Inheritance, the Prodigal Son and Interest in “Interest”

When I began composing articles for this website it was as if I was a literary infant. Only while I fondly look back at scribbles in dusty journals do I see the core that was me remains intact, unblemished. It is what I have become.  Notably writing projects have grown into something much more expansive; substantially more substantive in many instances, presumably because I am much more proficient at the art of journalism. Nevertheless echoes of past enlightened symmetry still tantalisingly haunt. Whilst die-hard readers used to my familiar elaborate prose have witnessed an evolution of sorts, the more conventional style of recent entries is no less controversial. They are controversial but not abnormal it might be argued.  Even so, rhetoric is regularly too far adrift of sensationalised reason to covet “normalcy” in any sense of the word. It could be said my writings propose a uniquely different perspective which in itself is conspicuous evidence of sovereignty “apud esse”; something all humans strive for to some degree, but oh so few attain. In celebration of my largely discarded history, I have decided to attempt to revisit the past. My intention is to make this piece shorter, simpler [can I say?] in festival of the old but not forgotten me.

Is it possible to effectively resurrect the past?

Well that question will be answered presently.

Reflecting on my journey to date, I recall how, in dull moments, I would instinctively jot down a line or two, a solitary paragraph and other evidence of burning thoughts. None of these were suitable as standalone products for ambitious journalistic campaigns, of course. Logic dedicated a “to be written” folder to these moments and, over time, this has gathered fragments like moss to the old miller’s stone. Given my aim to regenerate dormant thinking, the “to be written” folder seemed the most valid first port of call for this episode. It is definitely fitting that the origins of my resurrection are founded in the rediscovery of misplaced parchments. In this case the scrap I selected consisted of a single page upon which was scribed one line of text in addition to the title. Intriguingly, these coarsely jumbled words appeared to nonchalantly identify an apparently related “unrelated” coincidence. The crux of the observation posited an “irony” over Federal Reserve banknotes, which are subject to 3% interest from the issuer (United States of America), paid annually, The coincidence noted that America (after a historic referendum) also dedicates a minimum of 3% of the gross national budget to “defence” which, in this case, is attack (messianic wars “for peace”).

Above this poignant inscription was the demure title “Interest in “interest””, which seemed the most fetching at the time, though, other than the, I must say, rather cheesy pun, the original “point” is now completely lost to me. After earning the judicial reputation of being an unabashed merchant of “tough love”, I would hate my inquisition to form any bias towards fashionably calculated schemes that formularise common opinions on “things in general”. Persuading those of low vibrational frequency that the devil is in the detail goes beyond motive. That is my vocation and, thus, I recommend anyone ill prepared to consider everything to the “nth degree” is not in a viable position to validate or express truth. Perhaps this rather crass example may suffice to service the analogy?

When someone dies of a gunshot wound motivated by an aggressive attack what perpetrates the murder? Is it the gun inventor, designer, maker, owner or user with malice in his heart? Is the gun itself, the operator, the bullets that caused the fatal wound or the gunpowder that ignites deadly blows at fault? If the shooter is a soldier or policeman, for instance, do the “rules” for murder eerily change? Could we blame the environment, the timeline or engrained political intrigue?

And on and on we can debate.

Revisiting the past is one thing, but I don’t fancy repeating myself is very constructive. Whether produced by the Federal Reserve or not, money’s passé. We also all know it’s the root of all evil (although perhaps not “why” it’s the root of all evil). Many of my prior articles have touched on the topic. This one in particular goes some way towards exploring primary issues.  Nevertheless I concluded the standalone title “interest in interest” was insufficient for that cause. It needed to be widened or scrapped unless I chose a different path. Any form of censorship (however remote) is destruction of the past – hardly fodder for a celebration of reawakening. Therefore Integrity determined my only legitimate choice was to expand the title at all cost as I had no intention of wandering aimlessly in search of ambition. Fortunately “eureka” eruptions reward those with brilliance. What, lacking before, profoundly related to “interest” could be worthy enough for a role or roles in a high impact title? Thinking aloud, it came to me in a flash. Does not interest “prove” the justification for inheritance and ownership?  Inheritance is undeniably one of if not “the” foundation stone of profiting interests.

I would need to summon up a title profoundly deserving of these widened considerations. After much internal reflection, I did eventually find words that will hopefully fashion as a perfect compromise.  They are, in order, “Inherence, the Prodigal Son and Interest in ‘Interest””. This is the resulting effort that is designated as official title of this essay unless something obsessively changes the contextual direction of ideas and their natural progressions. Otherwise no further review is planned.

Now let me explain why the “prodigal son” was also selected for its part in the essential treatise theme. Intrinsically linked to inheritance, prodigal sons are no ordinary offspring. Therefore, simply, that was the “missing piece” I needed to complete the title. It also presented investigative goals worth chasing, investigation that needs to determine what makes these prodigal sons so special. Of course primary analysis did upturn the blissfully obvious. Basically, these male progeny are gifted enough to be cultivated, which is usually in the family direction.  Otherwise, why bother to cultivate? Way back, when elites ruled the world, families with “everything to lose” produced governors and gatekeepers for their kingdoms. Along the lines of this protocol, security over tenure became a family’s greatest priority and ensured at least one son was encouraged (putting it nicely) to enter the military at rank. Another would become a doctor or a priest (isn’t that odd?) and then the following (perhaps the most strategically important) would be groomed to act as lawyer, preferably under government. Black sheep or dropouts would eventually come round to becoming merchants, stock holders or artists. The rigours of this big, bad world ensure safe, easy options are usually preferred.

