Jimmy Savile Glamor Magic

I’ve been working on a book for the past few months about how (and why) pop culture (mostly movies) shaped my psychological development, with particular focus on my attraction to violence and even violent sexual imagery (and sexualized violence). It’s a sort of memoir in movies and despite its confessional nature it did start out as a relatively light, accessible work. For the last couple of chapters, however, I chose to focus on my brother Sebastian, and so, as might have been expected, it has taken a sudden dive into much darker and more troubling waters, as pertaining for example to Jimmy Savile and his ilk, and the implications of those activities for all of us, especially those of us who grew up in the UK, with “Uncle Jimmy” as our cultural benefactor.

In retrospect I’ve been waiting for the opportunity, or rather the impetus, to start dredging these waters for bodies, but it was inevitable that eventually I would get around to it. The Savile affair marks the intersection between a lifetime’s interests and concerns: pop culture, conspiracy, crime, madness, occultism, psy-ops, child abuse, trauma, and, because Savile’s influence on my own psyche goes back to that time, childhood. While most of Britain is having its entire belief system challenged by the ongoing revelations about what’s possible and what’s not, a lot of people, probably most people, outside the UK remain oblivious to it. The Savile affair is a game-changer.

Recently I had an exchange with Eye of Shiva about Brad Pitt in which I suggested that EOS’s assumption that a celebrity who supported humanitarian causes (and adopted lots of kids!) was a humanitarian might be a somewhat naive view. The best answer to that is: “Jimmy Savile.”

If you’re not familiar with the history, I urge you to watch this video, keeping in mind this is mainstream TV. (It’s also a couple of years old, and so a little out of date; the revelations keep on coming.)

37 thoughts on “Jimmy Savile Glamor Magic

  1. This whole thing is a game changer in a couple of ways. My hope is that at least a few people, after hearing about operation yew tree, will look up the history, mythology, and biology of the yew tree. The more people of European ancestry who know about yew (the “lower, higher, and middle” yew) and work with her ferocious energies, the better chance we have at erasing the glamour-magic system that would have good people turn away from yew. Most have been turned away from yew and they don’t even know it. And thus , in that “being turned away from yew”, so many have been disconnected from the warrior spirit that such a tree provides the spark for

  2. I’m going to watch this, though I am aware of this story. I want to clarify something though. I do not pretend to know about Brad Pitt’s motivations or inclinations. I was only commenting on his public persona, and explicitly (and cynically) so, I thought. I’m only saying that if a person engages publicly in ‘humanitarian’ efforts, opens ‘humanitarian’ charities and foundations and espouses ‘humanitarian’ views then they are, functionally, a humanitarian, in the same way a person behind the counter at a cafe is functionally a barista. They may lace your venti caramel macchiato with cyanide, but they’d be doing so in their capacity as a barista, in my opinion. Either way, saying that Brad Pitt=Jimmy Savile just because (presumably the “because” is that both are famous personalities who present(ed) themselves to the public as good guys) seems like a bit of a stretch. I have nothing invested in this aside from liking some of Brad Pitt’s films, but I just wanted to clear that up. I don’t have much of an opinion about Brad Pitt (and pretty close to zero reasons to think he abuses children, currently), but I do have an opinion, or reservations, about the motivations of people who see conspiracies like this literally everywhere, and who accuse all celebrities of being demonic Illuminati puppets with little to no actual evidence, while ignoring other possible reasons or contexts that could explain why such “evidence” might exist (not grouping you in with this crowd, but the overlap should be fairly evident). It seems to trivialize all other claims (which is not necessarily a bad thing, these days) when pretty hefty ones like that are so freely thrown around.

    This is not to say that I think you’re claiming that Brad Pitt eats children. But I do think this kind of thinking in general is more harmful to victims of pedophiles than helpful. In the same way that false rape accusations trivialize the claims of rape victims (and it only takes a few false rape claims for the majority of rape claims to be viewed with suspicion) this kind of a priori assumption that it’s more than likely that most or all highly successful celebrities (like Brad Pitt) are monstrous pedophiles/child killers/demons/etc trivializes the actual cases that have come out and exposed the reality that this kind of thing does actually occur in political circles, religious organizations and media environments.

