A Crisis of Social Grooming: Fear and Manipulation at the Root

Never entirely sure why I receive certain impulses, there was a nagging feeling that I needed to publish this on America’s “Memorial Day“. Perhaps it was the sense of anger at “order” attempting to press-gang me into remembering those I didn’t ever know. How is that possible; to remember something that wasn’t experienced? Besides, the fallen didn’t die for me personally. Far from it. They behaved recklessly, some committing murder to protect the coveted few of the time; the elites that pariah off corporate infrastructures. Mind you, at least American judiciaries don’t follow Austria’s lead who, upon instruction of internal law, may likely illegally abduct and imprison high profile publishers of responsible criticism of irrational (and otherwise nonsensical) wittering that corresponds as the official history of an episode colloquially promoted as “the Holocaust”. But, of course, anything that reinforces Israel’s case is a-okay.

Producing voluminous, more substantial articles these days, when lacking project inspiration I generally refer to an “in progress or to be written” folder located under my computer’s document file explorer. The title I selected this time round had lain dormant for years. It intrigued me to see how my style had changed, by how much I had grown or shrunk, as the case may be. The original title “The Root of Social Grooming” was somewhat truncated and this, I think, adequately highlights my changed perspective. Albeit embellished in places now, the signature paragraph (formulated all those years ago) does make ample preparation for what is to follow.  Even though I missed that critical Memorial Day deadline, without further ado, here is what I had to say back in 2014.

“Democracy will never work when underlying principles are built on exclusion rather than inclusion. Laws that don’t underscore prohibition, impose [just as well]. Secular privileges are given to those with diplomatic [status] and others [that parasite off the apparatus]. This [phenomenon] has [caused] creation of the social divides that [naturally] encourage Racism and other [regressive] symptoms. There is no doubt [in my mind that] this has been a deliberate strategy. Given the enormous weight of responsibility required to effectively ensure dedicated impartiality, it is all too clear royal status was originally foisted on wise men and women. [In light of human fallibility], it [proved] a responsibility too great to bear and, eventually, [ensured] recruited blasphemers [whose conceit] arbitrarily discerned “God’s wishes” [sic] whether they parried with social equilibrium [backed off natural order] or not. After extended periods of tyranny, eventually royals were called to task [for this] and clerics produced mandates outlining reasoned constitutional representation. These systems became known as constitutional monarchies and [they] are the fairest democratic processes of government.”

People like to blame others for their woes, because applying responsibility almost invariably exposes personal error as the main cause for issue. On occasions when truth does lend towards the conspiratorial shall we say, as is the case with routine pollution and certain [unarguably toxic] medications, coherent competency rarely attributes basis. Individuals, it seems, are drawn to propagandas generated by consensuses like flies to the dung heap. If the great group says it is so then it must be so, so it will be so, by their reckoning. This amply summarises the crisis of social grooming. “Denial” of truth is the commonest and starkest symptom of “fundamentalism”. Consensus view beneath corporate standards more than adequately abridges a modern way of domineering dogmatism, whereby explanations replace avenues to seasoned logic. Jon Rappoport’s raucous alarm calls aimed at the education system (I expect his article to be reinstated by WordPress) barely begin to highlight just how deep rooted social apathy has become. But for the bubbling internet, revelations of sovereign mind today would have zero influence on the manner of how things are presented or reflected on.

In effect (accorded by politics), a dichotomy of tyrannies punctuates the rights of the few over the wrongs of the many. The Magna Carta’s early assault on common law wasn’t enough. So veraciously hostile were forces of evil, later aristocrats and merchants alike scrambled for protection against Cromwell’s foul legacy, which is the austere Westminster System of course. William of Orange became the fortuitous angel of mercy. But their appreciation of tyranny didn’t cease as a consequence. The peoples’ constitution (if it could be argued so) was shredded in 1864 in preparation for the beginnings of popular slavery (liberally recorded as emancipation) under aggressively tiered society.

“Terms” for the masses (slaves) were finally aggregated in 1929 by the Geneva Convention at around the same time bankers’ were able to soundly conspire from their newly formed historic capital, “the Vatican”. Why are those hauled before the American courts presumed guilty until “proven” innocent (celebrating French bankers’ multi-lateral autonomy after both republics commenced in 1789)? This is because every American national (of ill-breeding) is deemed a criminal. And that Fifth Amendment salvation so often referenced is strictly for the nobles. As Great Britain (or, notably, Ireland) has been the informal Promised Land since time memorial, her chosen peoples are considered innocent until proven guilty by the corresponding system of justice. But Britannia ruled far more than the waves, for the rest of the world had gradually submitted to maritime law long ago.

Of course along the journey that is branded civilisation by historians, elitist empowering double standards are all too numerous to list, but there is one deception of such far reaching magnitude it begs to be exposed in glorious detail. If Genesis’ Adam and Eve parable was conceded as truth, everyone (“one race”, if you will) is Jewish by birthright. Yet, the reality accords the promotion of acute covert xenophobia towards anyone who isn’t Jewish (per alleged successive bloodline integrity). “Values” that became laws governing humanity are almost exclusively theirs. Consequentially, many social go-getters, such as, for instance, the unlikely Sammy Davis Junior, have converted to the insincere faith to “get on”. The stakes of occultism are high, as to be expected. New Jewish citizens (paying homage to homeland – Israel) are forced to enrol all male offspring, under crude auspices of dignity, into a ceremony colloquially known as the Bris.

