New DianaSpeaks messages – January 2017

“Hello Everyone

As people are now aware my personal FB Group no longer exists and Andrew has cancelled his own. We still not aware of why mine was dismantled suddenly without warning and what violation is supposed to have been committed but it is of no relevance and latterly certainly Andrew was working all hours on articles but they were not gaining anything like the amount of attention to them that might have been expected.

I only have this to remind people of what I said about America’s choice of President and that being “America will get the President it deserves” and meaning the one to teach it the lessons most necessary and often the greatest lessons made by making mistakes. Politicians are corrupt and divisive, discriminatory and discerning and this is not news but with the U.S President something being made globally so transparent!

What do I see happening, well treading in too many minefields too heavily is bound to detonate one sooner or later and make of that what you will but certainly powerful grenades are being thrown at various targets indiscriminately which is extremely disturbing and bound to invite as they have done retaliation and rebellion and I wonder how long it will be before the danger of a revolution is not something needing very serious consideration as after all it would not be the first time happening in the nation!

So anyway concluding I am still very aware of things happening and much like Paris suddenly disappearing but still around in keeping with proving my promise; she won’t go quietly!”

With love from, Diana xx


This is what many Spiritualists call the Third Level of Spirit, where most of us go on transiting from the Earth plane. Some might call it ‘heaven’, but it is not so different from the Earth plane without the disadvantages. All this is knowledge gathered from spirits on the Other Side, and from NDErs who have visited it briefly then returned.

There comes a stage in this life when most of one’s friends, relatives and associates have passed on before you. This is the case with me. Of close family only my brother remains on the Earth plane, and he is in North Yorkshire and I very rarely see him.

So many friends and relatives are on the Other Side, along with many former work colleagues, so I look forward to a reunion with them, but especially with my life-partner George, my mother Dorothy and my best friend at school Michael who passed over following a road accident on my 15th birthday. These three are my guides, I believe, along with a Native American woman, Little Star, who is my door-keeper. (Their pictures are above this article.) Her face and name came to me one night as I was lying in bed awake. I later found a painting of her, and it is the same face I saw, except her black hair was pulled back in the vision I saw. A lady at a Spiritualist center once told me she saw a woman with long black hair standing next to me, undoubtedly Little Star, my main guide and doorkeeper (doorkeepers protect us from Lower Astral spirits, and try to nudge us to complete our life’s mission, and protect us while doing this.)

Noel and Brian who I spent many times with at their chaotic flat in Hastings, filled with valuable paintings and antiques, I will be glad to see again, along with other friends and acquaintances like Lenny, Roy, Charlie, Sheila, Rita, Marion, Peggy, Jimpy, Tony W., Charles, Levy, David W., Mrs M., John C., Steve H., etc. Also all my aunts and uncles from both sides of the family, and my dad who was always very distant while on Earth (my parents separated when I was six). With my father and his siblings, parents, etc. there will no longer be the language barrier as telepathy is the means of communication over there. Also, of course, my maternal grandparents who transited back in 1971, and two cousins, Miriam and Jenny. As well as these there are my in-laws/outlaws (gays were not allowed to marry or have civil partnerships when George was on the Earth plane) Betty, Chick, John, Stephen, George Mullaney and Charles Dickson.

There must be more I haven’t even mentioned here. Bogus ‘aunts’ from my early childhood like Dora and Gretel, actually just friends with my mother and father. So when my time comes I will not be sad to go. I will be looking forward to the big runion.

Asking the wrong questions?

When it comes to the fundamental questions are most people asking or deciding on the wrong ones? Questions such as ‘does God exist?’ or ‘is there an afterlife?’ Or indeed, ‘is any religion right or is it all hogwash?’

Forget God, forget the afterlife, forget religion. Instead turn to science and what we know and do not yet know about the universe and life itself. The most fundamental question, still unanswered by materialist science, is about the nature and origin of consciousness. It is the mystery on which everything else hangs.

There are two main trains of scientific thought in the 21st Century, which can be summarized as the presently accepted scientific paradigm of materialist science, and the upcoming theories which can be summarized as post-materialist science. Materialist science suggests consciousness is the product of the brain, but it cannot begin to explain how it can arise from brain cells. It also has the major disadvantage that this theory does not fit in with the observable facts. It cannot explain why the double-slit experiment of Quantum Physics, for instance, indicates that sub-atomic particles revert to wave function when not being observed or measured. Nor can it explain remote viewing, out-of-the-body experiences where people accurately report on events at a distance, or when they are in a coma or clinically ‘dead’ during an NDE. Nor can it explain various other paranormal phenomena such as telepathy, telekinesis (affecting objects by mere thought), ESP, etc..

Post-materialist scientific theories, however, explain all these things by making Consciousness the fundamental reality. If everything is a gigantic Thought, as some scientists have suggested, then it means Consciousness is non-local and does not originate in the brains of living organisms. Mind and brain are separate, and the brain acts more like a transmitter/receiver than the origin of consciousness.

