Karma, Life Plans and Human Free Will

There are some extremely controversial and offensive theories going around what some would describe as ‘New Age’ religions. This came to prominence recently when William Roache made an insensitive remark which was to do with karma inherited from past lives. Bill Roache is an actor I much admire for his Spiritual beliefs as well as his portrayal of Ken Barlow for over 52 years in the soap ‘Coronation Street’, but he is not alone in voicing views which, though well-meaning, are very insensitive.

I recently joined a debate on the Internet about Adolf Hitler and whether or not he would have ended up in one of the unpleasant lower astral planes after he passed over to Spirit. One suggestion was that he might have been on a special mission to teach the world a lesson, and there are theories in these New Age/Spiritualist circles that murderers and victims agree before their births to play out the roles they do.

All these theories are, in my view, ill-informed, deeply offensive, insensitive and actually nonsensical. To even suggest that people starving of famine in the underdeveloped countries, murder and torture victims, including all those who died in the Nazi concentration camps, were either paying karmic debts for misdeeds in past lives, or that they voluntarily agreed to be victimized to ‘teach the world a lesson’ is as offensive as suggesting Hitler was some sort of saintly figure who played Devil’s Advocate to encourage the world not to repeat his crimes.

I have studied the after-life for quite some time now, and while there are a lot of mysteries and even Spirits on the Other Side don’t know everything, we can piece together a reasonable picture of what actually must happen.

Firstly, we all have free will. So if we were pre-programmed, albeit with our consent, before birth to act out certain roles with no freedom of choice, then we would just be robots. What would be the point of life on Earth at all, which is supposed to be a learning experience for all of us?

Yes, there are teachers like Jesus and the Buddha, some would include people like Mahatma Gandhi and atheists like Sir Bertrand Russell and Karl Marx, who in their own ways tried to teach us better ways to live. Some of these, notably Jesus and Karl Marx, had their teachings twisted and misused to justify things like the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Stalin purges and the Pol Pot massacres.

However even these people had free will, they were not pre-programmed robots. We may all have basic life plans, in the sense that before birth we set out to achieve certain objectives, learn certain lessons, but we have free will in what choices and decisions we make and so these life plans are not always fulfilled.

As I have come to understand it we, as individuals, do not lead endless lives on Earth in a process of reincarnation. We have a Higher or Greater Soul which encompasses many aspects, sometimes likened to facets of a diamond. Contained within this Higher or Greater Soul and linked to it are many different personalities.

It seems the Higher Soul creates personalities which then incarnate to learn lessons, and evolve. Also to help others and teach them lessons, usually by example.  These individual personalities, once created, remain as separate individuals even after death. Indeed I’ve read one account of a woman who actually met a previous incarnation of herself in the afterlife.

All these different individual personalities in the Greater Soul share the lessons and experiences of their various lives, but you as the individual you are now will normally only live one life on Earth. That individual will continue to exist indefinitely after death, though will evolve. Eventually it may merge with other personalities in the Greater or Higher Soul, but not immediately. Only when it is ready to ascend to even higher Spiritual levels. We simply don’t know if there are cases where individual personalities volunteer to reincarnate. Maybe in some Eastern cultures, or in the cases of some who die very young as children. However there are many more cases, the vast majority, where children and even stillborn babies grow to adulthood in the Spirit world.

It may well be that before birth on Earth a new personality of the Greater Soul discusses with guides what the objectives of that life will be, but always there is a degree of free will. Take the case of a murderer for instance. It might be pointed out before birth that this could be something that could happen, but when actually living their life it would be their free choice whether to commit murder or not. If they do, then they will surely have to accept the karmic consequences in the sense that everything we do, good or bad, reflects back on us eventually. This is because of the law of cause and effect and the fact that we are all connected, ultimately we are all one.

Just one example: in the Life Review which occurs in Near Death Experiences and when we actually pass over to the Other Side, we re-live every action and thought of our life outside of time and space. We feel the effects of these actions and thoughts on others as well, whether positive or negative. The negative ones we then feel impelled to put right by regretting them and learning never to repeat them. Hopefully any new personality created by the Higher Soul of that individual will not repeat the same mistakes.