Before I press on with on with the good stuff, I need to do a little more reflection by way of background. People, I have noticed, have a fondness towards procrastination (mentioned last article too) and a crippling fear of criticism. Procrastination, at best, fuels truths-of-sorts. That is the reality and that is why I try my upmost not to procrastinate. It can be a hindrance because, through my personal discovery tour; I have found some values, ideas and beliefs I used to stand by were either flawed or false. Consequentially, many years ago, I used to regularly bloviate with erudite confidence. There was never anything more than “personal convictions” to back up my gift of the gab, but I rarely found anyone I met could contest my position on the state of things in general. More recently, I have become alert, ever wary of falling into the trap of believing my own bullshit. Criticisms (where valid) counter any opportunity for imperfect procrastinations to take hold, so I see these as causal blessings. Procrastinators, for the record, focus on symptoms or phantom symptoms in deference to causes. Truth givers expose the root.

Therefore if I am to do apt justice to “Inheritance, the Prodigal Son and Interest in “Interest”” all stones must be upturned so as not to grind out more unanswered, “impossible to resolve” niggling queries. I must, instead, disrobe all root causes to unveil the exhilarating detail. Thought and responding responses will require latitude, much latitude. Mountains of propagandas dating back to the dawn of time have had the mesmerising effect of misleading sane discovery to such a degree, befuddled judgments are the function of normalcy. Even some of the great minds of our era are consistently turned to fudge by certain conventions. This is why I focus on topics others simply wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole. True thinking outside of the box comes without a parachute. Even so, rather than drawing on possible conjectures as “sources of evidence”, my strategy (in motion) is to apply logic and purposeful reason to every concept I am at pains to illustrate.

Let us be sure where the “baseline” is. Currently materialist-atheist “edict” controls the way logic is directed. Per this “view”, the implication is purpose is a symptom compounded from random effects of existence, even though (as Rupert Sheldrake has wittily pointed out), by this account, more incontrovertible miracles were created at the dawn of time than Jesus could have ever fancied. (Alien to this mindset) in fact purpose must underline causes because existence was “crafted”. The evidence existence was crafted is found in its design, which is clear and unarguably transparent.

So to do justice to the quest, I may have to introduce suspects or considerations that have rarely or, perhaps, never been pondered before. All the little tweety birds that believe puffing various forms of political correctness is their branch to salvation beware, for this big bad eagle may swoop down and devour you and your branch whole. We should begin with no misconceptions. Those that initiated the process that conceived elitism (or, in other words, the hubris of “prison planet”) demonstrated extraordinary cunning. It seems obvious to me that, considering how the process has radically evolved (in the engineering sense), higher forces beyond this realm have had involvement every step of the way. Not dwelling on possible superstitions, the whys and the wherefores, however pertinent, I intent to expose the chassis of the fabric of the illusion that is today’s “reality”. Conspiracy networks have been installed so elegantly, it is as if they have been commissioned by God Almighty.

Before I discuss inheritance, it is important to review something much more primordial.  We take friendships for granted. They just happen. Or do they just happen? Our first friendships are with family or extended family. Managing relationships with our family members teaches us how to distinguish friends from enemies. These teach us politics (affairs of the people). They teach us who we can influence and who we will let influence us. A trade of sorts is communicated. Eventually we form close knit groups of likeminded kindred spirits. Perhaps not directly considered such, we are all elitist in the way we resolutely preserve our group cultures. When stretched out into the wider community and beyond, we expand into other political networks. Some present revolutionary, but not conflicting ideas.  These see us progress, in some cases. Some ideas are so common they become universalised. Politicians naturally capitalise on, exploit and manipulate these phenomena.

Eventually draconian laws are destined to twist what was original goodwill into all kinds of overt tyrannies in order to elevate elite elitist cultures. Laws have always been the basis for kingdoms. Under this principle, every king has ruling power. However, without friendships there would be no alliances to back the laws and politics that founded them would be rendered superfluous and obsolete. No king could rule. In addition, under these conditions, though commerce would be possible, other than as a tool of oppression, inheritance could have no functional purpose. It would also mean people would be forced to discover the truth if they were motivated that way. They could no longer rely on friends’ redigested second and third hand opinions that sounded right.

As it stands “Inheritance” is one of the golden keys to open Pandora’s Box.  In a distant era populated by long forgotten customs and attitudes, it was exclusively the domain of the elites. At that time land was free, commoners outside metropolises were largely ungoverned and there was no sense of ownership (per modern standards). Individuals congregated into clans and these became long standing settlements which then saw homesteads passed down from generation to generation. But there was no registered ownership. If some place was occupied and sympathetically unavailable, sound conscience determined it was off limits. When the “universalisation” of deeds of ownership tied to symptomatic inheritance of chattel began is hard to calculate. In “western society”, I would argue that the abolishment of “slavery” (social security) led to the effective enslavement of man. Inheritance then evolved to become a quasi-version of the “frills” of slavery. “Rights” would be proscribed by authorities unless aspects of commoners’ common law were considered relevant (to seamless elite governance of slaves). In this case any reflectively worthy laws were drafted as supplants to legislated corporate manifestos. It goes without saying administrators of guidelines were systemised lackeys incapable of virtuous judgement. Finally, courtesy of banking and insurers, everything could be “valued” and that “worth” represented by tokens of interest (whether that is gold/silver bars, coins or promissory notes).

In order to engage lawyers and accountants whose role (in the grand elites’ scheme) is to professionalise ownership, receipt of inheritance follows a litany of potential administrative hurdles, but I don’t wish to dwell on this. There is another internet resource I like to reference occasionally that specialises (in part) on whistle blowing messy probates, the fallout from inheritance. Pure Professional Journalism Gazette can be located here.

