text:
Tag Archives: eradication
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.
Posted on October 25, 2018 by ozziethinker	in Rage against the machine, The science of existence	• Tagged 1807, 1833, Abolition of Slavery, acts of war, acupuncture, agent, aging, aids, AIDS Inc., Aldous Huxley, altered states, amateur journalism, anomaly, anti-populism, anti-vaccines, appetite, arrogance, atomic bomb, atomic universe, atoms, auric field, AZT, bacteria, Barbara Brennan, benzene, bloodstream, Bohemian, brethren, bubonic plague, butcher, butchery, cancer, Cancer Council, cancer of the womb, cankers, cannabis oil, carbon, carbon tax, carcinogens, cause, Cell damage, censorship, cerebral cortex, Chemo, chimpanzees, Chinese markets, circumstantial, clean energy, cloud nine, coal, cognitive, collapse, colonists, Coming Clean, commerce, compelling theories, conventional, coriander, corporate, corporate alliances, cosmetic, cosmic nanometre, cosmic script, craft industries, crime, cured, debunk, Dependent humans, depression, diagnostic, dietary, dimension ten, dimensional, Disraeli, divine planner, divinity, do-gooders, domino effect, dreamscape, dubious information, Ebola, ego imbalances, Einstein, electron microscope, electronic wand, energetic, enigmas, environmentalists, ephemeral resonance, epidemic, eradication, establishment, etiquette, evidence, expert status, extra-terrestrial, faith, faithless, financial profits, fossil, free thinkers, frequencies, fungi, futuristic healthcare, genetic materials, genius, ginger, globalism, gravity, green monkeys, Grey Beings, hallowed, healthcare, higher self, Hippocratic Oath, Historians, hiv, hobby doctors, human condition, imagination, IMF, imperialists, incurable, Industrial Revolution, industrialists, infestations, innovative, inoculated, inorganic, institutional practices, insults, insurance, intellectual apathy, jesus, Jon Rappoport, journalists, kinetic healing, Krishna, laboratories, laser weapon, late stagers, libido, lies, Luddite, Machiavellian, machines, magneticism, malignant, manipulation, materialist, matter, medical science, metabolism, metaphysical, Methodical study, miracles, miraculous recoveries, molecules, music, mystic healers, narcissistic, narcotic, nervous system, news worthy, nutrients, official figures, oil industry, opinions, organic, outbreaks, Papacy, Parkinson's disease, particle, peer groups, perception, pesticides, pharmaceutical, philanthropic, physician, physicists, pioneering spirit, placebo effect, poison, policeman, polio, political etiquette, pollution, posthumous soldier, poverty, power, presumptive bias, professional, prognoses, proof, propagandas, psychology, pulmonary, pyramid, quack, quackery, qualified, quantum, quantum resonance, Queen Mary, rabies, radiation Chernobyl, Redskins, regeneration, regressive hypnosis, Reiki, relative, remedial techniques, reptilian brain, reptilians, revolt, Rothschild, royal, Royal Rife, rudimentary sciences, satanic conventions, saving, Saviour, sceptical reactions, scientist, serum, servants, sewers, shamans, slander, Slave Trade Act, soul, soursopp, South Sea Bubble, special cells, specialists, spiritual, stagnation, statistics, string theory, Swine flu, symptoms, systemisation, tax dollars, teachers, tension, terminal illness, Thalidomide, The Beauty of Existence Decoded, therapeutic, thesis, time dilation, tobacco smoke, too late stage, toxic emissions, treatment, trial and error, tribes, trigger, truth, tumours, two slit experiment, ulcerous, universe, unknown causes, vaccines, vanity, variable wave formations, veterinary clinics, vibrational, viruses, war on cancer, wasting, WHO, wisdom, witchdoctors, word of God, worthlessness, zeal • 7 Comments
The "Powers'" Great Accolade – "Brand Pedo"
Imagine, if you will, there existed a world populated only by biological automatons that were solely allowed to survive at the behest of a vague commercial bureaucracy. Because of this uncertainty, imagine if none of these automatons realised they were abject properties of a brutal federal control program. If the slave masters, the "authorities", decided they desired to stamp their immense power over will, to "once and for all" demonstrate their authority over the slave classes, could they outlaw or remove all fluid or solid sustenance resources without losing or graphically impairing their prized stock? Could they make the air unfit for consumption or destroy all known shelter to stress their despotic ambition? No, the only the true liberty they could possibly take away without permanently impairing labour is "unnecessary" sexuality. That world does exist. It is planet Earth and the ignorant, naive biological automatons are human slaves; fodders dedicated for a system that deliberately transcends spiritual logic and reason in order to complete and maintain its program,
By corporate commercial determination, per "the program", paedophilia is the root of all evil, and for reasons that so firmly contradict erudite populism, truth has become obsolete. The term paedophilia itself is nonsensical was it not for the fact that just about everyone has been radicalised into believing trappings of propaganda. So, going back to basics, it would be correct to start by analysing authentic etymology of terms in order to corroborate any coherent meanings. Only by careful analysis of the cold, dry facts can sound "basis" encapsulating the mainstreamers' obtuse view be deciphered.
