A Crisis of Social Grooming: Fear and Manipulation at the Root

Never entirely sure why I receive certain impulses, there was a nagging feeling that I needed to publish this on America’s “Memorial Day“. Perhaps it was the sense of anger at “order” attempting to press-gang me into remembering those I didn’t ever know. How is that possible; to remember something that wasn’t experienced? Besides, the fallen didn’t die for me personally. Far from it. They behaved recklessly, some committing murder to protect the coveted few of the time; the elites that pariah off corporate infrastructures. Mind you, at least American judiciaries don’t follow Austria’s lead who, upon instruction of internal law, may likely illegally abduct and imprison high profile publishers of responsible criticism of irrational (and otherwise nonsensical) wittering that corresponds as the official history of an episode colloquially promoted as “the Holocaust”. But, of course, anything that reinforces Israel’s case is a-okay.

Producing voluminous, more substantial articles these days, when lacking project inspiration I generally refer to an “in progress or to be written” folder located under my computer’s document file explorer. The title I selected this time round had lain dormant for years. It intrigued me to see how my style had changed, by how much I had grown or shrunk, as the case may be. The original title “The Root of Social Grooming” was somewhat truncated and this, I think, adequately highlights my changed perspective. Albeit embellished in places now, the signature paragraph (formulated all those years ago) does make ample preparation for what is to follow.  Even though I missed that critical Memorial Day deadline, without further ado, here is what I had to say back in 2014.

“Democracy will never work when underlying principles are built on exclusion rather than inclusion. Laws that don’t underscore prohibition, impose [just as well]. Secular privileges are given to those with diplomatic [status] and others [that parasite off the apparatus]. This [phenomenon] has [caused] creation of the social divides that [naturally] encourage Racism and other [regressive] symptoms. There is no doubt [in my mind that] this has been a deliberate strategy. Given the enormous weight of responsibility required to effectively ensure dedicated impartiality, it is all too clear royal status was originally foisted on wise men and women. [In light of human fallibility], it [proved] a responsibility too great to bear and, eventually, [ensured] recruited blasphemers [whose conceit] arbitrarily discerned “God’s wishes” [sic] whether they parried with social equilibrium [backed off natural order] or not. After extended periods of tyranny, eventually royals were called to task [for this] and clerics produced mandates outlining reasoned constitutional representation. These systems became known as constitutional monarchies and [they] are the fairest democratic processes of government.”

People like to blame others for their woes, because applying responsibility almost invariably exposes personal error as the main cause for issue. On occasions when truth does lend towards the conspiratorial shall we say, as is the case with routine pollution and certain [unarguably toxic] medications, coherent competency rarely attributes basis. Individuals, it seems, are drawn to propagandas generated by consensuses like flies to the dung heap. If the great group says it is so then it must be so, so it will be so, by their reckoning. This amply summarises the crisis of social grooming. “Denial” of truth is the commonest and starkest symptom of “fundamentalism”. Consensus view beneath corporate standards more than adequately abridges a modern way of domineering dogmatism, whereby explanations replace avenues to seasoned logic. Jon Rappoport’s raucous alarm calls aimed at the education system (I expect his article to be reinstated by WordPress) barely begin to highlight just how deep rooted social apathy has become. But for the bubbling internet, revelations of sovereign mind today would have zero influence on the manner of how things are presented or reflected on.

In effect (accorded by politics), a dichotomy of tyrannies punctuates the rights of the few over the wrongs of the many. The Magna Carta’s early assault on common law wasn’t enough. So veraciously hostile were forces of evil, later aristocrats and merchants alike scrambled for protection against Cromwell’s foul legacy, which is the austere Westminster System of course. William of Orange became the fortuitous angel of mercy. But their appreciation of tyranny didn’t cease as a consequence. The peoples’ constitution (if it could be argued so) was shredded in 1864 in preparation for the beginnings of popular slavery (liberally recorded as emancipation) under aggressively tiered society.

“Terms” for the masses (slaves) were finally aggregated in 1929 by the Geneva Convention at around the same time bankers’ were able to soundly conspire from their newly formed historic capital, “the Vatican”. Why are those hauled before the American courts presumed guilty until “proven” innocent (celebrating French bankers’ multi-lateral autonomy after both republics commenced in 1789)? This is because every American national (of ill-breeding) is deemed a criminal. And that Fifth Amendment salvation so often referenced is strictly for the nobles. As Great Britain (or, notably, Ireland) has been the informal Promised Land since time memorial, her chosen peoples are considered innocent until proven guilty by the corresponding system of justice. But Britannia ruled far more than the waves, for the rest of the world had gradually submitted to maritime law long ago.

Of course along the journey that is branded civilisation by historians, elitist empowering double standards are all too numerous to list, but there is one deception of such far reaching magnitude it begs to be exposed in glorious detail. If Genesis’ Adam and Eve parable was conceded as truth, everyone (“one race”, if you will) is Jewish by birthright. Yet, the reality accords the promotion of acute covert xenophobia towards anyone who isn’t Jewish (per alleged successive bloodline integrity). “Values” that became laws governing humanity are almost exclusively theirs. Consequentially, many social go-getters, such as, for instance, the unlikely Sammy Davis Junior, have converted to the insincere faith to “get on”. The stakes of occultism are high, as to be expected. New Jewish citizens (paying homage to homeland – Israel) are forced to enrol all male offspring, under crude auspices of dignity, into a ceremony colloquially known as the Bris.

For reasons that might only be judged as bizarre by the right minded, infant star of each gathering is guaranteed to lose his penal foreskin without refund. Now, given the unholy reaction to one of my prior articles here that [according to one accuser] “reveres” the practice of paedophilia, I am flabbergasted by the lack of venom directed towards any Jew (synthetic or otherwise) who participates in the callous Bris culture. I use the word “callous” with great care here. Is a baby consulted and fully aware of folly ahead or is this a somehow “legitimisedviolation of body rights, a strange exception to the fundamental rule of personal sovereignty? Why aren’t there any salacious headlines? Wouldn’t one expect to see “Sadistic Infant Penile Display Centre Stage in Sick Pedo Jew Cult Orgy” or the like smeared over the front pages? If it was the Catholics doing this; would they deserve any less? Why do we all “know” (sic) Catholic [priests] must be paedophiles? Why, because we have been programed to think that and we’ve been programed to believe the Bris and circumcision are A-Okay too.

“Great” Jewish newspapers, of the prestige of Haaretz or the Times of Israel make little fuss of the affair, but confusingly, outside the club, there is an (albeit ultra-orthodox), I must say, vile practice or fetish that receives almost no attention at all (i.e. absent from non-Jewish tabloids). How many of my readers are aware of a Rabbi’s certified (or, perhaps, certifiable)“suction clean”, I wonder? So, to elaborate on the process for those less informed, any other vaguely comparable uses of “suction clean” terminology would certainly better appraise as blowjob for mere mortal comprehension. Crude but appropriate or, rather, I mean inappropriate. Thinking of those possible headlines again, how does “Boy Loving Pedo Rabbi Gives Bad Baby Deep Throat” (well you know how these Medias like to exaggerate) fit the criteria? It is funny how God issues an “unacceptable” foreskin, but man is far more divine than God, wouldn’t you say?

Therefore, I assume my revised headline suggestion would be fine, except there’s something else we should consider. You see, in this case blood’s involved, so forget the Jewish thing. We’ve moved to a whole new level. Instead, let’s imagine we are dealing with a Catholic archbishop here, who must be guilty (because we believe that). I see no reason why a banner mightn’t reasonably read “Sick Sadistic Catholic Cult’s Gay Gore Orgy Reptilian Priest Drinks Baby Blood Raw”. Then again, what of those herpes cases in New York?

Oh brother, very hush-hush

Ah the joys of satire! That said, circumcision is a very serious topic. God gave me my foreskin and I celebrate it. Those that argue otherwise are vainly obsessed. We only need to look at incessant mass Media venom directed at disgracefully lampooning strict Islamic practices to see evidence of this obsession. Remember those elite double standards I mentioned earlier. How is the circumcision of a female any different to the male? Either the act itself is deplorable or it is acceptable. But at least for abject followers of Mohamed, circumcision is theoretically “optional”. Mass Medias highlight duplicitous contradiction; which is the natural consequence of social grooming.

Truth is invariably adrift of broadsheet fantasy, but there are some encouraging exceptions to the rule. Here it could be said fair attention is given to distinctly parallel violations of Muslim women, yet (beyond very occasional warnings dressed as “politically correct” philosophic procrastinations) no attempts are ever made to stress the plight of unguarded marginalised males. Behind the curtain, there is fallout of course. The epidemic is such one Jewish woman (of presumably many) tearfully reached out to me at Jon Rappoport’s blog, explaining how her son’s pain from his circumcision has persisted throughout his life with no possibility of moral refund.

Rabbinical authorities have shamed her trust in them

Apparent holistic needs (whether pertinent or not) of social cultures are given far greater priority than raw truth. In fact, there is strong evidence to support respect [in divinity] is so wanton, that truth has become partially superfluous. Therefore, correspondingly, sewers of misinformation and disinformation thrive. The modern age, certainly over the last fifty years, is a heyday of deceit. Name me one mass Media celebrated medic that has spoken with truthful authority about vaccines and viruses? Does an institutionalised historian actually know any history? Why are the majority of great pioneering scientific discoveries accidents?

Nevertheless, the foremost “out in the opendishonesty is the role of world governments and their ongoing missions. The reason political machinations never seem to improve is they were designed that way. They were designed to fail, from the social perspective. After Albert Einstein, either doing the same thing over while expecting improved change equates to insanity, or “make no difference to the way things are” is the overall anticipated goal of policy making. Politics are fundamental. Decisions are bound up in constitutions which (albeit theoretically) script foundations for utopian order. Amendments to the US constitution, sticklers might debate; cause all outward political problems for that nation. I say the constitution was rigged from the onset and reasoning is clear.

But you have to go back to dot to précis the real issue with popular (i.e. majority rule) population administration. Undoubtedly foundations which have become the hubris for modern world government are encapsulated by Oliver Cromwell’s Westminster System. (Ignoring the exported Dutch mortgage system) why was second class aristocrat William of Orange (incidentally, his daughter, Queen Anne, was a reputed lesbian. Lesbians are regularly the product of physically, emotionally or “character” scarred fathers) ushered into British supreme authority if the constitution (adjunct to the Westminster System) was irrefutably “stable”? Maybe the highly irregular dual headed coinage of the realm conceals some secrets as well.

Nouveaux nobility (a fraternity of merchant bankers) hastily drafted their bill of rights because, after recalcitrant King James II, they were demonstrably exposed as vulnerable (I referenced the jailing of William Dockwra before, but there were many, many other attacks on “treasonous” private commerce) as royalty had proven far from defeated after Charles I’s infamous beheading execution. The double edged sword of success viciously turned on the perpetrators of the French Revolution as well (its leader and other key players suffered the nobleman’s guillotine fate). Some would say “karma had its day”, but [ultimately] the lesson to be learned here is those that wield draconian standards are forced to live by them too. And the closer you are to the source of heat, the greater your chances of being burnt.

Legal due process oils hearsay dressed as evidence in our courts. Will re-emergence of medieval torture (currently in the form of legitimised psychological terrorism) come at a hefty price to its backers?

As I regularly outline; the United States of America was established with a view to becoming a template of the French system of government (symbolised by the Statue of Liberty) and not the other way round. Be it the continent was a constitutional democracy 1766-88. Phoenician rebirth of combined great Greek/Roman (liberators of Rome for justice) dynasties had been the plan all along. That is why, in typical fashion, Napoleon seized absolute control just as Caesar had done before him and, arguably, (Aristotle favourite) Alexander had done before him. Britain had no mitigating royal authority at the time of the revolution, so America “the enterprise” is the greatest untold conspiracy never to be explored. King George of England was a foreigner who spoke little more than nodding English. The issue that blew up into a war was between powers that “vampired” off regal infrastructures and those who opted for self-sufficiency, which is amply highlighted by renegade “journalist” John [Peter] Zengler’s successful defence of a libel lawsuit against Royal Governor of New York, William Cosby (is that why they attack Bill Cosby today?) in 1734.

Miscasting of historic myths is a classical manoeuvre of those committed to perverting truth in order to impress upon social grooming. In more ancient times religions were a vehicle sometimes used to ridicule truth and deny sovereign faith. Circumcision is an undeniable direct attack on God (supporting that which is natural), but I find no reference to the fact in the Torah. Because religion began to lose its potence (the authorities drafted a new Bible in 1884 in an attempt to jump start Christianity once more) with so much global upheaval, since the French Revolution, the task of bending truth has been handed to “science”. That is why today learned professionals are “split” for and against vaccines, marking mainstream and anti-mainstream territories.

How can there be any debate on this though? The truth is plain and out in the open, but far from simple. Aluminium, supplied to vaccines via Eli Lily’s branded product Thimerosal, causes brain damage. The symptom autism is a configurable consequence. There are other plausible associated conditions, such as Alzheimer’s disease. Here’s where complexity is noted. Often combinations of factors will impress varied disease symptoms. Wireless 5G illness is an odd one, but in the specific cases of autism and Alzheimer’s, the underlying (or root) cause is aluminium poisoning. When there are multiple factors determining potential outcomes of any political argument, it becomes easy to subvert the path away from honest realisation. Oil is blamed for Iraq, but the war had little to do with the petroleum industry. That was the cover story. Indeed, the “powers” know that if they do not move away from fossil fuels soon, humanity is done for. In fact, as I illustrate in this article, all cancers are caused by carbon pollution.

Politics is all about consensus view (or, rather, the manufacture of it). Science and religion are the same, with two distinct exceptions. Religion is anchored to Scripture which, fanatics assert, is Word of God. This is easily disproven, of course. We only need to open our Bibles to discover numerous contradictions on offer when evidence that summarises prophets’ revelations is scrutinised carefully. God apparently allows and disallows certain practices; verdicts depending on timely cultural persuasions. Yet, jesting aside, a calculating, divisive God is a duplicitous one. Science, almost identically, regularly serves up contradictory “proof” as justification for dogma.

These wibbly-wobbly proofs are sometimes sensationally disproven. For some “products” bitter cognitive dissonance needs to be challenged many times over before evil ones are forced to prostrate before the light. Neither Scripture nor proof, it seems, are very reliable. That is perhaps why they have combined in unison today. Both sciences and religions’ output asserts what amounts to principled belief in doctrines “supposedly” backed by evidential proof. Though it logically belonged to Jacques De Molay (attesting his crucifixion by Catholicism), the so-called Turin Shroud is “officially” evidence of Jesus’ (who didn’t exist, by the way) life and death. This is because, the once Hitler IG Farben cyanide gas salesman, Pope John Paul II was all too quick to upgrade the dubious (according to prior editions of the Catholic encyclopaedia) “fact” in spite of the facts (couched in known origins of the exhibit).

If the world’s great superpower USA was modelled on Rome (forget Israel) why wouldn’t the Vatican be nucleus of authority?

Thinking of an unlikely analogy that summarises social conditioning, I am impressed by the subtle interpretive differences between recklessness and bravery. In respect to this, modern day mass Medias are ceaseless in their assault of valour. Cowardice will never be bravery, but so often this is purported as truth. In deference to a submissive death, a victim must be brave, they claim. Is it because preservation of life happens to be the most significant clause of their subliminal “survival of the fittest” manifesto? In that regard, another noteworthy manifesto titbit asserts the belief that people will be consistently devoted to deceitful subversion in ego threatening situations, which would justify the system’s perennial need for disciplined shepherds to guide righteous flocks. It further highlights why people are treated as though they were cattle commodities by these overseers.

When citizens lost their natural right to be sexual, their lives were transferred to state. Relative scam Paedophilia is a philosophic foundation stone that projects hybrid standards which rely on comprehensive groomed compliance. In other words, without foundation beliefs, supporting synthetic reason would wither into oblivion and the cattle would roam free. An extension of this façade is people must truthfully worship their Gods for persuasion to transform into reality. Understanding the mindset is vital to decoding how corridors of power visualise authority. Thus, if ruling authorities are Godlike, they must be faultless. Correspondingly, the system is beyond criticism, but individuals, “bad prophets” if you will, are very much in the spotlight and may be sacrificed to preserve unblemished credibility. Pedo priests, by that token, won’t tarnish institutional Catholicism.

