I.  I did it because this and I had to be this and that to handle it, but I never really wanted to.  It was my upbringing, at the time I had no choice.  Of course I’m sorry for the people I made suffer and killed, but I had no choice.  It was my job, you see. I was under orders.  I was under orders.  I had to obey orders.  I had a family to feed.  I had to keep my job.

No, it isn’t Kafkaesque, I thought it could have been, I thought I could do it, I felt in the ‘zone’, but . . .

My neighbours have just started up, hmm-ing and banging.  They know when my alarm goes off in the morning now.  I don’t normally use one, I haven’t used one for years, but I decided I wanted to set a time to be woken up or to mark the desired time of my latest waking, so that I would be setting the terms of my own waking, in the hope that being woken up by violence would stop.  But they know what time it goes off now.  When I came back from the police, at around the time my alarm had previously been set to go off (it was early, about 5.30.  I decided to let them have a wake up call on their own dirty terms, by day three she was screaming at me to shut up.  Can’t understand.  They have been at me relentlessly and mercilessly for ten weeks, in every private place and with more injurious means) a sound like a loud siren went through the whole building.  Retaliation. I don’t know what they were expecting.  I lay there in shocked silence, maybe angry, I can’t remember.  Probably defiant, but I can’t remember.  Possibly not defiant.  I had already changed my alarm to go off at a far more decent time, 8.15.  (If you want to know what my neighbours are doing as I write this, read yesterday’s ‘Odd Thoughts’ entry.  I won’t rehash old stuff again today).  When it went off at 8.15 they commented, souded disgruntled for some reason, but I don’t know why.

They try to pass themselves off as sweet, playful children.  Or she does, anyway.

Anyway, yesterday they made a noise over my bed just before the alarm went off.  Today they did the same thing.  I can’t remember how it went exactly, the order or anything.  I think a noise just before it went off.  It went off and I let it run out.  On purpose.  I didn’t switch it straight off.  Normally I would have done, like a nervous, obedient by training servant or something.  It ran out, and it went off again.  They seemed a bit annoyed.  I felt I had a point to make about whose home this is.  Anyway, as soon as it stopped, she imitated the sound of its buzzing, then tapped, then ran her tongue off, but not at me, almost as if I wasn’t there.  I don’t know if it is my own shock and grossed-outness and failure of resources to handle such grossly outrageous behaviour (is it outrageous by Bulgarian standards?  I still don’t know.  The days of the People’s Court are not that long gone.  I wonder how much it has been left behind in their thinking and practice, whatever their written laws say.  if my experience is anything to go by, it has not been left that far behind with a lot of people, even hallelujah-touters.  I say touters.  There is no guarantee that they are Christians just because they say hallelujah.  Some things, I believe, are not a matter of Christian education).  But back to my pre-bracket sentence.  Maybe it is my state of shock which causes the coincidence between my thoughts freeing up or creativity beginning to flow or separating from them in anyway, and the violently invasive and or ugly interjections which hit/meet those times.  My change has no intention.  It doesn’t happen by intention.  It might come out of a process of thinking, that I decide I am free to pursue my day apart from their terms and I begin to plan it, but most times I don’t even get that far.  All of this is silent.  But their actions are intentional.  They speak, loudly over my air, like a spiritual pronouncement, and I am sure it is intentionally. . . . it’s too weird to explain.  Or they bang.  If I cough natually and unguardedly, they bang.  They did this morning.  It is obvious which comes first in that situation.  But which comes first and what causes what when I am silent and they are noisy?  Are these wrong questions to ask?  Are these questions in themselves the nature of occultism?  Am I wrong to be concerned with these questions?  (Reminder to myself, mental illness, stalking, harassment and occult.  The bit below my blog title.  That is the reason for my questions.  It is not because I am proud or relationally inadequate.)

So here I am, I’ve been whipped and dragged a merry dance again.  I don’t know why I write it all down, it feels like the only way.   I want to go to the toilet but am afraid.  I want to shit, and they start saying dobre and hallelujah.  Every time.  Or banging.  I’ve always believed (she just ejaculated ‘dobre’ as I typed my bold italics.  See yesterday Odd Thoughts. But then see the rest of today’s post and know I haven’t a clue.  Before that he was purring prayer-ministry- type ‘hmm’ agreements.  They are stamping their territory today, still refusing to go to the police) that kind of thing is indecent.  Are they trying to force me out with indecent and violent invasion of privacy?  It looks that way.  I say I’ve always believed, but that isn’t really true.  It has never come up before for me to have an opinion about it one way or another, not even in my basement flat in london, really.  I should just stop writing instead of letting it take over my posts.  I don’t know why I don’t.  Probably a combination of exorcism, appeasement, stubbornness, fear and blind panic.  Outrage.

So, if I can retrieve something of my original intention.  What I was going to say was, to my stalkers, my imaginary friends and enemies, known and unknown, media, church, government and ‘other’ . . . .  I know . . . nothing.  She aims at my throat, and I know nothing.

So I’ll ask a question instead, which I intended to ask anyway.

OK, I can hear you stalking me.  You say you like me.  You say this is good, and that is good, but you’re not sure about this, and we need to back off and be careful, etc., etc.

But like, you like me, yeah?  From your stalking of me, that is the impression you have of your feelings about me.  That feels good to you.  You trust your own judgment, and you are happy because you believe I am worth stalking, because you end up believing good about me, and that makes you happy, and that feeds into your output in your programmes, or you can weave it into your sermons or policies or other presentations.

But what about how I feel, and what it does to me?

You are like expectant parents, cooing and taling over a baby in the womb.

But . . .

If you invaded that baby’s person and environment, as you do mine, for the same kinds of assessment and analysis and judgment, what kind of monster or creature do you think might survive to emerge?  Someone being stalked without their knowledge, or without proper acknowledgment of the fact when they realise, has no more resources to cope than a growing foetus, and no more chance of survival.  How, in your thinking, have you managed to change a person’s status from being a victim of your injustice and kidnap, effectively, into that of someone who should respond with gratitude and humility to your recognition (true or false) that they are and have a gift, and your terms of operation or utilisation?

We don’t do answers on a postcard these days, do we?  I was just thinking of the person who said that (Cindy Kent) and her part in this.  I could have expressed it very acceptably and decently and reasonably, but that foul, occult hallelujah indecently harassing criminal demon-child of a woman upstairs just made a verbal snatch for my thought.  That is what she always does.  They are always telling me I have no right.  Whatever I do.  How grossly entitled can some people feel and believe themselves to be?  I challenged her and she giggled.  That is gross in itself, given the ugliness and criminality she operates in most of the time.

If I don’t get this out, you will play with me until I do.  But you will anyway, and make me feel disgusting and guilty or disempowered and vulnerable, whichever fits.

God Hates Fags

So do I, ask my sister.

Dr Gallo, my Spanish psychiatrist, who called me obese in one of his reports, came towards me in the corridor once, and he absolutely stank of them.  I suppose I must have given him a questioning, intelligent, ‘oh really’ kind of look, because he looked a bit sheepish and uncomfortable.

I was thinking something along the lines of, ‘smoking kills, I don’t smoke, and I’m a nut, he smokes, and he is my psychiatrist.  He knows smoking kills, so he is addicted or in denial, or at least dishonest, because he goes out for a crafty one and looks sheepish when caught by one of his patients, or inmates’.  My actual thoughts were, ‘oh, he smokes’.  It was a bit of an enlightenment, an ‘aha’ moment.  I suppose I might have gone into my Christian prayer ministry and revelation mode.  But for me the logic behind my thoughts and feelings, as a psychiatric patient, is as previously stated.

It is my opinion that someone that insensitive, to write in a woman’s psychiatric tribunal report that she is obese, almost as though he were a vet rather than a doctor, and who smokes himself, ought not to be dealing with people on the mind level.

No, I didn’t mean homosexuals.  Not honest homosexuals.  I did that myself for two years.  I’m not sure how honest I was, maybe I rationalised my activity with the rationalisations I had been given by society and psychology until in the end it felt irrevocable and unchangeable.  Along the way of coming to terms with it I answered my own questions and my partner’s questions and probings with my own rationalisations drawn from society’s logic and permissiveness.  Of course, homosexuality used to be a reason to be detained under the mental health act, I think, or it was at least viewed as a mental illness.  But now it is a crime to show yourself ‘homophobic’.  I said that to the psychiatric staff on my ward.  I was sort of stonewalled.  Or patronised.  No one was interested in changing anything they were doing to me after I said it, anyway.

I was thinking about homophobia the other day, and wondering if there is such a word or crime as ‘Christianophobia’.  In the interests of balance I think possibly there should be.  Maybe ‘Religiophobia’ as well.  I have indulged, in myself, a homosexual relationship, though not a complete lifestyle, and I believed it was wrong beforehand and believe it was wrong now, afterwards.  And I am a Christian who believes the Bible says it is wrong and that therefore it is.  Unfortunately you can’t catch me with the shellfish argument, because I am also a vegan for moral and spiritual reasons.  Therefore I would not wear animal fibres either, mixed or otherwise.  So OK, I used to have a lesbian relationship, and now I am saying it is wrong, and that Biblical Christianity says it is wrong, which I believe.  Where does that put me as an individual on the crime scale, in relation to this issue? (By the way, I think Islam and the Quran also say it is wrong).  Not only the crime scale, but what are my own human rights on this, in terms of owning my own experience and my beliefs about it, including moral, spiritual and religious?  Can I be penalised for religiously aggravated homophobia against myself?  Do I have to limit myself in how I talk about my own life and beliefs about it?

The politicisation of ideas of right and wrong, illness and wellness.  Mental illness really is a political concept, isn’t it? Part of the irony, for me, is that an awful lot of force and assault, not to say violence, is used against some very non-violent people to make sure they take their ‘medication’.  By these people who say we are a danger to ourselves or others otherwise.  I do feel sick thinking about it.  Sick with violence and rage, the retaliatory kind.  That is a normal feeling.  I’m not acting it out.  There would be no point.  Their force and violence would be greater.

So the force and violence of a recognised professional body against an individual is OK and justified, but if that person, before not violent or physically forceful, wants to retaliate, even says they feel they want to, it isn’t?  It’s a threat to society?  But these professionals are not?

God hates fags – an interesting forage and forray.

There is no such thing as public opinion, because the public is made up of many people who hold many different opinions, and who are confused about th eir opinions and change them often, or are paralysed into inactivity or other manifestations of distress.

So I’m wondering how this became an accepted and acceptable concept in the first place?  It is a handy concept to impose, for some people and organisations.  Is it about making money and controlling people, or what?  I can’t think of anything else at the moment.

If you can invoke the concept of public opinion, you can use it not only to say ‘this is good and this is bad’, but also ‘this person is good, and this person is bad’.  In some societies the ‘good’ people can kill the ‘bad’ people for lesser crimes than murder.  That is not to say that killing people for murder is good (though for them it might be preferable to a lifetime of interment). 

I was going to say why should we be punitive by making the punishment last a lifetime, but then I thought about the possibility of change and rehabilitation which wouldn’t be available to them, or us, if we killed them.  Maybe, if we want to be really kind, we should give people an option of the death sentence or a lifetime’s imprisonment or stuck on a psychiatric ward on drugs.  If we are going to argue for voluntary euthanasia and the right to assisted suicide I can’t see why not.  And it might sort out the prison space problem and problems in the economy too, because we wouldn’t be having to pay for them.

