Trying To Keep It Simple!

Hah! How is that gonna happen here?

LOL

Never mind; what can you do...

So, why we are not all 'one consciousness,' and why you are unique...

And then the next thing -, what is all this I see almost everywhere about 'a different reality?'

If it isn't real, it isn't real!

The young girls wear a garland of
dry figs, not dried rose petals!
'Consider the lesson of the fig tree,
when it is time for it to bear fruit.'

The key to 'personality' is not 'thinking,' 'feeling,' and 'behaving.' It is feeling.

Current attempts at developing AI focus on processing, and speed, and numbers of complex connections. You could construe this as 'thinking.' I would not completely reject that.

In some sort of Boolean operator system, a FI/FO process could go backwards and forwards between 'itself' on two parts of a circuit board(!) and that might even be construed to be a kind of 'self-awareness.' Given let's say a primary directive to 'exist' and to stay existing, a thing using Boolean logic gates in a viable moving, and maybe actuator-enabled 'work' mechanism, would react to various sensed signals - hence it would 'behave' in a certain way; exhibit 'behavior.'

See, frankly, it's only the feeling part of psychologists' fairy tale about what personality 'is,' that actually determines unique behavior. You could suppose that there were hard and fast 'boundary conditions' which made certain actions, behaviors absolutely inevitable - and that might be true on the one hand, but then it doesn't cater for the whole Gaussian profile of existential reality. 

We are like steam plumes rising off a hot pool, or snowflakes falling into someone's palm. The attempts to employ ideas like 'Chaos Theory' to salvage some conclusions about the predictability of steam plume spirals or the exact shape of freezing raindrops is bogus. The actions of the spirals are unique moment-to-future moment (within certain parameters) and the shapes of the snowflakes are all actually unique.

Then the girls have a feast of
sizzling garlic prawns...
No they don't. Sorry. Just tryin' to
use 'Chaos Theory' a bit here.

Now I could say something about girls carrying baskets in which there are seeds for various colored flowers, and not each girl's basket has the same number or type of plant seed - but if I did that it would give way too much information to lunatics masquerading as scientists at places like Imperial College London. But in short, there is 'trade in seed' going on... Isn't there?

Every one of you has six 'Caryatid' flower maidens inside of you.

Instead of talking too specifically about that, let us step away from that dangerous area, and just talk about the young high-born virgin maidens, who spend two years (now no one in the whole history of the modern world has ever told you this before, on account it was a close secret even back then when the Parthenon at the Acropolis was 'alive') collecting dew from flowers, until at the end of those two years, they go deep underground into a secret place, where they exchange their dew for something which they carry back up, under a cloth covering. This is called the 'Arrhephoria' rites.

Then, over the next seven years, they learn how to make and bake a magical bread which lots of people can eat, even though there seems to be little of it. 

And then immediately after that, they go back down into the underground place, where they learn the secrets of death and resurrection - and this is called the 'Canephoros' rites.

Which religion is this?

LOL

Frua-designed BMW - when cars
were still on the rising side of the
Gaussian profile. As soon as they are starting
to hit the peak of the curve, parasites and
zombies quickly close in and wreck everything.
That's how it is. For now.

None of this stuff is simple, though. 

What is simple is to know that you are unique. And that no, there is no such thing as 'consciousness is only one consciousness and we all share it and therefore...' Therefore whatever they are trying to say. 

And it's simple enough for you consider this concept that you are permanently entering into potential situations giving you opportunity to exchange types of flowers with others who are fully functioning within.

It's the 'flowers' that really allow you to have 'feelings' at that super complex depth humans can have them, might have them, and in fact however, rarely do experience them. They want them, but they rarely get them.

You, on the other hand, might get what you want.

  

Go To Sources

Well this is no revelation! 

See the thing is, there is so much confusion about ideas from the past these days. 

You can take something quite interesting like Fowles' The Magus and read way too much into it. All it is fundamentally an idea that individual people repeat or 'play out' or mirror, big things that happen across the whole of society, on the national and world stage, and in a sense they also follow in line with concepts of 'labeled' divinities (of the ancient past, of mythology).