    Either way. I’d be more inclined to believe that Angelina Jolie is vastly different from her public persona than that Brad Pitt diverges too greatly from what he presents. But what do I know? And that’s kind of my point. Would I be surprised if they were both found with dozens of children’s bodies in a pit(t?!?!) in their uber-expensive back yards? Well, yes and no. I don’t think they’re angels, but it’d be shocking if anyone had a pit full of children, because that’s pretty fucked up however you slice it, no pun. But what purpose does it serve, to think like this? How does it enrich us, as individuals, to assume someone probably is a monster even when there is no evidence to support such an assumption? Basically, I guess I’m asking, why does it bother you that I called a person who does humanitarian things a humanitarian in passing, even though I clarified that it was a very surface comment, and not some deeply held conviction I developed after drinking the Brangelina punch? Why are you so convinced he is not a humanitarian? What is your motivation on this?

    • you may be making a mountain out of a molehill. My point was only that there are a host of other reasons for a celebrity to be supporting humanitarian causes besides being a humanitarian (whatever that is), and that Savile is a pretty stark case in point.

      The question of the entertainment biz being inextricably entangled with that of gangster/pedophile/murderer/politicians is obviously a much larger question, but not one you’re really addressing, since you’ve chosen to zero in on my motivations for suggesting such an idea, rather than on, say, what evidence i have or how i think such a thing would work. That sort of puts me in a position of explaining/defending rather than elucidating/sharing, so I’d rather just pass.

      It’s true there’s lots of sloppy-minded hysteria around this subject and I wouldn’t want to add to it. But still, your reading of my post and my specific comment seems to fit into that category (of sloppy-minded hysteria) more than anything I actually said, at least from where I’m sitting.

      I will try to be more precise in future to avoid such assumptions/reactions.

  3. I don’t mean to put you on the defensive. I’m just asking why you seemed to zero in on that point (I tried to also make sure you did not think I was lumping you in with the crowd I was mentioning, and explain that it was just due to this crowd that I had concerns about your characterization of my comments).

    My original comments were “There’s your propaganda. Brad Pitt is a Good Dude, and he really wants us to know it.” and “A black man directed the film, a known humanitarian with black adopted children funded it.” You reacted in an interesting if somewhat extreme way to that last comment so I clarified that I cited him as such because “he donates money, has charitable foundations, has contributed millions of dollars to humanitarian causes, adopted children, etc.” And went on to say “He’s way more of a humanitarian than me, anyway.”

    You replied later, “For example, you seem to accept that, if a movie star donates millions of dollars to a charitable cause, he must be a good humanitarian guy, not money laundering, maintaining his public image, or into some really dark shit I won’t even mention. For me that’s completely unacceptable and even pretty silly.”

    But the first time I brought it up I thought I was clear in stating that his role in the film was part of his own propaganda PR machine.

    I think you mistook my sarcasm for sincerity (“There’s your propaganda. Brad Pitt is a Good Dude, and he really wants us to know it.”), and I think that’s where the confusion began.

    I am more interested in your elucidating/sharing, but I simply wasn’t clear on how my comments were taken so out of context that many times (and for it to come back in another post… I just wanted to understand where you thought I was coming from).

    I’m definitely not being sloppy, or hysterical, about this. I feel I was misread from the beginning and I’ve been trying to make that clear since the first post on TYAS.

    I could be wrong, you could have understood my position from the beginning and still mysteriously think I’m naive about this. I’m just interested in exposing the mechanism at work in our disagreements, because they always seem to be larger at first than they are towards the end.

    I’m interested in your thoughts about that, but I do have a genuine interest in the subject of the post, and this has overshadowed that, so I can drop it.

  4. Yeah I think I missed the sarcasm, if it was there in the first comment you cite. & you’re right I did zero in on it again somewhat gratuitously, must’ve been trying to get your attention! I’ll say more tomorrow. Peace out.

    • But the first time I brought it up I thought I was clear in stating that his role in the film was part of his own propaganda PR machine.
      I thought you were presenting it as part of your defense of the film, or at least as a rejection that the film was some sort of propaganda itself. Is it right to assume that BP’s propaganda PR machine is not part of the larger PPRM of Hollywood and US/world govt?

