41st Lesson

The (almost non-existent) 'Law of Averages'. To the gambler, a fatal error. Gambling institutions, such as casinos, will always welcome you through their doors if you are of this mindset. The fact is that while a series of events may well normalise in frequency over a period of time, this is not a principle which has any sound value to the gambler. In fact, forget this law even exists.

It's part of our personality that we always think that things should even out in the long run. But how long, and when did this run begin? At the spin of a roulette wheel, toss of a coin, or the roll of a die, there are fixed laws of probability. Red or black (but excluding zero), odd or even, high or low, heads or tails, these are all even money chances. These odds never change at the start of each single event. But what about sequences? With a die, how long before you can throw a six? Throw it six times and you are certain at least one attempt must be a six? NO. To two decimal points, there is only a 66.51% chance you will throw a six (or any other single nominated number). How about throw an even or odd value? Certainty? NO again. You have (to 4 decimal points) a 98.4375% chance this time. In any of these events, you can go to infinity and NEVER reach a pure 100%!

Note: Honest and fair gambles can sometimes appear that way, but not always. An uneven coin, a loaded die, a talented croupier, sleight of hand, etc. Always be wise to those offering you games of chance.

There are games of chance where you can get the odds in your favour, given a long enough run of play. Card counting at 'Blackjack' (or 'Pontoon') is one. Casinos tend not to like 'card counters' as this system counts the value of cards already dealt. The higher or lower the value will determine your chances of winning. Once upon a time, in America, card counters were seriously frowned upon. In some establishments, violence was used to 'discourage' card counters from ever entering their chosen establishment ever again. In modern casinos, you will likely find that dealers will use something called a 'shoe' to deal cards from 4 (or more?) shuffled decks. And even then, not all the cards in the shoe will be played. This drastically reduces the odds in the player's favour and makes the exercise of card counting a far more difficult one.

There is a moral to this story, and one which is known by all of those who are 'worldly wise'. It is 'never give a sucker an even break'. Learn that well because unscrupulous people use it against those who are easily fooled ("suckers"). Life can be like that as well. Not setting out to deliberately catch you out, but it does seem like that sometimes.

"Why do I never get an even break?", is another popular phrase. The fact is you have to make your own luck, make your own breaks. And while purely random opportunities may sometimes come your way, you will learn that the most rewarding of all are those you create yourself.

So go through life not expecting anything good to happen to you. You make your own luck. And do not expect to win each time. You will lose once in a while, but losing will just make you wiser.

42nd Lesson

The dilemma of temptation. Should I, or you, or shouldn't I, or you? Why are we even thinking about it!

A true story! Many years ago, I read an article in a newspaper about how someone had left £25,000 in a plastic supermarket shopping bag in an alleyway in the city where I lived. It was a place that I passed by regularly while out and about during the day, but this was discovered later at night. The finder was very consciencious and took the bag to a police station. I thought to myself, what if it was me who found it? Life wasn't great for me at that time, and the money would have cleared the mortgage on my shared-ownership property - and with a few thosand left over. But that was the Devil speaking to me and putting ideas in my head. Having said this, it would still have been a dilemma for me. I thought that anyone who was foolish enough to leave that much money in an alleyway between two shops must have been out of their mind. Maybe drunk, and wandered off to take a pee? Then forgot to go back and pick up their bag? There had to be a logical reason that so much money was left in such an unusual location. Maybe it was left there by a very wealthy eccentric as a test to see if it would be handed over to the police. I have previously read of such strange behaviour.

Of course, for me, it was purely academic. I wasn't in the right place at the right time, or maybe I should say the wrong place at the wrong time. Because of my own circumstances I would have suffered the torment of handing it over to the police, or keeping it. If it were unsequenced banknotes, that would even been easier. It was dark, and no ccTV cameras were around at that time. It would have been so easy just to pick it up and walk off with it. But as I say, the Devil was putting these thoughts into my head.

You can be certain that everyone reading this story would have had mixed opinions. Keep the money, or hand it over? What would you do? Perhaps if you take it home and then wait for someone to report it missing, and the story appearing in the media, then this may have been an option. It would have been easier to keep the money IF the real owner was extremely rich. Then you would think, would he really miss the money? Of course, legally, you would be guilty of theft if you kept the money. Anything you take which is not rightly yours, even such circumstances, is still theft. So even if you keep the cash, you have that thought nagging away in your head for a long time to come.