You cannot assume, however, that people who suffer in any way have either brought it on themselves due to actions in past lives by other personalities within their Greater Soul; that they are paying karmic debts, or that they volunteered to be victimized in this life. If they suffer at the hands of others, then they are victims of the free choice of those other people which could not be foreseen with any certainty in advance. If it could, then it wouldn’t be free will.

Life and Death take on a different aspect once we are in the Spirit world. Since our brief lives on Earth are but a tiny part of our greater existence to look at them in isolation is like just looking at the very tip of an iceberg. If you look at the whole picture, you’ll get a very different impression. I suspect all of us have come thru the plant and animal kingdom in some form or other and in these and our various human lives, linked in our Greater Soul, we have both suffered and experienced much enjoyment. Not as the individuals we are today, but sharing these experiences in the Greater Soul.

So going back to the Hitler argument, he had a choice. So too did those who drew up the Treaty of Versailles after WWI which treated Germany so unfairly it permitted the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. Once Hitler and others had made their choice, then they would have to feel the effects of their actions on others eventually, and pay the karmic consequences. It does not follow that Hitler’s victims all had karmic debts to pay or that they had volunteered this role. They could well be totally innocent, and the most that can be said is that before birth the possibility of what might happen due to the actions of others could have been put to them. Since nothing is written in stone, it would only have been a possibility, just as a husband who might or might not murder his wife would have had these possibilities put to them. In that sense they could be said to have volunteered the roles, but not the outcome.

To use the analogy of actors in a film. Various plots are written and the actors are given the different plots and scripts to read, but not told which one will be used in the final cut. This is left to be decided later, by the actors themselves. So nobody knows for sure in advance how the film will end.

That, to me, is the only thing which makes sense. Otherwise we are pre-programmed robots who can learn nothing and cannot evolve. Without freedom to make our own decisions, without human free will, there is no point to anything.

What we can say, with scientific certainty, is that this life and this material world we live in is a virtual reality. Nothing, for instance, is really solid, and quantum physics suggests everything is created by Mind or Consciousness. This also applies to the Spirit planes which are similar to Earth. The only ultimate reality is Mind, Spirit or Consciousness itself, for ultimately, we are just One Spirit. Thought Energy and Consciousness is what creates everything else, and everything we experience.

Birthdays and celebrations

Yesterday was my 68th birthday, and my mother (aged 98) kept saying we should be doing something special. We had some drinks, cakes and chocolates, plus a meal. I don’t see what else we could have done really. Her lift is out of order for the next few weeks, so going out would have meant manhandling her wheelchair down 6 flights of stairs and up again, and her negotiating 6 temporary stair lifts.

My partner and I used to have parties occasionally, sometimes at New Year. They were enjoyable, but although I’ve had a few parties more recently I couldn’t cope with any in my flat. The last ones I had were in a pub.

The people who used to come to our old parties are no longer around. My life-partner, George,  passed on in 1991, and others have also died: Roy, Marion, Brian, Noel, Lenny, Sheila, Freddie (who always entertained us with a cabaret. George and I also did a sketch.) Others I have lost touch with and may well be dead: Bob, Stanley, Patricia. Of the old gang only Tom remains and another friend named Ernie who came to a few parties, plus Lenny’s partner Frank who never came to them anyway.

I may have a party for my 70th but it will have to be in a pub function room, and the only people I can think of to invite are the Woodies Roots Music and social group, though they too are not getting any younger and some have already passed away, others are more or less housebound.  I guess I could invite Tom and Ernie as well, and Tom’s friend Mark.

We will have, if not a party, a family get together for my mother’s 100th next year if she makes it. My cousin Bruce in Canada and his wife have promised to come and there are various other cousins and also my brother, but all my aunts and uncles have now passed on, apart from two in a Care Home in Cyprus.

So as one gets older there are less people to invite to parties, you feel less able to cope with them, and do you really wish to celebrate being one year older when you reach your 60s and 70s? Perhaps just when it’s a special number like a round figure, or the big 100.

If I ever reach 100 I don’t want a card (no longer a telegram) from one of the monarch’s flunkies. A message from the President of the European Union would be nice, or from our own President if, by then, we have got rid of the outdated monarchy and become a republic.

So no, I don’t really celebrate birthdays any more. Even Christmas hasn’t been the same since 1970, the last one when the family got together when my grandparents were still alive. Now it’s much like any other day except my mother and I are usually invited to the annual Rotary Club Christmas Party in Battersea Park. If it wasn’t for that, it would be very much like any other day of the year.


