Coming Clean on Cancer

My profound thanks go to budding commercial digital artist and alround genius, Tim Kaiser. His tireless efforts over the past few weeks have produced the three pictorial metaphors (including the banner) I commissioned which go above and beyond specifications

Embarking on a public writing career in 2004, I began by (often positively) vexing other message boards with extended expansive comments in response to circulars. After almost a decade it became clear the style was too volatile for that medium. Hence it so happens that this website is testament to my first (and perhaps dying) effort at amateur journalism. By way of due diligence, I did initially approach others for feedback. Upon primary inspection of the “blog”, a Facebook acquaintance sneered of it “well, it’s opinion, I suppose”. Of course that was loaded sentiment offered by someone notably aggravated by my stance on things in general and, as such, the statement was salaciously unfair. Being anti-populism, I am destined to offend which means there are many who will find my special touches distasteful.

For the record, all journalists offer opinions whether these are their own or rebranded viperous propagandas. Taking “crime” as the example, a policeman invariably doesn’t know the pattern of events leading to an infraction. Instead, he tries to best guess with authoritative bias. Therefore those “style” of reflective reports are tainted from outset, most particularly when the journalist presumes any authority issues word of God. To be clear, I do not personally offer opinion, but my deeply human style of writing lends to presenting truth so compellingly, it is as though my output transcends reality. Rather than looking for concrete agents to discredit truth, my critics prefer direct slander or hurling unsanitary insults at me.

Fantasy it must be said also transcends reality. Whilst I feel he doesn’t fully appreciate the scope or power of imagination, Jon Rappoport has made a career from scripting exercises geared to coaxing make-believe into being. I make no secret of the fact I enjoy his writing and his extraordinary intellect. When not distracted by corporate alliances, he is one of the best journalists on the net. Jon takes a very special interest in the manipulation of healthcare, but he tends to follow the shady “statistics” path. Accountability is the first weapon of propagandists. Who could possibly dispute “official figures”?

Given my rather zany approach to serious news worthy topics, though I had conceptualised “Coming Clean on Cancer” back in 2016, for two long years I struggled to put words to ambition. Applying frivolity to something as sombre as cancer perhaps equates to mixing all colours in a forlorn attempt to create white. There are many compelling theories that will never practically move a harmonised audience. Even so, given the generous reception to my announced intentions all that time ago, it seemed clear that this, of all titles, could actually engage populist interest in me and my website. I desperately need a numbers’ boost if my work is going to have any longevity. Hindering the objective in relation to “Coming Clean on Cancer” is an enormous roadblock. The critical problem is I neither have direct conventional experience as physician nor scientist, so how am I qualified to discuss serious matters in conjunction with terminal illness?

Dependent humans insist on being lectured by credentialed mentors. Doubtlessly that is why Jon Rappoport religiously adopts the verified statistics route when discussing professional topics. Nevertheless, configured notions that reduce “amateur” status to abject worthlessness (when compared against “specialists”) are a misnomer. Likewise, those that parasite off misleading or ill applied authoritative statistics will never be able to justify their sewing of deceit. Jon, of all people, should know that the establishment does its upmost to put the kibosh on any true pioneering spirit. Recalcitrant amateur free thinkers produce the bulk of ideas, of which some are quietly adopted by those that lead social peer groups. That is predominantly also why methods applied to analysis, prognoses and theoretical conclusions that consolidate mundane convention rarely diverge much. Suffice to say; though innovative reviews should be welcomed as “breaths of fresh air”, I fear my sparks will do little more than vulgarly confronting stale, sceptical reactions from faithless brethren.

Many teachers are press ganged into feigning expert status. Were any to tackle the volatile topic “cancer”, I feel sure that, instinctively, condemned-in-waiting would be lulled into pretending they were serious hobby doctors or technicians on the fringes of medical science.  Astute Disraeli was prophetically poignant in his muse “there’s lies, there’s damned lies and then there’s statistics”. You see, the problem is that science uses statistics to cultivate determinism. Statistics are meaningless without plans of attack. Scientific goals are brought to life with data. Of course, any discovery tour would do more to impede conclusions than amplify them. That is why a preliminary thesis might be written for investigation to exclusively source “proof”. A modern, blustering vicious cycle of ignorance bungles science bluff.  That is until prior valued methods or products mysteriously “fail”. How could the statistics be wrong? Maybe we should ask Mr Disraeli.

Personally not intending to fall for vanity, if ideas and explanations presented this article don’t resonate because they do not concur with established norms, I don’t care. I will not pretend to be an adjunct of the system or some loopy alternative “quack” simply to foster moronic popularity. It is abhorrently clear to me that conventional sciences, applicable medical strategies and, indeed, physicians themselves have no understanding of what cancer is. Ignorance is deep rooted. They do manage to incessantly admonish uncontrollable, ever present symptoms with such fervent zeal, I feel sure the Papacy is brought to shame by their candour. Such is the momentum, the vacuum precipitates with ceaseless and often dishonourably prejudicial accusations supporting “causes” to the detriment of reason. Whether that be specifically anti-vaccines, cigarettes or generally against ambiguous “carcinogens” depends on the vigour of focused political interests.

A recent article on another website of mine makes for a good investigative guinea pig. Content, some may determine, presents little more than dubious information. This is because the case I make confidently flies in the face of traditional authority. There is a notable absence of essential proof. The essence of subject matter gravitates around philosophies over human’s paradoxical status demarked by the cerebral cortex and its conflicting alliance with the so-called reptilian brain. Ironically, content observes other worldly “reptilians” (some believe act as shadowy pseudo overlords) use consensus view to control humanity. Whether this prognosis is correct or not does not tarnish the reality. Consensus view syndrome is so prolifically acute, just about everyone is severely infected. Popular opinions largely serve as “truths”. Statistics punctuate consensus output. “Proof” is a control mechanism because “evidence” (sic) must be backed by statistics if it is to be accorded.

Coming down to Earth, I concur that statistics do account for replication and these could be beneficial to truth depending on how investigations were conducted. Current testing is always unaccountably spectral. By that I mean favour towards the way things are done “justifies” procedures, processes and methods.  Science experiments are formulated in laboratories. Why not sewers? I remember the history of an absurd test designed to determine how much electricity will kill a human. A rigged telephone system delivered the fatal result to an unsuspecting individual. It was presumed that trial and error is ample enough to divine precise dosages for posterity. Yet, what if breaches of circumstances were to shatter all goals? Science had to rewrite everything it “knew” about radiation after Chernobyl. Reality is never precise. It is always gnarled. For every rule there seems to be at least one exception, sometimes many.

Methodical study should take note of this. Would scientists ever consider the internal or external energetic status of experimentation environments? How much does ephemeral resonance implicate material reality?

The creators of the first atomic bomb believed that the domino effect from impairing a single particle would “theoretically” collapse all matter in the universe.  Here, for once, “science” at least showed tentative respect for the machinations of existence. Of course atoms are not solid and scientists should consider this carefully. But for circumstantial perception, quantum components would have zero mass. Indeed, was it not for the way they are perceived, they would not exist at all. That makes the truth a materialist’s worst nightmare. Atoms act as catalysers for “the other side” (that which doesn’t exist) facilitating an unbreakable communication tendered between receptively dimensional experiencers and (for lack of better terminology) “God”.  The connection is all powerful as it determines form. Values that permit existential parameters are unbreakable. Humans of normal capacity are little more than configured “witnesses” and that’s why rudimentary sciences obsess over material symptoms.

Symptoms, I have stated many times before, are either in deference to or at loggerheads with causes. Medically, the culprit of any knife wound is self-explanatory. That fits in with science etiquette, though is it the wielder or implement that actually cause an injury? Microbial conditions are much harder to evaluate. These potentially implicate energetic resonance under such conditions whereby irrational meanderings might appeal to the rational. Interestingly, the key to understanding why remarkably coincides with determining what nothing “is”. Ancient Romans, for instance, had no digit for zero. From this I judge they were incredibly astute. Voids expose gaping weaknesses of our sciences. That is because, from the materialistic perspective, “nothing” can only ever be paraphrased theoretically or philosophically.

Due to physical limitations, complicated machines are used to test the efficacy of beliefs, but even these can only evaluate something. For instance, is a vacuum truly a vacuum or does existence replace each emptiness with miracles? Could “something” incongruously exist perpetually beyond detection in place of what is believed to be nothing? Here science would do well to come to terms with how Einstein’s opinions on relative time dilation present clues to the truth.  How does time “work” in conjunction with the experiential atomic universe? These questions need to be answered effectively before an appreciation of the consuming complexity of cancer can be tendered with any sense of comprehension. That is one of the primary reasons I have been reluctant to tackle the subject until now.

The way time is structured impacts reality more than routine sciences would possibly ever consider. Thorough effects of time dilation have mostly been ignored, partly because cursory distortion reveals the metaphysical is superimposed under and over physicality. An undeniable observation in relation to this is, though chronology is implicitly linked to perception; the syndrome extends well beyond agreeable reality. Every physical thing located in domains comprising human dimensional bandwidth is subject to a relatively consistent set of rules that define and govern “aging”. Universal consistencies, it must be emphasised, give materialism intellectual credibility. However the paradox of spontaneous creation becomes unarguable evidence supporting a non-physical divine planner’s role in crafting a constructive blueprint. In this instance “a” divine planner may be construed as “many” diverse agents “working in unison” towards common interests.

An arbitrary existence would have no laws or, rather, laws would be irregularly and inconsistently incidental. Yet if human could uncouple from perception and time, then the way existence “works” would change irrevocably. Einstein theorised that time slows at speed (relative to the external). His equation measurement curves designed to demonstrate the fact are infamous. Expanding this view (with tinges of Irony), relative to all other things, everything physical has momentum, even if perception pre-judges “stillness” or lifelessness as valid scenarios. If zero momentum could really be achieved, then time would be absolute, so pure stillness would possibly generate existence out-of-existence because of the necessary uniformity. Vibrational string theory more or less verifies this truth. Physical existence at the base level consists only of particles in constant variable wave formations.

The one thing that could possibly harmonise absolute time is nothing and. therefore, nothing cannot exist, or, better still, perhaps this might equate to the “summary of everything” – theoretical dimension ten. Before I address the conundrum more coherently, I should like to add that light takes no time to reach its destination, contradicting mundane science opinion. Apparent time dilation highlights impair of the human perception response. That damage is acute. Our acrid boast that the sun’s rays take four whole minutes to travel a cosmic nanometre to Earth exposes a gaping deficiency. How far adrift of reality are we over a cosmic light year? What explains the discrepancy between perception and reality should be science quest number one.

It seems obvious to me that the culprits are those nefarious atoms I introduced earlier. Late nineteenth century two slit experiment (as crudely as it was directed) provides great insight here. Atoms appear to generate potentially unlimited congruous reality standards (again confirming string theory). Thus, subjective laws governing this dimension present an illusion that is scripted. In other words, limited experiencers dial into the script which is delivered by atoms. Therefore it doesn’t need a genius to correlate that time (as a cosmic script) could be used to manipulate “reality” by powers with essential knowledge, tools and ability. That is why certain converging dimensional circumstances are able to defy standardised sense of reality. Historic scenes mysteriously morphing into existence (be it some instances are proto-physical or ghostly) are the most sensational examples of these sorts of phenomena.

Those with the power to manipulate would have to comprehend the critical role atoms have to play in fabricating everything. Thus, these minute particles are not merely arbitrary figments designated to hinder comprehensive understanding of important, busy physicists. Without them there would be nothing for physicists to witness, so they cannot be avoided. Routine arrogance and presumptive bias summarises limited devotion to quantum illumination. Experiments are conducted in the usual way. Imperialists have been determined to solidify even the most microscopic components of the universe from the very outset. It seems to me that the strategy was “long view”, designing a dastardly operational manual. Planning, it should be highlighted, perfectly casts the supplementary objective equating to ramming square peg into round hole.

Was mankind to evolve, the true purpose of atoms would become common knowledge and for good reason. Notably study of these universal catalysers is crucial if all illnesses are to be neutralised without the need of medicine or operational accoutrements. But is a globalism free of greedy corporate healthcare practical? Perhaps ruling powers would do well to refer to supposed extra-terrestrial entities commonly called “Grey Beings” and related accounts that claim each can “see” a body’s auric field (collective quantum resonance). In doing so, technicians are somehow able to massage cures cancelling infected areas simply by using their extremities (is this what Jesus meant by “the laying on of hands”?). Our sciences must come to terms with the phenomenon somehow if humanity is to progress. Thankfully, in a very minor way, Barbara Brennan has begun the investigative tour and can already demonstrate some pragmatic effects with her adaptation of Reiki techniques.

Several other theoretical extra-terrestrials use a “standardised” royal electronic wand (attached to low weight backpack) to achieve the same ends as the Grey Beings, although power over life goes both ways here as the device doubles as a potentially lethal laser weapon. I realise my referencing “aliens” is bound to tease the smugness of convention, but that which is relevant must be reviewed if honest dedication to discovery of truth is to be commuted.  Alien is the fancy word for unknown. Few credibly dispute the apparent existence of entities that have yet to garnish formal identity. Certainly, in most cases, identified attributes suggest existences beyond physical. Some reliable accounts have only been made possible through mediums such as regressive hypnosis. It seems these strange beings can infiltrate dreams. Psychology has never deliberately clarified whether dreamscape is a different form of reality or random mind offcuts.

The reluctance to go discover has reached epidemic proportions because every human (attached to civilisation) has been systemised in one way or another. Prior to the onset of “television”, passage rites were contests between families and schools. Today we are literally bombarded with different opinions from all sides. Most viewpoints have little or no bearing on raw truth. They pitch (sell) ideals. Therefore it is important to give an example that demonstrates how people (including conventional scientists) are programmed to think. Historians promote British and subsequent American abolition of slavery as one of the greatest virtuous achievements of commercial government, yet the reverse is true. When Britain amended the 1807 Slave Trade Act in 1833 effectively making sale/purchase of humans’ obsolete, reasoning was not supported by philanthropic goodwill. The prior (eighteenth) century had gone through a specular commodities boom/bust that incurred a mighty stock market crash affectionately called the “South Sea Bubble”. One of the reasons for the bust was the lack of buyers for exotic merchandise.

Buffering against much protest and suffrage of the people, the known world began to change from 1780 onwards because business embarked on a shift from local craft industries to larger scale grouped commercial operations. Things demonstrably reached a head with Luddite attacks on Manchester (England) cotton weavers for using automatic looms. Therefore it is plain to see that the real reason for the abolition of slavery was the emerging industrial revolution and its associated exaggerated labour contingent requirement. There is a partnering myth (in conjunction with the rise of the industrialists) that deserves exploding. Prior Machiavellian craftsmen did not take umbrage at any loss of work, although their incomes did more than supplementing survival by now. No, big business stole their power.

Therefore the advantages gained from abolition of slavery were numerous. Firstly it ensured labour surpluses so wages needed to be no greater than rock bottom. Secondly it removed the obligation to provide social security to those displaced by consequence of war and so forth. Thirdly there was a potentially unlimited stock of hands to oil automated enterprises

1865 abolition in America not-so-mysteriously prompted a European cotton price hike. The new cost of each bale had risen fivefold courtesy of the paid plantation labour contingent. Now lucrative cargos that had once been worthless were subject to duty, currency charges and insurance. This ultimately was the reason for huge cotton wholesale price increases without notice. Messieurs Rothschild and company were that pleased with results in Manchester; they erected a commemorative statue in 1875. The industrial revolution did pre-empt thriving populaces, but concessions came at a dear price. Constant and lasting recessions from the early nineteenth century restricted the GDP. Initially the incubus of mass production only provided a means for skilled labourers. Prior slaves (euphemistically labelled servants) and unskilled were left to fend for themselves. Predictably transposition fostered a spike in survival “crimes” (theft of foods and so on) which reached epidemic proportions by the 1850’s and ‘60’s. That is why historians herald the industrial revolution as “saving poverty”, but it is actually one of great lies. Sadly deceit cements popular knowledge which fortifies the human condition of intellectual apathy.

Political “chess moves” that design information flows have corrupted all sciences by some means, including those apparently devoted to medical research. Quintessential technicians’ priority aim is to debunk any anomaly contradicting political etiquette. Other than consultative psychology, mainstream primary healthcare used to branch into two distinct paths: pharmaceutical and butchery, but now a few alternative remedial techniques (such as acupuncture) are creeping in mainly to satisfy burgeoning traditional Chinese markets for that economy’s nouveau riche. On current course, there is nowhere near enough momentum for transition to kinetic healing. Supposed extra-terrestrial methods will not be adopted by the mainstream unless that hand is forced. Scientists seem much better adapted to deliver confusion that scorns honest debate (geared to keeping the riff-raff out, of course). Consequentially quantum determinations are a disaster area. Beyond vague conceptualisation of string theory, physicists are clueless. Quantum, suffice to say, has no current bearing on healthcare at all, when it should.

Back in the 1930’s professionals heralded Royal Rife’s electron microscope as the absolute victor (from memory 1932, to be precise) in the war on cancer. Cancer under this mechanism, to all intents and purposes, had been “cured” right up until the pharmaceutical lobby learned of the threat to their financial ambitions. Rife was then ridiculed by the establishment’s dramatic change of heart, his machine destroyed and blueprints lost. Even so, attesting modern day tolerance towards remedial solutions, a variation of the microscope has found its way into certain veterinary clinics. Though it doesn’t expose the quantum layer, the device will identify individually marked cancer cells, which is the benefit. Rogue agents are correctively zapped with light electric charges. This is still nothing more than cosmetic “symptom adjustment” in motion, but, at least, small steps forward are the ones needed for full visionary conversion to quantum healing to eventuate.

In respect to cancer, current mainstream tradition is to either poison (chemo) or butcher (cut out) malignant tumours. Nevertheless, when thinking laterally, electric microscope innovation is no different than the occurrence of x-ray scanners, which have opened up visibility of the internal body. The microscopic approach allows professionals to drill down and inspect the detail. The more detail, the greater the clarity and drill down some more to the ultra-microscopic, well then absolute detail and the discovery of a canopy of complaint root causes waits. Of course this lends to interpretive skills and diagnosis needing to become radically intuitive. Surely that is a small price to pay for the cessation of all disease?

Unfortunately it becomes fervently clear to those with vision, Krishna’s prophetic “forces of evil paralyse” was aimed at peer groups, such as those currently throttling medical renaissance, In absence of altruism, warding off the discovery tour in order to facilitate (quite frankly) satanic conventions is the primary agenda of institutional practices. All conventions are satanic, no matter how apparently viscerally virtuous, because they deny progressivism. Progressivism predicts the creative path. Reflecting Einstein’s wisdom, censorship belies insane stagnation. Medicine, consequentially, has been confined to a very narrow forked path, one that is “shielded” from competition. Medicine is no longer about healthcare. It has become a facet of commerce conducted exclusively in the interest of financial profits. Whether those are generated by honest means, bogus insurance or hidden “tax dollars” is immaterial.

It should be abruptly clear that comparable political strategies used by the filthy oil industry to oust clean energy solutions are casually applied to healthcare. This fact is more than amply alerted by the narcissistic Cancer Council’s determined rebuke of any solution that defies authoritative “status-quo”. The “system” (defining the forked path) is limited to contributions that should only butcher or poison. Chinese remedial medicine is dressed as nothing more than a “fad” in my opinion, which generally mimics how spectral social “solutions” are handled by government. Approaches, where possible, are limited to acts of war. Eradication is the permanent ideal and the staple for “problem, reaction, solution”. Attributed laws act as corresponding vanguard for that apex of control.

Underlying belief presumes majorities would routinely select “peace” over challenging the perceived might of great government. This has most definitely been proven true. I find no evidence of genuine spontaneous revolt on grand scales other than occasional population exoduses. Thus, medicine is rather short on options. “Peace” (ironically) here avails the death of a patient, so “war” is emphatically scripted as the only “solution” option. It is a sort of macabre win/win. Each fallen patient becomes a posthumous soldier for the cause per the concept’s scandalous design. Therefore, any transition to futuristic healthcare is all the more unlikely because effective energetic remedies require a complete absence of tension. Tension, let us be frank, is a prerequisite to ensure conflict eventuates (the limit being unabashed all-out war, of course).