Paedophilia is a combination of two Greek words. One (paidos) means child and this is topically self-explanatory. The other, philos, calculates rather more problematic interpretation. Yes it translates to mean "love" as would be expected within the cognitive frame of child love. Nevertheless, the Greeks had three words (eros, agape and philos) to represent the emotion. Eros is used to convey an earthy erotic, sexual passion or lust. Agape is an emotional spiritual bond that perhaps might signify symptoms such as pity, togetherness or other deep soul connections (shall we say). Philos proposes a brave new world, one that is generally estranged from the Western concept of love. It is the Greeks' "intellectual love" evocation and this might be best appraised as "to be on the same wavelength" (with others). Respect of a peer would make an acceptable version of the same concept.
Therefore paedophilia literally means "respect for children", so how on earth did it translate into the ugly mess that has embraced the greatest of all modern day hysterias?
It seems likely (though I find no evidence of historic accountability) that the term was originally sponsored by those that formed special liaisons with children. It was a way of justifying engagements that might have otherwise been frowned upon by wider society. Promiscuity is a revelation of modern times, awoken by the 1960's flower power sexual revolution. Prior to that lust outside marriage was a profound negative and "age restriction" on unions had been superficially imposed by religious authorities for so long that physical adult child pairings would have seemed unconscionable. This is not to say rules were not broken behind closed doors. Suffice to say, prior to the 1960's suspicious borderline adult relationships would have had to have been considered lust free but always either plausibly "working towards marriage" or "undeniably platonic" for seemly social tolerance.
It was only after sexual revolution, political authority saw value in promoting homosexuality as a crass attempt to pervert all sexual relationships (i.e. by reversing principled traditionalism that defines sexual intercourse as a procreation precaution and not as a recreational tool, cultural insanity was born. Of course, this merely acts as a stepping stone towards outright control of the human mind – "you will behave as we say anytime we lecture you"). Thus those rabid synthesised outcries at phantom paedophilia are backed off strategized and scoped political support aimed at positively accelerating homosexual causes. "Contradictory" pederasty was most recently (1600's onwards) adopted by the French (pederastie) from the Latin paederastia (Greek – paiderastia) and popularly translates to mean "lover of boys".
Remarkable French piano prodigy and composer Camille Saint-Saens, a covert gay of the high Victorian period, once famously reported, "I am not a homosexual. I am a pederast". This ironically demonstrates how much values have changed. Homosexuality was stigmatised because it was deeply hated (though undoubtedly egged on by political shit-stirrers) throughout cosmopolitan society and, therefore, illegal. Underage sex was not illegal, but because sex outside marriage was so universally chastised, "decent" normal folks would have found the practice unthinkable.
Even so Saint-Saens innocently reveals evidence of two streams of social conditioning. To admit to have been homosexual would have enraged retribution to beyond the pale so it was denied. Yet to confirm his overt but ambiguous paedophilia was the best way of diffusing allegations against him and shutting up critics. Of course there is much more to this tale (which circulated around his regular trips to Algeria – a place renowned for egregious sexual tolerance at the time). Saint-Saens cast himself as the paternal spirit ever excited by the ambitions of youthful innocent exuberance and not as a lecherous molester of children.
Ancient sexual roots of pederasty were neither explored nor acknowledged as relationships were symbolised as paternally platonic per the cultural view. However, the stem "erasty" is a version of erasthai (Latin) for which eros (Greek sexual love) is a derivative. This should emphasise the nonsense of modern times' furore. If sex between adults and children was to be intimated by a slur, then pederasty is the ideal term. In fact, though it is believed to have originally been used to describe adult/minor homosexual trysts, the etymology is actually formally gender neutral. Does the "substitution" of paedophilia (in place of pederasty) not aptly highlight the wilful arrogance/ignorance of mainstreamers?
Many well founded information sources have come to light that broach the rather obvious homosexual connection to global control networks after Gary Allen's tantalising volume "None Dare Call It Conspiracy" was published in 1972 (only a year before the Trilateral Commission was formed by late David Rockefeller). Those behind the eugenics movement aiming to radically reduce global populations have been implicated as players in the "program" many times. Whether this is true or not is open to debate, but philosophic motives are beyond argument.
If all population units were strictly homosexual, then procreation would require external management, perhaps offering theoretical provisos such as medical intervention to save humankind. Younger more fertile parents produce stronger offspring that live longer and this corroborates (though statistics are "contradictory") a matched conspiracy. Paedophilia (younger, more fertile) has been outlawed whereas homosexuality (guaranteed infertile) is now both legal and encouraged (with initiatives such as sex change development offered to "asexual" [sic] children as young as four years old). Clearly all measures improve the ongoing population control/reduction agenda. I should add that whereas some institutionalised heterosexuals may argue they have a right to abolish repulsive homosexual practices, any [even justifiable] overt or covert despotism still prepares undeniable infringements against sovereign liberties.
Eugenics' attack on the people has been unyielding. Wars used to be the preferred vehicle. Yet, as I write, the American "health system" (for instance) debatably shows up ten to a hundred times more effective at disposing of populations than war, depending on which statistics are favoured. Several drugs (including dozens of branded opiates) administered under the banner of "healthcare" are known to kill or impair life. The best reference is "auto-immune deficiency" so-called AIDS. Harmless retrovirus HIV was blamed for [known] effects caused by previously shelved (1950's) chemo drug AZT. Naturally symptoms have been by no means limited to HIV "sufferers". Timothy McVeigh's foolhardy quest to bring down a building in Oklahoma City in 1995 was masterminded by the same powers he was attacking in defence of the "program". They were behind the (at least) 50,000 AIDS related deaths of First Gulf "War" veterans. Ignorant conscripts were killed by their supposedly "protective" medications.
