Tag Archives: Books

LEWIS CARROLL – PREDATOR : PART TWO

3 Replies

LEWIS CARROLL WAS JACK THE RIPPER

Jack the Ripper was a notorious serial killer in the 1800s who committed a series of gruesome murders that were never solved.  His victims were all prostitutes who worked in the Whitechapel district of London, which is why the murders became known as the Whitechapel murders.  Jack the Ripper was suspected of having committed eleven killings between 1888 and 1891, of which five are considered ‘canonical’ Ripper victims, meaning they were definitely attributed to him.  The name Jack the Ripper came from a series of letters that were sent to the Central News Agency supposedly by the killer, mocking the police for their inability to catch him.   Jack the Ripper is still considered one of the worst serial killers in history due to the brutal nature of his murders.  There have been speculations over the years about who could have been the killer, with several names put forward as possible suspects. 

In 1996, Richard Wallace wrote a book, Jack the Ripper, Light-Hearted Friend, in which he proposed Lewis Carroll as Jack the Ripper.  His theory was thoroughly mocked and outrightly dismissed by people who called themselves experts on Jack the Ripper.  Even though today Lewis Carroll’s name is included in the list of possible suspects, he has always been considered among the least likely to have been Jack the Ripper.  This just tells me that the people who consider themselves ‘experts’ have no idea what they are talking about.  If they were indeed experts, then Lewis Carroll would have been considered among the most likely, if not the actual, culprit in the Jack the Ripper murders.  Once we look at the evidence, it should be obvious that Lewis Carroll was Jack the Ripper, and any reasonable person should consider the case finally closed.

Let’s look at the evidence.

  1. Lewis Carroll identified himself as Jack (aka the Knave) in Alice in Wonderland

When I first encountered the idea that Lewis Carroll was Jack the Ripper, I dismissed it outright, as most people do.  But gradually, as I started entertaining the possibility, I wondered to myself, why Jack?  Where did this name come from?  And then it hit me.  Did you know that in a pack of cards, the ‘J’ stands for Jack?  I didn’t know this until quite recently.  The J, which is also known as the Knave, actually stands for Jack.  The K stands for King, the Q for Queen, and the J for Jack.  In Alice in Wonderland, the main characters are derived from characters in a pack of cards.  There’s the Queen of Hearts, the King of Hearts and the Knave of Hearts.  The Knave is the one who undergoes a trial in the last chapter of Alice in Wonderland for stealing the tarts that the Queen of Hearts had baked.  For those who know the real story of Lewis Carroll, we know that something happened to cause a rupture in his relationship with the Liddell family.  If you read the first part of this series, then you know that the rupture was most likely caused by Carroll being accused of molesting the sisters.  This is what he is referring to when he talks about a trial in which the Knave is accused of stealing the tarts.  By identifying himself as the Knave, Lewis Carroll is telling us that he is Jack.  This is where the name Jack comes from.  This, to me, is the smoking gun.

2. Lewis Carroll alludes to Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde in his diaries

In November 1888, at the height of the Jack the Ripper murders, Lewis Carroll refers to himself as Dr Jekyll in his diary.  Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde is a Gothic horror novella by Scottish author Robert Louis Stevenson, first published in 1886.  It explores the duality of human nature through the story of Dr Henry Jekyll, a respected London physician who creates a potion to separate his good and evil impulses. The result is Edward Hyde, a smaller, younger, and physically repulsive man who embodies Jekyll’s repressed vices and violent tendencies.  As Jekyll uses the potion more frequently, Hyde grows stronger and increasingly uncontrollable. Jekyll loses the ability to transform back at will, and Hyde begins appearing involuntarily. The novella is narrated through the perspective of Gabriel John Utterson, Jekyll’s lawyer and friend, who investigates the mysterious connection between Jekyll and the brutal crimes committed by Hyde. The story culminates in Jekyll’s desperate attempt to reclaim control, ultimately failing as he becomes permanently trapped as Mr Hyde.

The phrase “Jekyll and Hyde” has since entered the common language to describe someone with a sharply contrasting public and private persona—respectable outwardly, yet cruel or immoral in private.  So why would Lewis Carroll refer to himself as Dr Jekyll in his diaries, during the same period when the Whitechapel murders were taking place in London?  It’s obvious.  It’s because his alter ego, Jack, was the one carrying out the gruesome murders.

3. Lewis Carroll’s love of letter writing and ability to change his handwriting at will

Lewis Carroll loved writing letters.  He had hundreds of child-friends, to whom he wrote thousands of letters during his lifetime.  He kept a meticulous register of all the letters he wrote, estimated to have been 98,721 letters over 37 years.  This love of letter writing is something he shared with Jack the Ripper. 