Background over, it is time for me to attempt to format an outline of what illness is. Findings may require paradigm shifts of thinking. Perhaps I should present my assessment of “gravity” as the preamble here.  Vis-à-vis the truth is roughly the opposite of what might generally equate to popular knowledge. Is a door pulled or pushed shut? Is there any way of determining how to distinguish between the two methods? In this case, there is. Causes and effects are always transparent even if the door is automatically powered. But the instance of gravity is far from clear. Prior to defining theses, unseen causes are unknown. Scrutinised effects coordinate presumptions. Beyond any proverbial apple tumbling to the ground of its own accord, we do not know “why” it falls short of applying logic from constructive imagination. Logic, in this instance, reasons an apple is pulled or pushed to the ground by invisible external forces, which are symptomatically labelled “gravity”.

Misconstrued magnetism has permitted one of the most monumental physics errors in the history of science. Via a complex network of circumstantial forces originating from a bold inner planetary “sun”, an Earth apple is in fact demonstratively pushed to the ground.

Applying this Bohemian style of investigation, I can add that all diseases reflect the state of the libido, expanding popularly designated illnesses of the mind. All illnesses stem from the mind’s adjustment to the body. In some instances causes and symptoms are two way cycles, but the bulk of complaints are expressly “arranged” by any libido’s reaction to given sets of circumstance. Symptoms cover up and can actually obfuscate causes. That is why radical changes of environments might ensure miraculous recoveries even against “incurable” conditions. These environmental differences can be subtle or acute. They could be dietary, intellectual or locational. Quintessentially the libido must be unfamiliar enough with new circumstances that a complete review of body autonomy is ignited. From the technical perspective, extreme measures are needed up to a full quantum recalibration (notably in the case of cancers).

Contrary to popular belief, from the atomic perspective, everyone subject to specific pollution is cancerous. Cell damage and responding tumours are not necessarily apparent “to the eye”, but they may be. Significant effects will prompt an individual to consider seeking diagnosis and medics routinely come involved at the “too late” stages. Even so there are natural cosmetic regeneration solutions. These do not isolate and remove causes, but they can perennially stem symptoms. The most prolific worker I am aware of is cannabis oil. Providing sufficient time is given to administration of treatment, the oil appears to permanently delay most (if not all) cancers. In this case an extended healing term generally runs in excess of fifteen months. Thus cannabis will have much less causal benefit to those late stagers that are indefinitely terminally ill beyond the placebo effect. Belief in the cure underscores the importance of the libido and accompanying energetic harmony, by the way.

Given the overwhelming significance of environment and attitude towards life, hints that the underlying cause of all illness is mind are already in plain sight. What can be achieved from hypnosis should baffle conventional sciences.  However, from the microscopic perspective, there are distinct differences that distinguish various types of body invaders. One of the great medical establishment deceits is to foster the myth that some illnesses might be the result of airborne delivered complaints. I can confirm possibly all micro-particles causing illness are received by air. Why the medical establishment is specifically deceitful here, I can explain.

Back in the early nineteenth century when industrialists were busily constructing factories which would become the template for the later industrial revolution, peoples local to vicinities became sick from toxic emissions and some died. Even this age had its own brand of philanthropic environmentalists. Correspondingly, there ensued vicious wars of words between do-gooders and colonists for the best part of a century until common sense was drowned out by “progress”. A great deal of effort went into enterprising propagandas that cultivated the philosophy that those affected by pollution were naturally sickly and “would die anyway”. Industrialists, per this maligned reasoning, were evangelised into grotesque saviours.

The propaganda was so infectiously compelling that industry has been able to remain “blameless” for any pollutants poured into the air, which are normally rated “relatively safe” (according to external supposedly independent arbiters that are actually on the payroll). Environmentalists (that aren’t also paid shills) have generally vigorously disagreed with most pollution “ratings”. However, very few are committed to anything more than window dressing so malignant ignorance reigns. Indeed, it is ignorance that has sadly had the effect of exaggerating palpable damage. Roughly 300,000,000 global road vehicles running 24/7 generate 95% of cancer causing pollution, so theoretically (at least) everyone is to blame for their lot here. Don’t they say, if you make your bed, you must lie in it!

Resuming my efforts to get down to the nitty-gritty, there are six fundamental causes of Illnesses (categorised by the medical establishment). Living “invaders” are separated out as fungi and bacteria. Non-metabolic extraneous matter causes viruses and cancer, though I potentially disagree with this analysis in some cases. The virus rabies and cognitive Parkinson’s disease greatly intrigue me, for instance. Other causes, though not always specifically termed “illnesses”, are effects of severe wounds to the body and symptoms relaying to the breakdown of mind. Currently in the way medicine works, it is intolerably difficult to separate symptoms from causes. Therefore, without any discernible patterns indicating malignance, physicians are at a loss to origins of aggregated concerns (or, indeed, whether there is a concern at all). Intuitive talents have been known to feel problems long before they occur, yet the greatest medical minds are rendered powerless without review of visible cosmetic effects. They cannot see viruses before symptoms appear. Myth persuades cancers can “arbitrarily” spring up anywhere, so obviously without sound pre-emptive strategies every perspective patient may as well be classed as terminal.

Tying in with “you are what you eat”, the gut keys in with the mind (hence native Redskins recognised parallel inter-connected pulmonary and nervous systems). It delivers all the body’s nutrients via the bloodstream. Lack of appetite is probably one of the best barometers for illness in general. This is not to say it is possible to cure disease simply by synthesising hunger. No, but progress may be delayed or allayed with appetite because after food is processed, the body has capacity to generate. Illness promotes the opposite effect. Degeneration of life summarises death. Spontaneous growth is the gateway to immortality. Sensationally promoted as adjunct to the battle against cancer, it is well known that smoking the conflicting narcotic cannabis will likely induce sufficient improvement of appetite that makes food intake possible. However there is another problem. Delaying or halting the wasting of muscle tissue requires multiple means.

Different to other illnesses, cancers seem to dramatically and detrimentally affect metabolism, so consumption of food is not necessarily going to aptly remedy weight loss though, without doubt, intake of nutrients will aid prolonging wasting effects. Probability impresses that, perhaps, under these new environmental conditions, certain foods burn out easily and that is why the body appears to receive no benefit. Therefore, the terminally ill must be prepared to reconfigure dietary set up at the drop of a hat if survival is desired. The list of “cancer fighting” foods is endless, but I would recommend intense extract of ginger and chopped coriander leaves as two of the better detoxifying agents. There is also a Brazilian fruit called soursop. The leaves of the plant are ground into a paste and added to water to make a bitter tea. According to tradition, the beverage has a notorious impact in remedying the effects of non-specific cancers. Remember this is not “the cure”, but, rather, prolonged allayment.

In conjunction with this overall philosophy, pharmaceutical “colonists” process foods that were once the assets of hereditary medical knowledge. Extracts are given technical names in order to confuse doctors and people over pertinent origins. That is why nature can provide miracle cures. Not only are ingredients that have been processed as pills often widely available in raw form, but they are also far more potent remedies than reduced versions. The myth that medicine is more vital than nature is a hangover from nineteenth century confidence quackery. Once again, the best way of introducing non-invasive medication to the bloodstream is via the gut. In instances where resources for elixirs are difficult to obtain, the pharmaceutical cartel sees its first duty is to profits and not to the overall wellbeing of sick. It is unable to reason the moral duty of care.

My earlier mentioned lack of appetite being the best barometer for illness can be expanded. I have already illustrated the connection between gut response and metabolism, but there is some other implicating factor that goes beyond physical. Complaints that activate cancers might be regarded as identical to those that show viral effects (classed as “viruses”), but for some sort of unknown catalyser that separates conditional outcomes. Viruses can also be divided up into originally organic or inorganic matter. This might affect prognosis, but because medical science refuses to identify true causes (thus exposing those hallowed industrial polluters) we do not know which specific symptoms are generated by invading metallic, chemical, fossil or extraneous compounds. Organic matter problems are easier to quantitatively decode. Swine flu is undoubtedly caused by particles of faecal residue delivered via the atmosphere. Catchment ranges are local, so giant open vats of body waste fuelled by mega-conglomerate pig farms in New Mexico sensationally only polluted a radial area outwards of around a hundred miles. The rest of out-of-range Americans were safe. European or Australian citizens could have only contracted the New Mexico virus by visiting the catchment zone. Viruses are transmitted body to body one way (although there are numerous potential derivatives).

HIV deserves separate analysis, conveniently revealing how viruses are transmitted. First off, HIV does not cause “AIDS”. Horrific medications deliver known symptoms to those diagnosed with HIV and Ebola (in particular). Back in the hay day, prior to the great Thalidomide expose, pharmaceutical cartels were consumed by waging wars against all phantom causes without restriction. Perhaps around 1955 a “vaccine” serum was produced to alleviate polio (even though statistics show the virus was on the decline and about to “burn out” – note to self: which industrial practice was becoming obsolete?). The serum was originally grown in the kidneys of green monkeys and chimpanzees. Because heavily populated cosmopolitan areas of Africa are invariably extremely polluted by unregulated industries, wildlife is bombarded with a constant flow of extraneous particles delivered via the local atmosphere.

Chimpanzees and green monkeys uniquely process this pollution to their bodies’ specifications and these viral effects were transmuted to the polio vaccine. Because human bodies are different, the same viral effects were “mutated” as HIV strains. When propagandists recommended polio jabs for “safety” from the late 1950’s and early 1960’s (courtesy of the IMF/WHO two-step, Africa was flooded with tainted stocks up until the late 1980’s), the inoculated received active monkey virus at no extra charge, which, of course, altered to become what is now termed “HIV”.  Between humans, HIV could only be transmitted “blood to blood” (even though the complaint is apparently seen in body fluids) commonly hampering habitual needle sharing drug users. Symptoms are over quickly and not severe, perhaps equating to a heavy common cold.

Marketing of the HIV “threat” was a campaign of fear and manipulation against the gullible and just about everyone fell for it. To reinforce truth, causers of all the exaggerated AIDS symptoms were through fault of drugs administered as “solution”, notably failed “chemo” agent AZT. Jon Rappoport builds a stunning case in his book “AIDS Inc.”

In ancient times remedial healthcare was conducted very differently. Roaming tribes either supported shamans or witchdoctors. Evidence of practices has been vaguely preserved by so-called Third World cultures. Mystic healers will take on the burden of tribes, so some illnesses are treatable by “faith” only. It is through connection with the other side that a spiritual practitioner is able to etch a metaphysical bridge with members that are perhaps not individually accounted for. Upon succinct understanding of the complex transcendental role of atoms, the craft could be demystified. It is perhaps ironic that all cancers are caused by fundamentally corrupt molecules. Molecules combine to makes cells. Cells develop cancerous attributes and these grow into malignant tumours that, prematurely, end life. Primitive cultures enjoy expressing themselves in music and dance. Could certain vibrational (wave) frequencies be the answer to some erstwhile miracle cures?

Before I outline why pollution causes the errors that grow into life ending tumours, it is important to review the historic account. Because medical science only “rates” symptoms, there is no concrete history verifying the course of cancer. It is possible to piece together a circumstantial picture, so that must suffice in place of clarity. By the year 1905 statisticians were noticing a new aggressive style of “cancer” complaint. Though the identical word in ancient Latin used to describe ulcerous infestations, later period (from the twelfth century if my memory serves me correctly) grotesque swellings associated with bubonic plague and like outbreaks were cordially termed “cankers”.

Specific use of cancer re-emerged coinciding with the onset of industrialism. Peer review of historic complaints, such as bloody Queen Mary’s theorised cancer of the womb death in 1558, has been determined by speculations over records. I find it extremely unlikely that Mary actually died of cancer, but she did suffer death and that is all that is certain here. According to my research, no preserved “mummy” has been found to be cancerous either (per modern diagnostic methods). Plausible evidence occurs much later, almost into the modern age. Atmospheric burn off from foundries and other industrial processing facilities contributed to numerous chest infections. But there were other issues too.

New found cancer reached epidemic proportions by the 1940’s, at which time around 2% of First World populations suffered attributed ailments. The statistical journey from then on eerily matches the progress of the automobile.  Significant benzene tests done just after the Second World War imply the oil business knew what causes cancer as far back as 1950. Given corporate “pharmacy’s” contemptuous disregard of the Hippocratic Oath, it would foolish to cultivate the belief that those wielding overall political power act in the interests of the people. “Big Oil” has used every trick in its arsenal to obfuscate truth ever since straight facts were revealed. One possible ploy is to kill off establishment figures with “cancer” (sic) lulling the gullible into thinking “there is no conspiracy here, because they suffer as much as the rest of us”. Similar tactics (backing off the HIV scam) were used in Third World countries that were offered lucrative IMF underwritten healthcare grants for complaints. Associated doctors were encouraged to record AIDS in place of “unknown causes” deaths in order to maximise IMF investment in fallacy.

Britain’s coal was a popular alternative home fire food by the late nineteenth century. However, physicians encountered coinciding increases in bronchial conditions. Other less savoury cancer (or cankers) mimicking complaints were recorded too. When greater populations reverted to central heating, the home coal market dwindled, although this does come with a twist of irony. Plants that generate electricity to power heating systems are fuelled by copious quantities of coal. Coal is a type of carbon. Human beings are also made from carbon. Could there be a conflict? Could hard to distinguish differences between types of carbon that have been environmentally mixed corrupt sensitive reproductive systems? Wouldn’t it be paradoxical if there was more to governments’ attack on carbon pollution than meets the eye? Why carbon tax, specifically?

I have gone to great lengths in my effort to illuminate truths about atoms. Here their relationship with cancers will become brutally clear. They may well be contained by unbreakable cosmic laws, but I have also advised existence and reality in general are not as presented by corporate sciences. Perception belies a gnarled and uneven canopy that apparently disguises numerous contradictions (regularly discombobulated as anomalies by science political interests). Carbon, in truth, is one of the greatest enigmas of all. How (on Earth) does it cause cancers? It seems that certain molecule combinations are able to confuse atoms sufficiently to corrupt designated roles. The only lateral conclusion I can draw is processed carbons are the major problem. From the healthcare perspective, certain other invasive unprocessed natural residues do cause viruses, but it is those that have been “manufactured” (for lack of better terminology) which specifically promulgate symptoms resulting in cancers. Fossilisation is a raw form of manufacturing, so corresponding product emissions should be regarded as topically hazardous, whereas smoke from drift firewood is most likely therapeutic.

The cordial mistake everyone (including devout scientists) makes is to presume mechanisms that permit existence are flawlessly and fairly erred in favour of man. Per this “reasoning” man, though mortal, would be God-in-the-flesh but for vices. Expanding the view, insignificantly minute particles are beyond control and ignored because they are also above control. Consequentially, the truth, of course, could not be further derelict. In my book “The Beauty of Existence Decoded” I lay claim that via the expressively receptive qualities of atoms, everything “lives” regardless of whether it is categorised as inanimate or animate. Ultimately, a single particle domineers to effectively preside over the group in the formulation of “soul”. Even so hierarchical interaction is rather complex below the tip of the pyramid. Following in the footsteps of their cultivated souls and their perceptive human bodies, atoms are sometimes presented with drastic determining choices. These forks in the road dictate vital decisions that will precede reactive judgements.

The closer you edge toward divinity the higher you climb up the spiritual scale. Atoms are found at the very pinnacle, because each portal (the nucleus) spans all dimensions and all time. Clumsy human comparatively only receives a fraction of this resonance, because of his puny bandwidth range. Inadequate perception cannot disguise the fact that the quantum layer operates at the highest level of divinity. Therefore, the dramatic consequence is doomed to shock those that swear by their systemisation. The mind and all attributed spiritual manifestations (including the so-called higher self) are part and parcel of the exact same delivery mechanism. Here my earlier mention of the importance of a balanced libido in respect to good health should begin to gel. Wishes (needs) of the spiritual self, mind and physical body travel down identical inter-connected streams. With respect to cancers, because the body is made of carbon, atoms somehow become disoriented by certain types of invaders (namely the processed molecules I highlighted earlier).

There is only one logical explanation for all this. That which is distinctively recognised is defined and categorised by its recognition. Taking the analogy a step further; do rogue processed carbons disable quantum energetic resonance to such an extent that associated products lose their lustre? An ardent numismatist wouldn’t discard a rare and otherwise desirable ancient coin because of its worn patina. Perhaps one day he will learn a new technique to aid verification of identification.  As everything that enters the body is assimilated or expelled, anomalous indistinct invaders “pending categorisation” are marked but not rejected. These new unknown parts correspondingly “belong to” but are also “separate of” the body.

Extraneously matter is always immediately targeted by agents designated to protect the body. Invading processed carbons would follow a path of being combined with other genetic materials in the creation of special cells that specifically identify this syndrome. However, when the libido becomes imbalanced, focus is prioritised elsewhere, leaving alien components to their own devices. The special cells consequentially develop at odds with the body because they have been corrupted by processed carbons that have no quantum interest in precise developmental strategy. At some point in this metabolic growth evolution, Royal Rife was able to identify malignance with his electron microscope. I think I have successfully gone “full circle” (so to speak) by way of explanation.

In my opening address I made the following statement:

“…vacuum precipitates with ceaseless and often dishonourably prejudicial accusations supporting “causes” to the detriment of reason. Whether that be specifically anti-vaccines, cigarettes or generally against ambiguous “carcinogens” depends on the vigour of focused political interests.”

It is time to elaborate on this in a slightly contradictory fashion. My umbrage was directed at those destined to confuse with ignorance and not against philosophies supporting cases that define toxins as causing agents of various cancers. Processed tobacco smoke, certain vaccines, pesticides most definitely are the strategic proxies that trigger cancers. These, in context, are an imperative supplementary part of the puzzle. Obviously cancers do not spring up merely because of depression or other ego imbalances. Libido insufficiency impresses an environmental shift whereby problems that had been routinely dealt with prior now spin out of kilter. Per that capacity, once dormant vaccine components, for instance, spring to life.

In many cases (perhaps all), the agent would cause multiple issues. Focusing on vaccines again, perhaps an immediate adverse effect (to the libido) would be to bring on (express as) fevers, nausea and so on. Symptoms clear up, but the libido is still undetectably impaired. Much time ensues before cancers reach the stage of being visible and then blame game begins. Blame is unnecessary when separate root causes, causing agents and triggers have been clearly defined. That is by virtue of the fact there is only one truth (whereas the potential for propagandas is near limitless). Truth, if the truth be known, is hallowed.

Corporate scientists (correspondingly) have been compelled to use complexity largely for the disregard of wisdom. That is why the record has been subject to one spectacular failure after another; I exampled Chernobyl before. By extension, science view on the fundamentals that permit the identification of radiation has not altered one iota from day one. Environmental conditions do regularly change and this forces remedial adjustments to expanded theories. In some cases apparently associated symptoms dance the pas-de-pas elevating theoretical definitive causes. Of course, most prognoses are incorrect and that is predominantly why science continually trips itself up over and over.

Personally, I am fascinated by the concept “cloud nine”. Nothing will encourage me to travel Huxley’s brave but tainted discovery path, but I am intrigued as to the physical value of altered states. Is this a (and perhaps the only) method of discerning the keys to the mechanics of the quantum layer? It seems to me that altered states is one of the few potential watersheds that might definitively transform science and formulations that permeate critical thinking. Could imagination act as a temporary bridge? If the mind was separate of the body (alien, if you will) that would explain universal magnetism towards materialism. An alien contained by physicality would plausibly obsess over laws “for survival”. Therefore, by deduction, rule lacking imagination becomes mind’s natural state.

Imagine that, coming clean on cancer only simply requires imagination.

Advertisements

Prophecy, prediction and consensus view – preconditioning for spirited souls?

Traditionally I have released themed articles in time for Christmas and New Year’s here. Though I broke from full time work mid-December, sadly all literary efforts ended up needing to be devoted to a wordy masterpiece that was eventually published on 3rd January at another of my websites. Next day, I began work on this entry with intensity. Prior to putting pen to paper (as it were) again, I had checked my “in progress or to be written” open correspondence file and stumbled upon a dusty old archive. Back then (2014), I was still vaguely attached to certain pioneer movements who systematically work through “conspiracy theories”. In that capacity efforts were partly devoted to upturning stones and exploding myths with ambition towards revealing the best approximations of pure truth hidden in a volatile ocean of misconceptions. The title of the original manuscript (that was used as the inspiration for this essay) was “Prophesies, Predictions and Preconditioning”. Controversially minimal, rather aptly only one note was attached to the file.

US Agency for International Development – “population reduction” Program Director, Reimart Ravenholt, reputedly aimed to sterilise one quarter of the world’s women (1977) just before the introduction of AIDS

We have all been exposed in some way to the excesses of establishment fuelled negativity generated towards conspiracy theories, reflecting “theorists” and the “horrors” of an open unregulated internet. Needless to say, ironical official government theories and parallel conspiracies are often largely true, but also divisively true.  I’ll contend stories that go the other direction invariably promote outright lies. How did Hitler put it?

