To those very young people who might have lost their way on the internet, and suddenly, as if by accident, ended up here briefly, let me say that I am so sorry that you are living now in the world as it is.
Because you have never had the experience of knowing another human being on a genuine and legitimately warm human basis. Not, not your mother, not your father, not your boyfriend/girlfriend - not anyone.
The heart of the city is dead. All of the cities.
They used to be living things.
You have been told by your school teachers, and others, that there are 'so many cultural programs' but these are all supplied to you by governments and corporate capital.
You have been told extensively about 'urban planning and design.'
There's no such thing.
All the professors who proclaim about it all don't know what they're talking about, and are making noises simply from vanity.
And you have never been given the tools to understand the meanings behind the songs that your parents listened to.
The common people imagine these songs, these tunes, were anthems.
Your parents died a long time ago.
Their souls died.
Not always just coffee...
They are dead.
This is now not just a cultural desert here, but it is a desert where no life exists.
Systems exist. Bacteria exists.
Viruses exist here.
And now you know the real reason why they exist here.
These poets were all prophets of the coming darkness.
And now the darkness has come.
And now, there are only glowies...
Maybe, if you are lucky enough to find another glowie, maybe you will survive.
The cities though, will not. And neither will their denizens.
Kate Bush may have read Hermann Hess. Probably did do.
But then of the other, and much more quietly spoken-about writers that she did read, she actually comprehended what they were writing about; what they were saying.
And you, today, might not have the necessary mind tools to comprehend.
You are illiterate. Your governments and the 'society' that raised you made you that way.
'Illiterate' doesn't mean you cannot read or write, it means you do not read or write and especially, that you cannot understand what there is which is written.
And there are many people - and there will likely be one such here - who will tell you assertively and argumentatively, what to think and how to think it.
I need but have said one name in this article, and he would rush straight in and 'argue.'
LOL
And why, is that...
Come to my coffee house, children. I am not a German forest witch and you are not Hansel and Gretel - but you are lost.
If you cannot make connections to real living other human beings, then you are lost. Are you lost?
Now I'm going to tell you something, and I am going to get into a lot of trouble for it. Maybe not immediately right now, because no one important is looking here - they have their hands full elsewhere.
The Pentagon, up in the higher reaches of it, they know that the VALIS probe (or probes, because there are several) that writer Philip K. Dick wrote about, really does exist.
'VALIS' stands for Vast Active Living Intelligence System.
There is a major one - the main one around here - somewhere in our Solar System.
NASA and the Pentagon are not exactly sure where it is because it is 'cloaked' but they know it is out there and it is, like it says, active.
But it is not active for them - it is active for you.
And that's the thing they don't want you to know.
It's basically the same thing that was going on with Jesus and the Sadducees. He told the Sadducees: 'Isn't it the case that you neither know the scriptures nor the power of VALIS.'
See 'VALIS' is the reason that the Satanic ideology exists at all. VALIS appears not to be manned by anyone in charge of it.
It is 'intelligent' but only because of the combined intelligences of those that are there using the place.
Which means that theoretically, 'they,' the people who know about it and want to take possession of the whole place, could take over all command up there.
But then for a long time now they have known that they are instantly thrown out of the place no sooner than they get up there to the 'outer courts.' Yet, they have regularly had success at installing 'planted subjects' up there albeit none of those could they give any commission to 'take over' because of course they want to do that themselves, not have you or some 'other' individual do it even one they appointed, as it were.
Jesus' issue with the Sadducees came about when He was giving voice to His argument against them that they claimed neither to believe in the life of the human soul after death, nor of any kind of 'oral tradition,' or 'spiritual dimension' - but only in Moses' written 'Law' and everything they wrote subsequently (IE the Tzadikim; what they wrote).
And then Jesus says a funny thing, because He refers to some unstated (in the passed down writings that we have now) 'scriptures' and the logical inference is that these are writings about Enoch, although we cannot at all say that anything that has come down to us now, in the forms of any particular 'Books of Enoch' really are those particular ones He was talking about - although for sure the main subject matter is roughly speaking the same. Which is namely, that Enoch never died and lives forever literally in his own physical bodily form, but also that there was some 'unseen' thing going on that Enoch regularly interfaced with when he was living here on the planet.
