I've written very little thus-far, about the imminent end of the Mayan long-count calendar. That's because I didn't know what it meant. Nobody did.
I trust my intuition implicitly, but not necessarily my interpretation of it. I try to keep the two things separate, as far as possible. If I was meant to understand 2012, I intuitively sensed I would, when the time was right. I didn't know when that would be, but I expected to have a pretty good idea what was coming at around six months out. I was kept waiting until just a few days ago.
The evidence of the Tzolkin reveals the ancient Maya to have been master time-mappers. If the Maya considered the end of their long-count cycle to be cosmically significant, then I believe them.
Having said that, do I expect anything astonishing to occur on Dec. 21, 2012? No, I don't. This is what my intuition has given me: The winter solstice, which occurs on the same day, is a synchronistic metaphor for the end of the long-count cycle. Now, my interpretation:
In the Northern hemisphere, people have celebrated the winter solstice since time-immemorial. Ancient customs of feasting and light survive to this day. When Christianity was being imposed on pagan Europe, even it could not dislodge them. What it couldn't kill, had to be assimilated. That is why the Roman Church adopted the older celebration of the "birth of the Sun" for their own Messiah's birthday. (Nowhere in scripture does it say when Jesus was born.)
This is what actually happens on the winter solstice: The Sun arrives at it's maximum southern declination. It is the longest night of the year. Darkness reaches full ascendancy. It is also the turning point, at which the light begins to increase. On either side of the solstice, the difference in the length of a day is only seconds. For three days, or so, the Sun's position barely changes. Then, it gradually gathers momentum until the spring equinox, when it begins to slow down again. The turning point itself, occurs in a moment; it can be timed to the second. Until that point is reached, the darkness is still increasing, but so slowly, it is barely perceptible. After that moment, the light is returning, but again, barely perceptibly.
Taken as a metaphor, this tells us that the 21st of December is important because it is the turning point. It also tells us that the change will not be visible right away, but that the light will grow at a gathering pace. The metaphor additionally tells us something about where we are now. We are now at the point in the cycle when the darkness is still growing, yet nothing seems to change. That seems about right to me. Until the turning point is reached, don't expect any improvement. Look for it afterwards, but know that it will be subtle at first.
The disinformation that TPTB and their agents have been spreading about 2012, is the exact opposite of this. The History Channel aired a documentary about it, that pretty much sums up the misinformed, and deliberately formed, confusion surrounding the fabled date. "Everything and the kitchen sink," is the phrase that springs to mind. Everything apocalyptic that is. You've got good apocalypses, (We ascend to the 5th dimension and all our happy dreams come true.) and bad apocalypses, (The Earth is destroyed by cosmic catastrophe.) and apocalypses that could be good or bad depending on who you ask, (Biblical Armageddon). There are so many flavours of apocalypse on offer, it's down-right bewildering.
There may be some event that, in hind-sight, will be seen as the trigger for the turning of the tide; or not. But an apocalypse is as unlikely as mid-summer appearing the day after mid-winter. The hysteria TPTB have deliberately generated over 2012, is designed to discredit and/or disappoint those of us who foresee the changes that will surely come for all humanity. I expect to see some highly publicised 2012-cult suicides. It is also designed to reward and encourage the cynical defenders of the status quo; "See? Nothing happened. Just like Y2K."
The solstice metaphor holds a message for us about how best to respond to the Mayan calendar end-date. Celebrate! The longest night will be behind us. Even though the darkness still dominates, it begins to lessen. The light is returning, and will grow at an increasing pace. I'm going to celebrate!
I've often wondered what it would be like to be a wild human. I've tried to imagine what wild human societies would be like. It's seems unlikely that I'll ever know for sure. There are still a few wild human groups, of course, deep in the Amazon jungle, or in inhospitable places like the polar regions, deserts or high mountains of the world. But, their inaccessibility is the only thing preventing their domestication or extinction, so I'll never get to go there. I'm probably not hardy enough to live in those places anyway.
It's so sad, don't you think? I think it's even sadder that so few people seem to mind. I mean, who would support laws requiring the domestication of all bears or all elephants? We wouldn't let it happen to them, but we don't bat an eye when it's done to us. It's not necessary, certainly not in Canada. This is the second largest country in the world, and we have half the population of the UK! There's lots of room for wild humans here. You'd think a group of us, who'd prefer to be wild, could just leave the farm, and go make a new home for ourselves. We wouldn't have to interfere with the existing, domesticated human stock. I fantasize about doing that. I would do it, if I could. Unfortunately, the government of Canada claims that Queen Elisabeth II owns all the unoccupied land, which they manage on her behalf, and they claim to own me also. Even so, they could tolerate the existence of wild humans, if they wanted to. They won't though. If you tried to live in the wilderness, and were discovered, you would be evicted for trespassing.
