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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


GMOs, Viruses, Vaccines and Military Industrial Sabbotage

Zika-virusThe Zika virus “outbreak” in Brazil has populated recent headlines in the Mainstream (I am informed, as I rarely see any value in checking out tainted sources). The popular shortlist culprit in the alternative Mainstream (mostly sponsored by the same supporters of the Mainstream) is Bill Gates’ genetically modified mosquitos. As Zika virus was first noted in the 1940’s, unless Gates infected the planet by time portal, his freaky mosquitos (presuming they exist) are not the culprit unless what is being labelled “Zika virus” is actually something else. I will continually stress, until I leave this great planet that all (and not some) viruses are caused by forms of inorganic or organic pollution. In the case of organic, it often turns out various forms of faeces or other bodily waste products are pollutants. Our bodies, any bodies deal with invading matter in three ways. Firstly they produce anti-bodies in great numbers. Secondly, they absorb the extraneous matter producing, in some cases, physical trace elements such as “viruses”. Finally, in accordance with the chain reaction, this produces symptoms, such as the common flu.

As the great journalist Jon Rappoport noted (and he became the Mainstream’s rash from the very beginning), there were many potential factors leading to a spike in the rare natal condition, microcephaly. He came straight out and said, from the outset, in this case there could be a number of factors contributing to those dismal Brazilian statistics. Nevertheless, as there is a long history of dreadful encephalitic eruptions in other places too, it would be foolish not to first consider these as the plausible “why?” for the peak in Brazil. In accordance with every single nuclear disaster; Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, Fukushima and other lesser known events, prenatal and natal outcomes, such as the small heads syndrome, brainless births, etc. have been strikingly similar to the Brazilian incidence. I would find it incongruous, as a journalist, not to have seen some corresponding evidence of radiation pollution influencing the birth defects in Brazil. Drawing of Jon’s wise preclusion towards multiple factors, I am drawn to consider how normally safe levels of radiation might have induced the catastrophic effect currently being witnessed in Latin America.

Mercury triggerOutside the Mainstream, vaccines are not being given a good press. Indeed, prior to it hitting academic news feeds and before he could even mention his name, Jon Rappoport was reporting on the prospect of William W. Thompson, CDC Whistle-blower, coming out. MMR Vaccine had camouflaged mercury based preservative, thimerosal. Those that bothered to check out the ingredients in the vaccines destined to destroy their children’s lives would have had to dig deep to find out any coherent information on the compound. If mercury wasn’t enough, let’s add aluminium and formaldehyde for good measure, but nothing to see here, the quacks know what they are doing. Outcome, we learn from Thompson, is aggressive autism and this was known by the CDC and Merck Vaccines from the very start. That makes your kids sick and that makes me madder than hell. There are no class actions against Merck or the CDC yet, but they are waiting for confirmation that they irrefutably lied, otherwise its “mea culpa” (tough shit) for the victims, I’m afraid.

People, please! Do your own bloody homework before you trust in something given to you by the supposed experts. Stop relying on the system of vipers to protect you. I know I cannot influence any of you; unless you decide you will be influenced by me, but, for pity’s sake, wake up.

There was a vaccine connection with the Brazilian incident. And, before I continue, I would like to say not all vaccines are necessarily bad. I am not another of those alternative Mainstream imbeciles that whips up hysteria for the sake of sensation. Everything must be evaluated separately, individually, on merit. There are very good reasons why there are many valid, therapeutic vaccines and I will outline logic in my summary. Thank goodness we were not dealing with MMR in this instance, but that also is not to say infants involved were not processed by the system: small headed and autistic, what a combination! Well, perhaps I spoke too soon. Back in 2014, according to sensational Mainstream news reports, all mum-to-be were given the TDaP vaccine. A cursory look at the raw ingredients reveals aluminium phosphate, ammonium sulphate and formaldehyde; but is there any mercury in there?