To be honest I believe the 1960's flower power movement was a corporate inspiration too. Either that or corporates rode the coattails of the general erosion of faith in traditionalism (also a reaction to the distrust that blew over into anti-war mass desertions from Vietnam?). When did "the people" ever make any sincere [group] initiatives for themselves? I believe the powers wanted to introduce contraception universally. By that token, temporarily encouraging promiscuity was the only rational lever against the [Catholic] Church. Even so, to this day Catholicism has not bowed to Zionism on that level. The sexual revolution was predictably short lived. Prominent film stars, HIV and AIDS put a huge damper on any free thinking after the 1980's.
It is interesting that Oklahoma and Waco (which set the precedent for legitimised "law enforcement" murder of any American citizen) saved [then President] Clinton's bacon. It shows me "the people" have no say or formal influence on what is "in the interest" of "wider society". That is the "programmers'" exclusive right. A good example of elite manipulation of public opinion can be seen in analysis of the (ridiculous) "gay plague" branding campaign. Whereas an overburden of industrial pollution and chemical pesticides "caused" HIV in Africa, there has been barely a mention of it anywhere, ever. I shall focus on "Big Oil" in a future article provisionally titled "Coming Clean on Cancer". To resoundingly dampen the free love heyday, throughout the early 1990's British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher ran regular government sponsored television adverts that symbolised promiscuous sex as guaranteeing participants' "horrible deaths". Presumably similar libellous techniques were used in other corners of the first world.
I haven't personally referenced Jon Rappoport's "AIDS Inc." (1988) but I feel sure he will have delivered correct conclusions after reviewing his various websites. Paedophilia is also nothing short of a stagnant political move as are all other trappings designed to bolster the Eugenic movement's determination to deny life. Forget the hotbed "abortion". From the lofty position of purity, is not contraception the undeniable attempted murder of an unborn child? Given their Zionist-Bolshevik tactics, I would be very surprised if the visceral anti-abortion lobby is not another face of the same arbitrary plutocracy. When "they" decide they need to repopulate, anti-abortion will become the new flavour of the month. Currently abortion is a decoy that removes the sting from contraception.
Those demonstrably anti-paedophilia have been set up, applied more or less zero attention to the real issues. The shambles that is "organised" (a splintered, refracted mess) society is our testament. Rationalist Eckhart Tolle makes a surprising amount of sense in his claim that classical crusaders crusade merely for empowerment of their egos. I extend that philosophy somewhat and emphasise the bigger and more divisive the "cause" (sic), the greater the "individual" empowerment. There is no bigger cause than paedophilia currently. It is the mother of all causes today. Protesters, critics and complainers keep well clear of truth in order to preserve their egos. Maintaining the fantastical narrative line in deference to truth is the objective goal. Besides, if their "big issue" was to evaporate indefinitely, aimless lives would have nothing to bolster egos. Political spin, intricate make-believe dressed as truth has avowed the horrible "standards" that have cultured public infatuation.
Because the cultivation of biological automatons is the brainchild of the "program's" covert marketing arm, Zionism (symbolising prison planet), there is almost absolute topical congruity between the mainstream and "alternative" press instruments. Alternatives also weave their own brands of make-believe and encourage that most foul of whimsical, plausible denials' – "who to believe?" Indeed, as most independent or third party writers and journalists are incapable of doing much more than parroting or reacting against information issued by mainstream/alternative "authorities", sanity has become wedged somewhere between a rock and a place beyond vital imagination. Even the great Jon Rappoport hasn't ever dared offer paedophilia a fair birth from what I have read. Only an extraordinary journalistic genius with a death wish could and would religiously tackle this subject with unbiased sincerity. Like homosexuality in its wake, paedophilia now humbles the zealous.
Arguably everything political began with the collapse of Atlantis. After the Pharisees (the theoretical Atlantis "derelicts" Nicolai Levashov mentions in his illuminating book "Russian History Viewed through Distorted Mirrors") conquered relative druidism 3,000 years ago, a globalist agenda has followed the uniform path towards the "program's" unilateral attempt aimed at shaping all other creeds and cultures in its image. Permitting only Puritan adjusted worship is one of the many small steps aimed to configure that grand design. Sharia Law (a cauldron of intolerance; banning all manners of sexual expressions), incidentally, few seem to real realise, is iconic Zionist Law.
Political charades "for order" are exploited by puppeteers that use militant groups (deliberately formed for such purposes) such as "ISIS" and "Al Qaeda" to instil fear. Labelling of designate "children" (with 21 desired as the ideal age barrier) and applied sexual prohibition has been a long standing goal that heralds back to the Victorian era (and presumably prior). In some ways it surprises me that Gladstone did not realise the utopian objective back in the nineteenth century. Although with infant mortality prevalent and the need for fodder for wars to once and for all break the opposition in his time, outcomes and their contingencies have been predictable to say the least.