On the one hand all the modern translations say 'nor do you understand the power of God;' but I say He said 'Atzum-El-i' or in fact what you could now term, translate, to: 'VALIS.' In fact, to make matter worse for all of these 'modern' translators, the actual well-known word 'Elohim' itself is regularly qualified with the word 'Atzum.'
Sadducees totally believe in the extended life of the human soul - just not your soul. They do not want, exactly as Philip K. Dick described it, you to have 'knowledge or memory retrieval' from the VALIS. Which is why they keep the population as dumbed-down as possible.
All the high scholars of the Zohar have this view that these people are members of the 'Erev Rav' (Nefliim, Anakim, and so on) - and that they all retain precise and complete 'ancient memories' of who they are and what they are and the time when the VALIS began to prevent them from going there. So they're stuck here.
You are not actually stuck here.
But you think you are.
Now I did make a comment last time, below the main text body, about adding something to this complicated matter about gay people...
What I was going to say one has to consider with a great deal of caution, because we do not wish to be caught up in any kind of self-promoted, self-propagated silliness about poverty.
The Deity 'Love' is regarded in ancient customs as actually rather 'poor.' But this is only in the earth-bound materialistic sense. Sadducees are of course, very material rich. Mufti Menk is a Tzadikim... Oh yes, this all does not get restricted exclusively to Jewish lore! The Arabic culture, the Islamic culture fully, has a concept about 'As-Sadiqim.' And Menk is a Sadiq.
He drives a Lamborghini.
Let's be reasonable, eh? We don't have to have everything always dripping in intensity! Dripping in oil and fat - yes. But not intensity all the time. Goodness me.
The Deity 'Love' is not materialistic.
And so you must not confuse this with actual material poverty.
The correct phrasing and understanding is: 'He is Himself always without, possessing nothing, and in need of everything...'
Yet, this God, this Deity, is the only means by which human beings can attain Life.
And so, Jesus correctly spoke the following: 'As for the Resurrection of the Dead, you know not the scriptures, nor the power of God.'
And by which words too, once again, He repudiated the writings being attributed to 'Moses.'
By the 'Laws' of 'Moses' you are kept in darkness to this day, because as it were as of reading them with a veil over your eyes...
People often say - you hear them all the time - 'you are a soul in just a physical body.' No you're not. For neither do such people know the actual sacred scriptures nor the power of God.
W-e-e-ll. This last week there was this huge controversy all over the Islamic online worldwide, about some interviews given to a Danish radio station, by two Muslims, one being the incredibly well-known Islamic Da'i Mufti Menk - about the matter of gayness; and of course, what the Islamic outlook is on it. The controversy flared up this week, but the interviews were a few years ago as far as I understand it.
'The Jacket.' That'll take you to the stars, that one! Harris Tweed an' all.
Mufti Menk and the other person had been placed on a Danish government 'no fly' list because they were 'supposedly' deemed 'hate preachers.' Now I am going to leave that canard to one side at the moment and simply go to the actual subject of 'gayness.'
Now what is the official scriptural position on being 'gay?'
Believe me, God is not a simpleton, and where we are going to go here is likely to give some people nosebleeds. We are going sophisticated like you have never seen before.
The only person, or people who could really give you a decisive view on this, a real actual 'teaching,' are those who were there, back then, when the scriptures were composed, and seeing as how no one has been able to uncover the whereabouts today of 'Al Khidr' (in respect to the Muslim narrative) or this famous disciple who never died (in the case of Christianity) - you're gonna get me instead.
I will give you a categorical and decisive ruling!
Now the one thing I should have you know about God, is that neither is He furtive nor dishonest. ...Unlike preachers and public intellectuals, who all are abundantly those very things.
There are two types of 'gay' set forth in sacred scriptures:
In the first and most obvious reference, this would be the narratives surrounding Lot ('Lut' in Islam, in the Arabic) and obviously - Sodom and Gommorah.