Back in Roman times, rulers painfully observed successful policy was inexorably linked to popularity (usually supported by in vogue Gods). From today’s bloated populations for those with sufficient resources, it is easy to manufacture fabricated consensuses. Menacingly, in conjunction, a form of censorship disparages thinking outside or beyond traditional guidelines. A cult, which is a gestalt made from materialistic, atheistic and hybrid Judaic ideologies, acts as counterbalance, paving the way for all established rules that attribute what is justifiably “credible”.  Atheism, in the usage here, isn’t presented as a religious connotation per se, or even a system arbitrating divinity. It would be better, instead, reviewed as an appendage of materialism. The two concepts are inseparably grafted together. Terms or understanding attempting to cultivate non-physicality, particularly anything spiritual, are the critical casualty of the union. In their ideal world, associated zealots would outlaw anything that obstructs or contradicts perception validating physicality (though paradoxical string theorists see the illusion well). By their lofty ideals, if God was to exist, “He” must be tangibly solid.

After in depth study of history, one can but draw the conclusion that a seam of vexatious law brokers has plagued humanity from the dawn of time. Ineffective (and sometimes destructive) rules are regularly demanded of simply to “organise” the rabble. In past writings I have highlighted the Pharisees as the significant culprit. Given this is an Easter project; it would be remiss of me not to at least reference bonny Jesus, who constantly buffered against puritanical high priests lacking common sense and honest dignity. Suffice to say, grooming is a vital symptom of society, which, from the true utopian perspective, should concur with universal selflessness, even if by being selfless could also mean being selfish too. Medieval fanatics undeniably misinterpreted this divine instrumental purpose. Self-flagellation achieves nothing unless the group benefits by some means. When fear and manipulation are routine tools (or cattle prods) used to control consensus society, individual rite is rendered superfluous and might be viewed as a threat to order.

The effect aggregates a strange symptom. Consequentially, “structure” will eventually stagnate (euphemised as populations waking up) because the ego must rationalise to survive. Zombie state reflects the individual that is prisoner of order; wandering in a waking death, which fundamentally explains why such relatively large percentages of populations turn to crime. They reject order to live. Even the supposedly most innocent amongst us are actually as guilty as sin in some ways. Conflicting laws are not observed by anyone safely way from the spotlight. Reasoning of our holier than thou brethren deems some crimes are more criminal than others. Indeed a prior article of mine “The Law is an Ass” comprehensively outlined the basic problem. Which is the umbrella justice system reflects austere bias so it simply isn’t just.

In so much, the concept of justice was established to cajole society in favour of the few

For instance, murder is the supposed capital offense, yet I find not a single nation against war. Even strategic financial centres too cowardly to participate don’t morally block wilful destruction of life (particularly when they skim the racket). Beyond commercial politics, the justice system actually seems to be more in place to obstruct an individual’s rite of passage than promote proscribed “good”. Arbitration of sexuality is probably the best example to demonstrate what “under law” really means. Per legislation, individual rite most definitely cannot be used as an acceptable excuse for violation of law. I have mentioned before, and it cannot be repeated often enough that, from the divine “cosmic” perspective, sexuality doubles as “life potence” (generated by the base chakra). Break life potence (through arbitrative control of sexuality) and you own a slave; only a breath away from fully fledged zombiism.

Fortunately the youth of today aren’t easily subdued. Sex drive is as powerful as ever, regardless of the many and regular attempts by insidious mass Medias to obfuscate reality. Fundamental attacks on sexual expression (and freedom) actually stretch back to the dawn of time. Currently paedophilia may well be the sin of the moment, but in other ages, cultures targeted varied peccadillos. “Apostle” and Pharisee “St Paul” (who has doubled as people’s first pope) championed total prohibition of intimacy. Even under terms of marriage, he argued carnal relations were theoretically sinful. Expanding persuasion of this devious fraud, Jesus is remembered as a “natural” manifest virgin, reinforced by his immaculate birth.

Furthermore, theological authorities make it dreadfully clear his genius was not a consequence of spiritual purity but, rather, the “reward” for preserving virgin status (following mother Mary) throughout his life. Purity, by their deceitful account, implies any universal celibate might match Jesus’ standards (a Pharisaic notion) simply by rejecting intimacy (commonly illustrated by overtly mocking the “devil”). Of course the reality flies in the face of this nonsense. Jesus (a pseudonym of Joseph ben Matthias) took Joseph of Aramithea’s daughter Mary “Magdalene” (who purists imply was a “whore” for daring to taint the Messiah’s reputation) as his wife (that culture would have permitted only a wife to wash/anoint the feet of her spouse in company – John 12:1-8). There may have been offspring to the marriage; whose descendants would become the Merovingian kings (the great Catholic threat). One investigative account supporting this conviction is presented by Michael Baigent’s “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” (1982) and evidence selected is most compelling.

Whether contemplating deep past or modern day politics, there is a serious side to social apathy. Actually it’s a deadly serious side. Build enough pomp in support of institutional deceit and ill prepared perhaps naïve doctors will routinely administer poisons as “cures” to patients (remember those leeches?).  But doctors are “just doing their job” as they kill you, right? The numerous celebrated examples of those who have “extended” their lives by opting out from being processed by the system, by refusing medications today, should hardly embarrass. That said, why limit the blame to doctors and medicine? Every car driver administers cancer causes, maybe not individually, but certainly as combined agent of a monstrous pack of polluters; polluters who generally don’t care by the way. And the price they pay for not caring is to lose their own natural health as well.

The problem is everyone suffers from and some die because of their arrogant ambivalence

Popular desensitisation towards life threatening truths I believe is evidence of the direct result of viscerally unfair political processes churning out laws geared only to improve Racist divisions (or to favour commercial lobbyists’ such as Pfizer’s, I hope I have that right, sex change therapy drugs for four year olds). There is no debate on certain unwholesome legislations which will either not be strictly observed by majorities or, in other instances, completely ignored. People reject these in the same manner as they deliberately avoid understanding real reasons behind everything. Indeed, they encapsulate an ongoing political conspiracy that consumes humankind. I find it greatly ironical that law breaking sycophants are still able to vote with open hearts and wail like babies when their chosen troll doesn’t make it. They outwardly pander to systemic government, taking advantage of all the “trappings”, whilst inwardly reviling dictating democracy, ever scheming as to the best way to avoid compliance.

For the creators of “order” to pull off their charade, there has to as much collusion between mass Media sirens and vested interests of Big Commerce as is possible. No better example of orchestrated faux crisis can be found than the ever regular fever pitch screams supposedly shining the spotlight on global epidemics whilst actually preparing sales of (commonly poisonous) medications. Enlightened ones will quickly see beyond the veneer, such as the swine flu “epidemic” which could only site a few dozen cases (and all of those, when detail is inspected with integrity, were dubious). Therefore “epidemics” exquisitely open up cultural insanity (maybe Einstein was forsaken after all?) at all levels and persuasions of society. By extension, an in vogue pioneer that labels something new, something formally undiscovered prior, apparently has divine authority to boycott criticism from branded undesirables. Bloated, and often obviously lacking, theories supporting “functionality” are routinely fed to wider populations, who invariably lap up whatever they are told. Once “knowledge tracks” are laid it takes an earthquake to uproot them and this is fundamentally why people are so easy to groom.

An extension of the grooming effect will regularly encourage recruits to go to extraordinary lengths to feign compliance with normalcy. Conventions are followed with such zeal, in some sorry cases, lives are shattered. Outward contradictions cannot whitewash over inner turmoil. That is why correspondingly high percentages of Western populations (in particular) are currently hooked on psychiatric drugs. Of course, as far as “Pharma” is concerned the human identity crisis is a perfect two way street to profits. Drugs they issue to solve the problem will more than likely make the patient either more ill or ill in a different way. That means more prescription drugs for the bad prescription drugs; yet more products sold to alleviate or patch up the problem caused by the “solution”; aptly complimenting the vicious cycle of ignorance. And we should not lose sight of the fundamental fact. It is not doctors or pharmaceutical cartels or wilful governments that instigate this mess. Cultural insanity is definitely fault of the user base; all you “shit eatin’” confident but pathologically ignorant users. You are the cause and the problem.

The invisible pig in lipstick “beyond confrontation” is you in front of the mirror every time you don’t bother to look

The good news is “they” (the self-assured powers) most decidedly see it and they count on your disability; otherwise they wouldn’t be able to manipulate and control you via populism. My analogic use of “pig” might seem overly harsh here. Yet, if I inspect what is being done to remedy the catastrophe that is order, I find nothing or next to no goodness. Pitiful protests do not affect change, but public ones will reveal who the grumblers are. Politicians and their puppeteers already know virtually no one has the guts to fight for lasting change on individual terms. Grumbling parasites are the closest we come to revolutionaries. These need to be prodded every now and again to show whose boss. Conversely, when governments appear to cave in to demands, well these protests are ones’ staged, orchestrated by George Soros or other members of the old boy network. And they are staged for good reason. How else to sell the most assiduous legislation?

Vegan terrorism is a classic example. Protests aren’t about empowering vegetarians. Motive is to disempower “the other” whilst saving that macabre Monsanto (lawsuit champion) Bayer alliance. Forcing useless meat eaters to consume unsanitary genetically modified product (Solent Green) has been the objective of operations all along. That’s why coverage of vegan values (sic) has found its way to the mainstream. Will it turn out it was yet another Soros brainchild when the powers’ brag in the alternative Medias? The planners and team leaders of the coup know the truth but everyone else plays useful sap, I assure you. Perhaps we are seeing a little karmic retribution here. Anyone prepared to be a terrorist deserves to be duped. There is no such thing as a cosy crusader. Idioms of that genre languish only in fantasy realms. No, in reality vicious activists are criminals in all but name. The subliminal battle rages over rightful ability to freely express and, more importantly, whether visibility of expression is granted. Of course, it is visibility which almost always is the first to suffer under scrutiny of activism. The other spineless defence they favour is the smear campaign (how about paedophilia to pack a punch?).

We are undoubtedly on the precipice of a new age of distortion. Was Jon Rappoport’s blog removed because he was to close to “Infowars'” Alex Jones for Trump comfort. Breitbart’s cozy period with the oval office seems to have soured these days. Nevertheless, Paul Craig Robert may well lament that sensational Media treatment of Julian Assange equates to the open death of freedom of speech, but I have maintained (and will continue to do so) that Assange is a (cocaine loving special friend of Ecuador) CIA strategic asset. Whether he knows his handlers on first name terms is the only point up for debate. Business partner of Mossad, CIA has its tentacles everywhere. This is mainly because Israel is extremely jealous of how successful the Vatican has been at securing the hearts of the people and will go to almost any lengths to destabilise cultural traditions. Pedo pop shots at senior clerics are the tip of that iceberg. In the information age people are inclined to believe anything laced with a modicum of authority delivered with sincerity (check out George Burns), which, unfortunately, takes us back to those cycles of manipulation through fear (terrorism, war, epidemics, censorship et al) tuned to incubate groomed socialites. Do not high profile bogus synagogue mass shootings (revered by capitulating mainstream Medias) appear to justify Israel’s “moral authority” before her people to bomb the heck out of Gaza by way of punishment (although some might scratch their heads as to “for what’)?

Perhaps, I read into that too much. Israel, it seems, will use just about any pretext to kill Arab peoples of Gaza. Nevertheless, leaders of Tyrannous nations are easy to blame for the crisis of social grooming, but supposed sovereign individuals must take some responsibility here as well. Fear and manipulation are simply levers of influence. Ultimately, individual choice concedes compliance. Fear and manipulation will remain while concessions are effective and continuous. Therefore, it is only when personal sovereignty is universally valued above anything else that controllers will be forced to reappraise “group think” strategies. To explain this philosophy, the notion that a vaccinated person is unprotected against the unvaccinated is intellectually preposterous. However, from “group think” perspective, “reason” takes a bold new form. If the “group” is vaccinated, flaws in the process highlight collective weakness. Unvaccinated, under these terms, are the flaws in the process. Thus “the group” is unprotected if but one individual fails to observe collective protocol.

There are some contradictions to this that are easy to explain “in perspective”. Autism as a “condition” is not discussed in reasoned terms by the mainstream because it represents vaccines’ major Achilles heel. Though statistics have rocketed from one in ten thousand to one in thirty per capita since its 1980’s “discovery” (actually a variation of Asperger’s syndrome or Schizophrenia, both forms of brain damage), these blemishes are very much in the minority. Therefore FDA (a toothless “internal” commercial watchdog misbranded as a government department) reputation remains spotless after ceaseless allegations (even by inside professionals) against certain products continue to plaque alternative Medias. From the “group think” perspective, under these circumstances, those that suffer autism must be defective and vaccines (if truly to blame) merely act as agent to stress their abnormality. Only when majorities are demonstrably afflicted, does the campaign fall in a heap. So here’s the contradiction. There have been innumerable pharmaceutical product recalls but, in most instances, the “batch” is judged as culprit. In the case of GlaxoSmithKline Australia many years ago, it required only one alleged poisoning to justify recall of their entire paracetamol production run. Globally, instances of autism may run into hundreds of thousands (depending on statistical diagnosis), but to coin a phrase “nothing to see here” for reasons outlined.

If I conducted a poll from residents of my local street, I would be surprised if I was able to collect even one in a hundred that had heard of Eli Lily’s Thimerosal product. Rhetoric supporting “educated” mainstream vaccine awareness campaigns has been dedicated only to slander. Those that “don’t like” vaccines are painted pathological evil and scandalously ignorant (though explanation for ignorance is routinely absent), whereas those that are on the correct team are “normal”, good, virtuous “God fearing” people even. We must begin to realise that corporate Medias are, with scant exception, supported by pimps and hookers, and these vassals do not (by any means) deserve the title “journalist”. On rare occasions truthful truth rears its head in isolation, it is always skew. Judaism undeniably influences mainstream content censorship measures. Indeed, so much so, some believe there are no other political interests balancing control (Christianity and Islam both versions of Judaism). Jews, regardless of status and location, today are classed as “People of Israel”. That is the only [real] reason most nations permit dual-citizenship.

Given his enormous status and favourably biased treatment “under society” (goyim), how [individually] sovereign is the average Israelite? I think the answer to that lies in circumcision. The Jew, without forethought, will deny God and barbarously deface his new born son to demonstrate allegiance to the group. That is the pitiful standard humanity swears by.

When “Belief in the Saviour” Teases Corrupt Zeal

Traditionally I have regularly released a Christmas or New Year’s thematic to coincide with the so-called festive season. 2018 has proven to be a latecomer, but I refuse to entirely relax standards. Each winter solstice cycle I increasingly notice how little of Christ [from the Greek] is present in Christmas. For instance, there is now more or less a complete void once occupied by goodwill.

Satan devoured it,” howl the sanctimoniously superstitious

Yet superstitions should never be entirely overlooked. Every reflective proverb invariably contains a grain or more of truth. Current advertising beginning as early as “New Year”, embers of the “Phoenician” commerce coup ignited under concessions of Santa around the turn of the nineteenth century. Great threat Cossack Russia helplessly conquered and with America “under administration”, imperialism was to become the unchallenged voice of reason. Maybe Ebenezer Scrooge wasn’t such a bad stick after all, but I will elaborate on this sentiment in due course.

Before I expose the real corruption of Christ, it is important to clear the air over Santa’s ambiguous comeuppance. Back in Rococo times the ice countries may as well have been classed as the known third world. Few were hardy enough to brave the cold, but for occasioned explorers. These courageous travellers were at liberty to export remote tales of old, particularly when absent of viable bounty. In Santa’s case it seems that two convenient folklores converged as one. Whether any original account has been authentically preserved is unlikely, but, suffice to say, vagrant Norwegian sagas concerning an odd mystic figure (elf?) had proliferated out to “the West” by 1815 or ’20.

Historic development of the Western version is much easier to chart. By reputation, one of America’s New York newspapers made timely broadsheet announcements in December 1773 and the follow year. According to promotional content, Dutch families seasonally congregated to honour Saint Nicholas (a monk renowned for his selfless distribution of charity). Plausibly, theorists claim that Saint Nicholas was issued the pet name Sinter Klaas in the local dialect pronunciation. Evolution to Santa Claus is logically coincidental. Back in the early nineteen century, it should be noted that popular drawings presenting Sinter Klaas in contemporary situations barely resemble modern Santa. That commercial effigy is believed to have been the consequence of a life-sized model placed behind a Philadelphia general store window in 1841.

Scandinavian tales refer to a mystic figure that helped the children, although Christkind (Christ’s child) or Kris Kringle is usually considered the parallel German version. The original name (the one sometimes quoted is not authentic) of the historic figure is perhaps lost to time, but I calculate it was the missing ingredient that promulgated a natural evolution to Santa Claus. My use of the word “natural” here is figurative, of course, as there is a sinister side to this account too. Following Scandinavian myths, from around 1820 American businesses heavily invested in Christmas shopping advertising, strategically placed around heart-warming ditties (one can but assume were) inspired by the Norwegian mystic. Printed message cards were to come in en-masse from the late nineteenth century onwards.