We can see the answer on the Food & Drug Administration’s own website (in muted damage control):

“Much progress has been made to date in removing or reducing thimerosal in vaccines. New pediatric formulations of hepatitis B vaccines have been licensed by the FDA, Recombivax-HB (Merck, thimerosal free) in August 1999 and Engerix-B (Glaxo SmithKline, thimerosal free) in January 2007. In March 2001 the FDA approved a second DTaP vaccine formulated without thimerosal as a preservative (Aventis Pasteur’s Tripedia, trace thimerosal). Aventis Pasteur, Ltd was also approved to manufacture a thimerosal-free DTaP vaccine, Daptacel, in 2002. In September 2001 Chiron/Evans was approved for manufacturing a preservative-free formulation of their influenza vaccine, Fluvirin, that contained trace thimerosal. In September of 2002, Aventis Pasteur, Inc was approved to manufacture a preservative-free formulation of their influenza vaccine, Fluzone that contained trace thimerosal…”

So there you have it. In all likelihood, the thimerosal preservative agent would have been administered to 3rd world countries and certainly to jurisdictions where not many important people lived. By the way, if thimerosal is not at all harmful, why remove it?

thimerosal_etiqueta_gAnother line of reasoning per the Brazilian tragedy introduced by Jon Rappoport was the potential for Monsanto’s involvement. This prompts two avenues of consideration. Brazil is renowned for its expansive jungles which, though substantively reduced from the 1970’s, are still extremely prevalent. In accordance with industrial production and processing of natural resources, statistics point at considerable quantities of herbicides, pesticides and insecticides infecting that fragile ecosystem at all levels. Good science has already established a link between imbalanced gut bacteria (leaky gut) and weakened immune systems. It is also a factor of obesity, particularly noted in developed nations. The principal ingredient of Monsanto’s Roundup, glyphosate, is the agent that causes guttural imbalance. After the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) monumental announcement that the chemical is a “probable carcinogen” (i.e. cancer causing), the Mainstream, aided by the men in white coats, have pounced at any opportunity to devalue that message.

monsantoweed-650x330For instance, Monsanto’s press agents have been quick to stress that “probable”, “possible” do not mean “is” [necessarily] and [as they are used] this is something like a disclaimer for their products so no one needs to pay attention (which I might add is sheer and unadulterated bullshit). That would be fine if the villainous WHO hadn’t decided that “certain” was too strong even though (and under enormous pressure to look the other way) all 17 cancer experts could not extricate the cause/effect link (as hard as they tried). We all know the ban of Monsanto’s products has begun in Europe, but it is likely to require an earthquake to fully dislodge those corporate interests. Thus, Jon Rappoport’s focus on glyphosate in relation to the Brazil and the microcephaly outbreak is a credible line of consideration. Whereas there is no connection between the chemical and ionizing radiation (causing horrific prenatal impairments to those exposed directly after a nuclear disaster), glyphosate is linked to autism (and ADHD), Alzheimer’s disease, Anencephaly, brain cancer and Multiple Sclerosis.

Before I discuss the other Monsanto product range, genetically modified organisms, it is essential to establish the difference between a virus and a retrovirus. As with all things microscopic, the truth is never particularly clear, but I have found a source that offers an apt and contrite explanation of differences:


Virus contains DNA or RNA as their genetic material and DNA or RNA may be single stranded or double stranded. The core of viruses i.e. genetic material is surrounded by protein or lipoprotein coat. It is called as the capsid, and sometimes the capsid is enveloped with a membrane, when they are in the outside of a cell or host. Capsid is composed with identical units, which are called capsomeres. The capsid is symmetrical and varied from simple helical form to highly complex structures…


Viruses that carry reverse transcription are called retroviruses. This virus can convert their RNA into DNA copy. This process is catalyzed by reverse transcriptase enzyme. Then this DNA is integrated covalently into the host genome using integrase enzyme, which is coded by reverse transcriptase. So, retrovirus has a special advantage as a gene carrier. They are integrated into the host genome directly, but the reverse transcription is much faster than the normal transcription process and it is not much accurate. So offspring may be genetically different from the first generation. Retroviruses can cause HIV and number of cancers in animals.”

happy_green_monkeySummarised and with Ozzie Thinker lateral translation, a virus is inorganic (or redundant organic) matter that infects the living cell layer and a retrovirus is a virus that mutates in such a way it cloaks cellular DNA guaranteeing unchecked mutations (cancers) of the second generation or greater. It is logical to assume that an adopted alien cell system, foreign to the body, could effectively harbour a virus which, by causal effect, would become a retrovirus in undetected form. HIV, for instance, is arguably the retroviral product of something (virus) that lies dormant in apes and came into existence when batches of polio vaccines with cultured in the kidneys of live green monkeys and chimpanzees after serums were administered. So, returning to Bill Gates’ (alleged) genetically modified mosquitos introduced to the same region of Brazil which saw the microcephaly outbreak after a reported Zika virus spike, let us consider the possibilities.