You could argue that a life in prison or on psychiatric drugs is not the kinder option, if the person would prefer to get the whole thing out of the way immediately and just die.  Why should we want to deprive a criminal of that option, unless we ourselves are sadistically and viciously punitive?  But then there are others who are sadistically and viciously punitive in the other direction who would say, ‘and a good thing too, taking our space and costing us money’, but they might have a harder time maintaining that if the option of the death penalty was seen as a kindness rather than the ultimate punishment.

Obviously, I would be the mad woman.

I just heard some of the talk going on in Parliament about nice despots.  That is the impression I got anyway. So I thought I had better say something in my defence before I am made to look a more complete idiot than I actually am.

Practically, despots are made, not born.  What has happened in this man’s life that kindness and respect, rather than censure and name-calling, just might put right?  Is an expression of love ever wrong or inappropriate?  After people fight me down over my anger, even if it is an appropriate feeling, I still end up loving them, even feeling I like them, but by that time so much has been said and done it is a much more embarrassing feeling for me.

But then there is the stalking of which I am constantly aware, so that obviously affects the way I relate to people.

Practically from my point of view, my softness on Gadaffi might be for two reasons.  I only say might, the only information I have is what is thrown at me, I don’t know him.

Reason 1.  I don’t know my history (even if I did I might want to approach it as a therapist, not a judge).

Reason 2. My life has been filled with despotic/insecure/silently-wounded authority figures that people have insisted I should love, respect, obey and be grateful for.  My father, my grandfather, some of my teachers, some of my Church leaders?, some of the police, some of my psychiatrists and other psychiatric staff, neighbours, landlords, employers, fellow employees, some media people.  Etc, etc.  To me, both verbal and physical abuse and assault have been involved, and slander and defamation, and I was still expected to live with it and told it was OK, that the law allowed it, or they didn’t mean it, or it was just the way they were, or to get over it because it was a long time ago, or no one cared to give me an answer anyway.  Much of this has affected my life in negative ways, some of them irrevocable.

So those feelings which I have been brainwashed and tortured into feeling, the rationalisations I have been forced to adopt, are transferred to world despots, and I feel sympathy for them.  Or a sense of duty towards them.  I suppose sympathy, if I feel in any way filial, or identify with them in their despotism and what might have shaped and railroaded them into that.

I can’t write anymore.  The woman in my personal torture-chamber upstairs is murdering my thoughts and emotions and leaving me feeling so desperate and like minced meat.  They are violent and invasive and disrespectful of my privacy and harassing. Am I a target of evangelism, or is it milk the Anglichanka, or what?  Here Anglichanka, me , Anglichanka, I’m a baby bird, feed me, I’m good.  Don’t know.  They are violent and very personally invasive.  And I can’t think straight.  They are grabbing at my life and emotions like children with toys, sticking needles in me and sucking out the nectar, and saying I have to go to them to get it back.  That is how it feels.  Enough already, they insinuate themselves into everything.

A Few Stray Dogs

‘How much do you think you are worth, boy?/Will anyone stand up and say?/Do you think that your life is worth nothing/Til someone is willing to pay?’ Graham Kendrick.

I just had a real stray dog of a thought, bit of a sick animal.  I was thinking about Nero, playing the fiddle while Rome burned.  I thought maybe he didn’t do the wrong thing.  Maybe it was the right thing to do.  Was there anything else he could have done?

Then I thought wait a minute, he was a ruler.  There must have been something else he could have done?

But we aren’t all Nero, and rulers.  Man, I must be sick.  I’m thinking for some of us it might be exactly the right thing to do.

I think all I really mean is that I wish people wouldn’t pull worst case examples out of the hat and use them to put pressure on people where the comparison is completely inappropriate.

We can pray.  Of course we can pray, if we are religious.  I was going to say Christians then realised Christianity isn’t the only religion that encourages and advocates prayer.

There was a bit of a dialogue going on a few years ago, between ‘prayer changes things’ and ‘prayer changes people’.  The latter position says that, even if your circumstances and situation don’t change when you pray, you will change, and maybe consequently your situation will as well.

I had a conversation on the phone yesterday with a lady from my credit card company.  We got talking about coincidences because the number of my new card was similar to the number of the other new card which I didn’t receive.  I asked her if she had unsettling coincidences in her life as I had in mine, and we mentioned phone numbers. She said that her phone number was almost the same as her friend’s number, but with the numbers reversed.  I told her about my Skype number, and that one of the options offered was the first three numbers of my landline followed by the last four of my critical method lecturer’s phone number.  I rejected it, just stopped trying to get a number, then decided I’d quite like it, but when I looked again a few seconds later, it was no longer available.  Strange.  Instead I ended up with another one, which had the first two numbers of the last part of his number reversed, and the last two numbers of the last part of his number reversed, all in the last part of my number.

That number has lapsed now, I might have to start with a new one.

So I’m assuming a lot of people are subject to these ‘coincidences’.  Coincidences?  And what are they doing to our minds?  And what aberations are they causing in our behaviour and reasoning?

I’m thinking about the marches and demonstrations.  Maybe I shouldn’t be.  But is that really the best and most effective and responsible way to express discontent and dissatisfaction?  Especially in the internet age, when networking and communication about these things can be obvious and open, as a march is.  Surely internet action could be given the same kind of news coverage as a march? I think it should be.  For a start, there were thousands of police at the march yesterday, and have been and will be in attendance at other marches and demonstrations.  That is thousands of man hours and probably tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of pounds.  Does that help us economically?  Or does it add an extra drain?

I wouldn’t like to condone violence and damage to property in demonstrations, but I do realise there is discontent among us, the little people, at the bottom of the pile, while the big business and banking employers march off with tons of wealth. Sometimes anger comes out violently, with everyone, to some degree or other.

I think the news agencies need to make a big shift away from the sensationalism of demonstrations and that internet action needs to be highlighted instead and positively encouraged as an alternative.  And if people want a family fun day out, maybe a march isn’t the best thing?  Perhaps something which would add immediately to the quality of their lives and maybe to the economy would be better?

That isn’t a stray dog, and I didn’t have this in mind when I started, but I think it is a brilliant and responsible and progressive idea and am sure other people must have had it as well.

Who is this little savage, stripping people bare with her blasphemous imitation of speaking in tongues, stripping off the flesh then sounding pleased?  Coming on all offensive and aggressive, then going out tweeting purity?  She’s a bastard (biblical sense, if she is even that).

What point is she trying to make?

Why does she need to make it?

What are they trying to achieve by it?

Spiritual rape and armed robbery, it can only be.

They talk about ‘Twitter’ every time my mind and speech come strongly together, which probably means I have invalidated their deception and control at a deeper level and feel released from observing civil rules with stalkers and criminals.

This listen to mummy/daddy act they do.  It’s rubbish.  Mummy and daddy have told you the news.  Yeah, right!

9.30pm UK time.  the man who comes on treating really serious things as if they are a Talksport phone in has just come on, with the latest headlines before Hardtalk, and he said ‘turd’ for ‘third’, and talked about Vladimir or Vladivostok which consequently, deliberately or not, sounded like ‘bloody’.

BBC World News.  Making up emails or reading out plants.

10pm Jamie Robertson just said ‘spike’ as if he was spitting the word ‘spite’.  I get really upset at this.  I keep finding myself with the same expression on my face and attitude of mind (I suppose) and body as the News of the World guy who was done for phone hacking/bugging.

Anti-Psychiatry

I’m really embarrassed that, as someone who has never really believed in psychiatry, and as someone who lost her father to death by overdose at the age of 11, I have got to the age of 50 and never pursued the anti-psychiatry movement with any degree of commitment.

Although I am against the psychiatric view of people and their problems, I know that I am nervous of psychiatric patients and ex-psychiatric patients and don’t really want to spend time with them.

One of the reasons for this is that I think we are all too desperate, and in our own minds too undermined.  Most of the time we are grasping desperately, even at each other.

Another reason is that I think we develop a self-protective dishonesty, even if we didn’t have it before.  I’m not going in there in this post.

Another reason is that, in a structured group, the people running it, in my experience, are usually people who validate the psychiatric approach, or at least won’t speak against it.  For an angry and volatile anti-psychiatrist, like myself, that is not a good place to be.

Today I feel that my life has failed to mean anything, because I have failed to follow this in a committed way, when following it and investigating it properly was my obvious duty, as my father’s daughter.

I put ‘anti psychiatry’ into Google as a search term.  I’ve just started reading the first of the results that came up, the website www.antipsychiatry.org.  It looks as if it has some very well-written articles.

There is a whole school of thought behind this, from the 60s at least.  R D Laing I’ve known about for some time.  I didn’t know Foucault was one of them.

This might sound really selfish, but I feel really upset.  My life could have made so much more sense and been so much richer, if I had only known this before.  To me the obvious reason that I feel this way is that I feel I have something in common with these academics and might have grown up with them and in contact with them.  Obviously that doesn’t necessarily follow.  The feeling I have is, ‘oh no, not you.  I didn’t know you were into that.  Why didn’t you tell me?’, as if they knew me to tell me and I have always been a part of this community and I’ve got lost.  Or something.  I don’t know much about them anyway, I only know their names.  I don’t know why they seem to mean that much to me.  I never studied them adequately when they were part of my education, and they probably just represent this (supposedly) wonderful thing, education, to me, and the youthful ideal of education is what is invoked for me when I read or hear their names. 

What I am thinking, whether I like it or not, is that if I knew something about their lives, I might not be so keen to identify with them in their anti-psychiatric views and see them as the best proponents.  I don’t know anything about their lives.  Even if I did and didn’t like what I knew, that wouldn’t necessarily invalidate what they have to say.  People don’t like my life.  That might make me an embarrassment to my beliefs, or not, but in itself it doesn’t invalidate them.  Right beliefs are right beliefs, whoever holds them.  Like the belief that two and two make four doesn’t become untrue because of the life of the person who holds it.  And I have been taught two things about the universe, that it is both mathematical and moral.

Lady ‘hallelujah every time I cough or anything’ harassment upstairs has been on for the last half hour or so, latching onto my cough and my audio.  She’s doing my brain and my feelings in.  She’s savage.  I don’t know what I mean or what I’m talking about as long as this is going on.  I feel that maybe I never will again.  She is the nearest I have been to a demon and this is the nearest I have been to living with possession.  They frighten me so much.  It is so indecent and spiritually and psychologically violent, I feel beaten about the head just about all the time.  They combine violence and rejection and indecent invasion with a santa madre scenario.  Both at the same time I want to break down in totally reduced and beaten tears, and hit back.  They have been playing a locking and shutting doors game every time they hear me in the corridor recently.  She says ‘hallelujah’ when I cough.  What is wrong with this stupid moron?  Is she frightened of me or something?  Why can’t I cough and fart, etc, in peace, without this indecent and terrifying and desperation-inducing invasiveness?  I really can’t take it much more, and I wish some of these people who want me to think of them as friends (whether they are or not) would listen to me and help me and get me away from them.

I’m wondering if the idea is to make as much invasive and control-taking sound as they can, coming up to 10pm when everything is supposed to go silent, and then just shut up?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00zmc6f/The_King_James_Bible_The_Book_That_Changed_the_World/

Available until 9pm (8.59) tonight for watching or download.

I’m opening a new file – the VW FILE – Vulnerable Women Fall In Love Easily.

In this case the name came before the acronym.  Good though, innit?  On so many levels it would be a really long post if I wrote the explanation that suggests itself.