To be honest, and to this day, and due to my circumstances at that time, I do not know what I would have done. I would certainly have experienced a range of emotions, and a feeling of guilt if I had kept the money. OK, all said and done, I didn't find the money, so no problem. But it really is something we should all keep in mind. What if such a situation should arise in the future? I do know of some evil people who are seriously corrupt swindlers, and if it were their money, keeping it would not have preyed upon my mind too heavily. But all other situations? Dilemma time again. One would need some serious justification for keeping the money. At this time, I would return the money - if the rightful owner could be located. But if nobody claims it, then my conscience would be clear. Maybe I would even use at least some of it for good causes, and one of those for me is animal welfare. So I say again, who knows? More critically, do you know?

43rd Lesson

Winners and losers. But are you the cause of your loss? Did you stop appreciating what you had? Perhaps you didn't realise what you had until it was lost forever?

If you have worked very hard to achieve something, to have put a lot of effort to make it work, then it is foolish to let anything ruin that success. Yes? The first thing you must do with any 'contract' you sign, be it work-related or personal, is that you do your groundwork first. We all know we should not rush into anything that is so important to us, and especially with anything that is expected to last. Work contracts can be short lived, but personal ones are for life. Therefore, if you have ticked all the boxes that make a loving and lasting relationship, nothing should make it fall apart. Well, that is the theory. The real challenge is to be sure that whatever relationship you are in, that the fortune that befalls you during it can be good or bad. It is during the bad times that you discover how strong your relationship is. Where the bond is strong, anyone can withstand whatever life will throw at you, and you will stay together through thick and thin. But did you really discover all of your partner's strengths and weaknesses before you committed to each other?

The modern world is setting new challenges each day. Not that this should cause you any real difficulty, but relationships today can be so superficial. Easy divorces, abortions ('throw away babies'), temptations, illusions, etc. Satan never stops working, and he will keep presenting you with situations to try and break what should be unbreakable. While this has always been the way, the world around you is changing for the worse. Now you have to work harder each day to resist and repel those things which can destroy you and any relationship you have.

The greatest danger to you though is 'creeping' complacency, taking things for granted and assuming you do not have to do any more than you have already done. You cannot blame anyone else if you become 'distant', and your partner, and family (where it exists), feel that you are losing interest in them. This may not be the case, and maybe you do not have the energy to make your relationship as exciting as it once was. But it's not about energy, it's about effort, and about the little things that made you attractive to your partner all those years ago when you were in love.

So remember that a marriage contract really is for life. 'Until death do us part', as they say. There is no retirement scheme, no rest, and you will have to work at it for as long as you are alive. Just make sure you remember all of this before you commit to someone, because you will owe it to yourself, and your partner, to do so.

44th Lesson

This is where it gets 'spooky'. There are still many people who do not afford any credibility to sightings of 'Unidentified Flying Objects' ("UFOs"). But they really do exist and whatever you think, for those who have had 'close encounters', they are very real.

I have had several experiences of UFO sightings. But the two most striking ones occurred when I was in my early 40s. My suspicions about the nature of these objects was reinforced by my 'association' with a very well-qualified and respected scientist. Our initial relationship began when I was referred to this person (though I cannot recall who contacted whom first). Our shared interest was the effects and the dangers of electromagnetic radiation for cellphone masts. In fact, the scientist was so interested in my opinions I was invited down to London and we had lunch together at the Royal Society of Medicine. Not much came of this. Regardless, our relationship persisted for some time, until one later and very fateful day. Read on ...

Now I am not the sort of person who gets drunk, and despite a few 'indulgences' in my very early 20s, I generally only drank weak 'shandies' (mild beer with lemonade)and remained perfectly sober. But I had been attending a social gathering of mature singles that night and returned home sometime after 10pm. My house was at the end of a cul-de-sac and as I approached it, I noticed something hovering above the roof of my semi-detached property. As I stood in front of my house, I looked up to try and determine what I could see. It was generally oblong in shape, though almost invisible. It was a clear night and it should have been a clear sighting. The only outline I could determine was caused by two strange projections at the front of this craft. These projections were translucent, but with not one definable colour. As the craft rotated about 180 degrees, the colour of these projections slightly altered in colour, but again to nothing clearly definable.