Maybe it was last year or perhaps the year before when I noticed a mainstream headline that poked me in the eye. It was significant enough to spur me to remove MSM as my default webpage. The article in question presented one of America's provincial sheriffs' who was voicing implausible concerns over a child rape trial. The "child", at the time, had been seventeen years old. Two days before her eighteenth birthday, she had allegedly voluntarily engaged in penetrative sexual intercourse (statutory "rape") with her [then] boyfriend. Only in America could a "trial" like that be "taken seriously". But it does highlight the fact that the "program's" zeal is all about fanatically vigilant oppressive power of order, bereft of sane judgement. Australia (where I live currently) handles these matters differently.
Over a decade ago a mature looking twelve year old, blonde haired girl produced a bouncing heir with her [also] underage boyfriend (if memory serves me right, he was fifteen). The sensational TV show "Current Affair" was all over the news like a baby's rash. They "named and shamed" everyone they could collect until everyone associated turned bright purple and frothed at the mouth. Nothing was done about the couple because nothing could be done so, after the furore, everyone politely looked the way, except there was a sequel. The hapless girl dared produce a second sprog at age sixteen by the same father (this time presumably of father worthy age). Sacra-bleu!!!!! I hope the TV show paid her well. She deserved every cent. He was almost certainly jailed for twenty years or more.
There is actually quite a long history behind changing attitudes. Chronologies (were they to be read and digested) would go a long way to diffusing the sheer insanity that currently embroils the paedophilia "outrage". Attitudes have, in some ways, remained the same but it is reflective contingences employed that have radically altered. Perhaps making the adolescent discovery tour "theoretical" has helped induce mesmerised masses. People's inability to focus on anything in isolation (thus perpetually basing existence on generalities) appears to be the most devastating symptom of the "TV age".
One could look back at the collapse of craft industries in favour of industrial commercialism as the beginning of the withering of independent mind [that worked off trial and error and, ultimately, questioned everything]. In the eighteen and nineteenth centuries there were occasional challengers. Disparate groups, such as the Luddites, did attempt to block imperial progress. Interestingly, prior to "industrialisation", learning centres were almost exclusively used to prepare society's elite classes. In fact, going much further back, I would argue it was only after the abolition of the mystery schools (run by the druids) in the Dark Ages that saw the shift from education to processed dogma learnt by rote as the staple for mainstream education.
Even those that complete a Master's Degree today are given no marks for personal input beyond how it satisfies comprehension of "evidence") (i.e. synthesised "worthy" information that has been rubber stamped by "credentialed" proscribed agents of globalism under the thumb). To which end eventually none dare question established "rules" which are actually beyond question. It is also duly noted that the precise same strategy has been used by political proponents that word laws governing paedophilia in ways to ensure any possible "right minded" intellectual protagonist's challenge would be judged as spitefully ambiguous (at best). I find no evidence supporting rationale behind our current childhood threshold and can but assume the demonstrably baseless "18" figure was pulled out of thin air at the whim of some starched bureaucrat or other. Globalist hacks have been running "Holocaust style" attack campaigns against anyone that dare test viability ever since.
It was not that long ago when the age of [marital] consent was "12" (following ancient Roman tradition) in some US states and the European nation of Holland. America may be recognised as the modern day super power, but originally it was founded and developed as a formidable expansion of the Union of Jacob (or Great Britain), so the history of English law making plays extreme relevance to this debate. There was no legal age of consent until one of the British Middle Ages Kings decided to impose boundaries through fear that there would be no under limit to matrimonial alliances (or presumed sexual liaisons) with maidens. I am deliberately foggy on "which king" it was because I would like it to be Norman Jew William the Conqueror (who ushered in a "new age of [cloaked] Zionism") as it does fit well with my overall patter. So if he's the one, top marks for me.
Either way, for the best part of a millennium "the people" and their ruling powers had no objection to marital unions between de facto "adults" from age twelve. It was a king (the "contemporary" power) who had instigated radical new restrictions (be it conceived from ancient foundations) which also implies some marriages (prior to law) were made between parties (maidens specifically) aged less than twelve years. One would imagine that a small popular core would have always been against "young" marriages, whereas the majority must have been easy with whatever was the conventional norm. The perennial remainder (probably an equally distinct minority) are traditionally mostly shown as bloated cadaverous sorely vocal antagonists destined to bluster at first sight of illuminated "reasoning" by compilers of historic propagandas. Those that covet callous restrictions will do anything to preserve them.
In medieval times (as emphasised earlier) the age of consent strictly concerned marriage but did not place any focus on sexual activities outside matrimony. That was left to religion. Western religion is an adaptation of Roman paganism. Therefore when Christianity sprouted from the burning embers of Gnosticism, naturally austere (Pharisee promoted) rules were applied to marriages which ideally revered all lustful and licentious behaviours as "ungodly". A functional allowance was made for purposes of procreation. Per this fashion, an adaptation of orthodox Jewish attire, the Christian bridal gown, attempted to limit "lustful" sexual intercourse between marital partners. Even so, for a great period (can anyone say with "authority" how long?) the proverbial line was drawn at age "12".