A couple of local guys, Mike and Mike, tried it. They built a little cabin, just above the beach, near Palmerston Recreational Area. Here's a photo:
Its location is very remote, and hard to access. From Port Hardy, it's more than an hour's drive over rough logging roads to get to Palmerston, then at least another half hour hike over slippery, jagged rocks. (There's a trail now, but they had to make it themselves.) Even now, you'd never find it, unless you knew it was there. Before long though, the Coast Guard spotted it from the water. They threatened to burn it down unless it became a public shelter; no permanent or private residence allowed. Mike and Mike hadn't even tried to make a garden, but if they had, it would have been destroyed.
Bears, cougars, and squirrels are permitted to make homes for themselves, and freely hunt or forage for food, in the wild. But not us humans. I have never had a home that was truly my own, and I probably never will. I'm forced to pay someone else for the privilege of shelter, if I can. And I have no right to remain in it. (Our last land-lord sold our home, and so we had to move.) It's in our nature, as humans, to desire permanent homes that we can feel secure in. It's cruel to deny any creature such a basic thing. I've felt the stress of it all my life. Most people wouldn't do that to a bear.
Apparently, it's too much to ask for just a little bit of land to be set aside for wild humans. It's too, too bad. I'd love to see, somewhere, a wild human preserve. I wish there could be some place on Earth for all those people like me, who can't thrive in captivity. I bet there are a lot of us. Then we wouldn't need to fight the system. We could just leave it to its fate. We could live in sovereignty and peace, and maybe make something really great! It would be wonderful if there was such a place. I hate being trapped in this dying, so-called civilisation, waiting for it to collapse and knowing we have nothing, as yet, to replace it with but chaos and pain. It makes me want to scream sometimes.
A growing number of people no longer trust the MSM (mainstream media). Those of us with sufficient functioning brain cells, can no longer ignore their constant, shameless lying about practically everything. Lots of people still believe them though. They think: "If they all talk about the same thing, it must be important. If they all tell the same story, it must be true." They find it hard to accept that a small group of players, with a shared interest in controlling information in order to steer public perception to benefit themselves, could actually achieve that aim. They'll tell you there are far too many people employed in mass-media for a small group to censor effectively.
But we know differently. We know it doesn't work that way. There is rarely a need for outright censorship. All you have to do is hire and promote the right key people: those who already agree with your message, and those who are unscrupulous, clever and ambitious enough to play along. Those key people do likewise, and so on down the line. It's extremely rare for media people to step out of bounds. If they do, it doesn't matter how much popularity or industry clout they might seem to have. Who would have believed that personalities with the fan-base and exposure of Rosie O'Donnell, or Martin Sheen, could see their media careers destroyed overnight? If they can't afford to break ranks, who can? What I found especially disturbing, was the way their former colleagues turned on them, ripping them to pieces, with such gusto. Examples like theirs serve as a warning to the rest. There's no need to spell it out; message received. The MSM controls information by promoting those who are "on message" and ignoring or destroying those who are not.
The MSM is so obviously corrupt, that so-called "alternative media" is attracting a growing audience. The plutocratic control-freaks, who own the MSM, are aware of this trend. It would be wise to assume that they have taken steps to deal with the threat. The simplest solution (for them) would be to create an alternative mainstream media (AMSM). They could then continue to control information by promoting those who are "on message" and ignoring or destroying those who are not. Guess what?
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but signs abound that this is the case:
Alternative carefully crafted narratives that benefit TPTB.
Alternative bullshit stories being promoted by key personalities, then taken up and repeated uncritically by all.
A pack mentality that discourages dissent.
A whole bunch of people think they've woken up, but they're just dreaming a different dream. Oh, you didn't buy that lie? How about this one? Sold! Have you noticed what happens to anyone who tries to expose a false AMSM narrative, or criticizes a member of the AMSM clique? Did you notice the treatment of Judy Wood? It was almost like she had committed some crime. Did you see what happened to Henry Makow? I never liked him. I think he's ignorant, paranoid and delusional; the AMSM should have ousted him for those things. But they didn't. He was ostracised by the clique for criticising Rense. I thought it ironic, since Makow's complaints, in this case, seemed justified. What's even more ironic is way the AMSM openly congratulates itself for doing this. In a reversal of truth worthy of the original MSM, they claim that those who challenge any member of the clique are the probable enemy agents. "We should be united," they say; "We can't afford to argue amongst ourselves." They behave as though there were no possibility of cointelpro agents within their group. What breath-taking arrogance! (If not: stupidity, and if not: a lie.)
Just as in the MSM, this sort of careless toe-crushing is rare. Most AMSM clique members know better. "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all," is the rule. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the fate of humanity at stake here? Should suppressing legitimate criticism, to spare people's feelings, really be a top priority?