BBC World News Et Al

I’ve had enough of these guys, they are ludicrous. There is only one way to deal with them and stay sane, and that is to find them funny.  I even came up with a nickname for one of them this morning, which is not something I am into normally.  After his hypnotic gesture.  I found solace in humour (they keep clearing their throats off-screen, what has happened to the cough button?  It exsits.  It is rude not to use it.  It’s gross, especially when they deliberately heighten your sensitivity so you hear every minute sound), and thought of him as ‘Nick the Thing’.

It’s not the stories and their seriousness, I wish I could concentrate on those in peace.  It’s the other stuff they use to play with your head.  Peter Dobbie came on with what sounded like righteous indignation and grief which felt like an accusation in view of what I have just written (ed note: I added the bit about the cough button and nick names after this).  I would like to write more but again, the hard aggressiveness with everything that they put on it for a ride has completely wiped my mind of what I was going to write.

The guys who just went out, it seemed fairly obvious to me that they did a synchronised and agreed look down at their desk as they finished.  it was perfectly times and synchronised, and when I saw that I understood the ‘poised to spring’ body language that immediately led up to it.

I know Japan is important, but it is not my issue.  Maybe it should be, they make it feel as if it should be, but it isn’t.

Crikey, I’m sorry about this, but I swear some of these people deliberately posture themselves as accusers.  I don’t know how to put this delicately, but i am sure peter Dobbie just embodied piss.

Nick Ravenscroft came on and called peter by his name, and said ‘listening to you and Rachel’ in very intimate tones.  They look at us and say each other’s names.  I think that is deliberate psychological and spiritual aggression, but even if it isn’t, they give the impression of being there to relate more to each other than to us, and we are just the observers and eavesdroppers.  I feel a resistance every time I get the perfect word.  I know now that kind of thing is not my imagination.  So does everyone else, no matter how dishonest they are about it.

And for goodness’ sake, what is susan Powell’s gaffe?  She comes on like some high level care worker or doctor breaking bad news, ‘I know, I’m so sorry, I do sympathise, but that is how it is.  It’s OK, we’ll cope’. 

These people are bad, high-control, criminal egos.  Please Lord, no longer in my vicinity.  In Jesus’ Name.  Amen.

Someone speaking to Peter Dobbie just used the word ‘severe’ and Peter Dobbie cleared his throat.  That is it exactly.  That is the exact word for the way they are deliberately presenting themselves, in my opinion.  Thank you God that that got through.

‘Look up there, look over there (but I’m pointing you there contrary to you expectations from what I have set up, because I want to see your reaction or break your concentration).  Watch how often this happens in the whole communication and not just in words.

My first experience of this was in Bulgaria, after I complained to an internet cafe owner who I thought seemed really nice about the fact that two of his female customers had just been openly and unashamedly scathing of me as an English person, saying English people have no taste.  He did that and I was devastated.  I don’t know why he did it, I had never met him before.  He looked at me as if to say, ‘aha, yes, quite’ then completely turned his attention away from me.  He only got that reaction from me in the first place because I myself have a tender conscience and don’t like complaining about other people.  It didn’t even necessarily show that I am a bad person, but he seemed to want to take it that way.  I suppose it might have had something to do with his relationship with the women, but at the time I was just really upset and didn’t know what had hit me.

I’m mentioning this because the UK meida pulls a lot of things like this out of the bag.  It is like psyhological torture and pressure to go home.  But I don’t want to.  It’s interference.  Without it (he can feel me psychically, he keeps banging his stuff), I could have coped a lot better a lot earlier, and so could everyone else.  As it is they have just humiliated me, and feeling so humiliated I have to cope also with the possible loss of my home.

Peter Dobbie, this is gross.  And this deliberate sternness and strictness that you all keep putting out at us – who do you all think you are?  It is a complete insult and completely abusive.  Abuse on abuse.  And you bastards (yes, I’m upset)  . . . and now I can’t remember what I was going to say.  Whatever this is it projects as immovable and impassable.  They are holding me, at least, to ransom, and in so doing are empowereing others to do the same. And it is all on purpose.  I’m not sure what language peter Dobbie is now impersonating, but he just said ‘what are you seeing?’ rather than ‘what can you see?’  I believe this is a deliberate and obvious perception shifter.  The only contexts I can think of for where I might have encountered it are in therapeutic situations or in the House Church.  He’s talking to Rachel as if she is his daughter.  This is a public broadcast.  Every time I go to make a strong statement there is a bang in the studio, I suppose they are banging the desk.

I think these people might be examples of what the Bible is talking about when it talks about those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.  They use an Irish accent to good effect as well, I’ve heard them talk about it.  I don’t know why.  All that comes to mind is that I had an Irish boyfriend and Colin Dye’s wife is irish, and some of my ministers have known Ian Paisley and I think they thought I was a terrorist threat becasue of something I said and that they talked to him and I never knew.  All of these seem probable.  I know it is effective.  Everyone I’ve mentioned in this paragraph apart from my old boyfriend is involved with the government.  So when I have talked about the government in other posts and pages, I’m not being psychotic with delusions of grandeur.

Is the UK media trying to make people believe I’m a somebody with them?  Is that why people here keep going for my voice and trying to adjsut it to suit their own purposes?  But they can sound as sour as they like.

I just realised today (Wednesday UK time) while watching today’s The Daily Politics on the BBC, that the two commentators are deliberate resemblances of me and Michael Mish.  I could tell by their discomfort and slight embarrassment.

I don’t understand why they are doing it, not even after all these years.  Are they somehow trying to subsume me?  I’m not even involved with the media and never have been, except as an occasional caller.  Are they trying to tell people I am something else?  I know they tell me I’m all sorts of negative things.  What are they telling other people about me?  That I’m some sort of star come to grace their space, when my main concern at the moment is to keep my home of 14/15 years and not let my landlord evict me?  I’m a nobody about to become homeless if someone doesn’t get these people off me and let me think to deal with it.  I’m serious, even if now, at this time of night, I feel guilty saying so and would anyway, saying so.  I’m spending my whole time fighting this screeching banshee woman going for my ears and head, she is all I can hear all the time, my ears now are full of her and she isn’t even making a noise at the moment.  The feeling of her constant presence I suppose comes from her constant control while she is awake and insistence on a certain voice and banging or shouting when she hears it, and the knowledge that as soon as I begin to fall into a relaxed sleep or to wake up, it starts all over again, to some degree.  I know there is no respite.

Why are the media doing this to me?  I didn’t ask for anything other than an ordinary life and that is what I want.  Why are they messing with our lives and heads like this?  Why the tears and the impression they give that they have a right to be upset and offended at what they hear from their stalking?  I am not of them.  Who are they trying to give this impression to and why?  I have sought the friendship of a few.  It isn’t there.  I’m not a performer or anything else.  I am and always have been an ordinary person needing ordinary privacy while I fight for my own survival.  Why have they taken this and why are they surreptitiously suggesting the situation is something different?  Who are they suggesting it to and why?  I’m nobody.  The other people from my life that they also use and refer to probably resent it all as much as I do and that is why I have no relationships.  They are not calling me.  If they were they would, I have given them plenty of opportunity and sent plenty of emails that remain unanswered.  Malcolm isn’t calling me.  Tommy isn’t calling me.  Michael isn’t calling me.  No one is.  It’s a big, fat, lying con.  It must be.  It should be.  If they were calling me they would and should just get in touch normally.  And they don’t.

Different streams first.  I’m downloading the programme. 

I wanted to hear what was happening really early on and tried to break in the middle of an advert or song, so I tuned into the live stream for a second.  I heard a woman speaking, it sounded like Lizzie Crowe.  The downloaded stream is different and the woman’s voice isn’t there.  On the downloaded stream John says Lizzie is having a day off because she works on Saturday.

I’m wondering how long this has been happening and how many other stations do the same thing.  Maybe that is why I don’t get many detailed responses to what I write, because the downloaded stream is different from what you get when you tune in and I sound either as if I am lying or am hallucinating. 

I tried to upload an mp3 the other day.  I got a message saying that kind of file is restricted for security reasons.  I have the space upgrade and it is one of the allowed file types.  I think for all of these people the industry, or their place in it, might be more important than the truth.  I think if I tried to tell anyone, including Saints Tommy Boyd and Michael Mish, they would pretend they didn’t know what I was talking about.  I left some comments on Michael’s youtube account (mmish2) on the video ‘monkey forest’ which I thought were obviously from me (we corresponded for a year and spoke on the phone a few times, and I felt he was the person who both restored my sanity and ability to stand up for myself, and who kept me sane.  I felt he was a really good and beautiful and wise and sensitive friend.  I still do), but he sent a note asking if he knew me from somewhere and has blocked me.  They would blank me and treat me like an idiot.  They have done it before, many people do.  Tommy emerges with a post when he wants to comment on one of mine and make an impression, if he is the writer.  Last night the comments were still there on Michael’s account.  He might remove them now.  He might change his account name.  I hope he doesn’t, and if he loves me I hope he forgives me and re-establishes the relationship he said was over.  Premier, at least for one, appears to be dealing in deception of a kind I wouldn’t have thought anyone would and didn’t know anyone did, and definitely not Christians.  

I have no friends.  It is an illusion, and I know now how abusive it has been, and how murderous.  I have people I love, but they are not friends.  They aren’t even brave or honest and are possibly illegal though they posture as respectable.  John Pantry is nasty and needling, as well as criminal, and so are the people who hit me with flurries of computer and application crashes at significant times, like now.  I’m now recording both streams.  They know I’m into the performing arts and are trying to pass it off and make me value it as a creative response to a crisis, or at least make me believe that other people will value it on those terms.  I believe that is another particularly devious and abusive aspect of their deception.  The men were laughing and jeering.  My recorder crashed or was crashed and I have lost my live stream recording, and I got confused and also wiped my download.  John is savage.  He tracks what I’m writing as I write it and talks with jeering, exalted ‘serves you right tones’ when something I am doing goes wrong.

They are into impersonation as much as the secularists and impersonate mental health and police authorities and adopt how dare you tones, look at what you’ve done tones.  Because of what they have already done to me and allowed to be done to me, maybe, and in some cases definitely, even instructed people to do to me, I feel hysterical and as if they are grabbing and attacking me physically, from a distance, one that allows them to mock and make me believe they are getting away with it and that no one cares or will hold them to account, because that is what has been involved in my ‘management’ and ‘treatment’ so far, for over a decade, while the mental health authorities have been involved and utilised.

They are trying to make me believe no one will believe me or care or think it is significant even if they do.  They are trying to make sure that even if they have to pay for what they have done and are doing, I myself will remain damaged in my mind and emotions for the rest of my life for opposing them, God’s anointed.  That is what this kind of leader from their kinds of churches do and major on, it is how they teach.  I’ve spent most of my life, about 40 years, exposed to this, closely and with very few breaks.  It is vicious, malicious, cruel and deceitful.  It is actually murderous.  They know I understand the word ‘fantastic’ and am into etymology, and they are teasing me with it in its literal sense, that it is beyond belief.  It is spiritual molestation equivalent in tone to a verbal guided fantasy of sexual molestation, and they are dangling in front of me the teaching I have most deeply and readily embraced and basically saying ‘hurt us and you lose this’.  I’m talking about their teaching, but I hear my own, very strong, sexually referential undertones just as obviously as everyone else will, and they have blocked and accused me at that level for years.

At the beginning John prayed a prayer about the trust of children (I wrote this paragraph first, I now realise how deep and monstrous is their betrayal and abuse of trust).  But little children don’t trust.  They don’t have that awareness when they are first born.  When they do come to awareness, they often still don’t trust.  They just take things for granted as they are.  You could say an abused child trusts, but they don’t really, they just don’t know anything different.  I was an abused child, and frightened and miserable, but I didn’t know it could be different.  Even if I experienced short periods of difference with other families, I didn’t know it could be different for me.

