Conscientious human beings should not limit their consciousness to matters of survival. This blog empowers those with conscience whilst enhancing the conscious. It is my mission to prove that my most bitter enemies are my friends. If I achieve that in life, I have been truly human.
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 neverlimited, 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 totrade 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 willinvade 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 cantheoretically 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?
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 3rd 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 Godbecause 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?” Neverrequest, 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 includedit 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 cantransform 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 beyondexistence, 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 zealousexistence is the proverbial “wall” that separatesheaven 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 murderersmaykill 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 truepurpose 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-terrestrialsignature 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 outrightcon. 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 winat 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 stokingbefore 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, exceptI 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 prosecutionthat 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).
They say “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” so, I’m converted. Enough of this “live & let live; morons will be morons”. Gloves are now off. My attention has been diverted to “truthers” who, as a statement of collateral ego, believe they can promote anything, no matter how unseemly, and the “group” will carry the message. Doubtlessly, there are well meaning, considerate individuals scooped up and misrepresented by the fray. This post isn’t directed at you. It challenges all those petit revolutionaires; the pocket Napoleons that espouse their relationship with the “golden group” and its grotesque information transcending criticism.
Funnily enough, my earlier post “To Boycott is the Strongest People Power” attracted little interest and no comments. Perhaps it is because it subliminally highlighted those double standards of plebeians in general. You are all extremely adept at boycotting stuff that conflicts with your day-to-day routine but, as much as you chant “revolution”, when push comes to shove you have decided that extricating yourselves from the system would be an almighty blow to that day-to-day routine, so filtering and denying real truth is the predictably popular recourse.
I took a gamble last month by undertaking a low paid, high commission full time job and this limited hours normally devoted to writing and research. Unfortunately, for me, gambles have never paid off and this role was no exception, so I worked like a slave for next to nothing. There were some ancillary perks as I saw Buddhism from the inside.
Thoughts devoted to this post have partially been inspired by turbulence on Facebook. People love labels; good, evil, Christian, Buddhist, truther, shill. There are hundreds of them and most ring as a hollow as the sentiment permitting them. You meet someone you don’t like; well, there’s a Nazi, pedo, Catholic Priest. Words that sting with zing invariably have no basis whatsoever. My experience with Buddhism from the inside was, sadly, just more of the same; acute spiritual ignorance harmonised by traditional labels with the rich or “fortunate” ones retreating from society for extended periods. Retreat is a form of disconnection. And, boy did those adepts think highly of themselves – for dialling out. Homeless – move on!
Versions of this type of procrastination haunt the various truther movements, which all drive brands of intent. Thus, individuals that challenge intent must be rebuked at all cost. Those that present reasoned clarity contradicting group positions are instinctively regarded as a severe threat to “order” and consequentially viewed as enemy number one. This is because to truthers, “truth” is negotiable (or fantasy). Per that reasoning, because I say the moon is made of cheese, it is truth, providing I have a following. Of course nothing that obvious comes to light, but did not Mahatma Gandhi warn us that the truth of one should not be influenced or corrupted by the group? Here is the nub. According to truthers, in general, because I refer to Gandhi in this example, means I worship everything he says. For the record, I do not welcome Gandhi’s apparent wider purpose. His words “the best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others” do not appeal. However I interpret them (reflecting Osho); I always end up with mindless enslaved serfs blindly working for the greater good.
More on My Facebook Turbulence
Last month I added a new Facebook friend who was on a large truther network. It took less than a week for the relationship to disintegrate. As is so often the case, these days, the other party ran away from issues like a spoilt child. Thank you, using your ancient name, Togien, for adding inspiration to this post. To set the record straight, the reason Togien disconnected from responsibility was he became paranoid after I explained I had special abilities as this, in part, made him feel inferior. Him, being a fundamental science-materialist-atheist (he may claim otherwise “on the surface” but, underneath, bullshit swept away, that is what he is), could not understand that another would have any sensory perception [beyond that which validates materialism], let alone greater ability than his exalted self. I suggest, if he has any scruples, he research Barbara Brennan, Alisdair Larmour and Pane Androv (he’s been debunked, so it’s certain he’s onto something!), for starters and see where the journey leads. As all truthers suppose, Togien insisted truth was negotiable and we (parts of the collective group) were in a contest for control.
Evidence of my special abilities can be [subtlety] discovered in my book, “The Beauty of Existence Decoded” and do you know what? Well, everyone seems to know its contents before reading it and that’s why they have decided don’t need to read it. Just as with any other information sources, until you actually read my book, you do not have any insight as to its contents without very well developed harmonic sensory perception. Even then, thinking you know something you haven’t read is sheer folly, because without cross references relating information collected from energy fields you risk summoning confusion from chaos. Surely those that haven’t disconnected from responsibility would have such a thirst for knowledge, they would, at least, check it out?
Will versus Order
Will is natural chaos and, according to “science”, does not exist because it cannot be measured. DNA consolidates natural order via genetics, and though it has not been formally decoded, powers all spectral elements that determine vibrational reality. Therefore, light frequencies (from black to white) are related to the electro-magnetic resonance of atoms. I will discuss this in my second book, “A New World Order”, if it is ever released for publication.
It is the mind (another guise of “will”) that creates all the chaos because it is only restricted by cognitive DNA. Cognitive dissonance, of course, is a popular derogatory term scientists’ use against their detractors. How does the expression go, “he that smelt it, dealt it…?” A variation of cognitive dissonance is wilful disassociation. There are some other considerations. Let us call them ghost DNA. Our chaotic minds travel the DNA tracks so many times that some lives trigger hangovers from the past. Thus active order might branch into something literallynot of this Earth.
