Inheritance, the Prodigal Son and Interest in “Interest”

When I began composing articles for this website it was as if I was a literary infant. Only while I fondly look back at scribbles in dusty journals do I see the core that was me remains intact, unblemished. It is what I have become.  Notably writing projects have grown into something much more expansive; substantially more substantive in many instances, presumably because I am much more proficient at the art of journalism. Nevertheless echoes of past enlightened symmetry still tantalisingly haunt. Whilst die-hard readers used to my familiar elaborate prose have witnessed an evolution of sorts, the more conventional style of recent entries is no less controversial. They are controversial but not abnormal it might be argued.  Even so, rhetoric is regularly too far adrift of sensationalised reason to covet “normalcy” in any sense of the word. It could be said my writings propose a uniquely different perspective which in itself is conspicuous evidence of sovereignty “apud esse”; something all humans strive for to some degree, but oh so few attain. In celebration of my largely discarded history, I have decided to attempt to revisit the past. My intention is to make this piece shorter, simpler [can I say?] in festival of the old but not forgotten me.

Is it possible to effectively resurrect the past?

Well that question will be answered presently.

Reflecting on my journey to date, I recall how, in dull moments, I would instinctively jot down a line or two, a solitary paragraph and other evidence of burning thoughts. None of these were suitable as standalone products for ambitious journalistic campaigns, of course. Logic dedicated a “to be written” folder to these moments and, over time, this has gathered fragments like moss to the old miller’s stone. Given my aim to regenerate dormant thinking, the “to be written” folder seemed the most valid first port of call for this episode. It is definitely fitting that the origins of my resurrection are founded in the rediscovery of misplaced parchments. In this case the scrap I selected consisted of a single page upon which was scribed one line of text in addition to the title. Intriguingly, these coarsely jumbled words appeared to nonchalantly identify an apparently related “unrelated” coincidence. The crux of the observation posited an “irony” over Federal Reserve banknotes, which are subject to 3% interest from the issuer (United States of America), paid annually, The coincidence noted that America (after a historic referendum) also dedicates a minimum of 3% of the gross national budget to “defence” which, in this case, is attack (messianic wars “for peace”).

Above this poignant inscription was the demure title “Interest in “interest””, which seemed the most fetching at the time, though, other than the, I must say, rather cheesy pun, the original “point” is now completely lost to me. After earning the judicial reputation of being an unabashed merchant of “tough love”, I would hate my inquisition to form any bias towards fashionably calculated schemes that formularise common opinions on “things in general”. Persuading those of low vibrational frequency that the devil is in the detail goes beyond motive. That is my vocation and, thus, I recommend anyone ill prepared to consider everything to the “nth degree” is not in a viable position to validate or express truth. Perhaps this rather crass example may suffice to service the analogy?

When someone dies of a gunshot wound motivated by an aggressive attack what perpetrates the murder? Is it the gun inventor, designer, maker, owner or user with malice in his heart? Is the gun itself, the operator, the bullets that caused the fatal wound or the gunpowder that ignites deadly blows at fault? If the shooter is a soldier or policeman, for instance, do the “rules” for murder eerily change? Could we blame the environment, the timeline or engrained political intrigue?

And on and on we can debate.

Revisiting the past is one thing, but I don’t fancy repeating myself is very constructive. Whether produced by the Federal Reserve or not, money’s passé. We also all know it’s the root of all evil (although perhaps not “why” it’s the root of all evil). Many of my prior articles have touched on the topic. This one in particular goes some way towards exploring primary issues.  Nevertheless I concluded the standalone title “interest in interest” was insufficient for that cause. It needed to be widened or scrapped unless I chose a different path. Any form of censorship (however remote) is destruction of the past – hardly fodder for a celebration of reawakening. Therefore Integrity determined my only legitimate choice was to expand the title at all cost as I had no intention of wandering aimlessly in search of ambition. Fortunately “eureka” eruptions reward those with brilliance. What, lacking before, profoundly related to “interest” could be worthy enough for a role or roles in a high impact title? Thinking aloud, it came to me in a flash. Does not interest “prove” the justification for inheritance and ownership?  Inheritance is undeniably one of if not “the” foundation stone of profiting interests.

