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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How can fantasy that never was be “proven”?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Imagine, if you will, there existed a world populated only by biological automatons that were solely allowed to survive at the behest of a vague commercial bureaucracy. Because of this uncertainty, imagine if none of these automatons realised they were abject properties of a brutal federal control program. If the slave masters, the “authorities”, decided they desired to stamp their immense power over will, to “once and for all” demonstrate their authority over the slave classes, could they outlaw or remove all fluid or solid sustenance resources without losing or graphically impairing their prized stock? Could they make the air unfit for consumption or destroy all known shelter to stress their despotic ambition? No, the only the true liberty they could possibly take away without permanently impairing labour is “unnecessary” sexuality. 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 to “industrialisation”, 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 wrong “right”.

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!

Callous Abuses of the Word Abuse

No one should honestly embrace this topic “in sincerity” without first addressing the greatest abuse of all current abuses: “paedophilia”. Perhaps it’s the circles I frequent, but I cannot fathom why more people don’t “get it”. Are you all so consumed with passion you cannot distinguish reliable information from the vagaries of conjecture? Jon Rappoport’s work on the disintegration of problem solving logic very much impinges on modern social conditioning, in my opinion.  Therefore, I plan to separately tackle the child designate sex issue head on, in isolation and as thoroughly as I am able. Be assured detail will be exquisite. A future release has already been part-scripted in essay form and aptly provisionally titled, “The Powers’ Proud Accolade: Brand Pedo”.

Few today (of correct age) would have the presence of mind to remember that the transition from homophobia to pedophobia began in the 1970’s, perhaps inspired by the sexual revolution a decade prior.  The “powers” were quick to action a remedy against that dissent (which included droves of AWOL’s from Vietnam), and how to impose sexual sobriety was one of the foundation stones laid in 1971-75 plans aimed at stemming aggressive independent cultures (cults) non-compliance with aggregate society. Multiculturalism synthetically imposing “common goals” was sure to vanquish any notion of social independence. It was no coincidence that Britain had set the precedent for total censorship of pictorial sexual literature after a number of successful prosecution outcomes against publisher David Gold in 1972. Under his new business partner, the desperately corrupt David Sullivan, their new marketing policy saw grossly misleading advertising fortuitously erupt into an explosion of sales of legal censored or “soft core” topical picture books and films. Arguably “smut’s” new found popularity had arisen as a symptom of burgeoning bohemian attitudes reacting against prohibition. For instance, the same thing happened after Mary Whitehouse successfully targeted schlock horror “B movies” in the 1980’s.

Behind the scenes (though nothing explicit was produced by Gold or Sullivan after the court losses) extremist sentiment against “hard core” pornography in general saw a misdirection campaign that strategically positioned child porn as the undeniable progressive pinnacle of perverse licentiousness.  Circular logic fused “thin end of the wedge” and “guilt by association” opinion to fan misguided and erroneous belief that all things illicit are “related” and virulently spread like cancers. Predictably absolute “resolution” determined anything pornographic must be forbidden to “cure” harmonious society. Conversely, attitudes were relaxing against salacious (one time pornographic) literatures, after a case against Penguin Books over publication of D H Lawrence’s “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” was overturned by the British courts in the 1960’s.

A pithy American current affair propaganda piece titled “The Children of God” (or something similar) made in 1971 (there have been several subsequent “documentaries” based on similar themes) ridiculed a network of community groups that called themselves The Family International (established in California by David Berg in 1968). According to the original documentary, ethics of the institution placed no age restrictions on sexual interaction between incestuous community members (a policy that radically changed in 1985). Production of pornographic literatures (examples offered were classed as child porn) was encouraged and sales were used to raise funds for the group. Unsurprisingly, film makers were only concerned with exposing perceived negatives and, beyond that, nothing was learned about the mission and ethos of The Family International. My personal research showed a number of cult members were pushed into suicide after trying to reintegrate into “closed minded” wider society before and after Berg’s (whose written legacy by no means identifies with vicious hysteria post documentary) death in 1994.

Homosexuality ran a different, though in some ways parallel, course, marked by virulent crusades against suspected public figures and all promotional publications. Throughout the 1970’s I would argue that it was viewed as a far greater social evil than paedophilia. Rather interestingly society’s whims so often seem adrift of reality. In more tolerant times, a relatively well publicised survey suggested roughly one in three males were clinical paedophiles. Other censuses have calculated one in five males showing bisexual tendencies. Personally I am inclined to take “statistics” with a big pinch of salt and that’s why I haven’t cited specific references. Even so, I am rather compelled to believe that the percentage of potential agitators for or against specific causes might disproportionately swell if people were a little more honest about themselves.

Attitudes didn’t relax against gay communities until well into the 1980’s. By the 1990’s AIDS (or gay plague) fear, mostly a misdirection campaign or scam, had reached fever pitch and this, I feel, was the cause of softened social attitudes towards the “plight of homosexual men” (in particular). However, in my opinion, had Bill Clinton (an alleged paedophile, by the way) not made it as President of the United States of America, the “changeover” (from homo to pedophobia) likely would not have happened. He began gay favourable rhetoric which laterally blossomed through corrupt [mainstream] Medias. His appointment of Janet Reno as head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) mandated radical development of a “Child porn entrapment market” as number one priority.