Popular iconography attributed to a North Pole setting was introduced (in the West) by Clement Clark Moore, whose 1822 poem “An Account of a Visit from Saint Nicholas” apparently featured quaint eye-catching illustrations. Thomas Nast, cartoonist for Harper’s weekly, adapted visualisations for a feature spread in 1881 which made popular acclaim. Embedded traditions of present day rotund gentleman clad in cheery red suit gestated in the 1890’s. Promptly exploited by the Salvation Army, homeless men dressed in seasonal costumes were commissioned to venture out with the aim of collecting funding donations.

Masonic involvement in the creation of the United States of America is beyond dispute. Whether fabled Illuminati power brokers were the key instrumental agents will possibly never be authentically known or provable. What is unarguably clear is the American union was never set up for the people or, rather, if it was, “the people” were undoubtedly the select few. Propagandists went to work in earnest well before the United States was ratified as “one”. Corresponding messages promoting Christmas spirit in favour of commerce highlighted the ambitions of those that established the new republic. This style of subliminal tradition persevered throughout the occurring human rights’ transformation, perhaps persuasively haunted by Charles Dickens 1843 masterpiece “A Christmas Carol”. Incidentally, British Dickens had also written his Parish Boy’s Progress (more commonly known as Oliver Twist) serial 1837-39 which coincided (sic) with the Abolition of Slavery Act (1837).

I wrote about the truth behind abolition last article and inasmuch stated that no philanthropic goodwill should be attributed to the end of slavery. Human rights were reduced to tatters in order to fortify the needs of burgeoning commerce. One of the significant causal effects, in addition to labour exploitation, unprecedented spikes in crime and prostitution, was the emergence of numerous social charities. I have written about charities independently before too. If governments were truly set up exclusively for the people, then each charity must be viewed as a breakdown of order that highlights supreme jurisdictional incompetence. Today there are supposedly tens of millions of charitable causes which emphasises the ineptitude of governmental social charters. But there is another side to the conspiracy. Great writers like Dickens rarely (if ever) meaningfully expose the indelible link between charity and trade. Charities usually place funds in the care of the banking system available to purchase goods or services before converting them into “aid”. Funds not needed “in the field” are invariably locked into attractive interest bearing long term deposits. British “custodian of charities” (a corporate collective catering for tens of thousands of organisations) used to be listed second place below British Telecom at the stock exchange, so it is a lucrative cash cow.

Dickens’ squint vision is enough to convince me he worked for the overlords. Why else would have he been allowed to make fame and fortune? If his writings had viciously attacked “the system”, no one would know of them today. Without doubt his “hallmark” powerfully creative style made endorsement decision making easy. His deeply human approach surely would have been considered gravy topping by his endorsers. For example, “A Christmas Carol” (or “Scrooge”) did highlight the plight of the working classes, but the manner as to how merchants and those that governed exploited working classes was matter of fact, the way things are. In effect, Dickens ended up posthumously begging for charity from his betters. That was the limit of his militancy. Indeed, in the Victorian age knowing your place had been a very long standing belief attached to birth provenance (i.e. the result of karmic deliverance). Perhaps this is why he was allowed to paint such a bleak picture. Other of his novels feature “poor houses” (paid slavery) and debtors’ prisons, so it would be unfair not to lightly applaud aspects of his pioneering effort towards social conscience.

In fact he was far from the only dissenting voice of that era. Beginning with comparatively humble numbers from the late eighteenth century onward, by high Victorian times published attacks on “the system” had just about reached fever pitch. A significant side effect to all this is worth exploring. There have been many revisions of the English Bible, from the seventh century AD. A formal Revised Standard Version of the New Testament was first published in 1881 and this was largely a consequence of inertia of “social conscience movements” (notably who were alarmed by the excess of prostitution) in my opinion. British politicians such as William Gladstone expressed their dedication to God (apparently regularly administering sermons to fallen women), although it seems ironic that these individuals have been responsible for imposing some of the most acrid and draconian legislation on the people.

Cultivation of various popular “beacons of hope” was burgeoning commerce’s key strategy investment geared to combating radical dissent in such forms as suffrage protest. Christmas Santa was one such icon. It seems to me that it has been no accident seasonal spirit appears to engage commerce at any opportunity. In that capacity, Santa is the Christmas star perched on a commerce peak. Dickens’ criticism of Scrooge’s lack of commercial goodwill by not paying staff adequately empowered seasonal trading. For lack of better words, when [otherwise] slaves are affluent enough, they can buy more goods and chattel to ensure business perpetually booms. Broadsheets promoted charitable initiatives favouring trade long before the US republic (1789) was established. Santa, by hook or by crook, became a convenient figurehead or mascot. However, review of naming protocols places dark questions regards the ethics and ambitions of those that pioneered the Grotto cult. There is more to Santa Claus than is obvious.

Far from being a saviour, he has been known to splinter families consumed by obsessive greed. Those without funds sufficient for merriment (as Dickens bitterly highlights) are ostracised by “goodwill”. There is a giant clue as to why this is so, but I first need to provide a little background before I detail it. My other website offers many articles that cover esoteric and paranormal affairs. Coincidentally Satan was the feature of one long essay there. I say coincidentally because it is fairly well known that Santa also happens to be an anagram of Satan. In normal circumstances one would put the fact down to quirks of language, but can we be sure connections are accidental or arbitrary here?

Explanations will become a little complex because I first need to allay popular confusion over origins and meaning of Satan. In fact, while I am about it, I may as well cover doppelganger Lucifer too. Satan, for instance, is a very ancient term that stretches back long prior to Atlantis. Sanskrit is the closest dialect I have found representative of the “universal” first language that failed to survive Atlantis’ downfall (hinted at in biblical Genesis’ Tower of Babel). In that regard, perhaps all words were originally collective monotones and, with this in mind, Satan conveniently breaks into “sat” and “an”. In Sanskrit pronunciation reflectively impacts word values, so “sat” and “an” could each be attributed to mean many different things. Therefore, in the interest of correctness, I have had to draw on inherent sources to establish compelling historic and interpretative basis from considerations.

“An” is the easy part. Several ancient tongues use the syllable to signify “Almighty God”. In combination with Almighty God, various meanings of “sat” might satisfy differing wider metaphoric interpretations. Though the fact appears to have escaped surviving chronicles, Satan was the first star to ever bless the cosmos (actually initially revered as the Blessed Star). All stars deliver light. In spiritual context, light is sometimes called logos (which is the Greek word for information). Spiritually, “logos” extends way beyond mere information. It is the essence of truthful purity or, in other words, the word of God. “Sat” is the Sanskrit equivalent of this conceptualisation. Lucifer admirably compares. That name derives from the Latin and means “light” (lux) “standard” (fer). Morning Star (Lucifer) competing with the sun (Ra) as it rises based on biblical Isaiah’s (an unrepentant Pharisee) radical sermon is generally regarded as the significant origin of the usage.

Also worthy of mention, Akhenaten’s Amon (usually erroneously referred to as Amen) conspicuously forms an “Almighty God” (A-n) sandwich casing “m’o” (divine record) filling. Thus, strictly speaking Satan, Lucifer and Amon/Amen all mean the same thing (more or less), which is bringer of good news. Actually, wasn’t that what they called Jesus too? Nevertheless, I have explained elsewhere how the general message over time has been twisted into opposite meanings by miscreants with rogue agendas. Today the direct effect is both Satan and Lucifer have been reversed from bringers of good news to evil omens. Specifically, Satan [in Hebrew tongue] simply means accuser. The development of Satan as “the tempter” did not emerge until the late sixteen century, though attributing philosophies were clearly embedded in Martin Luther’s earlier rhetoric. Luther (himself a Jesuit) strongly influenced contemporary masonic alliances. Masonry is not the sinister cabal delineated by superstition. Merchants would normally associate themselves with one group or another in order to network out of trading necessity. The massively beneficial spin off was it made collusion and coordinated commerce strategies possible.

Not all collaborations were gracious. When stakes were high, gross acts of tyranny or injustice were sometimes deemed “end justifying”. One such conspiracy toppled Britain’s constitutional monarch Charles I, who was beheaded on 30th January 1649 as a consequence. Even so, after that atrocious standard had been set, beginning with his son puppet king Charles II’s reinstatement, the universal demise of sovereign royal power is probably best marked by Catherine “the Great” (no wonder they call her great) of Russia’s turbulent reign. Violent anarchism was an offshoot of that operation. Since Michael Romanov’s (nephew of Ivan the Terrible) 1613 accession to the Russian throne, there had always been disturbance with Cossack settlers (displaced Polish serfs who termed themselves “free men”). In accordance, numerous popular uprisings against authorities have been reported from 1591. Out of all these, it is the 1768 Ukrainian (Koliyivshchyna) religious massacre that probably most pertinently marks an authority shift. Reputation says killing was sparked by Catherine the Great’s “Golden Charter” (1765) which enabled retired colonel and cleric Maksim Zalizniak’s ambitions. Their joint mission was dedicated to purging Catholics and other religious minorities.  Politically correct historians are quick to denounce the Golden Charter (which also targeted Jews) as “utter fantasy” in order to preserve the queen’s “spotless” reputation.

Encyclopaedia Britannica’s first edition is dated 1770. From 1770-75 Russia is proclaimed the world’s greatest nation. By 1776 she may as well have been a sickly dog.  Many theories attribute reasons leading to the country’s downfall, but it seems to me that government ownership of the Orthodox Church from 1721 marked the beginning of the end so to speak. Post revolution “Communist” Jew Leon Trotsky’s unrelenting all-reaching attack on that administration was certainly no coincidence. Populations had been galvanised by the church. Replace it with alternative convenient social apparatus and you have society in your pocket. Russians were (and perhaps still are) extremely parochial and rather superstitious. This is well highlighted by the way they celebrate Christmas. According to legend, Babouschka (old woman or granny) misled the three kings (search for Christ) by giving the wrong directions. The Russian birth date for “Jesus’” is 6th January but festivities honour Babouschka’s eternal regret for her deceit.

Historians might convincingly argue fledgling United States of America’s journey to superpower status began in 1776 (phoenix rising from mother Russia’s ashes?). Constitutional democracy ended in 1789 when the republic (in Philistine Greece and Italy’s wake?) was formed (and currency changed), but it took until 1864 (ushering in the 14th Amendment to the constitution) for government to be reduced to a corporation. Commerce was the primary reason the United States was formed but it took the best part of a century (1776-1864) for satanic agents to exact their full plan. Today all governments (and their tax offices) are corporations and that is why the modern world is held to ransom by merchant bankers. I find it mildly ironic that it is in the powers’ best interests for people to “wake up” to truth which is of next to no advantage to egregious saviours’ causes. This suggests, at the very least, that all (or the majority of) revolution philosophies have been sponsored by the precise same powers that impose tyranny. These false rites of passage were sponsored because the deceivers knew they were guaranteed dead ends.

To define true evil, I regularly reference a quote attributed to the great sage Krishna “Spirituality (impetus behind creation) brings to freedom, whereas forces of evil paralyse”. What better way to paralyse than by introducing appealing commerce. Humanity would not be able to resist aiding and abetting the devil (d-evil). I don’t refer to the satisfaction of genuine “needs” here, although commerce can accommodate those too. No, here I exclusively identify non-essential extras; frills of commerce. Some argue that the introduction of pomp surrounding royalty (which has endured so long) is pointless. Lemurian monarchs for periods that precede historic record were visually indistinguishable from the people. Very ancient kings were blessed with God-like powers. They could be distinguished by deed. Today certainly, beyond their overstated assigned status and privileged upbringing, royals are no different to the everyman. At Christmas, pomp and celebration of non-essential extras is now encapsulated by iconic smirking Santa which suggests it is those behind commerce that crafted the whole idea of aristocratic superiority.

Is the clue in Santa’s name; perfect anagram of Satan? By the time of this red frocked (isn’t the devil usually depicted coloured red?) tempter’s universal notoriety, negative connotations of Satan were firmly entrenched. Indeed, so much so no one had heard of the Blessed Star (in relation to the creation of our universe) by then. Such is the case today as well of course. I presented some detail in relation to the truth (and reasoning behind it) that negative Satan was actually originally the mispronunciation of “Saturn” (from medieval times, although I think this reflects attitudes under Prophet Zoroaster thousands of years before) in this article. “Design” of Santa appears to vaguely follow the Babylonian Horus myth. Indestructible God could only be chopped up and hidden. In this instance “An” has been remorselessly sliced in two, “n” crudely wedged between “sa” and “t”. “A” brings up the rear and represents perennial impotence of spirituality under Santa’s spell. God is vanquished (decapitated) and his wisdom (sat) corrupted.

But for Babouschka, Christmas (Epiphany) would be mostly a hangover from the Pagan era. Evergreen trees (in particular) represent celebration of the winter solstice. From time memorial, tradition has always seen exchange of gifts, but pagans honoured their harvest, so communities would contribute fresh fruits and vegetables for the benefit of society. “The Feeding of Five Thousand” New Testament parable was scripted by Mark (or Marcus, a Roman aristocrat) and therefore one should question its purpose all the more. Though communal sharing of fish and loaves suggests so, it is unlikely Jesus (Josephus) ever administered a true harvest festival dedicated to the winter solstice. The Romans, on the other hand, did worship solar cycles. Sun-day is a tribute to that legacy. Per context, the alert may struggle to fathom why I bother to discuss this now, given Jesus’ notorious “Jewish” status. Let me explain why. Long prior to Roman involvement, Judaism had split in two. City folks followed autocratic regimes promulgated by those generally known as Pharisees. It is a style of “order” remains alive and well today, underpinning up-to-date management of global affairs. Back then remote, displaced tribes were guided by (what the right-wingers’ would term) superstitious philosophies which prepared for different “ways of life”.

Their brand of raw spirituality was in fact encapsulated by the essence of numerous of splinter groups and these had journeyed out to the four corners of the globe in search of paradise (colloquially referred to as Promised Land). One such autonomy was the foundation of ancient druids (not even vaguely similar to garish abuse, late eighteenth century neo-druidism). Rural “Essene” Jews were labelled Gnostics for a while. Though historians remember it as a new tradition from the time of Jesus, it is likely the 570BC exodus to Ireland (Promised Land designate) consisted of likeminded parties of anti-Levite (Pharisaic law makers) “revolutionaries”. These embers of civilisation plausibly could have “morphed into” the later druidic tradition, made more notorious by Avalon (spiritual centre and first mystery school?), which is located in southern England. If memory serves me correctly, America’s Pilgrim Fathers formally constituted a southern English gathering in search of purity. The point I am trying to make is there has been a persisting religious dichotomy ever since man reflected on his divinity. Judaism, God forbid, is probably one of the better examples of that

Celebration of the solstices seems a likely component of Gnostic tradition. Unfortunately, other than newly found (and possibly censored) bundles of esoteric texts hidden in Dead Sea catacombs and other discreet places, evidence of that faith was destroyed long ago. Neo-druids make a big hullaballoo over solstice traditions whereas I suspect the Gnostics treated these occasions as opportunities to educate. What better way to manufacture goodwill while celebrating nature could there be than a harvest festival? The idea of community sharing for everyone’s benefit is instilled in “The Feeding of Five Thousand” parable. Did Mark’s account confuse a solstice event? Perhaps we’ll never know, but, per context, the fish and loaves are distinct spiritual symbols and shouldn’t be viewed liberally. Celts (original druids) in particular revered divinity as something directly attributed to creative potence. They determined that all life came from primordial waters (something modern science propagandises?). If primordial waters constitute God’s physicality, then fishes’ mastery of oceans must be inspirationally hallowed. The Lord’s Prayer “praises God for our daily bread”.

Tribes, such as those that became the druids, who didn’t revere pharisaic order, separated and found new havens (free of tyranny) to root. It is difficult to pinpoint the precise transition which is the branch that became modern day Judaism. Hebrew was originally a cut down cosmic script. For instance, additional unknown letters are occasionally seen interspersed with Hebrew on downed alien spaceships’ insignia. It is known that today’s long standing Yiddish culture backed off New Hebrew because Old Hebrew was insufficient for competent business communication. The “pointing” of Hebrew text (which in practicality adjusts for a new language) possibly coincided with first world universal adoption of stamped currency (legal tender). Accurate dates are deliberately vague on origins of pointing; maybe 12th, 13th or 14th century depending on opinions. Does this vainly cover up the Khazarian Yiddish pact emanated from the Ukraine? As an aside, though the Ukraine is sometimes volunteered, it could not have possibly ever been fabled Khazaria as that land mass is submerged under oceans today. There is however compelling innuendo that posits for a plausible case recommending the Ukraine is viewed as the motherland by certain estranged Pharisees.