I would need to summon up a title profoundly deserving of these widened considerations. After much internal reflection, I did eventually find words that will hopefully fashion as a perfect compromise.  They are, in order, “Inherence, the Prodigal Son and Interest in ‘Interest””. This is the resulting effort that is designated as official title of this essay unless something obsessively changes the contextual direction of ideas and their natural progressions. Otherwise no further review is planned.

Now let me explain why the “prodigal son” was also selected for its part in the essential treatise theme. Intrinsically linked to inheritance, prodigal sons are no ordinary offspring. Therefore, simply, that was the “missing piece” I needed to complete the title. It also presented investigative goals worth chasing, investigation that needs to determine what makes these prodigal sons so special. Of course primary analysis did upturn the blissfully obvious. Basically, these male progeny are gifted enough to be cultivated, which is usually in the family direction.  Otherwise, why bother to cultivate? Way back, when elites ruled the world, families with “everything to lose” produced governors and gatekeepers for their kingdoms. Along the lines of this protocol, security over tenure became a family’s greatest priority and ensured at least one son was encouraged (putting it nicely) to enter the military at rank. Another would become a doctor or a priest (isn’t that odd?) and then the following (perhaps the most strategically important) would be groomed to act as lawyer, preferably under government. Black sheep or dropouts would eventually come round to becoming merchants, stock holders or artists. The rigours of this big, bad world ensure safe, easy options are usually preferred.

Before I press on with on with the good stuff, I need to do a little more reflection by way of background. People, I have noticed, have a fondness towards procrastination (mentioned last article too) and a crippling fear of criticism. Procrastination, at best, fuels truths-of-sorts. That is the reality and that is why I try my upmost not to procrastinate. It can be a hindrance because, through my personal discovery tour; I have found some values, ideas and beliefs I used to stand by were either flawed or false. Consequentially, many years ago, I used to regularly bloviate with erudite confidence. There was never anything more than “personal convictions” to back up my gift of the gab, but I rarely found anyone I met could contest my position on the state of things in general. More recently, I have become alert, ever wary of falling into the trap of believing my own bullshit. Criticisms (where valid) counter any opportunity for imperfect procrastinations to take hold, so I see these as causal blessings. Procrastinators, for the record, focus on symptoms or phantom symptoms in deference to causes. Truth givers expose the root.

Therefore if I am to do apt justice to “Inheritance, the Prodigal Son and Interest in “Interest”” all stones must be upturned so as not to grind out more unanswered, “impossible to resolve” niggling queries. I must, instead, disrobe all root causes to unveil the exhilarating detail. Thought and responding responses will require latitude, much latitude. Mountains of propagandas dating back to the dawn of time have had the mesmerising effect of misleading sane discovery to such a degree, befuddled judgments are the function of normalcy. Even some of the great minds of our era are consistently turned to fudge by certain conventions. This is why I focus on topics others simply wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole. True thinking outside of the box comes without a parachute. Even so, rather than drawing on possible conjectures as “sources of evidence”, my strategy (in motion) is to apply logic and purposeful reason to every concept I am at pains to illustrate.

Let us be sure where the “baseline” is. Currently materialist-atheist “edict” controls the way logic is directed. Per this “view”, the implication is purpose is a symptom compounded from random effects of existence, even though (as Rupert Sheldrake has wittily pointed out), by this account, more incontrovertible miracles were created at the dawn of time than Jesus could have ever fancied. (Alien to this mindset) in fact purpose must underline causes because existence was “crafted”. The evidence existence was crafted is found in its design, which is clear and unarguably transparent.

So to do justice to the quest, I may have to introduce suspects or considerations that have rarely or, perhaps, never been pondered before. All the little tweety birds that believe puffing various forms of political correctness is their branch to salvation beware, for this big bad eagle may swoop down and devour you and your branch whole. We should begin with no misconceptions. Those that initiated the process that conceived elitism (or, in other words, the hubris of “prison planet”) demonstrated extraordinary cunning. It seems obvious to me that, considering how the process has radically evolved (in the engineering sense), higher forces beyond this realm have had involvement every step of the way. Not dwelling on possible superstitions, the whys and the wherefores, however pertinent, I intent to expose the chassis of the fabric of the illusion that is today’s “reality”. Conspiracy networks have been installed so elegantly, it is as if they have been commissioned by God Almighty.