I don't mean to suggest that every member of the AMSM clique is a conscious agent of the control system. I sincerely hope not, and I don't believe it. On the other hand, enough of them are, that they can render harmless, or eliminate, any serious threat to the system. In other words: many are sincere, but misinformed, and thus considered harmless to the agenda of the real PTB. If I had to guess, I'd put David Icke in that group. I think he's sincere, and has many fine qualities, but I also think he's a manipulator's dream because, he's a bad judge of character. Surely, even he has to admit that. How many times has he been betrayed by those he trusted? The answer: more times than he suspects.
(Update, Oct. 23, 2013-
I can no longer give Icke the benefit of the doubt. Too much time has passed, during which, he has failed to correct any of the glaring errors in his work, although he must have been alerted to them. He continues to promote people who deserve to be exposed for the money-grubbing, self-promoting frauds that they are. Birds of a feather, I guess.)
By contrast, Jordan Maxwell is one of those Icke shouldn't have trusted, but did. Maxwell's "research" is a mixture of cherry-picked anomalies and out-right fabrication. He has spawned a veritable army of replicant minions. The only research they've ever done is listening to Maxwell. None of them bothered to check his information, and all of them owe Maxwell for their otherwise inexplicable fame. They're counting on you not knowing the difference between repetition and corroboration. Maxwell is the primary source for some of Icke's weakest assertions. Yet Icke is freely ridiculed, while Maxwell is pretty much untouchable. Why is that?
It seems to me that some areas of inquiry are more heavily controlled and infiltrated than others: religion/astrotheology, 2012, ufology, alternative history, etc. Heavy infiltration and control reliably indicate important secrets that must be kept. Therefore, I think we need to focus more attention on those subjects, but starting from the assumption that the dominant narratives are false.
If we really want to discover the truth of humanity's plight, we're going to have to resist the efforts of the controllers to foist their alternative lies upon us. Some things I'd suggest are:
1. We could stop being so tragically naive. Acknowledge the fact that the AMSM is being controlled in the same way as the MSM, and treat it accordingly. Admit that the field has been infiltrated. Start attending to the who, where and why.
2. We could be more suspicious of any story that's being over-sold. Everybody saying something doesn't make it true, in the AMSM any more than in the MSM. In either case it's more likely to be a diversion or a psy-op. Furthermore, oversold stories usually indicate the particular areas of heaviest infiltration.
3. We could stop discouraging debate. Sincere seekers of truth don't fear a challenge. They welcome it. The people pressuring everyone to play nicely and get along are the ones we should be wary of. We need less politics and more honesty.
Language is like money and electricity: nearly everybody uses it, but hardly anyone really knows what it is, or how it works. When I read what people write, or listen to them talk, it's often obvious to me that very few understand the difference between words and ideas. If people did understand the difference, they would take the time to define many of the words they use. They would regard it as necessary.
Here's a useful analogy: If ideas were people, words would be their names. Imagine you're having a conversation with Pat about another person called Mike. Trouble is, each of you is talking about a different Mike. At first, neither of you notices, because the two Mikes have a lot in common; they both work in factories and are married to women named Debby. Then, Pat starts saying things about Mike that you know aren't true, and vice versa. Eventually, you both realise that you're discussing two different Mikes. Now your conversation turns into an argument over which Mike is the real Mike.
That last bit wouldn't happen, of course, unless both of you were completely irrational. You wouldn't struggle to understand that more than one person could be called Mike. Instead, you'd agree to use surnames, or something, to distinguish between them. Or else you'd agree to discuss the same Mike. It wouldn't happen if you were talking about a person, but it happens all the time with words like: freedom, democracy, faith, morality, god, love, enlightenment, I, ego, real, anarchy, etc. Clearly, a lack of common definition makes true communication impossible. I mean to say one thing, and you hear something else. In my experience, it's the reason for most arguments.
If English were a perfect language, this wouldn't be a problem. A perfect language would have a unique and specific word for each idea. Mathematics is a perfect language in that respect. The range of ideas it can represent is restricted, but there is zero ambiguity in the meaning of its terms and symbols. Sadly, English isn't like that. Many English words do too much work.
In Orwell's "1984," party members use a modified language called "newspeak." The aim of newspeak is an overall reduction in the number of words in use. Those words targeted for elimination are any that are unnecessary for communicating the party's ideology. I'm not alone in noticing a shrinking of vocabulary in general use. Orwell got that right. However, there is a parallel pruning of meanings that Orwell didn't predict in his book. Take the word "spirituality" for example. The idea that I associate with that word is: awareness of the Universal centre, and the direct knowledge that arises from that awareness. In common usage though, spirituality has come to mean: religion. Those are two completely different ideas. The second idea already had a name: religion. Now it has two, but the first idea has no name. An idea with no name cannot be discussed. Not only that; as Orwell explained, we normally think in words as well, so ideas with no names are difficult to entertain, even in our own minds.