In addition, philosophy behind inheritance capitalises on the principle of appreciation or depreciation and this is clearly an expansion of the dependent interest bearing investment culture. Probate relies on belief in heirlooms, which are presumed to indefinitely financially mature. Government, per this reasoning, rakes in their “fair share” from the commerce evolution in taxes in order to theoretically provide ever improving infrastructures and representative management frameworks. Accommodating this theory, surpluses could be redistributed for other pressing voters’ needs. That is why I believe all governments (on paper, at least) are kept “in the red” deliberately. In fact, when truth is laid bare, government, though never limited, does little more than give inheritance necessary tinges of authenticity to make people believe in its credibility. If it is taxed, it “must be for real”. Without profits, commerce becomes obsolete. Interest is, by circumstance, both a symptom of and agent in confirmation of profits.

Truth laid bare goes way beyond mere commerce and inheritance. The tyranny actually began with registered ownership because, without deeds, commerce is arbitrary. Barter doesn’t cater for profits. Here is why the imperialists concocted their “survival of the fittest” mantra and continue to lord it as nature’s divine plan. The fittest are considered the best at coveting what they have scavenged (the nice word for stole). I apologise for dispelling with the hocus-pocus, but acknowledgement of ownership as something that is righteous and Godly only grossly and deviously distorts reality in favour of tyranny against the divine. Aside from  modern day [ADL fabricated) Racism fraud, the reason certain peoples have been temporarily “classed” as savages is to remove any contest over conquered (stolen) land spoils (“animals” cannot own land). Notably in Africa, America and Australia, “white man” thieved most of the habitable land areas. Repatriation (a pathetic attempt at feigning “fairness”) in some cases has seen the return of lands considered commercially unviable. Even so, generally speaking, when it comes to origins of ownership, judicial mechanisms continue to work off the ludicrously partisan principle “finders’ keepers”.

The net effect of that is another of those atheistic miracles. Our impotent, voiceless God apparently blesses open sacrilege. Was the principle finders’ keepers ever to be condemned and abolished, commerce would cease to exist. This is a big statement. Some might contest it. Here’s an analogy which should amply validate its authority. I don’t own the royal grounds, approximating three square miles, close to the heart of Tokyo, Japan. Under the auspices of lack of ownership, no one would own the land. Therefore, I decree some legitimacy in laying claim on that which is not owned. Hypothetically, I could establish a real estate agency to sell off my theoretical acquisition. I may be able to attract teams of would be buyers. Yet, without binding contracts and infrastructures supporting them, verifiable presumption of intent to abide by the law, the land is worthless until someone or some group manufactures political legitimacy. The ancient Romans couldn’t give money away to the Britons because they did not believe in it.

The reason (under this system) ownership will never be abolished (although it may be restricted) is governments would have to rescind their slave master statuses in order to transform into arbitrators that truly work “for the people”. Currently populations are effectively forced to toil to survive. Those privileged enough to “own” sufficient land holdings supported by interest bearing investments probably haven’t the skills to become entirely self-sufficient. Thus, without government society would naturally function through the formation of brokered relationships that would need to leverage and harness social parasitism. According to today’s popular press (sponsored by corporate interests and governments who are in themselves giant corporations), people only want good jobs. People, by the same rose tinted reasoning, will do anything to keep their good jobs. Commerce needs labour to function. Indeed, for those that were (in society) to ever become self-sufficient, commerce would cease to be necessary. That lack of functional necessity could only be defeated by interest in collectables and other objet d’art which, though arguably functionally irrelevant, fuel a potentially ever-accruing “need for more”. I guess that is why we have collectors.

It is important to understand the relevance of commerce, because many “goods and chattels” from the inheritance perspective may be deemed valueless. The family’s pink plastic clock that ticked you to sleep as a baby is worth nothing (even though it may be priceless to you) compared against your departed father’s prestigious “medal winning” coin collection that you were never “allowed” to touch, which insurance would class as a valuable asset. Many factors can determine an heirloom’s worth. Rarity, age, condition, popularity affects status of all antique items. Statuses are groomed from fostered traditions. For instance, Caucasian Australian manufactured artefacts offered for sale would likely be priced at many multiples of any vaguely comparable Aboriginal counterparts. In line with this ideology, the essential education of all well-connected prodigal sons provides a vital comprehension of firstly how the system functions and then, as importantly, how stepping stones to credentials gift “keys to the kingdom”.

Unsurprisingly a correct (for purposes of social elevation) education is priced beyond the means of not-so-humble slaves, which proposes a vicious circle whereby only elite or “fortunate” working class families can avail the system. Indeed for the system (which some argue began with William Cromwell at Westminster) to permanently function as it is, the riff-raff could never be involved in any authoritative managerial capacity. So, with the exception of very occasional “pliable” geniuses, credentials of note are off limits to ordinary folks. Rebellious or revolutionary geniuses are invariably spurned by those that might have empowered them unless their significances were so timely that to trade would persuade the only logical course forward. The powers never favour constructive partnerships. That wick always burns fast and furious. Why would recalcitrant free thinkers ever be viscerally rewarded by a system that choses to repress or oppress most forms of independent thought?

From the (dare I say?) “Conspiratorial perspective”, certain specialised training qualifications that are destined to open doors to those prized “good jobs” are invariably only available to those with educational credentials usually off limits to working classes. Hindsight is a wonderful attribute. In many instances only those in the know (or, rather, with “connections”) have inside information as to which skills to acquire for guaranteed success. Thus, just about all “good jobs” are snapped up by exclusive circles privy to their occurrences. Propaganda permeates a much wider circle of influence which, in part, is designed to operationally program the masses. I can but assume the Clintons were firmly behind the cruel and childish media attacks on Chelsea as a young adult. The design (aided by unflattering images), in this case, was to chide ignorant people into “believing” she was “ugly” so as to ward off any potential for successful unsuitable suitors’ advances. Media tactics of this kind are regularly analysed by Jon Rappoport. I strongly recommend investigation of his writings.