These insects were made and introduced to, apparently, relieve the region of Dengue fever as the new mosquitos were predicted to overwhelm and squeeze out (per natural order) the larger, unmodified bugs. My other blog regularly features articles about other worldly, extra-terrestrial systems. In this case, I refer to the Draco’s (a shadow, extra-dimensional, reptilian hierarchy that monitors and controls man) numerous and unsuccessful attempts at creating a new human hybrid (our replacements). These guys have been at it for billions of years. Monsanto or some other organisation comes along and, in two minutes, expects to overcome the issues that have affected geneticists from the dawn of time? If a mosquito feeds on your blood, it makes an exchange of DNA, so every time a Brazilian is bitten by one of these little suckers they become a minuscule part GM mozzie (assuming the whole thing isn’t a giant hoax). I rather like this quasi-mainstream article that puts things into perspective:

“This theory suggests the Zika virus outbreak is the result of mosquitos genetically modified by British company Oxitec. The GM mosquitoes in question, Aedes aegypti, have been engineered so that when they breed with the normal population, none of the mosquito offspring survive…

…But this is nonsense. GM mosquitos cannot reproduce, and those that survived into adulthood cannot suddenly become infected with the Zika virus. Further to that, the Zika virus has been around for more than 60 years, having been first isolated in Uganda in 1947. It found its way from Africa and moved westwards, with cases in Micronesia, French Polynesia and Chile. It was first identified in Brazil in May 2015.”

It seems Zika fever is well known in India and has been around so long it perhaps was recorded in Vedic times. Unfortunately I have not been able to cite any specific examples in the holy texts, but I feel sure correct due diligence would show something. The important point is, if Zika fever originates from the same Zika viral strain that was discovered in 1947, then the connection with “genetically modified mosquitos” (if they exist in the region) is coincidental. Reading between the lines, additionally, it was only after the WHO 2015 announcement of a possible Zika virus threat that Brazil bothered to screen their populaces (or perhaps I have misread that from the dearth of propaganda). As, colloquially, viral symptoms are relatively mild and certainly not life threatening, perhaps Zika virus has been around in Brazil, noticed or unnoticed, for a very long time too. The Ugandan version discovered in 1947 is a flavivirus which affects the RNA. St Louis encephalitis is another flavivirus, so the microcephaly association was not entirely unwarranted. However, as it turns out the original 4,000 encephalitic disorders have been reduced to around 400, of which a mere 17 show a slight presence of Zika virus in the afflicted babies, due diligence has not been applied to the dissemination of information in the Mainstream.

In my extensive research for this article, I posited a line of enquiry to ascertain what the known agents of disease are. The answer was dramatically simple. There are four agents of disease: parasites, bacteria, fungi and pollutants. Now, of course, science journals expand this to five or more (depending how you class pollution) with the addition of viruses. Yet, to anyone that isn’t entirely boneheaded or corrupt it is strikingly obvious viruses are symptomatic effects of pollutants (organic or inorganic) and cancers are caused by a combination of fungi and pollutants. Shouldn’t the objective of true science be to identify what pollutants/fungi are responsible for diseases before branding symptoms or traits as the causes? Removal or eradication of the problem, will give no cause for symptoms.

tumblr_inline_nnqnv6F6rM1t1mtij_1280Jon Rappoport calls the CDC the new medical CIA for good reason, as we see from the atrocious handling of the very much current MMR scandal that, to them, medicine is an “op” or “ops”. Frankly, as we have discovered here, the WHO isn’t much better. It offers fear mongering propaganda in place of what should be sanity. No wonder the world’s finest medics are seen as little more than quacks by serious investigators, committed thinkers. That is because just about all have some vested interests supporting the very same propaganda that has created the dreadful mess called governance. Governments that supposedly administer for the people exist in worlds adrift of reality. Insistence on spinning fantasy myths that sometimes amount to absolute hogwash is the anchor we, the people, rely on. That mainstay is attached to the ship by a silk thread and the malignant ones know it, but because people (generally speaking) are such cowards, they cling to the journey to oblivion for dear life.