Candice Bergen as Artemis, in
The Magus.

The problem for me being that people take what they see there in these sorts of books and films, and impute whatever is in there, to the actual original descriptions about the 'gods' that ancient people had.

I'll give you a really good example from right now, today.

If you look up 'Lucretius,' the first century BC thinker and poet - who wrote 'The Nature of Things' (apparently in five books, all composed in verse form) - all you find is a vast echo-chamber across the internet saying that, 'despite Lucretius being probably the first person who proposed Evolution, and the first who explain atoms as the building blocks of everything, he also ended his first book declaring the absurdity of the idea that the Earth was a sphere, even though this was by then an established view among most thinkers.'

Yeah well you find me where he actually says any such thing and I will give you a pat on the back.

He never says it! At all. He was writing in Latin to a retired Roman Tribune who was intending to purchase some land nearby where Lucretius lived, with the view of building a property there where he (Memnius, not Lucretius) and others were going to write pornography. Lucretius was trying to dissuade Memnius.

For the vegetable-loving people:
blistered padrons.

And he uses some words like 'mundus' which never meant 'the Earth' back then, and which Lucretius is clearly using in terms of the visible, manifest, material Universe of things, everything, including things in space. And he is actually describing Universal gravity or gravitational forces - and saying that what others are suggesting about it is absurd -, and it is in the context of what he is talking about.

But how are you ever going to get to every single remorseless ignorant uneducated idiot, who keeps saying that he said something that he never said?

You'll be wasting your time. The lesson they all never learned at any stage, was to go consult the actual sources.

And then, in any case afterwards, you'd have to go 'fix up' the next piece of, and every other piece of bloody nonsense that is just simply everywhere these days, masquerading as 'facts' and 'information!'

Unfortunately one combined total overall effect of this kind of thing is it promotes this notion that, well, these 'smart' people of the past, yes they were smart, about one or two things, but see, they didn't know this or they were foolish and ignorant about that... So therefore just don't go looking too closely at them or go too deeply into what they can teach, because we know everything - and they didn't.

It's completely the other way round.

And fennel and almond soup.
Not too bad this stuff...

So did Jesus really morph on that road into a different-looking body or body structure and face, or was it maybe a completely different body altogether - when those two 'did not recognize Him because He appeared in another form to them?'

You will even get mainstream church people actually say: 'No, He didn't.' And then they'll give all kinds of weird explanations that are not found in any source text at all to justify what they are wanting to assert to be true.

The actual source text unambiguously says 'He appeared in another form to them.'

Now you can really split hairs here trying to make the word 'appear/ed' apply just to what the two people witnessing something were doing exclusively (IE 'seeing' thus apprehending that which 'appeared' lol), and but not, apply to the existential minute specific dimensions of the actual figure itself/Himself. 

Yet the text does not say 'appeared as if like another form;' it says in another form.

So yes, Christians have more than just three 'gods:' they have Father, Son, Holy Ghost, Mary (LOL I include this for Dr Zakir Naik and his followers), Baby Jesus, Jesus 1, and Jesus 2.

Which leads us nicely back to my real point started up by a good questioner here earlier on: What is Personality?

The Christian 'Father' God, does not have the same personality as His Son -, 'Jesus.' And by all accounts this 'Holy Spirit' has quite a distinct character and personality as well. But they all have 'God' powers. And they all have the same 'God' powers. And which makes them all equally 'Divinity.' 

Lucretius puts this type of conceptual problem this way: '...emerging from the arrangements of distinct particles.' And I agree with him.

The Caryatids.
Sort of '5 of 5' I suppose.
They are the 'Maidens of Karyai,'
who as real people in real life
carry baskets of live reeds on their heads as if they
were dancing plants.'
; ) Sacred to Artemis.

'7' is integral with '9' and with all of the Nine. But she has an individual separate real personality. So they are several persons who are one thing (when integrated).

