Amy Bradley is Missing: Vanishing From a Cruise Ship

Talking About Amy Bradley: A Netflix Shocker (Spoilers) 

3 min read 

A Cynical View Minus The Bollocks

Netflix paints the Amy Bradley case as a deep mystery, but, at the same time it is structured with a very likely outcome. 

The Boring Explanation is Most Likely

Not long after the Netflix show announces her disappearance it hurls in a local, someone quite familiar with the sea's current! Message being: 'We know where a body would wash up, none did,' computer imagery helped to convey their claim. 

We learn Mr and Mrs Bradley pushed to have all passengers grounded until their 23 year old Amy was found. Their request was denied. The staff did do something; a deep search after the passengers disembarked - it was to no avail. She had already left. Look, I know I'm being a tad boring here by saying she took herself off the ship - but why did she?

Sidestepping Netflix

I watched Alister Yellow Douglas, who was cleared by the FBI. The man spoke on YouTube in an interview. and he was very believable. Obviously, I think he is innocent of Amy's disapearence. He directly said Amy told him that her parents made her go on the cruise because she was gay! He said the comment confused him at the time, it would, and it struck a chord with me! The parents shared one bedroom; Amy, a grown-ass woman, also kept her own flat! What the fuck? 

You can see the prevailing waves of doubt across online discussion boards all centring in on Mum and Dad. Someone astutely asked, 'why did the Dad jump straight into a 'Amy is in danger' mentality simply because he didn't notice her that morning?' Netflix was right to bring them deeper into the narrative. According to long term followers of the case less was known about the parents and the dynamics until the show.

Netflix did allude to tensions during the trip of several occasions. Her sexual orientation was a significant issue and key! Her father sent Amy's ex-partner a negative three page letter to keep away! You see where this is going?

The Crux Of The Situation

Amy smoked, drank heavily, partied hard and became the 'life and soul' pulling in the attention. Why? Well... a witness on the Netflix show said on camera there seemed to be something driving Amy's behaviour, duh! 

Of course, it screams rebellion rather than just having fun. If you're feeling pressured by people who want to change who you are, wouldn't you push back? You might want to distance yourself, you might want to self-medicate? Do you know what I mean? 

What Happened? 

Curaçao in the late 90s was known for drugs and trafficking. I looked it up. Amy had motive to leave the ship, be it a self-medicating thing or an act of defiance, a break from the cruise ship, we could compile a list. 

Tragically, this headstrong young woman walked right onto an unsafe island alone. The FBI had limitations with investigating because they were in international waters, jurisdiction was a barrier. A poverty of Intel hindered progress. 

The Outcome 

We can't rightfully dismiss the witness accounts and photographic evidence that sprung up years later. The FBI analysis concluded it was Amy in those sexualised images. Overboard theories lost credibility. 

Netflix very strongly suggests Amy Bradley survived, eventually imprisoned in a guarded lifestyle. I must confess my love of documentaries. Here's another blogpost based on a Netflix documentary. Netflix love to playfully take viewers on a journey, briefly deceive them or go the scenic route, but this is different. A trafficked victim can face multiple forms of abuse and control - drugs, threats, and if Amy has children they could be used as leverage against her. Netflix is dealing with an ongoing, sensitive case.

That's the reality! A young woman caught between identity and family expectation needed to take a break but she was taken. The real mystery isn't what happened to Amy Bradley, as such. It's about how many other people disappear in similar ways, how we can push our loved ones away, our human nature to put self over other. It's heart breaking! The horrors of human trafficking mean we have to watch out for each other. Every herd has its predator waiting. 

What I reckon...

I have no idea if Amy Bradley is still alive now. Apart from the monsters who took her and their twisted circles, who does? When I wrote my Madeleine McCann blogpost I read Europol and US documents on trafficked children - life expectancy was greatly diminished for them according to data. 

We would all like to see Amy found alive and quickly restored fit and well. Sadly, if we go on the nature of these things the most positive outcomes become more like wishful thinking. Then again, people do defy the odds! 

Anyway, remove all those  assumptions we have of human trafficking, the hear-say and speculation, and it simply leaves us with a strong woman who walked away. Is it a shock anyone might want to escape their claustraphobic homophobic family cruise? 

It's so very sad. Look after yourselves, watch out for your own. Keep safe!