The extension of the worship of being is caricature belief systems that idolise and lionise representative puppets; scientists, politicians, religious figures and so on. Per this reasoning, while Sir Isaac Newton is the flavour of belief systems, he can say or do wrong. Or, rather, the spotlight can be nefariously shone on those parts of Newton’s legacy that affirm, creating a de-facto whole. Reviewing the detail is a deadly sin. Conversely, Adolph Hitler, by the same token (per parallel logic), can do no right. Thus, individuals and group truther movements champion partisan (dare I say, bi-partisan?) all-consuming good or all-consuming evil. Occasionally a major internal conflict erupts when opposing narrative lines converge. We saw this when Pope Francis, manufacturer of the current United Nations’ “global warming” friendly Cosmic Christ, became a paedophile.
They cared nothing about Francis’ Junta past or similarities between the Vatican banking system and the dreaded Federal Reserve. Yet as soon as some vague claim by some unknown wall flower came to light; those “hearsay” sirens whipped up a frenzied cacophony to such volumes, all traces of reason or logic were drowned in the chaos. There are many other clashes of truth, but when all bases boils down to hearsay and opinion for opinion’s sake, virtue suffers. The truther movements largely support hearsay and innuendo. Far from being virtuous, they create abominations of truth.
Egos Feigning Importance
Newton was wrong. [Aghast, a shocked reader hisses, “You are not worthy to collect Newton’s fingernails; how dare you speak this way”]. Is that my ego or do I have the holy right to represented truth in the spirit of virtue? Long standing readers of this blog will note that details found in earlier posts contain errors as, no doubt, I will discover in this one in days, months, and years hence. We are all imperfect and grow by dealing with (or purifying) our imperfections. I make errors all the time and so did Newton.
We are all subject to something called relative perception (I can only guess what his or any other person’s views are as this summarises the uniqueness of individuality). That means when Newton measured gravity he relied on his perception to draw quantitative conclusions which very much juggled relative opinions per the ontology of his peers; the “truthers” of his time. Yes, you see, in Newton’s time “science” was the “alternative view”. Oh how things change. The alternative view decided the Earth was a solid block (give or take) and therefore the apple, witnessed by Newton, was mercilessly pulled down by the ground when it detached from the tree. Can we read into biblical Genesis’ “Fall from Grace?” (Was Newton saying he had to corrupt truth to satisfy the scene?)
If and when science addresses cosmic physics, humanity will learn that Newton’s apple was pushed down to the ground by a complex relationship-generated network of forces. I shall reveal the truth in my next book, “A New World Order”, should I decide to publish it. Whereas detailed calculations as to the strengths/weaknesses of forces are open to debate, the truth isn’t because the truth “is”. To shy from wisdom because foul truthers spew incessant contradictory propaganda is to disconnect from responsibility. My life’s pledge is to honour virtue.
Time Poor; Responsibility Poor
No doubt any number of readers will be muttering, “Who the hell does this guy think he is?” “Lord Muck?” (Under the breath) Yet, behind the scenes, I criticise every thinking thought I issue per my due diligence. Have I been the pot calling the kettle black? Whilst visionary sentiment has evoked clarity, regularly I try to work too fast, do too much. Quick processing leads to the generation of errors. Some presenters mix satire or sarcasm with truth and frank opinion. Others produce parodies or factual evaluations. Speed reading obfuscates clarity.
I sometimes (or, perhaps, all times) write transcendentally, which means individual points or blocks of texts can convey multiple meanings depending on positioning and/or context. Time poor readers may as well give up on my messages. You all need to read carefully and, often, several times to do justice to what you see. Frankly, half doing something achieves nothing. Half reading does little more than destroying and beguiling potent messages. Using myself as the example, recently, my friend and fellow author, Brendan D Murphy, sent me an e-mail concerning an important discussion point on DNA. My contradictory response refuted his wisdom and I ended up, more or less, affirming his virtuous position. That was because I had not read what he had written carefully enough. Fortunately he knows me better and the correspondence was not a relationship breaker, but if he had been a truther, would he not have vigorously and arbitrarily disconnected from responsibility?
The Alternative is the Mainstream on Steroids
Regular visitors are aware that I maintain if anyone is to blame for the mess we (humans) are in it is you and me and not “them”. Clash doctrines find the “other”, lock on and refuse to let go. This is the bi-partisan problem reaction solution George Orwell (an old Etonian) espoused to in “1984”. Alternative Medias target and fire in exactly the same way the mainstreamers do. False profiling, rogue statistics, blatant lies, misinformation and just endless streams of speculation are all part of that patchwork tapestry. Politics begins with the Illuminati brotherhood and ends with “garbologists”. Because the instruments of power (you lot) have run out of flies to pull the wings off to deflect the real issues, the “homeless” is the new “toy”.
Surely isn’t homelessness the stage before death? Is that not the maximum disenfranchisement of communion? How did it come to this? You saw my cry for help and I met your response. The homeless can get fucked. So please don’t feign interest to impress me. I see through you and those like you. Don’t pin those spiritualist, Buddhist, truther, revolutionaire, militant badges on your chest, because you are all (with scant exception, such as Jon Rappoport) the corrupting elements of the group. You enable the Illuminati masters by the way you behave. Talk is cheap and they know it. Responsibility belies connection and the most important connections are the ones you avoid like the plague.