Because of my interest in philosophy, I feel this mutilation of language rather keenly. It has become a source of constant frustration to me. It is the reason my unfinished and abandoned blog posts outnumber my published ones. I've often been struck entirely dumb by it. I'd prefer to remain silent rather than be misunderstood. I feel like, allowing myself to be misunderstood amounts to involuntary lying. That's because I'm trying to tell the truth, though. If I wanted to lie, if I were a politician, or other propagandising pundit, I'd be delighted. Cui bono? The ambiguity of English is probably being deliberately employed as a vector of ponerisation.
I don't see a way to alter this course. The accepted definition of words is a matter of consensus, and all mass-communication channels are in the hands of professional liars. I do have faith, though. (I define faith as: trust in the intelligence of Universe.) In the long run, the machinations of TPTB will fail, since they run counter to Universe's clear intention to realise Itself. Evolution (meaning: the tendency of Universe to develop forms of increasing complexity and range of awareness), is triggered by crisis. Transcend or die. Evolution happens when it must. It may be, that our present linguistic mode needs to become critically malfunctional, before a more evolved mode can emerge. Something that incorporates telepathy perhaps?
There is no reason to rule out such an occurrence. For one thing, telepathic ability already exists in a minority of humans. They may be analogous to the first few people to get telephones. For another thing, telepathic ability would be enormously adaptive at this time in history. Imagine how many problems could be solved if there was no need to guess about anyone's true intentions. If a sufficient number of humans were to acquire telepathic abilities, the people currently in power would lose their positions. I can't resist also mentioning a connection with the end of the Mayan long-count calendar on Dec. 21 of this year. End-of-the-world doomsayers always forget to mention the beginning date of the count: Aug. 11, 3114 BC. Whatever happened then, is what now completes itself. We know that date did not mark the creation of the world. However, one thing that did begin, right around that time, was writing.
Possibly, it's already started. Maybe the psychopathic liars who rule the world know it has. What if their EMF and chemical neurotoxin assault on us is an attempt to prevent it? It would make sense.
Perhaps there are ways we could prepare ourselves for a change like that. I would advise paying more attention to the meaning of the words we use. Words are only symbols of meaning. Word/symbols can pass, even through our own minds, with little, or poorly formed, meaning attached to them. There's a simple way to find out if you're doing this. Try to define your words. If you can't define the word, you don't know what it means. Telepathy depends on clear meaning. It's a good practice in any case. It improves mental clarity and makes it harder for manipulators to confuse you.
Never let a good crisis go to waste, eh. There was a headline on Press TV yesterday that read: "UN must implement resolutions against blasphemy: OIC". After checking the calendar to make sure it really was 2012 and not 1512, I read on, and it was even worse than the title implied. Apparently, what I'm about to say may already be illegal according to the UN.
First, some definitions to avoid misunderstanding. Morality is the exercise of conscience. Conscience is the means by which we directly perceive the difference between good and evil. Conscience is a sense, like sight or taste. However, instead of representing the physical world, it is designed to reveal moral rightness or wrongness.
Some readers here may wonder why I give book-based religion such a hard time. See, a lot of people have been conditioned to believe that these religions bring something worthwhile to the table. If you request specifics, they're a little hard to come by. However, one justification given, is that religions teach people to be moral. Oh cruel irony! Religion destroys morality. Yes, you read that right. I detest religions for a lot of reasons. Their horrific and ongoing crimes are really reason enough. What their followers have done to those outside their cults, is beyond sickening. But they've also done a lot of harm to their own. They have ruined their followers' minds with their systems of contradictory beliefs that subvert the intellect to the point that it gives up in despair. And then there's the moral damage that they do.
Religion destroys morality by substituting a psuedo-morality of rules for the true morality of conscience. The ten commandments of the Yahwists are a prime example. Religions define morality as: following the rules. Religions have been so successful in this substitution that even the non-religious have come to accept their definition. Thus, "morality" is widely viewed as archaic, arbitrary, oppressive. It is all these things by religion's false definition. Religious believers manage to ignore this because, generally speaking, many of the rules are in line with natural conscience. Prohibitions against killing, lying and stealing, for instance, lend legitimacy to the rules. (In real life there are always exceptions, which is one reason a living conscience is superior to any list of rules, no matter how exhaustive.) Sometimes though, and to varying extent, religion's rules run counter to the voice of conscience. Then the believer must choose. Typically, these choices are faced by young children, who are in no position to resist religious pressure to give preference to rules over conscience. They are actively encouraged to distrust their inner knowing. They are told that the voice of their conscience is actually Satan trying to lead them astray! Eventually, their awareness of conscience atrophies from lack of use and bothers them no more.
In light of the foregoing, it should surprise no one that religions have caused more death and suffering than any other single cause. In every case their atrocities were justified on "moral" grounds. If morality means following the rules, and you're the maker of the rules, then moral conduct is whatever you say it is. The Gods-who-write-books never speak audibly in the presence of witnesses. What if, somewhere along the line, the person claiming to speak for your God was actually schizophrenic, or worse, a psychopath? If you didn't have a conscience, you'd never know the difference. Who seriously thinks that possibility is too remote to consider?