Did Jesus 2 have different particles in Him, compared to Jesus 1? Or was it just that the arrangement of particles was different?

LOL

This is what is known as an Irish Catholic Question. What happened to His fingernail clippings, and His hair? The Muslims have much more 'rugged' questions about it but along the same lines.

Look. Look. Don't break your mind on this. This is just me being silly for a while here.

And yes, I could easily drift into the 'And Loki kept all the nail clippings in order to make a ship from to save some people in the world at the Ragnarok later...'

This is the 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' kind of thing again, you see. Do Jesus' nail clippings have all the Divine powers of the rest of the particles which make 'Him' up...?

Aaaaaah! See it all turns on what we are proposing 'Him' to even be.

Don't worry, I'll distract you
well enough that you won't have seen
part of the super secret here.

Same goes for 'you.' And 'me.' All of us are something about what we are on the unseen inside, and which thing has zero need to tie any single particle or set of particles on the material 'outside' to the 'us,' the real 'us.'

But believe me, the worst possible thing, would be for some staggeringly advanced thinker or philosopher way more advanced even than Lucretius, to perfectly pin down what that set of internal compositions was, which made up the personality that could move from one 'arrangement of particles' to another and yet fully still be the same actual person. 

Because then you'd have AI promoters and CGI companies all literally manufacturing you.

Meaning human beings as such.

Luckily, it's a mystery. That they will never find out. And this, my friends, is why people such as Pythagoras and especially Orpheus (and Ovid - do you read... ...Ovid?) had 'mystery schools' that required initiation into and all kinds of very serious oaths and so on to be taken before certain levels of knowledge was imparted. I don't have this kind of stuff to impart though. Whew. Got away with that one pretty good for the moment.

Great music (relax, lay your head down on this):

'A' Problem With Reading The Bible

Look, we have a real problem with reading the Bible as modern, pretty much fairly super-intelligent people. Actually we have two or three problems: and I will just briefly mention the first mundane ones - these are that it is 1. A text consisting of details of some very intelligent, highly intellectual in fact, albeit they are in ancient eras, and socially responsible, and at the time socially-credited, creditable, people, and their views and opinions. 2. It has some socially-consented witness accounts of 'god things;' the literal interaction of God with men. Let's not worry for the moment about how reliable these witness accounts are, simply accept for argument's purposes that people made witness statements literally 'under oath to a Supreme Being/Divinity;' and let's not add our own 'and witness accounts of what they thought they saw...' 

Let's go for coffee...

That's an utterly pointless argument from this moment in time now looking backwards. It's maybe appropriate for archaeologists and excavation people -, those looking for artifacts, things; it's not appropriate for people examining ideas.

See if someone gave you 'the Laws' or a law, that's already an idea. It doesn't require any verification at all that the identity who ordained the law was real or true or not or whatever. If the idea behind that law is nuts, then the giver is automatically already equally nuts, and that's all there is to it.

And but THEN THEN THEN (and here is the important part), there are, or 'maybe' because these are so announced in the text - actual 'speakings' of actual 'God,' which are also written down, and appear in the whole text of 'the Bible.' The Bible is not therefore 'the' Word of God, it is some words 1. about God, 2. about people's witness statements and accounts, and finally 3. some words of God.

If you go into the weeds about 'whole thing is inspired by God' well that actually runs into so many real factual problems it isn't funny and it just isn't practical for smart people.

But by far the worst modern-day problem is that the translations themselves are problematic.

The best modern resource is BibleHub online, but this is constantly peppered away at by people trying to hack it or create DNS issues because there is a very silly modern antipathy to just 'having religion around' in any form. And that is nuts because scientists don't block information. They can question it always, but they don't pretend to deny its existence.

Nevertheless...

So here's an example of something problematic: you go to BibleHub, Mark 4:19 'the cares of this life, the deceitfulness of riches...' And so on into the rest of the sentence.