These post-materialist theories which suggest, based on the overwhelming evidence, that Consciousness is non-local and creates matter, not the other way around, does not equate to proving the existence of God. At least not if you define ‘God’ as an all-knowing, never-changing, entity which plans and controls everything. It suggests rather that Conscious energy is constantly evolving and learning from its mistakes and that we are all part of this process.

Scientist/engineer the late Ronald Pearson, who had his theories published in scientific journals in Russia and elsewhere, calls this Conscious energy the ‘intelligent ether’ or ‘i-ther’, a Conscious matrix which permeates everything and creates material environments to experience and thereby evolve. He discards the ridiculous Big Bang theory, which explains diddly squat and does not even explain why the Universe is constantly expanding at an accelerating rate, and instead suggests constant net creation also known as the Big Breed Theory. According to the Big Bang Theory the Universe should not be expanding at an ever increasing rate, but should slow down and ultimately contract into the Big Crunch. This is not happening. So instead the ever expanding Universe is put down to the existence of Dark Energy and Dark Matter, which in fact makes up 96% of the multi-verse.

In other words, only 4% of the Universe or multi-verse (various dimensions or universes) is observable, the rest is Dark Matter or Dark Energy. This is where String Theory, Biocentralism, Quantum Physics and many other scientific theories and disciplines suggest there may be many alternative universes or dimensions which we cannot observe.

The Big Bang does not explain anything since it assumes everything suddenly appeared out of nothing. If you ask a scientist what happened before the Big Bang they cannot answer this question. You might as well ask a priest, a rabbi or an Imam what happened before God existed. They will probably say it/she/he always existed, and that at least makes sense according to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity which says Time is just the fourth dimension of our Universe. This suggests outside our own Universe Time does not exist, at least not as we know it. However much of the Theory of Relativity and many other of Einstein’s theories are incompatible with Quantum Physics. This led Einstein, when he reached 70, to suggest to a friend that he doubted if his theories would stand the test of time. Two particles, millions of miles apart, for instance, can communicate to each other far faster than the speed of light.

Surely we must think outside the box of our four-dimensional Universe and admit that Time is as illusory as matter. We are existing in a virtual reality. Nothing is really solid, and even the sub-atomic particles which appear to make up solid matter are separated by space, so a solid block of concrete is, in fact, largely empty space. It feels solid to us because we are tuned in to the vibrations. An entity on a different wavelength could pass through apparently solid matter, but in their dimension everything would appear solid. Indeed it is suggested by scientists that many dimensions or universes interpenetrate our own, invisible and undetectable to us normally. However mediums can sometimes tune in to those dimensions closest to our own. Some animals and tiny children also seem to have this ability.

If Time does not really exist, then everything is eternal, or outside of our understanding of Time. Therefore there was no beginning and there will be no end either. It can surely not be more mind-boggling than the idea that everything suddenly appeared out of nothing.

We are in a century of great changes. Just as it took hundreds of years for scientists to accept that the world was a globe and revolved around the sun, so it will take time, hopefully not hundreds more years, for the prevailing materialist paradigm to change and for a new one to replace it putting Consciousness as the fundamental reality from which everything else originates. This has many implications, of course, and means we are all essentially beings of conscious energy temporarily operating through physical bodies but perfectly able to exist independently of them and to survive death of the physical body. Also, that we are all inter-connected and essentially we are all One. All part of the Universal Consciousness, albeit at different stages of evolution. Some aspects of this Universal Consciousness are much more highly evolved than others, but it is an eternal ongoing process.

Marxism and Communism

I describe myself nowadays as a Socialist or even as a Marxist, but note not a Communist or a Marxist-Leninist. It seems this requires further clarification, but I know of others who similarly describe themselves as Marxists but not Communists.

I departed the British Communist Party in 1976 after two visits to the Soviet Union and the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). During the last visit to the GDR in 1976 my life-partner, George Miller, accompanied me and pointed out the defects in the system I preferred to ignore or excuse as a temporary aberration.

It took me many years to consolidate my political views and recover from the shattering of my dreams for the world eventually evolving into a self-governing Communist society in which all States had withered away, in which wars would be no more, and in which a classless society would govern themselves without police, judges, courts, prisons or even money. Marx and Engels had given us this vision of a society in which there was an abundance of goods and services, and in which everybody lived by the maxim: ‘from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs’.

I eventually realized that this utopian dream was totally unrealistic and that, in this world at least, there would always be those who would seek to corrupt any system and gain privileges for themselves and their families. It also became obvious that attempts to clamp down on those seeking to distort Socialism in this way failed, and much worse, it seemed the main victims of Stalinist repression were those who remained true to the ideals of the Bolshevik revolution or who were for genuine freedom of speech and real democracy, albeit under a Socialist Constitution.

Those who sought to usurp the organs or power and use them to award privileges for themselves and their families had no such ideals, so were willing to sway with the political wind, always following the Party line and whoever was the leading comrade. They thus, for the most part, survived the Stalinist purges and all attempts to clamp down on dissent; they paid lip-service to the ideals of the revolution and to the creation of a Communist society.