In this sacred scriptural reference, which is shared by Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, the two angels or angelic beings, who came and appeared at sunset approaching to Lot's residence, were categorically described as 'male.'
So we can simply draw from this statement of descriptive fact (in the narrative), that when the townsmen of Sodom wished to have sex with these two angels, they indeed intended to have male homosexual intercourse. 'Gay sex.'
Scottish mohair scarf, women's, obviously! Or is that 'womxn's?' LOL Nah, it's not womxn's; womxns have no such taste.
See? Not being furtive here. Being pretty explicit.
Lot offers the townsmen his literally virginal daughters - again, we must readily adduce this is for the purpose of sex - in place of the two male angels. And the townsmen refuse him and physically then seek to advance into Lot's residence. Whereupon the angels strike them blind.
Two things in the matter of discerning the scriptural 'moral' then, or 'ruling,' we can take from the account: firstly, clearly this is all going to be a one-way street - the townsmen are going to force themselves on whoever they get, and they want the male angels.
Ostensibly, according to much apocryphal exegesis, we are to understand that the male angels, were extremely 'beautiful.' What that exactly means I cannot myself say. Do they mean to say they were big brutish Azov neo-Nazis, sporting tattoos and lengthy Viking beards? And thus 'attractive' to gay males? Or that they were effeminate - aka like females and then 'beautiful' in that sense?
So the second thing then, that we can most certainly adduce, is that there was some basis of attraction - but we cannot see right away if the townsmen of Sodom were1. sexually attracted to big strong ugly men, or if they 2. were seeking to have intense sexual gratification from exercising power (in other words 'power centric') via literal physical rape, or yet again 3. whether it might simply have been a matter of seeking the sexual category-specific (unique, in that sense?) sexual gratification from the raping of effeminate males (which is, I suppose a dual purpose thing: power plus specific sex)...
Seeing that we are now speaking on behalf of God though (which is what I am doing, because I am saying what the sacred scriptures do say), what we must do, is organize a hypothetical meeting, a court, as it were, consisting of men and women, and gay men (we are not here and now dealing with female homosexuality; Plato does that somewhere...), and put our charges to each of them so that they may make out their case fully and openly with nothing left hidden 'behind their backs.'
At this juncture we also must introduce something of a scriptural future anachronism ( a kind of a 'prochronism'), which is namely that of the situation of the gay male person in the New Testament. Timothy is gay, he betrays his bias and prejudices against women at every turn, and even Paul warns about his 'nature,' but then he, Paul, tells others 'not to despise him.'
Again, it is not necessarily so crystal clear and cut-and-dried that Paul is talking about Timothy's gayness, but it has always been standard scholarly exegesis that this is indeed the case.
Gay people have afternoon tea like this, don't they? Do they...? I dunno. Wish I knew some 'any' people who served me tea like this!!
'Quranists' would understand it when I now point out that Timothy was not a disciple, but an apostle. This means (in the same way that Islamic scholars distinguish between 'hassan' hadith and weak ones) that Timothy was just given a message to send or deliver to someone, not that he had large-scale teaching foundations himself.
Timothy was meant to have 'posted a message' and parallel to which though, he slings off at women too!
LOL
Anyway the point is, Timothy was not 'destroyed' by God, whereas the cities of Sodom and Gommorah were.
The Danish radio station Radio24syv (closed down now) posed the question to Mufti Menk: 'Is it okay to be gay?' And he said 'yes.' And everyone is up in arms about what he said, since this is in fact not Islamic teaching at all.
The Bible shows us that Timothy was existentially gay. Not that he was becoming gay, or deciding whether or not he was, or might have been, or should 'be' gay - he actually was gay.
So now that makes things easier for me to outline which two things the sacred scriptures depict about 'gayness:'
They depict existential gayness, and political gayness.
What is that??
