Welcome. I’m a thinker & storyteller. This site is a minimalist, easy read. You’ll find factual stuff on most subjects from politics to the paranormal + writing tips & fiction from crime to horror. Scroll down to begin the journey into my blog; or click my main pages to enter a website with more depth than the Tardis:

Thinker’s Corner Scribblers ‘r’ I PsychoMan

Tony’s Micropedie

NOTE 7 JAN 2020: This site will be undergoing many changes over the next couple of weeks, with many functions and much content disappearing. Apologies for any inconvenience, but wait ’til you see the new site ….

You’ll meet my writers from Polly Ticks to Philip Osophy, offering Pop Lit (bringing brevity to literature, making it for all) and P-ology – a microcosm of reality; of what is, and things that aren’t but should be – knowledge that speaks rather than baffles.

Rattler’s Tale   Eye On the World

When my world of Pop Lit & P-ology exists I’ll be happy. Help me make them exist; except my writers – then I’ll be insane. And this website is also about my books – oodles of them. Why not start with this:


Download from Smashwords

Meet the Team

Specialization needs a more holistic
bedfellow – AND humour. We look for patterns
in everything. We do P-ology. We’re the
Patternological Society.

We tell it how it is with our Eye On the World
comments on current affairs.


Polly TicksI do politics. I’m lazy so need a big alarm clock. I sleep with him nightly. I call him Big Ben.
Guru TonyI do society/spirituality. I keep gathering a group together but they always do mass suicide.
Dr Illya NessI do medical. I know I shouldn’t pass on infections but make me viral!
Major de RangerI do war! I tell it how it is. Some say I blow things up out of all proportion.
Pappa RazziI do media. What? Don’t! … take!! … my!!! … picture!!!!!!!
Prof Isaac GalisteinI do science. I love golf, but my ball always goes off in probabilistic ways.
Philip OsophyI do philosophy. I work things out – not like the idiots, above! They ignore me. I stink, therefore I’m out.

We do poetry & fiction for all the Blogs and
Mini Mag posts – Make it popular
– Call it Pop Lit


Blogger BardI’m the literary muse; Is being real my destiny? I’m so confused; Oh, to be or …
Techie Without A ClueI do techie lit. Don’t know what I’m doing, who I am – just a confused teenager.
Harry FangI do horror. Some say I’m a vampire. Read me or … I byte!!! And don’t say I’m unRead.
Ulrika FeynI do Sci Fi. I’m fey in more ways than one. Now let’s go boldly, and not split infinity.
DI Cass NovaI do crime. From cops to killers to thieves. Now, follow me. Take my hand. Then give it back.
Miss SpellingYou don’t sea me oftin, but I du the editin.

We’re thirteen. We’ll bewitch you.

Essay: Technology

Prof isaac galistein

Technology is good but we don’t understand it. We need a philosophy of tech, taking into account its psycho-socio-political implications. Tech made us human, in that it required an opposable thumb for manipulation, also freeing our forelimbs for erect walking. But I think its effect was deeper than this.

evolution of mind

Tech required us to concentrate on the task in hand, freeing us from instinctual drives. This required a repository for thoughts not of relevance. Hence, could tech have caused the split between conscious and unconscious mind? If so, then a specifically shortsighted conscious would have been the result, with the possibility that the more information we have, the smaller and more individualistic our conscious becomes.
History bears out this possibility, with moves against spirituality and community as tech information increased. If this process continues, the time could come when tech shrinks our mind so much that we are no longer human.
We can see this in moral behaviour. We seem to be far more benevolent to each other nowadays, but could this only be because tech provides services and order which cancel out our need to survive? It could be that we have simply sidelined morality instead of being moral.


Modern info-tech holds problems. Information and surveillance has now come to the point that the private is disappearing. As this trend continues, we are increasingly monitored, and this is allowing authority unprecedented control over us. Tech is taking away our freedoms.
It is also taking away our ability to think. Computer tech is rigid, with tasks now following strict patterns taking away our ability to use our initiative. This is transferring to society, where rules are becoming increasingly fundamental. We are becoming cogs in a social machine. Forget The Terminator. The machine world is already here, and it’s subtle!
All these problems can be overcome if we realize that they exist. Do so and tech can be what it should be. Our servant, and not our master.