So how has this ongoing "con operation" been run in a way to successfully beguile the madding masses? Today's mental health institutions and asylums for the insane provide glimmers of insight. I determine that the profession's handbook outlining three hundred or so "behavioural conditions" is simply an expansion of crass religious judgement as to what it is to be "good" or "evil". Jon Rappoport regularly advises all behaviours classed as varied evidence of insanity are equally symptoms of normal behaviour. Evil (as termed) actions therefore are now indefinitely branded as manifest insanity. Modern society runs on adapted rules that are designed to obfuscate the truth, so while one could argue we are either "more" or "less" free than before, in principal only "terminologies" have changed and not the convictions that delivered them.
When the world was conquered in the 1650's (capitalising on discoveries such as the United States of America), there was an uncomfortable transition from royal to civilian government power. The full changeover took about 300 years and today no royal wields any visible power. It was only after civilian government was firmly rooted that perceived social issues were targeted by the pariahs of control to facilitate their utopian dream agenda. Of course, the ideal policy (as far as they are concerned) is always eradication, but when (as is so often true) extreme measures fail, soft humanitarian ploys are stealthily drafted. Similar to current workings of political/legal administration, reasons behind tortured virtue offered as "grounds" rarely (if ever) matched true objectives behind schemes unveiled as "value solutions".
High Victorian British politics eventually found a Prime Minister with the right measure of zealous hatred to tackle youth sex head on with a proverbial sledge hammer. Himself a reputed brothel crawler (and paedophile), William Gladstone first increased the age of consent to "15" in 1875. So foul was his hatred it inspired infection and; consequentially, he succeeded in raising "the bar" again to "16" by 1878. This did nothing to inhibit intimate relations with children, as evidenced in outpourings of diatribe over the plight of a pregnant provincial London prostitute aged ten in the early 1900's. Whether the girl was anything more than a figment of the imagination remains to be proven. There are numerous other period artistic writings that might be sourced to highlight identical topical content.
Logic underpinning Gladstone's reasoning behind the marital age of consent increases was null and void, more or less precisely equating to William the Conqueror's war spoil "logic". Age fifteen, and then sixteen, was simply deemed "young enough". No science or consideration to individuals' right to choose was applied or contemplated. Each was a corporate edict for the nonsense that is proscribed as the "greater good". The same lack of basis was approximated in 2001 when Great Britain almost paved the way to the "program's" supreme goal "21". If legislation for the age of consent (now beyond marriage, of course) set at twenty one had passed, the rest of the world (an extension of Great Britain) would have been doomed to follow, eventually. In other words, legislations are arbitrary measures. Construction of a "group identity" model permitting only standardised values and behaviours for standardisation's sake is the selfish result. Given the raft of evidence, even a slothful fool should determine this always has been (albeit in varied forms) the plan; though few "in power" would dare agree or admit to their repugnant deceitfulness.
The reason the powers have dimly promoted their numerous nurturing society "concepts" (even though society does anything but nurture) is messages are designed to make the opposite of truth "appear" truthful. In fact categorisation/classification of [designate] children supports a global social enslavement program (one of numbers of cultural adjustment frameworks that are currently processed simultaneously and connected via the World Wide Web and other international exchanges). In effect, each synthesised cycle is designed to break children into new gormless adult slaves as asset-worthy ("useful") fodder to man the system. Per this design, children are instructed fantasy is more plausible than truth, though (thankfully) not every teacher plays dumb.
Nevertheless, those that deceive and act spitefully are rewarded for personal dishonour. That's the "program" for all society; all societies. Scripted reality versions profit from denying conscience, of course, so true spirituality must be forbidden at all cost regardless of cultural persuasion. Frankly, this in consideration, it is impossible to function in society today without being unfaithful. Ancient, traditional rites of passage have gradually been replaced with risk/reward (I'll call them) "holographs" supplied by the "goggle box" and other mechanisms of influence. Sexuality is now almost universally framed as something "obviously" (sic) illicit. Thus, most things sexual might arguably judgmentally parry with actions like smoking and the consumption of drugs/alcohol. For the young, relationships have been reduced to "intrigue" which opens the door to cruel, vindictive power plays. Consideration of blackmail as the first option in negotiation persists into adulthood.
Individuals (making up the majority) that are determined to be law abiding (patriotic) become effective prisoners in their own open society. Sexual repression invariably leads to differing communication problems between sexes and, to a certain degree, estranges relations. The miraculous presupposed instant transition from impertinent scripted childhood to "proficient" adulthood does not prepare the way for pretty society. Each new insolent, spoilt, self-centred, experience lacking generation of "adults" attempts to crudely push its way up the queue. Many have predictably abused their supposed "right" to say no and have been conditioned into thinking any (and all) natural sexual acts are "theoretical" forms of rape. Few adults will contend there are only determinations to be and no "rights" at all (a fact the "program" callously capitalises on).
Culturally male/female roles/mindsets have not kept pace with everything else that has been going on in the background (i.e. systemic shredding of individualistic natural sexual dignity). One consequence is men and women are still destined for classical marital unions (even if not in name). Men, per this profile, must seek sexual gratification and women should provide the opportunity (i.e. male hunters, female prey). However, because women now collaterally (i.e. "the great group") envisage all sex acts as "potential" forms of rape, they have been given an enormous degrading power.