From around 1995 malignant advertising campaigns specifically targeted borderline adults as never before and these were accompanied by numerous arrests of teenagers and similar aged adults (i.e. 18-21) that had allegedly engaged in sexual acts. Those trading explicit visual materials depicting “teenagers” also came under scrutiny in a much bigger way than before.  Many arrests on the back of ignorantly innocent distribution networks included sensational pieces of “evidence”, such as a hard core stag film featuring an alleged fifteen year old Rob Lowe as “pizza boy”. Reno (who has been promoted as a “lover” of Mrs Clinton, also an alleged paedophile), incidentally, was the one that ordered the murder of innocent American citizens under the auspices of the 1993 FBI attack on the Dravidian (cult) community located at Waco Texas.

As mentioned earlier, I shall discuss the origins of the concept (and that’s all it is) paedophilia (which literally means to have an intellectual compatibility or love of children) in much more detail in the future. It will also give readers the opportunity to explore and evaluate some of the (inquisition style) tricks used to calculate confessions from targeted individuals or groups, manufacture the presumption of guilt “as charged” and regularly encourage bearers of false witness to commit perjury (in court). But, for now, I will only deal with that which is contextually related to the word “abuse”, which, I must say, in the context of paedophilia, is so vastly widespread, it may well serve evidence to justify multitudes of reports. The arbitrary nature of an inflexible (paralysis) and baseless (no scientific case) age of adulthood (currently set at eighteen, until the next foul referendum) should raise a cacophony of “destruction of liberty” alarm bells. I am fondly reminded of Krishna’s timelessly wise instruction, “The forces of evil paralyse”.

Perhaps anyone else would have said “sovereign choice” in place of liberty. However, sovereign individuality potentially conflicts with social liberty and the distorters of “abuse” know that all too well. Mankind is heading towards totalitarianism, the only utopian federal alternative to communion, at a rapid rate. There are two fundamental branches of the slave/master paradigm. One is labelled Fascism. This version of order is built on the premise that the fabric of commerce is strong enough to regulate social charters. Evidence might appear in the form of something like, shall we say, corporate responsibility whereby employee-slaves are both bound by “the law” and their company manifesto. Under Fascist totalitarianism, companies seeking new employees (of all rank) would rate assessment of authority documentation (official identification, police check, bankruptcy report and so on) as the most important stage of the internment process. Penal facilities would be outsourced and run by privateers. Marxism, the alternative totalitarian system, is very similar, except the social charter is administered by government and, consequentially, core business might be nationalised to compliment that seamless authority.

Sovereign individuals disrupt utopian society (per the Fascist/Marxist models). Societies are governed by standards and these might conceivably be eroded by abusers. Therefore, logically, abuse of the word abuse relies on the distortion of truth, which allows the marginalisation of social values geared to reducing sovereign choice in favour of social conditioning (i.e. only “choice” to conform and not to rebel). Society masters impose order on members by the same methods parents use to oppress children. In today’s society children are broken into conformation (to conform is the only “choice”) for what can become lifelong family feuds that are amply exploited by “authorities”. The regime treats its members with common impunity. Children are conditioned into responding to but not respecting family boundaries. So too society’s parts are tolerant but not understanding of individual prisoner status. Freedom is limited to “they tell me this is allowed”. Abuse has been distorted to vilify the authority against “that which isn’t allowed”. True violation is certainly secondary (a sort of bi-product) and mostly irrelevant beyond ramping up any case in favour of abuse stipulations.

The flawed logic of this philosophy doesn’t end there. If abuse is a symptom of that which defies freedom, our vile powers may as well argue they protect those locked up in prisons from the world at large. Under that premise, they would do detainees a great service. The whole foundation of abuse as a concept has been twisted to satisfy the crime (as it were) in this way. Expanding on my incarceration metaphor, it might be argued that though people may well be taken against their will, social disinfection actually serves the dual purpose of ensuring captive would-be criminals are locked into cramped cells “each for their own good”. The “powers” claim, therefore, incarceration is not “abuse”. Whereas currently, for my research, the justice system hasn’t made humanitarian assertions of this nature, it’s only a matter of time before it happens.

In the same manner sexually orientated child designates are persecuted under the guise of “protection”, the rules governing society transcend individual reasoning. The bi-product is an insanity which permits free thinking individuals can be stripped of all tenable rights and abused in spirit but not “under law”. Wayward laws were never in place to protect society, but rather to purge incongruous elements; those that choose to be different, set apart from the masses. A corresponding history of the delineation of order can be charted from the very cradle of civilisation. For the peoples of ancient Atlantis, administrative powers determined wrong doers should be scooped up and separated from the masses in order to purify society. Consequentially, prisoners (that were not routinely executed) were banished from their impenetrable towering citadel home.

After the collapse of Atlantis, roaming derelict tribes (prisoner outcasts) gradually re-civilised and this encouraged the consolidation of penal codes configured to administer secure wholesale capture and disposal of enemies. Today’s confinement model was the natural evolution of those haphazard reactionary origins. That is largely why the modern day “justice system” is terminally flawed. It was built on a framework geared to exclusively serving the “in-group”. Incidentally, our price busting “captive labour” prison system fits the Fascist corporate ordained order model like a glove. If those detained were classed as “privileged” (rescued) by the system, what would inhibit it from billing them full board over incarceration periods? In the future could everyone be forced into bonded labour to “cover penal charges”?