Well right there we have a source for all of this Puritanical anti-wealth, anti-materialism, love and glorifying of poverty that is completely abundant in the West.

Where are the gods hiding?

Right down the bottom of the page at BibleHub, however, you will always find - right down at the very very bottom - the original Greek and/or Aramaic. And so often you will be just left scratching your head going: 'How did they get from this, to how they are reading it commonly now in English??'

'Cares.' The word is merimnai. It doesn't mean 'cares' it means the solicitude. Which maybe can be construed to include caring, but really, it means that someone or something is solicitous, as in the archaic implication of soliciting, calling for, pulling in, begging.

'This life' is almost impossible to say to people now -, that if you consider it in context, it means people living in the Messianic Dawn era, who are actually 'left behind;' who are simply a remnant albeit a powerful material existential social group/a society; the (human) society - but not in the Messianic Realm at all.

'Deceifulness.' The word is apate, and boy could I take you back into 'Apophis' here! Because how can you get away from the fact, that this 'Jesus' was fourteen years in Egypt. What was He doing there? Many early exegetic texts give accounts, and they are basically that He trained with Egyptian temple priests! The end. That's the end of it.

Actually no, not the end - the actual word literally in Greek, means the personification of lying greed; like a snake thing. So, Apophis.

'Riches.' It's not riches - it's pletho or ploutos, the Underworld or Earthly god of overflowing treasures, jealously held.

And there's way more.

Here we are, stuck today, in total nonsense everywhere. 

Amazing person. Was just starting to be
successful at 18 - when both her parents
passed away within a year of each other.
Haliene. Just an amazing person.

How do you get - and the Quran commits this sin totally, too - 'and Satan refused to bow down to the creature made from clay...?'

God, the Creator God in this case, made a dynamic thing from clay, and breathed His own breath into it and it lived.

Well Satan is not being asked to, as a form of action, 'bow down!' As in for thousands of years, a whole world of idiots have been making pictures showing Alexander prostrating like the Persians and then everyone who submitted before Alexander also prostrating, aka bowing down to...

But hey look, the thing is - God's own Divine Breath went into the clay man, and when He bid the angels and the rest of the Council of the Elohim and all of this to follow Him into there, Satan said, 'I'm not going into that!'

The Jews cannot show you Jehovah.

The Satanists cannot show you Satan. They can do some bad and very hurtful things and you will think, for sure, that is pretty awful... Must be 'Satan' right? Nope. Nothing physical you can see and touch at all, in terms of an actual being.

You maybe want to see some beings from other worlds, with masses of great high technology, new to us.

But I can absolutely show you, well, why don't you pick anyone at all, of the ancient figures ancient cultures and societies thought were 'gods,' and whom they considered really and truly to be real, and able to manifest for sure: Hercules did, so they say. Many others.

You know exactly where they all are. Because I have just told you and that indeed does make me someone who can 'remove the veil.' Because in fact I just did do that. Now you go find your 'Aphrodite.'

Easy peasy. 

Roasted cod with cognac cream sauce and
tarragon, and, and...

Instead of being merimnai'd by the remnant world, why don't you peitho it and merimnai it back, or, as in this example, her back. Or him too, if you need - there is a 'him' of that side of things.

Don't tell me, after you have read this you do not know where the gods are all hiding!

Did the early churches and religious scholars and rulers know? Well it's like this, you see - here's the hint:

Amr al As, during the rise of Islam, completely overran Alexandria, where Alexander the Great had placed this stela, the 'Apophis' one (and by the way, nobody has translated the glyphs on it at all so don't bother seriously considering what people think the stela says) - and he was burning all of the religious texts, not just the Christian ones, but 'somebody' luckily took the stela away before he could vandalize it, and then later later later on, funny, but the Muslim Ottoman ruler, Ali Pasha, when he wanted to get some favors from the Austrian Empire, 'suddenly,' he found it in a Franciscan Monastery wall in 1829 and presented it to Prince Metternich, from which act we now get its modern label the Metternich Stela.