I still maintain, however, that the Soviet Union and the other Socialist countries achieved a great deal, including full employment, education for everyone, homes for everyone at low rents, good publc transport and public services, good health services, and for some at least, a feeling of comradeship between peoples and hope for the future. I also believe that in the years 1989-1991 which saw the collapse of the Soviet Union and Socialism in Eastern and Central Europe, opportunities were lost for making the system more democratic. I believe not that they threw out the baby with the bathwater, but in many cases they threw out the Socialist baby and kept the corrupt bathwater. No place was this more obvious than in former Yugoslavia, the most liberal and successful Socialist state in Europe, where the old Communist Party leaders became nationalists overnight and where terrible wars and genocides took place as the country fragmented.

In countries like the GDR and CSSR (Czechoslovakia) there was a ruling coalition headed by the Marxist-Leninist Party but also including many other political parties. It would have been relatively simple to break up these coalitions and allow the individual political parties to put up rival candidates and contest free General Elections held under the Socialist Constitution of these countries. This would have allowed corrupt governments and officials to be voted out, and a new government elected to run their own brand of Socialism. The Socialist Constitution could have been replaced only by a referendum in which a substantial majority would need to vote for a new Constitution. In the one-party states like the USSR, amendments to the Socialist Constitution would have been needed to allow new political organizations and parties to form and contest elections.

Now we come to the question of Marxism, Marxism-Leninism and Communism. I have already said that I now believe Communism, i.e. the utopian Stateless society, is unlikely to evolve anywhere in the near future, if at all. In my view there will always be the need for a State and all its apparatus such as police, judges, courts, prisons, etc. and indeed money or its equivalent and the ability, as Tony Benn said, to elect representatives to governing bodies and to remove them.

However Marxism is not just about creating the utopian society of Communism. Marx’s greatest achievement was probably to describe the surplus value of labor; that workers by hand and brain create surplus value to what they need to subsist and this is what is exploited by capitalism in the form of profits and dividends. It can be demonstrated by the value of, for example, gold. If it remains in the ground it is worthless until miners expend their labor to dig it out of the ground. It is the danger and hard labor involved in digging out this rare commodity which give it its high value. If gold rained down from the skies or grew on trees it would still be pretty and used for jewelry, etc. but would not have much true value at all. Similarly with great works of art and antiques; the labor, often very skilled labor, involved in producing them, much of it unique, give these works and antiques their scarcity value. If machines and computers help produce goods, then it is the labor power involved in their design and manufacture which give the end products their value.

The other important philosophy Marx formulated were the doctrines of Dialectical and Historical Materialism. He showed how society inevitably evolves through stages from primitive tribal society, through feudalism to capitalism and Socialism. He then added the final stage of Communism, which no society has yet achieved, except possibly in small communes and these tended to be temporary before they collapsed or transmuted into something else.

I still believe that the eventual collapse of capitalism is inevitable and that it must be replaced by some sort of Socialism. Wars and dictatorial systems like fascism can delay this evolution, but however long it takes Socialism must come eventually come about.

We now come to the question of Marxism-Leninism. I now believe Lenin, and indeed his close compatriot Leon Trotsky, both betrayed the original ideals of the Bolshevik Revolution and paved the way for the Stalinist terror and all that followed including the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union. Early in the days of Soviet power the Kronstadt rebellion took place, led by sailors and others seeking to preserve the original ideas of the Revolution. Their demands were quite modest and included the right to organize in trade unions and leftwing political parties, to allow limited private enterprise which did not include hired labor, to a degree of workers’ control (which would eliminate the growing bureaucracy), etc. This rebellion was crushed on the orders of Lenin by Trotsky’s Red Army. For obvious reasons the crushing of this Kronstadt rebellion is not criticized by either Trotskyist organizations nor by the successors to the Stalinist branches of Marxism-Leninism.

As I believe it was Lenin, along with Trotsky, who laid the foundations for a bureaucratic dictatorship in the Soviet Unon and all the horrors which followed, I no longer can describe myself as a Marxist-Leninist. However it can be argued that in adopting the notion of the ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat’ Marx and Engels also laid the foundations for the repression which symbolized Soviet-style Socialism, and its most extreme form during the Stalinist eras in several Socialist countries. However the term can be interpreted in several ways. Marx and Engels used it to describe the Socialist era after the collapse of capitalism and that it was necessary to create the classless, self-governing society of Communism proper. By creating a one-Party State the toiling masses would be able to join and by sheer numbers eliminate any attempts to restore capitalism or to corrupt the Socialist system, and eventually create the self-governing, classless society of Communism. This of course never happened as the bureaucratic repression had already been instigated by Lenin and Trotsky, carried to extremes by Stalin, and the corrupted and distorted version of Socialism led to its eventual demise.

