When “Belief in the Saviour” Teases Corrupt Zeal

Traditionally I have regularly released a Christmas or New Year’s thematic to coincide with the so-called festive season. 2018 has proven to be a latecomer, but I refuse to entirely relax standards. Each winter solstice cycle I increasingly notice how little of Christ [from the Greek] is present in Christmas. For instance, there is now more or less a complete void once occupied by goodwill.

Satan devoured it,” howl the sanctimoniously superstitious

Yet superstitions should never be entirely overlooked. Every reflective proverb invariably contains a grain or more of truth. Current advertising beginning as early as “New Year”, embers of the “Phoenician” commerce coup ignited under concessions of Santa around the turn of the nineteenth century. Great threat Cossack Russia helplessly conquered and with America “under administration”, imperialism was to become the unchallenged voice of reason. Maybe Ebenezer Scrooge wasn’t such a bad stick after all, but I will elaborate on this sentiment in due course.

Before I expose the real corruption of Christ, it is important to clear the air over Santa’s ambiguous comeuppance. Back in Rococo times the ice countries may as well have been classed as the known third world. Few were hardy enough to brave the cold, but for occasioned explorers. These courageous travellers were at liberty to export remote tales of old, particularly when absent of viable bounty. In Santa’s case it seems that two convenient folklores converged as one. Whether any original account has been authentically preserved is unlikely, but, suffice to say, vagrant Norwegian sagas concerning an odd mystic figure (elf?) had proliferated out to “the West” by 1815 or ’20.

Historic development of the Western version is much easier to chart. By reputation, one of America’s New York newspapers made timely broadsheet announcements in December 1773 and the follow year. According to promotional content, Dutch families seasonally congregated to honour Saint Nicholas (a monk renowned for his selfless distribution of charity). Plausibly, theorists claim that Saint Nicholas was issued the pet name Sinter Klaas in the local dialect pronunciation. Evolution to Santa Claus is logically coincidental. Back in the early nineteen century, it should be noted that popular drawings presenting Sinter Klaas in contemporary situations barely resemble modern Santa. That commercial effigy is believed to have been the consequence of a life-sized model placed behind a Philadelphia general store window in 1841.

Scandinavian tales refer to a mystic figure that helped the children, although Christkind (Christ’s child) or Kris Kringle is usually considered the parallel German version. The original name (the one sometimes quoted is not authentic) of the historic figure is perhaps lost to time, but I calculate it was the missing ingredient that promulgated a natural evolution to Santa Claus. My use of the word “natural” here is figurative, of course, as there is a sinister side to this account too. Following Scandinavian myths, from around 1820 American businesses heavily invested in Christmas shopping advertising, strategically placed around heart-warming ditties (one can but assume were) inspired by the Norwegian mystic. Printed message cards were to come in en-masse from the late nineteenth century onwards.

Popular iconography attributed to a North Pole setting was introduced (in the West) by Clement Clark Moore, whose 1822 poem “An Account of a Visit from Saint Nicholas” apparently featured quaint eye-catching illustrations. Thomas Nast, cartoonist for Harper’s weekly, adapted visualisations for a feature spread in 1881 which made popular acclaim. Embedded traditions of present day rotund gentleman clad in cheery red suit gestated in the 1890’s. Promptly exploited by the Salvation Army, homeless men dressed in seasonal costumes were commissioned to venture out with the aim of collecting funding donations.

Masonic involvement in the creation of the United States of America is beyond dispute. Whether fabled Illuminati power brokers were the key instrumental agents will possibly never be authentically known or provable. What is unarguably clear is the American union was never set up for the people or, rather, if it was, “the people” were undoubtedly the select few. Propagandists went to work in earnest well before the United States was ratified as “one”. Corresponding messages promoting Christmas spirit in favour of commerce highlighted the ambitions of those that established the new republic. This style of subliminal tradition persevered throughout the occurring human rights’ transformation, perhaps persuasively haunted by Charles Dickens 1843 masterpiece “A Christmas Carol”. Incidentally, British Dickens had also written his Parish Boy’s Progress (more commonly known as Oliver Twist) serial 1837-39 which coincided (sic) with the Abolition of Slavery Act (1837).

I wrote about the truth behind abolition last article and inasmuch stated that no philanthropic goodwill should be attributed to the end of slavery. Human rights were reduced to tatters in order to fortify the needs of burgeoning commerce. One of the significant causal effects, in addition to labour exploitation, unprecedented spikes in crime and prostitution, was the emergence of numerous social charities. I have written about charities independently before too. If governments were truly set up exclusively for the people, then each charity must be viewed as a breakdown of order that highlights supreme jurisdictional incompetence. Today there are supposedly tens of millions of charitable causes which emphasises the ineptitude of governmental social charters. But there is another side to the conspiracy. Great writers like Dickens rarely (if ever) meaningfully expose the indelible link between charity and trade. Charities usually place funds in the care of the banking system available to purchase goods or services before converting them into “aid”. Funds not needed “in the field” are invariably locked into attractive interest bearing long term deposits. British “custodian of charities” (a corporate collective catering for tens of thousands of organisations) used to be listed second place below British Telecom at the stock exchange, so it is a lucrative cash cow.

Dickens’ squint vision is enough to convince me he worked for the overlords. Why else would have he been allowed to make fame and fortune? If his writings had viciously attacked “the system”, no one would know of them today. Without doubt his “hallmark” powerfully creative style made endorsement decision making easy. His deeply human approach surely would have been considered gravy topping by his endorsers. For example, “A Christmas Carol” (or “Scrooge”) did highlight the plight of the working classes, but the manner as to how merchants and those that governed exploited working classes was matter of fact, the way things are. In effect, Dickens ended up posthumously begging for charity from his betters. That was the limit of his militancy. Indeed, in the Victorian age knowing your place had been a very long standing belief attached to birth provenance (i.e. the result of karmic deliverance). Perhaps this is why he was allowed to paint such a bleak picture. Other of his novels feature “poor houses” (paid slavery) and debtors’ prisons, so it would be unfair not to lightly applaud aspects of his pioneering effort towards social conscience.

In fact he was far from the only dissenting voice of that era. Beginning with comparatively humble numbers from the late eighteenth century onward, by high Victorian times published attacks on “the system” had just about reached fever pitch. A significant side effect to all this is worth exploring. There have been many revisions of the English Bible, from the seventh century AD. A formal Revised Standard Version of the New Testament was first published in 1881 and this was largely a consequence of inertia of “social conscience movements” (notably who were alarmed by the excess of prostitution) in my opinion. British politicians such as William Gladstone expressed their dedication to God (apparently regularly administering sermons to fallen women), although it seems ironic that these individuals have been responsible for imposing some of the most acrid and draconian legislation on the people.

Cultivation of various popular “beacons of hope” was burgeoning commerce’s key strategy investment geared to combating radical dissent in such forms as suffrage protest. Christmas Santa was one such icon. It seems to me that it has been no accident seasonal spirit appears to engage commerce at any opportunity. In that capacity, Santa is the Christmas star perched on a commerce peak. Dickens’ criticism of Scrooge’s lack of commercial goodwill by not paying staff adequately empowered seasonal trading. For lack of better words, when [otherwise] slaves are affluent enough, they can buy more goods and chattel to ensure business perpetually booms. Broadsheets promoted charitable initiatives favouring trade long before the US republic (1789) was established. Santa, by hook or by crook, became a convenient figurehead or mascot. However, review of naming protocols places dark questions regards the ethics and ambitions of those that pioneered the Grotto cult. There is more to Santa Claus than is obvious.