The Jack the Ripper letters were sent to various recipients, primarily in London:

  • Central News Agency – The infamous Dear Boss letter (25 September 1888) and the Saucy Jacky postcard (1 October 1888) were both addressed to this news agency, located in London’s City district. 
  • Scotland Yard and Police Officials – A significant portion (67%) of the hundreds of Ripper letters were sent to law enforcement, including Scotland Yard, Sir Charles Warren (head of the Metropolitan Police), and Inspector Abberline. 
  • George Lusk – Chairman of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, received the From Hell letter (16 October 1888), which contained a human kidney. 
  • Newspapers and the Public – Some letters were sent to other news outlets, private firms, schools, or private citizens, while others had unknown recipients. 

If Lewis Carroll was indeed Jack the Ripper, then it’s not surprising that he would send hundreds of letters to gain notoriety.

Lewis Carroll also had an uncanny ability to change his handwriting at will.  For this, we need look no further than the handwritten copy of Alice’s Adventures Underground, which he gave as a gift to Alice Liddell.  The entire book was written in a childlike handwriting, which was not Lewis Carroll’s normal handwriting.  The fact that he could accomplish such a feat means that he could have written the Dear Boss letter.  Lewis Carroll alludes to this in the last chapter of Alice in Wonderland, in which a set of verses supposedly written by the Knave is read during the trial.  One of the jurymen asks:

“Are they in the prisoner’s handwriting?”

“No, they’re not,” said the White Rabbit, “and that’s the queerest thing about it.” (The jury all looked puzzled.)

“He must have imitated somebody else’s hand,” said the King. (The jury all brightened up again.)

The final clue concerning the letters is found in Lewis Carroll’s habit of underlining certain words for emphasis when writing letters.  We can see this in the letter he wrote to Alice Liddell after he borrowed her copy of Alice in Wonderland.  In the Dear Boss letter, which is one of the few that were confirmed to be from Jack the Ripper, we see the same habit of underlining certain words for emphasis.

4. Lewis Carroll had a split personality

Lewis Carroll was the pen name for Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, a lecturer of mathematics and an ordained deacon at Christ Church College, Oxford University.  The interesting thing about Charles Dodgson was that he went to extreme lengths to distance himself from Lewis Carroll.  Letters addressed to Lewis Carroll that came to him would be sent back.  To enforce this separation, Dodgson created a printed document known as the “Stranger Circular”, which he sent to collectors and inquirers.  It stated clearly: 

“Mr Dodgson is so frequently addressed by strangers on the quite unauthorised assumption that he claims or at any rate acknowledges the authorship of books not published under his name, that he has found it necessary to print this, once and for all, as an answer to all such applications. He neither claims nor acknowledges any connection with any pseudonym, or with any book that is not published under his own name.”

This might at first appear as a humorous personality quirk, but I believe it went much deeper.  I believe Lewis Carroll suffered from a split personality, which meant that he could separate his identity as Lewis Carroll from his other identity as Charles Lutwidge Dodgson.  In his mind, these were two separate and distinct people.  Once we understand this, it becomes easier to understand why he would take on the identity of Jack the Ripper.  This was another split in his persona that came from an intense desire to commit the crimes that Jack the Ripper committed, which he could not do as either Lewis Carroll or Charles Dodgson.  Jack the Ripper was born for purposes of committing murder, which meant that Charles Dodgson could continue living his normal life without acknowledging his criminal identity, just the same way he tried to live his life without acknowledging his identity as Lewis Carroll.

5. Medical Knowledge

Jack the Ripper was believed to possess medical knowledge because of the way he carried out his murders.  He removed internal organs—such as kidneys and uteruses—from several victims, and the precision and speed of the mutilations suggested familiarity with human anatomy.  However, Dr Thomas Bond, who conducted a detailed post-mortem analysis, concluded the killer had no formal medical or surgical training, noting the ragged, unskilled nature of the cuts—inconsistent with a surgeon or even a butcher.  He believed the killer lacked technical precision, despite knowing organ locations.

While Lewis Carroll obviously did not have medical training, we know that he was interested in vivisection, even writing two influential essays about it: “Some Popular Fallacies About Vivisection” (1875) and “Vivisection as a Sign of the Times” (1875).  This suggests that he studied the subject extensively.  Another clue can be found in the fact that Lewis Carroll had an extensive medical library.  We know this because after his death, his prized Medical Collection was bequeathed to his nephew Bertram James Collingwood, 1871-1934, a physician whose father had died just days before Dodgson.

The above is consistent with Jack the Ripper, who, while not having technical precision, knew where organs were located.