Before I discuss inheritance, it is important to review something much more primordial.  We take friendships for granted. They just happen. Or do they just happen? Our first friendships are with family or extended family. Managing relationships with our family members teaches us how to distinguish friends from enemies. These teach us politics (affairs of the people). They teach us who we can influence and who we will let influence us. A trade of sorts is communicated. Eventually we form close knit groups of likeminded kindred spirits. Perhaps not directly considered such, we are all elitist in the way we resolutely preserve our group cultures. When stretched out into the wider community and beyond, we expand into other political networks. Some present revolutionary, but not conflicting ideas.  These see us progress, in some cases. Some ideas are so common they become universalised. Politicians naturally capitalise on, exploit and manipulate these phenomena.

Eventually draconian laws are destined to twist what was original goodwill into all kinds of overt tyrannies in order to elevate elite elitist cultures. Laws have always been the basis for kingdoms. Under this principle, every king has ruling power. However, without friendships there would be no alliances to back the laws and politics that founded them would be rendered superfluous and obsolete. No king could rule. In addition, under these conditions, though commerce would be possible, other than as a tool of oppression, inheritance could have no functional purpose. It would also mean people would be forced to discover the truth if they were motivated that way. They could no longer rely on friends’ redigested second and third hand opinions that sounded right.

As it stands “Inheritance” is one of the golden keys to open Pandora’s Box.  In a distant era populated by long forgotten customs and attitudes, it was exclusively the domain of the elites. At that time land was free, commoners outside metropolises were largely ungoverned and there was no sense of ownership (per modern standards). Individuals congregated into clans and these became long standing settlements which then saw homesteads passed down from generation to generation. But there was no registered ownership. If some place was occupied and sympathetically unavailable, sound conscience determined it was off limits. When the “universalisation” of deeds of ownership tied to symptomatic inheritance of chattel began is hard to calculate. In “western society”, I would argue that the abolishment of “slavery” (social security) led to the effective enslavement of man. Inheritance then evolved to become a quasi-version of the “frills” of slavery. “Rights” would be proscribed by authorities unless aspects of commoners’ common law were considered relevant (to seamless elite governance of slaves). In this case any reflectively worthy laws were drafted as supplants to legislated corporate manifestos. It goes without saying administrators of guidelines were systemised lackeys incapable of virtuous judgement. Finally, courtesy of banking and insurers, everything could be “valued” and that “worth” represented by tokens of interest (whether that is gold/silver bars, coins or promissory notes).

In order to engage lawyers and accountants whose role (in the grand elites’ scheme) is to professionalise ownership, receipt of inheritance follows a litany of potential administrative hurdles, but I don’t wish to dwell on this. There is another internet resource I like to reference occasionally that specialises (in part) on whistle blowing messy probates, the fallout from inheritance. Pure Professional Journalism Gazette can be located here.

In addition, philosophy behind inheritance capitalises on the principle of appreciation or depreciation and this is clearly an expansion of the dependent interest bearing investment culture. Probate relies on belief in heirlooms, which are presumed to indefinitely financially mature. Government, per this reasoning, rakes in their “fair share” from the commerce evolution in taxes in order to theoretically provide ever improving infrastructures and representative management frameworks. Accommodating this theory, surpluses could be redistributed for other pressing voters’ needs. That is why I believe all governments (on paper, at least) are kept “in the reddeliberately. In fact, when truth is laid bare, government, though never limited, does little more than give inheritance necessary tinges of authenticity to make people believe in its credibility. If it is taxed, it “must be for real. Without profits, commerce becomes obsolete. Interest is, by circumstance, both a symptom of and agent in confirmation of profits.

Truth laid bare goes way beyond mere commerce and inheritance. The tyranny actually began with registered ownership because, without deeds, commerce is arbitrary. Barter doesn’t cater for profits. Here is why the imperialists concocted their “survival of the fittest” mantra and continue to lord it as nature’s divine plan. The fittest are considered the best at coveting what they have scavenged (the nice word for stole). I apologise for dispelling with the hocus-pocus, but acknowledgement of ownership as something that is righteous and Godly only grossly and deviously distorts reality in favour of tyranny against the divine. Aside from  modern day [ADL fabricated) Racism fraud, the reason certain peoples have been temporarily “classed” as savages is to remove any contest over conquered (stolen) land spoils (“animals” cannot own land). Notably in Africa, America and Australia, “white man” thieved most of the habitable land areas. Repatriation (a pathetic attempt at feigning “fairness”) in some cases has seen the return of lands considered commercially unviable. Even so, generally speaking, when it comes to origins of ownership, judicial mechanisms continue to work off the ludicrously partisan principle “finders’ keepers”.

