Alan Turing and Christopher Morcom. Art by Keith Hegley from The Who, the What, and the When, an illustrated celebration of the little-known inspirations behind geniuses.
“The body provides something for the spirit to look after and use.”
BY MARIA POPOVA
“The void horrifies: so we are all immortal,”Simone de Beauvoir scoffed at the religious escapism of immortality in explaining why she is an atheist, adding: “Faith allows an evasion of those difficulties which the atheist confronts honestly.” But there exists a certain orientation of spirit that is both unreligious and lucid in contemplating mortality. Einstein touched on it in his beautiful letter to the Queen of Belgium, in which he wrote: “There is, after all, something eternal that lies beyond the hand of fate and of all human delusions.” And yet he conceded that such an orientation toward mortality is reserved for those “who have been privileged to accomplish in full measure their task in life.”
To make sense of the untimely loss of a young and unrealized life is a wholly different matter, one which haunted computing pioneer Alan Turing (June 23, 1912–June 7, 1954).
Turing’s decryption of Nazi communication code is estimated to have shortened WWII by two to four years, consequently saving anywhere between 14 and 21 million lives. But despite his wartime heroism, Turing was driven to suicide after being chemically castrated by the U.K. government for being homosexual. More than half a century after his disquieting death, Queen Elizabeth II issued royal pardon — a formal posthumous apology that somehow only amplifies the tragedy of Turing’s life and death.
Tragedy had been with Turing from a young age. At fifteen, while attending the Sherborne School, he fell deeply in love with a classmate named Christopher Morcom. For the awkward and ostracized young Alan, who was bullied so severely that a group of boys once trapped him under the floorboards of a dorm dayroom and kept him there until he nearly suffocated, Christopher was everything he was not — dashing, polished, well versed in both science and art, and aglow with winsome charisma. Alan’s love was profound and pure and unrequited in the dimensions he most longed for, but Christopher did take to him with great warmth and became his most beloved, in fact his only, friend. They spent long nights discussing science and philosophy, trading astronomical acumen, and speculating about the laws of physics.
When Christopher died of bovine tuberculosis in 1930 — a disease he had contracted from infected milk, for which there was no common vaccine until after WWII — Alan fell to pieces. He was able to collect himself only through work, by burrowing so deep into the underbelly of mathematics that he emerged almost on the other side, where science and metaphysics meet. Sorrow had taken him on a crusade to make sense of reality, of this senseless ruin, and he spared no modality of thought. Most of all, he wanted to understand how he could remain so attached to someone who no longer existed materially but who felt so overwhelmingly alive in his spirit.
All the while, young Turing remained in touch with Christopher’s mother, who had taken a sympathetic liking to her son’s awkward friend. After Christopher’s death, he visited the Morcoms at their country home, Clock House, and corresponded with Mrs. Morcom about the grief they shared, about the perplexity of how a nonentity — for Christopher had ceased to exist in physical terms — could color each of their worlds so completely…
It doesn’t take a witch hunt for most people to realize that female sexuality has been feared for as long as we can remember human history. Male-constructed images of women, and men, are so embedded in Western culture that they can appear quite “natural,” but the ways in which the patriarchy has tried to quell women’s sexuality is absurd, if not shocking.
From the beginning chapters of the Bible, in the Adam and Eve story, we, in the West, have been taught how to think about a woman’s sexual personality. The imagery is reinforced in art, prose, and modern medicine. Without tangling the web even further, the deeply rooted fear of women’s sexuality also weighs heavy on the heads of depopulationists, but we shall save this tangent for another time because there is ample and astounding evidence to prove strange cultural programming without opening that Pandora’s box. Pun intended.
I should preface, I am overjoyed that our country went through a sexual revolution, and that women are now at least legally allowed to have sex with whomever – man or woman – they choose. Nonetheless, mankind didn’t even realize that there was a correlation between the womb and sexual intercourse resulting in pregnancy until 9000 BCE, but even now obsesses with preventing a woman’s natural expression of her Divinely given sexual gifts in any way possible. Pregnancy or no pregnancy, Paleolithic societies prohibited women from having sex during their periods, yet in our very recent past, women were encouraged to use Lysol as a contraceptive. Which is more farcical?
These odd views have affected men and women alike. Men were encouraged to be circumcised, lest their wives stray to another man, and his foreskin, now proven to be sensitive just like a woman’s clitoris, was to be surgically, if not barbarically removed, to lessen the pleasure associated with sex – for both parties.
Female genital mutilation still occurs today, with more 130 million women enduring scarring, urinary issues, poor obstetric and neonatal outcomes, but aside from the patently obvious acts of removing the sexual organs themselves, how has our warped cultural training taught us to fear female sexuality, and what inane methods have they attempted to stifle this “scary beast?”