6. Mysterious clergyman who went to look for Mr Lusk

While researching Jack the Ripper, I came across an interesting fact that was reported by one of the witnesses.  Miss Emily Marsh reported encountering a mysterious man dressed in clerical attire on October 15, 1888, at her father’s leather shop on Jubilee Street, Mile End Road, shortly after 1:00 PM. The man inquired about the address of Mr  George Lusk, president of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, and asked to be directed to him.  When Miss Marsh suggested he visit Mr Joseph Aarons, the committee’s treasurer, the man declined, saying he did not wish to go to a pub. She then read aloud from a newspaper article that listed Lusk’s address as Alderney Street, Globe Road, without a house number, which the man then wrote down in his notebook. 

The man was described as about 45 years old, six feet tall, slimly built, with a sallow complexion, a dark beard and moustache, and wore a long black overcoat, a soft felt hat, and a Prussian or clerical collar. He spoke with what Miss Marsh perceived as an Irish brogue.  She and her father, along with a shopboy named James Cormack, gave a detailed description of the man, who left without calling on Lusk.  This encounter occurred one day before Lusk received the infamous “From Hell” letter and a preserved human kidney.  The letter did not have the house number on the address.

We know that Lewis Carroll was six feet tall, slim and had a sallow complexion.  The beard and moustache were obviously a disguise, which Lewis Carroll must have been good at from his photography work (he had all sorts of costumes that his subjects would wear at his studio).  But the most important clue is that the man had a clerical collar.  We know that Lewis Carroll was an ordained deacon and that he used to wear a clerical collar.  This is what one of his child-friends, Princess Alice, said about him:

“As a little girl, I once arrived at a children’s party and saw a pale old clergyman in black clothes. I glumly assumed that he would spoil everything. Yet, the party soon became Mr Dodgson’s party.”

What this means is that the tall clergyman who went to look for Mr Lusk was in fact Lewis Carroll.

7. Lewis Carroll’s frequent trips to London

It has been said that Lewis Carroll could not have been Jack the Ripper because Lewis Carroll was vacationing at Eastbourne at the time.  This overlooks the fact that Lewis Carroll frequently travelled by train to London to meet with publishers, to meet with relatives and to go to the theatre.  We know that he used to make trips to London to attend the theatre even when he was vacationing at Eastbourne.  So, the idea that he could not have committed the murders because he was at Eastbourne is baseless.  London already had a very well-established railway system in the 1800s, so nothing would have been easier than to take the train to London, commit the crimes, then take the train back to Eastbourne.  The distance between London and Eastbourne is around one hour by train, and this was a trip he frequently undertook.  Therefore, this supposed alibi is not an alibi at all.  It would not be the first time that a serial killer travelled to a different town or city to commit a crime.  Many serial killers do this.

8. Lewis Carroll’s hidden sadistic nature

Consider the passage below, which Lewis Carroll wrote to Enid Shawyer, a child-friend, dated April 7, 1891.

“So you think you’ve got the courage to come for a walk by yourself with me? Indeed! Well, I shall come for you on April 31st at 13 o’clock, and first I will take you to the Oxford Zoological Gardens, and put you into a cage of LIONS, and when they’ve had a good feed, I’ll bring you to my rooms, and give a regular beating, with a thick stick, to my new little friend. Then I’ll put you into the coal-hole, and feed you for a week on nothing but bread and water. Then I’ll send you home in a milk-cart, in one of the empty milk-cans.”

Some might say that this is just a humorous letter, but someone else would rightly ask, why would anyone write such a letter to a child?

This is what he wrote to Isa Bowman on September 17, 1893.

“Oh, you naughty, naughty little culprit! If only I could fly to Fulham with a handy little stick (ten feet long and four inches thick is my favourite size) how I would rap your wicked little knuckles. However, there isn’t much harm done, so I will sentence you to a very mild punishment—only one year’s imprisonment. If you’ll just tell the Fulham policeman about it, he’ll manage all the rest for you, and he’ll fit you with a nice pair of handcuffs, and lock you up in a nice cosy dark cell, and feed you on nice dry bread, and delicious cold water.”

Did he love his child-friends, or did he want to imprison them in dungeons and feed them on bread and water? 

The last proof of hidden sadism can be found in his book, Alice in Wonderland.  Have you ever wondered what the chapter about the baby turning into a pig was all about?  I wondered about this for a long time because it didn’t make any sense, and seemed to be an example of the nonsense he was so famous for.  But I discovered that the chapter had a deeper, darker, more sinister meaning.  To understand what the passage was all about, we need to first understand who the duchess was.  The duchess, just like the Queen of Hearts, was Mrs Liddell, a woman Lewis Carroll loathed, which we can tell from how she is portrayed in the book.  What many might not know is that Mrs Liddell lost a baby in infancy in 1863, around the time when the rift with Lewis Carroll occurred.  The chapter about the baby turning into a pig and trotting away was alluding to the fact that Mrs Liddell was such a bad mother that she allowed her child to die due to neglect and mistreatment.