If you are going to tell a lie, make sure it is a big one. Tell it over and over until everyone has no choice but to believe it.”

The real scandal, therefore, is found in the wide reliance on best-of-breeds “obtuse reasoning”. By example, Imagine you see before you a picture of some sort of idyllic scene beneath an airy bright blue sky. Location is unimportant. Out of view by several kilometres and completely omitted from the picture is a topology that would be described very differently. This “slant” image per my example comprises of several giant industrial chimney stacks that continuously and voluminously belch hideous gaseous plumes into the heavens. The effect promotes the unruly build-up of flailing, filthy black smog whose pungent foulness seems to permanently stain the clouds. All this chaos is out-of-view on our imaginary idyllic canvass, but, given a wider picture, conspiracies might focus on the negative in isolation “for impact”. The political arena (which absolutely underscores the establishment heart) champions identical rose tinted duplicity as there are no or next to no dissenting voices prepared to vocalise beyond standardised obtuse reasoning mandates (i.e. such as choosing to ignore industrial waste, in my example) and that is where the major issue lies for governments (and those that call governments to account) of the world in general.

Significant changes to my original (2014) conceptual title were made with the additions “consensus view” and, I must say rather ambiguous, “spirited souls”. Consensus view somewhat echoes another archived “to be written” memo, contritely titled “Attitude”. One note and single line “a bad attitude is good” confidently anticipates intentions, which, of course, clearly subliminally emphasises the power objective belying propagandas. Even so there is a correlation I haven’t discussed yet. Consensus view directly impacts obtuse reasoning. In fact, so much so, it beckons the hard to confirm question; did obtuse reasoning pre-empt consensus view or was it the other way round? This is, I might add, a question committed conspiracy theorists invariably fail to address and one of the pivotal arguments I use against most so-called “alternative” views.

I note just about all views either respond to relative ignorance or general superstition (deliberate or otherwise). Others will parasite off different consensuses whose varied appraisals of content boils down to the same equally acrid mulch that lends favour to official decorum. In addition to the syndrome, I have also observed that if one “camp” says “yes”, the alternative instinctively emphatically responds “no”. Considering this “us” versus “them” dichotomy, it seems entirely plausible for me to at least “determine” that a sole basic planner might be scripting an “ongoing without end” (mock) contest. Currently this is fought between “that which is official” (good) and “the antipathy towards anything official” (evil). Doubtlessly my theoretical planners’ will (desire) would be (perhaps posthumously) advanced by pyramidal structures in precisely the same manner (and possible extension of) the “good government” versus “evil anarchist” visceral war that has been expressed through the ages.

Speaking of good and evil, discussions about spirit and soul can lead to equally emotive bipartisan debates. It seems that which isn’t solid, under terms of atheism, grants indefinite license to create all manners of bullshit. Though outpourings about the immaterial might generate “fashionable” truths on occasion, because everything in that domain is perceived to be unprovable, the nicest speaker may as well seek an appreciative audience. In other words, for affairs that transcend physicality, truth is superfluous.  For example many believe the current pope “must” know something about God because he is head of the Catholic Church. In this context, whenever the pope makes a grotesque revelation about the paranormal (which includes everything spiritual) it must be true to believers. Conversely, per identical obtuse reasoning, anything that contradicts, defies or invalidates the pope’s “truths” are unquestionably (the equivalent of) revisionist. Conversely, the lone agent of prohibition blocking any pope’s charismatic attempts to “pioneer new divinities” is tradition. Traditionalism acts as guide, juror and potential censor. To make matters worse, most religions’ customs and cultures have become so bloated there is near zero opportunity for fundamental or symptomatic evolutionary change.

It should hardly surprise, given that background, my occasional verbal intercourse incidents with the “very religious” over the years has produced little more than persistent reactions against unresolvable lop sided circular arguments. Prognosis of opinions, in terms of spirit and soul from the philosophical standpoint, make entertaining review. For my research, by example, the average very religious person will only identify superficial differences between spirit and soul and, when challenged, will consciously demonstrate an overall inability to draw on formal assessable basis to separate the two. Quintessentially and rather conclusively, matters to do with God to them (the overly religious) are definitely not meant to be understood.  Arguably, the syndrome might well be appraised a symptom of feeble misappropriation of the concept glibly termed “blind faith” (comprehended best when paraphrased “blind ignorance for ignorant people”). Of course the problem with calculated blind denial of truth is eventually gulfs of misunderstanding form basis for decision making. Predictably consequential judgements invariably have cause to become so riddled with error; choices of the poorest quality can be exalted as “good practice” (sic). It could be said, cultures that cover up social ignorance make fodders for war.

Though the path to enlightenment is the antipathy of indoctrination, the permanently blind or visually impaired never see colour. The same can be said of those sighted whose deliberate misappropriation of ability is designated to spurn competent recollection of inherent truths. Even so, I do occasionally like to tease intellectual lepers in the spirit of fun. Most recently I have been bestowed with a power of existential knowledge that is so expansive, my “armour chest” (so to speak) is as big as Pandora’s Box, but (and contrary to that which is rational) this was not always the case. Tedium of past pointless cogitations can be no more praise God and that assures my altercations with dogmatism are blissfully short and absurdly sweet. Direct discussions of this type have included musings on matters spiritual, I recall. In that capacity, most unmoved “believers” would focus on the intolerable importance of a mythical unknown “Saviour”, whose sole identifiable miracle was to become posthumously “known” by that consequence. Their reasoning, if I dare call it that, proposes an angelic domino effect that replicates His “appearance” to feverishly ignorant folks who, once bitten by this deistic virus, become insanely obsessed with “succumbing” to all associated infectious dogmas no matter how spurious. I have, consequentially, needed to learn to agitate, shimmy and side-step their rebuttals at light speed. Nothing is worse than becoming bogged down with aimless nihilism (yes, wilful procrastination is an abject form of nihilism). No fraudulent messiah will cover up that fact.

Hit ‘em hard and hit ‘em quick is my way. Tried and tested many, many times, the best attack strategy against religious fanatics is to haggle for the promotion of sincere spirituality whilst warding off the fake stuff of fluff and fantasy. Always ask direct questions of the type “what is a soul?Never request, only demand answers. Even so, it is wise to cast some background before diving straight in with the hard questions. These guys (the terminally religious) are experts at dilly-dallying. Without clear defining lines, you are only guaranteed to generate countering verbal diarrhoea. The step approach seems to work best. That first step towards (and let’s harness the mission here) inducing another’s demystification is what I fondly term “bursting the bubble”. The smartest and easiest way to lampoon aimlessness is by the removal of all distracting debris. Religious folks fear authenticity’s values (sincere truth is symptomatically gnarled) as though it was the devil in making himself, so if any vassal has the fortitude to impress any kind of picture at all; it is bound to present “foggilyat best. Thus, step one towards demystification has to be the “total removal of existence”. That’s the removal of everything and not merely convenient bits that “obstruct” wider considerations.

It’s funny but the “very religious” (particularly Christians) are not “very” bright (light, logos, logic, intelligence) and not at all spiritual (creative). This is best highlighted by the commonest answer to my rhetorical question (and primary step towards disillusionment) “what’s left after a freak disappearance of everything?” Standard feedback to this is the antiphon “nothing”. Ok, I usually paraphrase the question differently. I usually ask, “If God removed everything you know to be “existence” in an instant, what would be left?” Responses are mostly the same. Occasionally a smart ass retorts, “Well, [my] God wouldn’t do that.” Look, I know blasphemy was one of the great Pharisaic deceptions that has somehow become common doctrine now (i.e. Moses’ “Commandments”), but telling God what “He” can or cannot do, well I think that is taking the biscuit. The objection can be fairly easily dispelled anyway. Maybe try “use your imagination, if you’ve got one” for starters. I admit I did have one really stubborn guy once who dug his heels in so deep, it seemed like nothing would move that rock. Eventually I came up with the master stroke. “Imagine, as a test, which was associated with the Day of Judgement, God removed existence – temporarily. I can’t say why, because we both know He is allowed to work in mysterious ways”, I beamed. Finally he accepted the “mysterious ways” paradox.

So, the predominant answer to ending existence was there was nothing left. Of course, this pre-empts potentially hilarious responding high jinx but you need to be there to appreciate them.  Watch the Christian squirm when you accuse him of being (…drum roll) “an atheist”. Well, this is true! A conventional atheist “believes” there is nothing beyond material existence. Be it there is much they (non-believers) cannot explain and many “miracles” (far more miraculous than the Saviour could have ever concocted) coincided with “Big Bang”, those adepts-in-waiting with suitably “muted vision” will easily succumb to fantasy; Christians included it seems. But hard line worshippers are resilient if nothing else. They recover from knocks in poor taste quickly. My uncompromising stick-in-the-mud partner also predictably fell into the “nothing” trap moments after expressing “absolute devotion” to God. Don’t you see the irony? He didn’t, but I can. Anyway, with regards supposedly devout Christians, I learnt nothing can also be something, because after existence vanished at the drop of a hat (and a lot of head scratching), “the void” (per se) unexplainably and conveniently can transform into “heaven” depending on circumstances (which God only knows). Heaven, according to these boneheads, is a place of bliss, where no malice is possible. Complimenting that warped tradition, it also happens to be a place of pure goodness that exclusively only “lets in” Christians. Avowed to avenge the Jews (canned laughter), I shall now attempt to demonstrate how to turn conceptual heaven into hell “for dummies”.

Hell, heck, damnation, call it what you will, causes Christians awkward problems. It is a “known of” place that invariably deflects consideration, less chaotic focus. Perhaps we see evidence of symptomatic conditioning here. The Baptist championed ancient proverb “Hear no evil, speak no evil, do no evil” humbles Hades, Beelzebub (or Yaldebroath or Adam incidentally) and everything from the dark side to obsoleteness. Given my slapstick up to this point, a smidgen more jollity surely wouldn’t harm? Let’s face it, to valiantly deflate the Christian’s “heaven” the intellectual champion simply has to state the obvious. Therefore, next supplementary question (and step two of this mission towards demystification) has to be “what about heck?” Now “evil people and non-Christians” must go somewhere post “expiry”, right? And that ponderable pitches our devout enthusiasts somewhere between an intellectual rock and a hard place.

They all know there is “limited space” in purgatory. Considering that even Jesus recognised and apparently mentioned hell several times (albeit periodically paraphrased it as the “outer darkness where beasts wail and gnash their teeth”), the paradox cannot be “wished away” even by the puniest of minds or, rather, not at least in serious discussions with spiritually “highbrow” strangers. Every Christian I have interviewed has reluctantly contended that hell not only “exists”, but resides in a no man’s land that is beyond existence, To make matters worse, due to the absence of time/space, it has to be right on the doorstep of heaven. That leaves but one option to save the average Christian libido. Conceptualisations of the scripts I am sure vary in personality, but, suffice to say, to put reasoning “in a nutshell”, for the zealous existence is the proverbial “wall” that separates heaven and hell. Ironically, this is closer to the truth than the feeble minded might imagine.

Still, when it comes to nether regions, the Christian’s imagination is honed to peak optimisation. Everyone (to degrees) tries to impress what they want to be (true) over what is, but some manage to proffer vanity to its limit. Apparently a moat with crocs teaming to the brim may be conveniently positioned between heaven and heck in order to split oblivion into two sacred but by no means related domains. That, believe it or not, was a genuine piece of feedback I had received in response to the heaven/hell dilemma. I don’t know why I didn’t see it before. Ok, I am aware the Victorian era British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli is attributed as saying, “sarcasm is the lowest form of wit”, but an occasional facetious bite does enhance pantomime. And these hard line Christians would make me chuckle on a regular basis, was it not for the fact the issues exposed are the very same ones God wants us to fix. Segregated heavens caused the problem with existence in the first place, amply explained by the Gnostics (those interested in knowing more would do well to start with John’s Apochryphon in the Hag Hammadi scrolls). “Branding” people evil is a form of evil. We only have to look to the sage Krishna who eloquently identified, “[True] spirituality brings to freedom, so forces of evil paralyse (censor and destroy)”.

Putting Christians and other raging fanatics to one side, if I could summarise everyone’s honest attitude towards most others (and particularly strangers), sentiment as dialogue would be expressed in the following way:

I say “fuck you” (to everyone that knows something I don’t know).

(When I presume to know everything), I say “fuck you” too.”

It is high time humanity moved off the perilous “look after number one” course. It’s killing you – literally. All wars are sold on the look after number one excuse. “One”, in this instance, is the “great group”, albeit sometimes the great group can delineate into strata subgroups within groups. Look how Japanese Americans were marginalised throughout US involvement in the Second Word War. Propagandists maintain spin cycles that presume everyone can and will be conditioned with depressing consistency. To the propagandist a human being is a wilful slave, so marketing programs are designed to drive and capture recruits. Per that model, the underscored narrative line must never falter. Paradoxes, contradictions and anomalies are verboten, Results speak for themselves. These illustrious tailors have been remarkably successful in their quest. It seems as though there is an endless supply of soldiers ready to apply relish to squandering their own lives for absurdity. Worse still, licensed murderers may kill with impunity.

We now know when it comes to matters of spirit and soul, hard line Christians are weak on explanations to say the least. Indeed, to them separation of “roles” usually proves to be more paradoxical even than the physical placement of heaven and hell. Though I’ve been highlighting devout Christians up to now, no single person I have ever corresponded with has comprehensively been able to demonstrate correct visualisation of the soul/spirit “value base”. Many, in fact just about all, graft spiritual qualities onto souls. Maybe, and though rarely specifically identified as such, the soul is deemed to have some association with (if not also made of) light. God’s true purpose behind the deliberate placement of spirit and soul is about as alien as the average extra-terrestrial (and I am referring to the ones that remain permanently unknown here).

In fairness, identifying the soul, in particular, can be pretty tricky. When you don’t know what to look for, cohesive apperception becomes exponentially more challenging. For instance, the sincere atheist would deny the soul as it is immaterial. My own book The Beauty of Existence Decoded attempts to expose the chassis that tenures the bare bones of reality. In doing so, I tend to complicate things for perception. I introduce conflicting truths.  Top down view is far simpler and easier to understand, but that visualisation (even when flawlessly presented) doesn’t come to grips with “processes”. How is the result of a soccer match worth anything if the actual game is unavailable for scrutiny? Also, contrary to popular “belief”, there is no “group” or “cosmic” mind mimicking divine government (beyond the Tamarian, from which “Adam” or Yaldebroath was a consequence). Christ’s Consciousness (as is embraced by the Catholic Church) is Sephardic make-believe, nonsense, bullshit designed to enslave the gullible for the overall empowerment of those that control. Paranormal interventions, extra-terrestrial/dimensional influencers and noisome human charlatans routinely issue dogmatic propagandas tuned to deliver grades of indoctrination? Yes to all of those, but no to an effervescent meddling God. Then again, it should be noted The Prime Source (extra-terrestrial signature signifying the Almighty God) does “mess with” all DNA, but that’s moving along a tangent best explored another time.

For now, I will try and précis the “lite” versions of spirit and soul in the simplest of terms. Presuming there isn’t a transcendental “presiding” ultra-group that contravenes causal oversight (which there isn’t by the way, unless we factor in the Tamarian, which travels all the up the astral states), the spirit is “light” and the soul is “darkness”. Yes, it is as simple as that. The spirit and the soul are indelible partners of the Buddhist concept Yin Yang. Of course, that motivates distinct moral dilemmas. Born again Christians have been indoctrinated into prostrating before dogmatic evil heralds from darkness and “light vanquishes all evil” (which when correctly translated actually means wisdom conquers doubt). Considered reasoning behind their beliefs are “normally” obtuse, generally speaking, minds are notably possessed in this specific instance. Dangerous, divisive traditional views impede valid interpretations. For example, given the knowledge the soul is darkness; does that mean it should be denied? Emphatically no, for conceptual evil heralding from darkness is one of the almighty religious deceits. Promoted near universally the malice is aimed squarely at corrupting the identity of the essence of humanity (collectively bound by the Tamarian under the framework of “Adam” of course). Origins of the true fabrication of evil are all but forgotten. We need to hark back to the creation of the material universe to appreciate precise logic behind myths. Can I say “once upon a time”? Anyway, an incredibly long time ago there was an age when (as the Gnostics and Babylonians put it) “God slumbered”, but then a schism in bliss (God’s collective uniform state) caused the fractal development of aeons (distinct traits of God) before they were able to manifest. One, who is fondly remembered as “Sophia” (or wisdom) decided to drive manifestation beyond bliss. Consequentially holistic existence came into being on her (his) terms. I shall now attempt to describe the process.

At this time, before there was linear time, there was nothing but nothing. And from nothing Sophia (who, though the Gnostics termed as “female”, embraced male spiritual qualities with feminine care) caused an imperceptible rip that had the potential to become a gateway to something. The gateway did manifest and later became known as “Satan” (which the most ancient ones called “blessed”). Modern astrologers would correctly identify it as a star. Thus, strictly speaking, Satan was first known as the “Blessed Star”. Only long after when Satan was a “distant memory” did negative aspersions attempt to distort truth. So much so, the fantasy that is popularised today (and which may only be regarded as a vile anathema to truth) transcended due diligence to become “common doctrine”. Without Satan’s gateway existence could not have manifest for there was no light then. Upon Sophia’s divine directive, the heavens were instantaneously created and segregated by seven spherical divides which would later become generally known as the heavenly states (each representing the fundamental expressive traits of God). Per her (his) plan, existence equated to and was astral purity.

Yet, as the “Holy Spirit” (created by the aeons to be their corporeal prophet and arbiter) predicted, God did not appreciate His slumber with the others detached. The rest, the dark, needed to join the light for they felt excluded. However, Satan’s gateway was only commissioned to release light. Potently inventive, in order to join the brethren, darkness reconfigured as forms of light (atomic pulse) and this confused the giant star. Still, Satan remained resilient to the cause. He kept the dark (but not hostile) forces at bay for as long as he was able, but more and more joined the throngs to create overwhelming pressure. Eventually nothing (even light) could access the vent or pass the gateway. It was thoroughly blocked. But the build-up kept building and building and the pressure mounted and mounted. Something had to “give” and eventually in one all mighty “blow”, dark matter overwhelmed the Blessed Star’s magnetic field (which, ironically, without dark matter, would never have been) and powered into existence. From that moment onwards reality (per Sophia’s “plan”) changed forever (as all “stars” have the same basic redundancy flaw). The material plane was born and this, in its entirety, is how the ancients’ originally defined “evil”. To them materialistic peoples (or “materialists”) were the roots of all evil. Spiritual, astral, faith-driven bodies preceded goodness.

Observance of modern day Satanism is the evolution of mumbo jumbo (begun perhaps by 1800’s industrialists) output under the spurious auspices of [secret] esoteric societies. These “energy portals” (as the Draco call them) were manipulated by the Sephardim and other external entities when society members attempted to contact the “other world” (usually by séance).  Hitler’s association with the German Thule Movement is widely publicised. Ancients taught that Satan, in the capacity of Blessed Star, had been conquered by matter and, thus, forces aligned with matter were the “evil” that prohibited pure (spiritual) existence. There is no greater materialistic soul than a sceptical industrialist, so it was in the best interest of principled commerce (beginning long before biblical times) to deliberately craft the Satan deception (obscuring the truth for “prosperity’s sake”). It was the materialists that the ancient ones warned us (the spiritual) of. Oversimplifying truth in misleading ways, usurpers (Pharisees), discombobulated the ancients’ wisdom into new terms per their gross distortion. Corresponding with that trickery, Satan’s gate now deliberately let in “evil” (under those terms, how on Earth does satanic equate to “wrong doing” anyway?) which is an absolute whopping great lie.

Regardless of the tarnished fact, matter is not going to “pop out of existence” (Satan’s volcanic atomic eruption misconstrued as “Big Bang” is another industrialist backed outright con. Details of which can be found in my book). Because of their basic (but unavoidable) design flaws, all stars will vent dark matter at the end of their useful cycles. Derelicts are posthumously known as “black holes” (even Israel’s champion Stephen Hawking has had to grudgingly admit that vanquished stars spew “something” into the cosmos). Interestingly, there were no souls prior to the introduction of dark matter. That makes them a phenomenon intrinsically connected with the manifestation of existence (adrift of spirituality). Drawing from my The Beauty of Existence Decoded, according to science the average sized [human] body has around 5 x 10 to the power 27 souls. Well, actually, science doesn’t mention souls at all, but if it understood the transcendental purpose atoms play in respect to life, that would become the formal science assessment.