Governments, whether supporting Marxist or Fascist policy objectives, are exclusively in power to construct the framework or refinement of “order”. Manifestos are only delivered by governments and not created by them. Even so, given those ever teetering cyclic oscillations that divine the “power sharing” poled between aggressive conservative and leftist opinion making, manifestos are also “open” enough to permit “the law” and its administrational infrastructures change with the seasons.  Dramatic “anti-social” policy making relies on false flags to subvert rebellion. Complimenting this deception government backed terrorists are routinely commissioned to attack in ways that ensure sponsored solutions [to fictitious problems] are both feasible and “palatable”. Were any planes used in the so-called “9/11” attack or was Fascist “News’” “live cut” really a stage-play of pre-recorded enhanced special effects (or, in other words, government sponsored propaganda)? Reasoning determining these ongoing travesties against societies is almost identical to the philosophic candour that claims to justify the distorted abuse of “abuse”.

Fantasy is deemed more vital than reality in so much as nature and everything vibrantly natural has become the subliminally targeted enemy of the spinners of make-believe. They, as evidenced by their non-existent reasoning that has become the graduation of child status on ever more bodily adults, assures their followers that survival of power is the only real justification for all social considerations. For anyone that questions this “balance of power”, genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) are all about demonstrating the “machine” can conquer nature and (from the inspiration perspective) have nothing to do with the manufacture of goodness. Unforseen dietary advantages innocently improve “spin campaigns”. An expansion of this, should I call it, platform insists presumption of guilt defines society at large (per an expansion of unknown nationals or “Goyim’s” categorisation as strangers that are presumed “untrustworthy”), with exemptions given to the honourable or those with the right credentials (in the “family”). Thus, everyone of “file” is a potential prisoner-in-waiting when not of sufficient “rank”.  That is the primary reason why “abuse” has been distorted as a condition of that framework (i.e. behind “presumption of guilt” is the contamination assurance that an abuse has been committed).

With empirical clarity abuse is transformed into something material, solid, clear cut. It is something that can be tangibly used in a court of law. [Individual] circumstances become secondary, perhaps even arbitrary or elementary (i.e. if a “black and white” abuse has occurred; how are circumstances relevant?). In that fashion, any accusation becomes virulently more potent than all cohesive evidence backed defences (which risk being judged as excuses or hindrances). In other words, if “circumstances” are irrelevant, for abuse is abuse, then what is the purpose of evidence beyond obstructing the course of justice? Once an abuse is “agreed on”, all that’s needed is a wrongly done by claimant. That’s the lack of logic being applied here and that is why evidence is going to potentially obstruct the potency of any abuse claim (which must be true to be potent) under those farcical terms. Referring again to my mention of Jon Rappoport’s work, that is why the education system does everything and anything to block critical thinking. “Truth” is becoming so estranged from popular acumen; I fear it is threatened with extinction.

In fact immortalisation of distorted abuse is a feature of a watershed that is slowly but surely stripping away all sovereign rights. On this course when a “file” member thinks for himself it is potentially a most destructive act against the regime. Frankly put, the only way to possibly undermine the power brokers and their fraudulence passed off as “goodwill” is to outwit them. Therefore, I could well see critical thinkers labelled “terrorists” under threat of some capital offense or other at some juncture. Currently the Mental Health Act substitutes as the primary lateral filter. It has made damned sure that we no longer have the right to use our bodies in the way we decide. Examples to illustrate this include impingement on just about every functional aspect of life. We must wear clothes at all times except by arrangement when on private property. All bodily functions are limited in some way. I could focus on sexual reassignment of homosexuals, but the more obvious “for instance” is the denial of consenting sex between “minors” (i.e. all parties are legally underage).

To show just how fanatically lacking in conscience and common sense the powers’ lust for control has become, per their “abuse philosophy”, a statutory rape charge must be served on at least one party (all underage, per this example, let us not forget) when infractions occur. Thus, the justice system will determine at least one person has been abused whether claimed or not. To any reasoned thinker, potential consequences should be startlingly obvious. Predictably, there have been a number of judicial outcomes after no one embroiled agreed to being abused. In instances of this sort “the system” has been seen to judge everyone involved as having “raped each other”. How can that be? Is it possible for there to be perpetrators without victims or victims without perpetrators (depending on the legal insistence)? Surely this must be one of the best examples that conclusively demonstrate how unchallengeable validation of a concept can pervert reality.

There must be no doubt that corrupt goodwill does pervert reality and it causes all kinds of nasty chain reaction consequences. I plan to explore what motives are behind and ramifications result from circumcision in “The Powers Proud Accolade: Brand Pedo”. Recently a commenter on Jon Rappoport’s blog asked if I could include her feedback on the subject in one of my public writings. Presumably of Jewish ancestry, she reported her sibling’s circumcision had contributed to a painfully vicious hate/guilt cycle that has persisted to haunt the family relationship and, ultimately, befoul the lateral mother/son bonding process.

Men are considered (by the Pharisees) to have much stronger libidos than women, so males are circumcised shortly after birth. Contrary to popular opinion, Islam was created to radicalise Judaism (as “Christianity” had failed in the Pharisees’ utopian quest) and circumcises females as well (originally Muslim males were cut to honour the prophet). However, if the ceremony is done too early in the female’s case, it risks destroying all sexual self-esteem (leading to frigidity). Therefore the clitoris is partly removed from girls around age six. It is not fully extracted as the function of circumcision is merely to act as a masturbation (inappropriate lust) inhibitor and not to create permanent dysfunctional sexuality.