Few bother to even attempt to comprehend the severe civil consequences of legal tender. Enslaved populations are the product of oppressive and tyrannous welfare states which cannot exist unless supported by currency. Therefore, industrialist vipers initially introduced serfdom gradually, confusing the “free” into believing that this was an effect of their zealous benevolence. Once everyone was “captured”, oligarchs expanded traditional uses of prisons for purposes of “containing” those whom they did not want to socially enable (crude justifications supported by laws came later). Bonded slavery became the only viable social security option for those displaced by war, famine or for other reasons.

Truth surrounding vile treachery of the Magna Carta (marking the point at which silver currency exploded) is obscured by cheery tales of Robin Hood and his band of crafty thugs. As a treaty, it wasn’t a charter of goodwill towards the people. It in fact was open theft of free lands and the negotiated common rights of man. Courtesy of the Magna Carta, the vast majority of our modern populations could not live off the land effectively now, even if we were forced to do so and that is why industrialists lord over the document’s prowess so heartily. Rich or poor, mighty or lowly, we have all by some measure been transformed into slaves of currency. They say money makes the civilised world go round. That is why those with the most money invariably have all the privileges.

Where it came from God only knows, but there is a tragic old wives’ tale that supposes the ills of humanity are the fault of the Midas effect. Those with wealth are singled out as evil doers even though everyone (without exception) is greedy (sometimes euphemised as will to survive). The humble do not know extravagance so they neither desire nor solicit it. Most elites merely exploit human nature to the hilt, though they may not be fully cognisant of the fact. The reason Santa has become so popular is he epitomises the averice of the masses. That is more than amply highlighted in Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol”. Goodwill is leveraged to such effect that crippled “Tiny Tim” deserves to have the litter of his family’s desires steeped on him at Christmas for merely existing. Of course this selfish anthem ignores those hard to rectify gaping double standards. Why would “rich” Scrooge bestow gifts on relative strangers in place of his own loved ones? The real issue, how Tiny Tim’s father persevered under such irresponsible employment terms, is not discussed.

Well, they didn’t have unions then”, screams a heckler

Incorrect, but it will take an eternity for sovereign man to grow a backbone. The power of labour values ironically has always been very much in the hands of the people. If everyone refused work and put death as the preference over slavery, currency would have been rendered valueless from conception and commerce would have never commenced (in the known sense). From the point currency was introduced, a utopian objective has been to shackle the broad masses. Peer group infiltration and targeted populism were the chosen control strategies (branded psyops) used to fulfil the objective. From the day men communicated with each other, money (cuts of silver, gold talents, precious beads) and other arbitrary tokens of value have always been used to supplement barter trade.

Currency is different. Units are stamped by (and the overriding possession of) an administrative authority. Originally that would have been a constitutional royal. Now stock ownership is hybrid. Who is this Federal Reserve? Those that use the merchandise are subject to governing philosophies and rules. A dollar cannot morph into a million units of value because “someone” decides this is so, whereas administrative overseers might revalue a dollar if they decided the act was politically expedient. Germany’s inflation was a deliberate act. Other competing paper currencies were only partially backed by gold, but the illustrious Federal Reserve turned a blind eye. Whilst apparently contractually bound as servants (polite word for slaves) of government, they were able to turn a blind eye because they own all “backed” circulated money.

Wholesale cash enterprises were developed first by the Greeks and then by the Romans, even though the oldest surviving currency (assuming science is correct) originates from Russia. Subsequent European coinage values were extensions of the Roman legacy. It would be hard to formally prove (particularly as reference maps show Philistinia approximates the modern Palestinian territory region), but logic supposes that the Greeks and Romans were descendants of relocated Philistines (tall pale skinned warriors). Retreating from defeat by Babylonian Pharaoh and “Jewish” King David, Philistines first settled in Greece (on the doorstep of the Middle East). Since “great” Alexander’s conquest to rule the world ran out of steam, Greek politics apparently favoured secular complacency over global conquest. Hamstrung industrialists shifted their affairs to Italy and, over several centuries, built sufficient military infrastructure to commit to their globalist ambitions once more.

Incidentally, not at all Middle Eastern in appearance, then Babylonian peoples would have been classed as “Caucasians” by today’s sciences. Therefore notorious King David would have been a white man. Though only circumstantial evidence supports claims he was a Pharaoh, inherent sources advise me information is relatively accurate (i.e. the wrong pharaoh is referenced as culprit), which places grave questions as to the authenticity behind the popular legacy of Israel of course. History is far from circumspect here. For example those dreadful “Greek” Hyksos Kings that “conveniently” appeared to take rule when Babylon was lacking authority were likely Philistines, yet Josephus eerily reports them as Israelites. I say these were the first usurpers; these were Pharisees who support a fabricated Levite Alta ego.

By deduction, this would mean the “great” Caesar was a Philistine as well. Limited writings about him present a grave paradox. According to surviving texts, he was some kind of popular miracle working Ben Hur. Such are the qualities of his proposed divinity; some might rightly be compelled to believe he was Jesus. Of course this adds to the case that persuades Mark was a Roman aristocrat who cast Jesus in the Homeric style, perhaps even as an attempt to preserve the image of Caesar. The evocation would have made both instantly popular figures even if real lives didn’t quite live up to the reputation. Infiltration of peer groups and targeted populism is achieved in one fell swoop. More evidence is as follows. Peer group infiltration is embodied by Mark “Iscariot’s” treacherous conversion to Gnosticism (and later St Paul’s Damascus Road epiphany). There is no more popular false occult icon than Jesus.

Prognosis therefore is depressingly melancholy. Beyond the use of occasional repeated proverbs, not a single book found in the New Testament even vaguely resembles authentic Essene philosophy, including “John”. Scholars that first take the plunge and brave any of the Dead Sea Scrolls’ codexes are quick to notice the profound intellectual depth of content (making embedded philosophies extraordinarily hard to interpret correctly). Gospel writer Mark was Roman, Luke Greek and Matthew was a cosmopolitan Jew and obvious agent of the Pharisees. Enigmatic John didn’t exist, but the name (in its use) implies “God’s secretary”. His, the Fourth Gospel, was dictated by Josephus (as Jesus) through brother-in-law scribe Lazarus. One word only of Jesus’ personal volume has survived. Someone (perhaps many) in authority knows the truth about this.

Jesus’ own gospel was purposefully destroyed and the celebrated surviving second century papyrus was not a copy. It is a forgery. If it had been authentic, how could the document have dodged Philistine Constantine’s mighty fourth century purge?  Outright censorship of texts that contradicted or impeded Sol Invictus faith was the only literary amnesty of his inquisition. Catholicism’s Papacy was the removed Roman monarchy; therefore it was also yet another Philistine/Pharisee offshoot. The reason St Paul (author of New Testament Corinthians, Romans and so on) is occasionally recognised as the first pope (and last apostle) is to give his detestable writings (which smother any occasional glint “free of Romanisation” emulating the conscience of Jesus) greater credibility (and popularity, of course). Paul’s calculated role generally seems to suggest sour grapes after good times gone awry. Should the “Ideal” Jesus have gracefully “wallpapered” the uncomfortable political “marriage” between the Pharisees and de facto Royalty?

Look, I’m not sure when the Sanhedrin originally came into being or whether it really matters, but I notice a familiar pattern with “world affairs” stretching back at least the most part of two and a half thousand years. History informs me the Romans conquered lands located in the region now called the Middle East. Their haul included Israel (conquered by Assyrians centuries before). A consequence of one of the first acts of power was to usher in hybrid Arab (ethic nomads that roamed Aram or were these Assyrians or even Phoenicians?) royals to rule over Judea (separatist Southern Israel). First “despot” of the official Promised Land Moses (who compares well against England’s Oliver Cromwell) never referred to arbitrary bodies when making decisions. Tradition (after the burning bush) revered him as the direct link to God. All great prophet kings follow identical protocol, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Noah and the rest. Their decisions were their own and these “commandments” were a testament upholding their uniformly breath taking “greatness”. Nevertheless, when the Sanhedrin (or royal court) emerged sovereign rule was doomed to wither. Under Israel’s Roman occupation, that evolution was furiously ignited.

Though government is meant to be a mix of identities that reflect the goodwill of society, by reputation decision making almost always errs towards right wing (fascist) mindset. Values imposed by Sanhedrin courts depressingly crafted that motif

Reflecting on contemporary politics of Jesus’ age, overbearing Roman authority paid lip service to the whims of their puppet Arab monarchs provided they observed all the wishes of the Pharisees (who took the high seat in the Sanhedrin). That said, certain Roman emperors didn’t see things their way. Look how these (such as Caligula and Nero) have been “painted” (i.e. utter fabrication) by “history”. Judea was abandoned (allegedly) after the 66-69AD siege of Jerusalem (a chain reaction sparked by earlier infractions under Nero). Within moments of the exodus a new fully fledged “Christian” hierarchy pops up in Alexandria. Infrastructure is so strong; its governing church is effectively born as a corporation. Therefore, transferring authority to Constantinople was child’s play after the papacy was formally established in the late fourth century.

Emergence of this virgin Catholic Church exactly coincides with the shocking disappearance of the great Roman Empire. Over several centuries, the same Catholic Church made a bee-line to exert control over every single credible European monarchy. This is more than amply highlighted by records of battles against the Merovingian kings, which included the calculated murder of Dagobert II. The Catholic Church had become (by accident or design) a sort of universal Sanhedrin, which is made all the more interesting because the Jewish version abandoned its administrative authority after the second temple (though some argue it never existed) was “allegedly” levelled by fire. Thus far I have contemplated numbers of suggestions that could never be “proven”, but could it be argued the Nicolaitans were instrumental at re-establishing the defunct Sanhedrin apparatus in Constantinople?

There is more fuel for the fire, if we move the clock forward a bit. King Henry VIII of England did the unthinkable in 1534. After a bitter divorce with Spanish royal Catherine of Aragon, he excommunicated the pope and formed his own Church of England. That is why the vicious catholic versus protestant wars persisted long after his death. Thomas Moore chose death in absence of moral sovereignty, but the rot had begun to set in long before, even while bonny Henry was still in power. The Roman “Sanhedrin” had only been temporarily usurped by the monarch. It wasn’t long before Henry was surrounded by pious advisors, such as prominent “world’s richest man” Cardinal Woolsey. Only a smidgen over a century after Henry’s desperate act, pharisaic authorities decided they needed to well and truly shore things up (and claim deserved revenge). This culminated with the execution death of Charles I in 1649 mentioned earlier, of course.

For the first time in history (unlike the Greek and Roman Republics before) a civilian government shielded power beneath “protector” Cromwell, but fame went to his head and he proved more deistic than any king. That is the ostensive reason behind the government’s swift (1660) re-establishment of the British monarchy, which remains intact today. It was deemed an essential safety measure against any parochial ruling authority. King William’s 1696 rushed though Bill of Rights amply acknowledges the viperous nature of man (particularly when given responsibility). To the best of my knowledge, every subsequent constitution (such as America’s) has built in its own bill of rights. For the record, though we have been programed to believe that royal executive power was devoid of peer oversight prior to corporate takeover, the myth simply isn’t true. Monarchs were presumed appointed by God (perhaps after Moses) and, as such, bound to honour their constituents. Suffice to say some kings turned out more attentive than others. That in mind, when factoring in the emergence of outsourced legislation via organs such as the Sanhedrin, the deep question I find rather hard to resolve is “who was the last true king?”

Who is the rightful king is important. Gospel writer Matthew’s biblical genealogy was aimed at promoting Jesus as the hereditary Messiah (priest-king or “Christ” subject to certain terms and conditions), but was it David or Zechariah (Jesus’ uncle) that established precedence? Zechariah was not a pharaoh nor did he have any conceivably legitimate claim to Babylonian rule. Pharaoh David set up the twenty four priestly branches (spawning king making material) that were each to be deemed valid natural contenders for the Jewish throne. It seems to me that without intimate understanding of David or any of the many hierarchical values that bestowed him with power, ignorance over what substantiates “royalty” from pedestrian “rank and file” will perennially reign. Usurpers naturally capitalise on this schism. Indeed, the truth would be enough to bring down their phoney baloney house of cards.  Dissenting historians irregularly report of the wisdom of the Oannes, but where is it to be found now?

Jesus is fantasy, a marketing brand that coordinates a very special historic period. He was the event which preceded Philistine formal grasp of absolute power. Therefore, modern traditions that prepare a muted, ineffective “Saviour” emphasise corporate will to control (Scrooge had absolute autonomy over directions of conscience). In other words, when the huddled masses are suitably impoverished and hope lacking, their only alternative is to turn to corporate commerce (big government) for succour. That is predominantly why the “machine” has relentlessly pushed a socialist agenda over the last hundred years or so. Now the hundred years is up, we are very close to “end game”. Australia’s prime minister is a billionaire (or so rumour has it). America’s president Trump is a tycoon. America is the first “first world” country. Australia is the last “first world” dominion. This tells anyone that understands the “code” that the oligarch’s are now brash enough to boast “we’ve won and there’s nothing [you] the people can do about it”.

I have written about the truth behind Jesus “the person” at length before, but it is worth repeating additional detail again to bring some extra clarity to this essay. Anagrammatised Josephus equates to “give birth to Jesus” in Latin tongue. It is such a clever anagram; “metaphor” is implied through use of letters P, H and O. I am also aware that “J” is obsolete so, in this case, whatever normally replaces it works just as well. One of the apocryphal books casts the young Jesus so well educated in theological matters it is presumed he was the son of a High Priest. Josephus’ father was Matthias Joseph, a High Priest of the 24th line from David (i.e. as illustrated earlier, royal blood). Militant Jesus attacking money changers at the temple was so contextually uncharacteristic, whoever it was clearly wasn’t preaching Jesus (isn’t it “odd” that Philistine Catholicism forbade money lending entirely on those grounds and this legitimised Jewish banking, coincidence?). Sermon on the Mount from Matthew’s Gospel presents a pensively angry prophet, but not a violent one. My inherent sources report that the young militant man was none other than Jesus’ (or, rather, Josephus’) father (who also used the codename Barabbas).

According to these sources, in his youth, Matthias Joseph joined the revolutionary movement and was impassioned by the royal cause against Roman tyranny. Because Arab puppet kings met most (if not all) of the Pharisees’ wishes, Zealots (as these revolutionaries became known) were doubtlessly not too fond of the extreme right-wing establishment either. This presents a problem for those determined to rationalise the truth, which is embroiled in politics that are quite complicated. To extend my observation of the young revolutionary Barabbas who attacked the money changers, he was arrested and convicted of a serious offense. Theologians that have bothered to study contemporary Roman law almost universally agree that Jesus did nothing (as visually evident in the numerous religious records) to warrant arrest, less crucifixion. Roman Philistines did impose very harsh penalties (up to death) on any party that disrupted the supply chain (commerce). Moneychangers at the temple would have provided commercial supply and they were undeniably [violently] disrupted by Barabbas (under pseudonym).

The physical crucifixion event (per its convenient placement in various New Testament writings) was used metaphorically. I shall discuss metaphorical terms shortly. For now, let me focus on the event. Some have noted that the crucifixion was conducted on private land, which was unusual. In Jesus’ case, this would imply that Barabbas was either extremely rich, well connected or both. The land, we learn, belonged to prominent local business man Joseph of Arimathea, whose international business holdings were reputedly centred at Cornwall, England (Gnostic-Druid heartland). Josephus’ scribe was Lazarus, son of Joseph of Aramithea. Jesus’ “wife” was Mary Magdalene, Lazarus’ sister, so there are logical family connections here. As Miriam (Mary) has rather negative connotations (suggesting bereavement) in ancient Hebrew, it is not widely used. Mary, on the other hand was a very popular contemporary Roman given name, particularly in royal circles, as it bestowed heritage. Given this background, I am already questioning whether there was an actual crucifixion, whether the event was purely metaphorical? Ancient chroniclers were afforded great liberty in the way they expressed themselves. Therefore knowing how to read between the lines correctly is the key to understanding hallowed texts.

Before I discuss validity of the crucifixion in more depth, I need to make a few more associated observations. Presumption Mary Magdalene was never called Miriam suggests she was prominent Roman offspring. Could this mean the Joseph of Aramithea had taken a Roman Philistine wife? Was she of royal lineage (hence selecting Mary as the given name for her daughter)? I am compelled to believe that she would have been extremely important for Joseph to be on first name terms with Pontius Pilate, Roman Governor of Judea. Turning to Inherent sources once more, I am informed that a royal marriage was brokered between Barabbas (Jesus’ father) and another Mary. If, as some scholars like to posit, Jesus was a family member of the Piso emperor class, that lineage could only have come via his mother (as his father was a Jewish royal). Should this prove sufficiently correct, it would explain why the Catholic Church gives the Madonna such bloated “eternal” status against puny “dead” Jesus on the cross. Congregations from all over the globe flock to touch her miracle working effigies.