Few seem to be able to come to terms with the extent of the complexity of propagandas. Perhaps this is because everyone attempts to deny their own relative indoctrination or, worse still, it is the summary evidence of their root systemisation. Propagandas are everywhere. They are not merely limited to the mainstream and institutionalised “sciences’ (sic). Much deceptive information has been generated about computer viruses, for instance. One of the great lies that seems as though it will stand the test of time forever is Pasteur’s germ theory. Germs, according to Pasteur, can invade and infect any body and this is completely untrue. On the back of the lie, scientists concoct legions of “organised germs” that conveniently follow the program. They label these mysteriously unidentified legions’ “viruses”. Of course, if medical evidence free of Pasteur’s contaminated propaganda was given the opportunity to incubate reasoned appraisal, results would radically dishonour current standard opinions in the same manner Bruce Lipton somehow defeated all biological cells.

As Pasteur was nothing short of an appendage of “corporate science” which had been set up by the Rothschild family in Paris in the late eighteenth century (just after the “revolution” – sic), any marketing device aiding the manufacture of arbitrary confusion to help everyone “believe” would be regarded as a godsend by those that presume they own the world. Their godsend in specific relation to the case I highlight is “computer viruses”. Computer viruses are not even remotely comparable to any medical counterpart, but propaganda agents don’t care. In fact origins of all computer viruses can be traced back to sponsored hackers testing security effectiveness of networked equipment, but that muddies the objective of paradigm synthesis. To the propagandist it only successfully sells the “concept” germs can and will invade and infect with impunity whether via the internet or other routes. The idea that anyone connected to humans is potentially “networked” with dangerously contaminated aliens is the perfect genre extension. Because, in this specific case, “viruses” (as labelled) do invade and infect technologies, the propaganda message would go a long way towards convincing shallow minds. I will leave the associated complex good/bad bacteria and strengthened/weakened immune systems’ discussion for another entry.

The great deception is to paint a computer virus as the principled copy of a medical virus.

Using established institutions to routinely dress false positives or negatives as “facts”, places the system in the supreme position of being able to present any fantasy as effective truth, no matter how fantastical. Providing data can be formally argued and expressed in particular ways, any antipathy of reality is up for believable persuasion. There are actually no laws of science (physics). There are only laws of existence (to the atheists’ dismay) which can theoretically be placed under scrutiny of sciences. An excellent example of how current etiquette can end up bamboozling itself is found in various expressions of interest that emerged considering the effectiveness of a new energy generating prototype heralding from Italy a few years ago. I have lost source details, but can verify corporate backers in favour of the machine presented analytical notes interpreting data that illustrated the device was going to be a magnificent success. Competitors insisted the exact same data was unrequited “proof” the machine would never work by their account. Would be investors coming somewhere in the middle couldn’t or wouldn’t speculate either way. Similar “analysis” has been made regards the Bosnian “Pyramids”. The duly diligent will see it everywhere.

In addition, to aid propagandists’ purposes, word values (such as “gay”) are routinely changed or even reversed in order to lambast popular interpretations. Late Nicolai Levashov (his family incidentally claims he was “murdered by Zionists” in 2012) and other genre academics have argued this restructuring of language began in earnest in mother Russia just after the 1917 bankers’ invasion. Let’s face it; “interest” is a profoundly positive word that surely inspires persuasive popularity. That is why it was given to “utopian” banking commissions (which will always be viewed in an eternally positive light) in my opinion. Finally, those that do not consider insistence on and observance of balanced truthfulness is the only viable promotional standards’ benchmark are propagandists, whether they acknowledge the fact or not. Propagandists are in the business of manufacturing beliefs, period. Truth that doesn’t support or actually impedes the manufacturing process is unwelcome. Any devices, such as changing word values, fake science and so forth are more than welcome. Discerning would-be “Manchurian Candidates” is trickier, but, I would imagine those that assure religious adherence to product “use by” dates are well and truly in the crisis zone. The vegetarian that “doesn’t like” meat isn’t far behind.

Money is only supported by the “belief” in its value. That particular belief has become the most potently powerful and universally entrancing factor in the control of man. Thus, we must acknowledge the scripting of believable beliefs is far more virulent than truths that might support or aid acknowledgement. For example, I wonder if any believer (in money) has considered the fact that financial optimism provides fodder for wars. When the Industrial Revolution was in full swing the 1890’s saw boom times. Boom times make babies; manpower for the First World War? “Roaring” ‘20’s clearly provided “stock” for the Second World War (Germany was billed to “lose”, so their peoples were given fertility stemming poverty on the back of harsh reparations. 1930’s optimism was in preparation for the kingdom of Germany to be rebuilt as a new republic [styled on America] when the war was won).

There are always going to be inconsistencies, such as the infamous 1960’s flower power movement. This is a paradox because it was the only genuine peoples’ revolution in living memory. No attempt was made to synthesise prosperity in the 1970’s because weaponry is becoming so sophisticated, “ape” operators will eventually be found unnecessary (beyond culling populations). Were a few of those bygone hippies “tuned in” enough to realise “Interest” is the nemesis of sovereignty? Being a hippy was all about recognising individual sovereignty. The 3% the Federal Reserve skims off every dollar assures each bill in circulation is worth 97 cents (presuming “government” doesn’t take a cut too). Therefore the owner either has to front the loss or is forced to speculate or trade in order to recoup 3% or more. Imagine the potential for manipulation if Bitcoin or any other e-currency takes hold. That is how the notion of profits was born. The land that is the royal grounds of Tokyo is worthless unless it is rated and valued. It has long been presumed that “highest bidder” nominations assure correct marketplace values, but this isn’t necessarily so.