I think trust is often in spite of and is more an adult thing.

These people will pay for every life they sabotage.  I pray God will hurt them for what they have done and are doing, as criminals, especially those who hold office and responsibility, always should be hurt and have to pay for what they have done to their victims.  They say I can be free and healed.  I believe that.  But they have no right, as abusers and criminals, to offer me that.  That is abusive and torturous in itself.  I want them to suffer the consequences the law says they should.

I started to pray when I couldn’t bear what I was listening to anymore.  At that point John said ‘put that sherry down, it’s too early’.  I took it as aimed at me, and was frightened and upset.  It was aimed at someone, and was symbolic in use.  They don’t talk straight and accountably.  Most of their audience is a victim of deception, and some of us helpless victims of their assumed stupidity and abuse because the other part of their audience wouldn’t believe that of them.  They help the violent and abusive against me.  Psychologically they help people to extort from me, their own violent members into whose hands I have fallen or been deliberately delivered.  I’m fed up of wide boy pastors and people coming on clean cut while they criminally work me over and take everything they can.

Presence

As soon as you write, as soon as you speak, as soon as you watch or listen to something, you are already removed from your core reality.

I think that is our problem.  We are too noisy, too busy, too dazzled, too driven, too personally dispersed and fragmented, too opinionated, etc, etc, to make real connections.

I believe that’s the truth.

I’m thinking about economic and employment philosophy and why we are urged to live such a market place life, instead of nuclear and private.  I don’t know.  I’m an ignoramus.  I couldn’t tell you.  Even my question might be stupid.  Harking back to a localist paradise that never existed.  There has always been intermational trade and relationships.  We should want to open up to the world, shouldn’t we?

I watched some videos online the other day, by a legal expert in the US, saying it would be OK, in law, to lie to Mr Assange to lure him to a place where they could kidnap him.  I understand the feeling of what he is living with, in terms of the threat and uncertainty (even though I do not know that my life is in danger) living with threat from authorities (and non-authorities) in different ways. 

I don’t think there is anything I can do, but I wish it wasn’t happening to him.  I feel like pleading with him, ‘please don’t die’.

It shouldn’t be legally OK to lie to anyone.  Certainly not for government bodies.  But they do it all the time.  For our protection, they say. 

I don’t want a society riddled with and ‘protected’ by lies.  Some Christians quote Rahab who hid the spies and lied about where they had gone, as being an example of when lying is right.  But the Bible says ‘God is not a man, that He should lie’.  It also says ‘Walk before me and be thou perfect’.  In the New Testament it also says ‘put off lying one to another’ and ‘let no corrupt communication come out of your mouth’.

For me these are heart and covenant verses, and the only ones I can remember out of my own head.  But no one has the right to argue, based on what they see from my limited memory, that the whole issue is a covenant thing and that there are some circumstances, therefore, when lying is right to, or about, certain people.

The reason I say this is that the New Testament isn’t big on self-protection, not for Christians.  We are told to honour all men, and to do good to all (even though it does say especially to those wo are of the household of faith, that doesn’t mean it is OK to do evil to someone else, even if the law demands that they be punished for a crime). 

If the law allows lying, the law is a mess.  Why should the only sanctified place of honour be in court, where it becomes illegal to lie?  Think how much time and money and distress would be saved to so many, if only lying itself, in whatever circumstances, was a crime.  Why isn’t lying, such an abusive and dishonorable thing, a crime?  So that lawyers can continue getting fat?

The New Testament isn’t big on self-protection or for terrestrial country being on a par with God.  Christians were encouraged to accept death for refusing to say, ‘Caesar is Lord’.  I think that encouragement was right.  People are not perfect.  Even if the only acceptable point being made here for some people is that the individual’s conscience comes before any allegiance to king and country (or continent, or one world government, since that is obviously what people are trying to practice, it doesn’t have to be treated with sensationalism for it obviously to be true), I believe that is the point that has to win the day, over and above loyalty to earthly government and authorities.

The spies might have been covenant people, but they were also ordinary men. Who wouldn’t be grateful for having their lives saved?  If in rewarding the woman for that they affirmed lying, they were wrong.  The Bible says she was also a harlot, whatever that means, maybe it isn’t it’s modern meaning.  They weren’t, surely, rewarding and affirming that, if it was what is understood by the word today.  They were showing human gratitude and mercy.  Who knows, maybe they should never have involved the name of God in the transaction at all.  It was a normal, human response to someone who has saved your life.

The fact that someone uses an exalted tone doesn’t make them right.  Maybe they didn’t use an exalted tone, maybe it is just the way I have heard it read and carressed in Church.  I think a verbal carress expresses joy and gratitude and strong feeling.  it is not necessarily an indicator of truth, even though you might feel that people capable of expressing such strong and positive feelings can’t possibly be wrong.  People and their feelings should never be idolised.  Feelings rely on information.  Information might be wrong, or wrongly understood.  No one should ever say to another, ‘I am so and so, do as I say’, unless it is in a clear matter of law.  That is why, I believe, we need to be dispassionate and not inflammatory, if a safe world is what we want.

Final PS – is narrowcasting legal?  Very narrow casting?  Based on information you have collected through electronic communications about a person, or collected by some other means?  Read the paragraphs in bold.  Internet Explorer.  If it isn’t legal, what are they playing at, and how much can I sue them for?

Dear BBC World News – I have a right to watch the tv, especially the news, without being deliberately and specifically targetted by you or anyone else for spiritual and psychological attack.  God is going to break you and everyone else who attacks me.  That is His promise.  He does not tell lies.  Not like you and whoever you feel empowered by.

When I was a kid we were shown public information films at school, about the dangers of getting into a car with someone we didn’t know.  I seem to remember, although I might be mixing it up with instructions on traffic lights, that red is for danger.  I’ve also learned to associate it with aggression over the years, and I think that is a commonly held perception.

I was just watching Lyse Doucet(t?), and she was standing there in red, almost saying, ‘touch me if you dare’. After what I have seen and heard from her before, I felt helped by this perception.  She talks almost like someone with brain damage, in her attempts to sound casual, but I thought what I saw at the end of her live report revealed a very driving woman, not casual at all.  My question is, why the act?  And the smile at the end of her report on Libya was almost triumphant and self-satisfied.

I thought today, when I saw one of the female reporters, there they are, using things specific to me, continually, not just stuff that is part of the common culture and available choices which are ‘completely coincidental’ in their constant recurrence (they might be!  It’s called making fashionable choices, perhaps, but funnily enough, every ‘unfashionable’ choice I have made over the years has been quickly copied by the industry, like the teaming of colours.  Maybe it is what Jung would have called a product of the oversoul [is that the right figure of speech?], where the same different thing pops up at the same time in 2 different and unrelated places – but I think not).  That was a long bracket, I’d better start again.  When I saw one of the female reporters (jobbing actors) today, putting a face almost blank of expression up at the camera and vocally acting out feelings which, if real, come from somewhere right behind your midriff, and given the fact that they use so much of my stuff, I thought that was probably a very good explanation of why, when I encounter blankness and worse from other people, emotionally I fold from the stomach, and nothing I do can help me retrieve myself.  Because even when they see me fold, the blankness or worse remains, when I hope for sympathy and identification.  Maybe they don’t see it.  If they do, I obviously don’t know how, in my case, they interpret it.  Perhaps they think I am copying the people on the television and think I am above myself, when actually I believe the exact opposite is the case.

Strange, lady whatever her name is, Kate something, I thought she was Natasha Kaplinsky, I thought that was her name on ‘Would I Lie To You?’ the one with hair like Worzel Gummidge – talk about scrambling stereotypes and perceptions, as Simon Schama said the other day on Thursday’s Newsnight) has just (it was ‘just’ when I typed it at about 12.50 pm, half an hour ago – I separated this paragraph from its order and context so the post would read more easily) mentioned a ‘delusional’ character in “Black Swan”, and now she is copying my laugh, and all of my deepest emotional expressions (remember they are jobbing actors) like she and so many others copy the way I often used to say in delighted gratitude and desire to hold onto the relationship with the person I was speaking to, ‘thank you very much . . . thank you’ – that is me, it is very upsetting to hear them all doing it back at me).  These people are egomaniacal thieves.  They do it to each other as well.  I don’t know, maybe some of these people really are as empty-headed as the day they were born.  Maybe the flashes of intelligence and apparent conscience have only been born in them since reading blogs by people like me.

I’ve had enough of this post now.  They’re still criminals.  Civil disobedience is one thing, but stalking a vulnerable person is something else.  Remind me to talk about Ruby Wax’s latest money spinner.  On ‘Something For The Weekend’.  I don’t like what I see and hear there, something is amiss – in my opinion, which is obviously nowhere near as perfect as these people’s.

PS  The paragraph that starts “I thought today, when I saw one of the female reporters . . .’ was the beginning of this post going out of control.  This has happened in other posts as well.  Something seems to happen when I start typing, they place a few trigger words from my personal life or writing or telephone calls or desperation talk at the still plugged in headphones on Saturday, and it seems as if it is being used as a marker or something, then they verbally run off in this way, in exactly the same way which is hysterically replicated in my post from that point on.  Today I switched the sound off after about 5 minutes and tried to retrieve as much self-control as possible, but with neighbours banging at me when I shout at the man on the telly that he is not going to shout at me like that and to get off my telly it’s a bit difficult, and it does affect my self-control in writing and speaking.  It seems the only thing that is allowed from women around here by way of distress is high voiced hysteria.  Which I obviously felt touched by, or it wouldn’t be haunting me, but there is nothing I can do for them, and I didn’t bang at her while she was doing it.  Would I have left her screaming in pain and anger and desperation, unable to breathe and feeling as if I was dying, as she did me?  I don’t know.

Something else, while I think of it.  I recently had a new hard drive disk put into my computer.  When I did, the messages from Internet Explorer went back to the way I remembered them ages ago.  Ordinary, technically-couched information about crashes and unavailability of websites.  But after a few days I noticed that the messages I was getting about unavailable websites went back to what I had become used to and afraid of and angered by and felt assaulted by on my old disk.  The message I have started getting again for unavailable websites reads something like this:

‘Internet Explorer is unable to connect you to this website.  It appears that the website continues to have a problem’. 

‘It appears that x continues to have a problem’  is something I have come to associate with charismatic and housechurch groups.  It is the acceptable way, especially among counsellor and prayer ministry types, of rubbishing a person and being angry and resentful towards them because you feel inadequate about the fact that, in spite of all your efforts and everything you have been taught to apply, they are stubbornly refusing to be helped (that is what is meant, even if it isn’t said).  I’m getting this language all the time in messages about unavailable sites, from Internet Explorer.  I’m wondering if other people are getting the same message when they can’t connect to a website?  Until I had my new disk installed and started getting the old, normal language messages, I thought everyone was getting what I just said, but for the first few days with my new disk I was not.  I think it had also gone back to saying a straightforward ‘reconnect’ instead of saying ‘try to reconnect’ which comes with the other rubbish and makes me feel, apart from stalked, inappropriately emotionally grabbed at.  First they are stalking me then putting out these therapy-talk, church-talk, emotional appeal messages instead of just saying ‘reconnect’.  No wonder people think I have a stonger relationship with my computer than with people.  To me it seems this is abusive at every level.  I constantly feel shock, fear and anger.  And also feeling harassed and all the guilt that goes with the way I handle it, I’m in no fit state to go out.  They play on the guilt and make it as prominent in my thinking as they can.  I was just thinking I had had a completely clear run on this paragraph, no browser crashes, but as soon as I went back a line or two and inserted something about guilt, connecting my mind and emotions in my communication, my browser crashed again.