Fake “abuse” wields as much power as “blasphemy”. The very mention of it should send shivers down the spine and not for noble reasons. In fact in its current use it marks the total collapse of sanity. Abuse is a winner. It can hang a court. It has acted as anchor to all past and current inquisition movements, including the latest one used against Catholic priests, Jewish rabbis and others that dare inhibit Zionist order. Juries are marginalised, perhaps superfluous even, when presented accused are “certainly guilty” beyond any doubt without need of peer review.

From the provable “conspiratorial” angle I could argue there is a covert agenda geared to demeaning anything and everything that entitles communion. This, by extension, distorts purposeful living into desecration. Underpinned by many unwelcome corporate compliance terms, whether delivered through the private sector or “government”, the final step has been to vilify slavery (dressed as “employment”) as the fundamental point of vocational existence. Bearing in mind the “contract” everyone makes with God prior to coming into the world is to balance “living life to the max” and “revering the body as the temple”, real abuse, real violation has been mutated into something beautifully sacred. The powers’ grand coup, great deception against the peoples’ contract with God could not be more amply highlighted than by outlining how religions scammed “beliefs”.

Religions gave “God” a voice and it was a remarkable revolution, because God never actually said anything and none dare question what wasn’t said. In precisely the same way shadow powers execute government, the Pharisees control all religions today and the basic “blasphemy” indoctrination has been incorporated into Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. Perhaps there’s the odd tribal culture “exception” saved by lack of popularity, but the rationalisation has predominantly been a global one. “God” has also been incorporated into civil law federally, so religions have served their purpose and cease to be explicitly necessary. Through those wonderful pharisaic ideologists, God talks in mysterious ways. Mass indoctrination continues, unaltered by atheism, unhampered and never erring in the deliverance of the never spoken word.

Of course, everyone “should” know the “word of God” is actually bullshit and “God’s values” are actually the Pharisees’ Laws. The real God talks through nature and that’s why they (the shadow powers) attack any known pantheist cult, attempt to destroy natural foods (supress organic, flood GMO’s), aggressively sponsor sexual “reassignment” and support, impose anything else that is sure to give nature a whack in the nose. Those believed-to-be vigilant “forces for light” (euphemistically calling themselves Truthers) couldn’t discover the “truth” if they tripped over it. Their spiteful and pointless crusade against phantom “Illuminati” power has failed to get close to coming to terms with the real evil doers and their so-called “Luciferian Doctrine”. Illuminati occultists (hidden ones) have scripted the greatest violation, abuse imaginable. The ultimate goal is poison the planet whilst “undoing nature” in an agenda determined to reduce humanity to abject trans-humanism, a globe populated by living robots if you will.

Everyone seems to go along with the plan, blindly and ignorantly. The few that become aware do nothing meaningful to inhibit destruction in motion. Babbling do-gooders assume if it “ain’t noticeably broken, why fix it?” People culturally attune and do their upmost to maintain their selfishly favourable status quos for as long as they persist. Conversely, those that dare challenge their “hard earned”, wilfully fickle resources are despised. Per this haughty arrogance, ones that beg for support “must be” inferior parasites of the lowest character. How dare they abuse us by “expecting” donations and other spiritually draining demands? It’s not only the “powers” that callously abuse the word “abuse”. You all do.

Me Playing for my Supper

 

 

Donations Welcome

 

True Love, Convenient Marriages, Vaccines and Autism

Over the years I have collected numbers of angry critics. If I could consolidate all criticism into a simple cohesive summary, it would likely read, “you (me) are trying to prove something (God) exists that does not exist and cannot be proven”. Some would go further and retort, “Do you think you are God?” Of course, most of these, my more vehement critics, are devout Christians (i.e. that believe in the philosophy but not God). Though the fundamentalists are the cancer of progressive society and their extermination would be preferable, to all of them, I say this. God works in mysterious ways and can be found where science fails. Here’s an example. Imagine before us is a large open tank of water. In it we place twenty heavy stones and see that none float. We try the same experiment with flower petals but find those all float.  Science affirms [becoming] uniformity and, in step, our experiment is scientific. Creating another control group, let us suppose we specifically requisitioned humans that were unable to swim and threw them into the same tank. Prior we had dressed them all in garments laden with heavy stones. None floated in the tank. Without intervention, all would have drowned. Yet, a few might survived had their pockets been filled with flower petals instead of coarse rocks. Conversely, in the cases where bodies sunk, some (if not all) petals (that could not escape from the pocket interiors) would appear to defy order and also sink in their garment prisons.

Everything is very clear cut, demonstrating probabilities and quotas. Nevertheless God can be found in places where probabilities and quotas seem to have no jurisdiction. The best place to consistently find this type of evidence is in the quantum layer, beyond human visibility, where projected realities are inexplicably overlaid on top of that which is judged real. Most recently (2011) so-called Kondo effect attempted to “explain” the erratic, impossible behaviour of sub-particles. Science gibberish, inspired by the astronaut Edgar Mitchell, confidently solidifies zero point vacuum fields. Space, our cosmos, which isn’t even remotely understood, collects ubiquitous flamboyance in such measure that several encyclopaedias could be made from all the theories and accompanying science notes. Our physicists have yet to realise that the reason “empty” space appears curved is it contains all dimensions spread over a lateral plane. Yet-to-be-discovered dark matter (a version of light) creates a ripple effect that tempts the reflective analogy, “oceans”. If science understood the true properties of dark matter, they might, one day, work out where Newton went wrong with his assessments that are now known as “gravity”.