No thanks to religions, but fortunately for us all, most people do have a conscience, even if it is barely functional. A few of us don't, and those people are called psychopaths. Religion can't cure them. For them, religion is just another tool to control others and get what they want. Religion's version of morality harms people of conscience and does nothing to curtail the predations of the conscienceless. Religions need to be called out and exposed for this, not protected from all criticism by law! The window for doing so appears to be closing.
Am I the only one who's getting annoyed by all the "resonating" going on lately? I don't have a problem with resonating per se. However, I object to the idea that resonance is an acceptable substitute for critical thinking, fact-checking, or evidence of any kind. What we've got here is an idea spread by repetition until it is so wide-spread, it passes without question. Ever time I turn around I hear things like:
"That resonates with me."
"Don't believe everything you hear. Just take what resonates and leave the rest."
The obvious, but unspoken assumption is that one can judge the accuracy of received information by whether one "resonates with it" or not. In the absence of thorough self-knowledge, (a much rarer thing than the inclination to resonate), this just isn't so. Most often, people "resonate" with information because it agrees with what they already believe, or because it makes them feel good. Neither of those represents a valid measure of truth. Instead, they are a recipe for self-delusion. Errors are compounded as untrue belief holds the door open for whatever reinforces it, and refuses entry to conflicting data. False ego has free rein to remake universe in its own image. No need to bother with evidence, logic or rhetorical debate anymore. A declaration of resonance is now sufficient. What a boon for the New Age, fantasy free-for-all! Not much help with the collective insanity though.
It's sad that the principle of resonance has been misused and trivialised in this way. Resonance means vibrational sympathy. It is extremely important. It can teach you a great deal about yourself. An ability to objectively sense it, can reveal energetic patterns and sympathies. Resonance is the basis of technologies that would seem like magic. It just isn't a barometer of truth. Sorry.
During the last century, a successful campaign was launched to promote a wide-spread belief in the existence of ETs who visit our planet in space-ships. Our culture has become increasingly saturated with ET-related material. Books, films, TV shows, advertising, ETs are everywhere! Complex alternate histories have been developed to weave them into our unremembered past. A very large number of people are now firmly convinced that ETs are real. Pretty much anyone who considers themselves "new age" does. Even in mainstream circles, many believe in ETs, and most think it's a strong, if unproven, possibility. In "The Stargate Conspiracy", Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince present convincing evidence that intelligence agencies and very wealthy and powerful individuals played a large and seminal role in promoting this belief in ETs.
On the other hand, in spite of ample evidence and decades of lobbying for "disclosure", the official stance of governments is that no proof exists of any ET presence on Earth. So what's going on? Do TPTB want people to believe in ETs or not? It reminds me of the lead-up to the American attack on Iraq. The US administration, in collusion with the MSM, succeeded in getting most Americans to believe that Iraq was involved in 911, but without ever actually saying it. They never actually said it because it was provably untrue. They created a useful belief without having to own it.
The apparent discrepancy between the engineering of belief in ETs and official denial becomes far more understandable if there are no ETs, if the ET story is intended to hide something else. If we consider this possibility, some very inconvenient questions arise, such as:
1. What are those UFOs, and to whom do they belong?
2. Who has been abducting people, or implanting them with memories of having been abducted?
3. Who are the entities, claiming to be ETs, who've been communicating through trance channellers?
While I do not accept the standard extraterrestrial explanations, I won't deny that these questions are valid ones. One would have to ignore a great deal of good evidence to do so. However, it isn't necessary to postulate an ET presence to plausibly answer these questions. The following are some alternative explanations that I consider more likely.
If there are no ETs visiting our planet, there are still UFOs to account for. We have mountains of testimony from highly credible witnesses and several mass sightings to date. I don't think it's reasonable to ignore all that. They can't be holograms because they are known to affect their surroundings. Whatever they are, they employ a level of technology that transcends what mainstream science lays claim to. If there are no ETs, then we have to postulate advanced technology, held in secret by non-governmental powers. There certainly are individuals and families right here on Earth, for whom money and public oversight are no object. I don't think it's far-fetched to suggest they might have private technology. Thanks to wide-spread belief in ET visitation, they don't have to worry about a few, or even many, people seeing it. If the UFOs originate on Earth, you'd expect their sophistication and overall numbers to increase over time, as indeed they have.
If there's a perfect word to describe the abduction experience, it's "weird". Many people report first-hand, often credible, recollected encounters. Although they often contain irrational, dream-like elements, they have a consistency incompatible with pure invention. There is definitely something to see here. But is it space-aliens? Research projects involving thought-transfer, implanted memory, mind control, the use of drugs and/or technology to induce altered states, remote-viewing, psychokinesis, etc. are known to have been undertaken and well funded by both military and private interests for over fifty years. Some kinds of experimentation on human beings are still widely considered unacceptable, not to mention illegal. Experimental human breeding and genetics projects, for example. They're also not the kinds of things anyone would volunteer for. As we all know, that's not enough to stop some people. However, it does mean the subjects have to be taken against their will. If they could be implanted with a memory of ET abduction, they'd never suspect the truth. This cover has the benefit of being able to account for any lasting trauma, and also prevents them being taken seriously, if they even dare to report it. In addition to experimental subjects, it would be helpful to arrange for some positive ET encounter memories to further obscure the reality.