Let’s take a look at a passage from that chapter.

“Oh, don’t bother me,” said the Duchess; “I never could abide figures!” And with that, she began nursing her child again, singing a sort of lullaby to it as she did so, and giving it a violent shake at the end of every line:

“Speak roughly to your little boy,
And beat him when he sneezes:
He only does it to annoy,
Because he knows it teases.”

CHORUS
(In which the cook and the baby joined):
“Wow! wow! wow!”

While the Duchess sang the second verse of the song, she kept tossing the baby violently up and down, and the poor little thing howled so that Alice could hardly hear the words:—

“I speak severely to my boy,
I beat him when he sneezes;
For he can thoroughly enjoy
The pepper when he pleases!”

CHORUS
“Wow! wow! wow!”

“Here! you may nurse it a bit, if you like!” the Duchess said to Alice, flinging the baby at her as she spoke. “I must go and get ready to play croquet with the Queen,” and she hurried out of the room. The cook threw a frying-pan after her as she went out, but it just missed her.

Alice caught the baby with some difficulty, as it was a queer-shaped little creature, and held out its arms and legs in all directions, “just like a star-fish,” thought Alice. The poor little thing was snorting like a steam-engine when she caught it, and kept doubling itself up and straightening itself out again, so that altogether, for the first minute or two, it was as much as she could do to hold it.

As soon as she had made out the proper way of nursing it (which was to twist it up into a sort of knot, and then keep tight hold of its right ear and left foot, so as to prevent its undoing itself), she carried it out into the open air. “If I don’t take this child away with me,” thought Alice, “they’re sure to kill it in a day or two: wouldn’t it be murder to leave it behind?” She said the last words out loud, and the little thing grunted in reply (it had left off sneezing by this time). “Don’t grunt,” said Alice; “that’s not at all a proper way of expressing yourself.”

The baby grunted again, and Alice looked very anxiously into its face to see what was the matter with it. There could be no doubt that it had a very turn-up nose, much more like a snout than a real nose; also its eyes were getting extremely small for a baby: altogether Alice did not like the look of the thing at all. “But perhaps it was only sobbing,” she thought, and looked into its eyes again, to see if there were any tears.

No, there were no tears. “If you’re going to turn into a pig, my dear,” said Alice, seriously, “I’ll have nothing more to do with you. Mind now!” The poor little thing sobbed again (or grunted, it was impossible to say which), and they went on for some while in silence.

Alice was just beginning to think to herself, “Now, what am I to do with this creature when I get it home?” when it grunted again, so violently that she looked down into its face in some alarm. This time there could be no mistake about it: it was neither more nor less than a pig, and she felt that it would be quite absurd for her to carry it further.

So she set the little creature down, and felt quite relieved to see it trot away quietly into the wood. “If it had grown up,” she said to herself, “it would have made a dreadfully ugly child: but it makes rather a handsome pig, I think.” And she began thinking over other children she knew, who might do very well as pigs, and was just saying to herself, “if one only knew the right way to change them—” when she was a little startled by seeing the Cheshire Cat sitting on a bough of a tree a few yards off.

Exactly how much did Lewis Carroll hate Mrs Liddell to write such a cruel passage about the child she lost? 

9. Lewis Carroll’s reincarnation as C. S. Lewis

My final submission is going to be controversial for those who don’t believe in reincarnation.  If that is you, you may skip this section altogether. 

C. S. Lewis was born ten months and 15 days after Lewis Carroll’s death, in November 1898.  The two men share several uncanny similarities:

  • Both Lewis Carroll and C. S. Lewis studied at Oxford University – one at Christ Church College and the other at Magdalene College.
  • C. S. Lewis was a lay theologian of the Anglican church, while Lewis Carroll (Dodgson) was an ordained deacon of the Anglican church.
  • Both of them wrote popular children’s fantasy books – the Alice books and The Chronicles of Narnia. 
  • They both created fantasy worlds, i.e. Wonderland and Narnia, in which animals could talk to humans.
  • In both Wonderland and Narnia, the protagonist is a little girl (Alice and Lucy), and authority figures include an evil woman (the Queen of Hearts and the White Witch)
  • C. S. Lewis was born in Ireland, while Lewis Carroll had Irish ancestry through his grandfather and great-grandfather.

You may be asking yourself, so what if C. S. Lewis was Lewis Carroll reborn?  Well, apparently, C. S. Lewis insisted on being called Jack from the age of four and would not answer to any other name.  He used the name Jack for the rest of his life and said it was because he hated his real name (Clive Staples).  Isn’t this just a little bit too much of a coincidence?

Do you agree with me that Lewis Carroll was Jack the Ripper?  Let me know in the comments.