Far from being a saviour, he has been known to splinter families consumed by obsessive greed. Those without funds sufficient for merriment (as Dickens bitterly highlights) are ostracised by “goodwill”. There is a giant clue as to why this is so, but I first need to provide a little background before I detail it. My other website offers many articles that cover esoteric and paranormal affairs. Coincidentally Satan was the feature of one long essay there. I say coincidentally because it is fairly well known that Santa also happens to be an anagram of Satan. In normal circumstances one would put the fact down to quirks of language, but can we be sure connections are accidental or arbitrary here?

Explanations will become a little complex because I first need to allay popular confusion over origins and meaning of Satan. In fact, while I am about it, I may as well cover doppelganger Lucifer too. Satan, for instance, is a very ancient term that stretches back long prior to Atlantis. Sanskrit is the closest dialect I have found representative of the “universal” first language that failed to survive Atlantis’ downfall (hinted at in biblical Genesis’ Tower of Babel). In that regard, perhaps all words were originally collective monotones and, with this in mind, Satan conveniently breaks into “sat” and “an”. In Sanskrit pronunciation reflectively impacts word values, so “sat” and “an” could each be attributed to mean many different things. Therefore, in the interest of correctness, I have had to draw on inherent sources to establish compelling historic and interpretative basis from considerations.

“An” is the easy part. Several ancient tongues use the syllable to signify “Almighty God”. In combination with Almighty God, various meanings of “sat” might satisfy differing wider metaphoric interpretations. Though the fact appears to have escaped surviving chronicles, Satan was the first star to ever bless the cosmos (actually initially revered as the Blessed Star). All stars deliver light. In spiritual context, light is sometimes called logos (which is the Greek word for information). Spiritually, “logos” extends way beyond mere information. It is the essence of truthful purity or, in other words, the word of God. “Sat” is the Sanskrit equivalent of this conceptualisation. Lucifer admirably compares. That name derives from the Latin and means “light” (lux) “standard” (fer). Morning Star (Lucifer) competing with the sun (Ra) as it rises based on biblical Isaiah’s (an unrepentant Pharisee) radical sermon is generally regarded as the significant origin of the usage.

Also worthy of mention, Akhenaten’s Amon (usually erroneously referred to as Amen) conspicuously forms an “Almighty God” (A-n) sandwich casing “m’o” (divine record) filling. Thus, strictly speaking Satan, Lucifer and Amon/Amen all mean the same thing (more or less), which is bringer of good news. Actually, wasn’t that what they called Jesus too? Nevertheless, I have explained elsewhere how the general message over time has been twisted into opposite meanings by miscreants with rogue agendas. Today the direct effect is both Satan and Lucifer have been reversed from bringers of good news to evil omens. Specifically, Satan [in Hebrew tongue] simply means accuser. The development of Satan as “the tempter” did not emerge until the late sixteen century, though attributing philosophies were clearly embedded in Martin Luther’s earlier rhetoric. Luther (himself a Jesuit) strongly influenced contemporary masonic alliances. Masonry is not the sinister cabal delineated by superstition. Merchants would normally associate themselves with one group or another in order to network out of trading necessity. The massively beneficial spin off was it made collusion and coordinated commerce strategies possible.

Not all collaborations were gracious. When stakes were high, gross acts of tyranny or injustice were sometimes deemed “end justifying”. One such conspiracy toppled Britain’s constitutional monarch Charles I, who was beheaded on 30th January 1649 as a consequence. Even so, after that atrocious standard had been set, beginning with his son puppet king Charles II’s reinstatement, the universal demise of sovereign royal power is probably best marked by Catherine “the Great” (no wonder they call her great) of Russia’s turbulent reign. Violent anarchism was an offshoot of that operation. Since Michael Romanov’s (nephew of Ivan the Terrible) 1613 accession to the Russian throne, there had always been disturbance with Cossack settlers (displaced Polish serfs who termed themselves “free men”). In accordance, numerous popular uprisings against authorities have been reported from 1591. Out of all these, it is the 1768 Ukrainian (Koliyivshchyna) religious massacre that probably most pertinently marks an authority shift. Reputation says killing was sparked by Catherine the Great’s “Golden Charter” (1765) which enabled retired colonel and cleric Maksim Zalizniak’s ambitions. Their joint mission was dedicated to purging Catholics and other religious minorities.  Politically correct historians are quick to denounce the Golden Charter (which also targeted Jews) as “utter fantasy” in order to preserve the queen’s “spotless” reputation.

Encyclopaedia Britannica’s first edition is dated 1770. From 1770-75 Russia is proclaimed the world’s greatest nation. By 1776 she may as well have been a sickly dog.  Many theories attribute reasons leading to the country’s downfall, but it seems to me that government ownership of the Orthodox Church from 1721 marked the beginning of the end so to speak. Post revolution “Communist” Jew Leon Trotsky’s unrelenting all-reaching attack on that administration was certainly no coincidence. Populations had been galvanised by the church. Replace it with alternative convenient social apparatus and you have society in your pocket. Russians were (and perhaps still are) extremely parochial and rather superstitious. This is well highlighted by the way they celebrate Christmas. According to legend, Babouschka (old woman or granny) misled the three kings (search for Christ) by giving the wrong directions. The Russian birth date for “Jesus’” is 6th January but festivities honour Babouschka’s eternal regret for her deceit.

Historians might convincingly argue fledgling United States of America’s journey to superpower status began in 1776 (phoenix rising from mother Russia’s ashes?). Constitutional democracy ended in 1789 when the republic (in Philistine Greece and Italy’s wake?) was formed (and currency changed), but it took until 1864 (ushering in the 14th Amendment to the constitution) for government to be reduced to a corporation. Commerce was the primary reason the United States was formed but it took the best part of a century (1776-1864) for satanic agents to exact their full plan. Today all governments (and their tax offices) are corporations and that is why the modern world is held to ransom by merchant bankers. I find it mildly ironic that it is in the powers’ best interests for people to “wake up” to truth which is of next to no advantage to egregious saviours’ causes. This suggests, at the very least, that all (or the majority of) revolution philosophies have been sponsored by the precise same powers that impose tyranny. These false rites of passage were sponsored because the deceivers knew they were guaranteed dead ends.

To define true evil, I regularly reference a quote attributed to the great sage Krishna “Spirituality (impetus behind creation) brings to freedom, whereas forces of evil paralyse”. What better way to paralyse than by introducing appealing commerce. Humanity would not be able to resist aiding and abetting the devil (d-evil). I don’t refer to the satisfaction of genuine “needs” here, although commerce can accommodate those too. No, here I exclusively identify non-essential extras; frills of commerce. Some argue that the introduction of pomp surrounding royalty (which has endured so long) is pointless. Lemurian monarchs for periods that precede historic record were visually indistinguishable from the people. Very ancient kings were blessed with God-like powers. They could be distinguished by deed. Today certainly, beyond their overstated assigned status and privileged upbringing, royals are no different to the everyman. At Christmas, pomp and celebration of non-essential extras is now encapsulated by iconic smirking Santa which suggests it is those behind commerce that crafted the whole idea of aristocratic superiority.