So, I went into my house to look for my binoculars, but when I came out again, the craft had disappeared. I did own a very basic but old camera, but it was of no use at all as it relied upon the old technology of camera film (which was not in it at the time). I didn't think more about it at the time, and I wondered it was some secret military project. As a consequence, I did not pursue it any further, nor mention it to the scientist I knew.

If I recall correctly, it was around this time, probably later, that I was asked to go and 'spy' on a nearby property. I was asked if the owner of this property had any structure on the roof of their house. It was a property I passed often as it was on the route to a Tesco supermarket not far from my house. Having seen the (likely) oner of the property on a few occasions, he just looked like a normal old man. I should add that we never said 'hello' to each other when I did see him. So, upon returning home I telephoned the scientist and told that person that there were no structures on the roof of this old man's house. It was not very long after our short discussion that I got a much clearly definable view of another UFO. On this occasion I had been at home all day and was going out late at night to put some household waste in the dustbin in my backyard.

What I saw now was a much larger saucer-shaped UFO that had just started to manoeuvrer away from directly above and very close to my house. And as you may guess, it headed straight for the house I was asked to spy on, one which was less than 200 metres away from my house ('as the crow flies', as they say). As soon as it reached the old man's house, what appeared to be a 'near horizon event' occurred and the flying saucer completely disappeared.

The next day I telephoned the scientist to report my observation. The scientist was angry that I should talk about this over the telephone and I was left feeling very upset and guilty of doing so. I guess this is what caused a rift between us and we lost contact with each other.

Make up your own mind on this, but understand there is a lot going on that most people are unaware of. This is mostly because they do not look up at the night sky often enough to catch a glimpse of the strange, but rare events that happen. Before I end this little story though, there was one other strange but very distant aerial event which both I and a former girlfriend observed. We noticed a single ball of clear white light move upwards in a straight line. Then it stopped for a while and then made a seemingly perfect 90 degree turn to our right. Then the ball of light stopped again, only to move back towards the earth, making again a perfect 90 degree turn. On the basis of what we both observed, this ball of light was not inside the Earth's atmosphere. It was some distance away from it. Very strange indeed!

45th Lesson

Forbidden knowledge (Part 1). Don't you have the right to know? How, why and when is a book considered too dangerous to read? When is an opinion too dangerous to broadcast?

Let's start at the beginning. It is said that the Christian Bible is 'frowned upon' in numerous countries. In these countries it is described as being "dangerous and/or difficult to obtain." It is either "illegal or highly restricted, or strictly illegal, and only available through covert smuggling." It should be added that in some of the countries mentioned on some websites, the information is not completely accurate. But the fact remains that the Bible does struggle to see the light of day in at least part of some of the most hostile nations.

The Catholic Church also has a collection of books only a privileged few can read. While these are likely on topics where the content is considered is considered evil, or corrupting, there may be some justification. But how many books is the Catholic Church hiding away in the darkest corners of the Vatican? And are they all as dangerous as the Church would have us think? Or are they perhaps revealing of secrets that would bring disrepute upon the Catholic version of Christianity? We just don't know, do we?

Next are those books which can be blamed for inciting serious discrimination, or causing the reader to radically react to the knowledge they have gained - potentially leading to all forms of violence and anti-social and anti-establishment behaviour. But this can be a grey area. For example, a nation that oppresses it's people, denies them some basic human rights, then any material that threatens that regime will be considered too dangerous to read.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". These were the words penned by author Evelyn Beatrice Hall in her autobiography of Voltaire, and merely interprets the French writer's reaction to the news that his government had condemned and burned fellow French philosopher Claude-Adrien Helvétius’ book, "De l'esprit" (“On the Mind”).