I referenced Charles Hall’s photon theory once before. Hall extrapolates Albert Einstein’s “missing fields” and this stresses how poorly materialism conceptualises the quantum layer. Junk science may attempt to satirically ridicule DNA, but the real farce is DNA can only be found in black light, whose mechanics draw out relative gibberish from traditional physicists. If only they had studied at Atlantis and learnt of the significance of the Tamarian. Nuclear tyrant Oppenheimer’s psychotic ignorance (domino effect collapsing all matter) does not excuse him. Even so, and though I haven’t cited the paper, I am led to believe the Australian Chris Illert has been able to prove Theosophical “opinions” on the structure of atoms reflecting information channelled via séance at the turn of last century by conventional means. Alleged extra-terrestrial visitors who resided in Spain in the 1950’s have also presented a variation of the same basic outline. It is one I favour as it is the easiest to understand (unlike the unnecessarily convoluted clap trap that coordinates supposedly cutting edge mainstream theories that “shape” the endless “new discoveries” churned out of the Hadron Collider and other sensational “props”). Unworldly “Ummos” informed us that atoms have three “light phases” working in unison – the upper, lower and middle frequencies. Ancient Atlantis sages have been attributed as having the ability to manipulate these pulses with their minds only. They apparently did this well enough to alter signal properties. Their great alchemists could turn anything into gold with no need of mundane chemicals or flasks.

The Atlanteans knew that each atom is a miniscule piece of subspace real estate. In addition, according to their Tamarian philosophy, all atoms (the group) can be perceived as an expanding, but permanently interconnected mesh. I plan to expand on this illumination in the future and have already headlined a blank manuscript. “Does the Draconians’ False (Light) Matrix Leverage off the Ancient Atlantis Tamarian?” that will likely find a place at my other website that focuses on the paranormal. Returning to ordinary matters, mainstream quantum mechanics generally (and erroneously) evaluates the symptomatic effects elevated by force fields aimed at “containing” each centrifugal nucleus. In this capacity aroms generate the pulse or “echo” of holographic solidity which (amongst others things) emphasises mass (or magnetism). Specifically tuned to our dimension, the mechanism logically has no influence on other density fields “out of frequency range”. Were our pedestrian sciences to become acutely coherent on the subject (which is an unlikely prospect, given “industrial” materialism mandate), “frequency catalyser” models (functionality extra-terrestrial Zeta Grey Beings have been trying to raise awareness of via “crop circle” diagrams) might be best applied at the conceptualisation stages.

In fairness (and credit where credit’s due) string and super string theory do have the potential to decode the atom, but not on current course. As Suzy Hanson identified (details are unspecific) in her book The Dual Soul Connection, [Zeta, though she doesn’t specifically identify the fact] Grey Beings were able to (somehow and much to the bafflement of astrophysicist Rudy Schild) “switch off” an atom’s energy field (which also explains how their partner “Mantis Beings” are able to travel through the eye of a particle, by reputation). Atomic frequency harnesses all dimensions and contains all time, so these little babies are important to those that understand them. I pose the question (although I don’t formally supply answers) as to whether “time lords” could travel both ways once access to the ultimate dimension (Ummos called number ten) was available without restriction. Incidentally, I believe the Ummos were referring ten fundamental “states” of existence, which included the seven heavenly spheres. To confuse matters, these are routinely broken up into dimensions, densities and eras.

Switched on readers at this point (doubtlessly after some bafflement) might have encouraged sufficient resolve to pique a burning request of me. If “atoms” deliver souls, then does that mean inanimate objects, such as rocks [and stuff], have souls too? My goodness, my audience is on the ball today. That is an excellent and most perceptive question but I’m pleased to say the answer is “yes”. However I need to also qualify that souls contained in “rocks and stuff” are clinically different (dissimilar frequency “keys”) to life souls. Indeed, as a soul travels up the astral ladder partnering with spirituality, complimenting developmental quantities are laterally progressive. Readers with genius ambition would surely ask why [the need for all the subterfuge]? The answer to that is as plain as it is Earth shattering. In effect God “broke” after the initial creation of heavenly existence (long before material existence existed). Astral soul progress is part of the healing process, which, according to the Aryan Vedas, will take in the order of 311 trillion of our years to “complete” (when existence will revert to bliss?). Therefore, my apologies to charged crusaders, but you don’t conquer Rome in a day.

The soul is simple and complex. As I mentioned before, the most uniform way of “representing” it is as darkness, but that won’t mean too much to those that haven’t come to terms with the powerful structure of darkness. Identical to light, darkness is a hierarchy and atoms account for the very lowest level. In fact there is even a black spectrum which mirrors light in reverse. If I take the human body as an example, we are made of particles which collectivise to build our cell structures. Cells join to form into organs and other components. Some of these amass to collaborate into value added networks, such as the nervous system. But in supreme control of the body is a very special “high level” attribute, known simply as “the mind”. Correspondingly, we can argue our bodies are actually “pyramidal structures” below it.

Soul “categorisation” also identifies well with parts (and their roles) of the human body, but complexes are not matched. It is important to acknowledge the “soul” is not an individual but, rather, the collaboration of “many”. Every soul motivated decision is the result of a reaction (to be deciphered as original thought) that is backed by a “chorus”. Whether inanimate or animate, individual things that are the many parts that make up the material plane are all individually composed of huge numbers of atoms. There are no exceptions to that rule at the lowest level (and that is the reason material existence is very inflexible when benchmarked against the astral). Were all atoms to be given pivotal political decision making roles, “logical chaos” would reign. Once again, as is the case with components of the human body, individual atoms join to create “guilds”. These, in turn, establish “networks”, up and up until only a handful of respondents actually voice “the obvious” (utopian coordination of harmonic resonance). This small managerial posse (which mimics the indecisiveness of every stable mind) is the best approximation of something that might “fit” the distorted tradition (an anathema) humans identify as “soul”. It is a construct, of course, because that is all it can be.

To continue with any authority, simplicity is no longer plausible in treatment of this subject matter. The dedicated and intellectually superior are advised to read on. Others may leave to make tea, feed the pig or entertain lighter but meaningful preoccupations. So, without further ado, continuation now becomes much more complex as there are other aspects to this conundrum that either identify with or are regularly “confused as” the soul. For instance, what are the differences between the conscious, subconscious (or unconscious) and the super conscious in respect to the above? Is the “soul” an integral part of each or does it branch in order to satisfy differing needs/perspectives of severed states or apportions? Classically, those devoutly religious magically reconstruct the higher self as a proto-soul. Moreover (emphasising the “ego” is profoundly misunderstood too) the higher self is most commonly transformed (a construct) into something that might equate to the (perceived as) best bits of the collective egotistic wisdom of popular “TV personalities” (or akin “role model” devices), so it isn’t really the higher self at all. Thus, routine deduction suggests each proto-soul has to be a crafty caricature of the true higher self (which is not formally recognised as such) and this is a spectral aspect of the spirit. If the spirit is to be loosely classed as “graded astral compliance”, then the ego (consciousness) would represent the collective lowers states. In toto, the subconscious coordinates mid-range value expressions and the super conscious is the closest approximation to “heaven on Earth” for a living, terrestrial body.

If only convergence was that simple. You see the ego is actually a figment which is comprised of flawless light body, “hard” physical body and various supplementary external components (superficially attached). Ego is a “bundle”. It is a conscious spirited material (soul) cooperative. The ego is often misconstrued as arrogance. It is not arrogance per se, although obstinate behaviour would be very representative of selfish nature and self is the epitome of ego. Like the soul, the self is a multi-faceted product. No one thing is particularly reflected, but overall a noteworthy identity (classically termed as “the personality”) presides over the directive life force (coordinating work towards common interests of the parts). Dramatic sustained personality changes (commonly after trauma) signify swaps of ego ownership. Souls are hierarchically stronger as they are aloof (even though a soul’s lateral development directly corresponds with the ego’s life course). It may only be a figment of time, but the ego is so highly regarded (by The Prime Source), after the power source (spirit) decides it is ready to detach from the body (the stage that is commonly known as “death”) a complete record is preserved for prosperity. Each “record” lives on in void format. The Babylonians called these “shadows”. Shadows are the limbo stages between incarnations. They notably factor when unforeseen circumstances lead to unprepared deaths.

The way a life is preserved directly corresponds with how “time” is structured and works (hence the importance of atomic particles). Linear perception only succumbs to the illusion of causal reality (note: this should not to be compared against erroneous “so-called” causality). Similar to the way a computer’s hard drive functions, the script permitting time sits constantly in the present (which is actually past, present and future combined). Via plotted coordinates, the same script resource can be used (over and over) in an infinite number of [different] ways, satisfying an infinite number of platforms and an infinite number of causalities (timelines). In the case of newly created shadows, pre-set routes double as record of old lives and blueprint for new lives. Thus, each shadow attempts to identically re-enact old lives (albeit with the objective of fixing issues or “doing it better next time round”). Naturally external parameters are invariable so different or heavily adjusted, each “new life” would not even vaguely compare to ones prior. Figurative “déjà vu” is the commonest parallel lives memory symptom. Another effect which confirms a shadow’s numerous incarnate “run throughs” is cumulative “instinct”. Contrary to popular belief, Instinct does not come naturally. It is the evolutionary response of many consecutive lives imprinted on hierarchical DNA.

For new lives to have any hope of matching the prior course, all (or the majority of) original connections would have to be in place. To a degree this is so, but definition will not favour the ardent egotistical materialist. Accountants would say all the pieces were actually in the wrong places, mixed up and “functionally defunct” (compared with originals). Yet, the truth is all the parts were in the precise places they needed to be for the new life to function optimally, even when the user’s survival duration was less than a minute. Existence accommodates limitless numbers of lives for innumerable purposes. Plausibly safe routes are present for those that choose to avail them. The quality of the stage we call death determines the speed of carnal transition. Peaceful deaths, such as “still birth”, would usually promote back-to-back lives (or instant reincarnation, though transference does not necessarily observe traditional linear definition). Traumatic or unfulfilled ends will naturally prolong transition. Certain individuals respond so badly to circumstances it is impossible to recirculate them. I hope the war machine feels warm about its unconscionable tyranny. How anyone can kill an unknown for the sake of “following orders” defies belief. But militant disrespect is not the only transgressor on that front. The deceitful “health” industry “helps” people die well before their time.

There are many different brands of “prophecy” and “prediction” aimed at courting the consensus view. Auspices such as conspiracy theories go some way to deflecting criticisms of mainstream inappropriateness, but balances that construe scales of political conduct are expansive. Of course political criticisms are almost always correct, but with such range much disagreeable dirt finds a way into the mainstream too, even if only for (as Jon Rappoport puts it) limited hangout. I have been particularly focusing on monstrous paedophilia in relation to these phenomena. Paedophilia itself is not “necessarily” monstrous, but maybe it is, depending on critical circumstances. What is undeniably evil about the theatricals that surround publicised [legally defined as] underage sex incidents is they reflect an accusatory court system that judges without being just.

The reason late Michael Jackson summonsed over a thousand (mostly perjuring) witnesses to defend him is he proved he was able to overwhelm the prosecution’s charge with counter accusations. To put things in perspective, a deceitful, lying Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) manipulated all mainstream Medias to conjure prejudice of the magnitude that they thought would be enough to “frame” their target, Michael Jackson. The net effect of this cooperative subterfuge appears to have been modelled on advice contained in Hitler’s Mein Kampf.  “He’s guilty as sin no question about it, [give him the chair]” (as monotonous strangled exclaims) was repeated over and over like some tortured, hapless proverb. Jackson, fortunately in this instance, was as bright as he was recalcitrant. His familiar lyrical warble ever so gently persuaded “I am innocent because I’m pure”, but people struggled to believe it as he was given so little air time and the mainstream had been running their “whacko Jacko” side campaign geared to presenting him as “a nutcase” all the while. Those that listened really carefully to Jackson couldn’t have helped but picking up a hint of “you conceited, dishonest assholes” in the subliminal. We all know our government sponsored agencies are “beyond external criticism” so his fate was doubtlessly meant to be a “fait accompli”.

My last article dealt with the dynamics of child abuse (sic), but did not explain how it was possible to manufacture perjury more or less universally. Newspapers so regularly jump the gun on judgemental statement, people have become obliviously desensitised to their deceitful practices. When hundreds and hundreds of unrelated headlines deliver the same basic corrupt message over and over (Hitler’s Mein Kampf comes to the surface again), a cultivation of truth-of-sorts is brought into being. Deceitful corruption transforms into truth because no one challenges the singular original message (which is established through its repetition). This is partly because newspapers (all referring to near identical sources) create the illusion – the public voice. Thousands of newspapers can’t “all” be wrong, surely? As there is invariably a solitary fire source for each aggressively billowing smoke stack, “thousands” of reports in different newspapers in reality boil down to one voice, one view, one replicated propaganda pitch. Whilst it may be possible to launch private paedophilia prosecutions, every case publicised by Medias thus far (to my knowledge) has demonstrated evidence of responses to claims of injustice by the public “guardian”. Therefore, specific Media sources for all publicised paedophile arrests are provided by the Department of Public Prosecution or law enforcement agents acting on its behalf.

Under conditions of aggregated sanity, this obvious collusive brainwashing exercise would have been sprung before the ink had barely dried on the first tabloid release. Let us consider the ramifications of collective gutless social cowardice. How many law enforcers arrest paedophiles with view to prosecution on suspicion of innocence?

Oh yes, we have to arrest a few innocents to prove “the [justice] system” is flawless

I was being sarcastic here because the reverse is true of course and it is far worse than that when “justice” is factored into the equation. To the law enforcer a “paedophile” is only “allegedprior to arrest. Once arrested, every suspect (sic) may as well plead guilty. The conspiracy here is newspapers only release the “view” [which I’m sure would equate to perjury in the “private sector”, by the way] of arbitrarily biased prosecutors and that almost always guarantees a win at court. It is no wonder the core message (in press releases) might as well read, “Why waste time and money on this trial?” Aside from the time poor reluctantly underpaid (why aren’t they allowed to claim lawyers or barristers’ rates?) jurors debacle, this fashion definitely looks back to those memorable “kangaroo courts” of the nineteenth century. Perhaps the plan is to ultimately bring back torture and confessions signed in blood.

Headlines are everywhere and these are designed to precipitate judgemental values that permeate the public mind.

I [personally] don’t know that guy but he’s “obviously” guilty because my newspapers/TV tell me so.

Even close family members of an “accused” can be swayed into “believing” just as easily as the rest. He must have led a double life is the usual “excuse” granted. The scandal merchants have any and all melodramatic outcomes covered. Therefore when law enforcement, building “the case”, wants to beef up “witness” (sic) numbers, they have actually even managed to convince an accused’s own brother or sister to testify negatively with nothing more than accusatory hearsay providing “basis” for statements. Did Michael Jackson’s sister actually witness the star engaging in sex acts with minors? Of course she didn’t. She fell for all that mass Media bullshit after being egged on by the Department of Public Prosecution.

Where there’s smoke there must be fire, eh?

Correct, the fire is your friendly, manipulatively lying, smarmy, self-opinionated law enforcement agency and its vile, uncompromisingly prejudicial public prosecution attack dog.

In Western nations, such as Australia, the Catholic Church is at the forefront of paedophilia allegations (remembering “allegation” is always mysteriously transformed into “certain guilt” of course). Records of incidents with forlorn priests are so voluminous; I am surprised Medias have managed to keep up with the pace. It may surprise Australians (in particular) all religions (well, except for a noteworthy Jewish “cult group” I shall focus on shortly) have been targeted, including Buddhism (to the Dalai Lama’s embarrassment). The real reasons for this scandalous deception may seem bizarrely conspiratorial but, against the background I present, not entirely farfetched. Whatever current opinions reign, duty to justice dictates religious cultures need to be reviewed from dual perspectives in light of mass Media stoking before any final judgements are made. The balanced investigator cannot rule out the magnetic effect of propagandas which has been proven so effective, over and over.

Whereas there is almost always no actual “evidence” supporting paedophile allegations and convictions are usually motivated by circumstantial witness “testimony” (“confession” or slanderous perjury?), adults with a genuine interest in “child sex” might plausibly seek likeminded friends. Where to “find” likeminded friends is the greatest challenge for any would-be paedophile, I would imagine. Thinking carefully along these lines, I did come up with some basis that might (and only “might”) give credence to devilish religious conspiracies of this genre. Though by conventional auspices serious contemplations would likely be too far adrift of cultural reason to disaffect “greater good” syndromes, public hysteria has shown itself to be both open to and humbled by extremely shallow arguments supporting the most unlikely of cabal concepts. For instance, if the researcher is willing to concede that rogue partnerships have been brokered with view to persuading mutual goals; with or without illicit connections, could these same like-minded associations be able to arrange prohibited liaisons?

Whether the “opinion” on the answer to that critical question is “yes” or “no”, religious institutions are viscerally bound to apply a duty of care to their congregations as each supposedly “acts for God” (conceptual greater good). Therefore the reality is that the church and other houses of worship are proved profoundly derelict of duty if just one allegation against them “takes hold”.

Under terms of worship, how is it possible for God “to err”?

The current state of affairs suggests administrative pressure for all religions is now in damage control aggravated by highly visible and seemed ceaseless spiteful propaganda barbs (that have prepared the floods of universally known past allegations of guilt). Therefore, would not the slightest rumour of paedophilia trigger internal raucous alarms within any spiritual organisation, even ones that are only borderline “religious”?

After hysterics dressed in the familiar mask of deceitful ignorance, known or faceless accusers, “guilty” accused and alleged victim(s) would come out of the woodwork, sometimes years after the fact (anything to ward off clarity), what would be bound to happen next?

Ultimately, any “bad” cleric would be sold up the river, of course.

Up to a certain point it would be in the best interest of the organisation under scrutiny to deal with everything internally in order to deflect negative publicity. However, when avalanches of complaints reach such frequencies as to become common public knowledge, reputation has already been long squandered. Under those special circumstances, “tarnished” institutions would have little to gain beyond doing everything in their power to suppress (which usually means eject without forethought) “bad eggs”. Indeed, by acting quickly in highlighting detractors, cutting red tape to ensure the expelling of alleged paedophiles is painless; some kudos might be given by the public at large. Press releases reporting that “order is not being interfered with and internal elitism has permitted routine justice” might actually be viewed as positive “PR” by targeted organisations. Any institution that complies would, at the very least, be seen to be acting in the “public interest” which, per manifestos, is also “in the interest of God”.

Let us say, for instance, there were rumours backing allegations, but nothing more. There were allegations without hard evidence. Could any religious institution in damage control ignore these and give an accused the “benefit of doubt”? It seems to me that in certain circumstances of shall we say “high security”; risk management significantly upgrades the chances of an accused’s presumed “guilt” pre-trial. How can the “certainly guilty” prove his innocence? How could the trial of a cleric sensationally rejected by his church be unbiasedly “fair”? Also people do lie, deceive and manipulate for a multitude of reasons. Fabrication of law enforcement evidence and biased judges is a popular theme used in police movies – the innocent man up against a corrupt machine. But what of those false claims of truth that were “believed” as though they were true?

How can fantasy that never was be “proven”?

Circumstances that did happen will hopefully leave a conspicuous evidence trail, but those that did not happen are guaranteed to leave no evidence trail. While beliefs are committed to duplicitous reasoning, fantasy is easy to upgrade and immortalise for it can neither be formally proven nor disproven. That is significantly why circumstantial evidence (evidence lacking hearsay such as reflective opinions) is used to formulate “basis” for verdict decision making to allow the promotion of fantasy (or something that did not happen) as reality (something that did happen). All of the “witnesses” at Michael Jackson’s “trial” offered circumstantial evidence (i.e. none offered hard evidence) whether acting for prosecution or defence.

I introduced “conspiracy theories” at the beginning of this article and now seems the right time to put that theme to the test. It has been noted (particularly in the alternative press) many times that where there are political conspiracies, the Jews are invariably never far away. Judaism, as with most other religions, is broken into (upwards of a hundred) different sects and this proffers the user base opportunities for considerable variance in doctrinal interpretations. Though invariably not “directly” concerning them, political conspiracies gravitate to favour Pharisee (a notable sect) involvement/implication when factoring in pre-emptive law making. Pharisaic tradition formats the script that makes all laws (certainly in “the West”) “viable”. These include horrendously unfair legislations that have been characterised to target religious practitioners of all persuasions in order to limit their involvement with (quite frankly) anything sexual (i.e. if the Pharisee adage “to lust after is to sin” is enough to permit unrequited draconian laws, presumably, as “God’s emissaries”, all fornicating priests are deemed to be “fair game” as potential targets).