There are, however, as I said other interpretations which can be applied to the ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat’, though I dislike the term and would no longer use it as it implies repression of all minorities. Nevertheless democracy itself can be described as ‘the dictatorship of the majority’ and if the majority labor for a living, as the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. Again the rights of minorities are overlooked in this description. I would therefore now use the term Socialist Democracy to describe the kind of society I would like to see. This would involve, as described above, all political parties and organizations existing side-by-side, able to contest free elections, the ability of the electorate to vote out one government and elect another, freedom of speech and of the Press, but within the confines of a Socialist Constitution which could only be replaced by a substantial majority vote in a Constitutional referendum. In this way Socialism could be enshrined as the basis of society, but corrupt governments could be voted out and another political party voted in to administer Socialism, or indeed their own brand of Socialism. The Soviet model was by no means universal, and Tito in Yugoslavia had a unique system of worker cooperatives which was much more successful. Rather than huge State monopolies operating under cumbersome and inefficient five-year plans, individual companies could also be taken into public ownership with workers’ control and they could compete along with cooperatives in a Socialist market place. State monopolies or nationalization is probably more suitable for the public utilites and transport systems which use national networks or grids which need to be maintained centrally.

So I consider myself a Socialist and a Marxist, but no longer a Marxist-Leninist. I would be quite satisfied if society reached and maintained the Socialist society Marx and others envisaged without the repression of Soviet-style Socialism and with no promise of an eventual Communist society. If that does eventually materialize in this world it would not be for many generations in hundreds or even thousands of years time when humanity has evolved sufficiently to make it practicable.

Our Segregated Schools

In the United States during the Civil Rights Movement in the mid-1960s, schools were one of the places they were determined to de-segregate. Children were bussed miles to schools in order to achieve an ethnic mix. Before that, especially in the Deep South, schools were segregated. When Elvis Presley was first heard on radio people thought he was black because of his unusual first name and the material he was singing. How did they indicate he was in fact white? By slipping into the introductions to his records the school he went to in Memphis, which of course was an all-white one.

It seems to me that we now have segregated schools in the UK. I am a gay man and do not have children myself, nor do I have any close relatives with children, but I am fully aware that State schools in many Inner London areas are about 95% ethnic, and that private schools are about 95% white – this being a conservative estimate. How do I know this? Because I pass State school playgrounds or see the children on outings, and I have also visited private schools and their students come to our pensioners’ Lunch Club and Drama Group, I also see private schools on outings. There can be no doubt about it, our schools in many Inner London areas are segregated.

In the outer suburbs and rural areas I would imagine most schools, both State and private, are predominately white. This is because most ethnic communities tend to be in the Inner cities and poorer areas, often on council estates.

How has this segregation come about? It is certainly not government policy to segregate our education system, as was the case in South Africa during the apartheid regime. It has come about by parents deciding they would not send their children to State schools which were increasingly becoming predominantly ethnic. If they could afford it they sent their children to private schools, but if they could not afford the fees they moved out to more rural areas where the State schools were still predominantly white.

The reason this is not debated as an issue on the liberal Left is because many otherwise liberal middle-class people do not wish to discuss it. They prefer to turn a blind eye because they are as guilty as the rest for bringing about this situation. Nor is it just the white middle-class population who have brought about this situation; some middle-class blacks, including a well-known Leftwing Labour MP, have sent their children to private schools.

We have always had the British public school system, which is where the upper classes send their children. Not ‘public’ schools in the American sense, they are in fact private schools for the elite. They obviously are predominantly white upper class. Their pupils go on to Oxbridge and many end up in Conservative governments, including many former Tory Prime Ministers.

So the UK now has an educational system which, certainly up to university level, is almost completely segregated. Surely this is a bad thing if what we need more than anything is integration? If children are brought up in an all-white or all-ethnic environment, how will they learn to integrate later in life? How will they learn to accept different cultures and different ways of life?

I am not sure what the answer is, if we should start doing what they did in the Deep South in the 1960s and bussing children, often against their parents’ wishes, to different State schools to insure an ethnic mix. Should the State pay for more ethnic pupils in private schools? Whatever the solution, the problem needs to be addressed or society will become ever more polarized and segregated in future. Far from the problem being addressed, it is never spoken about on the Left but quietly brushed under the carpet. Middle-class parents, otherwise quite liberal or Left in their politics, often send their kids to private schools, or move to predominantly white areas if they do not already live in them, and pretend there is no problem. Those like me living on a council estate in Inner London with no ax to grind as we do not have children of our own, can see the glaringly obvious segregation which exists in our schools, which everyone else on the liberal Left prefers to ignore.

American Presidential Election 2016

I can’t say I was that surprised at Donald Trump winning, though I was rooting for Hillary as I sat up watching the results come in. However if I’d had a vote in this election I really don’t think I could have voted for either candidate. I still think Bernie Sanders would have had a better chance of beating Trump, and I’d have certainly voted for him. Hillary was too associated with previous administrations, the war in Iraq and the Establishment. I felt she was positively dangerous with the real prospect of her authorizing the shooting down of Russian planes in Syria. She would also have continued the demonization and isolation of Russia, which I consider disastrous. I would have had to vote for the Green candidate.