In their administrative capacity, they can permit undignified sexual acts with whomever they choose, when legitimate and "legal". Downgraded social ethics have had the effect of dragging all women down to the realms of whoredom (or celibacy for dissenters). Any whore's power is her "right" to administer sex "favours". "Program" masters know this full well. Their "combobulation" child exploitation takes whoredom away from the spotlight. Thus, the modern day whore cannot traffic (an exploit variant) him or herself. He or she must traffic another or others. Prostitution, from the time it was labelled "the oldest profession", has been effervescently legitimised. "Populist" anger has specifically shifted from attacking prostitution in general to the [predominantly phantom] child sex industry. This is not to say "decent society" is comfortable with prostitution, but affairs of the flesh do not antagonise in the way they used to.
Physiologically, the only morally valid justifications behind any prohibitions of sexual acts might be on grounds of "lack of fertility" or body "immaturity" (which would provide basis for the mother of debates if tackled sincerely). Those proven unfertile could be justifiably deemed sexually unaccountable and, providing "procreation" was seen as the only functional benchmark for that type of communication, it could be outlawed to satisfy the requirements range outlined. There is actually quite a big degree of variance in apt statistical data on this arena. The youngest "woman" (on record) ever to birth a child was aged six. Women, in general, may begin their menstrual cycles from about age nine. Men are late risers with the ability to ejaculate prevalent usually from about age thirteen. The youngest father (for my research) is listed as aged eleven.
According to "nature" (reflective of God), a sexual metamorphosis demonstrably takes place in women at age nine and men of age thirteen. Thus, an uncomfortable surplus of wilderness years in respect of current legal accountability should be duly noted. Wilderness years, in the case of women, number nine. For men there are five years. How is this legal accountability in any way, shape or form naturally legitimate? By the time an average woman turns eighteen half her life has been sexual. God's blessing has been terrorised and abused by society's ignorance and abject subservience to the "program". Terrorist peers foist the consequences of their foul laws on the trembling masses producing barely a shudder of dissent. Yet all should be acutely aware that these measures are designed purely to degrade the majesty of sexual intercourse to further scope for the production of "efficient" human "automatons". Killing off stagnant populations is a fringe benefit.
When a woman turns eighteen, psychologically, nothing changes. Her mindset is still the same as it was before. She had been sexual but to be sexual was to "sin" (a pharisaic Judaic preconception) and this was "forbidden" (fruit). She was sexual but, as nothing has actually changed, to be sexual now IS to "sin". There is one difference and it's a big one. It is the power of control. Before she could illegitimately offer sexual consent or forbidden fruit (opening the door to all sorts of nasty blackmail scenarios) and now she can legitimately grant sexual consent as the fruit is ripe (opening the door to all sorts of nasty "double standards"). This is how sexual women have been reduced to whoredom.
Men have paid the price too. The perverse game we call politics impinges on all male values. Those that are not avowed celibates are rapists-in-waiting. Under foul terms as these, any man that dares to succumb to sexual urges can and will be accused of theoretical rape. This is all courtesy of modern social-conditioning mechanisms geared to elevating fantasy. The average woman now believes she always has the "right" to determine which "rapes" are permissible. She can also change her mind. That is the modern woman's "privilege". Women that kowtow with the "program", in deference to God, lampoon our most uncharitable, sacrilegious, sanctimonious system of order. It is a system that relies on the deceit, dishonesty and partisan biased judgement of its user base. Never forget, all laws polarise judgement.
The crux of the arguments (ever so rarely in plain sight) supporting age legislation tend to rely on [corrupt] academic standards as "justification" for categorisations in place. Never mentioned are the numerous early teens "prodigies" put through the university system early. These are the anomalies that frustrate the "program". The maturity gap, when inspected in detail, is far larger than most would imagine. For example, in relatively recent times a six year old British boy was heralded as the new oils (painting) master. Back in the 1980's a petulant pup became a self-made millionaire (when being a millionaire meant something) in computers before he had reached his tenth year.
Martha Argerich's (a celebrated Argentine virtuoso) notorious 1949 first public performance of the piano solo of Beethoven's first concerto when she was seven years old presents an interpretation that would put most adults to shame. There is an account of a nine year old girl who successful singlehandedly reared the surviving family for several weeks after her mother died. Only lack of money ultimately frustrated her course. Given these facts, age legislation is indisputably unfair. Why is it supported so widely and so staunchly by our trembling masses?
There is a simple answer sadly seemed beyond the lateral comprehension of ordinary folk. In fact the answer has already been substantively outlined. People are generally pathetically weak and lazy. The largest, most incessantly in focus voices always seem to grab the limelight, founding "opinions" as they go. Mass Medias, therefore, control the way people generally think. Yes there are occasional dissenters, but, generally speaking, mass Medias tend to push (control) the populist view. That is because supporting broadcasters employed by mass Medias are people too. Broadcasters are not significantly different to any average man on the street. They too are mostly weak and lazy and don't like to think too deeply about "obvious" issues. Of course, on the other hand, if the majority mysteriously morphed into dissenters, mass Medias would disappear as fast as they appeared and the "program" would perhaps have to engage dogmatic religion to shore up cultural adjustments once more.
