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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How can fantasy that never was be “proven”?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lies, Damned Lies & Statistics

metabolism-of-drugs-to-toxic-products-1-728Though I don’t directly contribute too much to the Global Freedom Movement these days, I still regularly communicate with Brendan Murphy and Aimee Devlin through Facebook channels. In fact this quote by Dr A. Greenberg is borrowed from Brendan:

“As a retired Physician, I can honestly say that unless you are in a serious accident, your best chance of living to a ripe old age is to avoid doctors and hospitals and learn about nutrition, herbal medicine and other forms of natural medicine unless you are fortunate enough to have a naturopathic physician available.

Almost all drugs are toxic and are designed only to treat symptoms and not to cure anyone.

Vaccines are highly dangerous, have never been adequately studied or proven to be effective, and have a poor risk / reward ratio.

Most surgery is unnecessary and most textbooks of medicine are inaccurate and deceptive. Almost every disease is said to be idiopathic (without known cause) or genetic-although this is untrue.

In short, our mainstream medical system is hopelessly inept and / or corrupt. The treatment of cancer and degenerative diseases is a national scandal.

The sooner you learn this, the better off you will be.”

At last someone has said it as it is. Drugs are toxic and are designed only to treat symptoms but not to cure anyone. We all know why. Without endless streams of complaints, toxic medicines would become defunct and the bottomless money well would dry up. The problem is the issues go much deeper than this. Even herbal medicines or natural remedies are pointless (beyond remedial cures) unless lasting solutions are targeted. Philosophers bluster about causality as though they comprehend the dynamics of existence. How about putting that into practice? How about trying to find the cause of all diseases instead of these endless lies, damned lies and statistics? For instance, modern “health” does not know what cancer is as the effects (tumours and so on) are labelled as “causes”.

I outlined the four causes (not the five or six science-fantasy likes to invent) of disease last entry on Ozzie Thinker. These are parasites, bacteria, fungi and pollutants. The biggest causer of diseases, by a green mile, is pollutants, period. So how many pollutants have being explicitly identified as the cause of individual disease conditions? I am not talking about broad brush strokes, suspicions or generalisations. So far, for my research, there have been none, zero, nil pollutants that have been precisely identified as the direct cause of any specific disease (i.e. causer of symptoms). The word “virus” has replaced “pollution” to confuse users and medics into believing these are the same as parasites, bacteria or fungi. They, the good medics, can go in and whack ‘em. That’s the mentality of these spin doctors, the weavers of lies that have built up the war machine. Everything, no matter what, is a conflict.

I would like to review another line of Dr A. Greenberg’s epic quote. In short, our mainstream medical system is hopelessly inept and/or corrupt. I would go farther and say the people that support and enable the system are some of the most robotic, serf-serving individuals I have ever had the displeasure of interacting with. A large part of the health establishment, supported by lowly grades, nurses right up to surgeons have come behind the pro-vaccine movements because to admit vaccines are toxic is an attack on their livelihood. In direct debate a course of ignorance, denial or slander is observed. Nothing will shake their lies, damned lies and statistics.

microcephaly-pictures-2There is something else that needs to be factored in this discussion to be thorough. It is not only diseases that cause illnesses, toxins do as well. Some pollutants are toxins, but other detractors include venom, poisons, radiation and so on. Though everyone seemed to overlook it, I did make the case for radiation as the cause of a recent localised spike of Brazilian microcephaly infliction (blamed on Zika virus by Mainstream sources) last post. Part of the liars statistical strategy is the pervert the real meanings of words/intent or to label critics as something they are not. For instance, those that observe the use of mercury, aluminium and formaldehyde (via the preservative agent, Thimerosal) in vaccines are labelled ignorant by pro-vaxxers. Yet, the labellers, in this case, ignore the ingredients of vaccines and prove they are guilty of ignorance (principally meaning one or ones who ignore).