The only positive thing I can say about Trump is that he seeks a dialog with Russia and is cool on NATO. CND has been against NATO from the start, including me of course, and at the very least we think it should have been wound up at the same time as the Warsaw Pact at the end of the Cold War. Russia should have been brought in from the cold once the Soviet Union collapsed. The worst thing is that Gorbachev was promised NATO would not expand eastwards, and it has crept right up to the Russian border and now includes former Socialist states and Soviet republics. The arms build up on both sides of the Russian border is alarming, as is the presence of nuclear weapons. Remember the Cuba Missile Crisis in 1962 which brought the world to the brink of a nuclear holocaust was caused by Soviet nuclear weapons being shipped to Cuba a few miles off the Florida coast, and American nukes being just over the Soviet border in Turkey. Thank goodness there was then dialog between President Kennedy and Krushchev which resulted in an agreement not to place nuclear missiles in Cuba, and for the ones in Turkey to be removed. There is no such dialog in the present Cold War situation between Russia and the West.

Therefore I consider the most important international issue at the moment is dialog with Russia and a joint effort to defeat ISIS/ISIL, Al-Quaida, etc. which have risen up due to Western interventions in places like Iraq and Libya.

Trump is a bigot and a billionaire, and his racism and misogyny during the election campaign were deplorable. In the aftermath of his election there have been riots on the streets and at the same time, as in the post-Brexit vote, racism and homophobia are rampant.

This election is a disaster for America, which is divided more than ever before. Clinton got more of the popular vote, but under the first-past-the-post Electoral College system Trump was pronounced the winner.

I am extremely uneasy about Trump having access to the nuclear codes. He is so unpredictable he could decide to launch nukes against, if not Russia, possibly ISIS in the Middle East. Hopefully he will be contained and controlled, as no President has absolute power. Even with a Republican House and Senate, many fellow Republicans oppose Trump’s more extreme policies. I do hope, however, he is allowed to meet Putin and re-establish a relationship with Russia.

His policy of tariffs on goods imported from places like China, his threat to deport immigrants, to ban Muslims from entering the US, to abolish Obamacare, etc. are silly and abhorrent and will hopefully be dropped.

However Trump’s election victory is a symptom of the worldwide rejection of neo-liberalism and against the Establishment which has impoverished the lower classes. While Trump’s policies are not the solution, at this time any anti-Establishment candidate is liable to gain great popularity. We see this in the crowds who attended Trump rallies and similar scenes at rallies of leftwinger Jeremy Corbyn. Bernie Sanders also attracted big enthusiastic crowds. At times like these it is scary because the electorate can go for either extreme rightwing policies or leftwing ones. If it was not to be Sanders, it would probably be Trump. If it is not to be Corbyn as the Brexit result showed it could be an extreme rightwinger. UKIP claimed credit for the Brexit vote.

It is all very depressing, but my hope is that Labour will unite and manage to win the next General Election, and that the USA will now resume dialog and relations with Russia. Also that Trump’s racist and misogynist traits will be contained and he will not be able to implement policies based on these. Whether he replaces the fence with a wall on the USA’s southern border with Mexico is really immaterial, but deportation of immigrants would be a grave mistake, especially considering most of the USA population are the descendants of immigrants. The Native Americans being the first settlers of that country.

Internet Voices

When we were planning a trip abroad my life-partner, George, used to obtain books from the library about the places we were going to visit. So as all of us are some day going to leave this life on Earth is it not a good idea to do some research to discover where, if anywhere, we go, and what it would be like?

The closed-minded will say either ‘no point, there is nothing and nowhere to go, when you’re dead you’re dead’. Or if they are a member of certain religious groups they will claim they know already, that they are going to either go directly to some exclusive heaven for other members of their particular belief, or they will fall asleep till Judgment Day.

I prefer to actually do the research and find out for myself. Fortunately, with the Internet, we have at our fingertips all the evidence we need to show we all do survive what we call death, and that it is in fact just a transition from one dimension to another.

I have just this morning listened to an ordinary working-class woman from the East End of London, Alice Green, talking about her life here on Earth and in the afterlife. She says they moved from London to Margate, and when she passed over she attended her own funeral. Nobody took any notice of her, so she saw no point in hanging around, then her husband came to meet her and take her to the Other Side, where she met many friends and relations, all looking much younger than when she last saw them on Earth before they passed over. Alice herself was so pleased to have her long black hair back, it had long ago turned gray and been cut shorter.

There are loads of recorded voices like this in the Lesley Flint Archives on the Net. The late Lesley Flint was a Direct Voice Medium, a rare talent which involves an ectoplasmic voice-box which the spirits can learn to speak thru. Flint was one of the most rigorously tested mediums and the voices even occurred when his mouth was taped up, and when he visited apartments he had not been in before.