For reasons that might only be judged as bizarre by the right minded, infant star of each gathering is guaranteed to lose his penal foreskin without refund. Now, given the unholy reaction to one of my prior articles here that [according to one accuser] “reveres” the practice of paedophilia, I am flabbergasted by the lack of venom directed towards any Jew (synthetic or otherwise) who participates in the callous Bris culture. I use the word “callous” with great care here. Is a baby consulted and fully aware of folly ahead or is this a somehow “legitimisedviolation of body rights, a strange exception to the fundamental rule of personal sovereignty? Why aren’t there any salacious headlines? Wouldn’t one expect to see “Sadistic Infant Penile Display Centre Stage in Sick Pedo Jew Cult Orgy” or the like smeared over the front pages? If it was the Catholics doing this; would they deserve any less? Why do we all “know” (sic) Catholic [priests] must be paedophiles? Why, because we have been programed to think that and we’ve been programed to believe the Bris and circumcision are A-Okay too.

“Great” Jewish newspapers, of the prestige of Haaretz or the Times of Israel make little fuss of the affair, but confusingly, outside the club, there is an (albeit ultra-orthodox), I must say, vile practice or fetish that receives almost no attention at all (i.e. absent from non-Jewish tabloids). How many of my readers are aware of a Rabbi’s certified (or, perhaps, certifiable)“suction clean”, I wonder? So, to elaborate on the process for those less informed, any other vaguely comparable uses of “suction clean” terminology would certainly better appraise as blowjob for mere mortal comprehension. Crude but appropriate or, rather, I mean inappropriate. Thinking of those possible headlines again, how does “Boy Loving Pedo Rabbi Gives Bad Baby Deep Throat” (well you know how these Medias like to exaggerate) fit the criteria? It is funny how God issues an “unacceptable” foreskin, but man is far more divine than God, wouldn’t you say?

Therefore, I assume my revised headline suggestion would be fine, except there’s something else we should consider. You see, in this case blood’s involved, so forget the Jewish thing. We’ve moved to a whole new level. Instead, let’s imagine we are dealing with a Catholic archbishop here, who must be guilty (because we believe that). I see no reason why a banner mightn’t reasonably read “Sick Sadistic Catholic Cult’s Gay Gore Orgy Reptilian Priest Drinks Baby Blood Raw”. Then again, what of those herpes cases in New York?

Oh brother, very hush-hush

Ah the joys of satire! That said, circumcision is a very serious topic. God gave me my foreskin and I celebrate it. Those that argue otherwise are vainly obsessed. We only need to look at incessant mass Media venom directed at disgracefully lampooning strict Islamic practices to see evidence of this obsession. Remember those elite double standards I mentioned earlier. How is the circumcision of a female any different to the male? Either the act itself is deplorable or it is acceptable. But at least for abject followers of Mohamed, circumcision is theoretically “optional”. Mass Medias highlight duplicitous contradiction; which is the natural consequence of social grooming.

Truth is invariably adrift of broadsheet fantasy, but there are some encouraging exceptions to the rule. Here it could be said fair attention is given to distinctly parallel violations of Muslim women, yet (beyond very occasional warnings dressed as “politically correct” philosophic procrastinations) no attempts are ever made to stress the plight of unguarded marginalised males. Behind the curtain, there is fallout of course. The epidemic is such one Jewish woman (of presumably many) tearfully reached out to me at Jon Rappoport’s blog, explaining how her son’s pain from his circumcision has persisted throughout his life with no possibility of moral refund.

Rabbinical authorities have shamed her trust in them

Apparent holistic needs (whether pertinent or not) of social cultures are given far greater priority than raw truth. In fact, there is strong evidence to support respect [in divinity] is so wanton, that truth has become partially superfluous. Therefore, correspondingly, sewers of misinformation and disinformation thrive. The modern age, certainly over the last fifty years, is a heyday of deceit. Name me one mass Media celebrated medic that has spoken with truthful authority about vaccines and viruses? Does an institutionalised historian actually know any history? Why are the majority of great pioneering scientific discoveries accidents?

Nevertheless, the foremost “out in the opendishonesty is the role of world governments and their ongoing missions. The reason political machinations never seem to improve is they were designed that way. They were designed to fail, from the social perspective. After Albert Einstein, either doing the same thing over while expecting improved change equates to insanity, or “make no difference to the way things are” is the overall anticipated goal of policy making. Politics are fundamental. Decisions are bound up in constitutions which (albeit theoretically) script foundations for utopian order. Amendments to the US constitution, sticklers might debate; cause all outward political problems for that nation. I say the constitution was rigged from the onset and reasoning is clear.

But you have to go back to dot to précis the real issue with popular (i.e. majority rule) population administration. Undoubtedly foundations which have become the hubris for modern world government are encapsulated by Oliver Cromwell’s Westminster System. (Ignoring the exported Dutch mortgage system) why was second class aristocrat William of Orange (incidentally, his daughter, Queen Anne, was a reputed lesbian. Lesbians are regularly the product of physically, emotionally or “character” scarred fathers) ushered into British supreme authority if the constitution (adjunct to the Westminster System) was irrefutably “stable”? Maybe the highly irregular dual headed coinage of the realm conceals some secrets as well.