      I’m not sure where to begin with the elucidation. My sense is that show biz, politics, and organized crime are all very small worlds, that the elite by definition aren’t that numerous, and that they traffic together. Tho there may be an appearance of separateness between these worlds, it’s probably as illusory as that between the fingers of a hand, as evidenced by Savile, the Krays (who also moved in celebrity circles), Frank Sinatra, et al. I think there’s a mutual attraction between gangsters and celebrities (and political people), and it’s called power (and pleasure).

      Beyond that I’d probably need to start citing cases and I’m a bit tired now, so I’ll leave it at that for today – maybe someone else can add something to the mix?

  5. Oh, I don’t doubt that there are hundreds more stories like that, or worse, buried by fear and career ambitions, all throughout Hollywood and the rest world. I see a very dark thread running through a lot of films, including Powder, which definitely had some very awkward moments in it which I always attributed to me not being old enough, or culturally modern enough, or white enough, to understand. Guess that link solves that mystery. Very interesting, especially considering how I came across that movie. Apart from Peaceful Warrior (?!) I’ve never seen any of his other movies, and Warrior does have that thread I mentioned running through it, one element of which is being “chosen”. Also of interest in this context is the depiction of the Socrates character. My mom was into those books when I was younger, and from what I recall the way Nick Nolte portrays his character is very much off the mark, way too dark and aggressive. I don’t really recall the movie, but I think they even hinted that the younger boy thought he might be gay and weirdly obsessed with him, or a pervert of some sort, or that he had some dark past, which is (now) obviously the director speaking, ugh. I know I was expecting something very different from the movie I got. Brian Singer is only a little surprising. I didn’t realize he directed Apt Pupil, but that was another film that had very strange undercurrents in it. I read the story by Stephen King, and the film was also not quite what I expected it to be. There are people online who claim to know him, and who say he is a pedophile/liar/pervert, etc. I don’t put too much stock into those kinds of claims in general, but I do take note that those rumors exist. There are a lot of people who don’t have those kinds of rumors around them, even when people close to them threaten tell-all books (like Brad Pitt) so I notice when someone does have those kinds of rumors making the rounds.

  6. I just read the full article on Singer, it’s inconclusive, and definitely leaning heavily towards exonerating BS. It does’t address the question of why an up-and-coming child actor would totally torpedo his career by making such charges if they weren’t true. It’s also odd that it was written by an insider (film producer Don Murphy, most famous for Natural Born Killers).

    I also saw Powder when it came out, and liked it enough to recommend it to my mother (who liked it). This raises the question that’s probably most compelling and disturbing to me: if the movies I enjoy are products not only of a totally corrupt and exploitative system but also of highly damaged psyches using their “art” as a way to both indulge their fantasies (in real time) and to sublimate their urges by romanticizing them (subtly glorifying traumatized and dissociative behavior), well hell, where’s the line between healthy cathartic art that lances the wound and the violating kind that just pokes around in there and spreads the infection?

    Which puts me in the position of an addict analyzing his addiction while still indulging it, instead of just quitting?

    here’s another link: http://www.insideedition.com/investigative/5086-inside-edition-investigates-hollywood-pedophiles

  7. “This raises the question that’s probably most compelling and disturbing to me: if the movies I enjoy are products not only of a totally corrupt and exploitative system but also of highly damaged psyches using their “art” as a way to both indulge their fantasies (in real time) and to sublimate their urges by romanticizing them (subtly glorifying traumatized and dissociative behavior)”

    Like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWx6IsqPUKk

  8. Powder, came up already, that’s with hindsight. I think if it was obvious, it wouldn’t be illustrating my concern. It’s a question, I don’t have the answer. But if you found out an artist whose work you’d admired had been serial murdering or raping, or whatever, how would you then feel about that work? It wouldn’t have been changed in any way by the revelations. Yet it would be different. Like Saville’s (now) sickening nudge nudge wink wink “jokes.”

  9. Polanski & Woody Allen are examples whose work I admire and still continue to watch every time they have a release. Does that make me morally inferior now?

  10. I asked that myself after I thought it through. I guess I was defending the artist by saying their “hidden life” sometimes doesn’t enter into their creative work. But then again that is probably moving away from the core of this discussion?

    • No I think that may even be the heart of it.

      Is it possible for a fruit not to contain whatever’s in the tree? Or a blood sample not to carry whatever’s in the body?

      I think it goes double if we bring sublimation into it, that artistic expression is a way to suppress primal desires, which could include primal traumas? This is all pretty new to me so I’m still just guessing/wondering.