You can also hear Alf Pritchett, who passed in the First World War, describe his experience, not realizing he was passed over and wondering why German soldiers were ignoring him on the battlefield, or Alfred Higgins who fell off a ladder and is frustrated when a medium receives the image of a ladder and tells his wife ‘I see the ladder of success my dear’. These are ordinary people, but you can also hear posthumous recordings of Queen Alexandra of Denmark, Amy Johnson, Charlotte Bronte, Confucius, Dr Cosmo Lang (Archbishop of Canterbury), Dame Alice Terry, Dean Inge of St Paul’s Cathedral who my mother worked for in her first job in service. She said his voice sounded like him when I played the recording. Dr Stephen Ward (implicated in the Profumo scandal), Elizabeth Fry, George Bernard Shaw, Lionel Barrymore, Mahatma Gandhi, Marie Curie, Maurice Chevalier, Oscar Wilde, Queen Victoria and her personal medium John Brown, Rudolph Valentino, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sir Oliver Lodge, Sir Thomas Beecham, Sir William Crookes, Sir Winston Churchill, Thomas Jefferson and many others, as well as ordinary people.

Lesley Flint was not unique, the late Colin Fry also used to do physical mediumship and Direct Voice séances, and I have heard some very amusing recordings by the spirits of Kenneth Williams, Peter Cook, Bette Davis, etc.

I myself attended physical mediumship séances by David Thompson and heard Louis Armstrong, Quentin Crisp and my life-partner George also spoke to me and touched my face.

Another medium, Andrew Russell-Davis, channels the Earthbound spirit of Diana Spencer, former Princess of Wales, and they stayed in my council flat for two months so I had direct conversations with her. She uses Andrew’s own vocal chords, so this is not Direct Voice or physical mediumship which uses ectoplasm or some other energy.

Also on the Internet you can find many YouTube and audio recordings describing Near Death Experiences where people have visited the Other Side then been revived. Some of these are extremely evidential as they give veridical descriptions of events and things in and around them while in a flatline state. One woman correctly gave the 12-digit reference number on a piece of tall equipment in the operating theater which could only be seen from a point near the ceiling, and another saw a coin on a similar piece of tall equipment. Yet another saw a blue tennis shoe, later recovered, on an outside ledge of the hospital the other side of the building from the ward where she was linked-up to survival equipment unable to move from her bed. Yet another patient ‘saw’, when out of his body which was unconscious on the operating table, a surgeon flapping his hands, later also verified.

Those NDErs who have briefly crossed over to the Other Side also describe similar environments to those spirits coming thru mediums. No matter what their religious or atheist background, what culture they come from all describe an environment much like the Earth, but with differences.

However this research has also shown that there are other dimensions. The Lower Astral, for instance, which is a gloomy place. We go to be with spirits much like ourselves, so those who have been very cruel or selfish end up temporarily in an environment with like-minded spirits. They can eventually evolve or be rescued, as can some Earthbound spirits who refuse to even believe they are ‘dead’. There are also closed environments inhabited by spirits who belong to certain religious sects. They believe they are the only ones who survived death, but eventually they realize the truth, that everyone survives. There are, of course, higher levels as well, and eventually we all have the opportunity, if we desire, to develop and progress to these higher planes. In the highest of these we are pure energy or spirit and need no body or physical environments, but many are content in what is often termed the Earthlike Third Level or Summerland where Alice, Alf and Alfred communicated from.

The Internet has opened up all these possibilities to hear ‘dead’ people talking from the Other Side, for those who are interested and would like to know what to expect. Of course it can all be dismissed as fraud, but this carries weight only if the phenomena in question have been investigated. There are fraudulent mediums, but to just say all mediumship must be fraud because you do not believe an afterlife is possible is just a subjective opinion. Not all the voices sound exactly as the people did when on Earth – some do, some do not. The more experienced communicators tend to get the voice right, it is not an easy process to remember their voice on Earth as telepathy is the main means of communication on the Other Side.

I speak to ‘dead’ people all the time, and I listen to them occasionally on the Internet. I speak to my mother and life-partner in Spirit, and my best friend at school. I get telepathic messages from them, and many by other methods.

A friend who told a terminally ill person he was caring for that he had never received a phone call from someone who had died to say they had arrived safely, received three missed call messages on his mobile phone when Reg, the person he was caring for, passed away in hospital. The missed calls came from the cut-off landline in Reg’s flat and were timed just after he’d passed over. They read: ‘Reg calling, Reg calling, Reg calling….’. Spooky or what?

Here is the link to the Leslie Flint archive if you’re interested in researching this yourself:

Post-materialist science does not require belief in ‘God’

This is the term used to describe science which rejects the materialist paradigm. Many scientists now subscribe to various post-materialist theories, and indeed Quantum Physics could be regarded as post-materialist science. (Please note that Wikipedia’s entry on post-materialism is nothing to do with post-materialist science, that subject is omitted intentionally due to the materialist paradigm which governs Wikipedia’s editors.)