Is the clue in Santa’s name; perfect anagram of Satan? By the time of this red frocked (isn’t the devil usually depicted coloured red?) tempter’s universal notoriety, negative connotations of Satan were firmly entrenched. Indeed, so much so no one had heard of the Blessed Star (in relation to the creation of our universe) by then. Such is the case today as well of course. I presented some detail in relation to the truth (and reasoning behind it) that negative Satan was actually originally the mispronunciation of “Saturn” (from medieval times, although I think this reflects attitudes under Prophet Zoroaster thousands of years before) in this article. “Design” of Santa appears to vaguely follow the Babylonian Horus myth. Indestructible God could only be chopped up and hidden. In this instance “An” has been remorselessly sliced in two, “n” crudely wedged between “sa” and “t”. “A” brings up the rear and represents perennial impotence of spirituality under Santa’s spell. God is vanquished (decapitated) and his wisdom (sat) corrupted.

But for Babouschka, Christmas (Epiphany) would be mostly a hangover from the Pagan era. Evergreen trees (in particular) represent celebration of the winter solstice. From time memorial, tradition has always seen exchange of gifts, but pagans honoured their harvest, so communities would contribute fresh fruits and vegetables for the benefit of society. “The Feeding of Five Thousand” New Testament parable was scripted by Mark (or Marcus, a Roman aristocrat) and therefore one should question its purpose all the more. Though communal sharing of fish and loaves suggests so, it is unlikely Jesus (Josephus) ever administered a true harvest festival dedicated to the winter solstice. The Romans, on the other hand, did worship solar cycles. Sun-day is a tribute to that legacy. Per context, the alert may struggle to fathom why I bother to discuss this now, given Jesus’ notorious “Jewish” status. Let me explain why. Long prior to Roman involvement, Judaism had split in two. City folks followed autocratic regimes promulgated by those generally known as Pharisees. It is a style of “order” remains alive and well today, underpinning up-to-date management of global affairs. Back then remote, displaced tribes were guided by (what the right-wingers’ would term) superstitious philosophies which prepared for different “ways of life”.

Their brand of raw spirituality was in fact encapsulated by the essence of numerous of splinter groups and these had journeyed out to the four corners of the globe in search of paradise (colloquially referred to as Promised Land). One such autonomy was the foundation of ancient druids (not even vaguely similar to garish abuse, late eighteenth century neo-druidism). Rural “Essene” Jews were labelled Gnostics for a while. Though historians remember it as a new tradition from the time of Jesus, it is likely the 570BC exodus to Ireland (Promised Land designate) consisted of likeminded parties of anti-Levite (Pharisaic law makers) “revolutionaries”. These embers of civilisation plausibly could have “morphed into” the later druidic tradition, made more notorious by Avalon (spiritual centre and first mystery school?), which is located in southern England. If memory serves me correctly, America’s Pilgrim Fathers formally constituted a southern English gathering in search of purity. The point I am trying to make is there has been a persisting religious dichotomy ever since man reflected on his divinity. Judaism, God forbid, is probably one of the better examples of that

Celebration of the solstices seems a likely component of Gnostic tradition. Unfortunately, other than newly found (and possibly censored) bundles of esoteric texts hidden in Dead Sea catacombs and other discreet places, evidence of that faith was destroyed long ago. Neo-druids make a big hullaballoo over solstice traditions whereas I suspect the Gnostics treated these occasions as opportunities to educate. What better way to manufacture goodwill while celebrating nature could there be than a harvest festival? The idea of community sharing for everyone’s benefit is instilled in “The Feeding of Five Thousand” parable. Did Mark’s account confuse a solstice event? Perhaps we’ll never know, but, per context, the fish and loaves are distinct spiritual symbols and shouldn’t be viewed liberally. Celts (original druids) in particular revered divinity as something directly attributed to creative potence. They determined that all life came from primordial waters (something modern science propagandises?). If primordial waters constitute God’s physicality, then fishes’ mastery of oceans must be inspirationally hallowed. The Lord’s Prayer “praises God for our daily bread”.

Tribes, such as those that became the druids, who didn’t revere pharisaic order, separated and found new havens (free of tyranny) to root. It is difficult to pinpoint the precise transition which is the branch that became modern day Judaism. Hebrew was originally a cut down cosmic script. For instance, additional unknown letters are occasionally seen interspersed with Hebrew on downed alien spaceships’ insignia. It is known that today’s long standing Yiddish culture backed off New Hebrew because Old Hebrew was insufficient for competent business communication. The “pointing” of Hebrew text (which in practicality adjusts for a new language) possibly coincided with first world universal adoption of stamped currency (legal tender). Accurate dates are deliberately vague on origins of pointing; maybe 12th, 13th or 14th century depending on opinions. Does this vainly cover up the Khazarian Yiddish pact emanated from the Ukraine? As an aside, though the Ukraine is sometimes volunteered, it could not have possibly ever been fabled Khazaria as that land mass is submerged under oceans today. There is however compelling innuendo that posits for a plausible case recommending the Ukraine is viewed as the motherland by certain estranged Pharisees.

Few bother to even attempt to comprehend the severe civil consequences of legal tender. Enslaved populations are the product of oppressive and tyrannous welfare states which cannot exist unless supported by currency. Therefore, industrialist vipers initially introduced serfdom gradually, confusing the “free” into believing that this was an effect of their zealous benevolence. Once everyone was “captured”, oligarchs expanded traditional uses of prisons for purposes of “containing” those whom they did not want to socially enable (crude justifications supported by laws came later). Bonded slavery became the only viable social security option for those displaced by war, famine or for other reasons.

Truth surrounding vile treachery of the Magna Carta (marking the point at which silver currency exploded) is obscured by cheery tales of Robin Hood and his band of crafty thugs. As a treaty, it wasn’t a charter of goodwill towards the people. It in fact was open theft of free lands and the negotiated common rights of man. Courtesy of the Magna Carta, the vast majority of our modern populations could not live off the land effectively now, even if we were forced to do so and that is why industrialists lord over the document’s prowess so heartily. Rich or poor, mighty or lowly, we have all by some measure been transformed into slaves of currency. They say money makes the civilised world go round. That is why those with the most money invariably have all the privileges.

Where it came from God only knows, but there is a tragic old wives’ tale that supposes the ills of humanity are the fault of the Midas effect. Those with wealth are singled out as evil doers even though everyone (without exception) is greedy (sometimes euphemised as will to survive). The humble do not know extravagance so they neither desire nor solicit it. Most elites merely exploit human nature to the hilt, though they may not be fully cognisant of the fact. The reason Santa has become so popular is he epitomises the averice of the masses. That is more than amply highlighted in Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol”. Goodwill is leveraged to such effect that crippled “Tiny Tim” deserves to have the litter of his family’s desires steeped on him at Christmas for merely existing. Of course this selfish anthem ignores those hard to rectify gaping double standards. Why would “rich” Scrooge bestow gifts on relative strangers in place of his own loved ones? The real issue, how Tiny Tim’s father persevered under such irresponsible employment terms, is not discussed.

Well, they didn’t have unions then”, screams a heckler

Incorrect, but it will take an eternity for sovereign man to grow a backbone. The power of labour values ironically has always been very much in the hands of the people. If everyone refused work and put death as the preference over slavery, currency would have been rendered valueless from conception and commerce would have never commenced (in the known sense). From the point currency was introduced, a utopian objective has been to shackle the broad masses. Peer group infiltration and targeted populism were the chosen control strategies (branded psyops) used to fulfil the objective. From the day men communicated with each other, money (cuts of silver, gold talents, precious beads) and other arbitrary tokens of value have always been used to supplement barter trade.