LEWIS CARROLL – PREDATOR : PART ONE

Leave a reply

LEWIS CARROLL WAS A PAEDOPHILE

A lot has been said and written about Lewis Carroll (Charles Lutwidge Dodgson), the author of Alice in Wonderland and Alice Through the Looking Glass.  One thing no one seems able to agree on is whether he was the shy, beloved author of children’s books or a predator, preying on children and hiding in plain sight.  After going through the evidence, there’s no doubt in my mind that he was the latter.  Here was a man who managed to fool everyone about who he was, managed to molest children while posing as a serious don and clergyman, and went on to confess his misdeeds in coded language in his famous book.  I have read a lot about how the Victorian age was different from our own, and how he should not be judged by today’s standards, but all that is nonsense, much like the nonsense he wrote.  Predators existed even in Victorian times, and just like today, they blended into society so convincingly that they could commit their crimes unnoticed for years.  That’s what Lewis Carroll did. 

Let’s look at the evidence.

1. He liked children – but not little boys

The first and most obvious clue about his true nature is the fact that he supposedly loved children, except boys.  This outrageous idea should make it obvious to everyone that his love for children was not genuine.  If he found children innocent and adorable, then logically, he should have loved all children, not just little girls.  The fact that he tirelessly looked for little girls everywhere he went, and lured them with games and puzzles – much like predators today lure children with sweets and ice-cream – tells us that he was not an innocent lover of children but a shameless predator.  Not only did he love little girls, but he also photographed them nude.  Why would anyone think of this as innocent?  The defence usually given about this behaviour is that it was common in Victorian times to photograph children in the nude, and in fact, other photographers like Julia Margaret Cameron did the same.  I’m quite sure that Julia Margaret Cameron did not walk around with little gifts to lure children to be photographed.  This is the behaviour of a predator.  Even in Victorian times, Carroll’s obsession with photographing young girls was problematic, which led to his abandoning photography in 1880.

2. Rift with the Liddell family

When Alice was 11 years old in 1863, a rift occurred between Lewis Carroll and the Liddell family.  Lewis Carroll was briefly suspended from Oxford before returning a short while later.  While his relationship with the parents was restored later, it was never the same, and he was never allowed near the children again.  We do not know exactly what happened to cause the rift, because the diary pages during this period (June 27–29, 1863) were cut out.  Many theories have been put forward about what could have happened, but the one clear thing is that his relationship with the Liddell family changed after that.  The parents maintained their relationship with Carroll to save face, but they must have discovered something serious enough to cause them to ban him from seeing the children.  A relative of Dodgson later inserted a note indicating that the missing diary pages were about a rumour regarding Dodgson’s possible interest in either the governess or Lorina.  To me, this doesn’t explain why Dodgson was suspended and why he was never allowed to see the children again.  The logical conclusion is that he was found out and banished, and the incident was kept quiet to protect the reputations of the girls and of the University.

3. Missing diaries

Dodgson’s diaries between April 1858 and May 1862 went missing sometime after his death.  The family claimed that the diaries were lost during a move, but this is not a convincing explanation.  Why this specific period? What were they trying to hide?  The period corresponds to when Alice was 6 to 10 years old.  What did Dodgson confess to that was so egregious that his family chose to destroy the evidence rather than allow it to fall into the wrong hands?  It must have been serious enough for such a drastic action to be taken, given how famous Dodgson was.  Logically, the family would have wanted to keep his diaries for future reference, maybe for biographies or just a record of his life.  Why did the family remain mum over the years, refusing to give interviews?  What was the sin that Dodgson continually referred to in his diaries when he said he was a ‘vile and worthless man’?  Is it possible he was referring to the fact that he was a paedophile?

4. Isa Bowman

Isa Bowman was one of Dodgson’s ‘child friends’ (aka victims).  In 1899, after his death, she wrote a short memoir about him.  In it, she gives an incident in which Dodgson “kissed her passionately” when she was about 10 or 11 years old.  If we are to assume that this is how he treated his child friends, then it’s clear that his relationships were anything but platonic.  He used to holiday with Isa in Eastbourne, and she “was always at Oxford”, where she would visit him and stay outside Oxford, then spend her days with him.  Clearly, he had unrestricted access to her, which meant that he could do whatever he wanted.  It’s not clear why this damning evidence has always been ignored.  Instead, a fiction was created in which they met for the first time on 27 September 1887 when Isa was 13 years old, which directly contradicts what she says in her memoir.  It appears that there are people out there who are so determined to protect Carroll’s image that they are ready to dismiss a clear indictment by one of his child friends.  They then went on to say that none of his child friends had ever said anything negative about him, but the one person who did was immediately dismissed. Also, why would anyone want to confess to being molested by Carroll, given how society, even today, always protects the perpetrators, especially if they are powerful?  Why would anyone want to risk damaging their reputation?