Nouveaux nobility (a fraternity of merchant bankers) hastily drafted their bill of rights because, after recalcitrant King James II, they were demonstrably exposed as vulnerable (I referenced the jailing of William Dockwra before, but there were many, many other attacks on “treasonous” private commerce) as royalty had proven far from defeated after Charles I’s infamous beheading execution. The double edged sword of success viciously turned on the perpetrators of the French Revolution as well (its leader and other key players suffered the nobleman’s guillotine fate). Some would say “karma had its day”, but [ultimately] the lesson to be learned here is those that wield draconian standards are forced to live by them too. And the closer you are to the source of heat, the greater your chances of being burnt.

Legal due process oils hearsay dressed as evidence in our courts. Will re-emergence of medieval torture (currently in the form of legitimised psychological terrorism) come at a hefty price to its backers?

As I regularly outline; the United States of America was established with a view to becoming a template of the French system of government (symbolised by the Statue of Liberty) and not the other way round. Be it the continent was a constitutional democracy 1766-88. Phoenician rebirth of combined great Greek/Roman (liberators of Rome for justice) dynasties had been the plan all along. That is why, in typical fashion, Napoleon seized absolute control just as Caesar had done before him and, arguably, (Aristotle favourite) Alexander had done before him. Britain had no mitigating royal authority at the time of the revolution, so America “the enterprise” is the greatest untold conspiracy never to be explored. King George of England was a foreigner who spoke little more than nodding English. The issue that blew up into a war was between powers that “vampired” off regal infrastructures and those who opted for self-sufficiency, which is amply highlighted by renegade “journalist” John [Peter] Zengler’s successful defence of a libel lawsuit against Royal Governor of New York, William Cosby (is that why they attack Bill Cosby today?) in 1734.

Miscasting of historic myths is a classical manoeuvre of those committed to perverting truth in order to impress upon social grooming. In more ancient times religions were a vehicle sometimes used to ridicule truth and deny sovereign faith. Circumcision is an undeniable direct attack on God (supporting that which is natural), but I find no reference to the fact in the Torah. Because religion began to lose its potence (the authorities drafted a new Bible in 1884 in an attempt to jump start Christianity once more) with so much global upheaval, since the French Revolution, the task of bending truth has been handed to “science”. That is why today learned professionals are “split” for and against vaccines, marking mainstream and anti-mainstream territories.

How can there be any debate on this though? The truth is plain and out in the open, but far from simple. Aluminium, supplied to vaccines via Eli Lily’s branded product Thimerosal, causes brain damage. The symptom autism is a configurable consequence. There are other plausible associated conditions, such as Alzheimer’s disease. Here’s where complexity is noted. Often combinations of factors will impress varied disease symptoms. Wireless 5G illness is an odd one, but in the specific cases of autism and Alzheimer’s, the underlying (or root) cause is aluminium poisoning. When there are multiple factors determining potential outcomes of any political argument, it becomes easy to subvert the path away from honest realisation. Oil is blamed for Iraq, but the war had little to do with the petroleum industry. That was the cover story. Indeed, the “powers” know that if they do not move away from fossil fuels soon, humanity is done for. In fact, as I illustrate in this article, all cancers are caused by carbon pollution.

Politics is all about consensus view (or, rather, the manufacture of it). Science and religion are the same, with two distinct exceptions. Religion is anchored to Scripture which, fanatics assert, is Word of God. This is easily disproven, of course. We only need to open our Bibles to discover numerous contradictions on offer when evidence that summarises prophets’ revelations is scrutinised carefully. God apparently allows and disallows certain practices; verdicts depending on timely cultural persuasions. Yet, jesting aside, a calculating, divisive God is a duplicitous one. Science, almost identically, regularly serves up contradictory “proof” as justification for dogma.

These wibbly-wobbly proofs are sometimes sensationally disproven. For some “products” bitter cognitive dissonance needs to be challenged many times over before evil ones are forced to prostrate before the light. Neither Scripture nor proof, it seems, are very reliable. That is perhaps why they have combined in unison today. Both sciences and religions’ output asserts what amounts to principled belief in doctrines “supposedly” backed by evidential proof. Though it logically belonged to Jacques De Molay (attesting his crucifixion by Catholicism), the so-called Turin Shroud is “officially” evidence of Jesus’ (who didn’t exist, by the way) life and death. This is because, the once Hitler IG Farben cyanide gas salesman, Pope John Paul II was all too quick to upgrade the dubious (according to prior editions of the Catholic encyclopaedia) “fact” in spite of the facts (couched in known origins of the exhibit).

If the world’s great superpower USA was modelled on Rome (forget Israel) why wouldn’t the Vatican be nucleus of authority?

Thinking of an unlikely analogy that summarises social conditioning, I am impressed by the subtle interpretive differences between recklessness and bravery. In respect to this, modern day mass Medias are ceaseless in their assault of valour. Cowardice will never be bravery, but so often this is purported as truth. In deference to a submissive death, a victim must be brave, they claim. Is it because preservation of life happens to be the most significant clause of their subliminal “survival of the fittest” manifesto? In that regard, another noteworthy manifesto titbit asserts the belief that people will be consistently devoted to deceitful subversion in ego threatening situations, which would justify the system’s perennial need for disciplined shepherds to guide righteous flocks. It further highlights why people are treated as though they were cattle commodities by these overseers.