Well ... this was in the 'old days', and before the introduction of the internet. This form of media has kicked open many doors that were once locked. But there are times you still have to squeeze through those which have been more securely protected. This is also, of course, assuming your country is not trying to block access to those websites that can overcome the barrier of forbidden knowledge. But even in the 'free countries', the ones that echo the claim they are democracies and are free of any serious restrictions, they will still use the tools available to them to deter you from learning more about the world we live in. Authors, public speakers, broadcasters (and 'podcasters') can be vilified, denigrated (such as being labelled a 'conspiracy theorist') and blatantly misrepresented if they are 'not with the programme'. The programme? It's a term (an 'Americanism') I heard of many years ago and concerns State-controlled 'thought police' mechanisms using compliant mainstream media outlets to control what we see, hear and read.

"I keep six honest serving-men (They taught me all I knew); Their names are What and Why and When And How and Where and Who." - Rudyard Kipling

46th Lesson

Forbidden knowledge (Part 2). The right to free speech. But just be careful what you say.

"Every Sunday since 1866 a range of different speakers gather at Speaker's Corner to air their views and the tradition continues today. Speaker's Corner is situated in the top right hand corner of Hyde Park opposite Marble Arch. Many famous figures have spoken at Speaker's Corner including Karl Marx, Lenin, William Morris, George Orwell and Lord Soper." - Visit London: Speaker's Corner

Not everyone wants to hear your thoughts, your opinions, your theories ... but some will. Now there are the more light-hearted events such as Speaker's Corner in London, which is just as much a form of entertainment as it is a debating arena. The more serious presentations will be made in appropriate establishments, such as auditoriums (large and small), lecture theatres, etc. It depends who's speaking, the topics they have chosen, their social and/or professional status, anything which makes them at least some sort of attraction, or something that is worth paying money to listen to.

The big question though is this: does what you have to say interesting enough to attract an audience? Does your message resonate? Is it something some people feel the need to know, or something they would rather not know? Not everyone likes the truth when it is unsettling, or even brutal. It's a frequently observed fact that many will prefer to listen to comforting lies than uncomfortable truths. And even if the same reluctant people do hear truths they do not like, they will quickly shrug them off. But will they ever forget them? How many will try to convince themselves that despite the evidence put before them, they will fool themselves into thinking it is unreliable?

Forbidden knowledge is therefore not an easy thing to expose, and as I have previously warned of, it can also get you into deep trouble if you touch a sensitive nerve. The best way to survive and to keep your lessons in the public domain is to be labelled an eccentric, a 'crackpot', anything which makes you appear as though you you should not be respected. It's a sad state of affairs that it has to be this way, but it will save your skin. Adverse publicity will also make sure you will remain in the public eye, and as they sometimes say, bad publicity is better than no publicity at all.

My advice is not to discount anyone who is seeing their reputation trashed by all and sundry. Nobody gets treated this way, on such a scale, not unless they are considered a threat to the establishment. In this respect, it is necessary to remind you of the adage describing different levels of defamation: "the greater the libel, the greater the truth."

"The truth lays in all of our hearts. It is a natural condition which none of us can deny. But between the heart and the mouth, the darkness that lives in our minds can sometimes intercede. And when it does, it redacts at least part of the message we should transmit, and adulterates what remains to the point where it bears no resemblance to it's original intent or purpose."

- Christopher Silverthorne, 29th March, 2024.

So stay true to your message, even when it is not being heard far and wide enough. 'Dilution' or deception will otherwise destroy it completely.

47th Lesson

When is a sport, any sport, not a sport? It's when it is subject to political interference, and the abuse of those who are using to promote their own agenda. In this example, I discuss the event that occurs every 4 years, the Olympics. It is an event which has been distorted and diverted from it's original and ongoing principles and purposes for the sake of 'political correctness'.

Before going any further, it's important to remember some of the guiding principles of these games. I shall present these as bullet points (and underlining critical points):

• Chapter 1, Article 6: The Olympic Games are competitions between athletes in individual or team events and not between countries.

• Fundamental Principles of Olympism. 4. The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practising sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.

