Internationally, I have not set the world on fire – yet! Nevertheless I am expanding my range through journalistic relationships with the Global Freedom Movement (See http://globalfreedommovement.org/), Conscious Life News (See http://consciouslifenews.com/) and other platforms.
Locally, in specific circles, I am known as the “Draco man”. For those not in the know, Draco (See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/draco) is a pet name given to a group of hidden ghoulish entities that manifest as reptilians, giant bats and werewolves. Before readers entirely switch off; there has been serious consideration given to this field by respected names, such as Sol Luckman’s (See http://www.phoenixregenetics.org/books/potentiate-your-dna) dedication to the removal of malignant Jinn (plural of Genie). Indeed there is a whole movement devoted to our bodies’ electro-magnetic energy fields (See http://www.barbarabrennan.com/), sometimes called Chakras or Meridians. For those that specialise, known experts of repute cover the Draco’s manifest forms and character traits. Notably David Icke, James Bartley and even the great Simon Parkes (See http://simonparkes.wix.com/home) conjure decidedly negative imagery (See http://www.whale.to/b/bartley3.html), even when they are trying to be positive. This is where I, largely, differ (See https://exopolitician.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/on-from-peter-maxwell-slattery/).
Thus I have collected plenty of wilful critics over time. The main reason I have critics is because I strip everything back to its raw essence, not humbly as a reincarnated Prophet, but rather as an agitator that creates booming, unappreciated tonal waves. Naturally the information I serve up both contradicts and conflicts with existing, sometimes long established, belief systems (See https://ozziethinker.wordpress.com/2014/07/24/beliefs-and-ufos/). If I had a divine purpose in life, it would be to test and expose rogue belief systems. The problem with that mission is just about all belief systems are maligned in some way, as shown in my reference link. Even the great, late black comedian George Carlin (See http://georgecarlin.com/) was not always right, but he is the one that has come closest to “raw” that I have found. To be clear, I can’t say I go out of my way to mimic George, but I find his mindset so refreshing, if he set the standards humanity might just make it. Internationally, I have not set the world on fire – yet! Locally, in specific circles, I am known as the “Draco man”. There are plenty of critics, of course, but I will explain why later.
This is the problem with humanity, currently. Beginning at very early ages, people build invisible igloos around themselves and these act as impermeable filters against anything that contradicts current belief “status-quo”. Charismatic individuals or well-placed proverbs can chip away some of the igloo’s veneer, but real change will only come from extended, prolonged periods of systemic, honest inner assessment (a form of meditation). But the real problem is the perceived lack of respect of anyone outside the igloo. Everyone, without exception, that I have encountered believes they are individually special. And to be brutally frank, to be individually special, means they are better than everyone else. However, for anyone that is sincere about individual specialness, venturing outside the igloo to make direct one-on-one comparisons is the only way, on balance, to demonstrate who shines. Instead (safely ensconced in their icy cubicles), by dismissing competition, “specialness” is immortalised.
I don’t dispute some may well worship a sports star, love a great musician or become inspired by a brilliant scientist. So an Olympian can lap a pool in thirty seconds when regular folks would take ten minutes, but they only swim faster. Clearly they are better technicians than ordinary people but, by that vein, are not supernatural. The same can be said about footballers, mathematicians, doctors and so on. Social luminaries rarely challenge the threshold of individual specialness and when they do, they are never heard of again. “Challenge” is a great word (See http://theleanthinker.com/2012/08/25/the-power-of-challenge/). People feel safe around celebrities because they are not challenged by them.
Now, if someone came along who was able to turn a swimming pool’s watery contents into ice simply using thought; that would be moving into the paranormal (See http://www.pbs.org/mythsandheroes/myths_four_shangrila.html)? That would threaten the generalised “specialness” of the individual; particularly as being special is the belief system’s way of affirming a sole connection to the divine (See http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/12/15/theres-an-organ-in-your-brain-which-seats-your-soul-meet-your-pineal-gland/). In other words, no matter what anyone else thinks or does and, within reasonable limits, no matter how the individual behaves, his or her relationship with the divine will always make them special. Thus, when I come along and say I can read energy fields and can see, not guess, what you are made of and, more importantly, where you came from, audiences become very sceptical. 