Weakness and laziness by themselves do not cement opinions that are used to back legislation, such as edicts supporting age restrictions. People act because they feel empowered by acting. There is a fundamental perceived payoff for parents that support the synthetic dividers separating proscribed "children" from "adults". The payoff is controlling power. Being the boss or "king" must be regarded as the pinnacle of empowerment and, consequentially, families have been moulded into control hierarchies. Perhaps this has always been the case. For as long as historic memory records, periodic shifts to varied standards used to justify different age categorisations have been relatively seamless. That, by no stretch of the imagination, makes wrong "right".
We must never underestimate conditioning mechanisms in the background geared to advancing false status-quo. Currently, each new crop of sexual children is deliberately immersed in cultures of facile restriction. Years long torment offers the vague promise of "freedom" (age eighteen "adulthood"). Developmental pressure builds from "terrible teens" to graduation. Many have willingly tried to believe in law and order to be patriotic (one of the group). They never rebelled. They never came to terms with what they had been denied. They never attempted to discover. Therefore, the majority of emerging and new adults bitterly support a terrorising system because they were "forced" into making sacrifice themselves.
In other words, pathetically weak adults will go to any lengths to wreak revenge on their kith and kin simply to appease their own failed ethical development. If you cannot honour yourself, how is it possible to behave responsibly to others? The great tragedy is [it seems] that people are incapable of recognising their sexuality or, to a greater degree, understanding how corporate interests stole their natural development. If age standards defining adulthood were radically shifted upwards to say forty years as the new age of consent, I do not believe there would be any major rebellion (after the first generation targeted was out of mind's way). Old habits die hard, so I will concede the "powers" would have a hell of a marketing task ahead of them. How to convince all those marginalised people that merely want to behave naturally they are "wrong" to do so?
I have already outlined that British legislation tabled an increase to age twenty one in 2001, so why stop there? If the predominant cause behind age laws is nothing short of a population control/reduction measures, then (given the ever rising masses) logic suggests further increases are going to be ushered in. (Subtly ignoring the ethics nightmare exposing the true face of industrialism) China's austere corporate experiment permitting only one child per family unit predictably failed dismally. Then again, if you can forbid sovereign adults "sexual license" by labelling them as "children" in legislation, the outlaw of procreation satisfies an expansion of the eugenics mantra. Ages twenty five and thirty marked traditional ancient Roman and Jewish commencement of maturity. Age fifty is of religious significance in Tibetan culture (and generally classed as the start of "middle age" in the west). Seventy five is another modern western classification milestone representing maturity or "old age".
There potentially is no upper limit. Perhaps in the future sexual permits will be kept to octogenarians, the well-to-do that satisfy legal "exemptions" (loopholes) and "approved" (sanctioned) whores (to "service" the well-to-do)? Slavish automatons would do well to understand that each (fiendish) plan can only be stymied by the lack of faith of its designers. Confidence in communication is everything, but that is ultimately largely backed by compliance test initiatives. A sound pitch bolsters faith and the rest can be left to chance. What better target to exploit than "the family"? By turning corporate-political objectives into "family planning" advice, devious powers have cast a brilliant initiative. Families can now blame themselves for government issues and most will be oblivious to the fact. Admittedly a few have been waking up to the truth that "schooling" is actually social indoctrination in drag. But is this enough to spur momentum towards worldwide clear vision and outright revolution?
Times have changed greatly. In England years ago when attitudes were different, the age of consent was still sixteen. People could and did enter into marital unions at that age. These were normally sexual unions too. But that was trivial because teenagers (prevalently over twelve years old) also commonly interacted sexually. Legally underage pregnancies were unsurprisingly not particularly scarce. Ironically and sadly, the great "outrage" was against additional "family burden" as the young were obliged to be indoctrinated at school and few would have had the influence to earn "breadwinning money". To me it shows just how pitifully inherently selfish people are. If only the vigour applied to blame and transference was directed at taking ownership of problems and compassionate dedication to delivery of lasting real solutions, then societies might be something to be proud of.
A long time ago, when I was fifteen, my mother asked my father to give me some sex advice. I vividly remember how he approached the cause. "You know all about it [sex], don't you son?" He stammered, confidently. I nodded back wisely, as I had been the proud owner of a well-thumbed "hard core" adult magazine from age fourteen. Indeed, the pages were so well loved; they had come away from the staples in places. The point being is my father was too embarrassed to broach the subject of sex with me. It remained the unspoken understanding for as long as he lived. He used to use euphemisms like "it's as easy as riding a bike" when he knew I kept damned well falling off. This is the norm, I'm told. Occasional controlling parents spew their ill-founded opinions. The rest offer silence when the silly puns run out.
Controlling parents aim to censor inappropriate behaviours. These might include masturbation in public. A Talmudic branch of Christianity called the Baptist Church (traditionally) labels masturbation a "sin". Offspring of Baptist families are surely dealt all sorts of psychological blows unless they adjust to being exceptionally deceitful. When I was very young I remember all the local kids in my playgroup used to occasionally interact with [vaguely sexual] truth or dare games. My own junior sister was particularly prolific in her formative years. We lived in a rural Jacobean period farmhouse which had a winding spiral staircase to the upper floors. Between beams my father had lodged makeshift cream chipboard panels to form walls and these made as excellent "scribbling" white boards.