As I begin to explain in my first book, “The Beauty of Existence Decoded” (available in e-format here) mainstream science has not correctly identified a single fundamental property of existence. This is mostly because it measures the illusion of existence in place of “what is”. My yet-to-be-published book “A New World Order” will unravel more on time (which is so deeply misunderstood), that most extraordinary union: electro-magnetic, the truth behind gravity, harmonisation of atomic frequencies via catalytic DNA. It’s a book that will also talk about dragons, pixies and a hundred million years old manned civilisation on Mars that ceased with the destruction of Maldek, so it is unlikely to attract anyone remotely associated with the mainstreams other than, perhaps, scandal mongers and trolls. Human beings almost instinctively lionize beliefs systems, so it is no wonder the problems that have accrued over the eons, through diminished responsibility, are squarely the fault of those that inherit them – all of us. For instance, if all of us have a problem with what proliferates from the Whitehouse, all of us should surround the building and face off the wrong doers. Limp wristed protests do not lead to remedial action; remedial action forces those being faced off to protest. When the powers protest, the people are achieving something!

Because just about all human beings are devout cowards, the closest communities ever come to remedial action is the reactive result of collective tantrums. Thus, most human beings behave as children for their entire lives. They were conditioned by brainwashed parents that knew only ignorance. Then, upon proscribed adulthood, they became the new overage children of government, whose absolute authority had been instilled by ignorance. Oh so few can laterally apply structured argument to that which defies the system.

 

Newton was wrong?

Never; impossible; he was a genius. My history books tell me so. My government’s credentialed “experts” tell me so. I don’t need to contemplate any more than that.

And that is humanity’s problem; apathy and cowardice bundled up in one neat package. There are many ways to break the system but the best way to start is with the children and that is why I am not anti-paedophilia (as a system correcting tool). Indoctrination and anti-Semitism have ransacked and shackled the discovery tour. Wondrous rites of passage have been reduced to cheap jargon and pointless slogans. Indeed the programming of society goes so far as to tell individuals who they are and what goals will be prioritised. We are told we should adopt careers, specialise as professionals, fall in love with the right person (this person must be statistically matched and of the correct financial class and, almost invariably, the wrong person). Love, of course, by this determination, can be nothing more than infatuation. People end up marrying fantasies and, unsurprisingly, as charades are hard to keep up indefinitely, without severe adjustment, most resoundingly fall out of love.

How is that possible? To fall out of love means there was never any love there in the first place.

Not everyone satisfies this trend and a few do come to realise that relationships must be more about giving than taking. These people are special. They also have the capability of being rational, and not in the proscribed sense of the word. These are the few that have put structured argument to the test and found their individual rites of passage against all odds. Through that commitment they found the way to become real communities of two. Other so-called communities are little more than products of the system (even when proponents are against it) utilising public armies that have been swayed (or dragged along) by public opinion. Those synthetic cultures emphasise what it is to be politically correct. Supposed debates are succinct political chess moves.

Successful marriages either epitomise Mephistopheles pacts or represent honour between souls. Both, ironically, are equally faithful (or adherent to God’s wishes). Whether atheist or spiritual, based on control or intuition, all marriages must satisfy mutual standards of cooperation to be pure. Whether married or not, the closest anyone comes to seeing God is by witnessing starlight. If only witnesses realised what they saw. It is for that reason that those with star qualities shine as they accentuate aspects of God. Not only are all stars imperfect, but most (courtesy of corporate programing) would be oblivious to the truth behind talent. In some ways spotlight individuals are kept as far from the truth as possible, for modern movie moguls are driven to excuse and promote a despicable (erstwhile hidden) agenda. Even those most trivial to Zionism’s strategic vested interests that see value in de-sexed, inept, covertly judgemental and selectively racist societies are courted by Hollywood and other populist broadcasters. Their stars are all too often used to sympathetically spin pungent myths over and over. These have become the bloated culture monster that has jellified globalism and has turned the world into something it is not. It must be said, when arguments are convoluted, they are usually devious. Lights, camera, action means one thing for the movie star. George Burns said it so well, “stars must be able deliver bullshit with sincerity to be successful.”

Those that are oppressed agree to be unless they retaliate in some way. Sensationally, the brand name movie actor, Robert De Niro, backed “Vaxxed”, a film that criticised the vaccines industry. The first leg of its national release was going to be the New York Tribeca Film Festival. Andrew Wakefield, the (unfairly) dishonoured doctor, who first raised the alarm on a possible vaccines/autism connection back in the 1990’s, was heavily involved with the film.  De Niro has an 18 year old son, reputedly with a severe case of autism. I haven’t checked how severe the severity is because, if De Niro is one of those exceptionally rare cases of human integrity, then it shouldn’t matter how severe his son’s autism is. Indeed “as one of the greatest actors of all time”, it shouldn’t matter if his son wasn’t affected at all. Does he deliver bullshit with sincerity or speak plainly? In Analyze This then Analyze That De Niro played the same loveable Mafia rogue. In both cases the bad guy turned out good in the end. That’s the fantasy, but how does it match real life? His co-star, Billy Crystal, showed his Mephistopheles qualities shortly after 2001, when he suffered a rabid political embolism in front of international cameras. The featured event, so-called “911”, was something he knew nothing about. Perhaps his corporate activation was because he was Jewish, or black, or gay? Was he molested as a child or a reformed hard drug user as so many actors have to be these days? For someone to stand up, in sincerity, and say what he said about 911 deserves only excommunication and deportation. In my opinion he is neither worthy as a Jew nor responsible as an American.