Spies Who Fooled The World/Iraq War Panorama Special

Well they didn’t fool me or millions of others. In fact they didn’t fool French or German Intelligence, or British or American Intelligence. The program made clear that the decision to topple Saddam Hussein’s regime had been made and so-called ‘intelligence’ was made to fit the facts.  Flaky intelligence from unreliable sources was used to justify the war, whilst other intelligence saying there were no weapons of mass destruction was ignored.

Why I wasn’t fooled was because when Colin Powell spoke at the UN General Assembly shortly before the war started he had diagrams (not photographs) of supposed mobile chemical and biological weapons facilities on trucks, some loaded on rails. This was clearly false intelligence even to me as American spy satellites and spy planes, constantly overflying Iraq, would have spotted these things. They would have had actual photographs, not drawings.

The Panorama program revealed that UN weapons inspectors also visited the site in question where these trucks/mobile facilities were supposed to be located, and which was supposedly a chemical and biological weapons factory, and confirmed before the war started that no chemical or biological weapons had ever been manufactured there, and the factory in any case was derelict and hadn’t been used for anything in years.

It was also known, from spy satellites, that a 6 foot wall ran thru the site making it absolutely impossible for trucks of the size reported to negotiate the area. The UN weapons inspectors confirmed, before the war started, that this wall was still in place.

American and British intelligence were told that the Iraqi dissendents and opposition sources who gave this false information were unreliable and probably fabricators.

As always suspected, President Bush wanted to topple Hussein by invading Iraq and Tony Blair promised to support him. Intelligence was then selectively used to justify this preconceived decision to go to war. Reliable intelligence was ignored from high Iraqi officials recruited by the CIA, and unreliable intelligence by taxi drivers, opposition groups and Iraqi asylum seekers were used to justify the war.

It can be argued that both the high level Iraqi officials and the dissident sources could have been spreading false propaganda to further their cause or, in the case of dissident asylum seekers, to try to gain residence in America.

However this does not explain why the intelligence from the dissident sources was not confirmed by the UN weapons inspectors, by satellite and spy plane surveillance, and other reliable intelligence sources. On the contrary, all this reliable independent intelligence supported the Iraqi officials who said Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction.

The only conclusion is that Bush and Blair knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but proceeded with the war anyway against massive public opinion because they had already come to a decision, for whatever motives, to topple Saddam Hussein’s regime. A regime, it must be added which, like Osama Bin Laden, they once armed and supported.

Local government in the UK

We once had a simple, universal three-tier system of government in the UK: national government at Westminster (except that Northern Ireland also had Stormont), county councils and local government such as boroughs, urban districts and rural authorities. Now it is much more complicated. As well as national assemblies/parliaments in Scotland and Wales, though not in England, most big cities are not in counties at all.

I looked for a map on the Net to include with this blog, but there are so many different ideas as to what constitutes a county and what doesn’t I gave up. It seems there are the old ceremonial counties, but they exist only on paper and have no actual authority in many of the cities once in those counties.

Some of the bigger urban areas are administered by many authorities, such as the West Midlands, Greater Liverpool, Greater Manchester and the various cities in what used to be Yorkshire.

The counties tend to exclude the big cities and urban areas, and these counties themselves have changed a lot over the years since the 1950s. New ones have appeared, such as the Isle of Wight which was formerly in Hampshire, some have come and gone like Avon, and others have been split up like Sussex and Yorkshire. Others have amalgamated, like Cumbria (once Cumberland and Westmorland). Borders have changed – the Home Counties around London lost areas to the Greater London Council, now replaced by the Greater London Authority. Middlesex disappeared altogether, though the name is kept alive by people in West/Northwest London who still include it, quite unnecessarily now we have postcodes, in their address. Whole towns and cities have jumped across borders, so Bournemouth once in Hampshire jumped into Dorset, but now like neighboring Poole claims not to be in either county since they are both local authorities in their own right.

There are also parts of England which have nationalist aspirations, such as Cornwall and the Isle of Wight (Vectian nationalism). The British Isles themselves include the UK, the Republic of Ireland, the Isle of Man and the various Channel Islands. The UK only covers the mainland, Isle of Wight and the other islands around Britain. Great Britain, incidentally does not include Northern Ireland, hence the official title of the country ‘United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’. More a mouthful than ‘Turkish Republic of North Cyprus’ or ‘Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’. All these are better known by their initials or pseudonyms, i.e. UK or Britain (wrongly used to include Northern Ireland), TRNC/North Cyprus, DPRK/North Korea.