No one has ever produced a physical extraterrestrial. They've been seen, and interacted with, by thousands, but there have been no captures, no bodies, not a single specimen, living or dead. Evidence for a physical ET presence is weak at best. Telepathic contact, in contrast, is wide-spread and growing. Which brings me to a separate, but overlapping phenomenon.
Throughout human history, people have interacted and communicated with non-physical entities. Only very recently has their existence been denied. There are many types of non-physical beings. Most don't interfere with humanity. But some have, and still do. Their true identities are unknown, but they have falsely claimed to be many things, including: deceased humans, ascended masters, time-travellers, spirit guides, saints, angels, demons, Gods and Goddesses, and increasingly often, ETs. I'll refer to them as PNEs (predatory, nonphysical entities).
I'm going to have to digress a bit here, into the subject of magick. I spent many years studying and practicing magick, but there was one branch that I was never comfortable with, namely the practice of summoning and interacting with spirits. Over the course of time, I have come to conclude that there are really two entirely different types of magick, (as well as religion). One of them is based on an understanding of universal forces and the methods of directly working with those energies. The other operates through the mediation of non-physical entities. Most who study magick consider these two branches as complimentary aspects of a single system. I disagree. A sufficiently knowledgeable and skilled magician can accomplish anything the intermediary spirits can, and more.
An example: Let's say you wanted to understand the meaning of an unknown symbol. If you were to use the first method, you could employ the method of "travelling in the spirit vision". This is very similar to remote-viewing. You would visualise the symbol as superimposed on a door or curtain, then mentally pass through the portal to induce a visionary elucidation of the symbol, which you would interpret by use of intuition. Or, if you wanted to use the second method, you could use a ouija board, or employ trance-channelling, or perform a ritual summoning, to evoke an entity, and then ask it to explain the symbol.
Another example: Say you wish to heal an illness. The first method might consist of harmonically aligning one's awareness with healing energy, then using concentration, imagination, will and belief to increase the power of your intention, which can then be directed to it's target. The second method might involve calling in an entity and asking or commanding it to carry out the healing.
I hope these examples make the distinction I'm trying to point out clear.
I'm really disappointed that the only people who seem to be warning against this contact are religious fundamentalists. They, of course, object to it on the grounds that their "God" doesn't like it, and will kick the ass of anyone who disobeys his orders. It's ironic really, since the Yahwists' deity is himself, a PNE.
So, if there are nonphysical entities offering to help us, why shouldn't we accept their assistance? You might ask the same question about the IMF. The answer would be the same. Their help is worth far less than it costs. It's really just bait to draw you into a relationship of dependency and predatory control. Also, like the IMF, their sales-pitch is in total contradiction to their track record.
The PNEs lie. They are masterful liars, which means they tell just enough truth to hook you, but not enough to really help you. Even when they tell the truth, they intentionally mislead. They definitely have access to an incredible pool of information. They have often used their technological knowledge, or their ability to make correct predictions, to win devotees. Many have accepted this as proof that the PNEs are spiritually advanced, superhuman beings. It proves nothing of the sort. It proves only that the PNEs are real and have access to information. I think we need to pay at least as much attention to what they don't tell us. Namely, all the important things we need to know if we are to free ourselves from the tyrannical control freaks who are currently destroying humanity and the Earth itself. Have they condemned the spiritual poison that is Yahwism? Have they alerted us to the pathological nature of money? Have they warned us about psychopathy? Have they given the oppressed people of Earth the energy technology that the elite clearly already possess? The answer is no, or at least not until some humans had figured it out for themselves. The PNEs are not our friends.
The PNEs demand sacrifices. They prefer blood sacrifices, but they also enjoy emotional energy and the willing submission of humans. While the PNEs have sometimes claimed to be Gods, the requirement of sacrifice reliably distinguishes them from actual Gods and Goddesses. Early polytheist initiates understood the Gods to be personifications of archetypal and natural forces. Their forms and natures correspond to their vibrational qualities and functions. The Gods don't derive their power from humans. The Gods were recognised and honoured by humans because Man is a microcosm, thus the Gods find reflection in our own nature. This is the main premise behind natal astrology.