Essay: Individuality

guru tony

Who is you. I say this as opposed to ‘who are you’ because as a personality it may not be down to you. It is all to do with what an ‘individual’ is and is not.
The idea of individuality is quite recent for most of us. It is most likely a spin-off of social evolutionary processes. It requires the time to think that you ARE individual. Hence, it will arise at such time that you are no longer preoccupied with survival.


In this sense it came down the classes. The old God-Kings can be said to be first to not have to worry about survival, so were the first to appreciate their individuality. As technology advanced, so, too, the numbers able to be individuals, descending down the aristocracy, the middleclass, and finally the working class.
Of course, in a mass consumer society this is important. You need to express yourself individually to be a good consumer. Indeed, throughout history trade has occurred to expand the numbers of individuals. In this sense, individuality is a consumer device.


This does, of course, suggest that individuality is a concept rather than an absolute. We don’t like to think in this way, but it could be true. We’re back to what is ‘you’? Well, ‘you’ is shaped by many things outside of you.
Ancestry, culture, environment and society all shape who you are. Then there are instinctual drives. Now, we’re said not to be controlled by these any more. We’re no longer just animals. But is this really the case, or have such drives merely adapted to our evolving species?


We all express emotions of various kinds, but whilst the reason for such expression may be personal, the emotion itself is universal throughout the species. Jung identified universal archetypal character types which we all express. So these, too, seem to be of the species.
As I see it, individuality is really an amalgam of outside influences, shaped into ‘you’ by your experiences, certainly, but a cauldron of outside impulses nonetheless.
Don’t get me wrong. Individuality is good, but maybe not as absolute as we think. We should bear this in mind when we say individuality is everything. It may give us a new understanding of community and togetherness.

Essay: Racism

philip osophy

Racism is one of the most difficult subjects you can write about. What lies at the heart of racism? Is there ever a single cause? Can it be understood rationally? And if so, is there an answer to it?
The first obvious impulse that could lie behind it is a sense of differentness. A minority race can look, or act, differently to the majority, and this can lead to non-understanding, and in non-understanding we find fear.


A majority is what is seen as ‘normal’. Anything that does not seem to fit this ideal will cause an impulse towards marginalization. As well as showing what is ‘wrong’ with such a minority, this also confirms what is ‘right’ about the majority. In this way, concepts such as good and evil are born.
This leads to racism as an intellectual pursuit. First seen in various religious theologies, such intellectual racism was given a boost by evolution theory. This allowed a different race to be seen as being of a lesser evolutionary stage than a majority. The science and discipline of eugenics was born from such an ideal.


A predominant culture can add to the problem. Intelligence is more than your ability to be wise. It is also an ability to relate to your culture in a way that can be seen as intelligent. People not of a predominant culture cannot relate in the same way, so can be incorrectly seen as intellectually inferior.
As such, if a society has a predominant idea about itself, it cannot be anything other than racist. However, this is a form of racism based not on hatred, but simply the way humanity works.


Some see the answer in diluting culture. Known as multi-culturalism, it subverts a predominant culture. This is a bad idea. It is contrary to free speech, and it takes away any hope of shared values. The result is a cauldron of multiple racial hatreds.
The answer, I’m sure, is to work towards an over-culture with shared values. This MUST include meaning identified by the predominant race, but taking into account differentness by including a spirit of compromise, toleration, moderation and manners.


At times these natural differences can boil over. A classic case is poverty. At such times, natural differences become extreme, and it is here that a pernicious hatred arises which can lead to pogroms, even genocide.
It begins with an ideal based on bigotry. An extreme form of politics will arise, and at the heart of it will be a form of scapegoating. The society is actually crumbling because of faults in the majority culture, but those faults will be placed on a minority. After all, an angry society never blames itself.


A concept arises that can best be called ‘psychological distancing’. It takes intuited differences and makes them fundamental. Assisted by extreme intellectual racism, the scapegoated minority becomes sub-human. In being sub-human, this removes moral restraint, and atrocity becomes ‘acceptable’.
Transference has then occurred. By this, I mean all the angst and failures of a predominant culture become symbolized in a stereotypical minority form. A minority no longer consists of people, but is a concept which must be eradicated.
Of course, this is just a quick look at racism. In it, I’ve tried to show there are degrees. At the lowest level, it is a natural condition, and no amount of denial will change it. Accept it and we may learn how to live with it. Then, at the extreme, we have the stuff of nightmares. Yet I think the best way to understand this form of racism is as a form of social virus. Maybe if we thought of it as an illness, we can work on a cure.