Currency is different. Units are stamped by (and the overriding possession of) an administrative authority. Originally that would have been a constitutional royal. Now stock ownership is hybrid. Who is this Federal Reserve? Those that use the merchandise are subject to governing philosophies and rules. A dollar cannot morph into a million units of value because “someone” decides this is so, whereas administrative overseers might revalue a dollar if they decided the act was politically expedient. Germany’s inflation was a deliberate act. Other competing paper currencies were only partially backed by gold, but the illustrious Federal Reserve turned a blind eye. Whilst apparently contractually bound as servants (polite word for slaves) of government, they were able to turn a blind eye because they own all “backed” circulated money.

Wholesale cash enterprises were developed first by the Greeks and then by the Romans, even though the oldest surviving currency (assuming science is correct) originates from Russia. Subsequent European coinage values were extensions of the Roman legacy. It would be hard to formally prove (particularly as reference maps show Philistinia approximates the modern Palestinian territory region), but logic supposes that the Greeks and Romans were descendants of relocated Philistines (tall pale skinned warriors). Retreating from defeat by Babylonian Pharaoh and “Jewish” King David, Philistines first settled in Greece (on the doorstep of the Middle East). Since “great” Alexander’s conquest to rule the world ran out of steam, Greek politics apparently favoured secular complacency over global conquest. Hamstrung industrialists shifted their affairs to Italy and, over several centuries, built sufficient military infrastructure to commit to their globalist ambitions once more.

Incidentally, not at all Middle Eastern in appearance, then Babylonian peoples would have been classed as “Caucasians” by today’s sciences. Therefore notorious King David would have been a white man. Though only circumstantial evidence supports claims he was a Pharaoh, inherent sources advise me information is relatively accurate (i.e. the wrong pharaoh is referenced as culprit), which places grave questions as to the authenticity behind the popular legacy of Israel of course. History is far from circumspect here. For example those dreadful “Greek” Hyksos Kings that “conveniently” appeared to take rule when Babylon was lacking authority were likely Philistines, yet Josephus eerily reports them as Israelites. I say these were the first usurpers; these were Pharisees who support a fabricated Levite Alta ego.

By deduction, this would mean the “great” Caesar was a Philistine as well. Limited writings about him present a grave paradox. According to surviving texts, he was some kind of popular miracle working Ben Hur. Such are the qualities of his proposed divinity; some might rightly be compelled to believe he was Jesus. Of course this adds to the case that persuades Mark was a Roman aristocrat who cast Jesus in the Homeric style, perhaps even as an attempt to preserve the image of Caesar. The evocation would have made both instantly popular figures even if real lives didn’t quite live up to the reputation. Infiltration of peer groups and targeted populism is achieved in one fell swoop. More evidence is as follows. Peer group infiltration is embodied by Mark “Iscariot’s” treacherous conversion to Gnosticism (and later St Paul’s Damascus Road epiphany). There is no more popular false occult icon than Jesus.

Prognosis therefore is depressingly melancholy. Beyond the use of occasional repeated proverbs, not a single book found in the New Testament even vaguely resembles authentic Essene philosophy, including “John”. Scholars that first take the plunge and brave any of the Dead Sea Scrolls’ codexes are quick to notice the profound intellectual depth of content (making embedded philosophies extraordinarily hard to interpret correctly). Gospel writer Mark was Roman, Luke Greek and Matthew was a cosmopolitan Jew and obvious agent of the Pharisees. Enigmatic John didn’t exist, but the name (in its use) implies “God’s secretary”. His, the Fourth Gospel, was dictated by Josephus (as Jesus) through brother-in-law scribe Lazarus. One word only of Jesus’ personal volume has survived. Someone (perhaps many) in authority knows the truth about this.

Jesus’ own gospel was purposefully destroyed and the celebrated surviving second century papyrus was not a copy. It is a forgery. If it had been authentic, how could the document have dodged Philistine Constantine’s mighty fourth century purge?  Outright censorship of texts that contradicted or impeded Sol Invictus faith was the only literary amnesty of his inquisition. Catholicism’s Papacy was the removed Roman monarchy; therefore it was also yet another Philistine/Pharisee offshoot. The reason St Paul (author of New Testament Corinthians, Romans and so on) is occasionally recognised as the first pope (and last apostle) is to give his detestable writings (which smother any occasional glint “free of Romanisation” emulating the conscience of Jesus) greater credibility (and popularity, of course). Paul’s calculated role generally seems to suggest sour grapes after good times gone awry. Should the “Ideal” Jesus have gracefully “wallpapered” the uncomfortable political “marriage” between the Pharisees and de facto Royalty?

Look, I’m not sure when the Sanhedrin originally came into being or whether it really matters, but I notice a familiar pattern with “world affairs” stretching back at least the most part of two and a half thousand years. History informs me the Romans conquered lands located in the region now called the Middle East. Their haul included Israel (conquered by Assyrians centuries before). A consequence of one of the first acts of power was to usher in hybrid Arab (ethic nomads that roamed Aram or were these Assyrians or even Phoenicians?) royals to rule over Judea (separatist Southern Israel). First “despot” of the official Promised Land Moses (who compares well against England’s Oliver Cromwell) never referred to arbitrary bodies when making decisions. Tradition (after the burning bush) revered him as the direct link to God. All great prophet kings follow identical protocol, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Noah and the rest. Their decisions were their own and these “commandments” were a testament upholding their uniformly breath taking “greatness”. Nevertheless, when the Sanhedrin (or royal court) emerged sovereign rule was doomed to wither. Under Israel’s Roman occupation, that evolution was furiously ignited.

Though government is meant to be a mix of identities that reflect the goodwill of society, by reputation decision making almost always errs towards right wing (fascist) mindset. Values imposed by Sanhedrin courts depressingly crafted that motif

Reflecting on contemporary politics of Jesus’ age, overbearing Roman authority paid lip service to the whims of their puppet Arab monarchs provided they observed all the wishes of the Pharisees (who took the high seat in the Sanhedrin). That said, certain Roman emperors didn’t see things their way. Look how these (such as Caligula and Nero) have been “painted” (i.e. utter fabrication) by “history”. Judea was abandoned (allegedly) after the 66-69AD siege of Jerusalem (a chain reaction sparked by earlier infractions under Nero). Within moments of the exodus a new fully fledged “Christian” hierarchy pops up in Alexandria. Infrastructure is so strong; its governing church is effectively born as a corporation. Therefore, transferring authority to Constantinople was child’s play after the papacy was formally established in the late fourth century.

Emergence of this virgin Catholic Church exactly coincides with the shocking disappearance of the great Roman Empire. Over several centuries, the same Catholic Church made a bee-line to exert control over every single credible European monarchy. This is more than amply highlighted by records of battles against the Merovingian kings, which included the calculated murder of Dagobert II. The Catholic Church had become (by accident or design) a sort of universal Sanhedrin, which is made all the more interesting because the Jewish version abandoned its administrative authority after the second temple (though some argue it never existed) was “allegedly” levelled by fire. Thus far I have contemplated numbers of suggestions that could never be “proven”, but could it be argued the Nicolaitans were instrumental at re-establishing the defunct Sanhedrin apparatus in Constantinople?

There is more fuel for the fire, if we move the clock forward a bit. King Henry VIII of England did the unthinkable in 1534. After a bitter divorce with Spanish royal Catherine of Aragon, he excommunicated the pope and formed his own Church of England. That is why the vicious catholic versus protestant wars persisted long after his death. Thomas Moore chose death in absence of moral sovereignty, but the rot had begun to set in long before, even while bonny Henry was still in power. The Roman “Sanhedrin” had only been temporarily usurped by the monarch. It wasn’t long before Henry was surrounded by pious advisors, such as prominent “world’s richest man” Cardinal Woolsey. Only a smidgen over a century after Henry’s desperate act, pharisaic authorities decided they needed to well and truly shore things up (and claim deserved revenge). This culminated with the execution death of Charles I in 1649 mentioned earlier, of course.