The net effect of that is another of those atheistic miracles. Our impotent, voiceless God apparently blesses open sacrilege. Was the principle finders’ keepers ever to be condemned and abolished, commerce would cease to exist. This is a big statement. Some might contest it. Here’s an analogy which should amply validate its authority. I don’t own the royal grounds, approximating three square miles, close to the heart of Tokyo, Japan. Under the auspices of lack of ownership, no one would own the land. Therefore, I decree some legitimacy in laying claim on that which is not owned. Hypothetically, I could establish a real estate agency to sell off my theoretical acquisition. I may be able to attract teams of would be buyers. Yet, without binding contracts and infrastructures supporting them, verifiable presumption of intent to abide by the law, the land is worthless until someone or some group manufactures political legitimacy. The ancient Romans couldn’t give money away to the Britons because they did not believe in it.

The reason (under this system) ownership will never be abolished (although it may be restricted) is governments would have to rescind their slave master statuses in order to transform into arbitrators that truly work “for the people”. Currently populations are effectively forced to toil to survive. Those privileged enough to “own” sufficient land holdings supported by interest bearing investments probably haven’t the skills to become entirely self-sufficient. Thus, without government society would naturally function through the formation of brokered relationships that would need to leverage and harness social parasitism. According to today’s popular press (sponsored by corporate interests and governments who are in themselves giant corporations), people only want good jobs. People, by the same rose tinted reasoning, will do anything to keep their good jobs. Commerce needs labour to function. Indeed, for those that were (in society) to ever become self-sufficient, commerce would cease to be necessary. That lack of functional necessity could only be defeated by interest in collectables and other objet d’art which, though arguably functionally irrelevant, fuel a potentially ever-accruing “need for more”. I guess that is why we have collectors.

It is important to understand the relevance of commerce, because many “goods and chattels” from the inheritance perspective may be deemed valueless. The family’s pink plastic clock that ticked you to sleep as a baby is worth nothing (even though it may be priceless to you) compared against your departed father’s prestigious “medal winning” coin collection that you were never “allowed” to touch, which insurance would class as a valuable asset. Many factors can determine an heirloom’s worth. Rarity, age, condition, popularity affects status of all antique items. Statuses are groomed from fostered traditions. For instance, Caucasian Australian manufactured artefacts offered for sale would likely be priced at many multiples of any vaguely comparable Aboriginal counterparts. In line with this ideology, the essential education of all well-connected prodigal sons provides a vital comprehension of firstly how the system functions and then, as importantly, how stepping stones to credentials gift “keys to the kingdom”.

Unsurprisingly a correct (for purposes of social elevation) education is priced beyond the means of not-so-humble slaves, which proposes a vicious circle whereby only elite or “fortunate” working class families can avail the system. Indeed for the system (which some argue began with William Cromwell at Westminster) to permanently function as it is, the riff-raff could never be involved in any authoritative managerial capacity. So, with the exception of very occasional “pliable” geniuses, credentials of note are off limits to ordinary folks. Rebellious or revolutionary geniuses are invariably spurned by those that might have empowered them unless their significances were so timely that to trade would persuade the only logical course forward. The powers never favour constructive partnerships. That wick always burns fast and furious. Why would recalcitrant free thinkers ever be viscerally rewarded by a system that choses to repress or oppress most forms of independent thought?

From the (dare I say?) “Conspiratorial perspective”, certain specialised training qualifications that are destined to open doors to those prized “good jobs” are invariably only available to those with educational credentials usually off limits to working classes. Hindsight is a wonderful attribute. In many instances only those in the know (or, rather, with “connections”) have inside information as to which skills to acquire for guaranteed success. Thus, just about all “good jobs” are snapped up by exclusive circles privy to their occurrences. Propaganda permeates a much wider circle of influence which, in part, is designed to operationally program the masses. I can but assume the Clintons were firmly behind the cruel and childish media attacks on Chelsea as a young adult. The design (aided by unflattering images), in this case, was to chide ignorant people into “believing” she was “ugly” so as to ward off any potential for successful unsuitable suitors’ advances. Media tactics of this kind are regularly analysed by Jon Rappoport. I strongly recommend investigation of his writings.