When citizens lost their natural right to be sexual, their lives were transferred to state. Relative scam Paedophilia is a philosophic foundation stone that projects hybrid standards which rely on comprehensive groomed compliance. In other words, without foundation beliefs, supporting synthetic reason would wither into oblivion and the cattle would roam free. An extension of this façade is people must truthfully worship their Gods for persuasion to transform into reality. Understanding the mindset is vital to decoding how corridors of power visualise authority. Thus, if ruling authorities are Godlike, they must be faultless. Correspondingly, the system is beyond criticism, but individuals, “bad prophets” if you will, are very much in the spotlight and may be sacrificed to preserve unblemished credibility. Pedo priests, by that token, won’t tarnish institutional Catholicism.

Back in Roman times, rulers painfully observed successful policy was inexorably linked to popularity (usually supported by in vogue Gods). From today’s bloated populations for those with sufficient resources, it is easy to manufacture fabricated consensuses. Menacingly, in conjunction, a form of censorship disparages thinking outside or beyond traditional guidelines. A cult, which is a gestalt made from materialistic, atheistic and hybrid Judaic ideologies, acts as counterbalance, paving the way for all established rules that attribute what is justifiably “credible”.  Atheism, in the usage here, isn’t presented as a religious connotation per se, or even a system arbitrating divinity. It would be better, instead, reviewed as an appendage of materialism. The two concepts are inseparably grafted together. Terms or understanding attempting to cultivate non-physicality, particularly anything spiritual, are the critical casualty of the union. In their ideal world, associated zealots would outlaw anything that obstructs or contradicts perception validating physicality (though paradoxical string theorists see the illusion well). By their lofty ideals, if God was to exist, “He” must be tangibly solid.

After in depth study of history, one can but draw the conclusion that a seam of vexatious law brokers has plagued humanity from the dawn of time. Ineffective (and sometimes destructive) rules are regularly demanded of simply to “organise” the rabble. In past writings I have highlighted the Pharisees as the significant culprit. Given this is an Easter project; it would be remiss of me not to at least reference bonny Jesus, who constantly buffered against puritanical high priests lacking common sense and honest dignity. Suffice to say, grooming is a vital symptom of society, which, from the true utopian perspective, should concur with universal selflessness, even if by being selfless could also mean being selfish too. Medieval fanatics undeniably misinterpreted this divine instrumental purpose. Self-flagellation achieves nothing unless the group benefits by some means. When fear and manipulation are routine tools (or cattle prods) used to control consensus society, individual rite is rendered superfluous and might be viewed as a threat to order.

The effect aggregates a strange symptom. Consequentially, “structure” will eventually stagnate (euphemised as populations waking up) because the ego must rationalise to survive. Zombie state reflects the individual that is prisoner of order; wandering in a waking death, which fundamentally explains why such relatively large percentages of populations turn to crime. They reject order to live. Even the supposedly most innocent amongst us are actually as guilty as sin in some ways. Conflicting laws are not observed by anyone safely way from the spotlight. Reasoning of our holier than thou brethren deems some crimes are more criminal than others. Indeed a prior article of mine “The Law is an Ass” comprehensively outlined the basic problem. Which is the umbrella justice system reflects austere bias so it simply isn’t just.

In so much, the concept of justice was established to cajole society in favour of the few

For instance, murder is the supposed capital offense, yet I find not a single nation against war. Even strategic financial centres too cowardly to participate don’t morally block wilful destruction of life (particularly when they skim the racket). Beyond commercial politics, the justice system actually seems to be more in place to obstruct an individual’s rite of passage than promote proscribed “good”. Arbitration of sexuality is probably the best example to demonstrate what “under law” really means. Per legislation, individual rite most definitely cannot be used as an acceptable excuse for violation of law. I have mentioned before, and it cannot be repeated often enough that, from the divine “cosmic” perspective, sexuality doubles as “life potence” (generated by the base chakra). Break life potence (through arbitrative control of sexuality) and you own a slave; only a breath away from fully fledged zombiism.

Fortunately the youth of today aren’t easily subdued. Sex drive is as powerful as ever, regardless of the many and regular attempts by insidious mass Medias to obfuscate reality. Fundamental attacks on sexual expression (and freedom) actually stretch back to the dawn of time. Currently paedophilia may well be the sin of the moment, but in other ages, cultures targeted varied peccadillos. “Apostle” and Pharisee “St Paul” (who has doubled as people’s first pope) championed total prohibition of intimacy. Even under terms of marriage, he argued carnal relations were theoretically sinful. Expanding persuasion of this devious fraud, Jesus is remembered as a “natural” manifest virgin, reinforced by his immaculate birth.