'Political gayness' is what the townsmen of Sodom were all about - they were having a deliberate stance to not only 1. impose by force a sexual act upon another, and 2. because of the declining of the offer to have sex with Lot's virgin daughters, we have a sociopolitical stance imposed upon local society about how to order the hierarchy of what is 'good.' And it is this latter that we have to investigate further now.
...So now back to our court of men and women and gay males.
Nothing to see here, no 'gay people;' just people people. You know them? What are they like? Tell me.
The question has to be put, to the gay males, and they have to give their answer before the women present -
Do you hold that sexual gratification from males, reaches higher intensities of sensation and pleasure for you than anything you can get from sex with women...
I want an answer to that question before I ask the women whether I should destroy you.
Now this is not something you ever heard from Mufti Menk, and neither have you heard it from those who decry him. In fact, you never heard it at all before you heard it from me just now.
You certainly may have 'felt it' somewhere in some dark and mysterious alcove of your own mind.
Taken to an extreme, yet the logical one, and again, the prochronistic one, which is that at some time in the future, human scientists could manufacture entirely synthetic, living android beings made by abiogenesis -, actual humanoid beings, and then, sexual reproduction would not be necessary, and in all events, raising children need not involve any human beings whatsoever; it could all be done by 'AI.' Whose 'AI' exactly we don't know. Doesn't matter. It will certainly not be a benign form of AI.
Because right off the bat it has a deeply suspect political slant: it tells you, right up front, we have a way of determining what 'good, better, best' is and that is 1. whatever we say anyway f* you, and 2. possibly, it is ordered by the highest return of sensation without referencing external feedback or respecting the sensations of others - it is the lion killing and eating everything, not just the lamb. The 'best,' is the most forme.
Except it is not going to be for you, it will be for them, and that 'them' is some people you have never even seen nor been told about exist behind the scenes pulling strings, giving air and money to the Mufti Menks of the world, driving every public political agenda.
Every single one of them.
Serge Lutens is gay. This must be his idea of Lucifer's board room, then.
There are existential gays; the Bible says so.
And there are gay men who hate women, and show their biases and their extreme prejudices and God never 'destroyed' them at all. And yes, that is entitled to make women extremely p*'d off and that's okay too. It doesn't make the way that such gay males behave 'right.' Timothy is not 'right.'
What makes it acceptable however, that you or I or anyone, can arbitrate that 'good' consists purely of self-involved gain?
The only reason there is to have some kind of lab-made 'people' who never die, and alongside that to have 'education of children' by AI or political systems formulated from the template of hierarchic self-involved apex predator gain (and this is not 'altruism') - is because there is some 'I' somewhere who needs and wants you to behave! This is predatorial.
Well you have to decide right now, if or whether you can ever be a social species at all.
Oh but they are so clever and cunning, those forces and that intelligence behind the sloganism and the propaganda of 'inclusivity.'
They are not including anyone.
You think you are being included - you are being discounted.
A social species insists that all people (and there are many women who are unable to bear children) participate looking after the society and the species.
That does not mean, gay male couples 'can' raise kids because it's 'their right.' It means gay males WILL raise kids WITH all others participating, and not anyone being excluded! What obliges so-called 'gay' people to be anti-social - against heterosexual women, for instance? The modern politics of political gayness is highly and grossly anti-social in that way. Why is that? All the actual real gay people I know are not like that. The political gayness agenda is not an actual reflection of any gay people that I know. It's a surreptitiously twisted 'reflection' if it is a reflection at all. It is playing on the sensitivity about exclusion. And it is doing that for malicious political reasons that are not favorable to gay people at all. But it can succeed in seducing susceptible minds.
So let's re-run Sodom.
Two beautiful, slightly effeminate angelic beings descend one evening, just as the sun is setting, so that their craft is easily seen coming down against the darkening horizon background.
Lot knows who they are. He drags them into his house.
Angels to Lot: 'We are going out into the town, spend the whole night out there... ...in the town.' Lot: 'Waaaa?! Are you mad??' Angels: 'Na-r. We're not. We have Walther PPK, old school style.'
Townsmen roll up and bang on his door and say 'Hey, Lot, you are just a sojourner here. This is our town. How come these amazing people come and stay with you and don't visit with us?'