One day, after a rather heated discussion with my mother, my sister (then age six) drew a biro cartoon of a "matchstick" couple copulating to prove she knew about sex. I am not sure it was a masterpiece but it was technically sufficient for the purposes under scrutiny, earning an immediate deletion under a double layer of white paint. Interestingly my mother never punished my sister for that and said nothing more on the subject. What could she be "punished" for? Knowing the truth? It seems fitting to roll out Krishna's immoral quote (a regular visitor to this website) once more, "Spirituality brings to freedom whereas forces of evil paralyse". What would Krishna have said about modern day paedophilia hysterics?
Perhaps it is no accident that the powers behind their mischief "program" sometimes refer to themselves as the Annunaki Brotherhood. The Order's iconography depicts a thick braided cross trapped by an unbroken wicker circle. Cosmically, a cross represents path choices but the circle closes off any avenue of inquisitive exploration. The icon, therefore, is the "prison planet" or Zionism symbol. It sets paralysis standards (put into motion by pharisaic usurpers); the ones Krishna described as "evil". Social paralysis begins with restriction of will [of the child] to confuse the mind (spiritual centre) in order to produce broken, de-spiritualised adults (slaves by any other name). To socially outlaw sexuality is to remove the most fundamental of all birth rights. Bodies without minds are only capable of following orders.
But there is more. Few are aware of the true potence of sexual self-esteem. Potent life is contained in the chakra governing the erogenous zones from conception. Those that deliberately superficially attack sexual developmental behaviour aim to create literal zombies – walking dead!
Posted on November 12, 2017 by ozziethinker	in Rage against the machine	• Tagged abortion, adolescent, agape, age restriction, aids, AIDS Inc., Al Qaeda, Algeria, American health system, Annunaki Brotherhood, anti-abortion lobby, anti-war, arbitrary measures, arbitrary plutocracy, asexual, asset-worthy, Atlantis, austere, authorities, auto-immune deficiency, AZT, Baptist Church, Beethoven, behind closed doors, beyond question, biological automatons, brand, breadwinning, bridal gown, British politics, brothel crawler, callous restrictions, Camille Saint-Saens, Catholic Church, celibacy, chastised, chemical pesticides, child, child exploitation, child love, child rape trial, child sex industry, clinton, combobulation, Coming Clean on Cancer, commercial bureaucracy, composer, con operation, contraception, contradictory, control hierarchies, controlling power, cosmopolitan society, critics, cultural view, current affair, David Rockefeller, de-spiritualised adults, deciphered, deep soul connections, deeply hated, derelicts, discovery tour, dissenters, dogma, drugs, druidism, Eckhart Tolle, elite manipulation, emotional, eradication, eros, erotic, ethical development, etymology of terms, eugenics movement, exemptions, exuberance, facts, false status-quo, family burden, fantasy, federal control program, fertile, flower power, fodder, forbidden fruit, forces of evil, Gary Allen, gay, gay plague, global control networks, Gnosticism, goggle box, graduation, great acolade, greater good, Harmless, hiv, holographs, homosexuality, human mind, human slaves, humanitarian ploys, hysterias, illegal, illegitimately, immaturity, impairing, implausible concerns, independent mind, Indoctrination, industrial pollution, infertile, infringements, innocent, insane, institutionalised, intellectual love, ISIS, Jon Rappoport, journalistic genius, justifiable, Krishna, lack of money, lampoon, law and order, London prostitute, loopholes, lover of boys, Luddites, lust, mainstreamers, Margaret Thatcher, Martha Argerich, mass desertions, masturbation, medical intervention, mental health, mesmerised masses, militant groups, molester of children, mystery schools, Nicolai Levashov, None Dare Call It Conspiracy, nonsensical, normal folks, Norman Jew, obtuse, octogenarians, Oklahoma City, opiates, outlaw, outright revolution, paederastia, paedophilia, paiderastia, paidos, paralyse, parroting, patriotic, pederastie, pederasty, pedo, pervert, Pharisees, philos, piano prodigy, pity, platonic, plausible denials, political move, political shit-stirrers, populism, power over will, prison planet, prisoners, privilege, prized stock, procreation, Promiscuit, promoting, propaganda, public infatuation, Puritan, purity, radicalised, Rationalist, rebellion, recreational, reduction agenda, religious authorities, repopulate, respect, retribution, retrovirus, rites of passage, Roman paganism, rules, Russian History Viewed through Distorted Mirrors, sacrilegious, same wavelength, sanctimonious, sanity, selfish, sex favours, sexual children, sexual consent, sexual dignity, sexual passion, sexual prohibition, sexual relationships, sexual revolution, sexuality, Sharia Law, silly puns, sin, slave classes, slave masters, social issues, social tolerance, social-conditioning mechanisms, sound basis, sovereign liberties, spiritual logic, spitefully ambiguous, standardisation, statutory rape, synthetic, terrible teens, Terrorist, the oldest profession, the powers, theoretical rape, Tibetan culture, Timothy McVeigh, togetherness, transcends, Trilateral Commission, truth, uncharitable, unconscionable, unthinkable, vietnam, virtuoso, voluntarily, Waco, well-to-do, Western concept, who to believe?, whoredom, wider society, William Gladstone, William the Conqueror, youthful, Zionism, Zionist-Bolshevik, zombies • 31 Comments