Furthermore, theological authorities make it dreadfully clear his genius was not a consequence of spiritual purity but, rather, the “reward” for preserving virgin status (following mother Mary) throughout his life. Purity, by their deceitful account, implies any universal celibate might match Jesus’ standards (a Pharisaic notion) simply by rejecting intimacy (commonly illustrated by overtly mocking the “devil”). Of course the reality flies in the face of this nonsense. Jesus (a pseudonym of Joseph ben Matthias) took Joseph of Aramithea’s daughter Mary “Magdalene” (who purists imply was a “whore” for daring to taint the Messiah’s reputation) as his wife (that culture would have permitted only a wife to wash/anoint the feet of her spouse in company – John 12:1-8). There may have been offspring to the marriage; whose descendants would become the Merovingian kings (the great Catholic threat). One investigative account supporting this conviction is presented by Michael Baigent’s “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” (1982) and evidence selected is most compelling.

Whether contemplating deep past or modern day politics, there is a serious side to social apathy. Actually it’s a deadly serious side. Build enough pomp in support of institutional deceit and ill prepared perhaps naïve doctors will routinely administer poisons as “cures” to patients (remember those leeches?).  But doctors are “just doing their job” as they kill you, right? The numerous celebrated examples of those who have “extended” their lives by opting out from being processed by the system, by refusing medications today, should hardly embarrass. That said, why limit the blame to doctors and medicine? Every car driver administers cancer causes, maybe not individually, but certainly as combined agent of a monstrous pack of polluters; polluters who generally don’t care by the way. And the price they pay for not caring is to lose their own natural health as well.

The problem is everyone suffers from and some die because of their arrogant ambivalence

Popular desensitisation towards life threatening truths I believe is evidence of the direct result of viscerally unfair political processes churning out laws geared only to improve Racist divisions (or to favour commercial lobbyists’ such as Pfizer’s, I hope I have that right, sex change therapy drugs for four year olds). There is no debate on certain unwholesome legislations which will either not be strictly observed by majorities or, in other instances, completely ignored. People reject these in the same manner as they deliberately avoid understanding real reasons behind everything. Indeed, they encapsulate an ongoing political conspiracy that consumes humankind. I find it greatly ironical that law breaking sycophants are still able to vote with open hearts and wail like babies when their chosen troll doesn’t make it. They outwardly pander to systemic government, taking advantage of all the “trappings”, whilst inwardly reviling dictating democracy, ever scheming as to the best way to avoid compliance.

For the creators of “order” to pull off their charade, there has to as much collusion between mass Media sirens and vested interests of Big Commerce as is possible. No better example of orchestrated faux crisis can be found than the ever regular fever pitch screams supposedly shining the spotlight on global epidemics whilst actually preparing sales of (commonly poisonous) medications. Enlightened ones will quickly see beyond the veneer, such as the swine flu “epidemic” which could only site a few dozen cases (and all of those, when detail is inspected with integrity, were dubious). Therefore “epidemics” exquisitely open up cultural insanity (maybe Einstein was forsaken after all?) at all levels and persuasions of society. By extension, an in vogue pioneer that labels something new, something formally undiscovered prior, apparently has divine authority to boycott criticism from branded undesirables. Bloated, and often obviously lacking, theories supporting “functionality” are routinely fed to wider populations, who invariably lap up whatever they are told. Once “knowledge tracks” are laid it takes an earthquake to uproot them and this is fundamentally why people are so easy to groom.

An extension of the grooming effect will regularly encourage recruits to go to extraordinary lengths to feign compliance with normalcy. Conventions are followed with such zeal, in some sorry cases, lives are shattered. Outward contradictions cannot whitewash over inner turmoil. That is why correspondingly high percentages of Western populations (in particular) are currently hooked on psychiatric drugs. Of course, as far as “Pharma” is concerned the human identity crisis is a perfect two way street to profits. Drugs they issue to solve the problem will more than likely make the patient either more ill or ill in a different way. That means more prescription drugs for the bad prescription drugs; yet more products sold to alleviate or patch up the problem caused by the “solution”; aptly complimenting the vicious cycle of ignorance. And we should not lose sight of the fundamental fact. It is not doctors or pharmaceutical cartels or wilful governments that instigate this mess. Cultural insanity is definitely fault of the user base; all you “shit eatin’” confident but pathologically ignorant users. You are the cause and the problem.

The invisible pig in lipstick “beyond confrontation” is you in front of the mirror every time you don’t bother to look

The good news is “they” (the self-assured powers) most decidedly see it and they count on your disability; otherwise they wouldn’t be able to manipulate and control you via populism. My analogic use of “pig” might seem overly harsh here. Yet, if I inspect what is being done to remedy the catastrophe that is order, I find nothing or next to no goodness. Pitiful protests do not affect change, but public ones will reveal who the grumblers are. Politicians and their puppeteers already know virtually no one has the guts to fight for lasting change on individual terms. Grumbling parasites are the closest we come to revolutionaries. These need to be prodded every now and again to show whose boss. Conversely, when governments appear to cave in to demands, well these protests are ones’ staged, orchestrated by George Soros or other members of the old boy network. And they are staged for good reason. How else to sell the most assiduous legislation?