Freyja, of course, the Norse Aphrodite, does have a space ship which she shares with her brother. And this is Skidbladner. She also has 'chariots.' Just sayin'.

You need to be looking closer to home... (But with great headphones, right?).

I Don't Know What Personality Is

God what kind of an idiot would be this guy who simply 'seemed' or even maybe acted like he 'claimed' to know just about everything all the time?!

Well that's not me. This is one helluva great question 'what is a personality,' or at least, what is personality. And I'm sure I do not know the complete answer at all.

We all have a decent enough conception about someone's personality... In the ordinary run of affairs. You know, that someone is like this, or like that. Anxious, or warm, or cold, or annoying, or arrogant, or obsequious or always angry. That kind of thing.

I don't know what personality is, but
I do know what 'contractor' is.

This is even the way a lot of psychology literature talks about it: that there are four main types of personality - sanguine, melancholic... and so on. And then, there are other psychologists who say things instead like - reserved, average, role-model, and self-centered. The first style of categorizing they also say is about 'temperament,' and then the second style they want to say is a more modern and therefore 'better' way of looking at things.

But this is like saying there are four seasons to the year. Well there are, but that is only because we live here on this planet Earth!

If you look at Thermodynamics, then there are also four 'laws' albeit one is a fundamental relationship not a 'law' as such. 

But even so, in Thermodynamics you can start to see that matters are a lot more complicated than psychologists wish to have them be - for instance, you cannot actually predict the fluid dynamics of steam for example, in open atmosphere, because once you have gone past the partial differential equations for basic flow rates and gaseous expansion and also spin or spiraling, then you have to resort to 'Chaos theory' in order to salvage some conclusions about such systems when in open atmospheres with winds and breezes and all kinds of other forces involved.

I don't know what personality is, 
but I do know what 'Academi' uniform
is.
Gee I hope they have been fully briefing you, Chris
Wray.

'Consciousness' - human consciousness - might well be a single kind of amorphous and interchangeable 'thing' but once you 'flow' it through, let's say, one of the atomic shapes of Democritus and then, let it become introduced to a whole heap of other dynamic tensions and forces obtaining in life, well what determines the pathways that 'it' goes down; what is the predictability of how it moves?

So we're back to trying to implement, or add in, 'Chaos theory' to get something by way of a mathematical 'predication' back.

And yet the whole point of, say, religious ideologies, is entirely this idea that you can have a theoretical 'perfect' order of behavior. I mean otherwise what seriously, is the point of 'Judgement?' That's a stupid thing and it would make 'God' ridiculously clueless if He was proposing that human individual agents could be predictably 'perfect' according to some prior template (of perfection), when the actual dynamics were all to do with Chaos and the future, of unknowns and uncertainties.

Okay maybe you could say there are these basic, sinusoidal, sort of 'hard limit' guidelines.

But are there, really? And then so what though?

It still makes 'Divine Judgement' a slightly silly, more or less realistically groundless, and highly not-precise matter.

Santa Monica beach is very
beautiful; lot of lights.

The only logical way to have an a priori 'Judgement' after the acts and actions of a person, is to have an a priori factual conception of who that person is beforehand. Whether in absolute potential or in some other obscure philosophical way, nonetheless it requires to be a priori. 

We know what constitutes a snowflake but then each one is said to be unique, because of those fluid dynamic characteristics which introduce very complicated, maybe Chaos theory factors into the play.

So I am going to say personality is unique, but it has a category descriptor, which is simply the word 'individual' or the word 'personality' also...

It's something that goes along with consciousness, but is not consciousness on its own. It's tied to consciousness almost as -, well no, virtually exactly and necessarily as, the real feature of 'personality.'

Hey hey hey. This is really asking for a helluva lot here though, isn't it?

Marilyn Monroe on Santa Monica beach.
Also very beautiful, and often in lights.
But is she really real?
A real person?

; )

Something goes with consciousness, is tied to consciousness, but is different from consciousness.