A map of the local authorities in the UK (which I have on my kitchen door) is a very complicated mess. This is not the case in the United States, for instance, where big cities and metropolitan areas, while having their own local authorities, still come under the juristiction of the various states (and the District of Columbia) where they are actually situated. For York to be shown as no longer in the county it gave its name to, or rather ‘North Yorkshire’ as that part is now known, is just the most obvious example.

I wish this map could be tidied up so counties covered the whole of the UK, and metropolitan/urban areas like the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Greater Liverpool and the various former Yorkshire conurbations each had their own single metropolitan authority like the Greater London Authority. England should have a national assembly or parliament to bring it into line with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But then consistency was never a strong point in these islands.

Perhaps that’s why we can never decide whether we’re in the European Union or not, giving the impression we have one leg in and one half out, opting out of the Eurozone and demanding refunds for our contributions to the EU budget.

Falklands Referendum

The residents of the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands have just voted in a referendum on whether they want to continue to come under British jurisdiction. Unsurprisingly 99.8 % voted ‘Yes’ to remaining a British Overseas Territory.

As with all votes of around 98 or 99 percent, this makes the whole consultation process highly suspicious. In the former Socialist (Communist) countries percentages of this nature were regularly achieved in general elections voting in the ruling Party or coalition. In those cases it was because there was only the opportunity to vote for a single Party/Coalition list without attracting the attention of the authorities. They were not secret ballots, as to vote against the official list you had to go into a voting booth and strike thru all the names. To vote for the official list you just had to put your ballot paper unmarked in a ballot box. So anyone going into a voting booth was noted as a dissident and would have trouble with finding suitable work, would come under constant surveillance, etc.

This is not the case in the Falklands vote, but in this and similar cases it is the question asked in the referenda and who is allowed to vote which determines the outcome. All referenda which ask whether a territory wishes to come under the juristiction of a larger country are unfair if the result is predictable because whole populations are disenfranchised.

Take places like the Falklands/Malvinas, Gibraltar, Northern Ireland and Cyprus. Of course if you ask the residents in a referendum there will be a majority vote in the first three places to remain British (though in Northern Ireland the republican population is growing faster than the ‘loyalist’ population). In the case of the Republic of Cyprus the majority Greek-Cypriot population would vote for Enosis or union with Greece. All such votes are, I would argue, invalid as whole electorates have not been consulted.

In all these cases you need three referenda. One in the territory concerned and one each in the countries which claim juristiction. So in the case of the Falklands/Malvinas you need referenda in the islands themselves, in Britain and in Argentina. The results in the islands and Argentina are predictable, and would cancel themselves out. The islanders would vote to remain British and the Argentineans would vote for the Malvinas to come under their country’s juristiction. The result in Britain would probably favor the islanders, but not necessarily in view of the high cost of maintaining their link with Britain in the face of Argentine opposition.

Similarly in Gibraltar and Northern Ireland. To get a true test of public opinion referenda on whether to remain under British juristiction should be held in the two territories, in Britain itself (which does not include Northern Ireland, hence the official title United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland), and in the other countries which claim juristiction, namely Spain and the Republic of Ireland. In the case of the Republic of Cyprus referenda would need to be held in the Republic of Cyprus, in Greece, but also in Turkey and in the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus in order to obtain a true test of public opinion.

If all these referenda were held, the results would be fairly predictable and would hardly lead to a solution on the question of sovereignty. The trouble is the question itself. No referendum should, in my opinion, ask whether a certain territory should come under the juristiction of a larger country. The question should be about independence.

So in all these cases the referendum should ask whether the territories, i.e. Falklands/Malvinas, Gibraltar, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Cyprus, wish to go for independence. This would mean no other country has juristiction over the territory though as independent states they could seek links and assistance from whoever they wished.

There are, however, additional problems in these territories due to ethnic cleansing and electorate gerrymandering. For instance, despite their proximity to Argentina no Argentines to my knowledge are actually allowed to live on the islands. It is as though Argentina claimed the Isle of Wight, expelled the local British population and put Argentine immigrants on the island, then held a referendum on whether the Isle of Wight wished to come under Argentine juristiction.