For the first time in history (unlike the Greek and Roman Republics before) a civilian government shielded power beneath “protector” Cromwell, but fame went to his head and he proved more deistic than any king. That is the ostensive reason behind the government’s swift (1660) re-establishment of the British monarchy, which remains intact today. It was deemed an essential safety measure against any parochial ruling authority. King William’s 1696 rushed though Bill of Rights amply acknowledges the viperous nature of man (particularly when given responsibility). To the best of my knowledge, every subsequent constitution (such as America’s) has built in its own bill of rights. For the record, though we have been programed to believe that royal executive power was devoid of peer oversight prior to corporate takeover, the myth simply isn’t true. Monarchs were presumed appointed by God (perhaps after Moses) and, as such, bound to honour their constituents. Suffice to say some kings turned out more attentive than others. That in mind, when factoring in the emergence of outsourced legislation via organs such as the Sanhedrin, the deep question I find rather hard to resolve is “who was the last true king?”

Who is the rightful king is important. Gospel writer Matthew’s biblical genealogy was aimed at promoting Jesus as the hereditary Messiah (priest-king or “Christ” subject to certain terms and conditions), but was it David or Zechariah (Jesus’ uncle) that established precedence? Zechariah was not a pharaoh nor did he have any conceivably legitimate claim to Babylonian rule. Pharaoh David set up the twenty four priestly branches (spawning king making material) that were each to be deemed valid natural contenders for the Jewish throne. It seems to me that without intimate understanding of David or any of the many hierarchical values that bestowed him with power, ignorance over what substantiates “royalty” from pedestrian “rank and file” will perennially reign. Usurpers naturally capitalise on this schism. Indeed, the truth would be enough to bring down their phoney baloney house of cards.  Dissenting historians irregularly report of the wisdom of the Oannes, but where is it to be found now?

Jesus is fantasy, a marketing brand that coordinates a very special historic period. He was the event which preceded Philistine formal grasp of absolute power. Therefore, modern traditions that prepare a muted, ineffective “Saviour” emphasise corporate will to control (Scrooge had absolute autonomy over directions of conscience). In other words, when the huddled masses are suitably impoverished and hope lacking, their only alternative is to turn to corporate commerce (big government) for succour. That is predominantly why the “machine” has relentlessly pushed a socialist agenda over the last hundred years or so. Now the hundred years is up, we are very close to “end game”. Australia’s prime minister is a billionaire (or so rumour has it). America’s president Trump is a tycoon. America is the first “first world” country. Australia is the last “first world” dominion. This tells anyone that understands the “code” that the oligarch’s are now brash enough to boast “we’ve won and there’s nothing [you] the people can do about it”.

I have written about the truth behind Jesus “the person” at length before, but it is worth repeating additional detail again to bring some extra clarity to this essay. Anagrammatised Josephus equates to “give birth to Jesus” in Latin tongue. It is such a clever anagram; “metaphor” is implied through use of letters P, H and O. I am also aware that “J” is obsolete so, in this case, whatever normally replaces it works just as well. One of the apocryphal books casts the young Jesus so well educated in theological matters it is presumed he was the son of a High Priest. Josephus’ father was Matthias Joseph, a High Priest of the 24th line from David (i.e. as illustrated earlier, royal blood). Militant Jesus attacking money changers at the temple was so contextually uncharacteristic, whoever it was clearly wasn’t preaching Jesus (isn’t it “odd” that Philistine Catholicism forbade money lending entirely on those grounds and this legitimised Jewish banking, coincidence?). Sermon on the Mount from Matthew’s Gospel presents a pensively angry prophet, but not a violent one. My inherent sources report that the young militant man was none other than Jesus’ (or, rather, Josephus’) father (who also used the codename Barabbas).

According to these sources, in his youth, Matthias Joseph joined the revolutionary movement and was impassioned by the royal cause against Roman tyranny. Because Arab puppet kings met most (if not all) of the Pharisees’ wishes, Zealots (as these revolutionaries became known) were doubtlessly not too fond of the extreme right-wing establishment either. This presents a problem for those determined to rationalise the truth, which is embroiled in politics that are quite complicated. To extend my observation of the young revolutionary Barabbas who attacked the money changers, he was arrested and convicted of a serious offense. Theologians that have bothered to study contemporary Roman law almost universally agree that Jesus did nothing (as visually evident in the numerous religious records) to warrant arrest, less crucifixion. Roman Philistines did impose very harsh penalties (up to death) on any party that disrupted the supply chain (commerce). Moneychangers at the temple would have provided commercial supply and they were undeniably [violently] disrupted by Barabbas (under pseudonym).

The physical crucifixion event (per its convenient placement in various New Testament writings) was used metaphorically. I shall discuss metaphorical terms shortly. For now, let me focus on the event. Some have noted that the crucifixion was conducted on private land, which was unusual. In Jesus’ case, this would imply that Barabbas was either extremely rich, well connected or both. The land, we learn, belonged to prominent local business man Joseph of Arimathea, whose international business holdings were reputedly centred at Cornwall, England (Gnostic-Druid heartland). Josephus’ scribe was Lazarus, son of Joseph of Aramithea. Jesus’ “wife” was Mary Magdalene, Lazarus’ sister, so there are logical family connections here. As Miriam (Mary) has rather negative connotations (suggesting bereavement) in ancient Hebrew, it is not widely used. Mary, on the other hand was a very popular contemporary Roman given name, particularly in royal circles, as it bestowed heritage. Given this background, I am already questioning whether there was an actual crucifixion, whether the event was purely metaphorical? Ancient chroniclers were afforded great liberty in the way they expressed themselves. Therefore knowing how to read between the lines correctly is the key to understanding hallowed texts.

Before I discuss validity of the crucifixion in more depth, I need to make a few more associated observations. Presumption Mary Magdalene was never called Miriam suggests she was prominent Roman offspring. Could this mean the Joseph of Aramithea had taken a Roman Philistine wife? Was she of royal lineage (hence selecting Mary as the given name for her daughter)? I am compelled to believe that she would have been extremely important for Joseph to be on first name terms with Pontius Pilate, Roman Governor of Judea. Turning to Inherent sources once more, I am informed that a royal marriage was brokered between Barabbas (Jesus’ father) and another Mary. If, as some scholars like to posit, Jesus was a family member of the Piso emperor class, that lineage could only have come via his mother (as his father was a Jewish royal). Should this prove sufficiently correct, it would explain why the Catholic Church gives the Madonna such bloated “eternal” status against puny “dead” Jesus on the cross. Congregations from all over the globe flock to touch her miracle working effigies.

Presuming a marriage had been brokered between “Mary” (euphemistically known as mother of Jesus) and Matthias Joseph (father of Josephus who “gave birth to” and was literal Jesus), contemporary politics would have been revolutionised (endorsing the Pharisees’ political intrigue). In conjunction, the undeniably hard to resolve question is “why did the Pharisees back clemency in favour of Barabbas (father of Jesus)?” unless there is more to solving the puzzle than meets the obvious eye.  Does this suggest that Jesus was a recalcitrant heir (hinted at in the Prodigal Son parable)? If Matthias Joseph was an integral part of the establishment, then Josephus almost certainly defied the wishes of the father. Failure of his preaching tour in the Nazareth region highlights the discontentment. Nazareth, at the time, was a hub for the well-to-do and privileged classes, so naturally political preferences erred towards hard-line right-wing philosophies. One can but presume that Matthias Joseph, as the bastion of civilised society and honoured revolutionary, had strong ties to religious order (i.e. the Pharisees). Josephus was comparatively Bohemian (again implied in the Prodigal Son parable).