5. Full frontal nude photograph of Lorina Liddell

A few years ago, a BBC documentary claimed that a full-frontal nude image of Lorina Liddell had been unearthed, attributed to Lewis Carroll.  The photograph was found in a museum in France.  The BBC went to great pains to verify that the photograph was of Lorina Liddell, and they concluded that it was indeed her.  The photograph was the right age and used the same technique that Lewis Carroll used in his photography.  The documentary was viciously attacked by defenders of Lewis Carroll, and the BBC was forced to stop airing it any further.  But the damage was already done, for those who cared to listen.  The photograph could only have been taken by Dodgson, which should be obvious to anyone who is not biased.  This tells us that his interest in children was not innocent.

6. Confession in Alice in Wonderland

There has always been some controversy about Alice in Wonderland, leading to the book being banned in certain parts of the world.  Apparently, the book is not as innocent as it appears, and in fact is not a children’s book at all.  Consider this passage.

“Suddenly she came upon a little three-legged table, all made of solid glass; there was nothing on it except a tiny golden key, and Alice’s first thought was that it might belong to one of the doors of the hall; but, alas! either the locks were too large, or the key was too small, but at any rate, it would not open any of them. However, on the second time round, she came upon a low curtain she had not noticed before, and behind it was a little door about fifteen inches high: she tried the little golden key in the lock, and to her great delight it fitted!

Alice opened the door and found that it led into a small passage, not much larger than a rat-hole: she knelt down and looked along the passage into the loveliest garden you ever saw. How she longed to get out of that dark hall, and wander about among those beds of bright flowers and those cool fountains, but she could not even get her head through the doorway; “and even if my head would go through,” thought poor Alice, “it would be of very little use without my shoulders.”

Do you see it?  A curtain with a little door behind it.  A small passage not much larger than a rat-hole.  The loveliest garden you ever saw.  Alice (Lewis Carroll) expressing frustration at not being able to fit through the door.  If this isn’t a coded description of a paedophile’s frustration at not being able to access a young girl’s private parts, I don’t know what is. And please remember, in the book, after much effort Alice (Lewis Carroll) is eventually able to enter through the door. What does that tell you? And this isn’t the only sexual innuendo in the book.  The book is so full of sexual innuendo that it was banned in the US in the1900s. 

7. Alice in Wonderland is popular with paedophiles

Society may have refused to acknowledge what Alice in Wonderland was really about, but paedophiles certainly didn’t.  They knew full well what the book was talking about, which is why Wonderland Club, an international online network of paedophiles involved in the production, distribution, and live-streaming of child sexual abuse material, existed between 1995 and 1998.  The club, named after Alice in Wonderland, facilitated the trafficking of children through the creation and exchange of over 750,000 images and 1,800 videos of abuse.  On 2 September 1998, 104 suspects were arrested worldwide.  The case prompted significant legal reforms in the UK, including the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which increased maximum penalties for child sexual offences to 10 years (which, in my opinion, is still too lenient.  It should be life in prison surely, for such crimes.)

Conclusion

We live in a world where predators are protected while victims are punished.  Just look at the Jeffrey Epstein saga.  After the release of millions of files, with multiple mentions of perpetrators, no one has been arrested.  Despite direct witness testimony of criminal activity, including abuse of minors, nothing has happened.  The perpetrators continue to walk free, while the victims are re-victimised and endangered through the release of their unredacted information.  That is the world we live in.  It should therefore not surprise anyone that Lewis Carroll has been vigorously defended, and his open paedophilia denied.  We live in a world where people like Jimmy Savile can operate openly, without consequences.  Lewis Carroll was a predator, and the world protects his reputation because that’s what it does.  In his hubris, Lewis Carroll went ahead and told us what he was doing in Alice in Wonderland, almost as if he was telling us to ‘Catch me if you can.’

(Part two of the series to follow)

Excerpt from my upcoming book: ENDING WAR (1)

Leave a reply

Who shapes our worldview on war?