Suffice to say, the Pharisees (and these guys are behind just about all those “prophesies” and “consensus” conventions “we” are obliged to follow) are subtly all over paedophilia. Paedophilia, of course, has a nasty habit of pissing off parents and making them “think” (sic) irrationally. It only needs a whiff of the word in family environments to fuse ugly breakouts of the poorest quality. Contemplate the power a “fringe religion” would hold over competitors if it could only harness inane populist ignorance. So following the track of general conspiracy theories and plausible revelations of outrageous duplicity in review of what mechanisms would be needed to be in place for effective infiltration of “enemies”, I considered whether this could be equally applied to the Pharisees, whether circumstantial allegations “in principle” might demonstrate limited credence against them as covert tyrannical ring leaders. Unlike hypotheticals monstrously resurrected to become “living satires” by our kangaroo courts, I make no prejudgement here.

Would it be possible, within the frame of this conceptualisation, for a Pharisee to pretend to be a Roman Catholic and win a diocese seat? Reviewing this consideration for a long while, I drew the unenviable conclusion, that it was not only possible but likely probable. Benjamin Disraeli affirmed that Jews deliberately married into aristocratic and royal families for “social position”. If a Pharisee can infiltrate a marriage, he can infiltrate a religion. In historic periods of persecution, high profile Jews have been recorded as having publically denounced their faith in favour of Roman Catholicism. Until Jesuit Martin Luther pinned his list of demands on the door of a chapel in Wittenberg, Germany in 1517, Catholicism’s “promissory penances” were very appealing to time poor Jewish merchants. Since the Nicolaitans’ (Pharisees) corruption sculpted what was to become new Gnosticism back in the fourth century, there has been bitter-sweet cooperation between the two faiths.

So, let us take the position that the Pharisees have infiltrated all religions, perhaps as part of their messianic “prison planet” (covert Zionism) strategy, what would they do once “in place”? Logic dictates they would try and influence how doctrines would be interpreted in order to found absolute bias towards their philosophies. How could this be executed? The answer is simple. Should various Pharisees be bestowed with clerical administrative roles devoted to scrutinising and assessing the philosophic worth of historic documents, then this would permit periodic “pushes” (perhaps aided by heavy bribes) gauged towards altering consensuses against traditional views and standards. Texts too outspoken for alteration that obstructed the “mission” might be deemed and argued as “spurious” (and thusly debatably unauthentic).

But what of outspoken individuals that won’t budge on “issues” that hinder the Pharisees’ operational synopsis?

How to dispel all those flies in the ointment with something that is guaranteed to work without “comeback”? It is worth noting here, in line with this “hypothetical”, logically all those religions the Pharisees have infiltrated are not friends collected in the spirit of fomenting mutual endeavours. They have all been deceived, defiled and, per identical reasoning, exist only to be tarnished (thou shalt not worship “false Gods”), as too (in some ways) are “rogue” (impure) sects of Judaism. For guarantees of no “comeback” against targeting mission obstructers there could never be any actual evidence. Everything would have to be fabricated (total bullshit) to assure opinions for were completely reliant on biased emotive circumstantial judgement. Perhaps “qualified” psychiatrists could validate repressed (i.e. non-existent) memories with the same sort of candor [used] when issuing prescriptive “medications” that induce psychosis. It would need false scandal after false scandal that instinctively “tweaked nerves”; some topic the public would be belligerent and stupid enough to believe in without reservation, something that might induce hysteria, if “generally” known. And there we have the hypothetical fire behind all the paedophilia scandals that afflict religious institutions across the globe, except I find no evidence of any arrests or convictions against Pharisees in relation to charges of religious paedophilia. Constructive feedback (with sources, please) on this is most welcome in comments.

For my hypothetical “master plan” to become reality, something else would need to happen for the operation to ooze credibility. Those with enough influence would have to arrange the “unthinkable”. Per normal administrative configurations (free of Pharisee infiltration), curates and vicars are “appointed” by religious institutions “in good faith”. This means someone or a committee of individuals must take responsibility for hiring (and firing). Therefore, musing over the fall of Jericho whilst outlining this reconstruction, all the Pharisees would need to do is to rig the recruitment process to ensure their (Passover style) chosen ones were in correct positions (so to speak) to permit operational success. It could also mean all sorts of nasties might be given responsible community roles, if that was the “ISIS style” objective. Imagine if the Pharisees had contacts in the prison system. Crime networks are other resource pools for undesirables. Would it be possible to not only hire strategic paedophile priests, but also throw in some extra shekels and promise of “protection” should any of the kids “blab”? At the correct juncture these priests would need to be sacrificed of course, but only long after the reasonable attitudes of congregations had been turned sourly toxic. The sourness would be for good reason. Traditionally, the most trusted member of any community was your priest. Were certain priests to turn into bare faced tyrants, God and faith are forlornly dishonoured.

Now it is important to cover the other side of the equation, the one most violets shrink from. The presumption that [per designation] “children” are not sexual, have no sexual needs and can be only corrupted (by “adults”) towards defilation is sheer bunk. When the law of the land stated that sexual consent between adults from age sixteen and above was natural and healthy, there was no rebellion against the “heinous” doctrine. In years gone by when the age of consent was considerably lower, maidens of all persuasions at age twelve saw great value in seeking to enter into matrimonial sexual alliances. One can only presume that prior to the implementation of legal frameworks, the only age barriers that inhibited sexual unions were the results of “family measures”. I would be willing to bet all the tea in China that if our current narcissistic consent legislations were repealed tomorrow, the “young” would “miraculously” find their sexuality again.

Masturbation is the best evidence for sexual drive and this unfortunately (to the monumental displeasure of sexual puritans) kicks in at very young ages. A phenomenon near exclusively confined to girls is the sexual “phase” I call “open” or “public” masturbation. Upwards of age six, females (in particular) demonstrate a desire to socially connect sexually. Conversely, ironically, young men prefer private masturbation (even when in groups). The Pharisees’ zeal knows no bounds. I have introduced the Puritan offshoot called Baptism before. According to Baptists, masturbation is a sin. Ambiguous in Catholicism, the heavy weight towards sexual procreation might encourage extremist views that also target and punish “self-sex”. Biased, fanatical opinions have been behind the attack on all forms of sexual expression in various Media formats. Obsessive hatred is so great towards the genre typically labelled “child pornography” anything bordering on lewd conduct has been framed and outlawed. People were not ever given the “choice”. There was no responsible debate and legislations have been reflectively austere.

Medias depicting children (as termed) masturbating are outlawed too. In fact, naked children in deemed to be “sexual poses” may also be “classified” as pornographic. Now, I can’t understand the logic underpinning the legislation of this genre. For a pose to be “sexual” it must legitimately arouse the viewer. Is the great body of Pharisaic elders exempt from judgement against their prohibited arousal? All jurors must scrutinise material evidence to form opinions, guided by legal professionals, of course. Child pornographic slides (when no sexual act can be identified) must cause sexual arousal to meet classification leaving only one question. Are “infected” prosecutors and jurors that have been aroused by child pornography safe to circulate socially and exempt from prosecution as “clinical” paedophiles? Pharisaic elders that appraise content to be sexual must surely also take some responsibility for judgement here. Though they were not directly exposed to sexual materials, and unless their laws are fraudulent, if they had been exposed they presumably could be aroused. This implies that they are classifiable as “clinical” paedophiles as well.

I gave the example of the body being a pyramidal structure below the mind earlier. Well, according to materialists this is not so (confirming why fanatical materialism is the utopian science-standard and Pharisees’ choice). The mind (per that insistence) is only a function of the “fully grown” body. Prior to reaching proscribed maturity, per this gobbledegook, bodies either have no or “swayable” (developing) thinking minds (except when this obstructs “the agenda” –  Jon Rappoport again). Conveniently, maturity kicks in precisely when law making moguls dictate measures. Therefore, if they were to say “maturity begins at age fifty”, then forty nine year olds would be “deemed” unable to make “informed decisions”. That means, of course, that victims of paedophilia are not only unable to legally consent to sex, they also cannot make any formal sexual decisions. How many articles promoting sentiment of “caring” paedophiles and their willing victims have been given primetime visibility by the mainstream (or alternative)? According to my research it has been a very long time since any visibility has been offered. Propaganda networks are only interesting in furthering their own agendas to the detriment of anyone that stands in their way.

Was Michael Jackson’s prosecution that never happened as described? In the way proceedings were “framed”, his alleged gift of $25 million to the guardian of a twelve year old boy was enough to underscore “guilt of sexual misconduct” for the gossip vultures, but was their conviction just? This goes far farther than merely highlighting the potential for blackmail. It demonstrates the potential gulf between effective truth, secular opinions on historic events and how “worldly” promotional materials cultivate accountability (or not). For instance, were we to presume that Michael Jackson truly did engage in sexual acts with the young “poster” boy in the spotlight, the only decent question that deserves righteous scrutiny is, “did the child consent or was he violated?”

“The consensual child”, the Pharisees quip, “how is that possible?”

In my last article, I referenced examples of various child prodigies as evidence towards my attempt to demonstrate how much diverse talent can be found every human pursuit. This in consideration, why would there not be sexual prodigies too? The preposterous superstition that posits all designate children as asexual could be easily undone with genuine committed research. Common amongst seventeenth and eighteenth century seafaring accounts are tales of sordid sexual escapades where age seems to offer no barrier. One notable volume details mariners’ activities while visiting Polynesian Islands. Texts report that women (regularly accompanied by siblings upwards of age eight years old) would swim to visiting ships offering those on board welcome and sex. According to the same reports, the young women sexually matched their seniors in every respect.  If one was to presume current age of consent laws are “divine”, would not this espouse that the majority of pre-Victorian era householders were systemic abusers? Prior to British William Gladstone’s 1870’s legislations, the age of consent was twelve years (complimenting the Roman philosophy on sexual maturity) and this ensured the majority of thirteen to fifteen years old women (per that classification) would marry to begin the arduous task of producing family heirs. At the time, childbirth was seen as a risky pursuit for women by their twenties so young plebeian marriages were encouraged.

Was the Victorian era we have as a legacy never to have happened (erasing William Gladstone’s sensationally degrading age legislation); Roman standards would likely be in place today (presuming no other vile avenues had disrupted the status quo). Though standards do not precisely match natural sexual reproductive maturity, the Roman opinion is far closer to it than the “eighteen rule” that oppresses current Western populations. Therefore one wonders if, just as homosexuals were vilified by rainbow movements that turned prior legal morality on its head, whether marginalised adult “minors” will seek aggravated revenge against the “system” at some time in the future. Could the young sue a system that stole their divine sovereign right to be sexual and reproduce? Awkward questions are always the best questions for they prophesise the path to sacred truth.

Continuing along this line of thinking regards repressed adult minors; correct contemplations will surely determine the problem is much greater than on “face value”. Taking the bull by the horns as it were, how would today’s determined-to-be sexual young find partners amongst indoctrinated “legal” adults? Would not the young that are in need of sex ultimately have to seek out paedophiles for their satisfaction? Were that uncomfortable symbiosis to be true, then clearly reason has been traded for vanity. It would make sense, because all “moralities” are forms of vanity. In light of this, when prophecy and associated predictions do little more than feed propagandists directives refined to permit universalisation of consensus view in their image, false Gods will reign over mankind. That is why below our modern day false Gods, spirits are invalids and souls may as well prostrate as lambs willing for sacrifice.

Preconditioning through the synthesis of deceiving divine values afflicts the social organ called “humanity” in its entirety. Every human being is infected and diseased in some way. Material symptoms most noticeably grant credentialed influencers (hawks and vultures by reasoned determination) the use of “devices” as lures for parasites (willing lambs for slaughter). Terms of standards that prevail are so arbitrary they cease to be relevant. The mantra of those that control is simple and effective “if we desire it, it is possible and therefore it will be”. Conquering natural sexuality has been their great prize; because once sex ownership is secured (perverted) life potence becomes suppressed to surrender point (i.e. master/slave catalyst). Surrender has meant that individuals “without visceral power” presumably have less prestige than programmable robots. I estimate fewer than ten per cent of “able bodied” society is actually needed for corporate commerce purposes. Indeed, with open minded unbridled investment into technologies, that estimation of labour requirement could be significantly reduced.

What we have is a situation whereby mainstream Medias have been able procrastinate well enough and consistently enough for “the masses” to believe there is an indefinite and constant labour shortage “somewhere”, “anywhere”. Enterprisingly, governments (for their part in this tryst) exist to concoct pointless ways of occupying the time of their enslaved chattel, perhaps to ward off popular rebellion, but mostly to show they are in control. Fiscal competition was never healthy or necessary if honest, socially serving government is to be given a chance at leadership. The universal Westminster System would not tolerate the notion. And it is a shame because it would make the world a better place for everyone, elites included. How about starting by investigating the potentially magical qualities of communal man? How about, instead of obsessively shutting out “unsanitary” potential, all doors to new avenues and abilities were opened wide with hendonistic gusto?

For obvious reasons (such as the attack on life potence), I have been focusing on sexuality. Gratuitous sex it could be argued is an art form, but it is not the only one. There are many other art forms (including war, when conveyance is correctly dedicated), far too numerous to list. Given the oversupply of labour for worthy industrial projects, why not test wider society’s devotion to craft? It seems to me the majority would be best put to use towards the overall entertainment of others, whether that is for “the few” or “multitudes”. Those that are able to craft would simply need to find natural vehicles for ambitions. Securing the correct preoccupation should be the role of any external social management mechanism (such as government). Instead, forcing “square pegs in round holes” “careers” on hapless conscripts has been proven to be neither constructive nor aptly overwhelmingly productive. How many wasted lives have supported the accountancy profession?

Perhaps I am being harsh on accountants here, but their negative outlook presupposes a limitless money supply would promote a guaranteed epidemic of laziness. Yet there is no reason hindering constant resources promoting limitless floods of cultural excellence. We can see evidence of the spontaneously effective outcomes of abundance in nature. There is also a deeper, natural reason why governments and their puppet masters would be wise not to continue their nihilist course devoted mostly to squandering abject lives for their “power highs”. Every human body (let us not forget) will double as uncontrolled (innocent) spirit and evolved (but not always wise) soul for the duration of the life term. For any cosmic improvement to manifest there must be sufficient recapitulation between old and new lives for trends to “bite”. When societal rules become too austere, past identities also risk becoming obsolete. Under those terms the existence model is rendered “futile” and this precedes grave danger. Should trends persist, the great “almighty” God is left with one humble option. It happened before and the event left an indelible mark last time round. Scientists label it “Big Bang” (there may have been numbers of these cosmic purges since existence began).

In so many ways my life serves as the testament to how “they” destroy prodigy. At age three or four, I was determined to become a concert pianist. My parents weren’t rich and were not prepared to spend money on a “useless” piano. My mother wanted me to become an accountant or a scientist, something “career worthy”, something “professional”. She did eventually succumb to my whining. At age nine I was given a piano by a boogie-woogie pianist who was a family friend. The problem was many of the notes did not function, including middle C, the F below, Bb above and much of the upper and lower registry also didn’t work. Accompanying lessons followed but how could I “fire” under those conditions? With poor note recall memory and imperfect pitch, I was never destined to be another Martha Argerich, Vladimir Horowitz or even Liberace (all Pleiadians, ironically?). But I did have something to give. I did have something in me that needed to be fulfilled and if the “system” was honest and sane, it would have engaged my fulfilment. Instead only my determination and dedicated belligerence “against all odds” ensured I found my way (Yes I am performing Beethoven’s Appassionata here) as a professional sounding amateur.

In summary, materialists use manmade terms to describe objects they don’t truly understand. They cast perspectives in what they generally suppose is “the human way” (when not in “conspiracy mode”). Science “proves” acknowledgement of symptoms and the use of system satisfying devices has replaced the void once occupied by prophets that uttered proverbial predictions. Either courted and contained consensus view in order to control and direct populism. Their ultimate goal is what’s more or less in place today: preconditioned, spiritless bodies in denial of birth right and unaware of soul purpose. The only “way out” is for mankind to learn to commune. Only then can humanity become “one race” (as it were) with divine intention to live the expressive power of corporeal God (Tamarian).

The “Powers’” Great Accolade – “Brand Pedo”

Imagine, if you will, there existed a world populated only by biological automatons that were solely allowed to survive at the behest of a vague commercial bureaucracy. Because of this uncertainty, imagine if none of these automatons realised they were abject properties of a brutal federal control program. If the slave masters, the “authorities”, decided they desired to stamp their immense power over will, to “once and for all” demonstrate their authority over the slave classes, could they outlaw or remove all fluid or solid sustenance resources without losing or graphically impairing their prized stock? Could they make the air unfit for consumption or destroy all known shelter to stress their despotic ambition? No, the only the true liberty they could possibly take away without permanently impairing labour is “unnecessarysexuality. That world does exist. It is planet Earth and the ignorant, naive biological automatons are human slaves; fodders dedicated for a system that deliberately transcends spiritual logic and reason in order to complete and maintain its program,

By corporate commercial determination, per “the program”, paedophilia is the root of all evil, and for reasons that so firmly contradict erudite populism, truth has become obsolete. The term paedophilia itself is nonsensical was it not for the fact that just about everyone has been radicalised into believing trappings of propaganda. So, going back to basics, it would be correct to start by analysing authentic etymology of terms in order to corroborate any coherent meanings. Only by careful analysis of the cold, dry facts can sound “basis” encapsulating the mainstreamers’ obtuse view be deciphered.

Paedophilia is a combination of two Greek words. One (paidos) means child and this is topically self-explanatory. The other, philos, calculates rather more problematic interpretation. Yes it translates to mean “love” as would be expected within the cognitive frame of child love. Nevertheless, the Greeks had three words (eros, agape and philos) to represent the emotion. Eros is used to convey an earthy erotic, sexual passion or lust. Agape is an emotional spiritual bond that perhaps might signify symptoms such as pity, togetherness or other deep soul connections (shall we say). Philos proposes a brave new world, one that is generally estranged from the Western concept of love. It is the Greeks’ “intellectual love” evocation and this might be best appraised as “to be on the same wavelength” (with others). Respect of a peer would make an acceptable version of the same concept.

Therefore paedophilia literally means “respect for children”, so how on earth did it translate into the ugly mess that has embraced the greatest of all modern day hysterias?

It seems likely (though I find no evidence of historic accountability) that the term was originally sponsored by those that formed special liaisons with children. It was a way of justifying engagements that might have otherwise been frowned upon by wider society. Promiscuity is a revelation of modern times, awoken by the 1960’s flower power sexual revolution. Prior to that lust outside marriage was a profound negative and “age restriction” on unions had been superficially imposed by religious authorities for so long that physical adult child pairings would have seemed unconscionable. This is not to say rules were not broken behind closed doors. Suffice to say, prior to the 1960’s suspicious borderline adult relationships would have had to have been considered lust free but always either plausibly “working towards marriage” or “undeniably platonic” for seemly social tolerance.

It was only after sexual revolution, political authority saw value in promoting homosexuality as a crass attempt to pervert all sexual relationships (i.e. by reversing principled traditionalism that defines sexual intercourse as a procreation precaution and not as a recreational tool, cultural insanity was born. Of course, this merely acts as a stepping stone towards outright control of the human mind – “you will behave as we say anytime we lecture you”). Thus those rabid synthesised outcries at phantom paedophilia are backed off strategized and scoped political support aimed at positively accelerating homosexual causes. “Contradictory” pederasty was most recently (1600’s onwards) adopted by the French (pederastie) from the Latin paederastia (Greek – paiderastia) and popularly translates to mean “lover of boys”.

Remarkable French piano prodigy and composer Camille Saint-Saens, a covert gay of the high Victorian period, once famously reported, “I am not a homosexual. I am a pederast”. This ironically demonstrates how much values have changed. Homosexuality was stigmatised because it was deeply hated (though undoubtedly egged on by political shit-stirrers) throughout cosmopolitan society and, therefore, illegal. Underage sex was not illegal, but because sex outside marriage was so universally chastised, “decent” normal folks would have found the practice unthinkable.