Who Would Manipulate the McCann Story?

THE DARK SIDE OF HUMANITY: EVIL IN HIGH PLACES?

5 min read

DISTRACTION IN THE MADELEINE MCCANN CASE? 

Disclaimer: this post covers unpleasant themes, discretion is advised. 

There are theories that Madeleine McCann somehow lost her life inside apartment 5A of the Ocean Club complex, Praia da Luz. Of course, we don't know if this is true or not. You might have read similar speculative blogs that explore medication mishaps or a physical accident, but whatever occurred on May 3rd, 2007, it was not necessarily a silent kidnapping or a bodged burglary. 

Why? Well, there was no sign of a struggle, no reports of noises you'd expect like panicking or screaming children, nothing was kicked over, no fingerprints, nothing was stolen, in fact, the siblings slept through everything—this was a strange disappearance, not a proven abduction. Yes, we have heard it all before! 

Imagine, if you can, that the official narrative was a planned damage control intervention. That would mean the abduction story was designed to protect something, be it a group, a person or even knowledge. But, if this was true, who would take control of the narrative? Media spin. 

Definition from Oxford Languages:

Spin-doctor: a spokesperson employed to give a favourable interpretation of events to the media, especially on behalf of a political party.

WHAT WAS GOING ON IN AND AROUND THAT PART OF PORTUGAL? 

I chose to withhold names and sources to avoid doxing, but there were very powerful people with property in the area at the time. One particular gentleman had connections to the UK establishment and was later alleged to have sexually assualted children. 

We must understand that a huge child trafficking network existed across Casa Pia with UNESCO ambassadors, politicians, and establishment figures involved. It was operating since the 1960s. According to this U.S. State Department report (2023), Portugal continues to stand out as both a destination and transit point for child trafficking. 

CHILD TRAFFICKING INVOLVES NETWORKS BUT IT CAN BE OPPORTUNISTIC

Out of the many Nigerian children who are trafficked to European countries, most are forced into prostitution to generate money. However, Europol here state how online methods also provide means to operate this disgusting underground crime. 

CHILD ABUSE CAN ALSO COME FROM OUR FINEST

Even after Operation Yewtree's string of arrests of child molesters from the entertainment industry, Huw Edwards, (who likely covered it) got off so lightly for his own indecent images of children. We can't forget the televised gibberish from Prince Andrew regarding his relationship with Epstein, Maxwell and Virginia Giuffre. This kind of human predatory sickness could easily have spilt over the likes of Praia da Luz from the echelons of Portuguese society. 

THESE CIRCLES INTERLINK

The numerous Jimmy Savile, Gary Glitter and Rolf Harris documentaries across the internet and streaming services paint a strong picture of how sick and degenerate rich and famous individuals can be! Such 'upper crusts' of society are often seen on good terms with at least one monarch or a reputable business-type. Criminal Rings, paedophile circles, people must be in the 'know' to be involved. 

After watching the disgraced morning TV presenter, Philip Schofield, ranting in his televised expo in the wild, I was left with an unpleasant afterthought. You see, he shamelessly pushed his victim yarn of betrayal, explaining it with a bitter venom. It made me appreciate the immense narcissism found with the types of celebrities like the ones above, all who had an exposed sex-type problem. Does the entertainment industry attract psychopaths or egotists? 

Don't get me wrong; I could mention outstandingly wonderful human beings who are movie stars, like Keanu Reeves or Steve Buscemi, but I won't. 

WHEN A SPEAKER SPEAKS FOR OTHERS

A British spin-doctor joined the Madeleine McCann scene. Once he was a disaster reporter for the BBC, leaving many of us Brits scratching our heads at the 'special treatment' the McCanns were getting compared to other families in similar predicaments. Gerry and Kate became involved with this powerful circle of PR media wizards who acted as their mouthpiece. The McCanns dined with one of the family members in his private villa nearby. 

What's striking is the idea of a random drifter was kidnapping a child in an area like Portugal. Think of all the network of powerful child molesters who usually order these crimes; they would know they did not request the abduction of the missing child. The motives for them supporting the parents is limited. It could be altruistic or self focused. Our actions come from motive, but also character. 

FINE MORAL CHARACTER? 