The “Hysterical” Woman
If a woman explores a sexual free-for-all, with one partner, or many, she is called hysterical – the word literally coming from the Greek word hysterikos; meaning “of the womb,” or “suffering of the womb.” Preposterously, the psychologically termed illness, “hysterical neurosis” persisted in medical literature until the 1980s.
This concept was based on the ridiculous notion that a woman’s womb wandered around her body (like her wandering sexual eye?) causing her to become ill. This idea resulted in doctors prescribing odd “medicines” as far back as 1900 BC, when ancient Egyptians thought the “wandering womb” could cause “excessive vaginal lubrication,” or anxiety and nervousness from erotic fantasies.
Medical “experts” later treated a woman’s excess libido by prescribing suppositories, salves, and Dover’s powder, a special combination of opium and ipecac. If that wasn’t sufficient, your genitals could be sprayed with a high-powered hose, or you would be prescribed rat poison (strychnia) to help calm your nervous system.
Birth Control and Douching
Women were also supposed to separate child-birth and sexual pleasure. One was not to be mixed with the other. In the most extreme versions of the Madonna-Whore complex, our illustrious physicians have prescribed a host of health-harming birth control methods, from the modern-day pill, which can cause cancer, to more antiquated remedies like those suggested by an American physician of the 1800s named Charles Knowlton who suggested douching as a form of contraception. After sex, women were supposed to inject a syringe full of watered-down salt, vinegar, liquid chloride, zinc sulfite or aluminum potassium sulfite into their vaginas.
In fact, from 1930 until 1960, the most popular contraceptive for women was Lysol disinfectant. Though Lysol as a form of birth control has since been debunked, and douching has been proven to cause numerous health problems, one in four women between the ages of 15 and 44 still douche, according to the Department of Health and Human Services…
I was recently shocked to learn one of my friends spent two months’ salary (“three months, post-tax”) on a diamond engagement ring for his fiancée. Not that the practice is unusual. It’s the cultural norm, especially among our immediate group of friends, all of whom threw down (at least) two months’ salary on a rock for their fiancées/wives.
But I was surprised about this friend in particular. I’ve always known him to be a defiant anti-conformist. He spent the better part of our college years railing about “The Man” and consumer culture, and openly wondering whether our perceived reality was really just a computer simulation. Not the type of guy who worries about keeping up with the Joneses.
Yet even he succumbed to convention and engaged in our culture’s most fraudulent “tradition.”
I don’t use fraudulent ironically here. I mean the engagement ring ritual is literally fabricated. It was invented in the 1940s as part of a marketing campaign by De Beers to sell diamonds to America’s emerging middle class, and it’s rooted in some of the most shameful elements of human history, including colonialism, misogyny and crass consumerism.
But the engagement ring not only persists today, it thrives. There it is, staring at us in the face every time we open Instagram or Facebook:
Even today—with fewer young people getting married, and their economic futures never more uncertain—the engagement ring and its corresponding two-months’ salary rule remain among the most cherished and steadfast of cultural practices.
“But the specific custom of giving a diamond ring is more recent,” Weigel continues. Specifically, it dates back to colonial Britain and first entered the public consciousness in 1840, when Queen Victoria received an emerald engagement ring in the shape of a serpent.
Queen Victoria made diamond rings fashionable, Weigel says, but the trend didn’t gain traction until the latter half of the 19th century, during Britain’s colonization of South Africa and the discovery of massive diamond mines in the region. That led to the creation of De Beers Consolidated Mines in 1888, which more or less operated as a cartel over the next few decades, controlling every aspect of the diamond trade.
When De Beers wasn’t busy controlling supply and giving the false impression its diamonds were scarce, it manipulated demand, convincing the American public that a diamond ring was a necessary part of the marriage process.
In 1938, De Beers hired N.W. Ayer & Son, a New York-based ad agency, “to persuade young men that diamonds (and only diamonds) were synonymous with romance, and that the measure of a man’s love (and even his personal and professional success) was directly proportional to the size and quality of the diamond he purchased,” Uri Friedman writes in The Atlantic.
Ayer’s plan included putting diamond engagement rings on famous actresses and socialites (and then tipping the press about it), and having lecturers visit high schools and indoctrinate American children about the significance of the engagement ring. It was also an Ayer copywriter who thought up the tagline, “Diamonds Are Forever,” which endures today….
Throughout history, plagues and wars have left greater equality in their wake. Can we get there again without bloodshed?
by Walter Scheidel is Dickason professor in the humanities, professor of classics and history, and a Catherine R Kennedy and Daniel L Grossman fellow in human biology, as well as director of graduate studies in classics, all at Stanford University in California. His latest book is The Great Leveller (2017).