Hesiod said there was a time when 'men were made of gold inside.' And then, that later on, they became 'men of silver.' And next of bronze and then iron. And now today, there are men of what?

What do you want to be? A 'man' of CGI? Anything but actually nothing.

If you had electrons or light tied to your consciousness, how then though, still could there be distinct flavors of those, which seem to be highly 'amorphous.'

LOL

And even then, what would make any set of them, or particular specific grouped arrangement of them 'unique' from inception, as it were?

Well I don't know, but Revelation says there are 144,000 'sealed' individuals, whereas there are 'countless' reasonably 'good' people (it also says). Ew gewd we do not want to go the Jehovah's Witness route though now do we? I don't! I don't even think they know what they are talking about - they're just taking something they see and are flinging it around as if it means anything. Once again, turning stuff into their franchise. 

This is a complicated subject and there is an answer to the question.

What makes a person perfectly interchangeable with any other person? Nothing; they're not (interchangeable).

Be careful with the volume - the bass line at the start is pretty strong here:

What Is Behind It All Today

In 2019 in Victoria, Australia, a catering company which delivered meals mainly to hospitals, was forced to close because an elderly patient died from an infection introduced from a slug that was found in her food.

In subsequent judicial inquiries, findings of fact were made that stated police officers had sought to hide crucial information and failed to act on clear information that local Council employees had in fact planted the slug.

'QV' - Quod Vide: means, more information
is available elsewhere.

The Council itself was a part-owner of the only competitor catering business in that area.

Now the reason I post this as an example of obvious conflicts of interests being motivations for criminal conspiracies - is that you would be utterly shocked were you to become aware of which particular 'things' that maybe right now you think are 'good' and 'worthy' and 'decent' endeavors, that support worthy causes and perhaps speak out for oppressed people, for instance; are not exactly what they are made out to be.

And further, I am highlighting this current state of widespread deception globally in fact, because we have been peppered with 'interesting' tidbits about the San Diego Navy people observing and filming 'objects' for example, but what goes along with that is a range of 'social media' accounts and public figures who do this dance about 'revealing' things and 'telling us all about it...'

Don't imagine for one second this is all just a minor side-issue and incidental, passing 'phase.' 

Well just as an exercise, I want you to try and think of five 'causes,' or really well-known, much-publicized groups who either come from uh I dunno, Afghanistan, Iran, um NoKo, and so on, and that you consider have obvious and crystal-clear moral right on their side.

See the thing is, when you are presented with extremely sophisticated media coverage, the basis for what they want to have you think will be real and right/righteous. That will be necessary because those things you already know and believe.

And then without you seeing it at all, something will be slipped right in there, alongside the obvious things - but those will not either be obvious or true, nor what you would actually go along with in any case if you could actually 'see' it.

It's all about the money;
I want I want I want.
Every 'worthy' masquerade. 

A 'cult' is explained as many things, but what it really is today, is the enforcing of ideas and beliefs surreptitiously by governments and who stand behind those governments, really.

When mainstream histories say the Orphic Cult, for example, they are misusing the term in context of what it means today. 'Cult' originally simply came from the fact that people were cultivated, nurtured, grown and developed - not brainwashed!

Now when I say 'governments' I mean that in its widest sense of who really governs the population at large.

The real question about the slug matter, is how come the Council ever was in that industry as a private competitor in the first place? And the answer is they knew - they certainly knew for sure - that hospital food is a big and lucrative business. And they before anyone else knew because they knew where the hospitals were being planned, how many there would be, and what the size of numbers of mouths-to-feed was going to be. This is precision market information the independent agent does not have access to at the same speed or level of factual accuracy. And they were completely motivated by greed.

So.

What I am trying to introduce to you, is the concept that this kind of thing is so, across every possible activity of humans in life that there is.

Get it?

Maybe there was a time in the past, during which moments of our history big names were honorable. I am not convinced that for instance, Walt Disney is anything like the depiction the 'conspiracy theorists' around today insist on making out for him.