Whilst alien to traditional Gnostic writings, all Gospels identify Jesus as a renegade preacher who associated with undesirables (“outcasts”). He is both against the rooted establishment (though quotes from “Law” at every opportunity) and oppressed civilisation (measuredly). Socialist content embedded in sermons would fare so well, proverbs have been adopted by modern day democracy movements. Courtesy of his royal status, Josephus did have friends in high places that shielded him, but they were still pillars of mundane society that were forced to corrupt certain values to remain in power (and use aliases when assisting renegade causes). This is perhaps casually camouflaged by Jesus’ association with outcasts (inwardly well meaning, but outwardly dishonest). Therefore modern day belief in “the Saviour” relies on corrupt zeal. Zeal, in turn, has transformed into a fanaticism cultivated by corporate religions. Individual beliefs are singular matters of faith, whereas idolatries become authorities for those that chose to apply “so called” blind faith (a grotesque form of ignorance).

Individual beliefs must be questioned to improve constancy, whereas determined authority erodes opportunity for zealous fidelity

Jesus would share Josephus’ birth year of 37AD, unless historic accuracy is obscured here. There are niggling problems with this date particularly when factoring in the most practical chronology allowing for his two and a half year ministry. The Siege of Jerusalem is the obvious choice as a correlating time period which I would say is the only plausible term of upheaval within range significant enough to profitably bolster a prophetic preacher’s missionary tour. His audience would have predominantly been Jews recoiling from ever widening Roman reprisals. Under such conditions, the siege must have been deemed the “final straw”. Adding to my case, Jesus’ journey has been retraced by geographical experts. Median chronology fits against the siege timeline like a glove, therefore I deduce the ministry ran from 64-66AD and that is why the first Gospel by Mark was published sometime after 68AD (long enough to source witnesses, conduct interviews, correlate notes, write, edit and publish a manuscript). There was no oral period as has been “supposed”, because it made no sense anyway. The contemporary Jewish connotation of what was meant by “Messiah” (then) is very different to the hybrid evolution (distortion) that prepares our modern day Catholic sacrificial Son of God “Christos” (or Christ) who “died for our sins”.

Considering proximity against the siege, details of Josephus’ geographic movements do appear to cultivate the “swashbuckler dodging authorities” narrative line. That’s why Jerusalem under siege was last stop – a fait accompli. According to Matthew’s Gospel, one of Jesus’ first acts (after collecting his posse of disciple bodyguards) was to request baptism from his cousin John (son of Zechariah). Traditionally a Jew reached maturity at age thirty, yet was the 37AD birthdate to be correct, then Josephus would have been twenty seven years old if the chronological positioning was accurate. Although the Roman equivalent was age twenty five, there is another explanation. Hebrew chroniclers did not necessarily place events in correct historic order. Prosperity very much justified the means. It seems more likely, in which case, that Jesus was baptised at the end of his ministry when he had built experience worthy of exalted blessing. Authority did not make purges against perceived threats until after the siege (identifying why there was a rapid exodus away from the region directly after 70AD). That is when John the Baptist (contender for the Jewish throne) would have lost his head. Josephus was only spared from the inquisition because of his royal Roman blood.

Mentioned earlier, Jesus was not crucified as there was nothing he did that could justify the punishment under Roman law.  His father, under the pseudonym Barabbas, may have gone through a ceremonial or mock crucifixion. Perhaps others followed suit, such as Simon of Cyrene, to honour the event. Ambiguous Turin Shroud (under care of the Catholic Church – that should instantly raise alarm bells) is a prop designated to fool believers. Beyond doubt, the item belonged to Jacques De Molay Grand Master of the Knights Templar, though only Michael Baigent has had the courage to attest truth in his mainstream publication (Holy Blood, Holy Grail 1982) for my research. Following Molay’s heresy conviction (under Catholicism), he was crucified (1314) in a manner that traced details laid out in the New Testament texts.

Metaphorically, depending on the event’s positioning, in the biblical context, the crucifixion represents the death of Gnosticism, whereas resurrection equals triumphant rebirth in the form of Christianity. The very earliest brand is likely to be Arianism. We can see the stem of Arian-ism is Arian or Aryan, so this should volunteer major questions from the alert. Didn’t Hitler worship a mythical Aryan race? In fact, of all the ancient (pre-biblical) races “Ceres” is the type that most closely represents Ayran characteristics. Significantly, Aryans are attributed to be pure Atlantis stock (alien genes were added to replenish humanity after the fall). This fits the overall picture, because traditions (including a weight of generally unrecorded information referenced from inherent sources) suggest the Gnostics went to extraordinary lengths in their attempts to rekindle Atlantis society. Some of their more sacred traditions, which included embedded magic (notably applied by practitioners of authentic Druidism and, hence, the elites’ interest in attending the mystery schools), predate known civilisation.

It could be argued that the whole concept of monachal divinity was ushered in by Atlantis. Accoutrements include the royal sceptre, which authentic versions are magic healing wands doubling as laser weapon. Bona fide royal orbs are holographic truth generators. A king’s crown bestowed the wearer with supernatural powers. Gnostics (visually expressed in the culture of Babylonian pharaohs) tried to approximate traditions as closely as possible. Below the Atlantis umbrella, society was guided by God who assumed formal presence in human form (i.e. this notion derived into “son of God”). As far as I can ascertain, Atlantis Gods were normally male, but on (or inside) other worlds, females preside over divinity. Per alien custom, these strange Goddesses are usually escorted by what we would call “prince consorts” (heirs or court champions’ suffice). Perhaps this is why some detailed truthful accounts tabled in ancient legends come across as ludicrously farcical.  We humans know only the human way. Therefore, non-human cultures are destined to either shock the system or captivate imagination.

In the interest of clarity, Gnostic-Jewish belief supposed the messianic priest-king (Christ) was the blessed divine embodiment of the people and that is why Jesus is euphemised as the Son of God. Even so many [differing and sometimes contradictory] messages can be delivered by a single fragment of text. Researchers should assure themselves a purist’s Messiah’s wisdom would put Solomon’s childish antics in their place. Ridiculous emphasis on the Pharisees’ salute to valid laws has ruined any chance of divine virtue governing man. Old Testament sermons dictate a path to enlightenment so rigid, any traveller is guaranteed crippled from the off. That is the reason paradoxes are so plentiful, “issues” seem to loom every few verses. Per these auspices, how could religious traditions be anything other than viscerally dishonest? My heart goes out to Italy’s La Befana . That bonny witch on a broomstick does more for Italian children than any pompous pope could dream.

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).