That is because scepticism is the igloo’s primary defence against ideas that attack the status-quo (See https://books.google.com.au/books?id=y6id6WOsuG4C&pg=RA1-PA64&lpg=RA1-PA64&dq=scepticism+defense+mechanism&source=bl&ots=HFcuAMI9ih&sig=MVzSdDyVZMTrh5IJakRhp44B1WU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAWoVChMIt-XZvrCOxwIVQyumCh1sfwCk#v=onepage&q=scepticism%20defense%20mechanism&f=false). The status-quo, in this case, is the unimpeached specialness of the individual. Therefore, the only ones that have shown any interest in my paranormal abilities are those that share them. To add to the intrigue, people are, with scant exception, faithless. I wonder, for instance, whether the visually blind truly believe there is colour. How could they believe in something they have never seen?
Focusing on the root of the problem, there happens to be a common set of conditions that have formed a manifesto loosely called “materialism” (See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/materialism). The primo basic tenet of this philosophy is; if it can be measured (physical) it exists. Expanding (and detracting at the same time) Newton’s record, modern day materialists presume that which cannot be measured does not exist. Or, to put it another way:
“The theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications”
Is this God?
A branch of the study called pragmatism, materialism has three distinct versions: reductionism, atheism and scepticism. Reductionism acts as the communal igloo for modern science-thinkers (is that an oxymoron?). Great powers of the like of Richard Dawkins espouse that the most effective science recording method is predicative. Therefore, just about all his work is concluded before data is collected or analysis of detail begins. His science becomes divinely inspirational as all findings that contradict the plan are either ignored or rejected and that which affirms the plan makes it stronger. Ultimately, mantras back wisdom (sic) that is beyond challenge, or so he believes.
Regularly I meet people that claim they are Jews, Catholics. Muslims and so on, but always the pragmatic (can I say “Pharisaic” [See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pharisaic]?) Religions. These people commonly shrink from “inner faith” based doctrines, such as the Kabbalah or Buddhism or Taoism, for instance. Regardless of individual claims, all are atheists. Prayer is conditional venting to a fantasy father-figure. 
Thus, worshipers are faithless. Their only remote connection to the divine is in the form of that specialness (I mentioned earlier) individuals cultivate from synthetic belief systems. I guess that is why there is so much scepticism in God – because belief systems that support the divine are knowingly false. Similar to predicative reductionism, dogmatic religions lay out road maps for “faith” (control) that must not be questioned by obedient followers (See https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/out-the-darkness/201412/dogmatic-and-spiritual-religion). Followers, in reality, are nothing more than slavish robots. Without faith there is no belief and these religious “subscribers” are also nothing more than atheists who “pose” via associations with political clubs. Readers must never lose sight of the fact that politics is the “affairs of people” (after the Greek). Religions that manage the affairs of the people are political orders/parties in all but name.
Science has learnt variations in testing methods will show different data sets and, more often than not, see dissimilar conclusive results emerging. I can give my own simple example. Many years ago I engaged a pointless study occupying an idle mind. 
The experiment consisted of me, two balanced white dice with black dots and a kitchen table. The first two rolls produced what craps players’ term as “snake eyes” (or “double” ones). I could have shut down the experiment there and then. Conclusions would have shown “balanced dice will always produce snake eyes when rolled on an level table”. Instead I continued, tediously, and rolled the dice a further 9,998 times. The data, surprisingly, showed that certain roll combinations were much more common or uncommon than others defying (materialist) statistical probability.
Was that reflective of me and my technique? The sceptic, whose fanatical belief in the correctness of empirical probability tables, might request a sample of 100,000 rolls to offset the error. If anomalies were consistent (or, in greater likelihood, “changed”), then the sample might be extended to a million rolls and so on until desired probability outcomes were demonstrated. My point is sceptics are merely determined to be right and will use whatever means that sanctify ambitions of correctness. If the dice sample required only thirty six rolls to map a perfect probability curve, the illusion is complete. Pressing on with another million spins might defeat sanctified propaganda dressed as evidence. Therefore, a classic sceptic ploy of these wilful deceivers is not to continually review “deemed proven” data. How can mankind possibly ascend if truth is perpetually rigged to further the ambitions of the chosen few?