This particular 'article/post' will appear very benign and almost trite and 'so what'-ish. But you should absorb the fundamental concern behind it because by-and-by believe you me, what you will learn as you follow along here, will so shock you about what you thought was 'right' and what was 'good' previously, that unless you are fore-warned you will possibly be in a state of denial about it.

Every single person, every identity I ever mention in these columns has a profile of some kind. Some of them are really important. What webs they are part of, some of them, are earth-shattering - socially, politically, economically.

Mefisto!
LOL... Mephistopheles, right?
The word/name is a German
corruption of compound Greek which
might stand for 'not' 'loving,' or else the
noxious vapors arising from
the earth in certain places.

You will not find me taking cult figures, that is to say - modern seemingly popular identities and talking much about them in here. I talk 'ET Alien' a lot for instance. But you will not be able to link anything I say with most of the pop figures in this 'scene.'

And that, my friends, is the tie-in for the 'slug factor.' What is 'pop,' is designer marketing for a selfish reason.

Because you don't know what you don't know.

So should you be in the 'ET Alien/technology' sector? Um, you know, like you might have wanted to be in the hospital food catering sector just immediately before ten new hospitals were built?

Er, yeah.

Put it this way, you should learn all that you can about it, and know which people are saying what about it -, and but don't whatever you do, throw your hand in (in an emotional or intellectual commitment) with any one of them just yet, even if you think they are whatever you think they are coming across as being that seems 'nice' and 'realistic' and 'true.'

John Mack was fine and so was everyone he assessed. And funny though, they stay right out of the limelight.

I suppose those Navy guys are a slightly different category because none of them are driving any kind of 'cult agenda.' All they did was see something, film it ten different ways, and then release the information. And that's all they did.

Some of you here have tried versions of the CE5 Protocols and other things to do with 'making contact.' And that appears to have been with very limited success.

But ask yourself this question - have you also not been watching YouTube interviews and videos and the like and going: 'Hey hey how come these guys are having so much direct access, apparently, when I am not? I'm doing everything they are doing...'

Sometimes it's only 'visible' in bass relief against the false pictures, just how significant a real thing is compared to those false things. Sometimes you need some exposure to the false stuff first - in order to be able to better appreciate the real thing at all.

One of our commentators here has asked 'I want agency.' And I regularly said 'I don't think that is going to easily happen.'

That doesn't make this a cult here. Cults give 'agency' along the lines of the terms they also set.

Well I never said that kind of thing though. There are no terms beforehand to a real engagement with a real-live as well as actually real intelligent 'other' species. It's a relationship or a negotiation. Both sides have a right to proper respect.

I have never joked about ET Aliens here.

I'm not jokey-y about it and you don't see me being arrogant and acting like I necessarily should be treated like I know more than you or am somehow especially 'privileged.' But I can think of a ton of public figures who do act like that on this matter.

Me, personally, I would hesitate frankly, to be putting words into the mouths of obviously vastly advanced beings. Man I tell ya, I am really aghast at some of the people I am having to watch recently on this subject. Boy do they 'know it all.'

...Those people who have already gotten some 'ideas' from me privately - just keep working on them. Things will happen because of your own personal individuality; the responses you attain will be 'tailor-made' for you. There is no 'one size fits all.' 

Yes yes 'hive mind' and all of that, but it's so much more complex. Personality, individuality. These are absolutely key.

'You met this guru guy, then you got awakened...' Ah yeah, nah nah, we're not doin' that around here.

Super smart, super advanced and quite futuristic beings from elsewhere are real and they are here. Because of...? Not because of money. Maybe there will be some 'substance' as the result, sure. More of a side-effect though, I would say. [If you don't get the operatic quality of the singer down here, well you're not going to 'get' the ET's either then, are you? She has composed and sung with people like the great Markus Schulz - who was brilliant last week at Luminosity; some people said he was on gear and wearing my house shirt. He was not; he's just had a kid (well his wife Adina did) and he's prolly had no sleep!]