Vegan terrorism is a classic example. Protests aren’t about empowering vegetarians. Motive is to disempower “the other” whilst saving that macabre Monsanto (lawsuit champion) Bayer alliance. Forcing useless meat eaters to consume unsanitary genetically modified product (Solent Green) has been the objective of operations all along. That’s why coverage of vegan values (sic) has found its way to the mainstream. Will it turn out it was yet another Soros brainchild when the powers’ brag in the alternative Medias? The planners and team leaders of the coup know the truth but everyone else plays useful sap, I assure you. Perhaps we are seeing a little karmic retribution here. Anyone prepared to be a terrorist deserves to be duped. There is no such thing as a cosy crusader. Idioms of that genre languish only in fantasy realms. No, in reality vicious activists are criminals in all but name. The subliminal battle rages over rightful ability to freely express and, more importantly, whether visibility of expression is granted. Of course, it is visibility which almost always is the first to suffer under scrutiny of activism. The other spineless defence they favour is the smear campaign (how about paedophilia to pack a punch?).

We are undoubtedly on the precipice of a new age of distortion. Was Jon Rappoport’s blog removed because he was to close to “Infowars'” Alex Jones for Trump comfort. Breitbart’s cozy period with the oval office seems to have soured these days. Nevertheless, Paul Craig Robert may well lament that sensational Media treatment of Julian Assange equates to the open death of freedom of speech, but I have maintained (and will continue to do so) that Assange is a (cocaine loving special friend of Ecuador) CIA strategic asset. Whether he knows his handlers on first name terms is the only point up for debate. Business partner of Mossad, CIA has its tentacles everywhere. This is mainly because Israel is extremely jealous of how successful the Vatican has been at securing the hearts of the people and will go to almost any lengths to destabilise cultural traditions. Pedo pop shots at senior clerics are the tip of that iceberg. In the information age people are inclined to believe anything laced with a modicum of authority delivered with sincerity (check out George Burns), which, unfortunately, takes us back to those cycles of manipulation through fear (terrorism, war, epidemics, censorship et al) tuned to incubate groomed socialites. Do not high profile bogus synagogue mass shootings (revered by capitulating mainstream Medias) appear to justify Israel’s “moral authority” before her people to bomb the heck out of Gaza by way of punishment (although some might scratch their heads as to “for what’)?

Perhaps, I read into that too much. Israel, it seems, will use just about any pretext to kill Arab peoples of Gaza. Nevertheless, leaders of Tyrannous nations are easy to blame for the crisis of social grooming, but supposed sovereign individuals must take some responsibility here as well. Fear and manipulation are simply levers of influence. Ultimately, individual choice concedes compliance. Fear and manipulation will remain while concessions are effective and continuous. Therefore, it is only when personal sovereignty is universally valued above anything else that controllers will be forced to reappraise “group think” strategies. To explain this philosophy, the notion that a vaccinated person is unprotected against the unvaccinated is intellectually preposterous. However, from “group think” perspective, “reason” takes a bold new form. If the “group” is vaccinated, flaws in the process highlight collective weakness. Unvaccinated, under these terms, are the flaws in the process. Thus “the group” is unprotected if but one individual fails to observe collective protocol.

There are some contradictions to this that are easy to explain “in perspective”. Autism as a “condition” is not discussed in reasoned terms by the mainstream because it represents vaccines’ major Achilles heel. Though statistics have rocketed from one in ten thousand to one in thirty per capita since its 1980’s “discovery” (actually a variation of Asperger’s syndrome or Schizophrenia, both forms of brain damage), these blemishes are very much in the minority. Therefore FDA (a toothless “internal” commercial watchdog misbranded as a government department) reputation remains spotless after ceaseless allegations (even by inside professionals) against certain products continue to plaque alternative Medias. From the “group think” perspective, under these circumstances, those that suffer autism must be defective and vaccines (if truly to blame) merely act as agent to stress their abnormality. Only when majorities are demonstrably afflicted, does the campaign fall in a heap. So here’s the contradiction. There have been innumerable pharmaceutical product recalls but, in most instances, the “batch” is judged as culprit. In the case of GlaxoSmithKline Australia many years ago, it required only one alleged poisoning to justify recall of their entire paracetamol production run. Globally, instances of autism may run into hundreds of thousands (depending on statistical diagnosis), but to coin a phrase “nothing to see here” for reasons outlined.

If I conducted a poll from residents of my local street, I would be surprised if I was able to collect even one in a hundred that had heard of Eli Lily’s Thimerosal product. Rhetoric supporting “educated” mainstream vaccine awareness campaigns has been dedicated only to slander. Those that “don’t like” vaccines are painted pathological evil and scandalously ignorant (though explanation for ignorance is routinely absent), whereas those that are on the correct team are “normal”, good, virtuous “God fearing” people even. We must begin to realise that corporate Medias are, with scant exception, supported by pimps and hookers, and these vassals do not (by any means) deserve the title “journalist”. On rare occasions truthful truth rears its head in isolation, it is always skew. Judaism undeniably influences mainstream content censorship measures. Indeed, so much so, some believe there are no other political interests balancing control (Christianity and Islam both versions of Judaism). Jews, regardless of status and location, today are classed as “People of Israel”. That is the only [real] reason most nations permit dual-citizenship.

Given his enormous status and favourably biased treatment “under society” (goyim), how [individually] sovereign is the average Israelite? I think the answer to that lies in circumcision. The Jew, without forethought, will deny God and barbarously deface his new born son to demonstrate allegiance to the group. That is the pitiful standard humanity swears by.

Advertisements

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!