This does not mean that post-materialism necessarily involves a belief in ‘God’. I don’t even know what that term means with a capital letter. I know there are many ‘gods’ with a small ‘g’ and this word is used to described anything or person which is worshiped, including a deity. But what is a ‘deity’ or the ‘Deity’ come to that? Does it exist at all?

I used to describe myself as an atheist, but that sounds far too negative for someone like me who accepts the evidence that consciousness is the fundamental reality, and therefore we all survive death. Post-materialism suggests Mind and Brain are separate, and that the brain is a receiver/transmitter rather than the actual seat of consciousness.

Rationalist is a word I prefer to atheist, because I subscribe to no faith or religion. I also call myself an agnostic Spiritualist meaning I don’t know about ‘God’ because I don’t understand what the term means, but I do receive communications from spirits who are no longer on our Earthly dimension.

Fewer people today believe in a father figure in the sky who judges us. Those who have had Near Death Experiences sometimes talk of encountering a ‘Being of Light’ which some interpret as God, that doesn’t really explain the nature of what they actually encountered. A higher Spiritual Being presumably, but is that necessarily ‘God’?

As an agnostic I admit I don’t know whether God exists or not, but if it does it’s had a very bad publicist and I would want nothing to do with the ‘God’ of the Old Testament, for example. If we are referring to the sum total of Consciousness in the multiverse, I would not use the term ‘God’. Nor would I use that term to describe the most highly evolved part of that Consciousness. ‘God’, in the traditional sense of the word, does not evolve but is unchanging. ‘God’ is also described as the Creator, but this is problematic too as it implies a beginning and Time is only the 4th dimension of our physical world, it does not exist in other realms. Everything is eternal, everything is ‘now’ if you like, there is no beginning and no end.

Many refer to Source, and that sits better with me as it suggests a pool of Consciousness which we all emanate from and return to, and which is constantly evolving. Scientist-engineer the late Ronald Pearson suggested an all-pervading Matrix he called the ‘intelligent ether’ or ‘i-ther’.

Whatever term is used, a Consciousness which is constantly evolving, even though it exists outside the physical brains of living things, is not accurately described as ‘God’ in my view, and it encompasses all of us.

A scientist once said that it appears everything is basically a Thought, and Quantum Physics would also suggest this since sub-atomic particles collapse to wave function (‘waves of probability’ or thought?) when not being measured or observed. This strongly suggests that all matter, none of which is really solid, is a product of Mind or Consciousness.

Yes, post-materialism and Quantum Physics seem weird. For those who want a simple model of the Universe it is uncomfortable. Einstein never liked Quantum Physics, and after he turned 70 is said to have doubted his theories would stand the test of time since some of them were incompatible with Quantum Physics. Such as sub-atomic particles which can be in two places at once, and which can react with each other instantaneously when thousands of miles apart, thus far exceeding the speed of Light, for instance.

The 21st Century will prove to be when post-materialism becomes the accepted paradigm. We will need to accept we are living in one virtual reality among many created by Consciousness, and that we are all connected. The idea of a personal ‘God’ creating itself and then the Universe is as outdated and unsatisfactory as an explanation as that a Big Bang created the Universe out of nothing. Consciousness is energy which cannot be destroyed, it can only change form. That is the underlying basis of all post-materialist theories.

The problem with Brexit vote

Brexit map

This map, showing how the regions of the UK voted in the Referendum on whether to Remain in the EU or Leave illustrates clearly the huge problem with not setting any kind of threshold for invoking Article 50 in the event of a Leave vote. The yellow countries/regions voted Remain, the blue countries/regions voted to Leave. 48% to 52% is not a huge majority, but more to the point, two of the four countries which make up the UK and the capital city, London, voted to Remain. How is it democratic to take these regions out of the EU against their will?

I can’t see what the solution is except another Referendum which stipulates all four UK countries have to vote Leave for it to be operative. The current situation means Scotland is likely to leave the UK, and it will cause big problems for Ireland and the peace agreement which requires an open border and cross-border institutions. Already there is a move to re-unite Northern Ireland with the Republic.

On top of all this, if the end result of Article 50 negotiations means a Norway-type access to the single market for what remains of the UK there will still be free movement to/from EU countries, the very thing most Leave voters do not want. Nor, I suspect, do many of them want the UK to break up and the Union Flag to be consigned to the dustbin of history.

Nobody is keen to sort out this mess, hence Cameron, Johnson and Farage all washing their hands of the mess they’ve created. May just keeps kicking the whole issue into the long grass. This is what happens when you ask the electorate a very complex question without explaining the full possible implications of a Leave vote, especially when lies were told about £350 million extra being available for the NHS if we leave the EU, and being able to control immigration from the EU, which now looks extremely unlikely.

Justification for genocide?

At a recent get-together it was suggested that in war it might sometimes be justified to kill, say, 150,000 people to save more. I vehemently rejected this suggestion, in fact it made me extremely angry.

The most obvious reference to a real-life situation is the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, which immediately killed well over hundred thousand innocent men, women and children, and over the past 71 years has killed many more with cancers, and caused children to be born deformed. This was a heinous crime by the Americans which can never, ever be justified.

