Those From Very Far Away

It is extraordinarily hard for me to convey everything I might want to 'put out there' partly because there is too much 'cross-talk' in the way people are informed now - they accept the media as fundamentally the only source of facts. You could think well maybe not, maybe the internet has overcome this blanketing of social information by only one version of interpreted truth, but I don't think so...

It's got to the point where a childish two-dimensional definition of what used to be a sophisticated turn of phrase in the English language, for example, is 'truth' and the actual authentic meaning is only used by an ever-narrowing group of people who if they are lucky, get merely cast as 'conspiracy promoters.' If they are lucky. 

This is the Dior Floral Cocktail - yes, Dior has it's
very own cocktail! 

...Allow me to explain something to you: if your eyes are not accustomed to the dark, no matter how much you believe or think you have good eyesight, and you are used to high light levels, but then suddenly the world is plunged into darkness around you - you won't be able to see. And that is in spite of any arrogance that you have 'good vision.'

Scientists do this type of thing all the time. They capture data present to their sensibilities - but not all the data that is actually there and available. And then they make pronouncements on what is 'there' and what 'not there.' And of course people get terribly jealous if you suggest you have some faculty they do not have. In an upcoming article I will post a very short clip from a famous movie, whose essential point is that older, wiser, people, have ways of seeing, and of thinking, that are not part of the mind-set of younger people. Musicians and artists often do understand this, scientists do not. 

Science is possibly one of the most over-rated things around, because it provides many useful functions, but cannot provide any insight into the superficially non-repeating dynamical, alive aspects of universal reality. What does that mean? It means if aliens landed in Roswell on a Monday, but never again turned up there for another hundred years, and even then on a Tuesday not a Monday, all the scientists would be dead by the time a pattern had formed for them to 'see.' And those who were alive at that time would look back and say, 'ah well, but there was something wrong with the historical record.' You see, this is potentially just arrogance rather than the application of any kind of real science. It's what has happened with the narrative about industrial environmental pollution - which is absolutely a real thing, but which has morphed into 'global climate change.' 'Change...' ...not 'pollution.' 

One fellow told me recently, that in the time of Homer (or at least the books attributed to that name), 'people believed the sun was a fiery chariot,' and therefore whatever Homer had recorded about an event could not be viewed as having been made by humans 'with brains' (I presume that's what he meant) like modern people have today! And when I asked him had he heard of someone called Eratosthenes and what he had discovered he said 'no, not really.'

You see, it's a waste of time. And moreover I don't have any incentive to go further than do things like this fun (for me) blog.

Recently I have been spending some time pulling the legs of some LA girls who have these 'manifesting' channels on YouTube, and I told them they were in lots of trouble because none of what they were suggesting was working among their millions (literally, it is millions) of followers, and that was because they had committed the cardinal sin of breaking their own gender-political rules - they were promoting 'manifesting,' when they should have been promoting womanifesting! 

I got a few giggles and chuckles.

And then some of them actually asked me did I have a specific meaning for what 'womanifesting' was..

Pretty lights...

So I told them that Jesus Christ was only the second child of God the Father, and that Solomon had the jump on him as far as 'manifesting' went, because he kept appealing to the first-born identity, who is called in the Old Testament text in the original language texts 'the Princess of the Heavenly City of Peace' (commonly misrepresented in the modern English versions simply as 'the Shulemite woman'). And what I got were a bunch of more-or-less modern 'fundamentalists' leaping up and who actually thought I was on their side by suggesting that 'manifesting' was witchcraft and against the Will of God, and that although they loved watching the channels in question, held some inner disquiet about it all.

And I had to say, 'but no, no' - I did not at all think 'manifesting' was against the Will of God; far from it if you look at those source texts themselves. And then of course I simply had to heap burning coals upon heads by posing the following question - 'if all Christians understand the Prince of the Heavenly City of Peace (same identity who met with Abraham and gave him this famous/infamous Eternal Blessing) to be Jesus, then who is this Princess of the Heavenly City of Peace that Solomon keeps writing encomiums to?' Or do you want it that when it suits you you say the phrase means 'Jesus Christ the actual person,' but when it doesn't suit you you want it merely to be some metaphor, a turn of phrase meaning something vague...?

Right now I could make some bald assertion about something and offer no proof about it. ...But I'm not going to do that. Just keep your eyes on the skies, as I have been saying for a few weeks now.