Returning to my enigmatic title “Draco man” (See http://exopolitician.wordpress.com), I have been known to prompt educated criticisms of the ilk of “What an earth is this twit talking about?” from time to time. “Name calling” is a typical defamation tactic used by those determined augment “order”. Sadly the same sorry “Pharisaic aligned” crews are the offenders – reductionists, atheists and sceptics. In fairness to them, and let’s make no bones about it, the Draco technically don’t exist. So, in truth, on one level there is nothing to talk about because we are moving into energetic domains (those electro-magnetic fields I touched on earlier). Certainly from the science-reductionist authority, it would be hard to explain the Draco effectively. However, as this “ties in” with man’s ascension, I cannot avoid it. Indeed, the event or stage process is referring to an energetic shift of man which is so significant it may even impact our atomic structure.
Materialism might be a modern day concept, but overriding philosophies stretch back to the dawn of time and it can be seen in some of the earliest surviving evidence of critical thinking (See http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/a-brief-history-of-the-idea-of-critical-thinking/408). Without acknowledgement of the extra-dimensional, it is impossible to discuss the Draco professionally. 
Suffice to say, mostly (perhaps with the exception of “echoes of Plato”) the Greek greats did not discuss things that go bump in the night (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_That_Go_Bump_in_the_Night). Aristotle’s plan for the universe (See http://www.atnf.csiro.au/outreach/education/senior/cosmicengine/classicalastronomy.html), perhaps unfairly interpreted, ensured that a flat, cuboid hollow Earth was at the centre of everything and powered by the sun. Incendiary stars were nothing other than twinkling (crystalline) “prisms”. The moon, according to Aristotle, was evidence of the divide which marked the boundary for celestial domains of heavenly refuge. How long, be it adapted many times, was that blueprint for existence current? 2000 years? How would he have reacted to the Draco “concept”? Ironically, as I explain in my book “The Beauty of Existence Decoded” (Look it up on Amazon or make a donation at https://ozziethinker.wordpress.com/about – and sceptics, please, please don’t buy it as the text will only give you a “beliefs embolism”), in some ways, bizarrely, Aristotle’s most unlikely opinions (given modern science-propaganda) were correct.
Whilst on the subject of my books, as a prolific writer, there are going to be a number of volumes. Number two of the series is provisionally titled, “A New World Order”. This is in the throes of completion, but the following one, “The Birth of Hu-man-ity” will discuss human origins in relation to the Draco and Annunaki’s hierarchical management of our genetics. And this is very pertinent to discussions regarding our ascension as any [genetic] change will be directly reflective of the mechanisms that activate or deactivate DNA programming. In this case, plausibly, “mechanisms” may refer to that strange being some call “God’ (not meaning to offend the atheists). 
According to my calculations modern Caucasian humans are Version Seven of a heritage that stretches back billions of years (See http://www.ancient-origins.net/unexplained-phenomena/28-billion-year-old-spheres-found-south-africa-how-were-they-made-002018). Theoretically we are a new version of Ciakar (See http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunnaki/reptiles/reptiles84.htm and note the reference to Tyrannosaurus Rex. It is important) and, as such, are a combination of branches of what we call “man” and “reptilian”. To make things even more confusing (sometimes even I empathise with the materialists at times!), reptilians only “look like” reptiles, and in the case of the Draco-Ciakar; are closer aligned to feline character traits. There are pretty much no references I can offer as basis, although Simon Parkes does hint at this in some of his early AMMACH (See http://podcaststorage.weebly.com/ammach-files) interviews. Thus, the little that has been written in consideration of this phenomenon must be viewed as flawed from conception. If there was any material evidence that confirmed reptilian qualities of modern humans, it would be found in diligent analysis of our limbic system.
The Draco (split into Pteroid “dogs” and Ciakar “cats”. See http://www.exopaedia.org/Lizzies for additional information) mostly exist in domains beyond our appreciation of light frequencies. Indeed, their atomic makeup has transcended “carbon” status which means, in this case, they cannot usually be seen or even experienced by “normal methods”, affirming materialist sentiment. The ones that are material or can manifest are extremely adept at staying hidden. It should be no surprise as individual IQ’s of these creatures are beyond science comprehension. Additionally, they are aided by advanced technologies that will sufficiently cloak those desirous of invisibility (See http://www.hyperstealth.com/Quantum-Stealth/). Occasional blurry photos or films do emerge of reptilian entities usually focused on poorly lit caves (perhaps entrances to inner Earth domains?).
