headInSandThe Will to Doubt


Rod Farmer

from Universal Essence

Wake up silly man,

grow or stagnate,

grow or become one of the walking dead.

To grow silly man,

you must forever learn,

learn to love the life of the mind.

To forever learn silly man,

you must open your mind,

forever question and the honest skeptic be.

To have an open mind silly man,

you must have the will to doubt,

be free of religious dogmas and political ideologies.

To have the will to doubt silly man,

you must accept reality as eternal process,

you and the cosmos are temporary manifestations of process.








PANOCRACY by John Talbutt


Here’s a very interesting alternative to democracy.

PANOCRACY by John Talbutt

Could this work and could it happen organically?


Rule by everyone.

A principle underlying systems of organisation that asserts that everyone has the right to make and act on decisions about things that affect them and that no one else has the right to take that away from them.

See A Manifesto for Panocracy.

Comparison with other systems

Panocracy contrasts with democracy in that democracy, rule by the people, is based on the idea that there is an entity, the people, which has a common point of view. In democratic systems it is generally held that the view of the majority represents the view of the whole and minorities may have little influence. Panocracy recognises that there are as many points of view as there are individuals and each point of view is equally important.

There are versions of democracy such as deep democracy or participatory democracy that recognise and attempt to correct the limitations of democracy. Some of these involve elements of panocratic working.

Panocracy is an opposite of anarchy, rule or government by no one. Again, though, there are anarchists who see anarchy as being about the rights of the individual and who favour something akin to panocracy.

Individual rights

It is the fundamental right of every human being to act at all times in their own self-interest. This is not a right that is given people, it is the inherent right of each of us.

Acting in our own self-interest is not just the same as being selfish. Selfishness often refers to a child like need to have something, regardless of whether it is in the person’s self-interest to have it. However, the charge of selfishness is often used to teach people not act in their own self-interest. “You are being selfish” often means, “You are not doing what I want you to”.

Events will flow from whatever we choose to do and the choices we make will have some effect on those events. Acting in our own self interests means making choices which may lead to events, including other people acting in ways, that are in our interests. Usually it will be in our interests to have peaceful and co-operative relationships with others. This is often referred to as enlightened self-interest.

Most people do not recognise that they have the right to act in their own self interest and so give it up or fail to assert it. Most forms of human organisation have acted to coerce people into giving up their right in order that they will submit to the will of authority.

This coercion has been at work throughout people’s lives so that submissiveness and dependency are deeply rooted in most people. Even those who rebel do so in response to authority.


The challenge that faces panocracy is one of empowerment. This means helping people to reclaim and reassert their rights. This is the same as helping people towards freedom. Freedom is a state of mind, people are free when they know what choices are available to them and they are able to make those choices.

This is the fundamental reality of the personal being political. Empowerment work may take many forms and be carried out in many different organisations and levels in society. To be effective, though, the work has to touch on and affect the ways in which people relate to themselves.

Government and organisation

Panocracy does not mean that we necessarily have to do things all that differently from how we already do. In traditional revolution everything is changed and in the end nothing is changed, the old order returns with just the names and faces changed. In the move towards panocracy, nothing major may change and yet in the end everything will change.

At first, the main effects will be a change in emphasis. Elections will be seen more as a process of selection, selecting people to do a job of assisting in the ways in which we organise ourselves. These people will no longer be seen as representing their constituents but as being appointed to work on their behalf. They will make their decisions, as in reality they already do, based on what they believe to be best and they will be responsible for the decisions they make.

The other major shift in emphasis will be towards government by consent. The UK in the latter quarter of the twentieth centre has seen a major shift towards government by coercion. The government no longer finds it so necessary to work with people. Instead it decides what is right, and focuses on ways to compel people to obey. If it feels there is a need, it uses control of the media to indoctrinate people and manufacture an apparent consensus.

To give an example, in the 1970’s the UK government would only sanction speed limits on roads that were reasonably close to the speeds that most people drove on the section of the road anyway. Now, lower speed limits are being widely applied, together with cameras and obstacles to enforce people to obey them. Perversely people now actually drive faster when they can get away with it.

Another example is in policing. In the 1970s policing was largely by consent. If a policeman wanted to ask someone who they were and what they were doing, they had to rely on the individual’s co-operation. Now we have laws to make it an offence not to answer.

There will never be a clear answer to what constitutes adequate consent. It will be a combination of support from most people and the agreement of others. If a minority is sufficiently badly affected then it may be that there is insufficient consent. It may be that a principle will become established in law that a lae will be invalid if there is insufficient consent.