Presuming a marriage had been brokered between “Mary” (euphemistically known as mother of Jesus) and Matthias Joseph (father of Josephus who “gave birth to” and was literal Jesus), contemporary politics would have been revolutionised (endorsing the Pharisees’ political intrigue). In conjunction, the undeniably hard to resolve question is “why did the Pharisees back clemency in favour of Barabbas (father of Jesus)?” unless there is more to solving the puzzle than meets the obvious eye.  Does this suggest that Jesus was a recalcitrant heir (hinted at in the Prodigal Son parable)? If Matthias Joseph was an integral part of the establishment, then Josephus almost certainly defied the wishes of the father. Failure of his preaching tour in the Nazareth region highlights the discontentment. Nazareth, at the time, was a hub for the well-to-do and privileged classes, so naturally political preferences erred towards hard-line right-wing philosophies. One can but presume that Matthias Joseph, as the bastion of civilised society and honoured revolutionary, had strong ties to religious order (i.e. the Pharisees). Josephus was comparatively Bohemian (again implied in the Prodigal Son parable).

Whilst alien to traditional Gnostic writings, all Gospels identify Jesus as a renegade preacher who associated with undesirables (“outcasts”). He is both against the rooted establishment (though quotes from “Law” at every opportunity) and oppressed civilisation (measuredly). Socialist content embedded in sermons would fare so well, proverbs have been adopted by modern day democracy movements. Courtesy of his royal status, Josephus did have friends in high places that shielded him, but they were still pillars of mundane society that were forced to corrupt certain values to remain in power (and use aliases when assisting renegade causes). This is perhaps casually camouflaged by Jesus’ association with outcasts (inwardly well meaning, but outwardly dishonest). Therefore modern day belief in “the Saviour” relies on corrupt zeal. Zeal, in turn, has transformed into a fanaticism cultivated by corporate religions. Individual beliefs are singular matters of faith, whereas idolatries become authorities for those that chose to apply “so called” blind faith (a grotesque form of ignorance).

Individual beliefs must be questioned to improve constancy, whereas determined authority erodes opportunity for zealous fidelity

Jesus would share Josephus’ birth year of 37AD, unless historic accuracy is obscured here. There are niggling problems with this date particularly when factoring in the most practical chronology allowing for his two and a half year ministry. The Siege of Jerusalem is the obvious choice as a correlating time period which I would say is the only plausible term of upheaval within range significant enough to profitably bolster a prophetic preacher’s missionary tour. His audience would have predominantly been Jews recoiling from ever widening Roman reprisals. Under such conditions, the siege must have been deemed the “final straw”. Adding to my case, Jesus’ journey has been retraced by geographical experts. Median chronology fits against the siege timeline like a glove, therefore I deduce the ministry ran from 64-66AD and that is why the first Gospel by Mark was published sometime after 68AD (long enough to source witnesses, conduct interviews, correlate notes, write, edit and publish a manuscript). There was no oral period as has been “supposed”, because it made no sense anyway. The contemporary Jewish connotation of what was meant by “Messiah” (then) is very different to the hybrid evolution (distortion) that prepares our modern day Catholic sacrificial Son of God “Christos” (or Christ) who “died for our sins”.

Considering proximity against the siege, details of Josephus’ geographic movements do appear to cultivate the “swashbuckler dodging authorities” narrative line. That’s why Jerusalem under siege was last stop – a fait accompli. According to Matthew’s Gospel, one of Jesus’ first acts (after collecting his posse of disciple bodyguards) was to request baptism from his cousin John (son of Zechariah). Traditionally a Jew reached maturity at age thirty, yet was the 37AD birthdate to be correct, then Josephus would have been twenty seven years old if the chronological positioning was accurate. Although the Roman equivalent was age twenty five, there is another explanation. Hebrew chroniclers did not necessarily place events in correct historic order. Prosperity very much justified the means. It seems more likely, in which case, that Jesus was baptised at the end of his ministry when he had built experience worthy of exalted blessing. Authority did not make purges against perceived threats until after the siege (identifying why there was a rapid exodus away from the region directly after 70AD). That is when John the Baptist (contender for the Jewish throne) would have lost his head. Josephus was only spared from the inquisition because of his royal Roman blood.

Mentioned earlier, Jesus was not crucified as there was nothing he did that could justify the punishment under Roman law.  His father, under the pseudonym Barabbas, may have gone through a ceremonial or mock crucifixion. Perhaps others followed suit, such as Simon of Cyrene, to honour the event. Ambiguous Turin Shroud (under care of the Catholic Church – that should instantly raise alarm bells) is a prop designated to fool believers. Beyond doubt, the item belonged to Jacques De Molay Grand Master of the Knights Templar, though only Michael Baigent has had the courage to attest truth in his mainstream publication (Holy Blood, Holy Grail 1982) for my research. Following Molay’s heresy conviction (under Catholicism), he was crucified (1314) in a manner that traced details laid out in the New Testament texts.

Metaphorically, depending on the event’s positioning, in the biblical context, the crucifixion represents the death of Gnosticism, whereas resurrection equals triumphant rebirth in the form of Christianity. The very earliest brand is likely to be Arianism. We can see the stem of Arian-ism is Arian or Aryan, so this should volunteer major questions from the alert. Didn’t Hitler worship a mythical Aryan race? In fact, of all the ancient (pre-biblical) races “Ceres” is the type that most closely represents Ayran characteristics. Significantly, Aryans are attributed to be pure Atlantis stock (alien genes were added to replenish humanity after the fall). This fits the overall picture, because traditions (including a weight of generally unrecorded information referenced from inherent sources) suggest the Gnostics went to extraordinary lengths in their attempts to rekindle Atlantis society. Some of their more sacred traditions, which included embedded magic (notably applied by practitioners of authentic Druidism and, hence, the elites’ interest in attending the mystery schools), predate known civilisation.

It could be argued that the whole concept of monachal divinity was ushered in by Atlantis. Accoutrements include the royal sceptre, which authentic versions are magic healing wands doubling as laser weapon. Bona fide royal orbs are holographic truth generators. A king’s crown bestowed the wearer with supernatural powers. Gnostics (visually expressed in the culture of Babylonian pharaohs) tried to approximate traditions as closely as possible. Below the Atlantis umbrella, society was guided by God who assumed formal presence in human form (i.e. this notion derived into “son of God”). As far as I can ascertain, Atlantis Gods were normally male, but on (or inside) other worlds, females preside over divinity. Per alien custom, these strange Goddesses are usually escorted by what we would call “prince consorts” (heirs or court champions’ suffice). Perhaps this is why some detailed truthful accounts tabled in ancient legends come across as ludicrously farcical.  We humans know only the human way. Therefore, non-human cultures are destined to either shock the system or captivate imagination.

In the interest of clarity, Gnostic-Jewish belief supposed the messianic priest-king (Christ) was the blessed divine embodiment of the people and that is why Jesus is euphemised as the Son of God. Even so many [differing and sometimes contradictory] messages can be delivered by a single fragment of text. Researchers should assure themselves a purist’s Messiah’s wisdom would put Solomon’s childish antics in their place. Ridiculous emphasis on the Pharisees’ salute to valid laws has ruined any chance of divine virtue governing man. Old Testament sermons dictate a path to enlightenment so rigid, any traveller is guaranteed crippled from the off. That is the reason paradoxes are so plentiful, “issues” seem to loom every few verses. Per these auspices, how could religious traditions be anything other than viscerally dishonest? My heart goes out to Italy’s La Befana . That bonny witch on a broomstick does more for Italian children than any pompous pope could dream.

Coming Clean on Cancer

My profound thanks go to budding commercial digital artist and alround genius, Tim Kaiser. His tireless efforts over the past few weeks have produced the three pictorial metaphors (including the banner) I commissioned which go above and beyond specifications

Embarking on a public writing career in 2004, I began by (often positively) vexing other message boards with extended expansive comments in response to circulars. After almost a decade it became clear the style was too volatile for that medium. Hence it so happens that this website is testament to my first (and perhaps dying) effort at amateur journalism. By way of due diligence, I did initially approach others for feedback. Upon primary inspection of the “blog”, a Facebook acquaintance sneered of it “well, it’s opinion, I suppose”. Of course that was loaded sentiment offered by someone notably aggravated by my stance on things in general and, as such, the statement was salaciously unfair. Being anti-populism, I am destined to offend which means there are many who will find my special touches distasteful.

For the record, all journalists offer opinions whether these are their own or rebranded viperous propagandas. Taking “crime” as the example, a policeman invariably doesn’t know the pattern of events leading to an infraction. Instead, he tries to best guess with authoritative bias. Therefore those “style” of reflective reports are tainted from outset, most particularly when the journalist presumes any authority issues word of God. To be clear, I do not personally offer opinion, but my deeply human style of writing lends to presenting truth so compellingly, it is as though my output transcends reality. Rather than looking for concrete agents to discredit truth, my critics prefer direct slander or hurling unsanitary insults at me.

Fantasy it must be said also transcends reality. Whilst I feel he doesn’t fully appreciate the scope or power of imagination, Jon Rappoport has made a career from scripting exercises geared to coaxing make-believe into being. I make no secret of the fact I enjoy his writing and his extraordinary intellect. When not distracted by corporate alliances, he is one of the best journalists on the net. Jon takes a very special interest in the manipulation of healthcare, but he tends to follow the shady “statistics” path. Accountability is the first weapon of propagandists. Who could possibly dispute “official figures”?

Given my rather zany approach to serious news worthy topics, though I had conceptualised “Coming Clean on Cancer” back in 2016, for two long years I struggled to put words to ambition. Applying frivolity to something as sombre as cancer perhaps equates to mixing all colours in a forlorn attempt to create white. There are many compelling theories that will never practically move a harmonised audience. Even so, given the generous reception to my announced intentions all that time ago, it seemed clear that this, of all titles, could actually engage populist interest in me and my website. I desperately need a numbers’ boost if my work is going to have any longevity. Hindering the objective in relation to “Coming Clean on Cancer” is an enormous roadblock. The critical problem is I neither have direct conventional experience as physician nor scientist, so how am I qualified to discuss serious matters in conjunction with terminal illness?

Dependent humans insist on being lectured by credentialed mentors. Doubtlessly that is why Jon Rappoport religiously adopts the verified statistics route when discussing professional topics. Nevertheless, configured notions that reduce “amateur” status to abject worthlessness (when compared against “specialists”) are a misnomer. Likewise, those that parasite off misleading or ill applied authoritative statistics will never be able to justify their sewing of deceit. Jon, of all people, should know that the establishment does its upmost to put the kibosh on any true pioneering spirit. Recalcitrant amateur free thinkers produce the bulk of ideas, of which some are quietly adopted by those that lead social peer groups. That is predominantly also why methods applied to analysis, prognoses and theoretical conclusions that consolidate mundane convention rarely diverge much. Suffice to say; though innovative reviews should be welcomed as “breaths of fresh air”, I fear my sparks will do little more than vulgarly confronting stale, sceptical reactions from faithless brethren.

Many teachers are press ganged into feigning expert status. Were any to tackle the volatile topic “cancer”, I feel sure that, instinctively, condemned-in-waiting would be lulled into pretending they were serious hobby doctors or technicians on the fringes of medical science.  Astute Disraeli was prophetically poignant in his muse “there’s lies, there’s damned lies and then there’s statistics”. You see, the problem is that science uses statistics to cultivate determinism. Statistics are meaningless without plans of attack. Scientific goals are brought to life with data. Of course, any discovery tour would do more to impede conclusions than amplify them. That is why a preliminary thesis might be written for investigation to exclusively source “proof”. A modern, blustering vicious cycle of ignorance bungles science bluff.  That is until prior valued methods or products mysteriously “fail”. How could the statistics be wrong? Maybe we should ask Mr Disraeli.

Personally not intending to fall for vanity, if ideas and explanations presented this article don’t resonate because they do not concur with established norms, I don’t care. I will not pretend to be an adjunct of the system or some loopy alternative “quack” simply to foster moronic popularity. It is abhorrently clear to me that conventional sciences, applicable medical strategies and, indeed, physicians themselves have no understanding of what cancer is. Ignorance is deep rooted. They do manage to incessantly admonish uncontrollable, ever present symptoms with such fervent zeal, I feel sure the Papacy is brought to shame by their candour. Such is the momentum, the vacuum precipitates with ceaseless and often dishonourably prejudicial accusations supporting “causes” to the detriment of reason. Whether that be specifically anti-vaccines, cigarettes or generally against ambiguous “carcinogens” depends on the vigour of focused political interests.

A recent article on another website of mine makes for a good investigative guinea pig. Content, some may determine, presents little more than dubious information. This is because the case I make confidently flies in the face of traditional authority. There is a notable absence of essential proof. The essence of subject matter gravitates around philosophies over human’s paradoxical status demarked by the cerebral cortex and its conflicting alliance with the so-called reptilian brain. Ironically, content observes other worldly “reptilians” (some believe act as shadowy pseudo overlords) use consensus view to control humanity. Whether this prognosis is correct or not does not tarnish the reality. Consensus view syndrome is so prolifically acute, just about everyone is severely infected. Popular opinions largely serve as “truths”. Statistics punctuate consensus output. “Proof” is a control mechanism because “evidence” (sic) must be backed by statistics if it is to be accorded.

Coming down to Earth, I concur that statistics do account for replication and these could be beneficial to truth depending on how investigations were conducted. Current testing is always unaccountably spectral. By that I mean favour towards the way things are done “justifies” procedures, processes and methods.  Science experiments are formulated in laboratories. Why not sewers? I remember the history of an absurd test designed to determine how much electricity will kill a human. A rigged telephone system delivered the fatal result to an unsuspecting individual. It was presumed that trial and error is ample enough to divine precise dosages for posterity. Yet, what if breaches of circumstances were to shatter all goals? Science had to rewrite everything it “knew” about radiation after Chernobyl. Reality is never precise. It is always gnarled. For every rule there seems to be at least one exception, sometimes many.

Methodical study should take note of this. Would scientists ever consider the internal or external energetic status of experimentation environments? How much does ephemeral resonance implicate material reality?

The creators of the first atomic bomb believed that the domino effect from impairing a single particle would “theoretically” collapse all matter in the universe.  Here, for once, “science” at least showed tentative respect for the machinations of existence. Of course atoms are not solid and scientists should consider this carefully. But for circumstantial perception, quantum components would have zero mass. Indeed, was it not for the way they are perceived, they would not exist at all. That makes the truth a materialist’s worst nightmare. Atoms act as catalysers for “the other side” (that which doesn’t exist) facilitating an unbreakable communication tendered between receptively dimensional experiencers and (for lack of better terminology) “God”.  The connection is all powerful as it determines form. Values that permit existential parameters are unbreakable. Humans of normal capacity are little more than configured “witnesses” and that’s why rudimentary sciences obsess over material symptoms.

Symptoms, I have stated many times before, are either in deference to or at loggerheads with causes. Medically, the culprit of any knife wound is self-explanatory. That fits in with science etiquette, though is it the wielder or implement that actually cause an injury? Microbial conditions are much harder to evaluate. These potentially implicate energetic resonance under such conditions whereby irrational meanderings might appeal to the rational. Interestingly, the key to understanding why remarkably coincides with determining what nothing “is”. Ancient Romans, for instance, had no digit for zero. From this I judge they were incredibly astute. Voids expose gaping weaknesses of our sciences. That is because, from the materialistic perspective, “nothing” can only ever be paraphrased theoretically or philosophically.

Due to physical limitations, complicated machines are used to test the efficacy of beliefs, but even these can only evaluate something. For instance, is a vacuum truly a vacuum or does existence replace each emptiness with miracles? Could “something” incongruously exist perpetually beyond detection in place of what is believed to be nothing? Here science would do well to come to terms with how Einstein’s opinions on relative time dilation present clues to the truth.  How does time “work” in conjunction with the experiential atomic universe? These questions need to be answered effectively before an appreciation of the consuming complexity of cancer can be tendered with any sense of comprehension. That is one of the primary reasons I have been reluctant to tackle the subject until now.

The way time is structured impacts reality more than routine sciences would possibly ever consider. Thorough effects of time dilation have mostly been ignored, partly because cursory distortion reveals the metaphysical is superimposed under and over physicality. An undeniable observation in relation to this is, though chronology is implicitly linked to perception; the syndrome extends well beyond agreeable reality. Every physical thing located in domains comprising human dimensional bandwidth is subject to a relatively consistent set of rules that define and govern “aging”. Universal consistencies, it must be emphasised, give materialism intellectual credibility. However the paradox of spontaneous creation becomes unarguable evidence supporting a non-physical divine planner’s role in crafting a constructive blueprint. In this instance “a” divine planner may be construed as “many” diverse agents “working in unison” towards common interests.