A more classic ploy is to claim statistical evidence relates to something it doesn’t. For instance the Mainstream/alternative prognosis of recent issues in Brazil would look something like this, “Well, there were lots of Zika infected genetically modified mosquitos in the area and that’s what caused the microcephaly outbreak”. Let’s look at the use of “outbreak”. Could the microcephaly condition in acute form be caused by a disease wave? Personally, I feel the prognosis looks entirely wrong. These afflictions look like some form of poisoning; say radiation poisoning, but I’m no expert so I have to rely on in depth research and just a little intuition to join the dots (and not vice versa). 400In fact, gauging what the “experts” are saying about this, credentials are no advantage whatsoever to those serious investigators wanting to get to the bottom of this and find the truth. It is no wonder as lies, damned lies and statistics political currency is the preference for corrupt or inept academics. These foul gorgons deserve to be prostrated and horse whipped before the masses while all their credentials burn in an open furnace. Ah, that would usher in incense for a new age of free thought.

On Facebook I unexpectedly occasionally vigorously jump to the defence of branded paedophiles. Whilst (and as with homosexuality) I am neither pro nor anti the practice, my ambivalence is only moved by oppression; a version of evil. Rabid hordes that champion the attack on underage sex (and that is all it is) are particularly virulent oppressors. No wonder it is the number one action priority of the FBI and all law enforcement agencies on the exceptional occasions genuine misdemeanours occur. They love manufacturing misery, but scarcity does not make good law enforcement business and I am reliably informed all (bar none) child pornography on the extranet was originally uploaded for public attention by agents supporting law enforcement interests. Admittedly several items were the product of intercepted private trades, but nonetheless your law enforcers have made the child porn business, FBI included. I shall possibly explore this in more detail in a future article, provisionally titled, “The Powers’ Great Accolade – Brand Pedo”. Anyway, when I see the regular attacks on the Catholic Church and, less publicised, Judaic priesthood, I laugh, or perhaps I mean grimace.

francis-hidden-crucifix2_med-2It is amazing how adept these photographers are at capturing the bad side of a pope. Ignorant minions can then quip, “Oh I see. He looks evil. Case closed”. Well, the case is never closed even if I say so and certainly not for that trivia. Several hundred years ago the Catholic Church began periods of inquisitions, first levied against the French Cathars for daring to assert Jesus Christ was an ordinary human being. Later, in the renaissance, they targeted witches. Just as with the modern paedophile witch hunts, all evidence was reliant of eye-witness hearsay. We only have the not-at-all-inhumane practice (sarcasm) of waterboarding used to encourage confessions in the US (no foot stoves yet). Borderline inquisition cases (where a “witch” only had one or two accusers) were resolved with the float test. The trussed accused was lowered into a pond. If she sunk and drowned, she was deemed innocent of all charges. The unlucky ones that floated were judged as witches and burned at the stake. Now there’s justice for you!

couldron_boxPICNotably, in the renaissance period, old ladies renowned for their jars of potions lovingly concocted in cauldrons were the target. Their great sin was administering homeopathic medicines to sick people and healing them. The Catholic Church was certainly not going to stand idly by and let that happen. Only Jesus Christ or his appointees were allowed to heal people and, after the confusion of the Dark Ages, the church was all out of healers. So, remembering the title of this essay is “Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics”, could, in some cases, numbers of those Catholic priests or Jewish rabbis have been accused by false witnesses offering fabrications because of obstructive behaviour? Continuing this line of thinking, could that obstructive behaviour have been devoted to sea change against corruption and ill-discipline of the very same individuals spearheading the persecution of paedophiles within the church? Yet, the alternative movements blindly crusade on with their inverted crucifixes and other Satanic symbols empowered by nothing less than arrogance and sheer bone-headedness. For those “anti-paedophiles” that zealously embrace insanity, the terrible teens’ syndrome of modern times is the consequence of adults (regardless of branding) fighting over territory rights. You’ve lost the moral debate on unlawful sex. Get over it and move on.