• Fundamental Principles of Olympism. 6. The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Olympic Charter shall be secured without discrimination of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

If these are indisputable rights, why should some country's athletes be banned from representing their country? In the opening ceremony, each country parades at least some of their competing representatives around the main arena. And at the head of each group, someone carries the banner of their country. This is OK, as long as you understand that the Olympics is NOT about entire countries competing against each other, it's supposed to be about the participation of athletes as separate entities, either in teams, or individually. And on this subject, note that the athletes will also be wearing the designs and colours which represent their country. Should they all not be wearing something that does not do this?

Furthermore, if some athletes are not permitted to represent their country, but others are, then this is blatant discrimination. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as they say.

One should also consider the 'medals table'. Even though athletes should be competing strictly as individuals, the table demonstrates which countries have won medals. Why not just have a table that lists individuals, regardless of where they come from, and what they have won? It is commonly perceived to be a battle between the largest countries to see who can produce the most medal winners.

Now as I compose this lesson, it is less than 4 months to the next Olympics (mainly) in Paris, which will run from 26 July to 11 August, 2024. But Russia and Belarus are not invited. This is what happens when the 'tail wags the dog'. Politics comes before fair, unbiased, non-prejudicial sporting participation. So, the governing body, the International Olympic Committee ("IOC") has put itself, albeit due to political pressure, above and beyond Olympic principles. The IOC is now nothing more than a '5-Ring Circus', one controlled by 'jugglers' and 'acrobats'.

48th Lesson

The United Kingdom's Honours System. So what happened to the 'honour'? Has it ever been there? This is lesson in how 'golden gongs' are sometimes awarded to those who have greased the right palms, while 'bottle tops' are dished out to those who do not have the right connections... or enough money to buy their way to the top.

While this may sound demeaning of the honours system, I use the descriptions given to highlight the faults within it. It has nothing to do with those who have dedicated their lives to good causes, it is a critique of the level of respect shown to those who are more deserving than some of those who receive the highest honours. For example, knighthoods are occasionally handed out to some sordid and undeserving inhabitants of our society. These are the people who have either committed acts of evil, have faithfully obeyed a corrupt establishment agenda, or have simply just bought their way through the system.

So if the some of the most corrupt earn greater honours than those who have truly served those they seek to help, then what value the 'lower' honours? It is like comparing bottle tops to golden gongs. If you are wondering at this time why I use these terms, it is simply to strongly emphasise the difference in the 'size' of the rewards handed out by those invested with the authority to do so.

I would also ask what is the value of a small piece of metal? Yes, it is recognition of devoted service to a cause, and it may earn you a little more respect, and other perks, but that is all it can do. The only ones who gloat over their rewards are those with inflated egos. There are those who expect to be recognised in all communications by insisting the term 'Sir' is always put before their name. And while others are more modest, it is a sign that some put themselves above others in social rank. OK, so you really may deserve your knighthood, but that does not give you any special rights in a morally fair system of human existence. It can recognise the value of what you have given back to society, but that is all. Those who have given just as much, or even more, albeit on a lesser scale, equally deserve such recognition. So for the most hard working, those who have sacrificed the most, it should be knighthoods for all, or at least an evenly balanced reward system that is blind to social standing and structure. Is this a fair analysis?

Sadly, this all amounts to nothing. This is because the social class system, and all of the unfairness of discrimination that exists within it, is an ingrained part of our culture. Too many people live in a 'fairytale world' where everyone should know their place, and that we should prostrate ourselves before the great and glorious. Kings, Queens, Emperors and Empresses, etc., will always exist because we allow them to do so. And when such ennobled entities consider themselves worthy of more esteemed honours than the greater masses, then nothing will change.

My only postscript is this: regardless of what you have been awarded, or not, it is the next life that matters more. When you have shuffled off your mortal coil, there will be judgement in some way, shape, form or other description that will await you. So your little pieces of metal will count for nothing. They are merely a temporary trinkets which have no value in the spiritual world that awaits you.

49th Lesson

NB. The following text serves as a 'supplement' to my 27th Lesson.

We are all cut from the same roll of cloth, metaphorically speaking. It's only the dye that differs - one which defines our colour. White, yellow, pink, red, brown or black, the material all comes from the same roll. I am referring specifically to our DNA. This rarely changes in it's basic form and we are traditionally born with two chromosomes. As females, that is two X chromosomes. With males, it's one X and one Y. Yes, there on very rare occasions some aberrations, simply because nature is not perfect. There have been cases where some people have been found to have more than two chromosomes. But that is not the issue I wish to present to you.

