Yesterday, '60 Minutes' - a major television current affairs program in Australia - ran the story about one 'Wang Liqiang,' a Chinese spy who has told the Australian secret intelligence agency ASIO, that the Beijing government has hit squads out around the world, has ordered assassinations in the past, even here in Australia. Now that was interesting timing, because my sources for this story have no connection whatsoever either to any media organisation, and especially not to a government propaganda arm like '60 Minutes.'
Wang Liqiang
So what was this? An attempt to 'get the story out officially' in order to 'control the narrative,' as they say - since it must have been clear that there were numerous intelligence agencies around the world who knew about it and were drifting the story out themselves already. Ah well. Who cares? Not me. It's up to them to see if they can control either the narrative, or the actuality of hit squads out there!! ...Which they won't be able to and I've already said Xi is a nutcase. So... What a * mess, is what 'so.' Serves them all bloody right. Xi is a nutcase... ...but some of these clowns in governments and intelligence agencies around the world are sheerly stupid. And stupid is worse. By far.
There's stuff going on behind the scenes that would make your hair truly curl, if you knew.
Everyone's looking at the location of where the ball should be that their attention has been directed at.
You know you'd do a lot better to just switch it all off and look somewhere else where no one is expecting there to be any 'action.'
Lovely scene, stupid movie. '6 Underground.'
Ostensibly, it would appear that Washington leaks and that even the CIA leaks at certain levels and over certain political matters. But that would presume to say that both the CIA and 'Washington' actually 'know' anything in the first place. You know, anything truly significant.
I have never made any secret that I look askance at today's UK intelligence services and the academic thinking that is behind all of it there these days. So they're not paying me any money now are they. So I won't be volunteering anything to that crowd.
The Australians are too small fry in the whole scheme of things so I won't be volunteering anything to them either and they're not asking and not likely to be asking; certainly not me, anyway.
Bluntly I will tell you that Moscow is very Moscow-interest-centric and they don't have any fixed agenda as far as I know in the area I am talking about.
...But I think the Chinese government has hit squads out in the world somewhere right now. And I don't mean in Hong Kong.
$150 million California mansion - safe from China money hit-squads
God only knows - seriously, god only knows - what the governments in the West are going to do when this all hits the public square. Because it will. We are all in for a big helluva showground ride now. Xi is a fucking lunatic and he is already out of control. And who's going to stop him? The New York Times? Are they going to be able to?
Oh believe you me, he has the plan all right. Whether he pulls the trigger on it a touch 'too soon' and therefore gets called for starting the trouble himself is moot but only just for these next few seconds, days, or weeks. I don't think he can resist. And you're going to see a lot of slack jaws afterwards. All the big-heads with the big talk are going to be put to the test of their own intestinal fortitude. Will we go to war with China? Let's see it. Big trouble in Chinatown. Coming soon.
So this very close associate, family member (what of it still exists! LOL) says to me the day before yesterday: 'Calvin, at our age, we have just one run at it left." W-a-a-a?! I said - Whaaaaaaat?! So I quickly resorted to some old cricketing parlance - 'Nah, we are the nightwatchmen here. We are batting till morning and after as well. We're winning this game, dude!'
One of the greatest 'thought experiments' ever made was by a gentleman of the 10th Century, Abu Ali Sina, widely regarded as one of the most significant physicians, philosophers, astronomers, and writers of all time. He devised the 'floating man' thought experiment through which he deduced the nature of the human soul - and I must add, the actual texts that he wrote about this are all largely obscured from examination these days and all we are left with is a summary and a distillation of what he wrote. Most Muslims - even the most highly trained modern Islamic literature and religious belief scholars are ignorant of the real understanding behind what is presently repeated as 'Qul huwallahu ahad' which is supposedly directly from the Quran. Well look, nobody knows exactly WHAT the rendering of the symbols in there really ought to be in the modern world because there are no grammar points available in the original source texts from the ancient world - which were made from a sound, IE aural/oral recitation from someone's memory only. ...Other than the explanations from great scholars like Abu Ali Sina. Abu Ali Sina, however, explains it thus... 'mahiyya, wujud, WAHID AHAD.' No essence other than its own existence, and unique. UNIQUE - 'wahid' + 'ahad;' it is 'One of' 'One.' The present-day rendering of the Quran that most people say, makes it appear that 'God' is 'one of...' But nothing else. One of what then, exactly? They don't understand that the verse really says and intends to convey uniqueness - exactly as Abu Ali Sina outlines.
Abu Ali Sina
Abu Ali Sina was moreover, not exactly a Muslim in the present-day sense of the word, and the Emir at the time where he lived tried variously to dispose of him, although he had to keep relenting when he himself - the Emir - fell ill and required the services of this great doctor. At the same time it is clear from historical accounts, that Abu Ali Sina practiced Islamic religious rituals and praying and he was an expert in Islamic textual recitation and jurisprudence. Abu Ali Sina is an occult figure, by which I mean to tell you that there is considerable mystery in open records about him and his life - he was trained by some 'roaming healer' whose name is never given, and apparently, his mind was next opened to the mysteries of metaphysics from reading a book by al-Farabi that he purchased for the tiny sum at the time (for these sorts of books) of three dirhams. Abu Ali Sina was regarded by Bacon and Newton and the Earl of Oxford as having scientifically demonstrated both the existence of God, and of the human soul... These 'proofs' exist today but are never talked about at Universities. Abu Ali Sina's works on this matter are written as mathematical 'proofs' and not simply 'arguments' but they are referred to in common sources - by those who have never actually read them - as 'arguments.' And this is a quite deliberate and malicious deceit. Even during the lifetime of Abu Ali Sina, major library sources for his studies were burned by those who opposed his ideas - because a wider exposure of them would have undermined their political standing and power.