The Mindset of Psychosis

openPeople that claim they are “open-minded” simply do not tell the truth. Belief systems are formed in the earliest developmental stages of life and, when set; each rehearsed dogma needs a battle to be disbelieved. Our core beliefs are usually so strong they will remain valid even when believers are convinced otherwise. “Oh, they told me UFO’s were real but I knew that wasn’t true” is your typical reverse validation. Deep down, if the message doesn’t fit it won’t fit no matter what. Therefore, I have one paragraph to capture the imaginations of an audience. You are allowed to reach out and, providing comments are not unnecessarily rude, criticism is welcome. It would be nice to know a few of you actually had the chutzpah “to be”.

MoltingOwlConsidering the sheer weight of information to be found on the net these days, if my message deviates an inch from those beliefs’ comfort zone, I’m gone, finished, put in the trash can, offended readers likely never to revisit. Some, due to narcissism, won’t even refer to “unknown sources” which assures logic assesses references as must be spurious. So, I lost them before I even put pen to paper. Articles with ambiguous or neutral titles are avoided perhaps because time poor people waste not, but as likely, given the mindset of psychosis, readers might also do everything in their power to avoid being confronted with truth. Truth, contrary to erudite populism, is inflexible and consistent. People, in general, do not want their opinions challenged or ruffled in any way, so factual legitimacy all too rarely finds sanctuary in popular theories.

conspiracy-theories-emgn6It was the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that reputedly first coined the phrase conspiracy theorists in 1967; a slur aimed at faceless critics distributing “evidence lacking” conjecture. Any more than two parties that join forces conspire. All statements are theories. The expression, conspiracy theorists, would be acceptable when used as a witty metaphor camouflaging the derogatory attack on simple minded enemies. Targets are gossipers that peddle myths lacking substance. faceless_man_by_onyxabyss-d5bgkgfThe term conspiracy theory, on the other hand, is ambiguous and nonsensical. Does this reflect statements that coordinate the joint efforts of multiple parties? If conspiracy is a euphemism for gossip, it is a poor one.

Nevertheless, the hybrid term is understood because it validates the mindset of psychosis, i.e. being right always trumps honesty and due diligence. Conspiracy theories, as labelled, can contain high levels of truth. We have already noted people like flexible authenticity and arbitrary verisimilitude. No black and white. Only shades of grey. Per faceless man reasoning, therefore, conspiracy theories should be avoided where possible. Back in the 1960’s I would like to think the majority of activists were sincere, their concerns just and their actions vigilant, whilst honourable. If this is correct, then logic dictates alternatives to official historic accounts were not frivolous. That philosophy doubtlessly has changed, for the internet has a down side. Sheer volume encourages mass production of the worse kind, bad habits and sloppiness. quote-there-is-no-definition-of-a-mental-disorder-it-s-bullshit-i-mean-you-just-can-t-define-jon-rappoport-73-63-02Views that contradict the mainstream can now be more corrupt than wayward accredited sources. We might find a suitable analogy in the espionage industry. Double agents are conceptually similar to “double conspiracy theories”.

Periodically, I reflect on something I call the human condition. Years ago, before I attempted to put thoughts to writing, perhaps forlorn, perhaps devout, I wandered the vast internet as a lonely hermit seeking identity for purpose. This journey look me before Jon Rappoport and, as a subscriber of his instructional blogs, I listen to what he has to say very carefully. We are not always in agreement on issues, but most of the time we are, well, the expression “of one mind” impresses me. Jon has asked me, us subscribers, to watch Sydney Lumet’s film “Network” more than once. Not a movies person, I reluctantly set aside 15 minutes discipline a week and have been gradually been working my way through the 2 hours of footage.

12172015_Network_Peter_FinchThe central character is a disgruntled news broadcaster who first has a meltdown on air and then is picked up and promoted by unscrupulous elements looking to improve corporate ratings, which is an impeccable irony (e.g. the network’s toxic critic is their golden cash calf to salvation). Howard Beale exposes the inadequacies of news broadcasts reduced to fantasies that pander to “highest bidder” stakeholder interests better than our current best conspiracy theorists. Rather underwhelming his thunder, he asks his viewers to “do nothing” but just “get madder than hell”. Though the dialogue sizzles with strategically placed F bombs, a novelty for 1976, the movie cannot avoid overstating the human condition. Indeed Beale’s big soccer punch does nothing more than expose that television does not report, but rather politicises. In fact, he highlights ongoing deficiencies in the population at large by his own lack of remedial direction. The mindset of psychosis is an ocean of problems with no solution in sight. It should be no surprise that buoyant stagnancy is the only feasible response.

Beale made an example of those that read newspapers (we presume serious copy, rather than tabloid smut). A paltry slither of the populations at large was representative, but how many of those really understood and “delved”? We know, today, that newspapers cannot be trusted as well as all are either the mouthpieces of corporate advertisers or governments. researchersEven books (that sell) are invariably written to support given opinions backing corporate or government interests, so to ascertain absolute neutrality (truth) is almost impossible.

I have only worked through an hour and a quarter so there is 45 minutes of movie unseen. There may be surprises to come, but, thus far, nothing has shocked me (though, back in 1976, this sort of overt criticism would have been very unusual and, in my limited scrutiny, I think watered down by any other vague comparisons). In exposing the deficiencies of the system, Beale inadvertently revealed two much greater defects in the populations at large. They (his followers), the script intimates, would not be prepared to revolt (to get mad is a form of protest). Their televisions’ make believe had largely become the basis for reality because of the academic redundancy of the majority. Neither did the people know any facts nor would they contemplate the issues in any meaningful way.