WHO_vaccinationReturning back to the topic and the Zika/encephalitis outbreak in Brazil, culprits are conclusively obvious to me. The microcephaly condition was not caused by Zika or any other fantastical virus. In fact there was no direct culprit. Though the true number of instances of affliction has been dramatically reduced for this localised region of Brazil to a few 100’s complaints, there are about 25,000 comparable encephalic conditions in the US alone, annually. Why not focus on this given the panic over Brazil? Because Brazil is actually about “damage control”, but let me continue with the summary before I explain why. Zika’s presence was irrelevant, incidental. Please be clear on this. There were two issues at play. The first was the TDaP vaccine. We do not know, but can assume thimerosal laced serum was issued in Brazil. Net effect was mother and child’s immune systems were challenged and, in the case of some infants’, severely weakened. Thus, when each mother and partner lovingly witnessed the fresh ultrasound images of their bundles of joy-to-be, little did they know of the dangers, which, in normal circumstances, weren’t there. Sound waves do generate radiation of a sort, but it hasn’t been discovered by human science yet. So, there is no connection with potentially harmful ionizing radiation and sound per se. The machines that deliver ultrasonic beams are radioactive and miniscule amounts leaked would have been enough to seriously affect a seriously weakened foetus. Case closed.

bill-gatesSo, let us consider the fantasy that has been generated by the WHO and other Mainstream or alternative information outlets and why. They have selected a virus as the possible cause which is a known dud. To show how serious this is (or they are), a Hyderabad bio-merchant is 10 years away from developing a Zika vaccine. It is strange that this ex. Islamic fiefdom and thorn-in-side of the autocratic rulers is India’s champion in the fight against a known dud. Zika headliners have blanketed all major news feeds, as a lot of money has been invested in pharmaceutical stocks. Did not Bill Gates and Warren Buffet collectively chip in $60 billion (wasn’t it?), as mates do? Then Bill kindly gave away $5 billion (right?) to India (again?). The alternative news streams conjured up the mother of all fiendish diversions. They created killer genetically modified mosquitos and that shifted the focus away from Zika and onto the possibility of a (retrovirus) mutation of Dengue fever. All these possibilities and not a single truth in sight! There was no deadly mutation and there were no genetically modified mosquitos. That was a ruse and I am sure Bill Gates, being in the club, is laughing heartily.

trumpAs I have outlined, the real causes of the Brazilian tragedy were not mentioned in the Mainstream and may have been manipulated out-of-context by most alternative sources. In the years I have been writing, it has become increasingly clear that the alternatives are witting or unwitting agents of the precise same tyrants that determine what the Mainstream is allowed to say. In this particular case, hidden toxins in vaccines and the transparent effect of industrial pollutants [in bodies] are an absolute no no. In conjunction, the fact that both culprits were innocently delivered by ignorant medics because they have been branded safe by propaganda spinners suggests that wider populaces might be incensed into outright rebellion should they ever comprehend the truth. To avoid that dark day, this skilful subterfuge has been woven into the Mainstream, including most science journals. Mildly questioning the efficacy of certain statements is the closest we come to dissent. Most of those flames are vigorously fanned down by the crowing voices of evil.

Fantasy dressed as truthThe overall objective is far worse than even the most ardent critic [of the system] would imagine. The reason situations unravel as though they were part of some theatre or chess moves on a giant board is that is precisely what is going on. Truth has been replaced by “the message”. The objective, end game, is total control of humanity (the board). Industrialists deliberately pollute and then sterilise, then pollute again in order to solve the problem, on and on, ad infinitum as that ensures perennial control. It means nature no longer satisfies man’s lifespan; their medicines do. Those we want to perish we do not assist. The rest are kept alive courtesy of the system (all those good vaccines, cannabis oil, if necessary and so on). The military, for their part, are not merely spreaders of pollution, but also arbitrate clandestine operations of terror for purposes of manipulation, removal of obstacles or infrastructural support. Though they say, “sticks and stones will break your bones but words will never hurt you” to kids, this isn’t true. Those that study the effect of Voodoo quickly realise words are far more effective than remedial action, certainly when trying to convert large numbers quickly. The military-industrial corporate complex may be the producers of most toxins that cause most illnesses plaguing this planet, but without their vile unscrupulous “science-journalists”, mutinies would have haemorrhaged at the highest levels and caused systemic collapse long ago.

Why Atheism?

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

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

Why indeed?

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

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

Conservation is “pointless”

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

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

reptilian human

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

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

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

Why atheism?

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

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

It’s all for a great cause – Atheism.

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

Two for the price of one?

Two for the price of one?

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


That is…why atheism?