And so, we have an example of the narrow gate. What did Abu Ali Sina know, that most of the rest of the whole world did not... As we all get older, we assume that we have a lesser chance to 'make it' materially speaking. Whereas in fact - and since no one really knows that we are the Abu Ali Sina's of our day - we have the knowledge, the power, the capacities and real status of esteemed physicians (by any who really wish to be cured), the mathematics, the dynamic mind, to procure material wealth; but we also can make the necessary transition from the banal and simplistic, to the sophisticated and 'un-Earthly' at which point we also have to place a 'cover' or cloak across our activities and knowledge, for fear of being presumed witches and sorcerers!
This is part of a verse in Isaiah, Old Testament. Fools... will not stray... onto it. Why will fools not stray onto it? Because fools are the ones least interested in whatever this 'way' amounts to. Fools already know everything. And they are absolutely certain of the things they know. 'But what if...?' Is just not a question fools entertain; at all. You go to the New Testament and you see the same thing: 'enter by the narrow gate.' In fact the word used for 'gate' here actually means the main gate, the main entrance, maybe even the only entrance! And the opposite 'entrance-way' is spacious and everyone actually wants to go through there - and it leads to 'destruction.'
'Enter' - the word 'enter' is in the present tense. And if someone 'strays' onto something or can stray onto it, it automatically implies it is there in the first place to stray onto! You don't need to 'adjure' or warn someone about something that doesn't actually exist. For the seekers of true knowledge, the 'warning' is that it is 'complicated,' unloved, perhaps unexpected, not treated seriously, dismissed. For the 'unwise,' the warning is that their arrogance leads to destruction.
Now we don't intend to 'stray' onto it - if we were 'straying' and the thing or the place was therefore unsuited to us, to our outlook, to our internal guidance mechanisms, we would feel uncomfortable and desire to leave; but then of course it might trap us in its complications if we were 'straying' there. So the idea is, it seems to me, that one requires to have the tools, the 'footwear,' the eyesight, the vision, the brainpower - to accommodate whatever demands this 'narrow gate' is imposing.. So do you have enough tools yet? Are you ready? Are you going to be comfortable with what you will confront, what you will see?
Appreciation goes out to one of our friends here - TaoOfJonze - who reminded me just the other day, of that scene in that milestone movie Apocalypse Now, in which Martin Sheen's character, Captain Willard, is in a trench with some other soldiers, and he asks them all 'who is in command here?' One guy goes: 'Ain't you?' And then of course you get the dramatic depiction of another soldier, roused from sleep while the fighting is actually going on, who lets off a High Explosive M79 grenade launcher round, killing the enemy out in the darkness -, who is then directly asked by Captain Willard: 'Hey soldier, do you know who's in command here?' To which that soldier sardonically responds 'Yeah!'
This is from the Burning Man festival - pure Satanic
ritual...
And to a very large extent that is really the modern world context put into a nutshell right there. Apocalypse Now is a very great movie in so many ways but it has no capacity whatsoever to provide answers. In the end, Coppola gives us the standard 'there is sufficient nobility within man' (in this case within the character of Captain Willard, who does not stay on to take over from Kurtz after he assassinates him per the command of his generals). So the reality is we're left with having to acknowledge that Mankind can get itself into a complete mess in which there is no clear-cut understanding of who, or even what is the governing principal which is in command - but also having to live on, hopeful that some inner light will struggle to cast a small light out at some point. 'Apocalypse' means to unveil, and to reveal. The movie revealed a darkness inside the heart of some men...
Changing the energy - going into the deep freeze...
...Unable to be resolved apart from terminal violence, in other words, murder and an abjectness of suffering which is complete madness. I have been somewhat struggling right here on these pages to explain to all readers, that there are some amazing positive things going on behind the scenes - to do with the Middle East Silver Fund that we have started. And these advances will financially benefit everyone here, necessarily it may be in modest ways first as we start and expand the scope of the digital token step by laborious step. And what I mean by 'struggling to explain' is not about the money side, the capital side, the performance side - that is just numbers over time. It is about what it even means to attain a wealth benefit today. Apocalypse Now gives you the sound and true knowledge that inside the heart of man is where the battle is also fought. You can make any amount of money you care to name, but without the inner game, where do you get your fulfillment from, your sense of achievement, attainment?
What is the goal that any of us is seeking to attain? For those of us who have had big money in the past, the last thing the answer can be, is the same mansion, or car that everyone else who is 'wealthy' has. And there's your problem if you are someone who is into these 'motivation'/'law of attraction' ideas... Well, at least I'm saying it is a problem. Because everyone else's mansion is what got us into this mess in the first place. If you 'envision' what is driving everyone else's idea of wealth, you will eventually attain to their lifestyles, to their function in the world. In other words, you will have become Kurtz (Marlon Brando's character). And so, this is my absolute outright explanation of what you will likely see and read over coming articles here: I am going to swing it away from what is your typical 'vision' of material wealth (and I will mainly stick to the material side of things; I don't think that's a conflicted position - the material is a reflection of the conceptual), and introduce counterpoint arguments, as it were, to what is commonly regarded as a lifestyle of material wealth. And I will guarantee you this - you follow what I'm saying and you will attain real material wealth. But it will be on the new horizon, not on the horizon that is already starting to drift into the past, into history.