Abundance does not come without a “price” to those that dedicate themselves to controlling humanity. Population swells lead to the collectivisation of giant metropolises. Without incessant propagandas that “define” normalcy, the “stranger” might persuade “influence charisma” of comparable or greater power than corporate bread winners. From that, a rogue messiah or “anti-Christ” could emerge. It is more than possible; probable even. If so, of course there are many ways to quickly dispel unrest. Leaders can be branded occultists, sexual deviants or, worse still, insane.  Anyone fetching that positive diagnosis can be liberally carted off to a very unhealthy institution and indefinitely detained without recourse. As everyone that used to be “evil” now has some sort of psychiatric disorder, biased and unfair claims against can be sinisterly effective. How well did Jesus fare against the Pharisees in face of the cross? How are mental illnesses “healed”? Well to answer that, there is a litany of tested drug cocktails perfect at prepping would-be “Manchurian Candidate” assassins without causes from recalcitrant, inspirational free-thinkers.  Two birds killed with one stone, maybe?

Labels, Statistics and Overrated Opinions

I am regularly amazed by how statistics seem to contradict probabilities. And never more so than at Ozzie Thinker’s desk where (last time I checked) backend demographics showed all-time highs. The sudden surge in anonymous interest diametrically contradicts output. Ever since I stopped posting, the figures have shot steadily up. Is prosperity trying to tell me something? Or perhaps there’s a malignant hubris artificially generating results (a grand conspiracy if you will) and figures are destined to plummet at the click of some insane bureaucrat’s fingers. If they (the marketeers behind) Mrs Clinton could generate over a million tweets from outraged pretend supporters, then a mere twenty bozos a day devoted to my cause is child’s play. In case her beloved “supporters” feel I am being harsh, when the next Great White Hope comes into focus, Mrs C will fade into oblivion as fast as the night is extinguished by daylight. On the other hand, perhaps I am magnificently witnessing sea change here; the beginnings of a cultural revolution of the woken.

The reason posting has seen regular monthly articles wane to quarterly bulletins, if you’re lucky, is my time has been devoted to survival. In ancient times men were forced to hunt for a living, or so we are prepared to believe by creators of myths. Today we have predatory salesmen and their organs of support. In fact modern statisticians divide business developers into hunters and farmers, exactly as the bread winners must have been divided in ancient times.  How does the expression go, “when in Rome”, or “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em”? So, having no intention of being an organ of support (slave), my options have been reduced to sell or perish.

Given the enormous amount of work contributed to this blog and other writing projects, preference beckoned towards a synchronistic alignment with alternative commerce. However, given the army of naysayers and “anti-profit” armchair critics, any alternative commerce venture travels perilous waters. Years ago, if you expected something for nothing, you would be labelled a freeloader. Now misanthropic scourges have stolen the limelight and insist, in their unscrupulous interpretation of sovereignty, everything that isn’t free, all goods and services, isn’t good. Far from being against money, they just about all use whatever they can muster to keep stocked with the latest overpriced corporate branded products. The love of money, hatred of honest profits paradox is further exacerbated by what seems like droves of designer New Age socialites unilaterally imploring no sincere spiritualist would ever dare “charge” for anything. As people, generally speaking, are excessively greedy and narcissistically self-serving, overall the message resonates like one of “God’s” Commandments. So that, in summary, is why my output has been reduced to the sorry trickle of material witnessed presently.

In a sense I have already done justice to the title, “Labels, Statistics and Overrated Opinions” in these opening paragraphs, but I want to focus on more serious matters; matters of the world. Wallowing in self-pity never fixed anything, so I battle on, perennially hopeful of changed mindsets and systemic collapse. In fact, to be honest, hope has already glimmered favourably in my direction. A few years ago I scripted a fairly substantial outline for several weighty volumes generally of a fluffy paranormal quality or, dare I say, real Sci-fi. After eagerly market testing one part (which was envisaged as an introduction), I discovered to my cost book production invariably only rewards printers at the writers’ expense. That said, the offer still stands to any altruistic billionaires with extremely deep pockets willing to fund a guaranteed loss. The learning curve gleaned from the market test dictates that only with sufficient guaranteed funds would anyone of right mind engage in any commercial literary projects. Being of right mind, I will not reignite the book series work without backing. By the way, details on how to purchase (that’s right, “buy”) a copy of “The Beauty of Existence Decoded”, my short “one of a kind” codex, can be found here. On a more positive note, though the book has sold in pitiful numbers, it has opened doors to other things and avenues of hope.

I mentioned the paranormal and I think it would be fair to say, in a sense, I didn’t actually write the book. Some future wizened analyst might validly argue I acted as some sort of divine scribe, but I prefer to be modest as (explained here) “The Beauty of Existence Decoded” contains [numerous] errors (one of the down sides of using a human information portal – we contaminate purity!). Anyway, upon advice I received from someone that read the book, my path took me somewhere else. Though what I now do as a consequence is not overtly commercial, it may grow into the “alternative income source” I had originally sought at some juncture. Tutored by powers not of this Earth, I can reveal I conduct occasional but regular “light DNA” reading consultations via Skype. Prior to undertaking this commitment, instructions from my immaculate backers were contrite and three point. In summary, those with open minds devoid of preconceptions and worthy enough to sacrifice $100 an hour may see value in reading the report of a prior session I have tabled at my Exo-politician website. The circular also provides intimate contact details for anyone inspired suitably to make the monumental choice in reaching out.

A second article presenting follow up information which recounted numbers of select examples taken from different light DNA “readings” had a burning ulterior motive. It was important to once and for all identify the power-brokers fuelling those naïve New Age freeloaders’ ideas transformed into illogical hatred of alternative commerce.  Surely it does not take a big stretch of the imagination to calculate correct management of labels, statistics and opinions could “overrate” or “underrate” anything in zone? Today’s science stakes its reputation on credentialed compelling theories whether they are correctly truthful or otherwise. I made the point before that the Hadron Collider (the great theory generator) had whipped up two hundred (one presumes different) essays justifying the “discovery” of a (so-called) Higgs-bosino within days of the news release. Lack of vision personifies “legitimacy”.