Even so Saint-Saens innocently reveals evidence of two streams of social conditioning. To admit to have been homosexual would have enraged retribution to beyond the pale so it was denied. Yet to confirm his overt but ambiguous paedophilia was the best way of diffusing allegations against him and shutting up critics. Of course there is much more to this tale (which circulated around his regular trips to Algeria – a place renowned for egregious sexual tolerance at the time). Saint-Saens cast himself as the paternal spirit ever excited by the ambitions of youthful innocent exuberance and not as a lecherous molester of children.

Ancient sexual roots of pederasty were neither explored nor acknowledged as relationships were symbolised as paternally platonic per the cultural view. However, the stem “erasty” is a version of erasthai (Latin) for which eros (Greek sexual love) is a derivative. This should emphasise the nonsense of modern times’ furore. If sex between adults and children was to be intimated by a slur, then pederasty is the ideal term. In fact, though it is believed to have originally been used to describe adult/minor homosexual trysts, the etymology is actually formally gender neutral. Does the “substitution” of paedophilia (in place of pederasty) not aptly highlight the wilful arrogance/ignorance of mainstreamers?

Many well founded information sources have come to light that broach the rather obvious homosexual connection to global control networks after Gary Allen’s tantalising volume “None Dare Call It Conspiracy” was published in 1972 (only a year before the Trilateral Commission was formed by late David Rockefeller). Those behind the eugenics movement aiming to radically reduce global populations have been implicated as players in the “program” many times. Whether this is true or not is open to debate, but philosophic motives are beyond argument.

If all population units were strictly homosexual, then procreation would require external management, perhaps offering theoretical provisos such as medical intervention to save humankind. Younger more fertile parents produce stronger offspring that live longer and this corroborates (though statistics are “contradictory”) a matched conspiracy. Paedophilia (younger, more fertile) has been outlawed whereas homosexuality (guaranteed infertile) is now both legal and encouraged (with initiatives such as sex change development offered to “asexual” [sic] children as young as four years old). Clearly all measures improve the ongoing population control/reduction agenda. I should add that whereas some institutionalised heterosexuals may argue they have a right to abolish repulsive homosexual practices, any [even justifiable] overt or covert despotism still prepares undeniable infringements against sovereign liberties.

Eugenics’ attack on the people has been unyielding. Wars used to be the preferred vehicle. Yet, as I write, the American “health system” (for instance) debatably shows up ten to a hundred times more effective at disposing of populations than war, depending on which statistics are favoured. Several drugs (including dozens of branded opiates) administered under the banner of “healthcare” are known to kill or impair life. The best reference is “auto-immune deficiency” so-called AIDS. Harmless retrovirus HIV was blamed for [known] effects caused by previously shelved (1950’s) chemo drug AZT. Naturally symptoms have been by no means limited to HIV “sufferers”. Timothy McVeigh’s foolhardy quest to bring down a building in Oklahoma City in 1995 was masterminded by the same powers he was attacking in defence of the “program”. They were behind the (at least) 50,000 AIDS related deaths of First Gulf “War” veterans. Ignorant conscripts were killed by their supposedly “protective” medications.

To be honest I believe the 1960’s flower power movement was a corporate inspiration too. Either that or corporates rode the coattails of the general erosion of faith in traditionalism (also a reaction to the distrust that blew over into anti-war mass desertions from Vietnam?). When did “the people” ever make any sincere [group] initiatives for themselves? I believe the powers wanted to introduce contraception universally. By that token, temporarily encouraging promiscuity was the only rational lever against the [Catholic] Church. Even so, to this day Catholicism has not bowed to Zionism on that level. The sexual revolution was predictably short lived. Prominent film stars, HIV and AIDS put a huge damper on any free thinking after the 1980’s.

It is interesting that Oklahoma and Waco (which set the precedent for legitimised “law enforcement” murder of any American citizen) saved [then President] Clinton’s bacon. It shows me “the people” have no say or formal influence on what is “in the interest” of “wider society”. That is the “programmers’” exclusive right. A good example of elite manipulation of public opinion can be seen in analysis of the (ridiculous) “gay plague” branding campaign. Whereas an overburden of industrial pollution and chemical pesticides “caused” HIV in Africa, there has been barely a mention of it anywhere, ever. I shall focus on “Big Oil” in a future article provisionally titled “Coming Clean on Cancer”. To resoundingly dampen the free love heyday, throughout the early 1990’s British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher ran regular government sponsored television adverts that symbolised promiscuous sex as guaranteeing participants’ “horrible deaths”. Presumably similar libellous techniques were used in other corners of the first world.

I haven’t personally referenced Jon Rappoport’s “AIDS Inc.” (1988) but I feel sure he will have delivered correct conclusions after reviewing his various websites. Paedophilia is also nothing short of a stagnant political move as are all other trappings designed to bolster the Eugenic movement’s determination to deny life. Forget the hotbed “abortion”. From the lofty position of purity, is not contraception the undeniable attempted murder of an unborn child? Given their Zionist-Bolshevik tactics, I would be very surprised if the visceral anti-abortion lobby is not another face of the same arbitrary plutocracy. When “they” decide they need to repopulate, anti-abortion will become the new flavour of the month. Currently abortion is a decoy that removes the sting from contraception.

Those demonstrably anti-paedophilia have been set up, applied more or less zero attention to the real issues. The shambles that is “organised” (a splintered, refracted mess) society is our testament. Rationalist Eckhart Tolle makes a surprising amount of sense in his claim that classical crusaders crusade merely for empowerment of their egos. I extend that philosophy somewhat and emphasise the bigger and more divisive the “cause” (sic), the greater the “individual” empowerment. There is no bigger cause than paedophilia currently. It is the mother of all causes today. Protesters, critics and complainers keep well clear of truth in order to preserve their egos. Maintaining the fantastical narrative line in deference to truth is the objective goal. Besides, if their “big issue” was to evaporate indefinitely, aimless lives would have nothing to bolster egos. Political spin, intricate make-believe dressed as truth has avowed the horrible “standards” that have cultured public infatuation.

Because the cultivation of biological automatons is the brainchild of the “program’s” covert marketing arm, Zionism (symbolising prison planet), there is almost absolute topical congruity between the mainstream and “alternative” press instruments. Alternatives also weave their own brands of make-believe and encourage that most foul of whimsical, plausible denials’ – “who to believe?” Indeed, as most independent or third party writers and journalists are incapable of doing much more than parroting or reacting against information issued by mainstream/alternative “authorities”, sanity has become wedged somewhere between a rock and a place beyond vital imagination. Even the great Jon Rappoport hasn’t ever dared offer paedophilia a fair birth from what I have read. Only an extraordinary journalistic genius with a death wish could and would religiously tackle this subject with unbiased sincerity. Like homosexuality in its wake, paedophilia now humbles the zealous.

Arguably everything political began with the collapse of Atlantis. After the Pharisees (the theoretical Atlantis “derelicts” Nicolai Levashov mentions in his illuminating book “Russian History Viewed through Distorted Mirrors”) conquered relative druidism 3,000 years ago, a globalist agenda has followed the uniform path towards the “program’s” unilateral attempt aimed at shaping all other creeds and cultures in its image. Permitting only Puritan adjusted worship is one of the many small steps aimed to configure that grand design. Sharia Law (a cauldron of intolerance; banning all manners of sexual expressions), incidentally, few seem to real realise, is iconic Zionist Law.

Political charades “for order” are exploited by puppeteers that use militant groups (deliberately formed for such purposes) such as “ISIS” and “Al Qaeda” to instil fear. Labelling of designate “children” (with 21 desired as the ideal age barrier) and applied sexual prohibition has been a long standing goal that heralds back to the Victorian era (and presumably prior). In some ways it surprises me that Gladstone did not realise the utopian objective back in the nineteenth century. Although with infant mortality prevalent and the need for fodder for wars to once and for all break the opposition in his time, outcomes and their contingencies have been predictable to say the least.

Maybe it was last year or perhaps the year before when I noticed a mainstream headline that poked me in the eye. It was significant enough to spur me to remove MSM as my default webpage. The article in question presented one of America’s provincial sheriffs’ who was voicing implausible concerns over a child rape trial. The “child”, at the time, had been seventeen years old. Two days before her eighteenth birthday, she had allegedly voluntarily engaged in penetrative sexual intercourse (statutory “rape”) with her [then] boyfriend. Only in America could a “trial” like that be “taken seriously”. But it does highlight the fact that the “program’s” zeal is all about fanatically vigilant oppressive power of order, bereft of sane judgement. Australia (where I live currently) handles these matters differently.

Over a decade ago a mature looking twelve year old, blonde haired girl produced a bouncing heir with her [also] underage boyfriend (if memory serves me right, he was fifteen). The sensational TV show “Current Affair” was all over the news like a baby’s rash. They “named and shamed” everyone they could collect until everyone associated turned bright purple and frothed at the mouth. Nothing was done about the couple because nothing could be done so, after the furore, everyone politely looked the way, except there was a sequel. The hapless girl dared produce a second sprog at age sixteen by the same father (this time presumably of father worthy age). Sacra-bleu!!!!! I hope the TV show paid her well. She deserved every cent. He was almost certainly jailed for twenty years or more.

There is actually quite a long history behind changing attitudes. Chronologies (were they to be read and digested) would go a long way to diffusing the sheer insanity that currently embroils the paedophilia “outrage”. Attitudes have, in some ways, remained the same but it is reflective contingences employed that have radically altered. Perhaps making the adolescent discovery tour “theoretical” has helped induce mesmerised masses. People’s inability to focus on anything in isolation (thus perpetually basing existence on generalities) appears to be the most devastating symptom of the “TV age”.

One could look back at the collapse of craft industries in favour of industrial commercialism as the beginning of the withering of independent mind [that worked off trial and error and, ultimately, questioned everything]. In the eighteen and nineteenth centuries there were occasional challengers. Disparate groups, such as the Luddites, did attempt to block imperial progress. Interestingly, prior toindustrialisation”, learning centres were almost exclusively used to prepare society’s elite classes. In fact, going much further back, I would argue it was only after the abolition of the mystery schools (run by the druids) in the Dark Ages that saw the shift from education to processed dogma learnt by rote as the staple for mainstream education.

Even those that complete a Master’s Degree today are given no marks for personal input beyond how it satisfies comprehension of “evidence”) (i.e. synthesised “worthy” information that has been rubber stamped by “credentialed” proscribed agents of globalism under the thumb). To which end eventually none dare question established “rules” which are actually beyond question. It is also duly noted that the precise same strategy has been used by political proponents that word laws governing paedophilia in ways to ensure any possible “right minded” intellectual protagonist’s challenge would be judged as spitefully ambiguous (at best). I find no evidence supporting rationale behind our current childhood threshold and can but assume the demonstrably baseless “18” figure was pulled out of thin air at the whim of some starched bureaucrat or other. Globalist hacks have been running “Holocaust style” attack campaigns against anyone that dare test viability ever since.

It was not that long ago when the age of [marital] consent was “12” (following ancient Roman tradition) in some US states and the European nation of Holland. America may be recognised as the modern day super power, but originally it was founded and developed as a formidable expansion of the Union of Jacob (or Great Britain), so the history of English law making plays extreme relevance to this debate. There was no legal age of consent until one of the British Middle Ages Kings decided to impose boundaries through fear that there would be no under limit to matrimonial alliances (or presumed sexual liaisons) with maidens. I am deliberately foggy on “which king” it was because I would like it to be Norman Jew William the Conqueror (who ushered in a “new age of [cloaked] Zionism”) as it does fit well with my overall patter. So if he’s the one, top marks for me.

Either way, for the best part of a millennium “the people” and their ruling powers had no objection to marital unions between de facto “adults” from age twelve. It was a king (the “contemporary” power) who had instigated radical new restrictions (be it conceived from ancient foundations) which also implies some marriages (prior to law) were made between parties (maidens specifically) aged less than twelve years. One would imagine that a small popular core would have always been against “young” marriages, whereas the majority must have been easy with whatever was the conventional norm. The perennial remainder (probably an equally distinct minority) are traditionally mostly shown as bloated cadaverous sorely vocal antagonists destined to bluster at first sight of illuminated “reasoning” by compilers of historic propagandas. Those that covet callous restrictions will do anything to preserve them.

In medieval times (as emphasised earlier) the age of consent strictly concerned marriage but did not place any focus on sexual activities outside matrimony. That was left to religion. Western religion is an adaptation of Roman paganism. Therefore when Christianity sprouted from the burning embers of Gnosticism, naturally austere (Pharisee promoted) rules were applied to marriages which ideally revered all lustful and licentious behaviours as “ungodly”. A functional allowance was made for purposes of procreation. Per this fashion, an adaptation of orthodox Jewish attire, the Christian bridal gown, attempted to limit “lustful” sexual intercourse between marital partners. Even so, for a great period (can anyone say with “authority” how long?) the proverbial line was drawn at age “12”.

So how has this ongoing “con operation” been run in a way to successfully beguile the madding masses? Today’s mental health institutions and asylums for the insane provide glimmers of insight. I determine that the profession’s handbook outlining three hundred or so “behavioural conditions” is simply an expansion of crass religious judgement as to what it is to be “good” or “evil”. Jon Rappoport regularly advises all behaviours classed as varied evidence of insanity are equally symptoms of normal behaviour. Evil (as termed) actions therefore are now indefinitely branded as manifest insanity. Modern society runs on adapted rules that are designed to obfuscate the truth, so while one could argue we are either “more” or “less” free than before, in principal only “terminologies” have changed and not the convictions that delivered them.

When the world was conquered in the 1650’s (capitalising on discoveries such as the United States of America), there was an uncomfortable transition from royal to civilian government power. The full changeover took about 300 years and today no royal wields any visible power. It was only after civilian government was firmly rooted that perceived social issues were targeted by the pariahs of control to facilitate their utopian dream agenda. Of course, the ideal policy (as far as they are concerned) is always eradication, but when (as is so often true) extreme measures fail, soft humanitarian ploys are stealthily drafted. Similar to current workings of political/legal administration, reasons behind tortured virtue offered as “grounds” rarely (if ever) matched true objectives behind schemes unveiled as “value solutions”.

High Victorian British politics eventually found a Prime Minister with the right measure of zealous hatred to tackle youth sex head on with a proverbial sledge hammer. Himself a reputed brothel crawler (and paedophile), William Gladstone first increased the age of consent to “15” in 1875. So foul was his hatred it inspired infection and; consequentially, he succeeded in raising “the bar” again to “16” by 1878. This did nothing to inhibit intimate relations with children, as evidenced in outpourings of diatribe over the plight of a pregnant provincial London prostitute aged ten in the early 1900’s. Whether the girl was anything more than a figment of the imagination remains to be proven. There are numerous other period artistic writings that might be sourced to highlight identical topical content.

Logic underpinning Gladstone’s reasoning behind the marital age of consent increases was null and void, more or less precisely equating to William the Conqueror’s war spoil “logic”. Age fifteen, and then sixteen, was simply deemed “young enough”. No science or consideration to individuals’ right to choose was applied or contemplated. Each was a corporate edict for the nonsense that is proscribed as the “greater good”. The same lack of basis was approximated in 2001 when Great Britain almost paved the way to the “program’s” supreme goal “21”. If legislation for the age of consent (now beyond marriage, of course) set at twenty one had passed, the rest of the world (an extension of Great Britain) would have been doomed to follow, eventually. In other words, legislations are arbitrary measures. Construction of a “group identity” model permitting only standardised values and behaviours for standardisation’s sake is the selfish result. Given the raft of evidence, even a slothful fool should determine this always has been (albeit in varied forms) the plan; though few “in power” would dare agree or admit to their repugnant deceitfulness.

The reason the powers have dimly promoted their numerous nurturing society “concepts” (even though society does anything but nurture) is messages are designed to make the opposite of truth “appear” truthful. In fact categorisation/classification of [designate] children supports a global social enslavement program (one of numbers of cultural adjustment frameworks that are currently processed simultaneously and connected via the World Wide Web and other international exchanges). In effect, each synthesised cycle is designed to break children into new gormless adult slaves as asset-worthy (“useful”) fodder to man the system. Per this design, children are instructed fantasy is more plausible than truth, though (thankfully) not every teacher plays dumb.

Nevertheless, those that deceive and act spitefully are rewarded for personal dishonour. That’s the “program” for all society; all societies. Scripted reality versions profit from denying conscience, of course, so true spirituality must be forbidden at all cost regardless of cultural persuasion. Frankly, this in consideration, it is impossible to function in society today without being unfaithful. Ancient, traditional rites of passage have gradually been replaced with risk/reward (I’ll call them) “holographs” supplied by the “goggle box” and other mechanisms of influence. Sexuality is now almost universally framed as something “obviously” (sic) illicit. Thus, most things sexual might arguably judgmentally parry with actions like smoking and the consumption of drugs/alcohol. For the young, relationships have been reduced to “intrigue” which opens the door to cruel, vindictive power plays. Consideration of blackmail as the first option in negotiation persists into adulthood.

Individuals (making up the majority) that are determined to be law abiding (patriotic) become effective prisoners in their own open society. Sexual repression invariably leads to differing communication problems between sexes and, to a certain degree, estranges relations. The miraculous presupposed instant transition from impertinent scripted childhood to “proficient” adulthood does not prepare the way for pretty society. Each new insolent, spoilt, self-centred, experience lacking generation of “adults” attempts to crudely push its way up the queue. Many have predictably abused their supposed “right” to say no and have been conditioned into thinking any (and all) natural sexual acts are “theoretical” forms of rape. Few adults will contend there are only determinations to be and no “rights” at all (a fact the “program” callously capitalises on).

Culturally male/female roles/mindsets have not kept pace with everything else that has been going on in the background (i.e. systemic shredding of individualistic natural sexual dignity). One consequence is men and women are still destined for classical marital unions (even if not in name). Men, per this profile, must seek sexual gratification and women should provide the opportunity (i.e. male hunters, female prey). However, because women now collaterally (i.e. “the great group”) envisage all sex acts as “potential” forms of rape, they have been given an enormous degrading power.

In their administrative capacity, they can permit undignified sexual acts with whomever they choose, when legitimate and “legal”. Downgraded social ethics have had the effect of dragging all women down to the realms of whoredom (or celibacy for dissenters). Any whore’s power is her “right” to administer sex “favours”. “Program” masters know this full well. Their “combobulation” child exploitation takes whoredom away from the spotlight. Thus, the modern day whore cannot traffic (an exploit variant) him or herself. He or she must traffic another or others. Prostitution, from the time it was labelled “the oldest profession”, has been effervescently legitimised. “Populist” anger has specifically shifted from attacking prostitution in general to the [predominantly phantom] child sex industry. This is not to say “decent society” is comfortable with prostitution, but affairs of the flesh do not antagonise in the way they used to.

Physiologically, the only morally valid justifications behind any prohibitions of sexual acts might be on grounds of “lack of fertility” or body “immaturity” (which would provide basis for the mother of debates if tackled sincerely). Those proven unfertile could be justifiably deemed sexually unaccountable and, providing “procreation” was seen as the only functional benchmark for that type of communication, it could be outlawed to satisfy the requirements range outlined. There is actually quite a big degree of variance in apt statistical data on this arena. The youngest “woman” (on record) ever to birth a child was aged six. Women, in general, may begin their menstrual cycles from about age nine. Men are late risers with the ability to ejaculate prevalent usually from about age thirteen. The youngest father (for my research) is listed as aged eleven.

According to “nature” (reflective of God), a sexual metamorphosis demonstrably takes place in women at age nine and men of age thirteen. Thus, an uncomfortable surplus of wilderness years in respect of current legal accountability should be duly noted. Wilderness years, in the case of women, number nine. For men there are five years. How is this legal accountability in any way, shape or form naturally legitimate? By the time an average woman turns eighteen half her life has been sexual. God’s blessing has been terrorised and abused by society’s ignorance and abject subservience to the “program”. Terrorist peers foist the consequences of their foul laws on the trembling masses producing barely a shudder of dissent. Yet all should be acutely aware that these measures are designed purely to degrade the majesty of sexual intercourse to further scope for the production of “efficient” human “automatons”. Killing off stagnant populations is a fringe benefit.

When a woman turns eighteen, psychologically, nothing changes. Her mindset is still the same as it was before. She had been sexual but to be sexual was to “sin” (a pharisaic Judaic preconception) and this was “forbidden” (fruit). She was sexual but, as nothing has actually changed, to be sexual now IS to “sin”. There is one difference and it’s a big one. It is the power of control. Before she could illegitimately offer sexual consent or forbidden fruit (opening the door to all sorts of nasty blackmail scenarios) and now she can legitimately grant sexual consent as the fruit is ripe (opening the door to all sorts of nasty “double standards”). This is how sexual women have been reduced to whoredom.