In due course many ways will be developed to involve people in the decisions that affect them and to make decisions that acknowledge that those who are not involved will have all sorts of opinions and be affected all sorts of ways about which no assumptions can be made.

In the end, everything will change.

John Talbut

Anarchy (an– no archy– ruler) does not mean lawlessness and disorder.






What is FREEDOM?


Photo courtesy of David Dees

“FREEDOM is undividable. FREEDOM is an essential prerequisite to for achieving happiness, and to be free, a human being must personally own what he needs, since a man that owns another person’s necessities controls, exploits and may even enslave this person despite any legislation to the contrary.” (Muammar Gaddafi; The Green Book)

What is FREEDOM?

Isn’t that a huge question? How many quotes could you find about FREEDOM? How many books have been written about it? How long has this question been on great thinkers’ minds? It seems this is the core question of human existence, going as far back as the birth of humankind.

You may or may not agree with Gaddafi’s statement about private property, but his views about FREEDOM are valid because they are based on logic and, unfortunately, on thousands of years of human experience.
Many who live in authoritarian societies, either through religion, the state or simply superstition, would argue that there is a difference between FREEDOM from and FREEDOM to. Following strict rules and accepting the control and domination of a higher authority than one’s own judgment, is seen as a protection; one is FREE from hurt and harm. For example, following religious rules about sexual behaviour means one is FREE from deadly diseases and heartache. FREEDOM to do whatever one likes is regarded as evil, immoral and irresponsible; Satanic. Thus, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law”, as defined by Aleister Crowley, is perceived as the immoral philosophy of the Devil and his demons.

FREEDOM clearly has limitations. We are born with physical limitations; there are many things we are not free to do simply because we are physically unable. Using my freedom to jump off a cliff and defy the laws of gravity will have fatal consequences. Those who claim we have free will, ignore the fact that our behaviour is driven and affected by instinct, hormones, culture and propaganda.
At the other extreme, none of us would wish to despondently accept the idea that, either by the omnipotence of God or the omniscience of pure mathematics (cause-and-effect), all is fore-ordained and predestined, and has been since the beginning of the Universe. Pure fate and determinism take away all freedoms of will and choice.
If a happy median between the two extremes is the logical and acceptable viewpoint, does it necessarily follow that it is the true meaning of FREEDOM?
Perhaps asking, ‘What is FREEDOM?’ and, ‘What does true FREEDOM mean?’ are the wrong questions to be asking. The real questions are,

‘Where am I in my journey towards FREEDOM?’

‘Do I deserve it?’ and,

‘What am I going to do with my FREEDOM?’

These are important questions with even more important implications.

Realizing one’s true nature as a Personal Sovereign brings with it Personal Responsibility. But this realization is the key element to our conscious awareness and is so empowering that all States and Religions, the Great Conspirators, wish to hide it from us, as it threatens the very core of their domination over us.

“Educators, sociologists, and lawmakers have begun to act as though man were absolutely incapable of choice, of self-determination, or of any autonomous activity… Moreover and merely by being treated as though he could do nothing for himself man is, perhaps, actually becoming less capable of doing so. Any society which not merely tells its members that they are automata but also treats them as though they were, runs the risk of becoming a society in which human capacities atrophy because they are less and less rewarded, or even tolerated, as well as less and less acknowledged. As the individual becomes, either in theory or in fact, less capable of doing anything for himself the question what may be done to him inevitably comes to seem more and more interesting.” (KRUTCH, Joseph W.; “The Measure of Man”; 1953)

The significance of inner autonomy cannot be over-emphasized.

“The individual who sees himself and his situation clearly and who freely takes responsibility for that self and for that situation is a very different person from the one who is simply in the grip of outside circumstances… It is clear to me that… commitment to purpose and to meaning in life is one of the significant elements of change. It is only when the person decides, ‘I am someone; I am someone worth being; I am committed to being myself,’ that change becomes possible… personal freedom and responsibility have a crucial significance, that one cannot live a complete life without such personal freedom and responsibility, and that self-understanding and responsible choice make a sharp and measurable difference in the behaviour of the individual.” (Prof. ROGERS, Carl R; “Freedom and Commitment”; 1964)

When enough individuals make that ‘sharp and measurable difference’ in their own lives, then whole societies can begin to make changes too.