An arbitrary existence would have no laws or, rather, laws would be irregularly and inconsistently incidental. Yet if human could uncouple from perception and time, then the way existence “works” would change irrevocably. Einstein theorised that time slows at speed (relative to the external). His equation measurement curves designed to demonstrate the fact are infamous. Expanding this view (with tinges of Irony), relative to all other things, everything physical has momentum, even if perception pre-judges “stillness” or lifelessness as valid scenarios. If zero momentum could really be achieved, then time would be absolute, so pure stillness would possibly generate existence out-of-existence because of the necessary uniformity. Vibrational string theory more or less verifies this truth. Physical existence at the base level consists only of particles in constant variable wave formations.

The one thing that could possibly harmonise absolute time is nothing and. therefore, nothing cannot exist, or, better still, perhaps this might equate to the “summary of everything” – theoretical dimension ten. Before I address the conundrum more coherently, I should like to add that light takes no time to reach its destination, contradicting mundane science opinion. Apparent time dilation highlights impair of the human perception response. That damage is acute. Our acrid boast that the sun’s rays take four whole minutes to travel a cosmic nanometre to Earth exposes a gaping deficiency. How far adrift of reality are we over a cosmic light year? What explains the discrepancy between perception and reality should be science quest number one.

It seems obvious to me that the culprits are those nefarious atoms I introduced earlier. Late nineteenth century two slit experiment (as crudely as it was directed) provides great insight here. Atoms appear to generate potentially unlimited congruous reality standards (again confirming string theory). Thus, subjective laws governing this dimension present an illusion that is scripted. In other words, limited experiencers dial into the script which is delivered by atoms. Therefore it doesn’t need a genius to correlate that time (as a cosmic script) could be used to manipulate “reality” by powers with essential knowledge, tools and ability. That is why certain converging dimensional circumstances are able to defy standardised sense of reality. Historic scenes mysteriously morphing into existence (be it some instances are proto-physical or ghostly) are the most sensational examples of these sorts of phenomena.

Those with the power to manipulate would have to comprehend the critical role atoms have to play in fabricating everything. Thus, these minute particles are not merely arbitrary figments designated to hinder comprehensive understanding of important, busy physicists. Without them there would be nothing for physicists to witness, so they cannot be avoided. Routine arrogance and presumptive bias summarises limited devotion to quantum illumination. Experiments are conducted in the usual way. Imperialists have been determined to solidify even the most microscopic components of the universe from the very outset. It seems to me that the strategy was “long view”, designing a dastardly operational manual. Planning, it should be highlighted, perfectly casts the supplementary objective equating to ramming square peg into round hole.

Was mankind to evolve, the true purpose of atoms would become common knowledge and for good reason. Notably study of these universal catalysers is crucial if all illnesses are to be neutralised without the need of medicine or operational accoutrements. But is a globalism free of greedy corporate healthcare practical? Perhaps ruling powers would do well to refer to supposed extra-terrestrial entities commonly called “Grey Beings” and related accounts that claim each can “see” a body’s auric field (collective quantum resonance). In doing so, technicians are somehow able to massage cures cancelling infected areas simply by using their extremities (is this what Jesus meant by “the laying on of hands”?). Our sciences must come to terms with the phenomenon somehow if humanity is to progress. Thankfully, in a very minor way, Barbara Brennan has begun the investigative tour and can already demonstrate some pragmatic effects with her adaptation of Reiki techniques.

Several other theoretical extra-terrestrials use a “standardised” royal electronic wand (attached to low weight backpack) to achieve the same ends as the Grey Beings, although power over life goes both ways here as the device doubles as a potentially lethal laser weapon. I realise my referencing “aliens” is bound to tease the smugness of convention, but that which is relevant must be reviewed if honest dedication to discovery of truth is to be commuted.  Alien is the fancy word for unknown. Few credibly dispute the apparent existence of entities that have yet to garnish formal identity. Certainly, in most cases, identified attributes suggest existences beyond physical. Some reliable accounts have only been made possible through mediums such as regressive hypnosis. It seems these strange beings can infiltrate dreams. Psychology has never deliberately clarified whether dreamscape is a different form of reality or random mind offcuts.

The reluctance to go discover has reached epidemic proportions because every human (attached to civilisation) has been systemised in one way or another. Prior to the onset of “television”, passage rites were contests between families and schools. Today we are literally bombarded with different opinions from all sides. Most viewpoints have little or no bearing on raw truth. They pitch (sell) ideals. Therefore it is important to give an example that demonstrates how people (including conventional scientists) are programmed to think. Historians promote British and subsequent American abolition of slavery as one of the greatest virtuous achievements of commercial government, yet the reverse is true. When Britain amended the 1807 Slave Trade Act in 1833 effectively making sale/purchase of humans’ obsolete, reasoning was not supported by philanthropic goodwill. The prior (eighteenth) century had gone through a specular commodities boom/bust that incurred a mighty stock market crash affectionately called the “South Sea Bubble”. One of the reasons for the bust was the lack of buyers for exotic merchandise.

Buffering against much protest and suffrage of the people, the known world began to change from 1780 onwards because business embarked on a shift from local craft industries to larger scale grouped commercial operations. Things demonstrably reached a head with Luddite attacks on Manchester (England) cotton weavers for using automatic looms. Therefore it is plain to see that the real reason for the abolition of slavery was the emerging industrial revolution and its associated exaggerated labour contingent requirement. There is a partnering myth (in conjunction with the rise of the industrialists) that deserves exploding. Prior Machiavellian craftsmen did not take umbrage at any loss of work, although their incomes did more than supplementing survival by now. No, big business stole their power.

Therefore the advantages gained from abolition of slavery were numerous. Firstly it ensured labour surpluses so wages needed to be no greater than rock bottom. Secondly it removed the obligation to provide social security to those displaced by consequence of war and so forth. Thirdly there was a potentially unlimited stock of hands to oil automated enterprises

1865 abolition in America not-so-mysteriously prompted a European cotton price hike. The new cost of each bale had risen fivefold courtesy of the paid plantation labour contingent. Now lucrative cargos that had once been worthless were subject to duty, currency charges and insurance. This ultimately was the reason for huge cotton wholesale price increases without notice. Messieurs Rothschild and company were that pleased with results in Manchester; they erected a commemorative statue in 1875. The industrial revolution did pre-empt thriving populaces, but concessions came at a dear price. Constant and lasting recessions from the early nineteenth century restricted the GDP. Initially the incubus of mass production only provided a means for skilled labourers. Prior slaves (euphemistically labelled servants) and unskilled were left to fend for themselves. Predictably transposition fostered a spike in survival “crimes” (theft of foods and so on) which reached epidemic proportions by the 1850’s and ‘60’s. That is why historians herald the industrial revolution as “saving poverty”, but it is actually one of great lies. Sadly deceit cements popular knowledge which fortifies the human condition of intellectual apathy.

Political “chess moves” that design information flows have corrupted all sciences by some means, including those apparently devoted to medical research. Quintessential technicians’ priority aim is to debunk any anomaly contradicting political etiquette. Other than consultative psychology, mainstream primary healthcare used to branch into two distinct paths: pharmaceutical and butchery, but now a few alternative remedial techniques (such as acupuncture) are creeping in mainly to satisfy burgeoning traditional Chinese markets for that economy’s nouveau riche. On current course, there is nowhere near enough momentum for transition to kinetic healing. Supposed extra-terrestrial methods will not be adopted by the mainstream unless that hand is forced. Scientists seem much better adapted to deliver confusion that scorns honest debate (geared to keeping the riff-raff out, of course). Consequentially quantum determinations are a disaster area. Beyond vague conceptualisation of string theory, physicists are clueless. Quantum, suffice to say, has no current bearing on healthcare at all, when it should.

Back in the 1930’s professionals heralded Royal Rife’s electron microscope as the absolute victor (from memory 1932, to be precise) in the war on cancer. Cancer under this mechanism, to all intents and purposes, had been “cured” right up until the pharmaceutical lobby learned of the threat to their financial ambitions. Rife was then ridiculed by the establishment’s dramatic change of heart, his machine destroyed and blueprints lost. Even so, attesting modern day tolerance towards remedial solutions, a variation of the microscope has found its way into certain veterinary clinics. Though it doesn’t expose the quantum layer, the device will identify individually marked cancer cells, which is the benefit. Rogue agents are correctively zapped with light electric charges. This is still nothing more than cosmetic “symptom adjustment” in motion, but, at least, small steps forward are the ones needed for full visionary conversion to quantum healing to eventuate.

In respect to cancer, current mainstream tradition is to either poison (chemo) or butcher (cut out) malignant tumours. Nevertheless, when thinking laterally, electric microscope innovation is no different than the occurrence of x-ray scanners, which have opened up visibility of the internal body. The microscopic approach allows professionals to drill down and inspect the detail. The more detail, the greater the clarity and drill down some more to the ultra-microscopic, well then absolute detail and the discovery of a canopy of complaint root causes waits. Of course this lends to interpretive skills and diagnosis needing to become radically intuitive. Surely that is a small price to pay for the cessation of all disease?

Unfortunately it becomes fervently clear to those with vision, Krishna’s prophetic “forces of evil paralyse” was aimed at peer groups, such as those currently throttling medical renaissance, In absence of altruism, warding off the discovery tour in order to facilitate (quite frankly) satanic conventions is the primary agenda of institutional practices. All conventions are satanic, no matter how apparently viscerally virtuous, because they deny progressivism. Progressivism predicts the creative path. Reflecting Einstein’s wisdom, censorship belies insane stagnation. Medicine, consequentially, has been confined to a very narrow forked path, one that is “shielded” from competition. Medicine is no longer about healthcare. It has become a facet of commerce conducted exclusively in the interest of financial profits. Whether those are generated by honest means, bogus insurance or hidden “tax dollars” is immaterial.

It should be abruptly clear that comparable political strategies used by the filthy oil industry to oust clean energy solutions are casually applied to healthcare. This fact is more than amply alerted by the narcissistic Cancer Council’s determined rebuke of any solution that defies authoritative “status-quo”. The “system” (defining the forked path) is limited to contributions that should only butcher or poison. Chinese remedial medicine is dressed as nothing more than a “fad” in my opinion, which generally mimics how spectral social “solutions” are handled by government. Approaches, where possible, are limited to acts of war. Eradication is the permanent ideal and the staple for “problem, reaction, solution”. Attributed laws act as corresponding vanguard for that apex of control.

Underlying belief presumes majorities would routinely select “peace” over challenging the perceived might of great government. This has most definitely been proven true. I find no evidence of genuine spontaneous revolt on grand scales other than occasional population exoduses. Thus, medicine is rather short on options. “Peace” (ironically) here avails the death of a patient, so “war” is emphatically scripted as the only “solution” option. It is a sort of macabre win/win. Each fallen patient becomes a posthumous soldier for the cause per the concept’s scandalous design. Therefore, any transition to futuristic healthcare is all the more unlikely because effective energetic remedies require a complete absence of tension. Tension, let us be frank, is a prerequisite to ensure conflict eventuates (the limit being unabashed all-out war, of course).

Background over, it is time for me to attempt to format an outline of what illness is. Findings may require paradigm shifts of thinking. Perhaps I should present my assessment of “gravity” as the preamble here.  Vis-à-vis the truth is roughly the opposite of what might generally equate to popular knowledge. Is a door pulled or pushed shut? Is there any way of determining how to distinguish between the two methods? In this case, there is. Causes and effects are always transparent even if the door is automatically powered. But the instance of gravity is far from clear. Prior to defining theses, unseen causes are unknown. Scrutinised effects coordinate presumptions. Beyond any proverbial apple tumbling to the ground of its own accord, we do not know “why” it falls short of applying logic from constructive imagination. Logic, in this instance, reasons an apple is pulled or pushed to the ground by invisible external forces, which are symptomatically labelled “gravity”.

Misconstrued magnetism has permitted one of the most monumental physics errors in the history of science. Via a complex network of circumstantial forces originating from a bold inner planetary “sun”, an Earth apple is in fact demonstratively pushed to the ground.

Applying this Bohemian style of investigation, I can add that all diseases reflect the state of the libido, expanding popularly designated illnesses of the mind. All illnesses stem from the mind’s adjustment to the body. In some instances causes and symptoms are two way cycles, but the bulk of complaints are expressly “arranged” by any libido’s reaction to given sets of circumstance. Symptoms cover up and can actually obfuscate causes. That is why radical changes of environments might ensure miraculous recoveries even against “incurable” conditions. These environmental differences can be subtle or acute. They could be dietary, intellectual or locational. Quintessentially the libido must be unfamiliar enough with new circumstances that a complete review of body autonomy is ignited. From the technical perspective, extreme measures are needed up to a full quantum recalibration (notably in the case of cancers).

Contrary to popular belief, from the atomic perspective, everyone subject to specific pollution is cancerous. Cell damage and responding tumours are not necessarily apparent “to the eye”, but they may be. Significant effects will prompt an individual to consider seeking diagnosis and medics routinely come involved at the “too late” stages. Even so there are natural cosmetic regeneration solutions. These do not isolate and remove causes, but they can perennially stem symptoms. The most prolific worker I am aware of is cannabis oil. Providing sufficient time is given to administration of treatment, the oil appears to permanently delay most (if not all) cancers. In this case an extended healing term generally runs in excess of fifteen months. Thus cannabis will have much less causal benefit to those late stagers that are indefinitely terminally ill beyond the placebo effect. Belief in the cure underscores the importance of the libido and accompanying energetic harmony, by the way.

Given the overwhelming significance of environment and attitude towards life, hints that the underlying cause of all illness is mind are already in plain sight. What can be achieved from hypnosis should baffle conventional sciences.  However, from the microscopic perspective, there are distinct differences that distinguish various types of body invaders. One of the great medical establishment deceits is to foster the myth that some illnesses might be the result of airborne delivered complaints. I can confirm possibly all micro-particles causing illness are received by air. Why the medical establishment is specifically deceitful here, I can explain.

Back in the early nineteenth century when industrialists were busily constructing factories which would become the template for the later industrial revolution, peoples local to vicinities became sick from toxic emissions and some died. Even this age had its own brand of philanthropic environmentalists. Correspondingly, there ensued vicious wars of words between do-gooders and colonists for the best part of a century until common sense was drowned out by “progress”. A great deal of effort went into enterprising propagandas that cultivated the philosophy that those affected by pollution were naturally sickly and “would die anyway”. Industrialists, per this maligned reasoning, were evangelised into grotesque saviours.

The propaganda was so infectiously compelling that industry has been able to remain “blameless” for any pollutants poured into the air, which are normally rated “relatively safe” (according to external supposedly independent arbiters that are actually on the payroll). Environmentalists (that aren’t also paid shills) have generally vigorously disagreed with most pollution “ratings”. However, very few are committed to anything more than window dressing so malignant ignorance reigns. Indeed, it is ignorance that has sadly had the effect of exaggerating palpable damage. Roughly 300,000,000 global road vehicles running 24/7 generate 95% of cancer causing pollution, so theoretically (at least) everyone is to blame for their lot here. Don’t they say, if you make your bed, you must lie in it!

Resuming my efforts to get down to the nitty-gritty, there are six fundamental causes of Illnesses (categorised by the medical establishment). Living “invaders” are separated out as fungi and bacteria. Non-metabolic extraneous matter causes viruses and cancer, though I potentially disagree with this analysis in some cases. The virus rabies and cognitive Parkinson’s disease greatly intrigue me, for instance. Other causes, though not always specifically termed “illnesses”, are effects of severe wounds to the body and symptoms relaying to the breakdown of mind. Currently in the way medicine works, it is intolerably difficult to separate symptoms from causes. Therefore, without any discernible patterns indicating malignance, physicians are at a loss to origins of aggregated concerns (or, indeed, whether there is a concern at all). Intuitive talents have been known to feel problems long before they occur, yet the greatest medical minds are rendered powerless without review of visible cosmetic effects. They cannot see viruses before symptoms appear. Myth persuades cancers can “arbitrarily” spring up anywhere, so obviously without sound pre-emptive strategies every perspective patient may as well be classed as terminal.