I’ve just switched BBC World News back on, and Peter Dobby, immediately after hillary Clinton’s speech which was in progress as I switched on and my reason for switching on, said ‘she spacically’ instead of ‘she’s basically’.  2.50pm UK time.  I black guy has just come on with the sport, doing the same ‘I’m hardly in control of what I am saying’ verbal incontinence/half brain damaged impression, saying in a taunting tone, ‘it won’t be enough to’ something about the wicket (wicked, wiki, Wicca, wikileaks?  He didn’t say cricket anyway, which was what we should have got.  Causing shock to me releases some sort of wave of energy in the studio.  They have a breath reaction to every mental movementof mine.  They do it on purpose.  That’s what I mean, and his contemptuous face.  That’s what I mean by mixing violence and subliminality and stalking and psycholinguistics.  They are damaging more people than me.  They must face everything the law can throw at them for this, it isn’t sweet, it isn’t kind, it isn’t cute, it is evil.  Peter Dobby has just come back on and the first thing he did was say a word as if clearing his throat, contemptuously.  I don’t care, Tommy Boyd, how much you say media presentation has changed, this is extremely rude, unprofessional and abusive.  he just said a word to sound like masturbation, and he has followed it up with the word robust (as in bust) talking about Hillary Clinton.  Peter Dobby is a savage dog.  Something changed in a rhythm somewhere.  As soon as I started the sentence calling him a dog he stopped talking over the broadcast of William Hague, and exactly now he has just started again.  They are hacking my computer.  They are indecent.  I am a dalek.  I will exterminate.  Let me at him, the bastard.  They break me down like this on purpose, and if I hide it and pretend it hasn’t happened, they use it against me at a later date. This is desperate.  Help me, someone.  Not through the mental health system, but properly, through getting these people by law for what they are doing.  Peter Dobby has backed off now.  He’s done his damage, nowhe can just go silent and let me get on with losing it and being terrified of what he is doing and the way he is using what he knows to be my fears against me.  I know they are looking at this, I can imagine their reactions, they are indecent, and like being with instincts, I want to hit back.  Ben whatever his name is was just acting out in his speech action his words that people don’t have control. Bulgarian people talk like that a lot.  I think UK media people started copying that shortly after I came here.  My browser has just started multiple crashing again, before it did I said that Lyse Doucett had just spat the word ‘question’, which I have said before they often and deliberately say like ‘quistion’ to sound like ‘Christian’, I said it about Robert Elms the other day.

With an absolute poker face they get my attention with something intimate, then adopt an intimate tone saying something which sounds instructional as if they have a right to do that.  So when people say that people on the television and radio are talking to them, I believe that, unless they are lying, in many cases they are probably right, and it isn’t a delusion out of mental illness.

All this, in spite of the fact that I have asked them and given them permission to contact me through proper channels. They still insist on using these methods.  They are trying to maintain a speech rhythm, for some reason.  They are not communicating straight, and therefore they are not communicating honestly. They are sly, manipulative, crafty and criminal.  These are bad and evil people and what they are doing to us is criminal.  In fact, with all the verbal power plays I’ve seen and heard from everyone recently, I’d say they are paranoid and in complete chaos and out of control, and telling me to sit or lie down in the corner as if I am a dog.  Perhaps the most evil thing about them is that, as it will obviously suit them to do so, they will deny all knowledge of me and of everything I have said.  I haven’t published this yet.  Peter Dobby has just said a word to sound like ‘sly’.  And I haven’t put it out yet.  I can’t mend what he and his do to me emotionally, because they are supposed to be trustworthy and I’ve been conned and it’s destroyed my life, but I would be satisfied if I could get them legally.  He just said, ‘now it’s time for the finance news’ as if he was saying ‘I love you’, then there was a pregnant pause, and he came back with a slightly derisive sounding tone and said ‘we’ll get that in a minute’.  He just said ‘most’ like ‘must’.  I could let him do this to me for hours unless I stop him.  He’s savage.  He just talked about looking at something critically when I amended something at the top of my post to ‘read the paragraphs in bold’, and he did the verbal incontinence thing with a completely straight face.  I don’t want them doing this.  It’s torment.  Many of them are playing the verbal incontinence game.  I know they break me down on purpose, at important times, so no one will take any notice of anything serious and important and relevant that I have to say, after reading the results and consequences of what they do to me.  Give up, Peter Dobby.  I’m not going to give you or do what you want.  Unless all you want is the kick of knowing you are having an effect on me.  He’s just done the harshly emphasised ‘ah’ and ‘out’ thing they always do, along with the ‘back’ stuff’ and other things.  There is nothing wrong with me, Mr Dobby.  I don’t need what you are doing.  Respond to what you have been given.  Or are you and people like the government working together even though you give the impression, more often than not, of being deeply critical and at war with each other?  Is it really cosy behind the scenes and off the air?  When did the Cobra Committee come into existence?  I never noticed it until shortly after I thought that Sofia, the capital of Bulgaria, looks a bit like ‘Cobra’ in Cyrillics.  That was some time ago in the last 15 months.

My serious point: why does Hillary Clinto need to talk rhetorically about serious abuses, instead of just abuses?  Is she rabble rousing?  What is the difference between an abuse and a serious abuse, and what is the difference in the way they are treated.  Watch your answer, bearing in mind that out of little acorns, great oaks grow.  David Cameron sounded as if he just said mental, and smiled a secret smile (5.40 pm).  With the same affected little verbal incontinence.  Did he say that?  Something about the communication wasn’t straight.  He sounds very urgent.  Maybe it is as affected and illigitimate as the assumed intimacy.  What about human rights abuses at home, Ed and David?

They are so melifluous, as smooth as oil, these people, whatever they are talking about.  It seems to me they are being so smooth about Libya as to be dismissive of its importance and complexity.  But maybe it should be smooth and easy, talking about first steps.  I think David just deliberately shot an ‘um’.  They deliberately shoot a lot of words.  Including the istruction to ‘utter complete rubbish’ which was dressed to look like a derisive jibe.  He’s just adopted an exalted tone.

I think this is the kind of thing people like Peter Dobby are trying to make me believe they are ‘helping’ me with and to do.  I was just thinking about God and David Cameron just said ‘listen to the man and his experience’ and George Osborne started sniggering then strted looking a bit sheepish or miserable.  That is the sort of thing I was talking about when I talk about psychic targeting and spiritualism.  I just thought he might be picking up on the thoughts of my upstairs neighbour, who has just started moving around again.  At which point Peter Dobby broke in and cut it of, just after I had said I was thinking about God, and he said something emphatically about hearing something on ‘this channel’, and channelling is a psychic activity, as they know I know.  I think they are exploiting this information with the help of some very skilled writers, if not actually engaging in the spiritual activity.  But maybe that isn’t it.  Maybe I am just one of a whole group which is being targetted in this way.  Some are hurt and offended, some are flattered, and some don’t care or are unaware.

Nik Gowing is on.  He went straight for the sympathy muscle, which for me is the most direct way to guilt and feelings of responsibility.  I’ve got the sound down.  Nothing to react to.  As soon as I turned the sound down I felt as if I should go and apologise to my upstairs neighbour.  That’s how I know he went for my sympathy muscle.

Look at the state of this post!  I’ve had several ‘comments’ I haven’t published, in exactly the same state, and all of them, I think, are or are posturing as very detailed sex shop adverts.  I would not be surprised if I am deliberately driven to replicate that if I insist on continuing to write and make observations about what they are doing and saying while the sound is on.  I switched on yesterday and heard a female presenter talking about ‘weird behaviour’, talking about Gaddafi.  That is hardly dispassionate and is provocative.  It is crudely biassed, and they must know better than that.  Is their training that inadequate these days?  I’m not sure we can trust our country’s image and communications with these people.  Or impressionable minds.  An impressionable mind is one that is not set and formed.  The more knowledge you have, the less impressionable you are likely to be.  I’m not sure if what I think I know has any value at all, but I know that most people will not be at all aware of things like psycholinguistics and related subjects.  I know I only know a bit and if I knew more I might not have so much reason to feel as if I might be being ridiculous.  But I think it matters, adversely, when a presenter in a news agency talks about ‘weird behaviour’ in such a sensitive situation.  People who talk exactly like this are running our mental hospitals.  It is little wonder that people who are already broken down and feel abused and assaulted by the system and its keepers sometimes turn to violence.  People outside of the mental health system are no different.  Politicians call it declaring war, or something like that.  They don’t do it one on one.  They get armies of people taught to see the forces as an opportunity to learn a skill and see the world to do and die for them. They would have us believe, for us.  I’m not coming.  War party, me no wanna go.

I keep seeing politicians crying into the camera, early in my time here in Bulgaria, when the police stopped me twice in two days from coming home.  That is a very strong sympathy muscle action.  I know they must have wanted to do me some good and help in some way.  I feel I should always trust and honour politicians like that, because they will always be right, their hearts will always be right, and at the very least mine is wrong if I don’t obey authority.  Surely a politician in tears is someone to be trusted, even if they are breaking all the rules about open and legally accountable communication?  The fact that they seemed to think it was necessary to communicate in that way has perhaps made me more afraid and stupid here in Bulgaria than I have needed to be.  Unless there is a real danger for me, and maybe because of me, for my country, here.  If so, why have they backed off, why isn’t my Embassy being responsive to me?  Do I yield here, and post it as is, as I want to?  No, I don’t.  Because if I yield they command from 2000 miles away using illegitimate intimacy, or they drag the game out just a little bit more, robbing me of any feelings of having tried to do the right thing and of self-worth that I have left.  The Consul’s name is Jon O’Shaughnessy.  For over a week now I have received no response from him or his team about anything I have said to them.  They have humiliated both themselves and me.  I went to them absolutely openly and legally with everything they needed to know, and they started coaxing me without committing to making me feel safe at the other end from the mental health authorities and others.  I’m afraid to come home. When I say that they emphasise that I am free, in the same coded way, but I reesnt the mode of communication and I am basically afraid of coercive arrest with intimidation at the airport on criminal or mental health grounds, even though I have tried to pursue things through both the police and the IPCC systems without response, over months.  I wish Hillary Clinton woiuld get off my screen.  She’s using the same stuff.  She’s dumbshowing in the same way.  I think she has made it clear that she knows Jean Darnall, or at least of her.  I thought it meant that Jean has relationship and input into US gvernment, but perhaps it doesn’t.  Mrs Clinton came out on several occasions that were important in my life and communication, looking the image of Jean in everything about her.  Her face, her walk, and everything.

As for me being a criminal, the police here have told me that I am not a wanted person here in Bulgaria, otherwise they would know, they said.  I asked them when I had to report my passport missing.  I’ve had no communication from the police at all, for months.  I try to avoid situations where people have involved them before, some of those situations the police have apologised to me for.