The spin-doctor worked for a crisis manager, and PR, an individual who manipulates perceptions for a living.  Part of a high status circle and family. Known as a shadowy and elusive figure, but above all his PR company never supported families of missing children before Madeleine McCann disappeared. Described as a star in the 'new culture of public relations and marketing in politics, business and journalism'. However he is not a saintly character. 

He supported Live Aid, the UN's Sustainable Development Goals and Comic Relief. This is charity and seen as admirable. Charity work is not a measure of a person's goodness; Jimmy Savile gave a fortune to charity. 

PROVEN CONNECTIONS:

The MP celebrity cook: Queen-knighted, Praia da Luz villa owner, contacted McCanns weeks after disappearance

Casa Pia Network: convicted ambassadors, politicians, UNESCO officials running child trafficking operations in Portugal since the sixties.

The PR support for Gerry and Kate McCann was most likely not altruistic and selfless because we saw no intervention for the likes of Hannah Williams (2001) Charlene Downes (2003) Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman (2002) or Shannon Matthews (2008). Why? Is this one circle covering for another? 

THE DRIFTER 

In 2020, German Prosecutor Hans Wolters said, authorities 'actually have findings that suggest' the German high profile paedophile monster we've all been hearing about 'is Madeleine McCann's murderer'. 

We all heard the claims of robust evidence but, five years later, the same prosecutor changed his tune: there's 'no prospect' of charges being brought to the accused. Yet again, this is another strange way to behave. It was as if they planned to convince us all they had proof which will undoubtedly prosecute the actual culprit. It was nonsense. 

Are monsters in broadcasters still targetting kids? 

My Conclusion...

We don't know what happened exactly, but if we can recognise a tree by its fruit what should we call this tree? For all we know, the PR mouthpiece and media work was not an altruistic gesture. We can only speculate because investigations have failed for the last couple of decades and it's a cold case. 

This means I can't accuse anyone of harming Madeleine McCann, which is why I have left out names. I'm sharing my suspicions that things remain intentionally hidden from the world. When vile trafficking circles interlock we see more degradation of a society. If ever we see a world where it is common place to hear of men stealing children in our neighbourhoods, that should be the mark of our failure!

The BBC paid a chauffeur to collect and drop off children for the likes of Savile. For me it's not one person its a systemic failure, a social disease, perverted sadism in the pockets of hierarchical classism. It preys on anyone, including the less fortunate. Sadly it can be from bottom up: children sold by their own kin into prostitution. 

 

The Quantum Secret Inside Every Living Cell That Changes Everything

Consciousness in the Meat: The Evidence That Will Rewrite Biology Textbooks

Why Consciousness Might Not Need a Brain

8 min read

The quantum connection scientists are finally proving

I was getting pulled into the fascinating intersection of quantum mechanics and consciousness again, (it happens from time to time) and I realised, I can't articulate this stuff verbally to anyone. That's why I started typing it. It was Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff's proposal in their Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR) theory that hounded me.

What you're about to read will completely change how you see reality itself.

They say consciousness emerges from quantum processes in microtubules—the structural frames inside our brain cells. It's mind-blowing. Anyhow, geniuses say consciousness occurs when probability waves (superposition: in every state it can be in at the same time) collapse after reaching the threshold inside our microtubules. This is what sparks moments of consciousness.

Here's where it gets incredible! Think of living things as quantum collapse interfaces, microtubules act like a radio receiver—breaking down bigger waves so we can appreciate the music. We can call this collapsing process communicative or computational. Why? Because it involves the attraction and repulsion between microtubules and quantum fields, the universe's simplest language. I should add, Penrose insists nonlinear gravity plays a part; experiments involving superradiance have shown Penrose's quantum activity persisting in settings simulating biology. 

The proof that consciousness isn't what we thought it was.

The Enduring Quantum Within

I've enjoyed hours of Professor Jim Al-Khalili talking about quantum physics and the universe. In 2014, he did another of his BBC documentaries that featured quantum tunnelling. He featured the work of renowned Chemist Hammes-Schiffer that proves protons quantum tunnel through barriers, like ghosts, rather than follow the classical model of physics. It shows us that quantum effects are happening inside living things and integral to charge-based biological processes: electrons are behind photosynthesis and energy metabolism, while protons are a major factor in genetic mutation and aging. 