Tying in with “you are what you eat”, the gut keys in with the mind (hence native Redskins recognised parallel inter-connected pulmonary and nervous systems). It delivers all the body’s nutrients via the bloodstream. Lack of appetite is probably one of the best barometers for illness in general. This is not to say it is possible to cure disease simply by synthesising hunger. No, but progress may be delayed or allayed with appetite because after food is processed, the body has capacity to generate. Illness promotes the opposite effect. Degeneration of life summarises death. Spontaneous growth is the gateway to immortality. Sensationally promoted as adjunct to the battle against cancer, it is well known that smoking the conflicting narcotic cannabis will likely induce sufficient improvement of appetite that makes food intake possible. However there is another problem. Delaying or halting the wasting of muscle tissue requires multiple means.

Different to other illnesses, cancers seem to dramatically and detrimentally affect metabolism, so consumption of food is not necessarily going to aptly remedy weight loss though, without doubt, intake of nutrients will aid prolonging wasting effects. Probability impresses that, perhaps, under these new environmental conditions, certain foods burn out easily and that is why the body appears to receive no benefit. Therefore, the terminally ill must be prepared to reconfigure dietary set up at the drop of a hat if survival is desired. The list of “cancer fighting” foods is endless, but I would recommend intense extract of ginger and chopped coriander leaves as two of the better detoxifying agents. There is also a Brazilian fruit called soursop. The leaves of the plant are ground into a paste and added to water to make a bitter tea. According to tradition, the beverage has a notorious impact in remedying the effects of non-specific cancers. Remember this is not “the cure”, but, rather, prolonged allayment.

In conjunction with this overall philosophy, pharmaceutical “colonists” process foods that were once the assets of hereditary medical knowledge. Extracts are given technical names in order to confuse doctors and people over pertinent origins. That is why nature can provide miracle cures. Not only are ingredients that have been processed as pills often widely available in raw form, but they are also far more potent remedies than reduced versions. The myth that medicine is more vital than nature is a hangover from nineteenth century confidence quackery. Once again, the best way of introducing non-invasive medication to the bloodstream is via the gut. In instances where resources for elixirs are difficult to obtain, the pharmaceutical cartel sees its first duty is to profits and not to the overall wellbeing of sick. It is unable to reason the moral duty of care.

My earlier mentioned lack of appetite being the best barometer for illness can be expanded. I have already illustrated the connection between gut response and metabolism, but there is some other implicating factor that goes beyond physical. Complaints that activate cancers might be regarded as identical to those that show viral effects (classed as “viruses”), but for some sort of unknown catalyser that separates conditional outcomes. Viruses can also be divided up into originally organic or inorganic matter. This might affect prognosis, but because medical science refuses to identify true causes (thus exposing those hallowed industrial polluters) we do not know which specific symptoms are generated by invading metallic, chemical, fossil or extraneous compounds. Organic matter problems are easier to quantitatively decode. Swine flu is undoubtedly caused by particles of faecal residue delivered via the atmosphere. Catchment ranges are local, so giant open vats of body waste fuelled by mega-conglomerate pig farms in New Mexico sensationally only polluted a radial area outwards of around a hundred miles. The rest of out-of-range Americans were safe. European or Australian citizens could have only contracted the New Mexico virus by visiting the catchment zone. Viruses are transmitted body to body one way (although there are numerous potential derivatives).

HIV deserves separate analysis, conveniently revealing how viruses are transmitted. First off, HIV does not cause “AIDS”. Horrific medications deliver known symptoms to those diagnosed with HIV and Ebola (in particular). Back in the hay day, prior to the great Thalidomide expose, pharmaceutical cartels were consumed by waging wars against all phantom causes without restriction. Perhaps around 1955 a “vaccine” serum was produced to alleviate polio (even though statistics show the virus was on the decline and about to “burn out” – note to self: which industrial practice was becoming obsolete?). The serum was originally grown in the kidneys of green monkeys and chimpanzees. Because heavily populated cosmopolitan areas of Africa are invariably extremely polluted by unregulated industries, wildlife is bombarded with a constant flow of extraneous particles delivered via the local atmosphere.

Chimpanzees and green monkeys uniquely process this pollution to their bodies’ specifications and these viral effects were transmuted to the polio vaccine. Because human bodies are different, the same viral effects were “mutated” as HIV strains. When propagandists recommended polio jabs for “safety” from the late 1950’s and early 1960’s (courtesy of the IMF/WHO two-step, Africa was flooded with tainted stocks up until the late 1980’s), the inoculated received active monkey virus at no extra charge, which, of course, altered to become what is now termed “HIV”.  Between humans, HIV could only be transmitted “blood to blood” (even though the complaint is apparently seen in body fluids) commonly hampering habitual needle sharing drug users. Symptoms are over quickly and not severe, perhaps equating to a heavy common cold.

Marketing of the HIV “threat” was a campaign of fear and manipulation against the gullible and just about everyone fell for it. To reinforce truth, causers of all the exaggerated AIDS symptoms were through fault of drugs administered as “solution”, notably failed “chemo” agent AZT. Jon Rappoport builds a stunning case in his book “AIDS Inc.”

In ancient times remedial healthcare was conducted very differently. Roaming tribes either supported shamans or witchdoctors. Evidence of practices has been vaguely preserved by so-called Third World cultures. Mystic healers will take on the burden of tribes, so some illnesses are treatable by “faith” only. It is through connection with the other side that a spiritual practitioner is able to etch a metaphysical bridge with members that are perhaps not individually accounted for. Upon succinct understanding of the complex transcendental role of atoms, the craft could be demystified. It is perhaps ironic that all cancers are caused by fundamentally corrupt molecules. Molecules combine to makes cells. Cells develop cancerous attributes and these grow into malignant tumours that, prematurely, end life. Primitive cultures enjoy expressing themselves in music and dance. Could certain vibrational (wave) frequencies be the answer to some erstwhile miracle cures?

Before I outline why pollution causes the errors that grow into life ending tumours, it is important to review the historic account. Because medical science only “rates” symptoms, there is no concrete history verifying the course of cancer. It is possible to piece together a circumstantial picture, so that must suffice in place of clarity. By the year 1905 statisticians were noticing a new aggressive style of “cancer” complaint. Though the identical word in ancient Latin used to describe ulcerous infestations, later period (from the twelfth century if my memory serves me correctly) grotesque swellings associated with bubonic plague and like outbreaks were cordially termed “cankers”.

Specific use of cancer re-emerged coinciding with the onset of industrialism. Peer review of historic complaints, such as bloody Queen Mary’s theorised cancer of the womb death in 1558, has been determined by speculations over records. I find it extremely unlikely that Mary actually died of cancer, but she did suffer death and that is all that is certain here. According to my research, no preserved “mummy” has been found to be cancerous either (per modern diagnostic methods). Plausible evidence occurs much later, almost into the modern age. Atmospheric burn off from foundries and other industrial processing facilities contributed to numerous chest infections. But there were other issues too.

New found cancer reached epidemic proportions by the 1940’s, at which time around 2% of First World populations suffered attributed ailments. The statistical journey from then on eerily matches the progress of the automobile.  Significant benzene tests done just after the Second World War imply the oil business knew what causes cancer as far back as 1950. Given corporate “pharmacy’s” contemptuous disregard of the Hippocratic Oath, it would foolish to cultivate the belief that those wielding overall political power act in the interests of the people. “Big Oil” has used every trick in its arsenal to obfuscate truth ever since straight facts were revealed. One possible ploy is to kill off establishment figures with “cancer” (sic) lulling the gullible into thinking “there is no conspiracy here, because they suffer as much as the rest of us”. Similar tactics (backing off the HIV scam) were used in Third World countries that were offered lucrative IMF underwritten healthcare grants for complaints. Associated doctors were encouraged to record AIDS in place of “unknown causes” deaths in order to maximise IMF investment in fallacy.

Britain’s coal was a popular alternative home fire food by the late nineteenth century. However, physicians encountered coinciding increases in bronchial conditions. Other less savoury cancer (or cankers) mimicking complaints were recorded too. When greater populations reverted to central heating, the home coal market dwindled, although this does come with a twist of irony. Plants that generate electricity to power heating systems are fuelled by copious quantities of coal. Coal is a type of carbon. Human beings are also made from carbon. Could there be a conflict? Could hard to distinguish differences between types of carbon that have been environmentally mixed corrupt sensitive reproductive systems? Wouldn’t it be paradoxical if there was more to governments’ attack on carbon pollution than meets the eye? Why carbon tax, specifically?

I have gone to great lengths in my effort to illuminate truths about atoms. Here their relationship with cancers will become brutally clear. They may well be contained by unbreakable cosmic laws, but I have also advised existence and reality in general are not as presented by corporate sciences. Perception belies a gnarled and uneven canopy that apparently disguises numerous contradictions (regularly discombobulated as anomalies by science political interests). Carbon, in truth, is one of the greatest enigmas of all. How (on Earth) does it cause cancers? It seems that certain molecule combinations are able to confuse atoms sufficiently to corrupt designated roles. The only lateral conclusion I can draw is processed carbons are the major problem. From the healthcare perspective, certain other invasive unprocessed natural residues do cause viruses, but it is those that have been “manufactured” (for lack of better terminology) which specifically promulgate symptoms resulting in cancers. Fossilisation is a raw form of manufacturing, so corresponding product emissions should be regarded as topically hazardous, whereas smoke from drift firewood is most likely therapeutic.

The cordial mistake everyone (including devout scientists) makes is to presume mechanisms that permit existence are flawlessly and fairly erred in favour of man. Per this “reasoning” man, though mortal, would be God-in-the-flesh but for vices. Expanding the view, insignificantly minute particles are beyond control and ignored because they are also above control. Consequentially, the truth, of course, could not be further derelict. In my book “The Beauty of Existence Decoded” I lay claim that via the expressively receptive qualities of atoms, everything “lives” regardless of whether it is categorised as inanimate or animate. Ultimately, a single particle domineers to effectively preside over the group in the formulation of “soul”. Even so hierarchical interaction is rather complex below the tip of the pyramid. Following in the footsteps of their cultivated souls and their perceptive human bodies, atoms are sometimes presented with drastic determining choices. These forks in the road dictate vital decisions that will precede reactive judgements.

The closer you edge toward divinity the higher you climb up the spiritual scale. Atoms are found at the very pinnacle, because each portal (the nucleus) spans all dimensions and all time. Clumsy human comparatively only receives a fraction of this resonance, because of his puny bandwidth range. Inadequate perception cannot disguise the fact that the quantum layer operates at the highest level of divinity. Therefore, the dramatic consequence is doomed to shock those that swear by their systemisation. The mind and all attributed spiritual manifestations (including the so-called higher self) are part and parcel of the exact same delivery mechanism. Here my earlier mention of the importance of a balanced libido in respect to good health should begin to gel. Wishes (needs) of the spiritual self, mind and physical body travel down identical inter-connected streams. With respect to cancers, because the body is made of carbon, atoms somehow become disoriented by certain types of invaders (namely the processed molecules I highlighted earlier).

There is only one logical explanation for all this. That which is distinctively recognised is defined and categorised by its recognition. Taking the analogy a step further; do rogue processed carbons disable quantum energetic resonance to such an extent that associated products lose their lustre? An ardent numismatist wouldn’t discard a rare and otherwise desirable ancient coin because of its worn patina. Perhaps one day he will learn a new technique to aid verification of identification.  As everything that enters the body is assimilated or expelled, anomalous indistinct invaders “pending categorisation” are marked but not rejected. These new unknown parts correspondingly “belong to” but are also “separate of” the body.

Extraneously matter is always immediately targeted by agents designated to protect the body. Invading processed carbons would follow a path of being combined with other genetic materials in the creation of special cells that specifically identify this syndrome. However, when the libido becomes imbalanced, focus is prioritised elsewhere, leaving alien components to their own devices. The special cells consequentially develop at odds with the body because they have been corrupted by processed carbons that have no quantum interest in precise developmental strategy. At some point in this metabolic growth evolution, Royal Rife was able to identify malignance with his electron microscope. I think I have successfully gone “full circle” (so to speak) by way of explanation.

In my opening address I made the following statement:

“…vacuum precipitates with ceaseless and often dishonourably prejudicial accusations supporting “causes” to the detriment of reason. Whether that be specifically anti-vaccines, cigarettes or generally against ambiguous “carcinogens” depends on the vigour of focused political interests.”

It is time to elaborate on this in a slightly contradictory fashion. My umbrage was directed at those destined to confuse with ignorance and not against philosophies supporting cases that define toxins as causing agents of various cancers. Processed tobacco smoke, certain vaccines, pesticides most definitely are the strategic proxies that trigger cancers. These, in context, are an imperative supplementary part of the puzzle. Obviously cancers do not spring up merely because of depression or other ego imbalances. Libido insufficiency impresses an environmental shift whereby problems that had been routinely dealt with prior now spin out of kilter. Per that capacity, once dormant vaccine components, for instance, spring to life.

In many cases (perhaps all), the agent would cause multiple issues. Focusing on vaccines again, perhaps an immediate adverse effect (to the libido) would be to bring on (express as) fevers, nausea and so on. Symptoms clear up, but the libido is still undetectably impaired. Much time ensues before cancers reach the stage of being visible and then blame game begins. Blame is unnecessary when separate root causes, causing agents and triggers have been clearly defined. That is by virtue of the fact there is only one truth (whereas the potential for propagandas is near limitless). Truth, if the truth be known, is hallowed.

Corporate scientists (correspondingly) have been compelled to use complexity largely for the disregard of wisdom. That is why the record has been subject to one spectacular failure after another; I exampled Chernobyl before. By extension, science view on the fundamentals that permit the identification of radiation has not altered one iota from day one. Environmental conditions do regularly change and this forces remedial adjustments to expanded theories. In some cases apparently associated symptoms dance the pas-de-pas elevating theoretical definitive causes. Of course, most prognoses are incorrect and that is predominantly why science continually trips itself up over and over.

Personally, I am fascinated by the concept “cloud nine”. Nothing will encourage me to travel Huxley’s brave but tainted discovery path, but I am intrigued as to the physical value of altered states. Is this a (and perhaps the only) method of discerning the keys to the mechanics of the quantum layer? It seems to me that altered states is one of the few potential watersheds that might definitively transform science and formulations that permeate critical thinking. Could imagination act as a temporary bridge? If the mind was separate of the body (alien, if you will) that would explain universal magnetism towards materialism. An alien contained by physicality would plausibly obsess over laws “for survival”. Therefore, by deduction, rule lacking imagination becomes mind’s natural state.

Imagine that, coming clean on cancer only simply requires imagination.

Reflections on What Easter Really Meant To Me

Currently employed full time, I have few hours to spare on writing projects such as this one. Fortunately corporate Australia permits an extra day’s forced holiday over Eostre, so I have been able devote time to penning something on the tafaska cause; a cause, I might add, swamped by ambiguous sentiment. Easter, as with the other Christian-Pagan festival called Christmas, is a celebration of harvest (dedicated from the Goddess Eostre). It represents the death of the season, marked by grieving tears (who said grieving could not be happy?) of the Songkran, and the other welcomes a new birth that ushers in the burning summer sun. Infancy stages are marked and drawn out, so it naturally takes a devil of a long time for the sun (sol) to emerge in full bloom. Conversely, when the cold snap sets in one day out of the blue, it will refuse to shake for several months. Occasionally a seasonal death (metaphor) will linger, but when the cold’s in, it is there to stay.

Embroiled in the Easter message (which is an encapsulation of season changes, differing depending on locations) are numerous metaphors. Perhaps most significant is the death of Tiamat one and a half billion years ago when the planet was subsequently reborn as the Earth. Made popular through living necessity, the harvest festival is far removed from heavenly politics. There is evidence of cosmic philosophy in the Pol Vuh and other ancient records, but the sheer weight of celebrations of abundance shows what the ancients took the most seriously. Indeed, for them, only clearly sincere devotion to God would permit a bountiful harvest, or, In other words, God’s blessing and presumed associated goodwill needed a “trade”. Perhaps inspired by a perceived breakdown in community devotion, at some juncture human sacrifice became the popular way of demonstrating allegiance to God, evidenced by the Wiccan and those dreadful Mayan/Aztec practices of the deep past.

True “Gnostic” Christianity also emphasises the importance of harvest, being the staple for good life. “Evil” is the measure of sickness and disease and not the “justifier” that supports vicious, unholy opinions. Legacies found in some (but by no means all) documents euphemistically labelled “Dead Sea Scrolls” expand a pantheist narrative line fused with Eastern philosophy offering a variation of existential Zen Buddhism. Though the quantum layer is not mentioned directly (and is presumably unknown) by the Gnostics, their interpretations of the dynamics of spiritual (vibrational) existence are defined as states, characters and emotions and these mimic atomic expressive fluctuations.  I discuss the importance of this style of reasoning in detail in my book “The Beauty of Existence Decoded”.