I’ve just had a thought.  Lyse Doucett.  I looked at the name and gradually made a connection between it and the song that goes, ‘tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies’.  ‘Douce’ is the French for ‘sweet’.  Is this supposed to be helpful?  Who are they treating as if they need to be held down and forced to tell the truth?  Isn’t this just dishonorable and underhand, whoever does it?  If this is the basis of power relationships, it’s madness.  It’s madness.  They’ve gone off into morality play and fairy tale land.  These people responsible for our lives and well being.  They don’t know how to do it straight.  It’s lunacy.  And they call the rest of us lunatics, or whatever else injurious they can beat us and injure us with.  If they have not lost touch with reality and if they are not bombarding us with unreality, what is the situation?  Is this how they call on a higher morality in a world where people are not legally obliged to help people or slippery if they are, and where lying is not a crime?  I think this is abusive.  I think they are psychologically doping us, and maybe that isn’t the motive, but it is still the outcome.  The word is not the reality unless the reality it represents is upheld by law.  You can’t forsake the reality and criminalise people for intolerance or harassment or whatever, or call them mentally ill for holding to the reality, and hold on to the power of the words that uphold the reality you have forsaken and despise in practice.  Not unless you are crazy, deceitful or trying to impose an agenda using the definitions of the reality you want to invalidate, and along with the reality, everyone who values it.

6.04 pm  Lyse Doucett has just hit me with a very forceful mention of Jeremy Bowen, then she mentioned it a second time, softening it and softening and twinkiling into it, which always makes me feel guilty for having found fault with it in the first place, and as I am feeling exposed and guilty, they go straight into a politically sensitive interview.  They do this all the time.  It is a spititual block or a spiritual tap, it probably has different intended functions at different times.  I had a teacher at school called Bowen.  Surely I don’t need to say more.  They are moralising at me. They have no right.

I just heard David Cameron’s speech repeated, and I thought he didn’t even care.  not really.  he was talking about not letting regimes attack their own people with military force, but in our country even the police, at demonstrations, without military aid, kill and seriously injure people.

I watched Hillary Clinton again as well.  I got the impression she was deliberately acting out a ‘street’ persona.  Really.  I was so convinced I was horrified at what I believed to be reality.  Why would she be deceiving us in that way?

Ben whatever his name is is on.  I was just wondering why the news presenters deliberately and routinely, while they are talking, look over momentarily to the side, as if trying to stop something that comes into their minds from breaking their focus about what they want to say.  If they say it is just so they won’t worry about whether or not they have turned the gas off, I won’t believe them. Lyse Doucett just did that.  While I was wondering about it light dawned and joy showed on Ben Brown’s face, and he flashed his eyes over to the side, as if communicating it had been picked up, and then he twisted his mouth, almost like an occult control on mine.  That is how I interpreted it.  Straight after Peter Dobby came on talking about ‘focus’, then he questioned Jeremy Bowen and said ‘what did he say?’, and the lift in his voice towards the end struck me as full of false innocence.  It’s almost like a pub chat, over Libya.  That is disgusting.  Why are they pitching to the pub?  Why are they trying to make me feel, as long as I watch them and listen to them, that I am either in a brothel or a pub?  The squawking voices are all wrong.  The deliberate squawk, they all do it.  They are going for our ability to think straight and independently.  It grates, and it makes people stupid.  I heard a few years ago, that the process of thinking involves your vocal cords and your tongue.  I believe this, and I believe our thinking processes are under attack.  While I was writing this, Peter Dobby twisted a word, deliberately, and markedly and deliberately sped up his speaking.

Is Peter Dobby a witch?  Which came first, Dobby the house elf in Harry Potter, or Peter Dobby the news reader?  And why the doubling up?  I am sure the mental connection is being used to full effect.  Tanya Beckett has got her ‘you naughty girl’ voice on.

I just looked at my aol email account, before 6pm.  On the ‘today’ section, they are running an article about error messages on computers, and are showing the ‘fatal error’ message.  They’ve been doing this sort of thing to me for years.  Is it supposed to be funny, or menacing, or what?  Are any of those considerations more important than or as important as the question, ‘should they be doing it at all?’?  If they know enough to stalk me with that, they also know I am and have been afraid for my safety, there is nothing funny about this, it could, conceivably, be a message to someone other than me, and for me psychologically it is an incitement to violence in retaliation (or at least to fall apart with impotent anger), and it might be a literal incitement and instruction to violence to someone else.  It could beI struggled for the word ‘impotently’, I couldn’t remember it, and as I was getting hold of it, Tanya Beckett’s eyes sort of widened and she suddenly went into a jerk forward on a word followed by a jerk back.  She followed it up with a chavvy accent (reminds me of ChavvyVicky, the psychiatric nurse in Croydon with cats that became a problem at the same time I said something problematic.  She was a character or caller on the Clive Bull Show on LBC.  That was also meant to offend, I believe.  I don’t know what I believe, they are so psychologically violent in their presentation.  After Tanya Beckett’s Chavvy act, she started doing ‘look, I’m a squeaky girl’ modulations with her voice, and I was thinking, ‘what are you on with, then I remembered i was looking at an actress, and admired her ‘as an actress’, and she looked triumphant, but she is supposed to be dealing truthfully and straight with fact.  But the jerking backwards and forwards, at that time.  There is definitely something going on there, occultically.  Lady blonde porcelain has gone back into her dominatrix act, and when I let a sound out of my own mouth to challenge what is happening, the people upstairs bang on my ceiling, even if all I do is let out a sung note.  This is in Plovdiv.  All of these people, media, neighbours, are savage and evil.  yes they are.  it is criminal.  They like to tell you people who say things like this are mentally ill and dangerous.  They like to run stories about people who kill their neighbours or their social workers or their nurses or anyone because they believe they are evil.  This is evil.  You have no right to do this, and you have no right to do it to me.  First you provoke people, then you punish them for reacting.  I’ve called Lady porcelain before.  As soon as I can remember her name, as soon as I see or hear it again, I’m going to call it again.  YOU ARE MURDEROUS, MANIPULATIVE, HATEFUL, SO AMBITIOUS YOU DON’T CARE WHO YOU DESTROY AND ABUSE, AND YOU ARE THE EMBODIMENT OF EVIL, AND SUPPORT AND AFFIRM OR ALLOW FREE REIN TO PEOPLE LIKE YOU.  YOU ARE THE EMBODIMENT OF EVIL.  YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING.  AND YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PUBLIC’S PERCEPTION OF REALITY.  I just looked at Lyse.  She is obviously enjoying something very much.  I think they are deliberately tapping into my neighbours, and using us against each other.  I was taught at church there is no such ting as white witchcraft.  But this isn’t white.  This is obvious, psychologically violent, evil.  This is the blackest of black magic and satanism.  You have no right to be gunning for people like this.   They start coming down seconds after I start coming down.  It’s theft.

Hillary Clinton is continually having a go at me.  She is saying things about Gaddafi that I believe people say about me, about decency, isolating, taking money, etc.  The people upstairs keep getting off on my tv, and bang if I sing.  I just swtiched it off, and the man upstairs has gone for a pointed pee.  He has done that before.  I just shouted up to them, asking who is paying them.

If Hillary Clinton is having a go at me, or messing around with lumping people together linguistically and psychologically, she should be ashamed of herself.  I feel molested by what the man upstairs has just done.  Just as I do by his violent banging and their other invasiveness.  But if Hillary Clinton is messing with me, she should be ashamed of herself, if she loves her husband.  I was in hospital when he was in court.  I felt really sorry for him. I did my best to watch and listen to as much as I could, but in hospital it was difficult, people kept talking over it, they weren’t really interested.  But I was.  I really felt for him.  I’m afraid I can’t remember if I felt for the whole family or not.  I don’t know why I felt for him, or why I have felt for other national leaders in the past.  My first awareness of tragedy involving a national leader was when J F Kennedy was shot.  I was two days short of 3 years old.  If I don’t remember anything about it from earlier that day, I definitely remember watching and hearing about it on News at Ten on ITV.  People keep stealing my feelings from me now, about other people and about myself, but then I felt very grave and heavy about it.  I felt the same way for Richard Nixon as well.  I went to a prayer meeting at Talbot Street, I can’t have been more than 13, and everyone was thanking God, I seem to remember, that corruption had been exposed.  I feel like crying thinking about it, even now.  I wanted to pray for him, maybe for his family, but I didn’t.  I wanted to so much, but no one else was praying the same way.  I wanted to pray for Richard Nixon.  Almost like a child for a father.  I suppose I feel a bonding to him because of that even now.  I wonder if anything would have been different for him if I had prayed for him, out loud in the meeting?  I told one person, the person who drove me home afterwards.  I think I did, anyway.  Maybe I wasn’t specific about the situation.

In England, we have our own human rights atrocities. Gaddafi was saying today that his people love him, and some of them obviously do, they have made it clear.  But the people ‘interviewing’ him were talking to him as if he was a mental patient and they were rather contemptuous psychiatric staff.  If I had the strength of voice I would say, ‘not in my name’.  That is shameful.  How long have they been doing this to him?  How long, behind closed doors, after the embraces for the cameras?  Why should I listen to my own country’s propaganda any more than theirs? Would my country care about them, if it were not for the oil supply?  There are other countries they don’t care about, aren’t there? So if this isn’t about oil, what is it about?  I suppose it will be a committee decision, so there will be no clear answers and no definitive reason.

Loose paraphrase:  Which would you rather receive, a comment saying ‘great post!  check out my blog at (www.suebarnett.wordpress.com, in my case)’ or one saying ‘well said!  I know what you’re talking about because . . . and I think . . .’?

While the forum, if properly, fairly and legally run, is useful and sometimes feels helpful, I for one would rather not be nagged and patronised and treated like some sort of a great-niece or child or student in a classroom in this way.   As far as I am concerned, we comment the way we can at the time, and those of us who are sincere in our comments and appreciation might well be using that shorthand to say, ‘I am so impressed with what you have to say here, there is nothing I feel able to add, but I would appreciate you looking at my blog because I think yours is an opinion I would value’.

Some people, like me, sometimes read and blog in distress, or very focussed on their own thing and they are desperate to have someone else aware of and concerned about the things they are concerned about.  I don’t think we need to sanitise and make anodyne the way everyone should leave their comments, or that anyone should see it as an insult or somehow inadequate if a person says, ‘great post, please check out my blog’.  It might be all they are capable of at the time, and it might show more appreciation than launching into an opinion.

While I understand exactly what is being said and on the whole agree with it, there are times of desperation or recognition, for me, when I can’t say what I want without it being as short as possible and straight to the point.  I’m thinking, maybe pretentiously, of the difference between a diver, say, at their most polite and articulate, saying something like, ‘honey, would you mind getting the air cylinder out of the car?’ and a woman in intense labour pains screaming and swearing and snarling like a savage at her helper who insists on going by the book to shut up and give her the mask.  Something like that.  There are other situations of pain where the same would apply.  Or the difference between someone swimming yelling ‘hey, great to see you, come on in, let’s play ball’, and someone else in the water drowning doing their best while trying to snatch air to attract the attention of someone to help them.

Etiquette is for the adequate and sometimes even for the indifferent and self-absorbed, to get what they want with as little friction as possible.  Many people are inadequates who accept that about each other, and don’t want to be told they should emulate the adequate, bright, happy, switched on people in order for their contribution to be acceptable.

And while I’m thinking about it, someone said that most people live lives of quiet desperation.  But we have been taught in the past, if not now, to be completely hypocritical about that fact when applying for a job, for instance.  I can’t theorise on why that is at the moment, but if a person is desperate for a job, and also capable of doing it or of learning to, why should they be advised to rely on such self-negating and relationship-sabotaging dishonesty and subterfuge right from the beginning, and why should anyone be taught that it is not acceptable to show desperation if it exists?  I’ve never employed anyone, so I don’t know if employers are advised to despise desperation, or if the advice is based on the belief that, if someone sees you are desperate, they might take advantage of you, but it seems to me that no honest and honorable relationship can be based on an initial dishonesty of that kind.