  11. Shouldn’t it relieve rather than suppress it? I think most artists would agree that it is a release after they have crafted their work. Everything else leading up to it was raw energy.

    So this will be a new exploration of yours, like crucial fictions?

  12. There’s the potential for catharsis – both for artist and audience. Sublimation is somewhat different, more of a rechanneling than a release; the latest book has lead me to this tentative conclusion, which has to do with how sublimation can go hand in hand with dissociation, ie, the mechanism of creating and entering into fantasy in order to escape trauma.

  13. “if the movies I enjoy are products not only of a totally corrupt and exploitative system but also of highly damaged psyches using their “art” as a way to both indulge their fantasies (in real time) and to sublimate their urges by romanticizing them (subtly glorifying traumatized and dissociative behavior)”

    In most cases I’d probably say “well, the director did not create the content, just put their own spin on it”, but since this guy did write Powder. There’s not much separating it from his psyche, so you have a good point. However, it’s not as if though he didn’t traffic in fairly universal symbols. He basically told a very common myth and wove some homo-eroticism into the plot. A chosen one, an outcast with special abilities who wears his difference on his skin, nothing new, really, not even in film. I think the story simply seemed more original because the protagonist was an albino and it wasn’t an action film. It may be fairly simple to pull apart the motivations in this, and most other films helmed by deviant individuals. I’ve definitely been noticing these kinds of undercurrents (sometimes just blatant currents) in films more frequently.

  14. Oops, had the window open for hours yesterday, forgot to press “post” and did not check to see if there had been any other comments when I did.

    Personally, when I know an ‘artist’ has views or engages in activities that are either directly against me or that are in direct violation of my own moral code, for lack of a less ‘offensive’ term, I prefer not to patronize them or indulge their work while making any attempt to enjoy it, especially when the subject of their art is the subject we differ on. I can view or listen to the work critically, but I’m not submissive to it, and it becomes a chore or exercise rather than a pastime.

    “if you found out an artist whose work you’d admired had been serial murdering or raping, or whatever, how would you then feel about that work? It wouldn’t have been changed in any way by the revelations. Yet it would be different.”

    Yup. But I think it would be different because it HAS changed. Art, when it is offered up for consumption, becomes the intersection of Creator and Observer, and has no other validity, in my opinion. It’s always a dynamic relationship, and that relationship is subject to change if there are new discoveries about the nature of the inspiration that initially opened the conduit. Even if the art previously appealed to me, once certain revelations occur then the very nature of the Art itself changes. The fault is partly mine for not being finely tuned in to the sources of the things I consume, and partly the artists, perhaps for not successfully transmitting their essence, or for deliberately obscuring their motives. I’m not talking about minor disagreements over opinions on this or that, but about defining traits and characteristics, which will (probably) always be partially transmitted in everything one offers up to the public.

    Certain traits or characteristics are too pathological and will, like any virus, attempt to find a way to infect or absorb whatever interfaces with it.

    I don’t see the point in consciously offering myself up to HIV, and I feel the same way about the art of pedophiles and racists, among others. In this way, their ‘art’ ceases to be Art to me and I treat it like any pathogen, with extreme caution. And that’s only if I feel that I have to involve myself with it at all.

    If I only make the discovery after consumption then I aggressively detox, by any means necessary.

  15. I don’t see the point in consciously offering myself up to HIV, and I feel the same way about the art of pedophiles and racists, among others. In this way, their ‘art’ ceases to be Art to me and I treat it like any pathogen, with extreme caution. And that’s only if I feel that I have to involve myself with it at all.

    Is it a rational choice though? I don’t see the “point” in watching mass-produced product of a corrupt military-entertainment complex when I feel as though I am opening myself up to pathogens, but I do it anyway. I am going to do it again tonight, Wolf of Wall Street, even though I know that the Scorsese who made it is no longer the vital artist in search of authentic catharsis who made Mean Streets and Taxi Driver, that the system which embraced his “genius” has long since corrupted him and his “art” along with it. But I am still curious, and still hooked on movies, that is, on escaping for a few hours into false realities.