As to be expected, when a new photographic sighting does make the rounds, there are invariably hoards of angry, ignorant, foul mouthed sceptics gunning to ravage any sensibility. Attacks are often so well-orchestrated (and often very personal), it is as if armies of mercenaries are routinely employed to destabilise reason (See http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-856X.2012.00509.x/abstract). Though it will seem too far-fetched for even rudimentary consideration, very advanced Draco networks monitor every single human thought transaction and have the power to intervene and disrupt communications when necessary (See http://in5d.com/inner-earth-dracos-and-the-false-light-campaign/). This is done by manipulating the very same thing that Aristotle was talking about and it’s all in my book! (See https://ozziethinker.wordpress.com/about)
Give me your cash, coz’ I look after number one!
When looking at true human character traits, we are very like Ciakars. Our fundamental objective, as individuals, is to self-serve. No better is this validated than by the phrase “look after number one”. With the occasional exception of responsibilities accepted through bloodline (family) ties, all personal relationships are guided by self-gratification; friendships and marriages included. 
At the point any union ceases to gratify and is free of vested interests, it is over. The most prized versions of gratification are “greed based”. Thus, love-free partnerships (marriages) will continue indefinitely while both parties are being gratified. Lust versus money is the commonest type of trading exchange. Greed motivated dependence is not necessarily financial. Emotional support is also highly prized. Humans are naturally parasitic and form liaisons, in part, to improve self-esteem through determined hierarchical progression up the peer group ladder. Complex and sometimes convoluted reasoning motivates this self-serving and closed minded denial of true character. Effectively, in the same way we accentuate our compassionate individuality, we have more or less obscured any possibility of rational psychoanalysis of self. In fairness to humanity, Ciakars are much more extreme in their gradations towards magnetic social pulses. Thus, in their societies, there is always one set of laws for “those in the circle” (family, friends, meaningful alliances) which are variations of “higher virtue” and a different set of values for “strangers” outside. Even so Ciakar laws are draconian and so are ours.
When looking at true human character traits, we are very like Ciakars. Our fundamental objective, as individuals, is to self-serve. 
No better is this validated than by the phrase “look after number one”. With the occasional exception of responsibilities accepted through bloodline (family) ties, all personal relationships are guided by self-gratification; friendships and marriages included. At the point any union ceases to gratify and is free of vested interests, it is over. The most prized versions of gratification are “greed based”. Thus, love-free partnerships (marriages) will continue indefinitely while both parties are being gratified. Lust versus money is the commonest type of trading exchange. Greed motivated dependence is not necessarily financial. Emotional support is also highly prized. Humans are naturally parasitic and form liaisons, in part, to improve self-esteem through determined hierarchical progression up the peer group ladder. Complex and sometimes convoluted reasoning motivates this self-serving and closed minded denial of true character. Effectively, in the same way we accentuate our compassionate individuality, we have more or less obscured any possibility of rational psychoanalysis of self. In fairness to humanity, Ciakars are much more extreme in their gradations towards magnetic social pulses. 
Thus, in their societies, there is always one set of laws for “those in the circle” (family, friends, meaningful alliances) which are variations of “higher virtue” and a different set of values for “strangers” outside. Even so Ciakar laws are draconian and so are ours.
The opposite of gratification is inconvenience or, dare I say it, sacrifice (i.e. if you were gratified by an experience in any way, you have not made a sacrifice). Visible fronts of “reverse parasites” are the only possible remedies to change the current direction or course of the human condition. This would require sufficient numbers of selfless individuals supporting for support’s sake – no agendas, no double motives and no crafty strategies to tip the balance on deceitful, contradictory social standards. If enough would simply lovingly help, humanity would stand a chance at ascension providing most are swayed into some kind of cooperative, affirmative action.
A few years ago I had a conference with “Pleiadian” Light Beings (See http://indigointernational.org/who-are-the-pleiadians/) via an intermediary. They told me many things about our fractious past and why we had reached this point [in time] in the way we did. However, the most relevant and insightful observation was their opinion that Karmic reincarnation was “more or less dead” now. Surely this must be wrong? Without it man, as a being, has no purpose whatsoever. It is high time for us to declare war on denial and apathy.
ozziethinker 