The next part of the claim can never be proven, i.e. that it ‘saved’ even more lives. The fact is the Americans committed this genocidal crime, not the Japanese. Whatever the Japanese did previously to POWs, etc. it cannot be said the atomic bombs prevented them killing even more people than these bombs did. On the contrary, if it was these two atomic bombs which caused the Japanese to surrender, why on Earth did the Americans have to agree to the humiliating terms of this surrender? They had to let Emperor Hirohito remain on the Chrysanthemum Throne and guarantee he would never be brought before a War Crimes Tribunal. So 140,000+ innocent people were killed, born deformed, had cancers induced in their bodies but Hirohito escapes Scot free. Not only that, but the Japanese had suffered similar civilian casualties in the conventional bombing of Tokyo, yet did not surrender. Kamikaze pilots were sacrificing their own lives for the Emperor. Such was the adoration of the Japanese for their Emperor they would die for him. The two bombs were more likely dropped before the end of the War in the Far East to demonstrate the awful power of the new weapon America had developed to the world, but in particular to the Soviet Union, which then quickly acquired atomic and then hydrogen bombs of its own. The other reason for the atomic bombing of the two Japanese cities was probably revenge for Pearl Harbor.

On a more general note, can it ever be justified to kill innocent people to save more lives? I say it never can because, for a start, you can never prove it would save more lives. It is an extremely dangerous policy to follow, which could be used by any despot or dictator – they could kill millions and say they did it to save even more lives.

It is said that in war such difficult decisions have to be taken, but I am a pacifist and reject all war under any circumstances. We then have to define ‘war’ itself. I can see there are situations where force has to be used, even lethal force. I would define these as special operations by the secret services, SAS, etc., or simply international policing operations, targeting the guilty rather than innocent civilians. Not using indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear weapons, conventional bombs, landmines, etc.. There are occasions, of course, when innocent people get killed, such as when police are dealing with a siege with hostages and the kidnapers, who are killing the hostages, die along with some of the hostages, some shot by the police accidentally or caught in the cross-fire. This is completely different to deliberately targeting thousands or hundreds of thousands of totally innocent civilians in order to induce fear, or out of revenge.

I am a pacifist (being against war, but reluctantly supporting carefully targeted operations against those committing atrocities), but I’m also a Spiritualist. I happen to know, from researching Near Death Experiences and After Death Communications, that we all face a Life Review when we die. This Life Review is not a particularly scary experience, but rather a learning and enlightening experience. We do not simply see our whole lives flash past, but outside of Earth Time we experience every action, every thought, everything that happened in our lives not only from our own perspective, but from the perspective of all those we inter-acted with. So if we helped someone in some way, we experience what they felt, but also the effects of our negative actions. For most of us this is no big deal, but if we dropped atomic bombs which killed hundreds of thousands of people and caused cancers and deformities in others it could be quite a heavy Life Review, even though as a First World War soldier said in an After Death interview via the Direct Voice Medium Leslie Flint it would be those who ordered the killing who would feel most responsibility. However carrying out orders which result in genocide is not acceptable, as was stated at the Nuremburg Trials of Nazi War Criminals.

There are many ways to deal with dictators and those committing atrocities. I am not going to detail them all here as we all know them perfectly well. All I’ll say is individuals have been targeted by special forces many times. Also take the role of the civilian police in a siege situation. Do they bomb an entire street or area in order to kill the gang or the terrorists who caused the siege? No, they surround the premises and then make an attack, and although some hostages may get killed or injured in the raid, there is no deliberate killing by the police of totally innocent people.

War is the breakdown of normally civilized behavior. Atrocities and genocide, committed for whatever reason, cause hatred and reprisals. It is a never-ending cycle of violence. We must find more civilized ways of dealing with situations.

Finally, it is a sobering thought whether or not you are a Christian (I’m not), that Jesus Christ lived in an occupied country and told his disciples not to resist the occupiers but rather to render unto Cesar that which be Cesar’s (taxes in this instance), and also he told Peter to put away his sword when he used it against a Roman Centurion, as those who live by the sword shall perish by the sword. Jesus was a pacifist, and that’s good enough for me, he was a great Spiritual leader who taught by example. In the ultimate self-sacrifice he apparently died in a crucifixion, though this cannot be confirmed. I don’t believe, if indeed he did die in this way, it was anything to do with absolving us of responsibility for our actions. Spiritualists believe in personal responsibility and progress open to all souls.

I have come to believe that this life here on Earth is largely a virtual reality, as nothing is what it seems. For instance, everything solid around us, including our own bodies, are largely empty space, they just appear and feel solid to us. Therefore everything that happens here could well be a sort of drama acted out to learn lessons and develop spiritually. By reducing ourselves to the lowest level and copying the genocidal practices of others, we are not learning lessons, we are not developing spiritually, and we are inviting reprisals and therefore continuing an ever more violent, never-ending series of atrocities and genocidal actions by both ourselves and others.