The power of the label has crafted societal insanity. This comes in many shapes and forms, all unrecognisable to those caught up in the intrigue. Suffice to say, divides between adults and children have become so austere that none (other than the occasional free thinker) dare question the authority of beliefs that complement the evolving status quo, but particularly if the oxymoron “paedophilia” (to be on the same wavelength as children) is in frame. Occasional bright sparks see and know it is a big phoney. Growth development stages are strictly personal and not by any means “as outlined” by authorities, but that hasn’t dinted universal tyranny. Past standards (not even vaguely representative of current trending opinions) do not hold any sway today and, in the future, I fear the gap between nature and synthetic accountability (suiting “the powers”) will widen inexorably.

The most vicious corruption of truth is found in routine abuses of the label “abuse”. It seems that it is possible to pull off just about any statistical feat empowering the greater good when it is necessary to conjure “sin”.  Therefore, abuse rates among magic words of the likes of “hocus-pocus”, “abracadabra” and open “sesame”. These release the door to any Aladdin’s cave. Science, of course, is very much an accessory to the fact. Today professional agencies specialise in up-branding old pseudo-sciences (though almost invariably these are the concepts that should have been shamelessly discarded at the graveyard of lessons learned). As the great journalist Jon Rappoport regularly cynically points out, all (and without exception) three hundred or more symptoms of abnormal behaviour scripted by the American Psychiatric Association (a science body) could equally be classed as symptoms of normal behaviour. It should be no wonder that psychiatry’s track record in its inappropriate (bordering on psychopathic) administration of toxins (promoted as) “drug cures” is atrocious.

I could go further and say the whole “medical industry” peddles a litany of poisonous vaccines under the remedial label of good health. Anyone vaguely swayed by arguments against vaccines (which notably began in the 1860’s) that regards the poison address a bit harsh need only inspect the ingredients list of (vaccine) preservative Thimerosal. Eli-Lily’s product (successfully withdrawn from sale under numerous other guises) contains seriously noxious components, including rat poison or formaldehyde (one of a long list of nasty ingredients).  This should make the average person’s blood boil, but the power of causal overrated opinion following establishment statisticians’ propaganda is so strong it defies reasoned logic.

Jon Rappoport is no average person and he has tirelessly pursued his mostly one man campaign against bad medicines for decades. In that capacity, he was one of the first to publically identify the AIDS’ scam. We don’t necessarily parry on ultimate conclusions, but few others that have earned my respect of them to his level. In fact our differences of opinion make my support of him all the more valid….in my opinion. For instance, he rather fanatically (considering his enormous human status) backs Trump, the current President of the United States of America. I make no secret of the issue that I dislike President Trump. I disliked him before the presidency and he hasn’t fared any better since taking the top job (although, after Bush Junior, can it still be called the top job?). Trump, I did feel, was an immense improvement on the Hillary Rodham Clinton selection and, in that context; I pronounced he was the “only” choice for America while election battles raged.

Let’s face it, he puts shallow puddles to shame and is a cross between Dean Martin or Frank Sinatra and a holiday camp cheerleader on a good day. His bad days reveal a dull, misogynist, uncouth version of vintage Clinton-esque. Were the Clintons to hire the most universally skilled hacker to fix computer software problems, Trump would employ a lump hammer instead. He is a man renowned for making farcical statements matched only in their banal profoundness by his lack of intellectual finesse. As one commenter exclaimed against a Rappoport Trump promoter (words to the effect), “Civilised [leaders] have totally devolved to ape status; when will they start throwing their own faeces?”

Perhaps the next part of this essay might be better placed on my other blog as it features what, on face value, can only be described as an extra-terrestrial entity. The subject in question, a being of status unknown, appears to satisfy the popular descriptive vagaries of “alien” life form but does speak English (plausibly), so, as this is a non-discriminatory website, my editor has let it pass this time. For all we know the person in question might sadly suffer catastrophic deformities or simply is a very strange looking human.  Humans, we will learn, are between a rock and a hard place, as eloquently explained by this (presumably) captured person/entity/alien (call it what you will). It opens dialogue with its own very relevant but startling origins “confession” that amounts to a past heralding back to a distant future on planet Earth. Though I have not specifically analysed for “splices”, the selected clip consists of a few minutes of “promo” footage taken (carelessly leaked) from roughly nine hours (over several sessions) of recorded interviews. My critique of the movie might appear unfairly negative stacked against the staggeringly important nature of the information presented, which is mostly, I must say, unadulterated bona fide cosmic truth.

As I was collecting my thoughts for the article, I did have the silly idea of attempting to encourage visitor interaction via comments supporting progressive feedback; you know – you, the people speaking. If my role as educator is having any affect at all, people must eventually think for themselves. Given the uniquely cosmic perspective of the present subject matter, many might be entirely susceptible to numerous “slants” in the short presentation. Originally, I had envisaged leaving the detective work to my audience. How did one heckler put it me before? Reporters report. Yet, if I was to simply report what I saw (and you see), I would mislead for the entity lied – deliberately. In addition, given my special light DNA reading ability, I can tell [you all] what it is “made of”. This is important if any calculated reasoning is to be applied to textual analysis in context. For instance we (in truth) don’t know what happens in the future so any future man’s information might be entirely authentic or…..utter bull crap.