Taking in the Facts

Microtubules are 25 nm in diameter (compared to a hair's 17000-181000 nm). They aren't the most stable structure in our cells, but they exist in every type of cell structure, which should make the quantum process less specific to neurons only. It's absolutely revolutionary how these unimaginably tiny organelles communicate chemically with one another; positive or negative influencing microtubular dynamics, including their collapse or depolymerization! Not only do microtubular charges interact with positively charged molecules, for example, I suspect they play a transactional role in this very quantum wavelength collapse. 

In 2007, Quantum Biologist Graham Fleming demonstrated with experimentation that energy in photosynthesis simultaneously explores multiple pathways in superposition before selecting the most efficient route. This challenged assumptions that biological environments instantly destroy quantum effects.

A 'Filter Model' of Consciousness

With millions of quantum events ever-present, it must be said; we are about 95% automated. We can reel off lists of precise bio-functions we do not control, like: homeostasis, miosis, mitosis, heart rate, vaso-dilation/constriction, neural maintenence, pathogen response, and then some. Let's not go down any theological rabbit holes and claim intelligent design, these subjects go on forever. We can, however, acknowledge the intricate work of chemically communicating organelles operating across layers of our bodily systems. 

The Neural Democracy

Our world view is served up for us from the bottom-up. We are a small 5% conscious experience that thinks it is the 95%! Higher order representation of phenomenal experience is an often discussed HOROR theory in contemporary philosophy of mind—it's a Higher Order Thought hypothesis. An epiphenomenal model developed primarily by philosopher David Rosenthal, but other philosophers contribute. Our mental states offer content, leading to those 'what-it-is-likeness' sort of sensations, or phenomenal conscious experiences before they become conceptualised into a 'thing' like, I suppose, mansplaining, or survivor guilt, and maybe NPC'ing! Seriously, when more of our unconscious/darkness comes into the light, we recognise and process these things. Victorian men had no idea they were mansplaining until it was a thing. 

We Always Make it About Us

By looking at how other creatures take-in the world; be it chickens or hawks, sharks, whatever, we can appreciate something quite enriching. Sciencey tv shows have been broadcasting the respective differences in animal perspectives for years. Their sense hardware and the amount of dedicated braincells differ across the animal kingdom. It screams Wittgenstein, because some creatures have colour, sound and smell that we don't even have! It begs the question, if we knew everything about life on earth, which creature will experience reality accurately? There are models of philosophy that give allowances for the world to be flexible enough for all creature-views to be valid, is that sound or is it only logical for there to be one true reality? Essentially, we can only be human and study our own nature, but peering over the neighbour's fence satisfies curiosity. 

Trees communicate and make decisions - here's the shocking evidence.

Consciousness needs a Brain? 

Can consciousness exist without a brain to house it? If we consider trees, we see they communicate through mycorrhizal networks; they can share resources, warn other trees of threats, make decisions about growth patterns, and respond to their environment in sophisticated ways that benefit their collective. They exhibit:

- Environmental responsiveness: growing toward light, avoiding obstacles

- Self-preservation: sealing wounds, conserving energy during stress  

- Communication: chemical signaling, nutrient sharing, coordinated behavior

By definition this is consciousness, but simple unlike our own. 

My Conclusion

Trees have no brains, brambles have no nervous systems—yet, by definition they all clearly show a lower level consciousness as they also strive for light as we do for a wage. However, what is an interesting coincidence is how all animals, trees and plants have microtubules made of the same alpha and beta tubulin! It seems basic consciousness stems from the same fundamental bedrock force, integrating with systems that are alive with specific bio-organelles.

I've enjoyed digesting philosophy and spirituality. All sorts from pan/cosmopsychism, non-dualist perspectives such as panentheism, gnosticism, Plotinus, Arthur Schoppenhauer and integrated information theory, even though IIT doesn't really fit in, it's ideas of interconnection feel similar. Penrose and Hameroff brought another gem to the table, emboldening arguments that suggest there is more than meets the eye. There is an unspoken nondualist perennial idea running across models of physics, philosophy, spirituality and eastern religions. 

Physicist-philosopher Nir Lahav proposes consciousness isn't merely a brain byproduct, but fundamentally woven into reality's fabric through basic physical fields. This is an interesting view, especially if we consider that two billion years ago, alphaproteobacterium developed microtubules. If quantum interaction has shaped our evolution it has had plenty of practice.