gmo-monsanto-frankenweed-marijuanaI have already gone into the enslavement of youth as the template for the institutionalization of man elsewhere in this blog, but that control objective has been expanded by the unquestioned righteous. Children can be seized from parents for merely trying to heal them with homeopathic remedies. Let us not forget Dr A. Greenberg’s wise words in the quote above. What did he say again? “…avoid doctors and hospitals and learn about nutrition, herbal medicine and other forms of natural medicine unless you are fortunate enough to have a naturopathic physician available.” Isn’t it odd that the Catholic Church targeted these healers centuries ago and now governments, at the behest of Big Pharma (producing those toxins Dr Greenberg advised against), are trying to do the exact same thing. Those governments are also staunchly against any form of sexual behaviour they decide to deem unauthorised for the greater good. As various forms of Cannabis are becoming so widely known for their curing prowess; it is only a matter of time before the corporate cartels monopolise the resource. Currently, bets are on Monsanto’s lack-lustre genetically modified product (if reports on it are to be believed).

Even so, as I intimated in my last post, “GMOs, Viruses, Vaccines and Military Industrial Sabotage” (which didn’t give me a chance to rattle the tip jar in promotion of my one-of-kind set to blow-the-mind e-book “The Beauty of Existence Decoded”), the misinformation layer is inches thick. The focus of that post was the microcephaly “outbreak” in Brazil. The use of the word “outbreak” presupposes a disease cause and I find no evidence of that. It certainly was not the mild flavivirus, Zika (“discovered” in Uganda 1947 but appears to have been around for a very long time) which produces a characteristic fever that burns out in a few days leaving no lasting effects. Yet the Mainstream tabloids “predicted” this was the new Ebola after some very misleading information had been disseminated by the World Health Organisation (WHO). Alternatives, which I judged are predominantly controlled by the same interests that exude the guff in the Mainstream, pushed the ever present “Bill Gates” (Dr Evil) genetically modified mosquito theme. This was another dud, of course.

Particularly in the last two decades of the 19th century, unqualified mud raking reports became the focus of progressive reform in Mainstream journalism. Standards fell abruptly at the onset of the 21st century with Fox “News’” entertainment journalism. Of course, this has nothing to do with slander or libel suits. In the spirit of Fox’s sea change (which, I must say didn’t make a great deal of difference to output. With faux news who needs sea change?), professional misinformation blogs pander to every whim of protestor mindset, as can be observed in this bogus Iceland “success story”. My friends at Veterans Today have the knack of saying it so well.

2014-08-08-epa-considers-glyphosate-ban-cycleJon Rappoport is one of those fearless genuine journalists’ that does not pander to corporate will. He is adrift of the system and vital, but never angry. So when his conclusions, judgements, beliefs don’t match my own, I take the difference of opinion very seriously. Last post, for instance, I concluded that the microcephaly spike had been caused by a combination of TDaP vaccines and leaked radiation from large ultra-sound machines. lump-hammersThat’s where I and Jon branched and even though I confidently said, “case closed”, anyone that refuses to keep channels open has admitted truth is lost to them. Thus, as Jon favoured pesticides in the water supply and produced a lengthy article paraphrasing Brazilian and Argentine doctors parroting the notion, I took it seriously; very seriously indeed. Glyphosate (the active agent in pesticides), as I pointed out last time, is nasty stuff. It does cause encephalic disorders such as autism and is linked to brain cancer. Jon’s and the doctors’ reasoning is contagiously plausible (given glyphosate is a toxin), but, I still do not concur this time. In the comments section of one of Jon’s articles, I expressed the best analogy I could conjure. Let us compare the head injuries of one attacked by a wiffle bat and another by a lump hammer. If all the microcephaly cases were mild, very slight deformations of the crania, I would have agreed with Jon and the good doctors, but, for my research, some were the consequence of my metaphorical lump hammer. That screams radiation poisoning to me.


Contrary to the opinions of the blind political venters, taking the modern master of lies, damned lies and statistics (perhaps that’s too refined – try bullshit) I do not think Trump is the answer to America’s internal or external problems. I don’t believe he is a game changer for truth, but he is a dangerous player and virtue will be completely reduced to trash in his term, if elected president. To him the end justifies the means and the more lies, damned lies and effective but irrelevant statistics he can churn, the better. Dr A. Greenberg finished his soap box quote with an ever-so subtle throwaway line which can not only be applied to everything everyone experiences, but should be applied without reservation.

“The sooner you learn this, the better off you will be”.