Men have paid the price too. The perverse game we call politics impinges on all male values. Those that are not avowed celibates are rapists-in-waiting. Under foul terms as these, any man that dares to succumb to sexual urges can and will be accused of theoretical rape. This is all courtesy of modern social-conditioning mechanisms geared to elevating fantasy. The average woman now believes she always has the “right” to determine which “rapes” are permissible. She can also change her mind. That is the modern woman’s “privilege”. Women that kowtow with the “program”, in deference to God, lampoon our most uncharitable, sacrilegious, sanctimonious system of order. It is a system that relies on the deceit, dishonesty and partisan biased judgement of its user base. Never forget, all laws polarise judgement.

The crux of the arguments (ever so rarely in plain sight) supporting age legislation tend to rely on [corrupt] academic standards as “justification” for categorisations in place. Never mentioned are the numerous early teens “prodigies” put through the university system early. These are the anomalies that frustrate the “program”. The maturity gap, when inspected in detail, is far larger than most would imagine. For example, in relatively recent times a six year old British boy was heralded as the new oils (painting) master. Back in the 1980’s a petulant pup became a self-made millionaire (when being a millionaire meant something) in computers before he had reached his tenth year.

Martha Argerich’s (a celebrated Argentine virtuoso) notorious 1949 first public performance of the piano solo of Beethoven’s first concerto when she was seven years old presents an interpretation that would put most adults to shame. There is an account of a nine year old girl who successful singlehandedly reared the surviving family for several weeks after her mother died. Only lack of money ultimately frustrated her course. Given these facts, age legislation is indisputably unfair. Why is it supported so widely and so staunchly by our trembling masses?

There is a simple answer sadly seemed beyond the lateral comprehension of ordinary folk. In fact the answer has already been substantively outlined. People are generally pathetically weak and lazy. The largest, most incessantly in focus voices always seem to grab the limelight, founding “opinions” as they go. Mass Medias, therefore, control the way people generally think. Yes there are occasional dissenters, but, generally speaking, mass Medias tend to push (control) the populist view. That is because supporting broadcasters employed by mass Medias are people too. Broadcasters are not significantly different to any average man on the street. They too are mostly weak and lazy and don’t like to think too deeply about “obvious” issues. Of course, on the other hand, if the majority mysteriously morphed into dissenters, mass Medias would disappear as fast as they appeared and the “program” would perhaps have to engage dogmatic religion to shore up cultural adjustments once more.

Weakness and laziness by themselves do not cement opinions that are used to back legislation, such as edicts supporting age restrictions. People act because they feel empowered by acting. There is a fundamental perceived payoff for parents that support the synthetic dividers separating proscribed “children” from “adults”. The payoff is controlling power. Being the boss or “king” must be regarded as the pinnacle of empowerment and, consequentially, families have been moulded into control hierarchies. Perhaps this has always been the case. For as long as historic memory records, periodic shifts to varied standards used to justify different age categorisations have been relatively seamless. That, by no stretch of the imagination, makes wrongright”.

We must never underestimate conditioning mechanisms in the background geared to advancing false status-quo. Currently, each new crop of sexual children is deliberately immersed in cultures of facile restriction. Years long torment offers the vague promise of “freedom” (age eighteen “adulthood”). Developmental pressure builds from “terrible teens” to graduation. Many have willingly tried to believe in law and order to be patriotic (one of the group). They never rebelled. They never came to terms with what they had been denied. They never attempted to discover. Therefore, the majority of emerging and new adults bitterly support a terrorising system because they were “forced” into making sacrifice themselves.

In other words, pathetically weak adults will go to any lengths to wreak revenge on their kith and kin simply to appease their own failed ethical development. If you cannot honour yourself, how is it possible to behave responsibly to others? The great tragedy is [it seems] that people are incapable of recognising their sexuality or, to a greater degree, understanding how corporate interests stole their natural development. If age standards defining adulthood were radically shifted upwards to say forty years as the new age of consent, I do not believe there would be any major rebellion (after the first generation targeted was out of mind’s way). Old habits die hard, so I will concede the “powers” would have a hell of a marketing task ahead of them. How to convince all those marginalised people that merely want to behave naturally they are “wrong” to do so?

I have already outlined that British legislation tabled an increase to age twenty one in 2001, so why stop there? If the predominant cause behind age laws is nothing short of a population control/reduction measures, then (given the ever rising masses) logic suggests further increases are going to be ushered in. (Subtly ignoring the ethics nightmare exposing the true face of industrialism) China’s austere corporate experiment permitting only one child per family unit predictably failed dismally. Then again, if you can forbid sovereign adults “sexual license” by labelling them as “children” in legislation, the outlaw of procreation satisfies an expansion of the eugenics mantra. Ages twenty five and thirty marked traditional ancient Roman and Jewish commencement of maturity. Age fifty is of religious significance in Tibetan culture (and generally classed as the start of “middle age” in the west). Seventy five is another modern western classification milestone representing maturity or “old age”.

There potentially is no upper limit. Perhaps in the future sexual permits will be kept to octogenarians, the well-to-do that satisfy legal “exemptions” (loopholes) and “approved” (sanctioned) whores (to “service” the well-to-do)? Slavish automatons would do well to understand that each (fiendish) plan can only be stymied by the lack of faith of its designers. Confidence in communication is everything, but that is ultimately largely backed by compliance test initiatives. A sound pitch bolsters faith and the rest can be left to chance. What better target to exploit than “the family”? By turning corporate-political objectives into “family planning” advice, devious powers have cast a brilliant initiative. Families can now blame themselves for government issues and most will be oblivious to the fact. Admittedly a few have been waking up to the truth that “schooling” is actually social indoctrination in drag. But is this enough to spur momentum towards worldwide clear vision and outright revolution?

Times have changed greatly. In England years ago when attitudes were different, the age of consent was still sixteen. People could and did enter into marital unions at that age. These were normally sexual unions too. But that was trivial because teenagers (prevalently over twelve years old) also commonly interacted sexually. Legally underage pregnancies were unsurprisingly not particularly scarce. Ironically and sadly, the great “outrage” was against additional “family burden” as the young were obliged to be indoctrinated at school and few would have had the influence to earn “breadwinning money”. To me it shows just how pitifully inherently selfish people are. If only the vigour applied to blame and transference was directed at taking ownership of problems and compassionate dedication to delivery of lasting real solutions, then societies might be something to be proud of.

A long time ago, when I was fifteen, my mother asked my father to give me some sex advice. I vividly remember how he approached the cause. “You know all about it [sex], don’t you son?” He stammered, confidently. I nodded back wisely, as I had been the proud owner of a well-thumbed “hard core” adult magazine from age fourteen. Indeed, the pages were so well loved; they had come away from the staples in places. The point being is my father was too embarrassed to broach the subject of sex with me. It remained the unspoken understanding for as long as he lived. He used to use euphemisms like “it’s as easy as riding a bike” when he knew I kept damned well falling off. This is the norm, I’m told. Occasional controlling parents spew their ill-founded opinions. The rest offer silence when the silly puns run out.

Controlling parents aim to censor inappropriate behaviours. These might include masturbation in public. A Talmudic branch of Christianity called the Baptist Church (traditionally) labels masturbation a “sin”. Offspring of Baptist families are surely dealt all sorts of psychological blows unless they adjust to being exceptionally deceitful.  When I was very young I remember all the local kids in my playgroup used to occasionally interact with [vaguely sexual] truth or dare games. My own junior sister was particularly prolific in her formative years. We lived in a rural Jacobean period farmhouse which had a winding spiral staircase to the upper floors. Between beams my father had lodged makeshift cream chipboard panels to form walls and these made as excellent “scribbling” white boards.

One day, after a rather heated discussion with my mother, my sister (then age six) drew a biro cartoon of a “matchstick” couple copulating to prove she knew about sex. I am not sure it was a masterpiece but it was technically sufficient for the purposes under scrutiny, earning an immediate deletion under a double layer of white paint. Interestingly my mother never punished my sister for that and said nothing more on the subject. What could she be “punished” for? Knowing the truth? It seems fitting to roll out Krishna’s immoral quote (a regular visitor to this website) once more, “Spirituality brings to freedom whereas forces of evil paralyse”. What would Krishna have said about modern day paedophilia hysterics?

Perhaps it is no accident that the powers behind their mischief “program” sometimes refer to themselves as the Annunaki Brotherhood. The Order’s iconography depicts a thick braided cross trapped by an unbroken wicker circle. Cosmically, a cross represents path choices but the circle closes off any avenue of inquisitive exploration. The icon, therefore, is the “prison planet” or Zionism symbol. It sets paralysis standards (put into motion by pharisaic usurpers); the ones Krishna described as “evil”. Social paralysis begins with restriction of will [of the child] to confuse the mind (spiritual centre) in order to produce broken, de-spiritualised adults (slaves by any other name). To socially outlaw sexuality is to remove the most fundamental of all birth rights. Bodies without minds are only capable of following orders.

But there is more. Few are aware of the true potence of sexual self-esteem. Potent life is contained in the chakra governing the erogenous zones from conception. Those that deliberately superficially attack sexual developmental behaviour aim to create literal zombies – walking dead!

Callous Abuses of the Word Abuse

callousNo one should honestly embrace this topic “in sincerity” without first addressing the greatest abuse of all current abuses: “paedophilia”. Perhaps it’s the circles I frequent, but I cannot fathom why more people don’t “get it”. Are you all so consumed with passion you cannot distinguish reliable information from the vagaries of conjecture? Jon Rappoport’s work on the disintegration of problem solving logic very much impinges on modern social conditioning, in my opinion.  Therefore, I plan to separately tackle the child designate sex issue head on, in isolation and as thoroughly as I am able. Be assured detail will be exquisite. A future release has already been part-scripted in essay form and aptly provisionally titled, “The Powers’ Proud Accolade: Brand Pedo”.

bushbillboard2Few today (of correct age) would have the presence of mind to remember that the transition from homophobia to pedophobia began in the 1970’s, perhaps inspired by the sexual revolution a decade prior.  The “powers” were quick to action a remedy against that dissent (which included droves of AWOL’s from Vietnam), and how to impose sexual sobriety was one of the foundation stones laid in 1971-75 plans aimed at stemming aggressive independent cultures (cults) non-compliance with aggregate society. Multiculturalism synthetically imposing “common goals” was sure to vanquish any notion of social independence. It was no coincidence that Britain had set the precedent for total censorship of pictorial sexual literature after a number of successful prosecution outcomes against publisher David Gold in 1972. Under his new business partner, the desperately corrupt David Sullivan, their new marketing policy saw grossly misleading advertising fortuitously erupt into an explosion of sales of legal censored or “soft core” topical picture books and films. Arguably “smut’s” new found popularity had arisen as a symptom of burgeoning bohemian attitudes reacting against prohibition. For instance, the same thing happened after Mary Whitehouse successfully targeted schlock horror “B movies” in the 1980’s.

Behind the scenes (though nothing explicit was produced by Gold or Sullivan after the court losses) extremist sentiment against “hard core” pornography in general saw a misdirection campaign that strategically positioned child porn as the undeniable progressive pinnacle of perverse licentiousness.  Circular logic fused “thin end of the wedge” and “guilt by association” opinion to fan misguided and erroneous belief that all things illicit are “related” and virulently spread like cancers. Predictably absolute “resolution” determined anything pornographic must be forbidden to “cure” harmonious society. Conversely, attitudes were relaxing against salacious (one time pornographic) literatures, after a case against Penguin Books over publication of D H Lawrence’s “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” was overturned by the British courts in the 1960’s.

ff-bild-1A pithy American current affair propaganda piece titled “The Children of God” (or something similar) made in 1971 (there have been several subsequent “documentaries” based on similar themes) ridiculed a network of community groups that called themselves The Family International (established in California by David Berg in 1968). According to the original documentary, ethics of the institution placed no age restrictions on sexual interaction between incestuous community members (a policy that radically changed in 1985). Production of pornographic literatures (examples offered were classed as child porn) was encouraged and sales were used to raise funds for the group. Unsurprisingly, film makers were only concerned with exposing perceived negatives and, beyond that, nothing was learned about the mission and ethos of The Family International. My personal research showed a number of cult members were pushed into suicide after trying to reintegrate into “closed minded” wider society before and after Berg’s (whose written legacy by no means identifies with vicious hysteria post documentary) death in 1994.

Homosexuality ran a different, though in some ways parallel, course, marked by virulent crusades against suspected public figures and all promotional publications. Throughout the 1970’s I would argue that it was viewed as a far greater social evil than paedophilia. Rather interestingly society’s whims so often seem adrift of reality. In more tolerant times, a relatively well publicised survey suggested roughly one in three males were clinical paedophiles. Other censuses have calculated one in five males showing bisexual tendencies. Personally I am inclined to take “statistics” with a big pinch of salt and that’s why I haven’t cited specific references. Even so, I am rather compelled to believe that the percentage of potential agitators for or against specific causes might disproportionately swell if people were a little more honest about themselves.

center_homepage_2Attitudes didn’t relax against gay communities until well into the 1980’s. By the 1990’s AIDS (or gay plague) fear, mostly a misdirection campaign or scam, had reached fever pitch and this, I feel, was the cause of softened social attitudes towards the “plight of homosexual men” (in particular). However, in my opinion, had Bill Clinton (an alleged paedophile, by the way) not made it as President of the United States of America, the “changeover” (from homo to pedophobia) likely would not have happened. He began gay favourable rhetoric which laterally blossomed through corrupt [mainstream] Medias. His appointment of Janet Reno as head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) mandated radical development of a “Child porn entrapment market” as number one priority.

448_1ice_cream_teenagers_composite_stv_rgbFrom around 1995 malignant advertising campaigns specifically targeted borderline adults as never before and these were accompanied by numerous arrests of teenagers and similar aged adults (i.e. 18-21) that had allegedly engaged in sexual acts. Those trading explicit visual materials depicting “teenagers” also came under scrutiny in a much bigger way than before.  Many arrests on the back of ignorantly innocent distribution networks included sensational pieces of “evidence”, such as a hard core stag film featuring an alleged fifteen year old Rob Lowe as “pizza boy”. Reno (who has been promoted as a “lover” of Mrs Clinton, also an alleged paedophile), incidentally, was the one that ordered the murder of innocent American citizens under the auspices of the 1993 FBI attack on the Dravidian (cult) community located at Waco Texas.

fathersdayplacards_page_4As mentioned earlier, I shall discuss the origins of the concept (and that’s all it is) paedophilia (which literally means to have an intellectual compatibility or love of children) in much more detail in the future. It will also give readers the opportunity to explore and evaluate some of the (inquisition style) tricks used to calculate confessions from targeted individuals or groups, manufacture the presumption of guilt “as charged” and regularly encourage bearers of false witness to commit perjury (in court). But, for now, I will only deal with that which is contextually related to the word “abuse”, which, I must say, in the context of paedophilia, is so vastly widespread, it may well serve evidence to justify multitudes of reports. The arbitrary nature of an inflexible (paralysis) and baseless (no scientific case) age of adulthood (currently set at eighteen, until the next foul referendum) should raise a cacophony of “destruction of liberty” alarm bells. I am fondly reminded of Krishna’s timelessly wise instruction, “The forces of evil paralyse”.

americanfascismPerhaps anyone else would have said “sovereign choice” in place of liberty. However, sovereign individuality potentially conflicts with social liberty and the distorters of “abuse” know that all too well. Mankind is heading towards totalitarianism, the only utopian federal alternative to communion, at a rapid rate. There are two fundamental branches of the slave/master paradigm. One is labelled Fascism. This version of order is built on the premise that the fabric of commerce is strong enough to regulate social charters. Evidence might appear in the form of something like, shall we say, corporate responsibility whereby employee-slaves are both bound by “the law” and their company manifesto. Under Fascist totalitarianism, companies seeking new employees (of all rank) would rate assessment of authority documentation (official identification, police check, bankruptcy report and so on) as the most important stage of the internment process. Penal facilities would be outsourced and run by privateers. Marxism, the alternative totalitarian system, is very similar, except the social charter is administered by government and, consequentially, core business might be nationalised to compliment that seamless authority.

Sovereign individuals disrupt utopian society (per the Fascist/Marxist models). Societies are governed by standards and these might conceivably be eroded by abusers. Therefore, logically, abuse of the word abuse relies on the distortion of truth, which allows the marginalisation of social values geared to reducing sovereign choice in favour of social conditioning (i.e. only “choice” to conform and not to rebel). Society masters impose order on members by the same methods parents use to oppress children. In today’s society children are broken into conformation (to conform is the only “choice”) for what can become lifelong family feuds that are amply exploited by “authorities”. The regime treats its members with common impunity. Children are conditioned into responding to but not respecting family boundaries. So too society’s parts are tolerant but not understanding of individual prisoner status. Freedom is limited to “they tell me this is allowed”. Abuse has been distorted to vilify the authority against “that which isn’t allowed”. True violation is certainly secondary (a sort of bi-product) and mostly irrelevant beyond ramping up any case in favour of abuse stipulations.

screen-shot-2013-02-12-at-9-40-21-amThe flawed logic of this philosophy doesn’t end there. If abuse is a symptom of that which defies freedom, our vile powers may as well argue they protect those locked up in prisons from the world at large. Under that premise, they would do detainees a great service. The whole foundation of abuse as a concept has been twisted to satisfy the crime (as it were) in this way. Expanding on my incarceration metaphor, it might be argued that though people may well be taken against their will, social disinfection actually serves the dual purpose of ensuring captive would-be criminals are locked into cramped cells “each for their own good”. The “powers” claim, therefore, incarceration is not “abuse”. Whereas currently, for my research, the justice system hasn’t made humanitarian assertions of this nature, it’s only a matter of time before it happens.

In the same manner sexually orientated child designates are persecuted under the guise of “protection”, the rules governing society transcend individual reasoning. The bi-product is an insanity which permits free thinking individuals can be stripped of all tenable rights and abused in spirit but not “under law”. Wayward laws were never in place to protect society, but rather to purge incongruous elements; those that choose to be different, set apart from the masses. A corresponding history of the delineation of order can be charted from the very cradle of civilisation. For the peoples of ancient Atlantis, administrative powers determined wrong doers should be scooped up and separated from the masses in order to purify society. Consequentially, prisoners (that were not routinely executed) were banished from their impenetrable towering citadel home.

20554984After the collapse of Atlantis, roaming derelict tribes (prisoner outcasts) gradually re-civilised and this encouraged the consolidation of penal codes configured to administer secure wholesale capture and disposal of enemies. Today’s confinement model was the natural evolution of those haphazard reactionary origins. That is largely why the modern day “justice system” is terminally flawed. It was built on a framework geared to exclusively serving the “in-group”. Incidentally, our price busting “captive labour” prison system fits the Fascist corporate ordained order model like a glove. If those detained were classed as “privileged” (rescued) by the system, what would inhibit it from billing them full board over incarceration periods? In the future could everyone be forced into bonded labour to “cover penal charges”?

Governments, whether supporting Marxist or Fascist policy objectives, are exclusively in power to construct the framework or refinement of “order”. Manifestos are only delivered by governments and not created by them. Even so, given those ever teetering cyclic oscillations that divine the “power sharing” poled between aggressive conservative and leftist opinion making, manifestos are also “open” enough to permit “the law” and its administrational infrastructures change with the seasons.  Dramatic “anti-social” policy making relies on false flags to subvert rebellion. Complimenting this deception government backed terrorists are routinely commissioned to attack in ways that ensure sponsored solutions [to fictitious problems] are both feasible and “palatable”. Were any planes used in the so-called “9/11” attack or was Fascist “News’” “live cut” really a stage-play of pre-recorded enhanced special effects (or, in other words, government sponsored propaganda)? Reasoning determining these ongoing travesties against societies is almost identical to the philosophic candour that claims to justify the distorted abuse of “abuse”.

earthinhandFantasy is deemed more vital than reality in so much as nature and everything vibrantly natural has become the subliminally targeted enemy of the spinners of make-believe. They, as evidenced by their non-existent reasoning that has become the graduation of child status on ever more bodily adults, assures their followers that survival of power is the only real justification for all social considerations. For anyone that questions this “balance of power”, genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) are all about demonstrating the “machine” can conquer nature and (from the inspiration perspective) have nothing to do with the manufacture of goodness. Unforseen dietary advantages innocently improve “spin campaigns”. An expansion of this, should I call it, platform insists presumption of guilt defines society at large (per an expansion of unknown nationals or “Goyim’s” categorisation as strangers that are presumed “untrustworthy”), with exemptions given to the honourable or those with the right credentials (in the “family”). Thus, everyone of “file” is a potential prisoner-in-waiting when not of sufficient “rank”.  That is the primary reason why “abuse” has been distorted as a condition of that framework (i.e. behind “presumption of guilt” is the contamination assurance that an abuse has been committed).