 

Channel 4's 'Open House': Is This Actually a Televised Brothel?

CHANNEL 4's 'Open House' Sexploitation, Smut or The New Way of Living? 

The Race to the Bottom: Sex for Views

7 Min Read

Channel 4's 'Open House: The Great Sex Experiment' is pushing taboo boundaries again, probably because they squashed the last failed experiment 'Naked Attraction'. Clearly their unrelenting need to create smut will never be satisfied. The compelling characters in the show are the real-life couples who try the experience. 

Former participants reveal what producers really demanded behind the scenes! 

The Fake Experts Pushing Their Lifestyle: What Can People Actually Learn From Non-Monogamy?

Unfortunately, the pseudo-science they blurt out in these shows can be dangerously misleading. We always hear a therapist, or an expert imparting 'sex knowledge' in these programs. We can see it in Virgin Island, another so-called retreat based 'course in intimacy'. This pretence of academic seasoning brings an illusion of validity. However, a growing body of evidence is emerging; consensual non-monogamy shows real risk to health, and polygamous people might self-report their well-being unrealistically—we all have human biases!

I'm unsure if the latest 'expert' to 'Open House,' Effy Blue, holds any qualifications, because there aren't any in her credentials, and her words hardly resonate with psychological wellbeing, philosophy of mind or spirituality. Why? Well, it's because the woman's a self-styled non-monogamy and polygamy coach, that's why! Her inclusion is a tad biased, a somewhat vested interest, don't you agree?

What Channel 4 Actually Hired People To Do: What's Really Happening? 

The show's promotion uses carefully crafted words—referring to 'consensual non-monogamy' rather than more everyday terms like a club sandwich, spit roast, a gang bang or cream team. According to one interview in 2022, a once 'in-house' resident known as Precious Muir, told The Sun newspaper she and other 'sexy singles' were hired to have threesomes and seduce couples for the show. 

The linguistic softening used by the Channel 4 team is deliberately deceptive. They did tread carefully through a legal minefield; what if they used honest words instead? How would the old vernacular go down?

Watch hired courtesans make sexy time happen with faltering couples televised in a big brother-like brothel for your entertainment? 

Let's Be Clear About What We Witness in Channel 4's Open House:

- Couples arriving at a sex retreat

- 'In-house residents' primed to engage in a little 'how’s your father?'

- The mojo of the guests or the lack of it is publicised on TV

- Experts with a vested interest in the show’s theme guide the process

- Channel 4 make money via sex

Interesting Distinctions in Words and Phrases:

Using words like consensual non-monogamy, counselling and expert advice, does suggest a remedial sexual retreat for couples with relationship issues.

Realistically, 'Open House' practices financial transaction for those sexual encounters, and, as we know, it is purely for entertainment purposes because it's a TV show. Fair enough, but what if some people have an invisible risk? Pre-existing emotional vulnerabilities like what we saw with Love Island or The Jeremy Kyle Show or even the other 35-40 individuals who all ended their lives after taking part in television shows? It can ruin people who survive.

Behind The Scenes: Things Unsaid

Not everyone's partner is certain about taking the polyamorous plunge; some question the process, others simply go along with it for their other half. I know the family of one of the show's couples, and sadly, their back story is much darker than what Channel 4 let on—that spoke to me.

Folks will agree to degrade themselves on this show to accommodate, win favour, maybe salvage something, but these couples, as well as the TV show producers only show you what they want you to see! 

Well-being really is not the highest priority here as you can deduce for yourself. Isn't the show all about experimenting with couples? How is that healthy? People evidently get hurt and tearful, if this isn't a liability, what is? 

Why This Might Be an Illegal Brothel

An in-house resident told The Sun: 'The producers wanted us to hook up with the couples because that was what the TV show was about.' 

UK law has created a specific framework regarding things like prostitution and brothels which raises questions about 'Open House':

1. Prostitution Definition: 

The exchange of sexual services for payment or promise of payment. It's any kind of financial arrangement, as defined by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and used by the Crown Prosecution Service.

2. Brothel Definition: 

Any building will do, and it doesn't have to directly charge money to be considered a brothel! The defining factor is whether or not people use the premises for the purpose of prostitution. If more than one person uses a building for prostitution, simultaneously or one at a time (even on alternate days or weeks), it can be classified as a brothel.