In the spirit of labels and statistics, we only need to refer to anthropological work of the Genome Project to learn that over eighty thousand years human being has changed (“evolved”) between zero and two per cent, but there are billions of very similar different types of “us” if we inspect the detail. Based on that criterion, it would be correct to say the videoed entity “as seen” could not hide in a crowd, even if passed off as a deformed man, under normal circumstances. Beyond its humanoid structure and misshapen human apparent head, it is not human. Nevertheless, thankfully there are a number of tell-tale clues aiding apt identification for willing snoops. For instance (ignoring the perplexing question “how the hell did it get here?”) there is some ambiguity as to how far forward in the future the creature (de facto man) returns from. It talks about “nuclear war” next century (i.e. this century, as the interview was filmed last century) “ending humanity”, but it was one of few survivors. That’s the first contradiction. Humanity is wiped out, but the entity (claiming it is human) is one of a small number that survive. Applying blinkered vision to the alleged “scope” of our nuclear technologies as sufficient for engineering a cataclysmic holocaust of Armageddon proportions (now that would be a God Almighty paradox), are we to assume the visitor is radiation deformed or recalibrated “human” of the 2,200AD era?

Stoking the mission of labels, statistics and overrated opinions, there is lots of data we can use to substantiate a formal case as to modern man’s nuclear prowess (or lack of). For instance, the “powers” have learned their vile and reflectively pointless 1945 attack on the Nagasaki Islands prefecture did not make a dent in humanity’s population expansion course. The 4,700KG nuclear bomb only killed thousands and census statistics bounced back within decades in spite of the radioactive fallout. Diphtheria killed millions, so (in absence of suitable industrial viruses) toxic vaccinations are a second best population reduction strategy and proven far more effective than war. Data gathered from the years long, round the clock bombing of Iraq and then from the subsequent 2004 invasion and ongoing war demonstrate that nuclear waste makes an excellent non-discriminatory conductor for corporeal cancers. It also causes horrible birth defects (tragically interfering with the chromosomes) which are polarised against the spread of wider populations. However, as evidenced in Chernobyl (and, even, to some degree Fukushima), “nature” is seen to repair nuclear contamination at light speed. Considering the intolerably high proportion of modern conventional weapons that are “nuclearized”, I find no evidence that “fall out” or violent attack will have any significant lasting effect on global population statistics.

Weighing up doomsday scenarios, the evidence faithfully proffers that man is no threat to the globe nor ever will be, on current course, but the end-of-worlds “scenario” is a good fear mongering device for aggravating conceited, albeit superstitious, opinions. Nature simply fixes the damage too quickly for malignant human enterprises to capitalise. Therefore, if we are wiped out (or close to it), “nuclear” (as is known today) is not the catalyst. The entity could have substituted the word nuclear for something else that is presently “unknown” (perhaps we have no word for what it was describing and that is the closest approximation), but the impartial audience must judge the use of terminology, at best, misleading (certainly weighed against the entity’s claims that it knew what we “don’t know”).

Information tendered by the “future man” is by no means unique. There are other inconspicuous superficial evidences to be found from various “unworldly” sources that either partially or fully deny doomsday scenarios. One such source is hidden in Suzy Hansen’s book, “The Dual Soul Connection”. Her unidentified “Grey Being” abductors do confirm there is some type of future (and not-to-distant) holocaust, or, rather, they have provisioned for one and Suzy (who is easily pushing sixty years old) has been trained as a cosmic nurse when disaster strikes. I cannot fathom how she would be effective in that capacity in her seventies, eighties and beyond. Even so, it must be said the big threat looming to potentially kill off everyone (other than the very strongest genes) is ever increasing (petro) carbon in our atmosphere).

Logically, to me, air supply contamination would be the simplest (with knowhow) and quickest way to eradicate humanity. It is our air supply that generates all cancers; through consequence of infected DNA from fossil fuels pollution (and not the stupid “chemtrails” decoy) collected in the heavens. There are numerous natural methods to alleviate or remove symptoms. These include, naming a few: cannabis oil, graviola (from the Soursop plant), ginger extract and thyme oil. Chemo, unsurprisingly, presents as much data promoting growth of tumours as their reduction. But this should be no great shock as it is the establishment’s “unerring” preferred “solution” (sic). “Coming Clean on Cancer” is a planned future writing project I have part scripted that explores the intricacies.

I find it rather poetic that the greatest threat to humanity is not the “powers” (as is always popularised) but, rather, humanity itself. All we needed to do is become aware and not capitulate with their schemes. Instead we all, to some degree, defiantly travel the path of ignorance. The Cosmic Christ, Immortal Mohammed, Sacred Prophets are each fluid concepts engineered by the same basic pack of scoundrels behind objective global control measures. Consequentially, I really warmed to the entity’s summarisation of the “state” of mankind, duly noting many tinges sarcasm intermingled with hyperbolic distortions of truth. It blamed religion and politics as the root of unavoidable chaos. Unlike the sensationally lacklustre rubber doll interviewed by the “CIA”, at least “future man” was real and gritty. To me, the unanswered query is, “real in what way?” In response, I think I can gauge suggestions as to correct identity, location and even timeline.

The voice was the first effect to analyse. It was deeper than any baritone’s I have heard and, but for the rather “tacky” stage set, logic questions its authenticity. Was it a human voice that had been synthesised? Could the sound track have a different origin to the video? The script does match the intonation very well and, taking into account the very special nature of the information presented, I conclude that the sound track not only belongs to the video, but it has also not been synthesised. We are witnessing the voice of the creature claiming to be “future man”. He (assuming he is a “he”) clearly had a very good knowledge of contemporary idiom as he sounded perfectly in period or, perhaps, by modern standards, a little out-of-touch.  Therefore, I do not place him “from the future”. He is undoubtedly from the time he was interviewed, but had access to esoteric knowledge which spans all things and all time.