Doubt-is-our-productThis, to the greater degree, correlates with today’s situation. Whereas the perceived total reliability of information offered by “the news” is not what it was, because people have such limited knowledge, the void is mostly populated by doubt. That means, of course, peoples’ familiarity with truth is more or less absent, so doubts simply fester, unchallenged for the most part. People judge “the news” on what sounds believable and not on merit. Of course, that which satisfies social programming (i.e. “education”, government/corporate standards, widely promoted philosophies that justify what it is to be socially acceptable) is delivered by the very same forces that engineer “the news”. So we have a self-perpetuating circle, broken only by geniuses (oracles that see beyond “the bubble”).

are-vaccines-safe_1To a fashion this has encouraged a kind of mass psychosis which morphs as the mindset of populism. Though the mindset changes with political trends, the populist view is always active sanity even when reason or logic individually applied might demote certain views as insane. vacnonesafe1Thus, if the populist tradition is “vaccines are the sane choice”, to go against vaccines would be insanity, if that makes sense. Nevertheless, breakaways from the mainstream have calculated such a sizeable collection of swayable minds; it is noted that alternative dichotomies are strong enough to stand alone and, in that capacity, would usually predetermine that “sanity” is the precise opposite of the mainstreamers’ position. For alternatives, therefore, to back vaccines would be sheer insanity. The mainstream Media, as Jon Rappoport regularly illustrates, are masters at promoting populism. They control left and right, mainstream and alternative and everywhere in between. Only very occasional prophets (or geniuses, if you prefer), mostly misunderstood, remove the veil of hypocrisy.

ivf-oxymoronThe three main aspects of human character that drag group potential down to the gutter are greed, laziness and selfishness. These traits, particularly in the modern age, are the rule rather than the exception. This is partly because the true value of words has been deliberately twisted or obscured by corporate miscreants that direct mainstream Medias. 7972da31017da4e5282d744254cc92bfSpinelessness, pusillanimity and treachery are celebrated as evidence of qualities purveying patriotism, virtue and honour. Devout cowards are regularly called brave. Oxymoron after oxymoron crafts normalcy.  “The machine” wants submissive slaves, whining as they work and just about everyone obeys the system, hook, line and sinker. “The machine” wants sulking protestors. The more the merrier. You good people affirm social apathy. You are not a threat to them and they will destroy you at their leisure.

The "filth"

The “filth”

Those that dare to take on the system never protest. They act wisely, cunningly and discretely, conjuring and deploying the most plausibly destructive, clandestine strategies against their foes. The “masses” great and only advantage is being “faceless”, so anonymity is strength. Corporate order knows this well and that is why their hired trouble makers are always in plain clothes when all-too-rarely in focus. In fact the powers have manufactured invisibility in industrial quantities. How many unknown government agencies or outsourced third parties have contributed to the all-encompassing globalist agenda of Zionism? Thinking laterally, are those [Skype and] e-mail scammers (banking shams, cheap medications and other rip-offs) the coordinated product of a consolidated “op” dedicated to manufacturing “mistrust of strangers”?  If so, that would satisfy the wider interests of Zionism which has three fundamental wishes.

norway_1212016_1Family members must be held perpetually accountable. Public opinion is designed to gravitate around mainstream views calculated by the architects of our governance systems. Parents are both exalted and threatened. Pro-system whistle blowers, snitches, eves droppers are encouraged. Per this tyranny, children are commodities with no rights or personalities. As arbitrary tokens of justice, sensationalising the removal of children from bad broods is used to keep borderline recalcitrant families in line. For their part, families must systemise children. Parental, administrative (schools and so forth) oversight is crucial to the Zionist objective. tsa_cartoon_tina_nortonThere are no exceptions to diktat. There is no way out. Government is to be respected, feared or both and, as such, is answerable only to itself.

Mischievously deceptive hyperbole dressed as paedophilia, terrorism and intoxication has been used to paint “the stranger” into a corner. Bad parts of families that aren’t bad broods are rejects or black sheep. Estranged family members may as well be strangers. This all came about because “stranger” is used as a code word in the bible. The Hebrew word it replaces is “Goyim” (which really means “national” or “person of a nation”). Thus, fundamental populist ignorance must be the mindset of modern psychosis, because just about everyone follows the script like lambs to the slaughter.

childs_play_3_poster_02The process does not stop with family programming. Systems (currently ad hoc Zionism, but that chic could rebrand) thrive on absolute control. khronosThey (the system architects) are attempting to regulate God. Ultimately God, the spiritual entity, cannot exist, because if He existed it would permit free thought and free thought does not work in programmed societies. Therefore the de facto science-atheist alliance (conspiracy?) that presumes authority is at constant loggerheads with nature. If nature is the cooperative essence of God, then regulation and proscribed order can only promote “chaos”. True anarchy (prescient order), proto-Zionism, has etched the mindset of psychosis which is man, the automaton. Zionists do at least live up to their name, for the Pharisees were the original usurpers of order.  “Jesus”, it seems, died in vain.