3. Legal Status: 

While individual prostitution isn't illegal, running a brothel is prohibited under the Sexual Offences Act 1956.
If Channel 4 are being pimps here, they might argue by saying what they do falls outside these definitions, Because:

a) Participants are paid for 'appearing on television,' not explicitly for sexual acts

b) The purpose of the premises is televised entertainment

c) Sexual encounters occur within a 'social experiment' context. 

A weak legal excuse, but people like watching it and no one wants to be a party pooper!

The Exploitation Question: Following the Money! 

The crux of the legal question focuses on what exactly participants are being paid to do. This has been shared with the press more than once. 

Can a TV Show Legally Operate as a Brothel?

Some of us think that brothels can get planning permission and simply operate legally with regular inspections from the local council. This is totally wrong! Managing or keeping a brothel is illegal under UK law, and so, if we want to respect the law, 'Open House' shouldn't be on tv to undermine it. 

Questions Springing to Mind... 

By filming hired sex workers for Channel 4, are we providing a legal exemption from brothel laws? 

In the future, for example, might it be possible for Channel 4 to run a beastiality show, or a social parasexual fetish experiment for pet lovers? 

If the show is geared up to promote well-being, why is little attention paid to STI prevention, contraception?

Channel 4 produced a specific character prosecution against Russell Brand, so why have they fallen short by not promoting consent or highlighting the value of peoples emotional wellness in their own sex show?

What Makes Channel 4's Open-House Different To Pornography?

Pornography production, while controversial, can be more graphic, but still, it follows specific legal frameworks with established protections. 'Open House' is standing in a different field entirely:

- It is broadcasting on a public service television channel

- It's brand is a 'relationship experiment' instead of adult entertainment

- It blurs documentary and sexually explicit lines 

- Adult film production has health safeguards such as routine testing for STDs and training on blood pathogens and infection, PPE: dental dams and contraception, sex simulation for non-contact editing, important mental well-being and aftercare. 

In a nut shell, it's professionalism, as well as health and safety what makes the porn industry different to this show.

Regulatory Scrutiny: Where is Ofcom?

As a public service broadcaster, Channel 4 operates under obligations and oversight from Ofcom. 

It Makes You Wonder:

- Whether proper risk assessments are conducted

- If broadcasting standards are upheld

- Whether the show's branding as an 'experiment' has received appropriate ethical consideration

- Whether Ofcom considered the legal implications under UK brothel laws

- Is the UK happy?

Conclusion: Legal Fiction

Channel 4's 'Open House' seems to be operating on shaky legal ground. If multiple individuals are hired to use a premise to provide sexual services, and an organisation is managing this arrangement and profiting from it, how are Channel 4 and Ofcom not concerned about broadcasting sex in a brothel?

Taboos and kinky behaviours might escape scrutiny or criticism when it's packaged as a 'Channel 4 thing'. There is danger in accepting entertainment like this as legitimate; especially for those developing a conscience, none of us have mastered right and wrong—our standards can only fall if 'Open House' morality or 'Naked Attraction' hedonism push an alternative.

Only villains want family and friends to fall into a promiscuous lifestyle, given the risks. It's not right. 

 

Gandhi and Jesus: Peace and Violence

The Aggression of the Peaceful Rebel

What Religious Leaders Pray You Never Discover

6 to 7 min read 

There are many who fit this archetype such as Martin Luther King Jr, Thich Nhat Hanh, Nelson Mandela and Mikhail Gorbachev, to name a few! However, I've chosen two 'peaceful' leaders with disturbing secrets: Mahatma Gandhi and the Historical Jesus — only going on the Gospel of Mark, it's the oldest one and, welI. . . I just wanna!

What you're about to read will shatter everything you thought you knew about these 'perfect' spiritual leaders! 

These men rebelled against the status quo, preaching and instilling non-violence, moral reform, and compassion. If we can recognise their human flaws alongside their strengths, it reveals much about them as individuals! Wankers! Only joking, couldn't resist. 

Gandhi: Beating Back the British Empire Without Bashing Anyone!

Gandhi, the little bald guy with those round glasses, cleverly rebelled against British colonialism with his philosophy of Satyagraha, which means clinging to truth. That is ironic. Anyway, it was all about non-violently expressing disruption while holding onto peaceful principles! His virtues attracted admiration, but Gandhi’s personal life shows the imperfect humanity behind his ideals. 