In the case of the Republic of Cyprus, since the events of 1974 and earlier, the transference of populations due to ethnic cleansing, etc. has meant most of the Turkish-Cypriot population have fled to the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus or abroad altogether, whilst most of the Greek-Cypriot population still on the island live in the Republic of Cyprus. In the case of Northern Ireland, the Irish province of Ulster includes 9 counties, but only the 6 with a majority loyalist/Protestant population were included in Northern Ireland when the island was divided by the British. So gerrymandering insured a permanent loyalist majority at that time.

So even a vote for full independence in all these territories would be less than satisfactory or decisive if it was suspected that those voting in these territories were not representative of the true indigenous population due to ethnic cleansing or gerrymandering.

In all these cases a vote for full independence would be more legitimate than a vote to be tied to a larger country, but like in Israel with the expelled Palestinians, the question would remain as to what the expelled population or those excluded from the vote (such as those in the Turkish Republic of Cyprus and in the three Ulster counties in the Republic of Ireland) would have voted.

However there is a limit as to how far back in history it is reasonable to go in order to get a true vote on independence. After a certain period of time the current population of a territory has to be taken as the indigenous population. Otherwise the native Americans in the USA, Canada and Latin America, and the Aboriginal/Maori populations in Australia and New Zealand could vote to expel all the generations of European immigrants, which would be totally impractical.

So I would say that the referendum in the Falklands/Malvinas should have been on whether to go for full independence, and if that vote was ‘Yes’ this should be respected by both Argentina and Britain. This would remove the indignity for Argentina of having a British Overseas Territory on its doorstep. As for the newly independent Falklands/Malvinas, they would then have the freedom to forge links with whatever countries they wished, hopefully including Argentina which is so much closer to the islands than Britain thousands of miles away.

In the last resort the question of whether you wish to remain British or not surely is answered by where you choose to live. If this is outside Britain, then you are an ex-pat living abroad. You then come under the juristiction of the country or territory you are living in. The very idea of a British Overseas Territory smacks of outdated empire-building and colonialism, and should be discarded once and for all.


Harry becomes patron of Halo Trust

prince harry 2

Diana’s youngest son, Harry, is literally treading in her footsteps by becoming a high-profile patron of the anti-landmines Halo Trust. The pictures of him on this page remind us of when his mother walked thru minefields in Bosnia and Angola, and the chilling events which followed.

She received phone threats to her life, identified one to a friend as a well-known Tory MP, and was described as a ‘loose cannon’. When Tony Blair’s Labour government was elected she made a statement about hoping it would be more sympathetic to her anti-landmines campaign than the outgoing Tory John Major government. This prompted a Tory MP to say, just a week before she was killed in a car crash in Paris, that the mother of a future King of England ‘could not be allowed’ to make such political statements.

All the evidence points to the crash in the Alma Tunnel being a political assassination and the motive being principally her anti-landmines campaign.

Before her death she had persuaded President Clinton to vote for a landmines ban, but after her death he was persuaded to reverse this decision.

prince harry 3

Now Harry has very bravely taken on a very public role, as the pictures show, of opposing landmines, encouraged by his mother’s example, what he has seen in Africa and, who knows, maybe what he has learnt in the military.

The gauntlet has been thrown down, but what happens next? Threats against Harry by the same powerful people who threatened and then killed his mother? This would surely be far too dangerous, and would insure the truth about the crash in Paris finally came out. People in the know would have to speak out to protect Harry, and another mysterious ‘accident’ would be too much for the public to swallow.

Although the podcasts have stopped for the moment for technical reasons, Diana still comments in written messages on current events and her sons’ exploits on the DianaSpeaks website http://www.dianaspeaks.info/, channeled by Christian, her voice channel.

The latest ones will be posted shortly under Current Messages, then scroll down to Diana’s Current Written Messages Here.

All her podcasts, Christmas messages and channeled book are also still accessible via this site, where you can hear the Earthbound spirit of Diana speaking thru Christian. Hours and hours of interviews plus her posthumous book read out.

Surely her boys know about the site because they’ve been told about it, and they have never said it is not their mother or asked for the site to be closed down. Now Harry has taken the very brave step of confronting the very forces who threatened and many believe killed Diana, so how long before the whole truth comes out about the Paris crash and also Diana speaking from beyond the grave?