A Modern Day “Love Cult” Assumes Detracting Truths Are Heresy

Trung-Nguyen-The-Lovers-Tarot-CardsI presume I have lost another Christian truther Facebook “friend”, Doug Bates, who will be mostly remembered as one too cowardly to face the truth. Affectionately known as Master Bates, the child of God showed glimpses of promise but ended up succumbing to common narcissism. Never have I un-friended a Facebook contact nor will I. In my humble opinion to do so would be a form of treachery. If I can’t face unwelcome information, I can’t face myself. My only “right” is either to respond or not as the case may be. The only sincere objectives of a God loving person are to excel in truth, spirit and heart. Of course not everyone has been efficiently groomed in etiquette to comply with the phantom conventions of civilisation, so when I am faced with extrovertly rude or intimidating sentiment, I tend to reply with enhanced like for like. Spirited responses may be many times more repulsive than any challenge. Tough talk negates far tougher love. Confusingly, the equilibrium of mutual desire can be equally well achieved by inspiration or exacerbated communications. Inspired connections are far pleasanter and so much less time consuming, but humans love to “butt heads”.

imagesofJesusandbuterflyandchi8ldMy Facebook channel is littered with identical sentiment that approximates the proverbial greasy pole or, perhaps, something akin to pushing dung uphill. The same old clapped out culturally chic quotes about 9/11, legal marijuana, “Saint” Tesla’s free energy, anti-chemtrails, toxic vaccines and abolishment of the Federal Reserve go round and round and round like doses of bad breath. They fulfil the pointless, nihilistic ambitions of their apathetic “Prophet Pimp” promoters. These folks are not libertarians in any way other than they feel the world owes each of them, individually, a living. Sovereign greed means everything, to them, should be free entailing no personal sacrifice, naturally. In fact the gall of these people is unconscionable. They don’t expect to give any of their precious “hard earned” wealth or “social status” up. Only those conveniently “appointed” rogue authorities that mostly identify designated evil and “superrich” masterminds of tyranny must suffer silently. Apathetic masses have been leeching off “the system” ever since leeching was invented, supporting it by will and deed. The slither that have supposedly broken free remain as firmly attached to the system as ever. Lip service is all that distinguishes love occultists from normal, everyday “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” folks.

I give it to the love cult philistines “as it is” on Facebook and, well, as I have already stated, masturbators of Doug’s ilk simply irresponsibly disconnect. Is it not logical that masturbators would absolutely insist on personal gratification ahead of anything else? Of course this leaves truth in a pretty desperate, lonely place; how about out languishing on the arctic ice shelf or deep in the bowels of heck – places only fit for the most determined hardened, illuminated adventurers? Truthers claim they are Christians. Has any one of them read Luke’s Prodigal Son parable? Self-gratification encapsulates desire and I have plenty to say on the subject in an earlier article here:

“There is no good or evil. These are brands. There is only desire or its antipathy “un-desire”. Where desire and its antipathy are not present, ambivalence reigns. Ambivalence is a state of not knowing, perhaps ignorance. Law makers count on ambivalence when they express legislation couched in rhetoric personalising fanatical desire. Other views neither have influence nor are accepted, however cogent. Their desire will win at any cost.”

alex_jones_cropJon Rappoport is one of the few tireless journalists that put the issues ahead of ambition and personal gratification. He has even managed his relationship with the questionable, animated Alex Jones admirably. It is only the most refined journalistic license of unfathomable brilliance that could present court Jester and “Clinton cousin” Donald Trump in an almost palatable light. It takes consummate divine craftsmanship to convert a depthless cartoon into profound reality and Jon shows his genius over and over. Though I haven’t been fortunate enough to access any of his technical writings, colleagues that have inform me his earlier works are impeccably inspiring, though the later stuff is comparatively surreal and consequentially less appealing. Channelling of the imagination in an effective way and being true to it is the key to personal sovereignty. Thrashing that message home is our joint mission but we also have different styles/methods, which illuminate different perspectives and approaches to the same ultimate goal.

If I had my way everyone (including you) would be required to undergo the truth test. As I see it, in its best form, this would be an audit of changes to individual core beliefs (i.e. you used to believe the world was a sphere, but it has now somehow become pancake flat in your opinion or vice versa). The audit wouldn’t extend to deliberate or white lies. Did your dad ever roll home from “the shops” on wobbly feet with no shopping smelling of strong mints and you swore on your life that he hadn’t been to the pub so mum wouldn’t explode? No, I am talking about your unshakable beliefs that UFO’s don’t exist, no one can govern better than the Republicans, guns don’t kill people, how “science” is infallible, GM mosquito Zika fever and anything else that is largely backed by emotion in absence of any meaningful and unbiased data. I am talking about “I believe I am a Christian because that is what I was brought up to be”. Lord knows, I’ve criticised dishonest atheists many times. Atheism was the principle topic of this article of mine. The truth is that there is no difference between religious deceit and the void offered by heretics. Religion and atheism covers up the same basic ignorance. Followers have neither been committed to nor wanted to explore the detail in order to validate their beliefs.

QQmqXtQZRichard Dawkins’ beliefs’ validation technique does not explore the detail. In fact it proposes the reverse position: denial and ignorance to truth. For instance, in order to dismiss Islam you first must understand it in absolute depth. Time poor students are not absolved from due diligence. They can’t say, “That’s ok, I’ve got a sick note from mum to say I can’t do it”. So many pretend to talk with authority about things they know nothing about often aided by cute proverbs taken wildly out of context. That is not basis. When vital clues are missing through lack of reference materials, any culminating pictorial assembly can only be a distortion of truth that risks dissolving reality. The summary is superficiality. Is not the truth all atheists believe in God? They reject religious gibberish, but go no further in their lack of spiritual ambition. The same can be said for the branded religious. Neither camp is honest. That is why I can confidently say no one could pass the truth test with full marks. Everyone has some maligned beliefs. But that wasn’t the point. I have already exposed this in several prior articles. It is impossible (given the time we have available) to pay much more than lip service to everything we know, but have you sacrificed any of your “core beliefs” to studious diligence? That is the question being asked here.

Jon Rappoport has published a number of books and contributes regular articles aimed at empowering sovereign individuality. The key to individuality, as he has recognised, is imagination. Positive imagination helps individuals break free from the system for without it there would be no new ideas. In fact, given that prognosis, belief systems are a type of cancer. Blind beliefs or blind faith equates to ignorance. Governments (the group view) turn untruths into truths by distorting facts that capitalise on unchecked blind faith. They then do everything in their power to monopolise proscribed fantasies based on these distortions. Jon and I both know that and that is why we, in different ways, offer such important contributions to the philosophic accord. His love is softer and he’s popular. Mine’s tough as nails, so I mostly attract spiritual masochists or cloaked government trolls seeking debunking strategy ammo (e.g. you must first know the devil to tackle it). Truth, in essence, cannot be manufactured so why do we all stick to our redundant, failed, unfair and unrepresentative beliefs?

7284c6cc0079139894dc619eb72f2b83Personally, I still shy from truths I suppose are “ridiculous”, “couldn’t possibly be so”. Nevertheless, I also constantly review what I know and have the open philosophy that I have no beliefs. It is not just because everything is static. My capacity to understand is limited by experience/information available [to me], perspective and accrued judgement. Yes, we all judge all the time, even those that insist they don’t. “I used to meet with a lovely old man. He was one of the nicest people I know, but then I found out he was a paedophile. Now I hate him.” How could that be? Nothing changed, except you received some unverified (which, in this case, we will pretend was correct) information and judgement either overcame reason or exposed vanity.  Many feel stupid when correcting themselves. Ego plays a big part in harnessing belief systems. Egos are the hinge pins of the modern day love cult. Perhaps I should serve myself up as the sacrificial lamb. My yet to be published book “A New World Order” (in the draft version) announces “Nun refers to primordial, creative waters” (in the literal sense). That version was written at least 18 months ago and has been rightly contradicted in my latest Exopolitician blog post “Serpents and Ladders – Introduction” where I update my position demonstrating I can change my “beliefs”:

Nun is compared to “darkness” and Aki the “light”. Extrapolating further, prehistoric darkness is not our superficial “colour” (or lack of), but, rather, the primordial dark waters of infinity. Some might suppose this adequately supports the fertile ooze notion evolutionists claim was at the root of man’s origins, but not so. The term refers to space which contains a sea of undetectable atomic matter used to create everything; animate and inanimate.”