“…those theories of history are erroneous that are based in essence on economic determinism and assert that some particular economic and political outcome for society is inevitable. For if men [and women] in general are genuinely free, it follows that groups, classes, cities and nations – all composed of human individuals – in the large likewise have freedom of choice as expressed in their collective decisions. However much individual or collective freedom may be crippled or thwarted by political tyrannies, economic institutions or cultural conditioning towards conformity, in the end, as history has demonstrated again and again, men [and women] in all likelihood will rise up to reaffirm their innate and indwelling freedom of choice.” (LAMONT, Corliss; “Freedom of Choice Affirmed”; 1967) (italics mine)

No-one would agree that a dangerous psychopath deserves the same FREEDOM as a benign humanist: one should be behind bars, the other ruling the world. Unfortunately, however, the world in which we live has them the wrong way round. Which category Gaddafi is in should be based on facts and research, not media propaganda; but one thing is certain… he knew what FREEDOM meant to his people.






The Great Illusion of The Great Conspiracy

The MatrixAt the heart of The Great Conspiracy is the Great Illusion, for in order for the El-ites to successfully implement their One-World Government plan, we need to be looking the other way (one trick of an illusionist) or to believe it is not happening. In other words, we need to be distracted and deluded, and not become dis-illusioned (without-illusion). Here is a great summary of ‘The Six Grand Illusions That Keep us Enslaved to The Matrix’.

In brief, they are:

1. The Illusion of Law, Order and Authority
2. The Illusion of Prosperity and Happiness
3. The Illusion of Choice and Freedom
4. The Illusion of Truth
5. The Illusion of Time
6. The Illusion of Separateness

Middle Class the new Working Class

Economic Opportunities in the 21st Century


Half a dozen points worth noting from this Rockefeller Foundation report…

1. The present ‘middle class’ is becoming the new working class:

“In the future, the livelihoods of the global middle class may thus look remarkably similar to the patchwork baskets of work that poor families have long relied on for their livelihoods in developing countries.”

2. If the share of income is not going to workers… where is it going?

“…the declining share of global income going to labour and the automation of routinized work, are eliminating steady jobs that were once pathways out of poverty into the middle class.”

3. That there is to be a global financial and economic crisis is accepted fact:

The years after the global financial and economic crisis may prove to be an inflection point with drastic implications for today’s poor and near poor.”

4. Stable jobs will be the preserve of University educated people:

“Stable employment may come to be reserved for those with what the International Labour Organization calls “non-routine, cognitive occupations”—creative jobs that depend on critical thinking and have traditionally been reserved for those with university degrees.”

5. The world they ‘imagine’ is one where governments will be de-stabilized by a growing inequality between rich and poor:

“One could imagine a world where low levels of economic growth and a growing gap between decent jobs and eligible workers contribute to a significant increase in inequality and unstable livelihoods. Ultimately, the accountability, credibility and stability of governments could depend on how well they can adapt to this possible future.”

6. The rising number of poor live in middle-income countries:

“With the rising number of poor living in middle-income countries, there is also an opportunity to adapt existing financial tools…”

If the link in the title does not work, click here to read original.







The Conspindustry

captain hook nose

The Conspindustry [©C[eltic]R[ebel]] is a cancer, one which seeks to divide cells against one another, to war, to incite, to enflame, to revolt, to recycle, to stagnate … and stagnation, ultimately, is death.

The conspiracy movement is aimed at those who fear. It is aimed at the child inside us who wants to stay a child forever. We want to keep playing. We want to face imaginary monsters. We will do whatever it takes, because we “know” (i.e., we “fear”) that when we grow up, the fun stops. Better to battle monsters we can imagine, than turn and face the unimaginable. So, we will continue playing our games, oblivious to the universe, and the laws of nature shouting: “It’s time to let go and grow.”

To read the full article by The Celtic Rebel: click here.







KPMG Report on FRACKING in Europe: Not Looking Good, Is It?


Central and Eastern European Shale Gas Outlook (2012) Peter Kiss & Steve Butler (authors) KPMG

Despite their best spin, this damning report should not only alarm investors, but should alert British and other European citizens to the inherent dangers, clearly well-known to the industry, of FRACKING in Europe. This report confirms that whatever the Americans are suffering, we in Europe will suffer more. One area that is completely overlooked in the report is the impact FRACKING will have on property values, sale-ability and insurance disclaimers.

They concede:

“chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing may migrate into drinking water sources, posing a threat to human health and the environment.” (pg 15)

Unlike North America,

“This concept [of concentrated mining developments, known as “sweet spots” or “hogs”] might encounter difficulties in Europe, which is more densely populated, as such developments would bring drilling rigs closer to inhabited areas.” (pg 22)

While governments may try to convince us that FRACKING can be made safe through regulation and using advanced technology and equipment, the fact is,

“As the geological setting varies significantly by shale formation, the technology known to work effectively in one formation might be ineffective in the case of others.” (pg 18)

There seems to be something wrong with the maths too.