DPRK threats

DPRK flag

The DPRK (North Korea) has again made threats against the ROK (South Korea) and the USA, including that of a pre-emptive nuclear strike. The response of heavy UN sanctions was accompanied by the U.S. spokesperson speaking of North Korea’s ‘illicit’ nuclear weapons.

That’s rich, that’s very rich coming from the biggest nuclear weapons power in the world. ALL nuclear weapons are illicit because they are non-discriminatory weapons of mass destruction targeted against mainly civilian populations and also affecting from radioactive fallout not only people living today but generations yet unborn.

It is hardly surprising the DPRK, feeling cornered and isolated, is taking such an aggressive stance, even though most of it is pure rhetoric. Their logic is surely that the USA, so intent on invading countries like Iraq and Aghanistan, might think twice about invading the DPRK because of its tiny arsenal of small nuclear devices.

It is nevertheless a dangerous situation, and one brought about almost entirely by the stance of the USA, UK and the other original five nuclear weapons powers (France, China and the Russian Federation) who, in defiance of the Nuclear Non-Ploriferation Treaty, refuse to give up their nuclear arsenals and are constantly modernizing them.

The only way nuclear weapons can be banned internationally is by international agreement, but starting with unilateral inititiatives such as the UK deciding not to replace Trident. The idea that the DPRK or any other small nuclear power would then nuke or invade Britain is just ridiculous.

Indeed if the nuclear powers claim they need nuclear weapons, which have not prevented any wars and which have proved unusable, then every country in the world can claim they also need them. This would make the world a much more unsafe place.

The situation on the Korean peninsula needs to be defused, first of all by the signing of a peace treaty between North and South to end the official state of war (albeit in an uneasy truce) which has existed since the early 1950s.

There also needs to be a determined and coordinated effort to rid the world of nuclear weapons. The greatest danger while they exist is not from a rogue state obtaining them which, if they used them would prove suicidal, but from terrorists getting hold of the ready-made materials and detonating a small nuclear device in the middle of a city.

Any small nuclear state, such as the DPRK, which used nuclear weapons would be committing suicide not just because of the world’s nuclear arsenals. A conventional invasion of that country would then occur even if nuclear weapons were not used by other countries.

Nuclear weapons do not make any country safe, but they do make them possible targets for conventional and nuclear strikes. Such as when Israel conventionally bombed nuclear facilities in another Middle Eastern country.

The DPRK, by its present belligerent stance, encourages a real risk of such action and its nuclear threats only increase this risk. The danger now is of pre-emptive pre-emptive military action, which could easily escalate out of control and might then involve a nuclear exchange.

All nuclear weapons have ever done is increase tension and put the world in tremendous danger. Only recently we learnt how a sole person on a Soviet submarine saved the world from nuclear annihilation during the Cuba missile crisis in 1962, another crisis caused by the existence of nuclear weapons.

The other big danger point in the world today due to nuclear weapons is Pakistan and India, both now nuclear armed states. Also the Middle East where Israel has nuclear weapons and other countries in the area may be trying to acquire them.

The Nuclear Non-Ploriferation Treaty must be enacted in full which means, like chemical and biological weapons, nuclear weapons must be banned worldwide.  This will involve the five original nuclear powers disarming their nuclear arsenals completely. This can be done multilaterally with adequate inspection of all nuclear armed countries to insure destruction of all warheads and safe disposal of all nuclear materials to stop them getting into the hands of terrorists.

There really is no alternative.




Suggestive Lyrics in Early Rock’n’Roll

The 1960s are often regarded as the watershed in pop music, culminating in the Flower Power and hippies of the latter part of that decade, ‘make love not war’ and the permissive society with the advent of The Pill, etc.

In actual fact suggestive lyrics came long before the 1960s, first of all in so-called ‘race music’ (later called R&B or Rhythm’n’Blues) and Blues performed by black artists in America.

Early rock’n’roll cleaned up some of these lyrics, but the process wasn’t that effective. For instance, in Big Joe Turner’s ‘Shake Rattle & Roll’ as covered by Bill Haley & His Comets they altered the line about the see-thru dress, but innocently left in ‘like a one-eyed cat peeping in a seafood store’ which referred to certain parts of a man’s and woman’s anatomy coming into very intimate contact.