Essay: Unity

Polly Ticks

Wouldn’t it be marvelous if the world sang from a single tune? Actually, no. It would be horrendous. This may be the dream of Globalization, with world peace fuelled by a corporate world of sameness, but it could well hold the seed of our extinction.
Globalization is built upon mono-culture, where everything has to be big, and the same the world over. Global brands reinforce this growing attitude.
But the immediate upshot of this is that localized economies and culture are shattered. This makes Third World countries dependent on Big Biz, and leaves their people without meaning or direction. Is there any wonder so many of these countries are failing?


It gets worse than this. From languages to religions, cars to wheat, a plethora of choice is changing to a few standard models. Wheat shows the problem starkly. With an infinite variety, infection cannot wipe out the lot. Have a few standard models and the infection becomes greater, threatening the very existence of wheat. This same process works throughout Globalization.
Trading by large countries has always caused problems for weaker ones under their influence. This has invariably led to small, localized wars, which, whilst horrendous, are manageable in global terms. Increase the influence and we get a bloc mentality and face global stand-offs such as the Cold War, or irritate peoples to the point that it fuels global terrorism.
The infection spreads far and wide – and the dangers multiply accordingly. The reality is we have failed to learn from nature and evolution, which survives through absolute diversity. That which can be done is, and everything thrives, with problems isolated.


Globalisation and the idea of unity through trade is anti-evolutionary. True unity can only come through following the principles of nature and seeking balance through diversity – by finding meaning in our localized way, yet understanding our common humanity.
I’m a Yorkshireman and proud of it. Yet I’m also happy to be British, and understand I’m also part of the global family called humanity. My difference enriches the world more than a global McCulture could ever do.

Essay: Questions

philip osophy

Questions are intellectual milestones along a journey of discovery. I say ‘questions’, and not ‘answers’, because whilst questions are definite, answers rarely are.
In all my years of research, answers have been elusive. Indeed, I’m satisfied that what we class as an ‘answer’ is really the latest definition of how we see ourselves as being, rather than a reality. This is so for a specific reason. We always answer a question within a paradigm.


Questions mainly come in two forms – ‘how’ and ‘why’. ‘How’ questions are based within a scientific methodology, whilst ‘why’ questions tend to be of a religious or spiritual nature. Prior to Monotheism, most questions seem to be about ‘why’. This was because intellect was locked in a cyclical mindset based around nature.
Most eastern philosophy is still based in this mindset. However, in the idea of the One God, monotheism broke the cycles, instigating a linear mindset where man had to advance, providing a definite beginning and an end.
This would eventually lead to the ‘how’ questions of science. But further to this, with the breaking of the cycles, our mindset moved from nature to society, and thence to the individual.


The new paradigm was materialist, atheistic and scientific. Hence, we can see ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions as coming from specific mindsets, with any answers based fundamentally within the attitude. To me, this has proved destructive for knowledge.
Such questions should not be polarities – should not lead to conflict – but should form a duality of knowledge – distinctly different, yes, but in intellectual balance. The day we realize the importance of this duality of knowledge, then knowledge may be just that.

Essay: Science

prof isaac galistein

Science is great. I love science. It confirms us as brilliant thinking beings. But there are many problems with science. It has been so successful that for too many people it is the only system that counts. Unfortunately, single systems are always wrong.
Typically, it holds little moral guidance. Further, our knowledge is always reflected in how society thinks of itself. Science confirms a universe that is chaotic, fragmented and without meaning. So society behaves as if it is too. Knowledge should be balanced by a belief, as used to be provided by religion. But belief can only be superstition in the modern world.


This, too, holds a problem for science. It is so fundamental a means of knowledge, banishing the idea of belief, that nothing can ‘be’ unless science can measure it. Thus, unknown dangers could exist because science has not yet caught up with nature. But these dangers are ignored in a process I call ‘anti-superstition’.
Most of science is not actually science, but validation. There have been very few true scientists – people who have moved forward our knowledge in a paradigm-shifting way. These scientists were rebels at odds with the established view. This confirms that the validators who follow are actually guardians of old knowledge.


Science is also choosy about what is valid data. Without a hypothesis with which to sieve data, data seems chaotic. It can only become ordered once a hypothesis is made. Yet if the established view is more a guardian and validator of old knowledge, hypotheses will reflect this and be dictatorial in nature, locking out contrary data from analysis.
Surviving hypotheses eventually become theories within which data gives a probability of correctness. This becomes scientific truth, but too often the ‘probability’ factor is not understood by the public. This leads to a feedback loop of consensus reality.