Blame inequality on climate change. Until the end of the last Ice Age, some 12,000 years ago, our ancestors lived in small foraging groups. They moved around a lot, owned very little, and passed on even less to the next generation, sharing any windfalls on the spot. The Holocene changed all that. Rising temperatures allowed humans to settle down to farm the land and domesticate livestock; collective management of resources gave way to private property rights, and new norms made assets hereditary. Over time, the cumulative rewards of brain, brawn and luck came to separate the haves from the have-nots.
This process of stratification was reinforced by the creation of states, as political power and military muscle aided the acquisition and preservation of fortunes and privilege: more than 3,000 years ago, the ancient Babylonians were well aware that ‘the king is the one at whose side wealth walks’. With the emergence of mighty empires, and as slow but steady increases in the stock of knowledge expanded economic output, the concentration of income and wealth reached previously unimaginable heights.
The principal sources of inequality have changed over time. Whereas feudal lords exploited downtrodden peasants by force and fiat, the entrepreneurs of early modern Europe relied on capital investment and market exchange to reap profits from commerce and finance. Yet overall outcomes remained the same: from Pharaonic Egypt to the Industrial Revolution, both state power and economic development generally served to widen the gap between rich and poor: both archaic forms of predation and coercion and modern market economies yielded unequal gains.
Does this mean that history has always moved in the same direction, that inequality has been going up continuously since the dawn of civilisation? A cursory look around us makes it clear that this cannot possibly be true, otherwise there would be no broad middle class or thriving consumer culture, and everything worth having might now be owned by a handful of trillionaires. Did democracy and progressive reform save us from this unenviable fate; or was it the labour movement, or mass education? All of these developments played an important role, and yet, at best, furnish only part of the answer. For inequality had already dipped steeply on several occasions, long before any of these modern breakthroughs had begun to appear.
From time to time, it turns out, history has pushed a reset button, driving down inequality in marked, if only temporary fashion. It is only by surveying its full sweep, over thousands of years, that we can discover the dynamics that drove this process. And these dynamics turn out to be very disturbing indeed: every time the gap between rich and poor shrank substantially, it did so because of traumatic, often extremely violent shocks to the established order. Catastrophic plagues, the collapse of states and, more recently, mass-mobilisation war and transformative revolution, are the only forces that ever levelled on a grand scale. No other – and less bloody – mechanisms have even come close. In a time of rising inequality, what does this imply for our own future?
But let us start at the beginning, in the very distant past. Europe is by far the best-documented case (see Figure 1 below). Economic inequalities emerged as farming spread from the Middle East around 9,000 years ago, and grew as the land filled up and small communities coalesced into larger societies. Archaeologists have discovered enough elite burial sites with luxury goods that had been manufactured for the privileged few and traded over long distances to support this reconstruction. The Roman empire was the culmination of this very drawn-out process. To the present day, no one state has come as close to monopolising political power in Europe as Rome did: for centuries, as many as four out of every five Europeans were ruled by the Caesars.
Wealth concentration at the very top far outpaced the growth of the economy: between 200 BCE and 100 CE, the largest reported fortunes of Roman plutocrats rose by close to a hundredfold while the population of the empire went up merely tenfold. Some aristocrats owned thousands of slaves, more than even the biggest planters of the antebellum South. In terms of personal net wealth, the richest among them were as remote from the common man as Bill Gates is from the average American today. By some measures, this trend continued all the way up to the fall of the Roman empire, as private palaces replaced mansions, and estates swallowed up entire towns and villages…
Were the Twin Trade Towers turned to dust by super high-tech Alien ET technology?
by Preston James
There have been reports from low to mid level insiders that ETs may have been involved in the attack on America on 9-11-01.
But no concrete smoking gun admissions with teeth or any serious credible evidence has been presented to back this up.
Such an hypothesis of ET involvement is impossible to prove at this point but there are some indications pointing in that direction at least concerning the use of advanced super high-tech weaponry needed to turn the twin towers to fine dust.
The apparent use of the realistic 3D Holographs with loud actual sounds for the two aircraft images which appeared to fly into then hitting the towers one at a time however, is a technology that we know does exist right now and can be activated from three transmission points.
One thing we do know for certain now is that pre-planted nukes were used in the Twin Trade Towers.
A great deal of accurate information has already been supplied in numerous VT articles by Gordon Duff and Jeff Smith, both who have extensive knowledge of fission and fusion fingerprints and nuclear flash pixilation effects on video cameras.
We can now say without question that nukes were deployed in the Twin Towers based on the nuclear fingerprints available from samples taken afterwards and the effects on the foundation which was turned instantly to red hot lava taking many days to cool.