Black artists too cleaned up the lyrics in order to get wider airplay, thus Little Richard’s ‘Tutti Frutti’ was cleaned up with nonsensical lycis to cut out references to ‘booty’ etc. in the original.

However not only did some suggestive lyrics slip thru the censorship, but white songwriters like Leiber and Stoller actually wrote suggestive lyrics into many of their songs which became big hits, without many of the public realizing what they really meant.

Just take ‘Jailhouse Rock’ which Elvis Presley had a big early hit with. There are no mixed jails in America, so when Elvis sings: ‘You’re the cutest jailbird I ever did see’ he’s addressing another male inmate.

Leiber and Stoller’s original ‘Hound Dog’ recorded by Big Mama Thornton had the words: ‘You ain’t nothin’ but a hound dog snoopin’ round my door, you can wag your tail but I ain’t gonna feed you no more’. The later versions by Elvis and others, much to Jerry Leiber’s annoyance, changed the lyrics to ‘cryin’ all the time. You ain’t nothing but a rabbit and you ain’t no friend of mine’. Apart from not actually riming, it made nonsense of the whole song which was not about a dog catching rabbits, but a man wanting sex with his woman.

Leiber and Stoller also wrote ‘Charlie Brown’, a big hit for The Coasters. ‘That’s him on his knees I know that’s him getting seven come eleven down in the boys’ gym’ can hardly be a reference to getting 7 or 11 strokes of the cane. If it were he’d be bending over, and that too would be very ambiguous. However, it doesn’t take much imagination to work out what Charlie Brown was doing on his knees getting 7 and 11 of ‘something’ down in the boys’ gym. What do people do on their knees? Clean the floor, pray and….. you guessed it.

Rockabilly artist Warren Smith had a recording out on Sun Records called ‘I Got Love If You Want It’. This included the immortal line: ‘I’m a King Bee baby buzzing round your hive, I can make honey, let me come inside’.

Of course there’s Jerry Lee Lewis with his two monster hits ‘Whole Lotta Shakin’ Goin’ On’ and ‘Great Balls of Fire’. ‘Shakin” was an old song, but Jerry added some suggestive lyrics, imploring his partner to ‘wiggle it around a little bit’, which he was forced to change on his first Steve Allen TV appearance. His second big hit had a suggestive title, as Sam Phillips, his record label owner remarked: ‘there’s only one kind of balls’ he could’ve been referring to (written for Jerry by Jack Hammer).

Of course lyrics got even bolder and more explicit as the decades went on, even from the original rock’n’rollers. Thus Chuck Berry recorded a new version of ‘Reelin”’n’ Rockin” which instead of referring to dancing with a woman twice his size, is all about repeated sexual intercourse with a woman. Not to be outdone, Jerry Lee on a ‘live’ album recorded at Fort Worth, Tx simulated sexual intercourse in ‘What’d I Say Part II’ by first talking then singing about having sex with a girl he’d obviously never met before (he didn’t know what color her eyes were) in the back of his car. As she moans and groans, Jerry implores her ‘Just a little bit higher baby, just a little bit higher…’ and the frenzy builds up to a fantastic orgasmic climax with Jerry yelling several times as he reaches it.

If you listen to many early rock’n’roll records even from the 1950s you’ll no doubt pick out many more suggestive lyrics. ‘Lovin’ Up A Storm’, another Jerry Lee hit from that era, is all about making love and it being ‘good for you’. ‘Breathless’, another million seller from Jerry Lee, left little doubt about why he was in such a condition. Certainly thinking about it if not actually doing it.

Johnny Otis’ ‘Willie and the Hand Jive’ has quite an obvious alternative meaning, i.e. male self-masturbation.

Of course back in the 1950s many were so naive as to be unaware of the double meanings, even some of the singers apparently. Elvis, apparently, never caught on that he was chatting up another man in ‘Jailhouse Rock’ and the public certainly didn’t for years.

Clever songwriters having a bit of fun with the artists and the public no doubt, though the early black rhythm’n’blues which helped give birth to rock’n’roll was much more upfront. Both artists and record buyers knew exactly what the lyrics meant. Indeed the very phrase, ‘rock and roll’ was a euphemism in these early R&B/race songs for sexual intercourse. White DJ, Alan Freed, adopted and popularized it to refer to the new music of the 1950s, and it has come down to the present day as Rock Music.