Lot: 'Because you're a bunch of evil f*ing bastards and you are going to do some bad things to these guys, who do not look to me like they can even protect themselves at all!'
Townsmen: 'Aaargh no no. You have us all wrong. Yeah we look rough and all that, and um, yes, sometimes there's some of us who have gay sex with males. But we are also really good chefs and hey, trust us, Lot, darn it. Besides we saw their clothes and there are some gay designers here who want to ask them some questions about those...'
Lot, thinks to himself - hmn yeah sounds pretty convincing, but still... Lot to the angels: 'Listen guys, they want you to go talk to them but I think I should come along so that you fellas don't get um, well, you know.'
The angels (look how I am placing words into their mouths! Fancy doing such a thing!): 'Don't worry, Lot, buddy. You come along but we can take care of ourselves, and decide for ourselves what we might want to do.'
(And by the way, that is exactly, what the angels did say to Lot according to the Bible account, except knowing that these particular townsmen were not the ones like I just described in the last few paras above, they told Lot they would stay all night in the town, but that he must not).
Well is that gay enough for yer?
Because that is not what is going on anywhere in the 'LGBTQ+++' world though, is it?
What is going on is, 'we are going to tell you how to think and what to think.'
And why is that? Have they become 'God' now all of a sudden?
Because someone sure as hell is behind the scenes here deciding he is definitely 'God.' And it ain't you Mr Actually-gay-man.
This is a very sophisticated game being played here.
It's not a sex game, it's a political power game that is using sex among many other doorways into your brain.
The question is not 'is it okay to be gay?'
Angels to Lot: 'And we have Brioni jacket with silk lining.' Lot: 'A bit gay isn't it?' Angels: 'But Bond had one.' Lot: 'Bond? Who's Bond?'
The question is 'what are they stealing from you and have gotten away with stealing now since for a very long time and where has it ended you up being.'
When 'they,' those guys at Imperial College London make a living conscious android, and they make it 'beautiful' - what will that actually mean? Do you think you know what they mean by 'beautiful?' Is it going to look 'gay' beautiful, or effeminate beautiful, or female, or plastic-injected like the faces of Hollywood 'females' today? What?
You answer that question and you can get to come into the court where we are deciding right now who to destroy down here on this planet... Oh yes.
...And discuss whether or not it 'is okay to be gay.'
Mufti Menk is a frikkin' damn ugly bastard. I am not going to get on some space ship to go to Jannat ul Firdaus with Mufti Menk!
Or the Pope.
Why are you taking payment in substituted coins all the time?
Since when ever did God play games? (It takes a lot of work to be able to move like in this vid. But anyway - let's see what Guru Josh thinks):
There is just so much conversation around the globe now, and for sure this is the result of the internet. But one of the unfortunate side-effects is that there is this whole 'liturgy' of terms and terminologies - that are really nothing more than propaganda serving to establish entire belief systems about 'how things are.'
Not always about tea, now is it?
For example - you have a 'higher self;' or -, you are 'up in your head' (as opposed to pretending that someone is back down in their body and relating authentically).
Twenty, fifty, a hundred years from now these phrases and sayings and ideas will be taught in Universities as truth, having more or less replaced, for instance, the same order of myopia and rigid thinking and wording that you might find today in various stock standard religions.
They will start off being taught as metaphysics, and from there they will jump into social consciousness and the side-street that turns off from there past the back-alley of darkness and nonsensical 'psychology' and then bio-chemical processes and next 'sci-ence,' will be an easy stretch.
'Nothing goes faster than light.' Einstein says so, so it must be true.
What is true is that numerous human beings look for relationships, and they enter them, and then they are eventually disappointed because the reality doesn't live up to their expectations.
Your 'self' is your consciousness. It isn't anywhere else than where you find it right now. It can go to better circumstances, or to worse ones, but the consciousness itself is always the same one: it's you. It can go to a 'higher' state, sure.