While he preached simplicity and self-discipline, his treatment of his family was less than equal. Okay, who is perfect? Not him. His eldest son Harilal became estranged, and when his wife fell ill, he refused modern medicine, opting for natural remedies—it genuinely might have contributed to the woman's death! 

This humble sage didn’t always speak nicely of Black Africans; using terms like 'savages,' he once believed in the stupid ideas of racial superiority. It resulted with him promoting Indian rights over Black rights in South Africa and supporting segregation when it benefited Indians. Eventually, he woke up, changed his views and spoke out against all racism—goodo! This failed to curb his cannibalism. 

Gandhi also drilled sexual abstinence into his family and community. Drilled. This pious peacemaker deliberately tested the grit of his celibacy by sleeping beside young women or teens! When females become testing devices for married men, It's deeply disturbing! What did he think might have happened if his abstinence abruptly failed him? Would he fall victim and be swamped by their teen lust? 

Despite these shocking revelations, Gandhi’s approach at resisting the British was tactically sound. His Satyagraha was methodical and fostered global sympathy. The strategy brought tangible success—liberation, not his other, uh... goals!

Jesus's followers carried weapons and he compared a woman to a dog - here's the proof... 

Mark’s Jesus (Yeshua): Moral Vision, Strategic Missteps

If we ignore the theological history and supernatural stuff, we see quite a different Jesus (called Yeshua). Other Gospel writers borrowed content from Mark. However, skipping to Luke 22:36 for a moment, we see something that completely contradicts everything you've been taught to expect the prince of peace to say: '...if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.'

Modern Christian theology fails to explain why a traitor was paid to identify Jesus for his arrest; famous controversial figures stand out, and plenty saw him table tipping in the temple. If the story is true, he must not have been as popular as we were led to believe. 

Yeshua is described as an emotionally unstable man resorting to calling his religious adversaries names, like hypocrites and vipers. He regularly criticized their legalism, but still entered into legalistic debates with them! Yet his group carried weapons—one of them allegedly cut-off a Roman's ear! 

Gospel writing and interjection has Yeshua rebuke violence, healing the ear to maintain a peaceful martyr option. The group was an armed sect who fought back and lost it's confrontation with the authorities, but defiantly, the sect continued it's own narrative and formed churches—Tomai, Kephas, many other disciples and followers were indistinguishable from Yeshua. 

People were expected to leave their families to join. Followers likely contributed financially, but above all; he expected them to die with him. He treated a non-jewish woman in a racially charged manner, comparing her to a dog! It suggests they held a nationally focused religious scope. 

Yeshua's Strategic Flaws: Alienation and Inevitability

Yeshua's rebellion against religious authority may have resulted with personal moral victory, but it all lacked any benefit to anyone else. If he had an endgame, it was secret, like his attempts at hiding his flirtations with being the messiah? Was it his fantasy? A self image that lifted him above those with whom he argued? Why so coy? Who knows? It’s all speculative! 

Openly antagonising the religious elite was like squeezing the ghoulies of Tiberius Caesar for not following a kosher cuisine! However, I must stress, Yeshua's only enemy was Orthodox Judaism, not Rome! Was this a failed resistance movement? I suspect Yeshua may well have planned to replace his country's Orthodoxy with his own system, rendering it a kingdom of God. The Christian religion has had its sights on converting the world. 

We all Have Faults

There you go—both Gandhi and Yeshua could throw a wobbly just like the next bloke! The pious peace brokering in the history books, all those centuries of sermonised poppycock do not mean these men were better than everyone else! 

Yeshua was impulsive, emotional, and sometimes displayed irrational behaviour. In Mark, he questions if he is the Messiah (he would know if he was); besides, why ask followers previously scoulded for not fully understanding his teachings? How would they know, especially if he was not sure himself?

Gandhi, however, was a clear sighted man with a targeted plan and his followers often supported him. Unfortunately, his unusual sexual 'tests' would stand out as a red flag nowadays! Like Jesus he alienated family members and showed beliefs of racial inferiority. 

The human animal, the person, our species is faulty. Maybe it’s time to stop putting our role models on pedestals? 

They are more interesting warts and all!