By pushing human “communion” (to a fashion), the interview (if considered carefully) should have aggravated the powers to the point of censorship. Some inferences are very agenda obstructive (from the higher perspective), so I determine he is not “their” (our powers) propaganda tool (beyond the way the clip is cut as is shown). So, with that in mind, I shall expand on analysis of the creature’s claim that it is a “future human”. We achieve our humanness from the so-called Sirian component (responsible for our cerebral cortex, for instance) of our DNA. Though I do not believe the Genome Project has come close (nor will it on its current path) to identifying “God’s keys”, inherence does present answers with crystal clarity. The fundamental image of man (the blonde haired, blue eyed boy) has remained a constant for billions of years, so why does a relative monstrosity (our mysterious entity) call itself human?

The answer is this. It does so for three primary reasons. Presuming it was genuinely captured by authorities and, subsequently, interviewed by trained government special agents, it would have (statistically) wanted to “fit in” (to avoid personal harm). Then, it seems, most likely the best way to deflect potential conflict with hostiles would surely be to feign human “brotherhood” (i.e. per its reasoning, humans shouldn’t be able to harm other sincere humans – now that’s warped alien logic for you!)? I have already highlighted its truth deceptions, so the “human” claim was also part of that wider disinformation cover story geared mostly to camouflaging calculated purposes for being where and when it was before it was caught. Finally, and most ironically, it claimed it was human because that is (in my opinion) what it is. It is a human that has taken a significantly different genome path to all of us (tabulated by the Genome Project). Most markedly, it contains no Sirian identity signature. This means the way it processes logic and, more compellingly, its absence of conscience (as we understand it) promotes an instinctive yen towards compassion.

Of course, I have another blog that specialises in the “exo-political” and, there, I have written extensively about human bloodlines highlighting our (the human) path is branched as Pteroid (ape), Sirian and Ciakar (“reptilian”). Ciakars are only reptilian looking. Their physiology is quite different to anything (living) on the surface today. Some rumour they would be better labelled “tetraploid humans” (dual chromosome sets ensuring the parental male/female traits are fully preserved), but I am not sure if this is the consequence of Sephardic (Sephardim are highly evolved Ciakars) channelled wishful thinking. If it is true though, it would establish the fact that their geneticists [must] have a method of identifying, seeing and manipulating quantum DNA in order to project linear heritage (i.e. they can create transcendentally). I find that prospect very exciting.

Ciakar genetics are also three pronged – Pteriod (not ape), Sirian (no cerebral cortex) and Lyran (feline). In the case of “future human”, I note an unmistakable Lyran influence, no [obvious] Sirian and some sort of Pteroid gene variable. Therefore, per the Ciakar hierarchy, it is a version of human. Perhaps it has no stomach or heart. Maybe it has two brains. We would need to witness an autopsy to discern the truth, but what is certain is its belief in its humanness is true. Even so, there are a couple of points in the clip which demonstrate very cat-like mannerisms. Plus it has a very strange, inhuman mouth (when inspected carefully).

We now know it is a genetically different human originating from the contemporary period (or before). The final part of the puzzle yet to be answered is, given its alien appearance, where does it come from? Indeed, the last place one of sound mind would expect to encounter such a creature would be on planet Earth. Yet, I suggest Earth is where it comes from, but not “on” the planet surface. As much as the establishment tries to pour cold water on the idea, other worldly beings regularly come to the surface from their subterranean homes. Consistently, they share one common irregularity (when matched against surface dwelling life forms). That irregularity is seen in the eyes, which are almost invariably black. In some cases eyes take up considerable facial real estate compared to, say, us. The only logical conclusion is, as one must assume there is little to no light in subterranean caverns, these special eyes are an essential requirement for effective local vision. Therefore, I propose our extra-terrestrial, pan-dimensional futuristic visitor was actually a common or garden sub-terrestrial contemporary but decidedly unconventional human. For the naysayers, the reason these creatures only venture to the surface in hours of darkness (and don’t travel far – lest they be caught short) is normal light would permanently blind them (I presume).

Overrated opinions require a muted discovery tour that is only (or primarily) committed to validating existing belief systems. As all belief systems are responses to rooted guidance (whether progressive symptoms of subservience or bloody-mindedness or not), plausible denial of (contradicting) truth is the commonest and easiest way of anchoring beliefs. Those of sweet tooth would find it implausibly possible to reject chocolate given correct educational stigmata or, should I say, stimuli. Anyone refusing to taste chocolate under any circumstances is in no position to make rational product judgement (though, perhaps, better highlighted by underage sex hysteria), so ignorance capitulates a fait accompli. Rhyme champions reason and that’s why proverbs were used to sell morality in ancient times.  Modern day politicians expand erosion of intellect tyranny by their incessant promotion of oversimplifications geared only to skewing truth in favour of commercial objective goals (also usually “verified” by stacked statistics as well). The modern way of labelling or branding is just as effective as proverbs used to be and, perhaps, better.

The net result is people have woken up as slaves, powerless to think outside their masters’ terms of engagement. Annoying rebels regularly identify the flaws, but, because they are trapped in the same conspiracy bubble as the rest, their rhetoric is largely limited to after-thoughts or musings. Let us take money, for instance. The brightest and best recognise it is “worthless”, but I have failed to find anyone that doesn’t use it. In fact, everyone I know of (without exception) clambers after money as though it was their end salvation. Fixing this, fixing all those prior unnoticed problems (the consequence of deliberate ignorance) that are now apparent takes sacrifice. Indeed, it might take the ultimate sacrifice. Therefore most people, even when vaguely aware, chose the path of relative ignorance and ambivalence to remain plausibly safe. “Affairs of state” are the banes of orated opinions for most people, though many would claim otherwise, are devout cowards. Bravery is not going to war. Bravery is peacefully refusing orders facing a loaded gun. You can generate as many labels and statistics as you like, but truth will never succumb to overrated opinions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Atheism?

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

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

Why indeed?

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

Conservation is “pointless”

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

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

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

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

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

Why atheism?

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

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

It’s all for a great cause – Atheism.

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

Two for the price of one?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is…why atheism?