Using this principle, we should be able to say that we are all born equal. Equal as in human rights. Whatever else nature does to us, and it can be very cruel, it is a fact that we all have the same basic genetic make-up, and it is only by varying physical factors that we are different in appearance. But this is where any likenesses or similarities end.

There is an old saying that we are all born equal, but some are born more equal than others. If you are born into a family that is wealthy, you will enjoy more privileges than those born into abject poverty. This is the way of life. But these two differences can be reconciled by the fact that both may be of equal intelligence, attitude, and degree of humanity as each other. This is all in spite of their background. The only challenge comes when faced with prejudice. Those who look down on the poor and needy will overlook whatever qualities they may possess. Historically, this has led to abuses of human rights. The enslavement of different races and cultures is but one example.

I personally have spent most of my time living in the West. With a few short periods of time in America, this has been exclusively in the United Kingdom ("UK"). For almost the last two and a half years I have lived in the Philippines. There are some stark difference to attitudes between the two cultures that exist in both. The UK provides something of a safety net for those who are down on their luck and at least some from of social security is available. It's the same in other Western nations as well. But in the Philippines, this is not the case. There are some benefits here, but nowhere on the same level or scale as more privileged countries. What follows now is a lesson for everyone in the West.

In the UK it is not uncommon to see beggars. While some are genuinely homeless, this is usually due to some issue with lifestyle and/or attitude. These types of beggars are always looking for charity without offering anything in exchange. They are like this as they feel it below their dignity to offer something in return for helping them. Proud and principled, but also penniless. These are factors that work against someone bettering themselves and improving their lives.

All said and done though, this is not about poverty - something I discussed in my 27th Lesson. This is all about attitude and how a class-based society can put you down if you let it. Just remember that those who discriminate against you are no different to you in many ways. The cloth is the same, but it is how others look upon it. And it is on these occasions that those less fortunate can be treated in a condescending manner.

"Do not pray for an easy life, pray for the strength to endure a difficult one" - Bruce Lee.

50th Lesson

Control Freak. It's a term used to describe someone who insists upon control, but without any real authority. But being a control freak is not always as bad as it sounds.

In the first example, and I have experience of this, is when I was on a adult 'University' course. In one of the tests put before all of the students was to modernise and streamline a fictional company that required improvement. I made sure I was in the small group that involved stock control. As I had previous working experience of this type in a factory some years before, I offered to give the group the benefit of my experience. This would have made our task a lot easier. But I was immediately attacked for trying to take control of the group without approval. This is not what I was doing. I was offering my experience to make our project simpler to complete. But some people just love to prejudge you, don't they?

In the second example, and one I have witnessed a few times in my life, are people who really do like to do things their way and try to dominate. In the UK we call it being 'big headed'. People like this just will not hear opposing views and must have complete control of the environment that is also being shared by others. the term control freak is deserved here.

The third example is someone who likes being left alone. Nobody likes being told by others how to live their lives. It's a fact that some just like solitude for whatever reason. My mother was like this and possibly because of the painful things she witnessed and experienced as a child. She just felt more secure being alone in her later years and did not want any fuss. This attitude was also enhanced by being old and set in her ways. When you do get to be very old, you like simple procedures and systems. You don't want to be messed around and take life at your own pace - and not one that is dictated to you (and sometimes so by control freaks). I actually feel this way at times as well. Being married does have it's advantages, but if I ever found myself alone again, I would not remarry. I appreciate the benefits that solitude can bring.

The conclusion to this sort lesson is this: never let anyone decide what is best for you. It doesn't matter how experienced or qualified they may be, they are still trying to control your life to at least some degree. No, no no! You may be in need of some assistance in later years (or even if you are younger and you suffer from some debilitating condition), but you are still entitled to your independence. Most mature and sensible people realise this, but not all. Also, never mix with control freaks unless you can keep some distance between yourself and your potential antagonist. I only add this because there will be times when you cannot avoid such situations. If you do have to suffer them, lay down the law. Let them know in no mean terms that you will not be treated as though your opinions are worthless.