Few seem to be able to come to terms with the extent of the complexity of propagandas. Perhaps this is because everyone attempts to deny their own relative indoctrination or, worse still, it is the summary evidence of their root systemisation. Propagandas are everywhere. They are not merely limited to the mainstream and institutionalised “sciences’ (sic). Much deceptive information has been generated about computer viruses, for instance. One of the great lies that seems as though it will stand the test of time forever is Pasteur’s germ theory. Germs, according to Pasteur, can invade and infect any body and this is completely untrue. On the back of the lie, scientists concoct legions of “organised germs” that conveniently follow the program. They label these mysteriously unidentified legions’ “viruses”. Of course, if medical evidence free of Pasteur’s contaminated propaganda was given the opportunity to incubate reasoned appraisal, results would radically dishonour current standard opinions in the same manner Bruce Lipton somehow defeated all biological cells.

As Pasteur was nothing short of an appendage of “corporate science” which had been set up by the Rothschild family in Paris in the late eighteenth century (just after the “revolution” – sic), any marketing device aiding the manufacture of arbitrary confusion to help everyone “believe” would be regarded as a godsend by those that presume they own the world. Their godsend in specific relation to the case I highlight is “computer viruses”. Computer viruses are not even remotely comparable to any medical counterpart, but propaganda agents don’t care. In fact origins of all computer viruses can be traced back to sponsored hackers testing security effectiveness of networked equipment, but that muddies the objective of paradigm synthesis. To the propagandist it only successfully sells the “concept” germs can and will invade and infect with impunity whether via the internet or other routes. The idea that anyone connected to humans is potentially “networked” with dangerously contaminated aliens is the perfect genre extension. Because, in this specific case, “viruses” (as labelled) do invade and infect technologies, the propaganda message would go a long way towards convincing shallow minds. I will leave the associated complex good/bad bacteria and strengthened/weakened immune systems’ discussion for another entry.

The great deception is to paint a computer virus as the principled copy of a medical virus.

Using established institutions to routinely dress false positives or negatives as “facts”, places the system in the supreme position of being able to present any fantasy as effective truth, no matter how fantastical. Providing data can be formally argued and expressed in particular ways, any antipathy of reality is up for believable persuasion. There are actually no laws of science (physics). There are only laws of existence (to the atheists’ dismay) which can theoretically be placed under scrutiny of sciences. An excellent example of how current etiquette can end up bamboozling itself is found in various expressions of interest that emerged considering the effectiveness of a new energy generating prototype heralding from Italy a few years ago. I have lost source details, but can verify corporate backers in favour of the machine presented analytical notes interpreting data that illustrated the device was going to be a magnificent success. Competitors insisted the exact same data was unrequited “proof” the machine would never work by their account. Would be investors coming somewhere in the middle couldn’t or wouldn’t speculate either way. Similar “analysis” has been made regards the Bosnian “Pyramids”. The duly diligent will see it everywhere.

In addition, to aid propagandists’ purposes, word values (such as “gay”) are routinely changed or even reversed in order to lambast popular interpretations. Late Nicolai Levashov (his family incidentally claims he was “murdered by Zionists” in 2012) and other genre academics have argued this restructuring of language began in earnest in mother Russia just after the 1917 bankers’ invasion. Let’s face it; “interest” is a profoundly positive word that surely inspires persuasive popularity. That is why it was given to “utopian” banking commissions (which will always be viewed in an eternally positive light) in my opinion. Finally, those that do not consider insistence on and observance of balanced truthfulness is the only viable promotional standards’ benchmark are propagandists, whether they acknowledge the fact or not. Propagandists are in the business of manufacturing beliefs, period. Truth that doesn’t support or actually impedes the manufacturing process is unwelcome. Any devices, such as changing word values, fake science and so forth are more than welcome. Discerning would-be “Manchurian Candidates” is trickier, but, I would imagine those that assure religious adherence to product “use by” dates are well and truly in the crisis zone. The vegetarian that “doesn’t like” meat isn’t far behind.

Money is only supported by the “belief” in its value. That particular belief has become the most potently powerful and universally entrancing factor in the control of man. Thus, we must acknowledge the scripting of believable beliefs is far more virulent than truths that might support or aid acknowledgement. For example, I wonder if any believer (in money) has considered the fact that financial optimism provides fodder for wars. When the Industrial Revolution was in full swing the 1890’s saw boom times. Boom times make babies; manpower for the First World War? “Roaring” ‘20’s clearly provided “stock” for the Second World War (Germany was billed to “lose”, so their peoples were given fertility stemming poverty on the back of harsh reparations. 1930’s optimism was in preparation for the kingdom of Germany to be rebuilt as a new republic [styled on America] when the war was won).