I'm fairly convinced that the top global elite are in league with PNEs, and they know they're not aliens. They've been talking to them for centuries, if not millennia. Consider the case of John Dee, born in 1527 AD, and Astrologer Royal to Elizabeth I. It has been claimed that Dee was the head of QE I's secret service, and was code-named 007. I don't know if that's true or not, but was is known is that Dee, with the help of a trance-medium called Edward Kelly, established contact with nonhuman intelligences. These entities gave Dee, through Kelly, an "angelic" language called Enochian and a system of magick, based on tables of its letters. Sigils derived from the tables may be used to summon entities. Their experiments ended when a message from their Enochian source allegedly frightened Kelly so badly that he quit. The Enochian system still exists and remains in use. Please note that Dee's Enochian contacts never mentioned ETs. Given that such beings exist, isn't it likely that powerful people throughout history have availed themselves of mutually beneficial arrangements with PNEs? There is an occult aspect to the NWO and this is it. Evidence suggests that different human factions may be involved in competitive blood sacrifice to win the favour of the most powerful PNEs.
When we remove the ET filter, what a different picture emerges! And all of this remains invisible, so long as that filter exists. Needless to say, if there are no ETs, there can be no disclosure. The channelled "ETs" have been promising (and failing) to physically show up since the '70s. Disclosure would necessitate the production of living, breathing extraterrestrials, would it not? Could that have been the goal of some of the breeding/genetics programs associated with the abduction phenomenon? Who knows. In any case, pure fakery is unlikely to withstand the demands of a staged disclosure.
I could be wrong. I can't say for sure that the main-stream, ET narrative is false. However, I can say that it isn't the only possibility. It's always best to keep one's mind open to alternatives.
Imagine that you and a bunch of your friends are sitting down to play a game of Monopoly. You've agreed to change some of the rules to make the game more realistic. Normally, the players all start with $1,500. of play-money, but in this version, starting amounts are allocated as follows:
Each player rolls the dice.
The player with the highest roll is "banker". The banker gets $2,000. to start.
The player with the next highest roll also gets $2,000.
The next two highest get $1,000. each.
The remaining players start with nothing
In addition, the following new rules apply:
1. The banker may borrow from the bank, interest free and without collateral, up to 9 times his personal wealth.
2. The banker may, at his discretion, lend any money at his disposal to the other players at whatever interest they both agree to. The banker may waive collateral requirements for such agreements. (Players may always choose to borrow according to the original rules of play.)
The last vlog I posted was about belief and the wisdom of questioning what we believe. In my experience, the beliefs that hurt us most are those we notice least.
I keep hearing the global population estimate of aproximately 7 billion unquestioningly stated as a fact. Even people who don't accept that there are too many of us, never challenge that figure. But it is an estimate, and its source is the UN! Can we really assume that their estimate is accurate? TPTB have a long history of fudging data to suit their agendas, so I don't think it's unreasonable to ask.
Their numbers don't really make sense. It looks like something really awful happened to Afganistan in 2008, but the first seven years of war and occupation supposedly coincide with a huge population boom! According to this graph, the population of Iraq is steadily growing since 2000. Who'd 've thunk it? And, is this a joke?
I can't say for certain that the 7 billion estimate is wildly wrong, but I have doubts about it when I consider the following:
1. Most developed countries in the Northern hemisphere have reported birth rates of less than replacement levels for decades.
2. China, the most populous country in the world, instituted a one child per couple policy in 1979. This has greatly reduced population growth for two generations. A second child is sometimes permitted, but only if the first is a girl. There are now 120 boys for every 100 girls born in China. Those extra 20 boys will not count towards future reproduction.
3. The world's total alleged population has more than doubled since 1965, and rural populations continue to be urbanised, yet almost no new cities have been built in that time.
4. Shouldn't massive population growth, in conjunction with increasing automation of human labour, have resulted in greater unemployment than we see?
5. The estimated world population is partly based on estimated birth and death rates. Are the multitude of soft-kill projects and fertility reducing toxic assaults being corrected for? What about all the children who disappear?
Is it just me, or is this beginning to sound a lot like climate "science"?
It isn't hard to see how our belief in overpopulation benefits TPTB. Just imagine if world population wasn't increasing, or (more likely) increasing far more slowly than estimated. If growth rates are falling faster than claimed, then future population projections are wrong as well. If we didn't believe there are too many of us...
Would we still think life is cheap?
Would our perceived value as individuals increase?
Would we seriously demand to know why our living standards keep falling?
Would "little me" feel a bit bigger?
Would we believe we need to compete to survive?
Would we feel more generous?
Would we accept all this centralised and punitive control?
There's something that's been bothering me for quite a while that I never could account for until recently. It's the fact that people don't seem to remember anything. Have you noticed this?
Here are some examples.
1. In 1972, one person with an ordinary job could support a family of five. Twenty years later, in 1992, that had become unrealistic. Today, most households, even those with two incomes, are accumulating credit-card debt to cover their basic living costs. The generation now coming of age can't afford to leave their parents' homes, and many are staying in school just to buy time. We also have the phenomenon of "working homeless", that is: people with jobs who can't afford a home.