It also occurs to me that the kind of comment WordPress is presenting as less desirable might be nothing more than the expression of an internalisation of that advice which allows for nothing more.  Keep it light, keep it casual, can easily translate to, ‘hey, that’s great, come and see mine!’  We need permission to become honest again, not instructions on how to become presentable and acceptable to other people in order to compensate for and not address the fact that experts in communication have told us to steer clear of some kinds of honesty.

So thank you for your advice, WordPress, and I hope this post might be in line with the kind of comments and responses you would like to see.  And please check out my blog at www.suebarnett.wordpress.com. Thank you for reading and for letting this pass the moderation procedure (which I personally find also inhibits and tampers with my ability to communicate as I would wish, sometimes.  If I’m not even sure I am going to get through the door or have my existence acknowledged or welcomed, why should I and how can I lay myself bare, as it were, in my response?  Often closed doors and rejection make desperate and battered people who can hardly hear you anyway, even with the impecceable (and expensive) etiquette of having a butler to hold the door wide open).

Oops, here we go!  Back to me.  If you go through a butler, you have probably had to go through other levelsof protocol as well, and how you handle them might determine whether or not you get as far as the butler.  In church I was taught that this procedure is a way of reveaing a person’s heart and whether or not ‘they are ready’ for access.  They never, to my memory, said anything or much about any inadequacies or unreadiness expressed by the person requiring such protocol.  Is it right that the person expected to go through it should be the only one expected to fit? In reality does it even work that way?  Some people want the challenge of the protocol because they want a process of validation or change.  I happen to believe that in some situations I am one of those people.  But if the people imposing or handling the protocol don’t respect that about me or even respect the protocol itself . . . .  protocol is a mutual thing, isn’t it, not just from the top down.  I’m sure it should be and that really that is how it should work.

Government Hanky-Panky

Maybe it’s time for me to stop being drawn on this, but this morning I heard (sorry, I get confused) William Hague or Iain Duncan-Smith (I think it was William Hague) say something about harassment of journalists in Libya.  He paused before saying ‘in Libya’, as if trying to emphasise the point that he was saying Libya, and nowhere else, maybe not the UK.

Being the self-centred person that I am, I thought he was saying that I am harassing journalists and I got a bit upset.  Then I thought, ‘wait a minute, he’s probably trying to draw a distinction between the journalists in Libya (about whom he doesn’t have a bad word to say), and some of the journalists here, in our minds’.  I thought of Julian Assange.

I know many people will have seen the video of him outside the court about a week or so ago (I haven’t seen anything more recent) with him so close to tears saying he hasn’t had the chance to put his side of the story and that there have been incitements to violence towards him and his staff.

I don’t know him, but tears are very powerful with me.  Some people say they are a form of manipulation.  Maybe those people have never known real desperation.  I was frightened of my tears for years, after reading in a counselling type book that they are a form of manipulation.  I realise that tears only express our feelings and not necessarily the truth about the beliefs we hold that make us cry, but they must be one of the most valid expressions of personal, heartfelt reality, and for that reason I for one cannot despise them or be dispassionate about them.  If we took more notice of tears we might be a less violent, bigoted, punitive, testosterone-and-spleen-driven and reactionary world.  I believe real tears always should be reconcilers or at least a gateway to reconciliation.  His tears touched me.  I don’t know if they were real or not.  But how desperate does a person have to show themselves to be in order to have the violation of their legal human rights redressed by those who should and who think they have the right to judge instead?

My own emotions are mangled.  I’m being shouted at and banged at every day, especially when I’m just lying on my bed trying to connect my life to its source and neither moving nor speaking, just enjoying the feeling of beginning to recover the connection between my mind and emotions, then it all starts.  And I do the same thing back sometimes, even if only eventually and not on the spot.  Early in the morning I am too shocked and don’t know how to handle myself.  I can not get dressed for days because the violence makes me feel I can’t cope with life.  And then I feel ashamed of my own reactions when I give it back.

All that to say, condoning computer-hacking from anyone, including the government, excluded, I wish I could help Julian Assange and I would if I could, and would do so in every way that I could if he or his representatives asked me to.  There is no way I would not be prepared to help, believing as I have that he tried to help me.  Isn’t it funny how the government always steps forward to try to get you to disconnect from ‘bad influences’ only after they themselves have been exposed?  If they had not been exposed, if the timing of the leaks had not made me feel supported, I wonder what they would now be saying and doing?

‘The Big Society’ manifesto and plan almost completely replicates some of the concerns I raised in a document on my computer, following years of official abuse and neglect, including from the police, which was addressed to the chief of police in Sussex but not sent.  Given everything else it is hard for me to believe that someone hasn’t lifted it straight from my computer.  I know some people will believe or try to make out this is lunatic, but others will not, they even comment and sometimes get uncomfortable if I log on to a parliamentary broadcast, which I watch from the beginning and delayed, at the time that I actually log on and start watching.  This happened one Friday at the reading of a Private Member’s Bill, and the discomfort was particularly pronounced.  I keep intending to find it and watch it again, because at the time I thought I understood the discomfort.

My browser has crashed a couple of times while typing this, always when I am getting into a release of full flow.  It must show in my typing.  I think that, among other things, my key strokes are being monitored by someone.  I obviously don’t know who or why. There are people I think of and think of course I’ll stop if it’s them and they want me to, but I go on in stubbornness and/or uncertainty.

I started the post to say that it seemed fairly clear to me that, whatever William Hague was trying to communicate with his statement this morning, what appeared to be the surface message didn’t appear to me to be his main concern, and I wish they wouldn’t go around making object lessons and drawing comparisons and contrasts from another country’s distress while trying to appear to have a single message and motive.

Julian Assange, I love you.  I am absolutely backing you up with my best intentions and my strongest hopes for your safety, if that is all I can do.  I can’t quite connect with your reality, as I said when I try to connect with my own people cry out and start banging, I don’t understand the dynamic, I usually go for the explanation that makes me feel guilty, and it’s happening now and it is so distressing, so excuse me if you find this inappropriate, but I feel as if my own entrails are being fed upon.  I believe I have heard you trying to communicate with me, and from you in your position I appreciate that so much.  But I don’t know, maybe you’re communicating with me and every rights aware individual, and I’m just bending it to myself.  I hope you will get someone to contact me if I can help or be of any use to you.  That’s how I feel, whether it is appropriate or not.  I feel as if my whole community is the idiot brigade, and they’ve all come out now.  I’ve got another person now who somehow thinks it helps and is cool to shout hallelujah at me.  Maybe I should respond with better grace and gratitude.  I don’t know why they are doing it or who has given them the idea.  They only did it after searching me out with 5 minutes of yelling and me yelling back in the end.  I feel really bad about this.  It’s obviously an affirmation and I’m being ungrateful.  I should be grateful.  It’s so good to hear.

They are so violent, they make me feel violent.  I know I speak for many.  Some people, as we know, act it out.  The full extent of my acting out is yelling, which is always misguided, because people continue without regard, and really I’m the only person that gets hurt.  I’m on my own and, because people involved professionally refuse to communicate with me constantly feeling not quite secure.  At least these people have their families, the partner or the gang they go around in.

But I’m glad I said what I said yesterday.  Now, if it wasn’t the case before, what they do will be more obvious to some people than it was.

I was just thinking, they use strings of names and references from my life and adopt a tone of entitlement to do it, as if they are doing it in co-operation with the people concerned, and that is where many of my guilt feelings come from when I don’t respond.

Today there was a little string – Mardi Fish – a tennis player, but also we say mardy in Nottingham to talk about people grizzling and crying and being miserable, and that was immediately followed up by the names Adams and Baddeley, two male teachers from my secondary school in Nottingham.

With some of the details they sometimes use, it appears that they are working in co-operation with people from my school life, whoever they are.  This little string was in the sports report.

When all this started for me the church, or at least Kensington Temple, was talking a lot about witchcraft, and I thought they meant me.  Maybe they didn’t, but I thought they did.  That’s why I was so upset, partly.  At the same time there was a tennis player called Goran Ivanisovich.  Sounds like ‘even he’s a witch’.  I heard a radio presenter say that much later, and I had thought it myself when I first heard it, in hospital, and it freaked me.

By the way, I’m still talking about BBC World News.  The time now is 11.08, UK time, which is the time people will need if they want to check this out, if they can get access to the tapes.

I don’t want to play this game with them and I don’t want to validate it.  I have been desperate enough myself.  There are others who are made even more desperate by it, if that is possible.

I saw a rcorded TV programme recently, it might have been in the “How Television Has Ruined Your life’ series on the BBC.  Whatever it was, the presenter was saying that the media uses shock tactics to keep people watching, because people are psychologically wired to give their attention to what appears to be a threat to their safety.

Charlie Wolf, when he was on Talksport, used to say he was pleased if people hated him because that meant they would keep listening. That is still how they do it, on a really wide scale.  But mixed with stalking, and obviously it becomes sinister and lethal, sometimes literally lethal.  They set out to sound violent or otherwise objectionable.  For me I find there is an element of not quite being able to believe what I am hearing or seeing, and a landing place of satisfaction is carefully avoided, so you can’t quite disengage.  Sometimes they make you feel as if you should and that they think you should, but I think it is a double bluff trick.

Just now as I was thinking clearly to write this, the presenter said he just wanted to take us back, almost in a hypnotherapy tone.  I can remember when this approach was first adopted and perpetrated.  There was a deliberate decision made, a few years ago, to adopt the language and intonation of therapy.

He just used ‘tweet’ as in Twitter, which I find always coincides with any fluency of thinking close to speech that I feel.  He just talked down from it to a stop.  Another dissonance, another contradiction.  I find it offensive. maybe it’s just me.  And I am sure there must be some sort of spiritualism involved for this to be happening.

Maybe it is just the violence of the shouting.  Now the presenter of the World Business Report is doing it.  It sounds obviously put on.

The news presenter before him – I think his name is Adam – was saying something about ‘you don’t have to be called Aron to work here, but it helps’, and he said it in such a way I thought and am sure he was referring to the time that I told Tommy Boyd, in his car, that I thought what he had said was arrogant.  He said he had a lot to be arrogant about.  Maybe we have a different understanding of the word, because i think it is a negative trait and he appeared not to.

Aron is back with the sports report, 11.45 am UK time.  He has just mentioned James Pearce.  My form teacher at the school I just mentioned in connection with the other names was called Clive Pearce.  I remember him to have been a very nice and kind person.  Straight after James pearce was mentioned Aron started talking in accented sympathetic and sad tones about people now being in danger of not qualifying.  The weather girl just appeared to stutter with the word ‘mock’.

But they keep going.  They make you feel stupid for saying it, or they look so hurt they make you feel guilty.

David Edes is on.  he was stressing for the first time that i have heard, that his programme is about opinion as well as news.  I thought he was getting at me.  At the same time they showed a report with footage about Guantanamo Bay, and the blocks didn’t look too bad and a staff member was saying conditions are much better, but there were blocks we couldn’t see for security reasons.

There must be something wrong in my head, or in the presentation, or something, because I was thinking it didn’t look too bad and Julian Assange might be OK there.  If I’m that broken down that I’m thinking that I think there must be a lot wrong on a lot of levels.  David Edes is sounding strict and disciplinarian.  I’m not sure who his tone is aimed at or what it is meant to achieve.