Let us all be clear; Zionism is the only religion on the planet that insists indoctrination must be through cause of bloodline heritage and not faith. Therefore hereditary Jews that bless Zionism cannot be Americans. They will always be Israelites even if they have never visited their homeland; a homeland that shouldn’t exist at all, according to the religious Haredim. Billy Crystal and other movie stars need to be very aware of the facts and lucid about them if they decide to open their big mouths in public places. But De Niro must be different, surely? Here’s a guy the majority of Americans would count on to step up to the plate. He’s not some washed out Austrian import or one of those gung ho cowboys that shoots for order. If he went for President, the laurels of Rome would await. Stallone may well exemplify the Jersey Shore brigade, but De Niro has a brain. He’s almost classical for Christ’s sake!

There have been new developments that alter everything and following sentiment was written prior to De Niro’s very public announcement in favour of Vaxxed and resolution of the vaccines/autism link. I have left in all the original commentary as it is important. There are others, not as tall as De Niro this might apply to. Activists must constantly kick up a fuss, even if it might seem premature or unfair, if we expect remedial action. We must protest like we never protested before.

In a sense it is old and very painful news as he did indeed rat out on his promise to introduce Andrew Wakefield’s movie in its promotion of truth about something that should have been very dear to him, considering his intellectually disabled son. Of course, human beings being human say it wasn’t De Niro’s fault. It was the organisers, the Government, the Jews or anything else to divert attention away from their dim star. He’s okay. No lack of responsibility here. It could have happened to anyone. The difference between De Niro and anyone with a shred of integrity is he should have gone out gunning for the movie, made waves, kicked up his own personal protest. All we, the viewers, witnessed, quite frankly was, nothing to see here, move along now, quietly as you go. For anyone that’s seen the old Southpark cartoon episode, I’ll take the turd sandwich, thanks. That’s the “De Niro promise”. Don’t blame me, I’m only famous.

Surely, if the claim of fame is to be taken seriously, a star should behave better than everyone else. That’s why Illuminati mainstream Medias constantly shine the spotlight on ungainly goings on in high places. It is their viperous way of augmenting double standards for a two tier society: the haves versus the have nots. The rich can behave with moral impunity as long as they are in favour. Once targeted, phantom paedophile horrors and a large closet filled with other potential nasties might be used as make believe in extended courtroom fantasies. In a previous post I revealed rumours that deliberate toxication of vaccines were explored at an open Council of Rome meeting back in 1981. Discussions then were all about how to put the brakes on an ever expanding global population. That “op” could not have happened without the help of the all Seeing Eye. Nothing has been more powerful at shaping public opinion than the every present goggle box that streams television. In masonic lore the eye in the pyramid means something real. Ancient visitors to these extraordinary monuments were able to use the structures as a means of negotiation for direct [third eye] connection with the Akashic Records. Our modern day all Seeing Eye has been twisted into pulp fiction courtesy of the illuminating Illuminati.

Toxication of vaccines was achieved, arguably, when Eli Lilly launched their Thimerosal preservative brand; a mercury compound. Though patented in 1931, ingredients have increased to include the heavy metal, aluminium and, best known as rat poison, formaldehyde, in more recent times. Even back in the 1940’s Thimerosal was known to cause Pink’s Disease. Physicians, such as Andrew Wakefield, were not prepared to stand idly by when patient after patient was clearly and irresponsibly injured by their vaccines. In 1930 one in ten thousand suffered from conditions that would be diagnosed as autism today. Now one in fifty are autistic. The problem is there are other statistics too. Whereas no one can disagree that vaccines trigger autism, there could be a spectrum of contributors. Pesticides, notably the chemical agent glyphosate, statistically cause autism too. Though perhaps not directly related, prior to the introduction of the automobile in 1905, it is estimated roughly one in forty would develop cancers. That probability has increased to, maybe, one in three. Cancer is big business. One patient is worth up to $400,000 in medical bills. I make the case that pollution, in general, is a big contributor to all disease. Considering all forms of pollution, the petrochemical industry is by far the most responsible for all man made carbon emissions.

We still must be careful when making sweeping accusations. Thimersosal has been used in some vaccines since the 1930’s, yet noticeable effects weren’t noticed en-masse until 1990’s. Perhaps that meant more tainted vaccines were circulated or could it mean something else? Instinctively I smell a cover up. Will the autism problem disappear with good vaccines? Particularly in alternative Medias, a big fuss has been made over so-called chemtrails. Those lucky enough to catch the spraying planes red handed will notice they are regularly accompanied by light orbs, or superfast moving black rods of unknown origins. This is no coincidence as pedestrian man is helping factions not of this Earth prepare us for the new extra-terrestrial age. It is unlikely even the planes’ pilots know the true agenda. Unsightly interruptions of stagnancy are “noticed” by wannabe crusaders. Yet “100’s millions of vehicles, 100’s thousands of industrial chimney stacks daily belching billions of tons of pollution into our atmosphere” has rarely been deemed a topic worthy of discussion, when it should be a constant vigil.  I suppose it is because that is a known evil and not the consequence of corporate infiltration at all levels of protest.  There are between 4,000 and 19,000 planes in the air at any time. According to the extra-dimensional Zeta Grey Beings, these constant “cuts” of the electro-magnetic field affect everyone’s central nervous system. Is that a possible autism connection?