And yet, we believe that the economy is cyclical. We believe that the down-turns are followed by recoveries. I haven't seen a real recovery yet. What I've seen is 3 steps back, then 1 step forward. do that 3 times and you've gone back 6 steps. that isn't a cycle; it's a downward spiral. Next stop: austerity. (You should look up the meaning of austerity if you don't know it.) Notice how no one is asking how long this austerity will last. I'm guessing, until the sovereign debt goes down. So, never.
They weren't there 30 years ago, I promise. And we did have planes back then.
PCs were invented in the '70s but you had to be able to program them yourself. According to Wiki, in 1981 an "attractively priced" PC sold for 1,795. US dollars. So, few could afford one. I got my first PC in 1990, a rebuilt, second hand one. It had a monochrome monitor, and ran in DOS. That's only 21 years ago, and PCs have transformed our lives completely.
When I was a kid, my parents would say to us, "go outside and play." So we did, and we'd be gone for hours. Our parents didn't know where we were or what we were doing, and that was normal. I loved the freedom and privacy I had as a child. Today, if you dared to do that, someone might call the police and you might have trouble getting your child back. Now, children expect to be watched 24/7. I think that's sad. We used to value our privacy. Now we believe if we're not doing anything wrong, we shouldn't object to being watched. Tell that to the Bilderbergers, I say.
I can remember when fruit-scented soap didn't smell more edible than actual fruit. I remember when tomatoes tasted like something. I remember when egg yolks were bright yellow and chickens were not obese. And I remember when there were no such thing as safety seals. We just assumed our food and medicines were safe. Imagine that!
6. Mass drugging.
It's difficult to find out how many people are on some sort of mood-stabilisers, like antidepressants or anti anxiety meds, but I'd guess its at least 20%. Why do so many people now need drugs in order to function in society? We're even drugging our children now in huge numbers. We don't seem to care what its doing to their developing minds and bodies. My heart goes out to those kids. We're destroying their futures, just to avoid admitting that everything is not OK. I had ODD when I was a child, still do. Thankfully, they didn't have a cure for it back then, or I wouldn't be talking to you today. Something to think about perhaps. The sad truth is, the people who are being drugged, and the ones sprawled on sidewalks, stoned out of their minds, are some of the sanest of us. They're the ones who couldn't adjust to crazy-world.
Hopeful this snapshot of "now and then" proves that the last forty years have been a time of great and accelerating change. I can remember it, and I'm hardly the oldest person on the planet.
Something is ruining our memories. I'm going to make a case that the culprit is normalcy bias. I looked up normalcy bias on the internet, and the only definition I found, repeated in several places, was, in my opinion, unsatisfactory. So let me propose a more useful definition of normalcy bias:
"A bias in favour of normalcy".
Normalcy means: a state of being that is typical.
Bias means: unfairly prejudiced, for or against.
So normalcy bias should be defined as: unfairly prejudiced in favour of a state of being that is typical. I know that's not official, but I want to talk about bias in favour of normalcy and I don't know what else to call it other than normalcy bias.
Our ability to foresee the future depends on our ability to remember the past. If we could remember anything, we'd know where we're headed. If we could remember our own pasts, we'd realise we've been lied to. Normalcy bias works both ways in time. It impairs memory, as much as it does foresight. It is definitely not based on previous experience or it's lack. If it were, then normalcy bias should lead us to expect massive and accelerating change, and continuously worsening quality of life, since that is what we've actually experienced, right? But we don't. We expect an endless and unchanging repetition of the perceived present. Why is that? And if normalcy bias isn't based on past experience, what is it based on?
Well, I think there is a direct and inverse relationship between sanity and normalcy bias. For the sake of clarity I'm going to define sanity as: a mental state, free of erroneous belief. If you are sane, you believe what is true and not what isn't. An individual or a society that bases it's values and behavior on erroneous beliefs is insane. The farther a society strays from sanity, the stronger normalcy bias becomes. Because, if it's norms were based on true beliefs (sanity), then bias would not be needed to maintain them.
Given the actual state of the world, I think its safe to say our civilisation is insane. I propose that normalcy bias is a psychological defence against the realisation of this very unpleasant fact. None of us should assume that we are sane, given the fact that we were raised in an insane society. All hope isn't lost though. If we could face our predicament, we could start to become sane. Insanity is caused by erroneous beliefs, so the way back to sanity is to start challenging those beliefs. One of our best tools for doing that is memory. Have the forecasts that were based on our normative beliefs been proven accurate? If you believe there will be a full economic recovery, is that expectation supported by your past experience? If not, you must either question your normative belief or forget your past.
Its not an easy choice, I know. Any step towards sanity is a step away from normalcy. We are hard-wired to want to belong. I miss feeling that way, even though I never really have. That's part of being human. But, the more people who find the courage to take those steps toward sanity, the easier it will become. Those who have already begun are here to support you, no questions asked. If we don't do this work of becoming sane, we will destroy ourselves and most won't realise what we're doing until its too late. On the other hand, if we choose to, we could make sanity the new normal.