    What I looked out in my essay on The Counselor was how we are all complicit in whatever corruption maintains the system we depend on, and the more we depend on it, not just physically but emotionally and mentally too, the more complicit we are. So if Hollywood is a mafia-cartel run by psychopaths, seems like any product that comes out of it, or even through it, is to some degree tainted by that. Not that we can avoid it, the world is everywhere, just looking at ways to allow this “new” awareness to transform my relationship to the product, which as you rightly point out, also changes the nature of the product, no work being complete (or even existing) until it interfaces with collective and individual psyches.

    Maybe it’s a bit like the morphine cure for heroin? Our system has become so dependent on cultural feed of “pop” that quitting cold could be fatal?

    How do you perform your “aggressive detox” then?

  16. I am going to do it again tonight, Wolf of Wall Street, even though I know that the Scorsese who made it is no longer the vital artist in search of authentic catharsis who made Mean Streets and Taxi Driver, that the system which embraced his “genius” has long since corrupted him and his “art” along with it.

    Three hours full of fun for you. I hope you do a little review since there will be much to talk about, especially with that ending.

  17. “I don’t see the “point” in watching mass-produced product of a corrupt military-entertainment complex when I feel as though I am opening myself up to pathogens, but I do it anyway”

    The vast majority of films I watch do not come from Hollywood, or even America (I do acknowledge some influence, of course, and that influence is becoming more prominent every year). That said, I do tend to watch my fair share of the bigger movies that come out of Hollywood. The point, for me, is to take the pulse, and to project into the future, to see the dream before it’s dreamed. I know people tend to emulate the moods and actions of the characters they see in films, “drawing down” the spirits portrayed by their favorite stars, and I know this tendency is being exploited by those who would have us be one way or another. Also, the subject matter that is included in many Hollywood films is relevant because it often comes into fruition, or is recognized as already having been present, after the film is received. It’s basically like licking my finger and sticking it into the air.

    I know you have reservations about the value of escaping reality for a while, but I think it’s a necessary human function, and this is why we universally pursue it. We die if we don’t do it. It’s essential to creativity. The danger, in my eyes, comes when we forget, or deny, that the dream is just as real as our daily lives in many ways. Brain chemistry does not discriminate, it reacts (unless trained).

    “we are all complicit in whatever corruption maintains the system we depend on, and the more we depend on it, not just physically but emotionally and mentally too, the more complicit we are”

    I agree, but is the system more dependent on us than we are on it? I think so. I think we are primarily responsible for this corruption, we facilitate it. In that sense it’s almost our duty to actively absorb what it produces, if not take over the production entirely. And I think you’re right when you say we can’t avoid it. In that sense, it seems like it’s actually beneficial to consciously watch some of these films, to apply our awareness to them, so we know where the ideas are coming from, rather than just encountering them in another person who we might meet, or interact with, and not detecting the source. This could be instrumental in preventing, or at least curtailing the spread of some of these viruses. I recall you mentioned to me once that a film critics job is to help point out to the viewer when the director/production team is fucking up. You said it differently, of course…

    And what is the source?

    That brings me to “How do you perform your “aggressive detox” then?”

    It’s kind of difficult to put into words, and would require a lot more typing, but to sum it up as best as I can, I noticed some years ago, when watching a film I hadn’t seen in many years, since I was very young, just how much of myself came from that film. It wasn’t like it was my whole life, I don’t even recall what film it was anymore, some animated feature, but it was a significant enough portion that it made me pause and consider the implications. So I got another old film I saw when I was very young, smoked, and watched the film (I was high the first time as well). Again, I was kind of amazed at how much of myself I saw in the film! So I did it with a few more old films, not just animation. Then it started to get disturbing. I noticed where a lot of negative thought patterns and qualities and erroneous perceptions came from, things that basically went unquestioned since I first saw those movies. I saw some of my desire nature, I saw some of my dreams and projections, things that were profound and things that were prosaic. I also realized that I was essentially returning to that state, the mind frame I was in while I first saw the films. At least, part of me was. Then I noticed that I could essentially revisit myself in the past and change my old perceptions, rather than unconsciously let things reinforce them. It led to an understanding of what totem poles really represent, and chasing the dragon, and things of that nature. Long story short, I realized I could ride the dragon and direct it, from a place that was less blemished (if at all) by these early perceptions and imprints, rather than simply chase it. The dragon imagery is more than just dramatization or romanticism. It was initially experienced as violence, chaos without compare, and came with relentless terror, until I surrendered to it, and found my self inside of it.