Because the world clearly offers evidence of action, the idea grows that the theory answers how that action occurs, and ‘reality’ becomes a mind model as opposed to a definite.
Of course, this process cannot be proved to occur, but neither can it be disproved, as evidence would be identical whether it was true or false. Yet the simple possibility should be enough to demand a little more humility from science.

Essay: Morality

philip osophy

Morality can be a dangerous word nowadays. The subject is concerned with what is right or wrong, or the goodness or badness of character or behaviour. As an intellectual subject, it is known as ethics.
I’m dipping my mind into the moral maze, offering my basic views on the subject. Agree or disagree, vital to a moral outlook is the importance of debate and the right of any individual to offer their views.
I’ll begin with one important aspect often not appreciated. Morality invariably involves more than one person – one to do and one to judge. After all, can every one of us say that when we’re on our own our behavioural standards are as high as if we were not?


Morality, to many, is religion based. Rules are definite, and breaking them risks Divine Retribution. This is a clear cut moral approach. But things changed with the decline of popular religion.
In a more secular world, ethics moved to the philosopher. This involved personal reasoning, the outcome being that definite rules could not be guaranteed. To many, this was the beginning of a moral free-for-all.


Morality often becomes as one with an ideology. In the Industrial Revolution, for instance, laziness was immoral, thus requiring absolute industriousness from people. In all cases, I think this is wrong. It should be the arena for scripture or the philosopher. In other words, people who have influence, but not power. For morality should never be used as a political tool.
Many people believe that the modern liberal ideal of morality is correct. It is proven by the general good order of society. I’d argue that this is not the case. Good order occurs because services are such that people do not have to strive to be ordered. Should those services fail, I think we could quickly revert to barbarism.


One central moral problem is separation. By this, I mean the failure to separate non-consensual physical acts against the person, society, or property thereof (criminality) from lifestyle. Whilst punishment can be variable, I think attitude towards transgression should be absolute. A crime must be a crime, regardless of the reason.
Lifestyle is different. Nature flourishes because of total diversity. Whatever can be done is done. Hence, society can best flourish by following this same principle. What is done by consenting adults is no one’s business but their own.


There is one proviso to this. Any society reaches a ‘norm’ of behaviour. This is essential for order and manners. Hence, total diversity of behaviour is something to do in private, or clearly accepted public arenas. In the general public, I feel people should always moderate their behaviour.
This is an important point. All too often, morality concerning lifestyle is not morality at all. Rather, it is the furtherance of sensationalism. This is supposed to get a message across concerning lifestyle, but most of the time it is simply about exhibitionism.


One other important aspect of ethics is this. People will always transgress, and this is how it should be. Because if being moral is seen as easy, then our standards are not high enough.
Today, morality is moving in many new directions. Human rights verses the nation state; the morality of science; our moral responsibility towards the planet. It is a subject that I will no doubt return to in the future.

Essay: Victims

guru Tony

We are said to live in a victim culture but what is a victim, and why has it become so important? Life is full of adversity – some of our own making, some not. This produces casualties, but these are not victims. Victimhood comes from self-indulgence upon your problems. Hence, 50% of victimhood is self-made.
Such adversity should fuel the person to rise above it, thus being the making of you. We should thrive through adversity, so why is this not the case for so many today? One reason is that life is no longer about survival. We have time on our hands to think too much about our place. This led, correctly, to the idea of human rights, but also to the idea that life is not fair. This is very true, but a pointless attitude.


However, what we are is usually dependent upon the system and culture to which we belong. Predominant here is political correctness and the idea that minority groups are victims to the majority. Again, this is quite true and it is right that such groups achieve equality. But the system did not leave it here.
As super-capitalism arose, it was realized that political correctness destroyed meaning in an over-culture. Meanings such as tradition used to ease feelings of alienation and offered direction, but there was no profit in this. But if tradition could be destroyed, then meaning could be transferred to the personal and self-satiation. And what better way to achieve this than the owning of luxury consumer goods?


But even this was not enough. Soon the idea of consumer perfection arose, with a celebrity culture goading you on to be even more perfect in terms of clothes, accessories, looks and lifestyle.
But the reality is, perfection is an unachieveable goal. Thus the feeling of victimhood is intensified, with your only course the continuing vicious circle of consumerism in the vain hope that you may achieve and no longer be an alienated victim. In the victim culture, super-capitalism has captured the human psyche.