While in shameless promotion mode, it would be remiss of me not to mention that I now offer professional consultation sessions. Current enquiries from potential clients have been split into two equal streams. Interest has been shared between the individual pursuit of divine purpose and wider communal discovery – corporeal deep genetic (potentially extra-terrestrial) heritage. I can evaluate and expand both arenas. Each session (via Skype) comes at a reasonable fee of $100 per hour, providing the currency is valid and of the US variety. Preconceptions are forbidden. Closed minds are unwelcome. Those interested in learning more should first read this article detailing an extended two hour consultation conducted recently, Captivated parties will find a contact point there for private communication.

Easter is a Christian religious festival, so to commercialise it in any way would be to insult God. Do our supermarkets give away spiced buns or chocolate eggs said to represent the mock crucifixion and rebirth of Jesus?  Other than everything seems to be “on sale” to sell these days, I saw no “giveaways” over the holiday. If Easter meant anything it seemed to represent only profit and loss. It also seemed to represent maintaining an illogical heathen fantasy that ridicules prosperity. Moreover the real Jesus would be horrified by what Christianity has become. Foul blabbermouths crusade bitterly on behalf of hollow, cynical virtues that are there only to enshrine order for order’s sake. They do not uphold the ethos of Jesus; that deliberate open hearted discovery tour and rite to passage.

No, Christianity succumbed to vile attack from the enemies beginning with the Nicolaitans partnering Constantine tyranny. But serious scholars know plans were well underway much earlier. I continue to argue Mark or Marcus, compiler of the synoptic gospel, was really a Roman aristocrat. His argument that Jesus was a part mortal Son of God satisfies all contemporary Roman ideals. If Jesus ministry, in deference to traditional dates, logically and provably (by analysis of journeying timelines) mapped the Jerusalem siege period (66-69AD), then far from there being an extended aural period (irrational in every sense), the Roman version of the life of Jesus was hot off the press right after they won the battle over Jerusalem.

The only unsatisfied enigma is as to why Disciple Peter was needed as star witness. The capture and imprisonment of what I originally believed to be one of Jesus’ chief bodyguards coincided with the collapse of Jerusalem. Given Peter’s prominence as a de facto priest in Mark’s “Acts of the Apostles”, clearly there is more to this picture than meets the eye. Thus, recently, I concluded that Peter’s association with Jesus (the figurehead) was more metaphorical than factual. Instead, he was one of the key Gnostics inside Jerusalem at the time of the siege while Jesus was journeying on the outside. Perhaps Peter’s sleeping at the time of Jesus’ capture represented the miscalculation of a Roman breach and attack of the city which ultimately ended the rebellion.

Contrary to popular opinion, the “Romans” (as were the Greeks prior) had been defeated by the Babylonian King David when the Mediterranean peoples were locally known as Philistines. The Philistines never disappeared. They relocated far from harm’s way, reconsolidated but did not undertake any large scale imperialist conquests until they had become sufficiently strong many centuries later. It is also worth mentioning that understanding of human genetics (genome) makes for greater confusion. Because the ancient Caucasian races all unrestrictedly interbred, authentic genetic traits have been indiscriminately spread over the great group today.

Originally, green eyed, red haired Celts, for instance, were a distinct variety separate of the black haired, grey eyed race and so on. It is hardly surprising the Genome project honestly judges Ashkenazi Jews as bulk-standard “whites”, much to the protest of Zionist supremacists of course. In fact green eyed, red haired priestly Celts are distinctly recorded as Viracocha’s (perhaps some sort of “Anunaki” manifestation) emissaries commissioned to transport Olmec man (presumed Negro) to Mayan South America. Each attired in loose fitting tunics tied at the waist by a coarse rope or sash, feet supported by open toed leather sandals, they appeared no different in descriptive appearance to modern day Benedictine monks.

Guatemala is most commonly referenced as the most up-to-date heritage of the Maya and tribes who have been recorded observing dozens of Earth bonding ceremonies over the Easter period. No wonder the violent imperialist Sandinistas focused on breaking the culture of that great land as a primo priority. Because of the spiritual integrity of genuine timeless ceremonies, all are destined to find a role as a holistic Easter cause. To presume spiritual disintegration of the whole and censorship of any of its parts does not violate the will of God is preposterous indeed. Divides were caused by those that assumed their own superiority and accorded that social apartheid was “justified” by these differences alone. Indeed it was overt racism that permitted the collapse of the Satan Star as the primary act of existence. I discuss the consequences in depth in my book “The Beauty of Existence Decoded”.

The earliest known copy of any New Testament manuscript heralds from the early Christian church located in Alexandria. The document in question arguably dates prior to 200AD and is perhaps contemporary with many of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is odd that it did survive at all, because Constantine nobbled just about all other literatures his thugs could purge from the great Alexandrian library. Our enigmatic manuscript is a copy (the original would have been sketched between 66 and 69AD) of the Fourth Gospel, which is posthumously known as “John’s”.

Aiding by compelling arguments presented by Richard Leigh (et al) in “The Holy Blood, The Holy Grail”, I conclude that John’s Gospel is a very early bastardisation of the word of the real Jesus based on parts of (not tampered with) memoirs recorded by his brother-in-law, Lazarus (son of Joseph of Arimathea). John, the “alias”, was chosen because it derives from a Hebrew expression with means “God is gracious”. It is not beyond the realms of consideration that perhaps Jesus released his own version of “John” prior to the doctored version heralding from Alexandria.

It Jesus’ version did exist, it either has not survived or is hidden from public scrutiny. Either way, should the dating of the Alexandrian bogus scroll be deemed accurate, logic dictates distortion of Essene Gnosticism was well underway from the inside even as the early church was establishing formal roots. Mark, in Acts of the Apostles, it would be fair to say, does more than hint at deep politics collectivising the early church. This doubtlessly reflected turbulent times inside Jerusalem under siege, so why wouldn’t that turmoil carry over? In normal circumstances, Paul, an unmistakable hard line Pharisee, would have failed at every attempt at infiltration.

By the Synod of Hippo (394AD) Gnosticism was dead, as an authority. Roman Catholicism had its way and the Pharisees could breathe easy.  Doctrinal “sin” made man accountable to God. Indeed emphasis on Moses’ legacy pushed the concept a stage further by implying man, as a naturally imperfect sinful being, must be subservient to God. His “commandments” or orders from God prepared for unscripted tyranny. None of these ten “primary requirements” of man were or are possible to follow to the letter. Moses had crafted laws that would imply perennial guilt on the sincerely spiritual and this is why the early Christian church, under sentence from Catholicism, became the popular resolve. Priests (who were no different to anyone else) were “apparently” bestowed with mystical powers that allowed them to veto “sin” on behalf of their helpless God.

The tradition expanded as a form of universal transcendentalism delivered through the belief in the divinity of Virgin Mary. Emphasised by the Catholic Church’s relatively recent move on the tail of the New Age “Cosmic Christbandwagon highlights just how much Mary had undermined Jesus prior. Her effigy (idol) still holds so much power some believe it is a direct channel to God.  I am speaking superficially, of course, and do not responsibly suggest this could be the case. Although it should also be noted that the spiritual value of objects must never be underestimated. When fused in combination with the power of belief, “miracles” might be possible (underscored by our lack of understanding as to the true role of atoms, the building blocks of existence).

The ancients knew that only when very similarly tuned peoples lived on a planet; it would absorb and reflect the group emotional character bandwidth as pulsating echoes. Consequentially, as one infected planet crossed another’s path or came into the zone of influence, inhabitants would be deeply affected by the others’ mood. Even today ignorant horologists make a living from this presumption. Belief in energy saturated effigies is one thing, but the Catholic mumbo-jumbo certainly obscures the truth that Mary was a Roman royal and her idolisation was a deliberate ploy to give her the eternal prestige her status vested.

The Jews were no different in this regard. Melchizedek, the “king”, was a comparative oaf who adopted traditional folklore as a cover for his own historic prosperity. The same trick is partially played scripting Jesus and, undeniably, some of the tradition highlighted by Melchizedek is drawn upon, and why not, if Jesus was of royal blood? Hebrew chroniclers were metaphor makers. Miracles, if implausible, added colour to vestige. A royal shouldn’t be comparable to a commoner. The gospel writer “Matthew” (meaning, from Hebrew, gift of God) pushes the argument that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, which (contrary to Greek philosophic barbarism of terms) says he was the rightful shepherd king to the people of the time. Private debate continues today as to whether he, by any stretch of the truth, could be proven to be seventieth in line (taken from Ezekiel’s prophecy) after Adam.

Jesus’ own identity, I have stated several times, is a Latin joke; an anagram found in the name Josephus. Not coincidentally, if the ministry of Jesus coincided with the Siege of Jerusalem, it would have ushered in Josephus’ coming of age (euphemised by the baptism performed by John the Baptist, son of Zechariah, and one of the progressive steps to messianic authority). His father was a High Priest of the line of King David. All religious scribes were from royal families. There were no equal opportunities in these times. However, because of presumed blood heritage, theoretically any scribe could make a bee-line for regal power. The case was made by Matthew and Mark in no uncertain terms. Jesus/Josephus/Joseph ben Matthias was placed as a direct descendant of David to give added strength to stressed patronage.

Historically, corporeal (of the body) politics between Pharisees (judges) and Sadducees (scribes) was thought to act as an order balancer. This affected law making outcomes determined by the scales of power. Therefore, the most significant outcome of the Roman sacking of Jerusalem was the end of the Sanhedrin (religious government). From that point on, the Sadducees were axed leaving only totalitarian pharisaic (judgemental) domination to thrive. The corresponding exodus from Judea not only rendered Jews without a nation, but also began a new age of spiritual dogma. In effect the payoff for divine tyranny ensured complicit Jews could celebrate the fact they were no longer “goyim” (nationals) because they had no nation.

Rabid distortion of the Moses instructions (emphasised in the Book of Leviticus and others) logically ensued. Per this new irrational epoch, corrupt “Jews” no longer needed to be responsible goyim as they weren’t goyim (being nationless). Corruption was turned sour by the void in explanation as to why Moses’ generalisation tarred the goy “lower than the common beast”. Inhumane, immoral, unjustified behaviour prevailed as a result of abuse of privilege (God presumed the Jews had higher spirituality than other nationals given their grounding in faith) and this message should thrashed home by all decent, God loving Rabbis. Logic proposes Moses actually only targeted goyim that put their “nation” ahead of responsible humanity. Perhaps the answer would be found in the “lost” tabernacles protected by the Arc of the Covenant? Therefore, Israelites that suppose otherwise defy Moses and mock their true God.

With the critical loss of nationhood, the Pharisees have exploited the fact ever since. Even today Haredim deny the legality of Israel as a nation state. Why? They do so to crudely preserve pharisaic injustices whereby the Israelites can have a nation, but are not regarded as “nationals”, because ambiguity determines their nation is not certainly divinely legitimate. For those oblivious to Mosaic doctrine, it was said, of Earth’s peoples, the tribe of Levi was the most worthy under God. Under this vein of responsibility, they could guide the wider Jewish brethren, who were corporeally known as “God’s chosen people”. Finally, whatever could be done for the rest, God’s spawn, was up to the furtive moral probity of the chosen. The doctrine, in the suggestion that the Jews were God’s “chosen people”, implies Judaism is “the” unblemished authentic divine instruction. It also implies that Jews must lead by example.

Remember, none of Moses’ ten fundamental commandments’ are possible to follow to the letter; particularly given the belief that a divine authority would expect any instruction to be observed beyond fully. Therefore, if the commandments were issued “under divine authority” as described, then God was a pretty poor judge of human faculty. Indeed the philosophy behind the commandments pragmatically only encourages human beings to nit-pick ways out of responsibility, perhaps using the same five star lawyers corporates favour today, or resign to resolute spiritual incompetence. The commandments seem to have been drafted to ensure all humans are sure to fail (from the divine perspective). Given this consideration, it is hardly surprising that the Jews have assumed their arbitrary role as chosen, proto divine, people is something of an in-house joke. Faced with the impossible task of demonstrating divinity (based on the commandments), certainly Jews are no different to other humans. They innocently kill things. They have unworthy thoughts. They don’t truly believe less love something they don’t know is true. Moses “as paraphrased” gave his people a simple choice: follow the doctrine and be more worthy than anyone else or fudge it, manipulate it and abuse it.

Up to the point the Sanhedrin was disbanded, similar to politics of today, merit in decision making relied on a two party system. Over hundreds of years the some sorry debates went round and round, drawing the same old time-endured predictable conclusions. That is why Jesus was not particularly satisfied by the Sadducees as he vehemently opposed the Pharisees. Complimenting today’s political machinations, certain groups and views were marginalised to the point of deliberate ignorance or worse. Those deemed a threat to order were persecuted. Today, in conjunction, many people are “persuaded to believe” fate is merely coincidental or random by corrupt, “partisan” sciences, when the reverse is true. The Sanhedrin collapsed because its internal politics had become stale, The Roman “attack” on Jerusalem acted as a “cover story”. I used the term “attack” glibly as no evidence has been forthcoming (beyond more or less instant persecution of Gnostic Christians) to support claims. Like the sensation “holocaust” (creating more ambiguity over the spiritual “legality” of Israel), the supposedly destroyed temple may have equally been “imaginary”, in light of its defiance of strict prophesy.

Between 66-69AD Jesus was on the political campaign trail one jump ahead of authorities. Politics have become much more civil in the modern age. The roguish “pro-sovereignty” Irish party, Sinn Fein, was overtly censored for years by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) on behalf of successive British governments. Though no “Jesus” by any stretch of the imagination, telecasts of leader Gerry Adams’ speeches were silenced but for newsreaders’ doctored talk-overs. His voice was said to be too intoxicating with the potential of corrupting listeners. In other words, his arguments were too valid, too compelling to be allowed to be heard and compares with predicable censorship in Jesus’ time, which is the main reason all religious texts offer so much innuendo and metaphor. No one (in sanity) could put a real name to this stuff unless he was a seriously important personage with a giant army to back his mouth up.

Though Flavius can mean golden (sometimes referring “blond haired” boys) or imperial, the Roman Flavian Dynasty is famous for its wreaths (dual metaphor – the laureate poet wearing a crown of thorns?). Encapsulated by the anagram “Josephus”, a royal poet laureate gives birth to spiritual Jesus, in turn sacrificed for sin under a crown of thorns. Mystics know this symbolism is discombobulated and stretches much further. The crown of thorns represents the barbed rose cross reinforced by the “crucifixion”. It is Jesus’ Rosicrucian/Atlantean calling card. Sadly few have the presence of mind to scrutinise this less consider implications. Rather than being one the Rosicrucians, I interpret the message stating Jesus and all Gnostics were up against the Roman version of that order which transferred to the Catholic Church, as is currently the case today. It also confirms that Zionist pharisaic nationless hard liners have partnered with Rosicrucian Philistines in order to secure the globe. Zion approximates an ancient Hebrew word that means fortress or prison.

Easter, the Christian festival, simply calculates Jesus’ death and rebirth as euphemised by the crucifixion/resurrection stories. The four gospels treat the resurrection accounts very differently. In Mark the episode is missing. Matthew passes off the occurrence almost as an aside, perhaps even “with indifference”. Luke slightly improves on Matthew’s trite delivery by adding a short précis of the outline found in Mark’s Acts of the Apostles. In the Acts of the Apostles account Jesus is presented as so disfigured by his harrowing ordeal, he is barely recognisable. Only by “his words” (metaphor – the “legacy of Jesus” and beware of false prophets too) can some of the apostles “see” (another couched metaphor – damned by censorship). For Mark (the Roman who possibly was the character that is labelled Judas Iscariot) Jesus was spent, done, finished and only belong with the other dead (and out of fashion) prophets, so he sent him off in a cloud (we have the expression today “head in the clouds” meaning “to be unrealistic”. It appears to also be a contemporary Roman idiom, so might it apply here?).

It is the legacy of Jesus that was the great threat to pharisaic order and this needed to be censored as all cost. Over the Easter period, I had an enlightening discussion with an Islamic scholar. Unbeknownst to me, the one thing that separates Jesus from all other mystics is he refrained from use of the instructions “no” or “don’t”. Mohamed, we both concluded, took the pharisaic “forced order” path, which, upon reflection, is not entirely “without merit”. His doctrine assuring “alms for the poor” significantly improves on Jesus’ own suggestive Feeding of the Five Thousand and Good Samaritan parables. Was support of others to be made obligatory, then social communion would be a small step away. It is no wonder that the very first Islamic war was fought over the interpretation of Mohamed’s alms for the poor doctrine.

That is why Easter has succumbed to crass commercial “Passover” and the desperate, disadvantaged and poor have been left, all but forsaken.