“Preliminary studies suggest that there are 456Tcm of shale gas [worldwide], of which 40% is estimated to be economically recoverable… Europe, however, accounts for… 7% of global shale reserves.” (pg 22)

But in a another report, just one year later, this has been drastically inflated to

“…as much as 40Tcm of shale gas in the north of England alone, making it the biggest shale basin in the world.” (Shale Development: Global Update; pg 24)

Equally, in an EIA report from 2011, Britain was assessed as having less than 100Tcft (Trillion cubic feet), whereas both France and Poland have more (100-200Tcft) and the Russian enclave (sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania) has even more (200-300Tcft), (Shale Gas- A Global Perspective; pg 12). How did the north of England suddenly become “the biggest shale basin in the world”?

Was the British Geological Survey under pressure from The Dept. of Energy and Climate Change to produce propaganda supporting the government’s drive to force FRACKING on the UK?

There is a glimmer of hope though. As can be seen from the example in Bulgaria, public opposition can halt this irreversible destruction of land, water and air:

“…shale gas exploration has been indefinitely banned in Bulgaria because of bitter public opposition to hydraulic fracturing practices…” (pg 30)

Here are a few extracts:


“The costs and financing associated with shale gas are influenced by a number of factors that prevent the North American experience from being easily replicable in Europe. Aside from the differences in the physical characteristics of rock, depth ranges, and water availability, these costs are governed by particular market forces, such as the availability of specialists, necessary equipment used for exploration and extraction measures, and existing infrastructure.

Due to the higher costs and risks of E&P [Exploration and Production[?]] in Europe, more joint venture activity is likely, and locally tailored methods of financing will continue to be necessary to support CEE [Central & Eastern European] exploration projects.” (pg 35)


Environmental concerns regarding shale gas extraction are one of the main questions facing the industry today, and they remain a strong obstacle for the expansion of the global shale gas business. The most salient issues in both the US and in Europe are similar, including concerns with ground water contamination, usage of scarce fresh water resources, the possibility of greenhouse gases escaping to the atmosphere, and potential provocation of seismic activity in regions where hydraulic fracturing is used. Political factors influencing governmental decisions on shale gas in various countries should also not be disregarded.

Some studies indicate that the drilling and fracturing of a single well in the US requires up to 17 million litres of fresh water. Given the nature of deeper shales and the higher geothermal gradient in Europe, the amount of water to be used is expected to be even greater. At the same time, the water which returns to surface after the fracturing process contains salt (depending on the shale salinity) and potentially, depending on the location, radioactive elements as well. Water management and the effective disposal of fracturing fluids are crucial issues to be addressed.

In addition to water resource management, a major public concern is the risk of groundwater contamination. As wells are drilled and the shale fractured, the water pumped into the opening is mixed with a number of chemical additives, some of which are toxic and can be quite harmful to health and the environment. Because companies are required to disclose chemicals used at differing times and degrees, depending on local regulations, the exact amount of potentially dangerous chemicals in hydraulic fracturing areas can be difficult to determine.” (pg 27)

“Public acceptance of shale gas development

4.1 Overview

Public awareness of shale gas has gained momentum in recent years, particularly with regard to hydraulic fracturing and its highly publicized potential dangers. Environmental groups and civil opposition to shale gas have raised a number of concerns, while scientific study in support of hydraulic fracturing has been viewed with scepticism.

Social concern with shale gas drilling has encouraged governments to invest more efforts in scientific research, and European countries in particular have been keeping a close eye on public opinion, while endorsing the acceptance of new energy sources as possible solutions regarding energy security and greater independence from gas imports.

In light of this, some European countries have already developed strong stances on shale gas, giving rise to a palpable split between some EU countries. Whereas shale gas exploration has been indefinitely banned in Bulgaria because of bitter public opposition to hydraulic fracturing practices, Poland’s population is largely in support of shale gas because of its economic advantages and the energy independence it would bring.” (pg 30)

“Key inhibitors

Environmental concerns

The recovery of shale gas uses hydraulic fracturing, which requires millions of gallons of [fresh] water and presents a challenge in water-deficient areas, or in regions where the price of water resources is relatively high. Moreover, water contamination resulting from the improper disposal of fluids is a concern, especially with regard to fears that chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing may migrate into drinking water sources, posing a threat to human health and the environment.” (pg15)

The full report is in three parts and can be read here:

Central and Eastern European Shale Gas Outlook (2012) Part 1

Central and Eastern European Shale Gas Outlook (2012) Part 2

Central and Eastern European Shale Gas Outlook (2012) Part 3