There are always going to be inconsistencies, such as the infamous 1960’s flower power movement. This is a paradox because it was the only genuine peoples’ revolution in living memory. No attempt was made to synthesise prosperity in the 1970’s because weaponry is becoming so sophisticated, “ape” operators will eventually be found unnecessary (beyond culling populations). Were a few of those bygone hippies “tuned in” enough to realise “Interest” is the nemesis of sovereignty? Being a hippy was all about recognising individual sovereignty. The 3% the Federal Reserve skims off every dollar assures each bill in circulation is worth 97 cents (presuming “government” doesn’t take a cut too). Therefore the owner either has to front the loss or is forced to speculate or trade in order to recoup 3% or more. Imagine the potential for manipulation if Bitcoin or any other e-currency takes hold. That is how the notion of profits was born. The land that is the royal grounds of Tokyo is worthless unless it is rated and valued. It has long been presumed that “highest bidder” nominations assure correct marketplace values, but this isn’t necessarily so.

Abundance does not come without a “price” to those that dedicate themselves to controlling humanity. Population swells lead to the collectivisation of giant metropolises. Without incessant propagandas that “define” normalcy, the “stranger” might persuade “influence charisma” of comparable or greater power than corporate bread winners. From that, a rogue messiah or “anti-Christ” could emerge. It is more than possible; probable even. If so, of course there are many ways to quickly dispel unrest. Leaders can be branded occultists, sexual deviants or, worse still, insane.  Anyone fetching that positive diagnosis can be liberally carted off to a very unhealthy institution and indefinitely detained without recourse. As everyone that used to be “evil” now has some sort of psychiatric disorder, biased and unfair claims against can be sinisterly effective. How well did Jesus fare against the Pharisees in face of the cross? How are mental illnesses “healed”? Well to answer that, there is a litany of tested drug cocktails perfect at prepping would-be “Manchurian Candidate” assassins without causes from recalcitrant, inspirational free-thinkers.  Two birds killed with one stone, maybe?

Advertisements

Devilish New Year Aspirations

Christmas is over and though I aim to make this upbeat, anarchistic semi-satire, I cannot help feeling a pang of what if? This may be a bit early for the New Year, but I am hoping readers are given enough time to reflect for sincere resolutions. My next post will be released very soon and those eagerly waiting to read my book, “Dimensions, Deceptions and Demons” will have the opportunity of contributing for the first section.

How does Mr Scrooge compare with you?

How does Mr Scrooge compare with you?

My gracious donators did not relieve my pressing personal problems, but that would take a magician or three. They did, however, save humanity. For it was their selfless acts that showed me there must be others, lurking, shy of the attention and the responsibility. Sadly both donators were agents of the hoard of global bloggers I visit. These tireless writers contribute enough. It is so sad that none of the wallflowers could stump up anything that amounts to more than gawping. (You all have a second chance to show yourselvesscroll down)

Observant visitors will notice a sparkling new section of recommended bloggers (assuming admins has figured how to set it up). Look up. One of the links is a brand new exo-political resource with the mission of keeping the corporate “disclosure movement” honest. Bigalow Corporation recently hijacked MUFON and all its assets reducing the organisation to little more than a “propaganda machine”.

Turkey anyone?

Turkey anyone?

As for other websites, PPJ is a blog I highly rate being a tireless front against political corruption, the erosion of reasonable constitutional values, poor treatment of horses, aged care malpractice, our withering precious environment and so on. Peter Schreiner visits so regularly he is our resident poet (strictly vegan, as much as I try to convince him turkey is ok at Christmas, thanksgiving). Though I am not absolutely sure he exists in the flesh, a transcendental mind of the calibre of Jon Rappoport should be welcome anywhere and everywhere.

Alright, enough of the boring stuff. It’s time to focus on cam girls again. As I recommended in the post A Perverse Intermission, every decent student of psychology should ogle at cam girls at least two hours a day. The sacrifice we students of truth make! Those that have braved this treacherous pursuit will agree that volumes of girls, invariably well painted, of different sizes and shapes attempt to lose articles of clothing, slowly. It is interesting but some as young as 25 call themselves “mature”, usually, I confess, when they are overly proportioned. Conversely other women have given themselves the title Lolita and variations. One was not a day younger than 32, I swear. If my memory serves me correctly, the Israelites have a better slang word for lolita. This is “hebe” and means “the stage at which a girl blossoms into womanhood”; presumably age 12-15.

