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.