This article, in correct context, happens to plug my first (and perhaps only) published book “The Beauty of Existence Decoded“. There I stress the insistence on PayPal donations now as I appear to have suffered the Hollywood fate of agent “inadvertently” running off with the proceeds. Naturally, I have had to temporarily withdraw all other purchase options. Let’s hope the blighter spends the embezzled $26.50 wisely. Some may wonder why so few sales have been made. Is it because it was a badly written book? It may well have been a badly written, depending on writing style preferences, but Hitler’s Mein Kampf sells (note the present tense) comparatively well. The reason my book hasn’t sold well is it is too profound. It is a celebration of sovereign individuality and that good will goes against everything love occultists stand for. Simply put, they would prefer to rebuff anything that has a chance at disaffirming those shallow belief systems I discussed earlier than face the truth.

That is why my book has sold poorly. Hitler’s “badly written” Mein Kampf offers mulched populism so it still sells very well. Seasoned trolls supporting the Jewish cause also like to labour the point so they use the work to anchor some of their exaggeration campaigns. Hitler is not renowned for charity, thus it is hardly ironic that his ideals have largely become the basis for the modern corporate “commerce” versions (you scratch my back and I stab yours). In fact all NAZI ideals are now corporate edict in some shape or form. Charitable donations for those “outside the group” defies projected corporate normalcy and the grander obscene mission of the love cult (i.e. they are behind censorship too). Thus, it is only books that are deemed worthy because they largely affirm belief system that are purchased to read. Supporters without reading ambitions might donate for books to charitably show appreciation of personalities or “causes”.

Borg_LoverTherefore people really don’t want to know Tesla’s secrets. They, as “borgs” of the love cult, only pretend to profoundly look up to icons like him in the spirit of ignorance to both preserve vanity and cash in. Remember everyone one of these parasites obsessively blocks all routes to disaffection or, in other words, any information that constructively and comprehensively demystifies the illusion. In Tesla’s case the only superficial interest is capitalising on free stuff, such as energy and absolutely not understanding or comprehending his genius.  That would ruin the mystery. This is a good thing for prosperity because if any more was known about Tesla than is currently circulated; he might be given the Hitler treatment by those doe eyed believers that had their faith “done over”. The same basic crew have been the ones protesting about inaccuracies (sic) of Wikipedia. Yes there are lots of lies circulated by that online encyclopaedic resource but none are placed in the campaign’s spotlight. Love vampires are exclusively besotted with manufacturing their own brand of fiction. When the devil is presented as “God”, truth and all the trappings of sincere knowledge are alien. Integrity, honour and due diligence evaporate as ghosts’ whispers.

Capitalising on free stuff without giving anything up is the only sincere ambition of just about every love occultist than aren’t suckers. The same foul hearted individuals are onto all those government benefits like rashes to save skin. Feeble protests are always anonymous because in every other way they back “the system” to the hilt. Far from rejecting it, as they like to constantly boast, the system can’t extricate them. Free health, police, transport, social security? Yes to all of those? Hate the Federal Reserve, but love the Federal Reserve governed banking system and its worthless money. The love cult mantra is, “we speak double Dutch and do double standards”. Let’s face it; with the exception of the pot heads, close to none of those vain protesters against the medical system would actually take alternative measures if they genuinely thought they had a life disabling illness. They are all talk (gibberish) and no action.

Ok, health and wellness (as the UN likes to call it) is a funny thing. Strange things can happen to minds when the body is threatened and that’s why the mainstream invests in alternatives. They invest in case the poisons offered up by medical institution quacks promoted as doctors become too unpopular. So desperate is the medical cartel to cover its tracks, it attempts to camouflage detrimental medications and statistics. Thimerosal was added to vaccines under the vagary “preservative” because that circumvented the need to identify obviously suspect ingredients. Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) denies meaningful responses to vaccine deaths in an identical way. “Generically neutral” terminologies distort meanings, threat alerts obfuscating truth. Incidentally, all “syndromes” are make-believe as it is the label given to learned responses against data that defies current science status quo (or anything that fails to comply with cultivated synthetic reality).  Anyway, time for a video empowering anyone thinking about undertaking a “medical education”:

Syndromes are fickle attempts at explaining the unexplained. The reason that what should be regarded as preposterous hocus-pocus constantly “catches” imaginative audiences is the vast majority of even supposedly thinking people are insolently sincere about their bullshit backed beliefs. Syndromes are reflective of corrupted knowledge; effects passed off as truths. When I disagree with Jon Rappoport, I go right out and say it. I don’t criticise as if it is in the vein of some grand contest between giant alter-egos. My duty is not to slander of slur. It is to research, collaborate and present similar or differing findings/conclusions.

GFM-MEDIA-ITUNES-1400x1400-FOR-THRIVE-LANDING-PAGE1Another writer I admire goes the whole hog. Brendan D Murphy’s “The Grand Illusion” is the result of a monumental Noam Chomsky style writing project. Upon reading, for the first time I encountered content as dense (or condensed) as my own “The Beauty of Existence Decoded”. Brendan somehow manages to squeeze up to ten pages worth of information into every published sheet which theoretically expands the 500 or so “by normal standards” to an encyclopaedic 5000. His content is 90% “known” whereas the majority of mine is “new”. Given Brendan’s enormously important contribution to comprehending truth about existence, does he sell as many books as Adolph Hitler, for instance? I suggest you ask him for yourselves, but make sure you purchase a copy first.

When thinking people that should know better refuse to discard bullshit backed belief systems, uncompromising ignorant prejudice manifests as a virulent form of cognitive dissonance (usually incurable) to overwhelm faculties that govern reason. As with other theoretical viruses, anyone associated with others that display disease symptoms seriously risk becoming infected as it attacks the human libido. Those particularly susceptible to currying favour, popularity, compromising dishonesty or with poor attention are at highest risk. If you are even slightly popular, the chances are you already have mild symptoms but there might be a cure providing you apply the following measures. Assumes snappy “one line” proverbs or quotes are loaded.  If you can’t find the flaw, catch, deception, seek help. La-la land is not reality. Understand that and you are well on the way to recovery. God doesn’t love you. The universe won’t look out for you, but also if you exclusively and selfishly “look after number one”; I guarantee you’ll come a cropper.

Not realityLa-la land “love” never manifests because the whole “gig” is based on selfish infatuation. When circles of infatuation cross, wars begin. If you like, love, want to help, admire another, it is infatuation and not love.  Only when the reverse is so can you truly demonstrate your loving qualities. You can only show those you dislike, hate, detest and rather were dead your capacity “to love”. Our modern day love cult is nothing more than a destructive trading mechanism that leverages cooperation from vouchsafes. It is everything false, fake, trivial, synthetic and ever so, ever so vain. Everything being used as idealistic points of contention today have been used before and the response to the cries for help launched inept, deceptive, self-serving, reality-destroying, as human as human can be governments. The response “to the people” absolutely mirrored the peoples’ double Dutch and double standards. Never forget it. The masses have always pondered, dithered and eventually formed populist movements which have been shown to be generally unrepresentative of individual sovereignty. That is why distorted truths, all but lies in name, have been the response of representative governments. In place of real communal remedies, lasting solutions, human children seek only the next wish granting fairy godmother to kiss it better. That is why the modern day love cult insists detracting truths are heresy. They are representative of the shambles that is monopolised reality.