Regularly I touch on the paranormal when discussing the mundane. In the case of autism, given the vaccine injuries statistic is comparatively so minute compared to those that turn out healthy, how can that be so? A thousand, to all intents and purposes, identical children are given MMR vaccines, yet only twenty or so demonstrate symptoms of autism. Using the “stones analogy” of my introduction, one thousand out of one thousand should be afflicted per probability logic. So it must be something else. I point out in “Autism Corroborates Darwinism” that DNA is not understood by science because it is metaphysical. Going further, I have stated physics does not even comprehend the physical cosmos due to its inability to process anything that exists beyond or outside material illusion. My first book, “The Beauty of Existence Decoded” begins to unravel the truth. It is a start; a firm base, but there is more to come; much more. I mentioned earlier that “God” can be “seen” in starlight, but there is a simpler way. Atoms act as God’s pores. They are the missing link. Every single atomic nucleus becomes a soul portal (revealing a reflective aspect of God). Thus, these are the root of change delivered by unseen sunlight (or “starlight”). Manifest DNA is the cellular facilitator. I go into detail in “The Beauty of Existence Decoded”. Heavy stuff, yes, but fine minds can grasp it.

In “Autism Corroborates Darwinism”, I hypothesise that the evolutionists are correct “in measure”. However physical adjustments are made by the holy combination of atoms, starlight and DNA – another interpretation of “trinity”? Put your “beliefs” in the reject basket and you can learn so much. For instance, when I announced the reason space appears curved is that all dimensions are housed on the same lateral plane prior is the implications are massive for us. We, “carbon based life forms”, have restricted access because we can only tune into the frequency we call “3D”. Should there be an atomic shift, then anything might be possible. Compressed dark matter (simply a theory thus far) delivers an ocean effect. Our atmosphere holds back its pressing blackness, but this could only be so because of enormous electro-magnetic forces generated by our planet. These bounce off the rim of darkness and are responsible for the phenomenon known as “gravity”. Everything is not pulled, but pushed to the ground. No wonder “the powers” have kept the lid on serious investigation into any inner Earth settlements.

There is so much we could know if only we opened our minds. Slowly I reveal the unrevealable. In “Autism Corroborates Darwinism” I concluded that evolution is spread over the relative skill set by a combination of our holy trinity: atoms, starlight and DNA. Per this system, changes could be negotiated at individual, full or sub-group levels. In the case of vaccines, a few unlucky individuals presumably take the hit for the group. In line with this mechanism, every child of a particular batch is made autistic, but most suffer complaints so mild symptoms would be barely recognisable, if at all. Because the majority, including most so-called intellectuals, are so busy validating or accounting their rogue belief systems, truths like this are literally beyond comprehension. I couldn’t imagine Andrew Wakefield would believe it too, but he does know there is an autism/vaccines link. The devil is always found in the detail and even the very best seem to be compelled to pay nothing more than lip service (if we’re lucky) to ideas and remedies that conflict with presupposition.

There’s a bit of “I look after number one, so I behave like a number two” in everyone. Those in high places have a long way to fall, so I understand the easiest line of defence against “would be attackers” is to pretend to be holier than thou. “You are not qualified to respond” is the only sure fire way to deflect reasoned criticism. They (the old guard) know that once you are tagged, you will either never be given the opportunity to become qualified or seasoned judges will demote your input as vagaries or interesting but unsound ideas. When weak links do occasionally emerge from those safe, tried & tested sources, ideas are all too briskly destabilised with liberal doses of tar and feathers. The system is “self-emulating” and that is what makes it so successful. Taking the point in question, toxic vaccines, the mainstream experts can and do not only endorse products as perfectly safe and useful that aren’t, but also make ludicrous, illogical claims against those that don’t share their corrupt opinions. The most popular call is to present “anti-vaxxers” as social-terrorists determined to infect healthy, vaccinated people (usually children). According to reason, this means vaccination does not actually protect anyone at all.

From the holistic DNA perspective attributes are guided by intent. If you wanted to be a woman that is what you are. Those that trumpet about being born as the wrong bodies are misguided. Certainly, past lives (something mainstay science doesn’t want to “discuss” let alone accept) might reveal a pre-inclination towards one sex or the other and, with hindsight, the choices to reincarnate as males or females might have been forlorn ones in some cases, but mitigated decisions they were. I mentioned earlier about true love and sham marriages. Sham marriages that last the test of time are as strong as real marriages built on virtue. One is based on control, the other faith and, I am compelled to believe, if autism was to strike any marital union in particular, these would be the focus. For those that control, autism is an angry outcome. The faithful produce offspring that are products of sadness. Impact is never found in logic. The passionate have no scruples. They win or lose at all cost. Thus, if “God” were to use autism as a metaphor prompt, then the ideal choices for impact would be the offspring of the “holy” or the “holier than thou”. There is hope on the horizon because it is revenge only that unites every human being – great or small, deceptive or virtuous, intellectual or shallow. Armies of “truther networks” are, perhaps, inches away from orchestrated militancy. Their only missing ingredient is courage.

I am regularly critical of truther networks. This is not because individuals lack scruples or causes are necessarily invalid. There are two main complaints. Firstly, many claims are baseless through fault of lack of or maligned sources. Secondly, various crusades are, after the fictional Spanish soubrette, Don Quixote in character (i.e. chasing evil windmills) and either target non-existent threats or, more commonly, after the fact campaigns. The 911 incident has gone, passed by and is no more. Yet, there are endless memories regurgitating dusty conspiracy theories or substantiated claims of wrong doing. Hollow laments for impeachment is the closest we ever come to resolve or action, which, frankly, is nothing short of blame game or pass the hot potato. The real issues are always buried deep and answers are invariably impractical. Unsurprisingly, the same can be said for information sources that routinely revolve the alternative Media circuits. The same old chestnuts, bad pennies are rebranded, rehashed and misconstrued over and over. So much so, there are very few sources I subscribe to and regularly review.