Human beings have very specific ideas about what the world is supposed to look like.  Some of these ideas are so ingrained that we never even stop to question them.  Our political systems.  Our geopolitical systems.  Our education systems.  Our social lives.  The way we work.  The way we love.  We accept that the world is the way it is because that is the way it is supposed to be.  But have you ever asked yourself where we get our ideas about what the world is supposed to look like?  Are the systems we have the only possible systems we could have on the planet?  The truth of the matter is that the way the world works today is the result of ideas that come from human beings.  There is nothing to say that these systems are necessarily the best systems or the only possible systems.  Neither can we say that these systems come from God because they seem to contradict everything we know about God’s nature.  Our world is based on a competitive model in which the winner takes all.  This is not the only way that our world could be structured.  We could have a world that is based on co-operation, whereby we see ourselves as being in the same boat, therefore needing to cooperate with each other in order to survive and thrive.  Unfortunately, we have been brainwashed into believing that being competitive is the only way human beings can exist.  From the day we are born, our parents pass on these attitudes to us.  They do their best to prepare us to exist in a competitive world by doing whatever they can to give us a head start.  In this way, they are already telling us that we will need to fight to survive.  When we go to school, it is the same thing.  Our education system is structured in a way that teaches us to always compete with each other.  We are taught to see our fellow students as competition that we need to beat.  We are taught to see ourselves in comparison with others. not as human beings in our own right.  We are taught that we are not good enough unless we are ahead of others.  We are taught that our worth comes from scoring the highest grades and being at the top of the class.   If, God forbid, we do not perform well, then we are taught that we have less value than those who are at the top.  This same attitude extends to the workplace where we are taught that to get ahead, we have to be better than everyone else.  We have to work harder than anyone, produce the best results and do anything to please our bosses.  If need be, we should be willing to step on others or ride on their backs to get ahead.  Outside of the workplace, we are taught to compete with others in society; to buy the latest cars, live in the best houses and wear the most fashionable clothes.  This is done not to live our best lives but to keep up with or outdo our neighbours.  We want our marriages to be picture-perfect and our children to attend the best schools, all so that we feel that we are better than others.

Our world is based on a competitive model in which the winner takes all.  This is not the only way that our world could be structured.  We could have a world that is based on co-operation, whereby we see ourselves as being in the same boat, therefore needing to cooperate with each other in order to survive and thrive. 

I hope you can see where I’m going with this.  We have been brainwashed into believing that life is a competition against others.  Instead of living life in ways that make us happy, we drive ourselves almost to death in order to be better than others.  We live life in comparison to others and in the process, we lose ourselves.  Where does this idea about life come from?  What happened is that over time, we allowed the most aggressive people amongst us to be the ones deciding how the world should be structured.  These people see life only as a competition and they somehow managed to get the rest of us to look at life this way.  They deceived us into looking at life the same way they look at it and into structuring the world in a competitive rather than cooperative way.  The most aggressive people captured our collective psyches and instilled in us the idea that human beings are supposed to compete with each other over scarce resources.  The very idea that the world has scarce resources comes from these same aggressive beings.  Every day we are told that the world is running out of resources to support human beings.  The truth, however, is that we have a distribution problem, whereby the world’s wealth and resources are hoarded by a few, meaning the rest have to do without.  If these resources could be distributed equitably, we would not have people going hungry or living in poverty in certain parts of the world.  The idea that the world has limited resources is a false narrative created by the most aggressive among us who would prefer that no one questioned the fact that they have amongst themselves almost 90% of the world’s wealth.  These are the same people who meet every year at Davos for the World Economic Forum (WEF) and pretend to come up with solutions for the world’s problems.  This is akin to a meeting of wolves trying to solve the problem of sheep getting eaten during the night.   Or as someone once said, it is like attending a fire fighters conference where no one is allowed to talk about water.  It is no surprise therefore that the kind of solutions these people come up with include dystopian scenarios in which we own nothing, have no privacy and are happy about it.  This is simply an expression of their disdain for humanity, that they could come up with such ideas and seriously put them forth as solutions to the world’s problems.

When it comes to war, our worldview is equally shaped by aggressive people holding leadership positions in policy making institutions.   How else do you explain the fact that even though most people do not want to go to war and are innately anti-war, we continue having wars on the planet?  How do you explain the fact that even though most of humanity is horrified by the idea of nuclear war, we seem to be marching closer and closer to a nuclear confrontation between nuclear-armed nations?  The people driving the agenda are lost in a delusional worldview in which having the most powerful and destructive weapons equals being the most powerful nation on earth.  These lunatics who have zero ability to reason intelligently are the ones driving the agenda and they keep taking us closer and closer to annihilation.  It is no exaggeration to say that the people leading our world are mentally ill in the literal sense of the word.  They are psychopaths and narcissists who should be locked up in mental health institutions or at the very least under psychiatric care, not the ones making the most important decisions on earth.  How humanity allowed such a situation to exist is something we will have to grapple with for a long time as we start waking up to the reality of our situation. 

The people driving the agenda are lost in a delusional worldview in which having the most powerful and destructive weapons equals being the most powerful nation on earth. 