Your memories, are not your personal 'self' though... They are things. And they are things in their own right, albeit they happened to you. They are events, not 'consciousness.' Consciousness is a very specific kind of event. The reason many so-called 'abductees' don't remember what happened 'up there' is because the events often, though not always, happened to different memory cells. So it's easy to have people 'not remember' because what happened is not in their earthly brains. It isn't that someone's memory 'got wiped.' That memory is stored in another place. 'You' have to possess the means to access that place or else restore the same EMF patterns precisely into your 'here-and-now' brain cells which die eventually here anyway. But 'you' is the moving around thing, and the persisting thing; not the brain cells.
Sticking 'you' the physical human body you, into a craft that has full ambient internal pressure higher than you are used to, and takes G-forces much higher than your body can cope with ordinarily (although you could be trained to take it up to a certain level...) is possible but unnecessary in the general scope of things. And one huge reason, my friends, is that for most of you, you are not actually happy with who you physically are... So there's really no point taking you up there as you are right now, because you will be confronting, as in, literally being face-to-face, with an entirely different superficial 'you.' There 'you' would be, in one of those bio-aerogel filled tubes... 'Hey, that's not me!' ...Yeah it is. Uh-oh. Potentially traumatic in the short term until 'you' got used to the idea.
In all events though, you will always be you (unless some 'god-power' took that away from you).
The best short-bread biscuits, you know, always have citrus zest in them, and some even have citrus liqueur.
You can easily be separated from bad characteristics, or have new good ones bolted onto you.
Of course, going back to what was just now being said about social propaganda, it is a complicated question to really say what is actually 'good' and what actually and truly 'bad.'
Political moral 'values' enjoined onto you are again, simply propaganda designed to organize you into something exploitable by politicians and rulers.
Political systems have all successfully dumbed-down the human race on the whole into just simplistic and simple-minded 'units' following slogans and nothing else.
What makes it necessarily so that you cannot live up to (someone's) expectations? Politicians and their manufactured systems are vending false expectations - basically, they are gas-lighting you.
What is that you apparently owe them that they want to force 'expectations' onto you?
You can easily be 'taken away' and when you get to 'up there' there is no 'higher self' there. There is just yourself.
...But then, there's other selves too. And you do not want to be outclassed among them.
So don't be in a hurry to go anywhere.
They easy could have had a female 'Bond.' Short-bread biscuits, ma'am? Triple sec-infused, or stirred?
Use the Force here until you are real good with it. Use it on yourself. Use it on others - twist them around. Make them have expectations of themselves and then live up to those. Make them.
See you're going to be instantly confronted with a great big and very obvious problem right away: do you really care enough about that individual to shine the beam on them.
It is not -, will not be your 'expectations' that they will not live up to that will be the issue, it is that you already know who and what they could be as people based on what they are presenting as being right now...
And in that instant you will know how come really super advanced ET Aliens don't all just show up, and 'appear' - make themselves known to the US Congress or the Pentagon; ROTFLMAO.
Why would they do that??!
Those who have been getting some 'off-Blog' private instructions, just do them. See what happens.
Where the Christians mostly all get it wrong is they don't actually recognize who this 'Jesus' is.
And that's fine.
It's pretty calm and quiet and still up here.
You let all of these insane people in, wandering around, traipsing all over the 'City of the Shining Ones' - with their cameras and their iPhones and stuff... SMH.
They'll all want 'WiFi' hotspots, for free naturally, so that they can upload virtually live video clips: "I'm Patrick Lancaster, reporting from..." ...wherever.
'Globe amaranth flower' tea. This week 'sci-entists' claim to be injecting gene stuff to cure cancer. Good luck there.
Just this morning I quickly scanned a video, might have been from Dr Justin (Sledge), about the tradition of 'miracle workers' in ancient 'Israel.'
You and I are honest enough to go 'okay hey, maybe if you just laid it all out for me, so that I can see and understand easily...'
None of this shady, mysterious, guess-work stuff and then which allows pretty mischievous people to turn things around and tell all kinds of stories and grab the glory for themselves - which is literally what they do. And I basically accused Arthur C. Clarke of doing it.