Yesterday in Parliament

https://suebarnett.wordpress.com/2011/01/08/i-followed-a-search/

This is a link to a post I wrote a while ago, about something called Monarch Mind Control.  I refer you to it to help you understand the rest of this post.  Included in that post is a link to an interview on Youtube between two very high profile people in America, one of whom was a special agent in charge of a police department.

The issue of Monarch Mind Control has come up for me again after watching the House of Commons broadcast yesterday. 

I have said before that I have been accused of paedophilia, although I am not a paedophile.  Yesterday Theresa May was talking about changes and appeals processes, and even before she got up to speak I was thinking that what had gone before seemed to be adopting a popularist stance.  I noticed that Nick Clegg was close to tears, and I noticed that, as in so many times in the past, David Cameron came in focusing and shutting everything out and down as much as he was able, and when I see that I find it frightening.  That the Prime Minister needs to focus in that way, in Parliament, before his electorate.  I feel that saying this could be to my harm and embarrassment, because it occurs to me in writing that he might have my safety and welfare in mind, at least in part.

Speaking of popularism, listening to Theresa May I believed she was doing the same thing, going for a projected popularist view.  The reason I say ‘projected’ is that I believe most of us are far more human and compassionate in our approach to this issue, especially those of us who have the slightest hint of understanding of the psychology of abuse, which should be most of us.  She presented herself as speaking for all right minded people, but as far as I am concerned she was appealing to the vigilante element of society, and her approach to the subject was in line with that.  She said that the judges who insisted that the human rights and privacy of people tagged and hated in this way were paramount were out of touch with the rest of us.  I, obviously, disagree.  She also said that the final decision in the appeals process on this issue was not for the courts, but for the police who, she said, were best placed to make this decision as being in touch.  That frightened me and I started thinking in terms of a police state.  Clearly I am speaking with heavy sarcasm and irony when I say that of course the police have always been squeaky clean and whiter than white and perfect models of humanity who have never harmed anyone and never acted with prejudice and never perverted the course of justice and never set anyone up or bullied anyone or consented to their bullying.  These are obviously the best people to handle such a sensitive issue (sarcasm and irony maintained).  I believe I have an idea of how long they were holding this accusation against me before I even knew about it, and how long they stood by, in spite of my complaints of harassment, and let people get on with it. That also goes for my housing association and the mental health authorities.

The issue of Monarch Mind Control came up for me again because there was something I didn’t understand about the presentation.  Then I remembered the interview in the post I have provided the link for, where the woman being interviewed said that, as far as she knew, it went back as far as her father.

I know, I am painfully aware, that this could be complete coincidence, but the dress she was wearing was identical in style and colours to a coat my father bought me when I was little. I can’t remember how old I actually was, but he died when I was 11.  He overdosed on sleeping tablets.  I don’t know if it was his intention to die, he didn’t say in his note, and he had done the same thing before and survived.

But Theresa May’s dress was almost identical.  And she was standing there adopting an almost vigilante attitude towards sex offenders, dripping with hate, contempt and loathing, it seemed to me, and saying how devious they are (they say the same about people they call mentally ill, it is or was part of the training for mental health professionals to view mental health patients as devious), downplaying if not completely invalidating the role of the courts over this issue, saying that parliament makes the laws, not the courts (but I say the courts uphold the law and no one is exempt from the law, including parliamentarians, as we have seen, thankfully, but if they are able to invalidate the courts, and cut us off, as Europeans, from the European Court of Human Rights, which they are saying they want to do [whether or not that is just a decoy talking point without teeth to distract from more important issues we are not talking about I don’t know, it’s one of the things they’ve always managed to talk about for years], how are they going to be held accountable?).  These lovely parliamentarians, calling groups devious and inciting hatred against them, you would think they had never done a devious thing in their lives, except me thinks the lady doth protest too much.

If the coat and the dress are not a coincidence but deliberate, why? I’ve already contacted people and asked to talk and not been acknowledged, so why would they want to do something like that?  They teamed it all up, as well, with talk about mental health.  It doesn’t matter what they are trying to say, when someone has already asked for assistance they shouldn’t be using those methods.  And if it was deliberate and they have known all along, then presumably it has been handed down to them over the years, and the government or whoever it was that had this knowledge that has been used in this way stood by and watched my father, with all his personal pain and inadequacy and lack of access to this kind of mass communication tool, insist that this was happening to him and being treated as mentally ill and in the end killing himself.  My dad.  My daddy, as I called him at the time and still think of him.  11 years old.  A younger brother and sister as well.  Whatever kind of person he was, it was wrong for something like this to be done to him and to me and to our family.  It is just as wrong for it to continue.  That is what I believe.  The one question I am afraid of is, ‘am I right?’  Am I right to believe this is wrong?  It might be good, kind governmental wisdom, and it might be better for me to go with it.  That is how I feel.

They were laughing a lot yesterday, which seemed to me completely inappropriate when handling such a serious and painful issue, but which also made me feel as if the arms of love and acceptance were being opened and offered to me, and a place of refuge, safety and protection and reconciliation.

I’m vulnerable to this kind of approach, at this particular point, because I had a bad experience in hospital last week when I was taken ill with severe stress related symptoms.  I was later contacted by the British Embassy and asked to confirm that I was OK, and I recounted the experience and everything involved in the stress that brought it on and asked for a reply, but I didn’t get one.  That was on Friday.  I want to say the Consul’s name, but people talk about discretion, and say if you are indiscrete and other people involved with you know that, they will not trust you.  I don’t know if, in my situation, discretion should be demanded of me or not.  What about me and my ability to trust?  But I don’t think officials should be subjected to vigilantism any more than anyone else should.  But this has gone so far, and I can’t afford legal representation, but I’m afraid if I mention his name on this forum anyway it might disqualify me for future help, either from the embassy’s own complaints procedure or from the law.  I don’t know what to do, because they themselves are acting illegally, it seems to me, and certainly if I don’t say his name the opportunity to move in on me again might be used.  It’s not a personal thing, I like him, at least to some extent, it’s about my own security in this situation.  I don’t know how to protect myself other than by naming him, but if I do that also might go against me, maybe even more long term.  I don’t know how it works.

On Monday (St Valentine’s Day) my housing association contacted me.  My housing association has often decided not to answer my emails and to set things in motion without consulting with me to have me apprehended under the mental health act.  The people who turn up unannounced often look appalled and apprehensive about me, and also are often very aggressive and insistent in their approach, and have even been violent and scathing, without me even knowing the specifics of why they are there.  So I replied to this person, my housing officer, Andy Minett at Hexagon Housing Association in Sydenham, made my position clear, reminded him of how he had handled things in the past and had often seen fit not to answer my emails but to go behind my back and over my head and not help effectively with community bullying and harassment, and I asked him not to resort to force or coersion but to inform me of his intentions because I believe I have a legal right to be informed.  I aksed him to clarify a few things, and as yet neither he nor anyone else from the housing association has contacted me.  Also, while I think of it, I have copied my emails on to the mental health team at Speedwell in Deptford, and they also do not acknowledge my emails, and I am afraid they are standing by and trying to force a crisis.  I asked for a response to one of them, through my CPN, from my psychiatrist, and although the CPN, Susan Farmer, said she had passed the email on to him, I have never received a response.

In this situation, and with these two most recent emails unacknowledged, on Tuesday evening someone rang my doorbell from downstairs and said what sounded like an Italianisation of my name.  I immediately thought it was the police and I was frightened, and I told him I spoke English and didn’t understand him, which was over all the truth, although not the issue for me at the time.  He said ‘OK’, and went, and I haven’t heard anything since.  But I was frightened and still am.  He came unannounced and unexpected, I didn’t know who had sent him or why, and I don’t think it should have happened that way.  I think that is really wrong. I’m afraid they might come back with instructions to arrest me under the mental health act.  But whose unprofessionalism and negligence is creating my fear and stress in the first place?  I think I could and can say ‘whose secrecy?’ and not be wrong in this case.

I’m tired now.  I might add more later, but right now if there was somewhere else I intended to go with this or something else I intended to say, I can’t remember.

Intermediate edit note: I’m recording Premier, and at the beginning John Pantry played a song called ‘Everything Was Done So You Would Come’, and he back announced it with tears in his voice.  He then moved on immediately to pray a prayer which sounded to me, in this context, as if he was instructing decision makers on how to pray and how to feel and how to view what they have done.  I obviously might be wrong, but it isn’t my opinion that I am, and if I am right I still think they are wrong to be doing this.  I still maintain it is stalking.  And I still maintain it is deceiving most of their audience.

BBC World News

It is 11.42 am here, 9.42 am in the UK

I was just watching BBC World News, and they were up to their usual tricks.  Squawking porcelain skinned blonde girl ending up with ‘that is how it is for some people’, and me thinking that’s what I said, but it is true for me and not for her, or at the very least it is true for the people I live among, while she has probably chosen to live among privileged people, if she has had that all her life or not. A very aggressive, angry cat indeed.  Interestingly enough, it was followed up by a very peaceful scene of a mother big cat (lion or something) suckling her cub, and I felt really angry and upset because of what seemed to me deliberate jarring and provocation.

The Indian girl who was doing the main report, just before Hardtalk, ended up with a story and adopted a strict, telling off, disciplinarian tone to say the decision had been taken in order to protect the crew, and she used exactly the same tone with a hard stare to say immediately afterwards, ‘This is BBC World News’.

I’m upset, OK?  Everyone knows that, they know there is good reason, and they carry on regardless, don’t change and do nothing to help.  So me, I change quickly, normally, if I believe I am wrong.  That is how my heart works.  It’s working that way now.  I’m not only afraid of reprisals for what I’m about to say, but I also feel like backing off from it because I believe I might be wrong to say it.

However, in light of the fact that these people don’t change and don’t operate that way, and in light of the fact that they keep patching this incitement and intimidation together, and in light of the fact that they have been using me and my family for years, knowing what is happening to us and the effect it has had on us as individuals and as a family, I am now saying that if they are trying to say that the decision to stalk us was taken to protect themselves (there was obviously some significance in the way she rounded this off), I am now saying, and I call on people to witness this, that I am now asking God to remove their protection. I personally find what they have done and are doing disgusting and disgraceful and very distressing, so does my sister, and my brother was somehow roped into a documentary interview following a murder inquiry in Nottingham and they keep using and abusing him as well (a comedian on one of the cookery programmes last weekend is just one example, either Something for the Weekend or Saturday Kitchen, it started off with sea urchins and ended up with this comedian doing my brother to a tee and going on like a moron, which my brother is not, he is just as traumatised by all this and other things as we all are).  I love my brother.  I just feel tears in my stomach when I think about him.  So personally I find it disgusting and disgraceful, as I have said, as well as still maintaining that it is completely illegal.  And I am praying for the removal of their protection, and believing God for it to happen in the Name of Jesus.

There you are, now they will call me fanatical and dangerous and increase the mental health angle attack.  Just keep watching, and wait and see.

PS I have to stop believing that, because these ladies appear in perfect make up, underneath it all they are lovely, reasonable people who just want to help.  They are not.  If they were they would use the right legal channels, and they don’t.

Emerging From The Dark Night

Working through the Dark Night of the Soul to emerge as me.

The Elephant in the Room

Writing about my experiences with: depression, anxiety, OCD and Aspergers

The Sir Letters

A Tale of Love

The Seeker's Dungeon

Troubling the Surf with the Ocean

Seroquel Nation

Onward and upward...

We are all in this together

it's gonna be okay.

my last nerve

psychology | psychiatry | neuroscience | n stuff

A Philosopher's Blog

A Philosopher's View of the World...assuming it exists.