1481200216_maxresdefaultWith empirical clarity abuse is transformed into something material, solid, clear cut. It is something that can be tangibly used in a court of law. [Individual] circumstances become secondary, perhaps even arbitrary or elementary (i.e. if a “black and white” abuse has occurred; how are circumstances relevant?). In that fashion, any accusation becomes virulently more potent than all cohesive evidence backed defences (which risk being judged as excuses or hindrances). In other words, if “circumstances” are irrelevant, for abuse is abuse, then what is the purpose of evidence beyond obstructing the course of justice? Once an abuse is “agreed on”, all that’s needed is a wrongly done by claimant. That’s the lack of logic being applied here and that is why evidence is going to potentially obstruct the potency of any abuse claim (which must be true to be potent) under those farcical terms. Referring again to my mention of Jon Rappoport’s work, that is why the education system does everything and anything to block critical thinking. “Truth” is becoming so estranged from popular acumen; I fear it is threatened with extinction.

article-9146-heroIn fact immortalisation of distorted abuse is a feature of a watershed that is slowly but surely stripping away all sovereign rights. On this course when a “file” member thinks for himself it is potentially a most destructive act against the regime. Frankly put, the only way to possibly undermine the power brokers and their fraudulence passed off as “goodwill” is to outwit them. Therefore, I could well see critical thinkers labelled “terrorists” under threat of some capital offense or other at some juncture. Currently the Mental Health Act substitutes as the primary lateral filter. It has made damned sure that we no longer have the right to use our bodies in the way we decide. Examples to illustrate this include impingement on just about every functional aspect of life. We must wear clothes at all times except by arrangement when on private property. All bodily functions are limited in some way. I could focus on sexual reassignment of homosexuals, but the more obvious “for instance” is the denial of consenting sex between “minors” (i.e. all parties are legally underage).

To show just how fanatically lacking in conscience and common sense the powers’ lust for control has become, per their “abuse philosophy”, a statutory rape charge must be served on at least one party (all underage, per this example, let us not forget) when infractions occur. Thus, the justice system will determine at least one person has been abused whether claimed or not. To any reasoned thinker, potential consequences should be startlingly obvious. Predictably, there have been a number of judicial outcomes after no one embroiled agreed to being abused. In instances of this sort “the system” has been seen to judge everyone involved as having “raped each other”. How can that be? Is it possible for there to be perpetrators without victims or victims without perpetrators (depending on the legal insistence)? Surely this must be one of the best examples that conclusively demonstrate how unchallengeable validation of a concept can pervert reality.

20435060There must be no doubt that corrupt goodwill does pervert reality and it causes all kinds of nasty chain reaction consequences. I plan to explore what motives are behind and ramifications result from circumcision in “The Powers Proud Accolade: Brand Pedo”. Recently a commenter on Jon Rappoport’s blog asked if I could include her feedback on the subject in one of my public writings. Presumably of Jewish ancestry, she reported her sibling’s circumcision had contributed to a painfully vicious hate/guilt cycle that has persisted to haunt the family relationship and, ultimately, befoul the lateral mother/son bonding process.

Men are considered (by the Pharisees) to have much stronger libidos than women, so males are circumcised shortly after birth. Contrary to popular opinion, Islam was created to radicalise Judaism (as “Christianity” had failed in the Pharisees’ utopian quest) and circumcises females as well (originally Muslim males were cut to honour the prophet). However, if the ceremony is done too early in the female’s case, it risks destroying all sexual self-esteem (leading to frigidity). Therefore the clitoris is partly removed from girls around age six. It is not fully extracted as the function of circumcision is merely to act as a masturbation (inappropriate lust) inhibitor and not to create permanent dysfunctional sexuality.

Fake “abuse” wields as much power as “blasphemy”. The very mention of it should send shivers down the spine and not for noble reasons. In fact in its current use it marks the total collapse of sanity. Abuse is a winner. It can hang a court. It has acted as anchor to all past and current inquisition movements, including the latest one used against Catholic priests, Jewish rabbis and others that dare inhibit Zionist order. Juries are marginalised, perhaps superfluous even, when presented accused are “certainly guilty” beyond any doubt without need of peer review.

man-on-mountainFrom the provable “conspiratorial” angle I could argue there is a covert agenda geared to demeaning anything and everything that entitles communion. This, by extension, distorts purposeful living into desecration. Underpinned by many unwelcome corporate compliance terms, whether delivered through the private sector or “government”, the final step has been to vilify slavery (dressed as “employment”) as the fundamental point of vocational existence. Bearing in mind the “contract” everyone makes with God prior to coming into the world is to balance “living life to the max” and “revering the body as the temple”, real abuse, real violation has been mutated into something beautifully sacred. The powers’ grand coup, great deception against the peoples’ contract with God could not be more amply highlighted than by outlining how religions scammedbeliefs”.

how-to-pervert-realityReligions gave “God” a voice and it was a remarkable revolution, because God never actually said anything and none dare question what wasn’t said. In precisely the same way shadow powers execute government, the Pharisees control all religions today and the basic “blasphemy” indoctrination has been incorporated into Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. Perhaps there’s the odd tribal culture “exception” saved by lack of popularity, but the rationalisation has predominantly been a global one. “God” has also been incorporated into civil law federally, so religions have served their purpose and cease to be explicitly necessary. Through those wonderful pharisaic ideologists, God talks in mysterious ways. Mass indoctrination continues, unaltered by atheism, unhampered and never erring in the deliverance of the never spoken word.

4f6149372d027ff480b8a357edc0106dOf course, everyone “should” know the “word of God” is actually bullshit and “God’s values” are actually the Pharisees’ Laws. The real God talks through nature and that’s why they (the shadow powers) attack any known pantheist cult, attempt to destroy natural foods (supress organic, flood GMO’s), aggressively sponsor sexual “reassignment” and support, impose anything else that is sure to give nature a whack in the nose. Those believed-to-be vigilant “forces for light” (euphemistically calling themselves Truthers) couldn’t discover the “truth” if they tripped over it. Their spiteful and pointless crusade against phantom “Illuminati” power has failed to get close to coming to terms with the real evil doers and their so-called “Luciferian Doctrine”. Illuminati occultists (hidden ones) have scripted the greatest violation, abuse imaginable. The ultimate goal is poison the planet whilst “undoing nature” in an agenda determined to reduce humanity to abject trans-humanism, a globe populated by living robots if you will.

quote-the-masses-are-still-ungrateful-or-ignorant-they-prefer-murder-poisonings-and-crimes-george-sand-116-43-12Everyone seems to go along with the plan, blindly and ignorantly. The few that become aware do nothing meaningful to inhibit destruction in motion. Babbling do-gooders assume if it “ain’t noticeably broken, why fix it?” People culturally attune and do their upmost to maintain their selfishly favourable status quos for as long as they persist. Conversely, those that dare challenge their “hard earned”, wilfully fickle resources are despised. Per this haughty arrogance, ones that beg for support “must be” inferior parasites of the lowest character. How dare they abuse us by “expecting” donations and other spiritually draining demands? It’s not only the “powers” that callously abuse the word “abuse”. You all do.

Me Playing for my Supper

 

 

PayPal Donate Button

Donations Welcome

 

Why Atheism?

Writer at deskCommitted writer researchers should collect numbers of files separating various notes, information scraps and, perhaps, even relevant source articles sorted into ordered chaos. Because, for me, source articles invariably make different points or propose content that is not particularly relevant to illustrated paradigms, I don’t find these so important. Nevertheless, it is easy to collect clutter, perhaps with view to rebranding. Writing original content that parries with the educated spontaneity of Jon Rappoport, for instance, is a whole different ball park. That is what separates professionals from amateurs. For the seasoned few, thinking up beautiful, poignantly meaningful titles is probably the most challenging step of the process.

In my cache of “blog posts” mixed in with published content, I have composed eight new standalone working titles this year. Each, in word format, is content free and crying out for a spot on the Ozzie Thinker blog. Recently I created a special “to be written” file as many have been pending, neglected for several months. The item first selected was a lone blank page under the guise of “Problem, Reaction Deception”. Half an hour of serious brain straining came up with nothing productive by way of content so it has been put aside to tease muted inspiration. Of course, that isn’t to say I couldn’t represent the subject, but ideas were too jumbled, contrived and directionless for the Ozzie Thinker mission. Thus there was going to be no post on this topic today. “Prophesies, Predictions, Preconditioning” has punch. That would surely well up an avalanche of content? But no, it didn’t meet the requirement of the moment, so I selected the mildly innocuous “Why Atheism?”

Why indeed?

Comedian George Carlin entertains the crowd on May 1, 2003, at Veterans Memorial Civic Center in Lima, Ohio. Carlin, 71, whose staunch defense of free speech in his most famous routine "Seven Words You Can Never Say On Television" led to a key Supreme Court ruling on obscenity, died Sunday June 22, 2008. He went into St. John's Health Center in Santa Monica on Sunday complaining of chest pain and died later that evening, said his publicist, Jeff Abraham. (AP Photo/The Lima News, David G. Massey)

I am not a great fan of expletives. It has always seemed to me that when writers run out of ideas, have nothing to say on subjects explored, they stoop to base sentiment. Nevertheless one of my great heroes is the late but ever-present George Carlin whose foul terms sketch that dreadfully foul world around him. So, by the power of satire, I have used expletives with pride this time. Indeed, the conversational style of this piece, in part, reminds me of one of those deep, profound bar meetings, though, I assure readers, all information is free of intoxication. Also, unlike my other “to be written” entries, “Why Atheism?” at least had some content attached, though I cannot for the life of me remember what thought processes had conjured it or for what wider purpose I had been writing at the time. Oh yes, the simple message is straightforward enough by why did I begin with?

Conservation is “pointless”

Was the plan to foment yet another us versus them infomercial championing the environmentalists? The American “black hat white hat” syndrome is spreading to other parts of the globe. If the fantasy fits, then it must be unadulterated truth and you are either with us or “agin” us by that flawed reasoning. No, I will not sell out to truth because I like “side A”. Bullshit is bullshit if it is bullshit and not because who said it. The truth is non-negotiable.

There is a good reason for “conservation is pointless”, but the truth will not endear environmentalists as they are pawns of a largely hidden game. Jon Rappoport, I mentioned earlier, is one of the few that is beginning to get the gig, but it took him some time. He is beginning to see the light and coming to realise that light is very dark indeed. Let me rephrase that, for clarity. I said I only peddled the truth. The truth is I don’t know what Jon knows and I can only make assumptions by measurement of his writings. These, upon evaluation, have subtly changed over the months, years. He didn’t instantly draw the written conclusions he has. There has been a painstakingly thorough evaluation process.

reptilian human

I run another blog that specialises in matters that go beyond the human reality plane. It moves into the realms of mysterious paranormal, spiritual energies, hidden unseen forces with alien agendas supported by bizarre technologies that may make the impossible possible. All of this is part and parcel of what’s loosely termed exo-politics (which, from the Greek, means “outside the affairs of the people”). Exo-politics very much impacts atheist globalism. Yes, and the reason “black hat, white hat” is consuming other nations now is this is all part of the globalists’ divide and conquer strategy. To divide and conquer, you need “us” and “them”.

madoff_magazineHere’s a good example of how clever they are (the powers that control) compared to stupid human slaves. In the United States of America, corporate Medias (that represent the globalist governing elite) tell us that a very bad man has been thrown in jail because he conned a lot of people. This collapsed the housing market and saw honest, God fearing (but really, really complacent) folks reduced to homelessness. However, if you apply clarity to the picture, all their money is bogus. Yours is too. It’s not bogus because of the Federal Reserve or the “Banksters” or the Government or the Pretenders or Kevin Spacey or even Mickey Mouse. It’s bogus because you poor, stupid slaves endorse it every time you use it. By accepting it makes it real. That means some arbitrary bureaucrat can declare unoccupied housing (that would end the homelessness crisis in a heartbeat) belongs to someone important because of those pariah systems protecting bogus money. Ownership is ultimately imposed because of monetary support. If there was no money, rights would be determined by needs and/or priorities.Counterfeit-Money

Warm up over, let’s broach the subject, “Why Atheism?” Atheism runs deep. It perpetrates the core of existence and proposes spontaneous, hi-tech living robots must have no arbitrary right to anything as there is no God. You see, this is the primo [muted] message of atheism. Only historic ownership counts, providing the savages don’t lay claim to the land, because they don’t rate. If there was a God, then, ultimately, He would own all lands and humans along with the various animals, plants and insects would be ungrateful (is that the right word? Yes, I think it is) tenants. Oh how we whine! We are not even slightly grateful for our lives and then have the gall to complain when someone dies. The idea, survival of the fittest, is an extension of that reasoning. Per the “I’ve only got one life” ideology, I can amass 284 housing blocks with a write down value in excess of $1 billion and keep them empty because I am a survivor; I’m the fittest.

Why atheism?

god3 copyAtheism is because I am not connected to God as the communion umbrella linking all humans to everything. It means there is no obligation to support anything or anyone that contravenes the objectives of self-serving survival. With individual consciences battered and bruised, the people are expected to succumb to dogmatic laws that do their upmost to promote and enforce the agendas of the chosen few. If we take rhetoric and legislation defining murder, it has done nothing for the arbitrary massacres resulting from constant wars generated by the same bodies that lay claim they only exist to serve the needs of the people (creating strict policies designed to stop people murderin’ each other on their home turf). Over 1.5 million innocent Iraqis have laid down their lives because atheism wants to make a point. That point is it does not discriminate because every life is an expendable statistic when that suits the narrative line. Atheism doesn’t care.

Control does impact sharing. Just as with the farmer that regularly bombs his disused barns with insecticide to keep them clean, globalists have the same view about population masses. They kill off the pests with distain, using their dumb, ignorant militias. But hey, don’t fret.

It’s all for a great cause – Atheism.

To divide and conquer successfully you need causes; lots of them. False paradigms project environmentalists as the good guys supporting everything worthwhile. But the problem is “worthwhile” costs too much; there’s that bogus money again, so the pragmatists opt for industrial pollution.

Two for the price of one?

Two for the price of one?

What the eye can’t see must be ok, right? Remind me again; what colour is radiation? Well, it’s sure made some mushrooms and other things go funny colours in Japan. Was one baby born without a head? I don’t know, maybe that’s labouring the point.

Environmentalists either support or don’t support the scientists’ fake global warming and other strategies. That depends on whether they are with the mainstream or the alternative mainstream. Even “science” has branched into political fronts; notably geology versus archaeology. That’s because there is disharmony at the top and science religious-dogma is branded to suit the campaign needs of the individual sellers – those peddlers of reality. Believe it because we tell you what it looks like. Big-Cup-of-Shut-The-Fuck-Up_o_94445You’ve got to trust us. We’re credentialed scientists who know so much goofy stuff (pot calling the kettle black? But some good points nonetheless here). And if that doesn’t work, you’d better “shut the fuck up” because otherwise we’ll shut you out and send you to Coventry. No one will believe you after we’re done with you. We can’t have that reality bubble threatened in any way.

Look, I feel sure that there are many scientists out there that have done the research privately, instinctively knowing they are selling lies or distortions, but pretty much all have been warned by employers, peer groups, journalists that there are no go areas. The pyramids could only have been put up by savages using stone tools or some other stupid shit, in spite of the evidence, because that fits the dialogue. And it’s all done for control purposes augmented by bogus dollars. Medical too! Oh yeah, that’s the worst of the lot. Did you know they deliberately pollute the Earth to make people sick so they can heal the ones they want to “save”?

IMG_3376_resize

I feel we’ve come full circle. Now I am starting to remember why I wrote “conservation is pointless”. He’s not my friend, because I haven’t even met him, but I feel we would become friends if we ever did meet. So, by those terms, my friend, Jon Rappoport, has been tirelessly beating the drum over fake viruses, vaccines that seem to do little more than attacking the immune system and genetic modification of the foods we eat (we are what we eat, right?). Maybe I’ve been a little bit influential, because I said right out, from the start, that all (not “some”) viruses are caused by pollution. This isn’t some crackpot pseudo-science, because Wikipedia affirms my position. Let’s hope the “powers that be” don’t strike this reference because of me. Anyway here it is:

“[Viruses] are external particles that have found a way to exist in bodies whilst having no metabolic growth or reproductive capability”

Universal-Flu-Vaccine1Eh? Viruses are caused by inorganic matter that corrupts cell systems similar to the way cancers work. In many cases our bodies cope with attacks only producing flu-like symptoms but, in others, a virus can strip all the chromosome information (SARS) or turn cells into mush (Ebola). What’s the cause? It is the same in both cases: different forms of pollution. And, you know, the green monkey or the yak have different body functionalities (as much as “science” likes to humanise everything – one Godless standard for those damned accountants), so Ebola-style pollution symptoms might come out as, say, HIV in primates. Diploma Mill. Photo courtesy of SfaiezFancy that? That’s why the polio vaccine that was grown in the kidneys of chimpanzees and green monkeys transported HIV to humans that took the medication. Old failed chemo “wonder drug” AZT converted it into AIDS.

Apes as kingsYou can see where this is going? It doesn’t take too much to join the dots. Years ago, before the emergence of science, Kings worked with religions to control the sheep (this is the name given to the people by the Bible). Over time people became more and more rebellious, because the bright ones saw through all the superstitions (that’s the fancy word for bullshit). Anti-royal forces (made up of rich merchants with next to no royal blood) backed science to usurp power from the aristocrats. There were other methods and strategies, but the science route supports the dialogue thus far, so that’s the one I’ll explore.

Initially the religions still had enormous sway and the people could not do without their kings or queens. But over the centuries, incessant Medias challenged the reality bubble, finally smashing it with the onset, firstly, of the silver screen, but more radically with television – piped propaganda 24/7. People stopped going to church because of TV, so it’s not all bad. Ha.

henry-kissingerThis coincided with the sexual revolution, consumerism and mass production of vaccines in the 1960’s (also opening up futures markets in support of Vietnam…oh boy). Never a more ugly combination of factors altering the group psyche of humanity could be imagined. Indeed, it was the success of toxic vaccines and contraception geared to sterilise useless eaters that ensured people embraced alternative religions. But, no matter what badge they waived in authority, Christian, Buddhist, Jew, Islamic, everyone was atheist as all religions had been compressed into a common, centralised dialogue that supported globalist diktat.

Initially, pollution wasn’t taken seriously, but the New Age aspect of atheism pushed the idea of a nurturing authority championing environmentalists, accountants that stood against the negative aspect of wars, health and a new proto-religion that twosteps with Catholicism’s “cosmic Christ”. The United Nations was the universal atheist voice that cared; only interested in people’s wellness.

dbf8af596c9aac3de7d941df78515436

Atheism had broken the Russian peoples from 1917 and this was the globalists’ test. But, in order to confuse, they reintroduced religions there after the veil of communism (an alternative?) was lifted. Reinstated traditions may have been the payoff, but the problem was all ancient wisdom had been sucked out in order to reinforce the globalist agenda to deny conscience. People visit these houses of God to be good atheists.

reptilianBy the turn of the 19th century it was becoming clear how damaging pollution was to man. In the interests of producing able bodied fodder for war, mild attempts were made to clean up the globe. Nevertheless super speed technological advancements gave industrialisation an “energy fizz” which saw rapid acceleration of projects outpacing globe-saving efforts. indexAdvancements in medical science gave the powers confidence that they could pollute with irreverence because drugs would always save the chosen ones (or harvested organs for more serious complaints).

One of the great global polluters is oil (plastic is a bi-product that caused consumerism and mass production). This and toxic vaccines are designed to weaken everyone’s immune system (elites included). Bogus money supports both enterprises and the people are so mesmerised by it, they cannot break free of its hold. Oil is so powerful, it affects the value of money and this impacts the price of good drugs to use against pollution. Professional deceivers, parading globalist backed credentials, provide verbose overanalyses in loving support of their masters who, in turn, create armies of affirmers (or debunkers against the alternative position) to champion flawed or false churned reasoning.

oilcoveredbird

That is…why atheism?