    I’m not as vigilant as I could be, perhaps, but I think that’s because I also realize that “quitting cold could be fatal” at least socially, and I know I’m not done with society yet.

  18. ” I also realized that I was essentially returning to that state, the mind frame I was in while I first saw the films. At least, part of me was. Then I noticed that I could essentially revisit myself in the past and change my old perceptions, rather than unconsciously let things reinforce them. ”

    I noticed my indulgence in watching films were from my neurosis and unconscious neurosis.

  19. “It’s kind of difficult to put into words, and would require a lot more typing, but to sum it up as best as I can, I noticed some years ago, when watching a film I hadn’t seen in many years, since I was very young, just how much of myself came from that film. It wasn’t like it was my whole life, I don’t even recall what film it was anymore, some animated feature, but it was a significant enough portion that it made me pause and consider the implications. So I got another old film I saw when I was very young, smoked, and watched the film (I was high the first time as well). Again, I was kind of amazed at how much of myself I saw in the film! So I did it with a few more old films, not just animation. Then it started to get disturbing. I noticed where a lot of negative thought patterns and qualities and erroneous perceptions came from, things that basically went unquestioned since I first saw those movies. ”

    I had that same kind of relationship with a movie. particularly the film “Naked” hit me right at the time I experienced despair and conspiracy jadedness. That film evoked a lot the feelings I felt minus the misogyny aspect. I would always return to it and relate to it. Now in retrospect I just see how things can get real dark when you’re trapped and confused. And, now can’t believe I associated myself with the protagonist.

  20. I find this input fascinating, unfortunately I won’t be able to respond because I am caught up in a massive internal investigation which I hope to blog about in the next few days.

  21. I’ve been trying to tell some people, we really don’t understand what’s going on in this world. To state the obvious, historically aberrant sexual behavior is being normalized all over the world right now (all is as it has been). We are probably entering, or perhaps nearly in the midst of an era not unlike the 50’s-70’s (the Psychedelic period, I guess), the Renaissance, the Industrial Revolution, etc. I believe there are periodic, perhaps regular (i.e. scheduled) temporal regions, so to speak, that the collective organism passes through, and that these regions are characterized by, among other things, bursts of creative energy, religious upheaval and collective sexual reorientation. The lengths of perceived time spent in these regions may differ, but the overall outcome is the same: widespread transformation. Media ‘evolves’, methods of communication change, and one key characteristic is energy as a frantic and nearly unbridled social energy erupts in all areas of life. It’s during these periods that revolutions occur, life reveals a new element, a portion of its face which was previously obscured, and new modalities arise in art and science and thought, and thus in technology. I think it is possible that these periods are actually directed, or cultured, and much like culturing stem cells, or firing particle accelerators (or all things, really), every detail may not be fully understood, but what is known is the goal, and the basic recipe to achieve that goal. The social fallout may not even be of much interest to the “manipulators”. The work may have a goal that has little to do with its unwitting participants (on the surface), in the way that ancient Chinese brass artifacts, for instance, have little to do with philosophers snow, and philosophers snow has little to do with batteries, and batteries have little to do with photographs. Since we may never know the goal of The Great Work in this context, all we can do is observe, and perhaps counter, or at least modify, the impact it has on our own identity.

    I believe it is entirely possible that our energy is being harvested. This would probably be why these periods are also usually book-ended or defined by major wars. Every harvest requires a holocaust of sorts (no secret messages there, I’m obviously not a nazi).

    The language used in that article (by the subjects, not the author), and by these groups I’m referring to in general, was taken directly from the civil rights movement before that aborted movement could even bury its luminaries. It was then mutilated and mangled, trivialized, and combined with an often intensely individualistic philosophy (ironic, considering its origins). That combination breeds an attitude that demands that each individual be loved and respected and admired just for being who they are, just for being born and existing. It assumes that every inclination is to be celebrated BY ALL (often just because “it’s natural”… as if there were anything unnatural in nature), and (again, ironically) thoroughly vilifies those with differing opinions. It’s clearly a recipe for social chaos.

    Mind the fnords.

    • Thanks for the link!

      That’s not actually the “theory” in and of itself, but it’s a component. I don’t really “theorize” as much as I realize. That’s not to say that what I realize is The Ultimate Truth, just that as any realization is occurring to me I take notice of it, right or wrong… this one just keeps popping up.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s