When all clothes are discarded, they do more things; far, far more risqué in some case. There is a mystery. At least one use of the title “virgin” has been noted, after the Madonna, maybe? Framing flickering video portals are robust group chat consoles that display members “nicks” by order of rank. Queues of would be tippers are perched like penguins on the precipice of an ice stack. Aimless and disrespectful chatters bark incessant commands at their virtual forlorn maidens. Eventually one of those teetering Spheniscidae titans’ “slips” and dumps a small pile of cash into a bucket on the floor. And so the clothes do shed…..

The epitaph of commerce; death of miser Scrooge

The epitaph of commerce; death of miser Scrooge

I like to give and feel historical details of my acts of philanthropy might inspire other givers (give is the opposite of take, for those that aren’t sure) to follow suit. A very small sample begins at age eight when I “found” $20 and gave it to my father. It took him seven years to pay the money back and dividends had trebled with interest (mum made sure of that!). Until I was 25, acts of generosity were always pinned on the expectation of repayment or reciprocation. Then something magical happened. I lived in a shared house (who could afford anything else at that age?) and one of my housemates had had a falling out with the landlord. He had nowhere to go and nothing to go with. I gave him 300 pounds sterling because I knew he needed enough to survive for a month. That was the equivalent of 1000 pounds today. It was a gift and I did not want or expect any return favour. That was my way of cleansing the world and it felt good; really good.

Tiny Tim; a beautiful, vital disabled human being

Tiny Tim; a beautiful, vital disabled human being

In the same year, I gave nine hundred pounds sterling to a workmate, because at the company I worked a customer had tipped me generously for doing a good job. Though I expected some form of reciprocation, none was forthcoming and I did not really care. Along this well-travelled path I have rarely given to charity and do my upmost to avoid contributing to government. As a Global non-citizen it would be hypocritical of me to do so. The bulk of my acts of unconditional giving have been directed at South East Asia. In total I have devoted what would amount to a small house over the years, never in “penny” sums, always something significant; useable. You know what? I would do it all again, given the opportunity. More recently, in these times of dire straits, I have still usually managed to find the $2 or $4 “tax deductable” (she produces a hand printed slip) amount to support the lady that stands outside my corporate supermarket representing local intellectually disabled people.

Don’t those with superior intelligence have a calling to support those that fall short of the requirement?

I don't "look" hungry

I don’t “look” hungry

This Christmas I had to shuffle by, head hung in shame. I had not done enough even to raise $2.

Come for some HONEY

Come for some HONEY

Things must be tough for everyone this year. My local online casino has managed to call me or text eight times in three days, including a courtesy contact on Christmas Day. What a nice bunch of guys! Back in 2011 I took advantage of a UK online casino offer, invested $70 and turned it into $2,200. After much wailing and gnashing of teeth, dark threats of lawyers, lengthy extended correspondences, they eventually coughed up. My next attempt was not so lucky. $50 saw non-payment of $2,500 from a listed rogue casino. I did find this resource to assist recreational gamers. Fundamentalist Puritans assert that gambling is wrong, yet turning an irrelevant amount into a relevant one is enough to save a situation or even a life. Therefore, I am all for limited gambling in the right circumstances.

Online prostitution, gambling, charity (oh yes, those online donations too) are all forms of commerce managed by Judaism (Puritanism is a version). This is not what Judaism was, but what it has become. Every single government of the world creates laws that are built on tenets of Pharisaic principle. No one is “free”, other cultures notwithstanding. Pharisaic principle ensures that only the fit survive, no one has the right to life, money is God and to offer unconditional support is sacrilege. Ancient Judaic doctrine preceded the Torah (aspects can be evidenced in parts of the Talmud, which now consists of 6,000 pages whittled down from an original 30,000, and the Bible, also severely “downsized”). That is why the Pharisees always conflicted with the Sadducees. These have been replaced by Republicans and Democrats. Jesus was unaffiliated, an “independent”. Gracious Jews face the wrath of anti-Semitism. Though, incessant whining is showing anti-Semitic indoctrination is slowly but surely losing friends. Even people in high places are beginning to rebel. So worried are the Zionist elite, they are giving away a book to Puritan congregations instructing them how to think.