My goodness. Never thought you'd see anyone diss the almighty Arthur C. Clarke, did you?
And then, to make matters worse, I go and say very scathing things against the great Marcus Tullius Cicero - only the most significant writer of political speeches that all modern politicians study avidly by the midnight oil.
Verbatim, this is what the CIA discussion papers say about the Gateway Process - and by the way, it is also the reason they used American laser pioneer Russell Targ in the first place:
'...As a lamp light is to a laser beam.'
This is the scale of difference between what people are doing who use meditation techniques and what is actually going on with 'Gateway.' Or in fact, we should be saying 'Star Gate.'
It is only natural that anyone from out of 'normal' life (not that you really would be actually out of normal life at all, but you are telling yourself a story suited to the people around you who don't wish to know that you are 'different,' certainly not better than...), well it is natural to want to just have 'Thranduil the Elevenking' turn up in person. No problem there with that, right?
Actor Lee Pace looks like an ordinary bloke in RL, and the fans of the Ring flicks in which 'Thranduil' features, want to see Thranduil, not Pace on weekends in his underwear.
Gods, spacemen, what does it matter? Even Arthur C. Clarke said it like that. He was no fool.
And today, frankly, neither of us - not you, not me - we don't care. Just one of them show up, that'll do.
Woah! Would Thranduil get lost in there? No. Because he's not backward.
Jesus? Don't mess around with us, now -, Jesus. Just show up.
Okay how about these little grey space guys then. Next best thing. 'Soright. They'll do.
Wow. Cool. Gee whiz.
The Pentagon actually has been showing this week, very tiny little short clips of various 'things' the US Military has filmed - I'm not sure I've seen whether they've shown the 'Romulan Warbird' huge thing yet; but there is one. That is, there are films of them.
Well, we'll see.
Anyway, I said I'd relate this ancient China story.
So here it is.
Once upon a time, there was this poor farmer called Wei.
He used to pass by this run-down temple which had an iron statue of the goddess Kuan Yin. (The stupid Wikipedia naturally wants to say 'Buddhist figure of Compassion' Kuan Yin, because Buddhism is of course, atheist - but it is an outright lie. Kuan Yin is an ancient Chinese goddess. Just as 'Jesus' was already a well-known identity since long before 'the Gospels,' which simply attest to this figure having turned up, at that phase; Kuan Yin well-predates 'Buddhism.' So why are we glamorizing 'Buddhism?' Buddhism is not 'Kuan Yin-ism!' ...Again in the same way, who is this 'Jesus' supposed to be beforehand? Who was He when he wasn't being called the 'human Earth-name' Jesus? Does anybody know? Because this guy didn't just 'work wonders...' His claim to fame is one particular thing... What is it, and which God is that one then? Making you think now... lol).
Wei considered what he might be able to do for the deteriorating temple. One day he brought a broom and some incense from his home, swept the temple and lit the incense as an offering to the goddess. He did this twice a month for many months. (Okay? So there you go: there's part of your answer - it takes your action twice a month for many months).
Then one night, the goddess Kuan Yin appeared to him and told him: "Wei, there is a cave behind the temple where a treasure awaits you. You must collect the treasure and share it with others."
The fetish-izing of Orientalism (which is what people say these days who whinge about everything); this is a tea-house in Berlin.
(So there you go, there's another little clue - you have to share something that you will be given).
So Wei goes, finds the cave, and in there, he finds a small tea shoot. He takes it and plants it in his field. It grows into a large bush from which the finest tea was produced. He gives cuttings of this rare plant to his neighbors and they all sell the tea and make money and eventually, the temple gets restored to a pretty good state.
In fact, today, this tea is the most expensive tea in the world and don't let the Beijing CCP lie to you and say Da Hong Pao is more expensive, because it isn't, and they faked one particular sale one time to pretend that it is.
King's Kuan Yin Tea is the most expensive tea in the world.
'Which color shows what patron's tutelage am I under?'
Don't know (yes I do) - you have to wait many months and do many things and keep your eyes and your brain wide awake.