The ideas we hold about war come from the war industry which is run by the most aggressive, war-like people on earth.  The same primitive ideas our forefathers held about fighting for land and resources are still held by these people today, at a time when we should long ago have transcended such ideas.  The days of fighting others for land and resources should by now be part of our forgotten history, together with things like making fire from sticks.  In our modern world, no one should be thinking about stealing land and resources, and in all fairness, most people on earth don’t think like this.  But those who run the global agenda still do.  They are like toddlers in adult bodies, fighting each other over toys.  We can therefore conclude that the ones running the world have the lowest consciousness among humanity.  These people are driven by greed for power and profits, the same way wild animals are driven by the urge to kill prey for food.  Instead of using their God-given intelligence to temper this desire with reason, they foolishly follow their lower instincts and they drag the rest of humanity along with them.  They spread their ideologies through think-tanks that push their aggressive ideas to the rest of the world.  They lobby politicians to pass laws and policies that favour their war-mongering.  They buy up the mainstream media and use it as a conduit for their narratives.  And they brainwash us through the entertainment industry that glorifies war and violence.  This, in a nutshell, is how they infect the entire human race with their primitive worldview.

5 Classical Novels to Read in Your Lifetime

Leave a reply

Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy

Have you ever heard the expression ‘Leo Tolstoy is the author everyone wants to have read but no one wants to read’?  There’s a very good reason for that.  Leo Tolstoy’s books such as Anna Karenina or the equally popular War and Peace can seem really daunting when you consider just how thick they are.  I’m talking 1000 pages or more.  But I assure you it is well worth every minute you will spend reading and chances are by the time you are done you will be left craving for more. 

Anna Karenina is my all-time favorite book by far.  I loved it so much I simply didn’t want it to end.  The closer I got to the end of the book, the more anxious I felt because I just wanted it to go on forever.  Leo Tolstoy is quite simply in a class of his own – he cannot be compared with any other author, at least not in my books.  His writing is simple yet engaging, his characters so compelling that you are left wondering how he could come up with such interesting characters.  The novel has a myriad of characters, and yet each of them has a well-developed personality that is different and distinct from all the others in the book.  One is left wondering how Tolstoy could keep track of all those characters and their personalities without mixing everything up.  Even characters who only appear briefly are well developed and one can only marvel at Tolstoy’s genius in what he accomplishes in this novel.  The protagonist, Anna Karenina is such a fascinating character that the reader is simply amazed at Tolstoy’s profound understanding of human nature.  Simply put, Leo Tolstoy is a genius and you really have to read this book for yourself to understand what I mean. 

Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen

I’m a big fun of Jane Austen; I started reading her books in my early twenties and I loved them so much that I eventually read most of her books and I kept copies which I hope my kids are going to read one day.  Pride and Prejudice was the first book I read by Jane Austen and it was the one that made me fall in love with her writing.  You may have heard of the dashing and aloof Mr. Darcy, but did you know that this is a character from Pride and Prejudice?  This book is so well loved that today we have modern movies that have been made based on this book.  To know more about the compelling Mr. Darcy and his romance with one of the five Bennet sisters, go ahead and buy yourself a copy of the book, and maybe you will fall in love with Jane Austen like I did.

Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte

I read Jane Eyre in my younger years and I read it again a few more times after that simply because it was such a fascinating read.  It’s such a dark and terrible tale, but not in a bad way at all.  It’s just that, the topic of madness and old castles and dark nights and people using candles which flicker in the howling wind is so…fascinating.  Welcome to the crazy world of Mr. Rochester and his insane wife who screams at night, much to Jane Eyre’s terror.  I don’t want to spoil this for you, but it’s a captivating story, dark but in an interesting, old English countryside kind of way if you know what I mean.  I’m pretty sure you don’t, so just go ahead and read the book and you will understand what I mean.

Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky

This is an interesting and weird read.  I mean, the plot is so weird yet so captivating that you just keep reading, and reading, all the time wondering how it’s all going to turn out.  It’s a tale of a young man who gets lost in an ideological quagmire which he unwisely decides to test in real life with disastrous consequences.  The book is very well written, with interesting descriptions of how Russian society worked at the time.  It was one of those un-put-downable books for me, and I’m sure it will be for you too.

1984 by George Orwell

The expression ‘Orwellian’ which denotes a brutal policy of draconian control by propaganda, surveillance, disinformation and denial of truth actually comes from George Orwell’s book 1984.  This is the story of a dystopian society in which the government controls everything including people’s thoughts and this is taken to such an extreme that it seems comical and unrealistic at first.  But a closer look at many societies under totalitarian dictatorships will show you that it is not so far-fetched, at least in terms of how far such dictatorships are willing to go in their effort to control their citizens.  The novel seems to be a warning of some sort, probably a warning against accepting unfettered control by a government towards its citizens.  It makes for a very interesting read and the fact that it has political undertones should not put you off because the way it is written is almost like an allegory.  It’s the story of how one man woke up from this nightmare and how that turned out.