I know you all feel strongly about not giving to strangers; but what happens when strangers give to you?

Look he's legless, but not drunk or high

Look he’s legless, but not drunk or high

On my travels, I regularly meet people that don’t give to charities “out of principle” (although I have never been able to ascertain what that principle is – greed?). Let us think the unthinkable and discover the clock turned forward sees you homeless; yes YOU. Are you going to turn down charity “out of principle”? Every time you have some personal misfortune, can and does no one help? Of course, I am not referring to relationships built on trade; those Judaic commerce principles, such as agreed bloodline reciprocation and “tit for tat” friendships. Our reality is chaotic mob rule manipulated to induce reactionary governance with alternative (often unrelated) agendas that are sold by faux Medias and corrupt hacks posing as journalists that are not worthy of darts of phlegm. Everything, in this reality, is geared to aiding and abetting a rigged trading mechanism. Trading machinations are nothing more than manipulated “poker” auctions. No fixed prices here, just fixing. Did you ever think what it might be like to be homeless; not “drug addled” homeless, REAL HOMELESS?

A Happy New Year is one of resolution

Without “home truths” there can be no hope for resolution. I read a post about the “traitor for exposing the truth” Bradley Manning, PPJ kindly supplied. What government thought about their armed forces could have been more clearly illustrated than the series of events that led to the torching of a war veteran’s makeshift “tent city” pitched in protest at the US Capitol, Washington in 1932. World War One home comers had been offered riches by government and given fire. Was shining McArthur unsupported in his attack? Surely the National Guard assisted in dispensing the wrath of commerce against the “national threat”. A hero one day shall become a traitor the next.

I ask conscientious readers whether they know why Nagasaki was nuked to “supposedly” end World War Two. In the 1920’s and 1930’s this Japanese nest of islands was a popular rest and recreation stop for people of all classes. It was known for beautiful colours and beautiful women (an earlier version of our “cam girls”), both in generous supply. Your Pharisaic masters “cleansed” Nagasaki for two reasons. Firstly, they love to purge “sin” (as expressed by the St Augustine tradition emphasising the letters of St Paul) available to plebeian classes. Secondly, they were determined that branded slaves (citizens) would not go “absent without leave” (AWOL) after the fun (war, death and attrition) was over.

Decent slaves would never be homeless

Real homeless people don't have to look "nasty"

Real homeless people don’t have to look “nasty”

That takes us full circle because, conscientious readers, the greatest sin and dereliction of duty is to be homeless. You see, all homeless people have dialled out of the system. Because it became clear in the 1960’s that populations were growing too fast for “commerce” (rigged trade) to support them (as slaves), they turned out all but for the most dangerous mentally ill people onto the streets. After the (many veterans) “skid row” experiment, they also welcome alcoholics and, more recent, drug addicts to huddle street corners in plain sight. It was designed to stigmatise homelessness. Decent people were brainwashed, unable to see it for what it was. What do YOU see today?

To conclude and, once again, referring to the wise Jon Rappoport who has been tirelessly crusading against the joint Monsanto, FDA and “health foods industry” front attempting to turn everything natural into GMO. The good news for the elite is there will be non-GMObillionaire foods” a-plenty. The debate is being conducted on arguments determining whether retailers should bother labelling GMO infected foods. Partisan commercial stakeholders have levelled the rhetoric on pure commerce with sentiment like “Non GMO foods will see a marketing advantage for those committed to labelling their products”. The cost of labelling will be prohibitive opening the doors for billionaire foods.

This satisfies the food control blueprint established as per the 1971-75 25 year plans (valid for millennia) with contributing illustrious think-tanks such as David Rockefeller’s own Trilateral Commission (founded 1973). Soylent Green (1973) adequately expressed their wishes, with ignorant, cannibalistic peoples crammed into dusty markets overlaying a culture of euthanasia. We don’t want a world full of useless old eaters. The price of a jar of untainted strawberry jam was $200 (that’s $4000 in today’s money). That’s the plan. What’s the action?

Donate Button

PayPal support

Our Anunaki masters tried to wipe out humans because of our “incessant chatter” and [assumed] inaction. Humans, generally, do remind me of something…

A "committee" of gobbling turkeys

A “committee” of gobbling turkeys