Occasionally something comes along, out of the blue, that smacks me in the face and commands respect. One such epic article, from memory reproduced by Brendan D Murphy’s Facebook channel, has everything a true researcher needs. It is an exceptionally long read (including a number of videos) that deserves thorough processing. Half or part reading it shows no respect for the author and would be the consequence of sloppy, ill-disciplined behaviour. Truth seekers, researchers may as well not be lazy else give up and do something productive. A job not done well is a job not done at all. Those that are time poor have lives cluttered with too much nonsense. If you are time poor, it is your duty to review life processes. But, let’s face it, most time poor people are sorry liars.

The Pasteur article has exposed a number of weaknesses pertaining to the human condition. Now we near the end of this entry, I am obliged to highlight poor attention span as an extra consequence of our fraudulent nature. When, last post, I intimated people don’t read e-books because they are ungenerous, that was not the only reason. Many have such poor attention; simple phrases only are barely retained. Thus, I try to keep my blog entries to “fewer than 3,000 words”. We have already gone way over budget so I will try to summarise, “Louis Pasteur Plagiarist, Imposter & the Truth About Vaccines” in two paragraphs, if that’s possible. Though I won’t attempt to unravel its rather confusing terminology now, suffice to say, a future post may try and transcribe some of that detail in a more resounding way. Sensationally, the article reveals Pasteur reputedly admitted he was a fraud on his deathbed and his germ theory was both unproved and wrong. As just about all modern mainstream medicinal philosophy relies on underlying principles of germ theory, this is a massive piece of information.

It subliminally highlights just how rotten the modern medical system is. Should not this information be acted on now by all you petty crusaders? Your health system causes more deaths and debilitating injuries than your wars. “911” was nothing by comparison.

I have no reason to doubt the article as the author provides a lucid account of the 19^th century French biologist, Professor Antoine Bechamp, whose cellular tissue theory formed the basis for most of Pasteur’s wayward conclusions. Micro-organisms (affectionately known as germs) that feed on dead tissue matter are changelings. They are changelings because they are the product of very much smaller microzyma, which can morph into bacteria or “viruses” depending on the body environment. Personally I find this very revealing as I have stated on a number of occasions that all virus are caused by pollution (whether organic or inorganic) and are evidence of how [invaded] bodies deal with threats of this type. Bechamp has confirmed that microzyma are the agents of change that create organism-like microbes which are accounted for as viruses (or bacteria) by statisticians. In conclusion, the expansive article goes on to say that the reasoning behind vaccines is flawed and all serums are not beneficial and probably detrimental to users. That is you and me, by the way! Mild doses of complaints (such as Polio) do nothing to stop adverse catalytic reactions in the body and well documented cases are shown up as evidence. Indeed, the writer plainly argues that all modern cases of polio are caused by the polio vaccine.

If this is correct, and I have no reason to suggest otherwise, then vaccines may well ultimately cause autism. Nevertheless, the human body and its mysterious, magical way of dealing with issues must, at least, contribute to the syndrome. Whether we single out loveless money marriages or unions of intertwined hearts, it would surely be worth testing a vaccine-free control group to ascertain whether there is any merit to William Thompson’s (scientist for the Centres for Disease Control) sensational claims that he documented evidence categorically linking vaccines to autism effects. This means that if Robert De Niro, Billy Crystal and other high profile stars could detach themselves from the corporate pariahs just as Anthony Hopkins has done and show true God qualities, perhaps they could save the world. I’m reluctant to cite Marlon Brando whose infamous Oscar rejection so aptly highlighted the plight of the American Indian (or native Redskin), because nepotism shouldn’t pay. After 25,000 years we, the human group, are beginning to embrace a new age of light. If that is to mean anything at all, gloves must come off and action must replace apathy. True love must trump convenience if autism is to win the war, and make no mistake about it for that is what it is. Our stars, our true to God must be resilient pitted against all odds if autism is to win the war against vaccines.

Has a prayer been answered?

Enjoy the clip, as it is rare I am given the opportunity to be optimistic. Recently, Robert De Niro not only proved he was a giant Redwood completely redeeming his prior pathetic inaction in promotion of the sensational movie, “Vaxxed”. Doing more for the film than the New York Tribeca Festival could ever have done, he broadcast to 100’s of millions of people across the globe on Sunrise (a television stream) making his sane recommendations. As much as the vain interviewers tried to downplay issues, De Niro countered with prestigious authority and nobility. The veil was well and truly lifted on the “mercury based preservative, Thimerosal”. He asked why our scientists have done nothing about the complex issues that logically propose a vaccines/autism link. Like everyone else, he “wasn’t sure about Andrew Wakefield”, but he also insisted not being sure was no reason to inhibit a meaningful investigation. De Niro intimated this needed to be done by experts not in the pockets of corporate health. Yes, he mentioned the damned money grabbing pharmaceutical monopoly in the lowest possible light.

On that up note, I think several people may be feeling true love for Robert De Niro and his inconvenient views. Bravo to a cultural hero. May he lead the charge….