But there is also extensive other non-disclosed Intel which includes the classified Able Danger investigation and the frozen grand jury in Texas concerning all this (which if ever was made public would bring down much of the DC Cabal).
We know that at a minimum there was at least three sets of pre-planted bombs used in each building. The first one detonated was in the basement and was deployed to blow out the sprinkler systems and perhaps even to weaken the structure.
This first basement device could have been a small nuke or could have been conventional high explosives.
But there had to be a second bomb in each building detonated to create the fake aircraft impact sites. This was likely a number of conventional high explosives.
We know for a fact that the passenger jets which were claimed to have hit the buildings did not because they were still flying and in service afterwards according to now released FAA documents.
Are New Yorkers keeping quiet about what they have known for 16 years?
These so-called aircraft that hit the buildings were creations of super sophisticated 3D Holograph technology.
Professor Jim Fetzer has made a strong case for this for several years.
And we know that there had to have been a very powerful third bomb set pre-planted that was some kind of nuke because of the way that the Twin Trade Towers were instantly turned to dust.
This instant conversion to dust started at the top and moved progressively downward at the normal speed of a free-falling object for each of the Twin Trade Towers. Therefore, it has always been my contention that small multiple nukes were also used in the elevator shafts about every ten stories, detonating the higher ones first and then proceeding downward at the approximate rate of a free-falling rock.
The elevator company (now out of business) which ran long term elevator maintenance projects in each building could have easily provided a cover story and the opportunity for a special ops contractor to plant micro nukes inside the elevator shafts, one about every ten stories or so.
Dr. Ed Ward proposed that Lithium 7 based nukes could have been used in the Twin Trade Towers. His work is worth looking at. I have always thought that it was the deployment of the new super high-tech miniature positron anti-matter devices. If so these are likely Alien ET supplied technology.
Tribute to 9-11 responders
Were very small positron anti-matter nukes deployed as matchbox-sized devices in the elevator shafts?
The available public science right now says that positron “anti-matter” nukes have not yet been developed, but I believe they have and their development and deployment is protected by many layers of secrecy.
Positron nukes can be made to produce a flash of anti-matter which will implode with tremendous energy and give off a wave of instant molecular re-arrangement of up to a few hundred feet in all directions. It would allow great explosive power with a very small footprint.
It could also have turned the Twin Trade Towers to a fine dust. Some small low temperature fires caused by jet fuel could never have done this, nor could the pre-planting of even many tons of thermite or thermate either. It had to be some type of high tech nuclear device in each of the Twin Trade Towers to dustify them.
If nukes were pre-planted every ten stories or so in each of the Twin Towers they would have to have been quite small, perhaps shoe box sized or even less, maybe matchbox sized. They would have to have been remotely detonatable in sequence from the top down.
Some have claimed advanced spaced-based Tesla-type frequency weaponry was used to turn the towers to dust and that would explain the top down dustification process. This is possible but to me improbable.
We know that black X-ray Laser weapons have already been developed and tested that can shoot down aircraft. Some claim these were gained from the existing treaties and with Alien ETs and their associated technology for human exchange programs. In my view it seems doubtful that enough energy could be manifest from such weaponry in such a short time and so well focused from a high orbital location.
VT’s Fort Lee, NJ blockbuster story from the Able Danger NY team is still blacked out in US media
Normally in any major operation like 9-11-01, numerous new technologies are deployed as experiments to see how they work in real life situations, but every main function has at least one back up to protect against failure of the mission.
So my view is that it is possible that numerous super high-tech weapon systems were deployed on 9-11-01 including: convention explosives or conventional mini-nukes in the basements of the Twin Trade Towers; conventional explosives at the 3D Holograph aircraft image hit sites; and then very small, incredibly powerful, state-of-the-art micro-nukes (likely Positron anti-matter matchbox sized bombs) every ten floors in the elevator shafts.
If the now-frozen grand Jury in Texas is ever unfrozen and does its job making indictments of the high USG and foreign officials involved in 9-11-01, we will finally find out what was the now highly classified information the Able Danger team knew before 9-11-01, and what the AEC investigators learned after that terrible day when America was attacked.
In the meantime, we have the exclusive and very revealing VT Fort Lee articles by Gordon Duff on the satellite and ground Intel of the safe houses where the nukes were stored, where they were stolen from and by whom.
Was the 9-11-01 attack on America directed by an evil Alien ET group?
And has this evil Alien ET group interfaced with humanity for hundreds of years and hijacked whole governments to serve their secret agenda in an age old battle between good and evil, light and darkness?
We know that the there are good insider and Intel reports that the governments of the USA, Russian and China have consorted with Alien ET groups, made treaties and have gained high technology in exchange for use of human subjects and human genetic material…