aka FaceBook.

Say, what?


Hang in there and we’ll get to that.

The following “Q” posts are all found here

Starting with post 1102
Q !xowAT4Z3VQ ID: 7ec299966637
Who is arranging the PRIVATE meetings?
MZ campaign contribution promises.
FB donations since 4.2.18?
Fresh round.
R’s targeted (censorship/anti R = more $).
How to mask?
MZ personal donations?
Shell Co?
Recent stock dump?
Avoid FB public disclosure?
Track congressional intake (reported).
Keep open (+6 mo).
Loud w/ findings.
RT – how DC/swamp works.
Money talks.
Drain the swamp.
How do politicians access campaign contributions for personal use?
The “Con.”
Q !xowAT4Z3VQ ID: 7ec299967105
Don’t forget how to PLAY.
FB violation of YOUR PRIVACY.
FB reading your PRIVATE messages.
FB CENSORING (anti conservative).
More will drop.
We have it ALL.
You’re next.
What is Jack’s SECRET T-handle?
‘Dummy’ accounts to talk.
What you SEE is LIMITED.
Think emails (LL, HRC, HUSSEIN, etc).
 MZ = Mark Zuckerberg
FB = FaceBook
R’s = Republicans
DC = Washington DC
We don’t intend decoding all the above, we aren’t codebreakers and all we and others can do is speculate until things come out in the news at some future date.  “Future proves past”.  There are plenty of YT channels and other blogs devoted to in-depth “Q” analysis to chose from.
 This is what we are focussing on:
Do you think because you don’t have a FB account that you are not being tracked?  That’s what an Anon on 8chan thought when they replied to “Q”!  They probably aren’t alone in thinking that no account equals no tracking.
Post 1103
Anonymous ID: 97b366967123
Not mine, No FB.
Which solicits this response:
Q !xowAT4Z3VQ ID: 7ec299967161
YOU are being TRACKED.
NO FB account required.
This is BIGGER than you think.
Agencies attached.


Let that sink in for a moment. If you click on a FB “like” you will be tracked. No account necessary.

Time for a short diversion, but it is relevant and hopefully will become clear.

This is post 1124
Q !xowAT4Z3VQ ID: 06cd81985368
Testify then drop.
We have it all.
These people are stupid.
POTUS’ weekly address.
“@Snowden” is Ed Snowden and for non-Americans “POTUS” is President Of The United States.
So who was testifying before USA Congress on 10/11 April 2018?
MZ testifies before Congress.
Uploaded by Guardian News
“Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg defends the social platform as a “positive force in the world” as he addresses Congress on Tuesday while admitting he made “a big mistake” by not taking seriously the social network’s responsibility to its two billion users”
Note that MZ was not under oath.
So all we need now is the “drop”.  Hmmmm… What could that be?
Post 1130 from an Anon with reply from “Q” attached
Anonymous ID: cf14d31003261


Check the dates. Pentagon kills LIFELOG project same day Facebook is formed.
Q !xowAT4Z3VQ ID: a3385e1003596
Finder of this should apply to NSA.
Note the dates Feb 4 2004.

Is this the “drop”?  Coincidence?  😉
Did the LifeLog project really end or was it just rebranded?  You decide.

Parsifal as Proto-SF by Andrew May

Parsifal is an opera by Richard Wagner (1813 – 1883). It’s a very unusual opera, which has baffled and intrigued audiences since it was first performed in 1882. Most operas are about larger-than-life human relationships and emotions, and Wagner’s earlier works are no exception. But Parsifal is different. It’s all about ideas — very abstract ideas of philosophy, metaphysics and theology. I would argue that this places Parsifal firmly in the realm of speculative fiction. Moreover, the focus of speculation in Wagner’s opera is remarkably similar to that found in the novels of Philip K Dick and in the Matrix trilogy.








How to Deconstruct a James Bond Film ~ Miles Mathis

Click to access bond.pdf

First published November 18, 2015

We start by realizing that Ian Fleming was an agent himself, so we have always been given clues via these books and films. We must assume the newer scriptwriters are also involved in Intelligence, either being agents themselves or being in constant consultation. The original and primary point of the novels and movies was as PR for Intelligence, but as the years have passed more and more clues are inserted into the films as well. I assume this is mostly as an inside joke: they know by now that almost no one is getting the clues, so they feel they don’t have to be careful. But they also may be signaling one another and those on the outside (assuming anyone but me is still outside Intelligence).


continued at the link above.

Thought Food

A link to a now closed forum in which Stewart Swerdlow is discussed along with a few other topics.
Of note from the various contributors:

“How many people don’t realize that they only pick the programming or reality that coincides with their desires?”

“It’s not about believing, it’s about knowing. So, .. check for yourself as much as possible.”

“… much of the new age stuff is fabricated….. to weaken you…. with the the help of old systems like the kabbalah, which likely can be seen as a “software” program to applicate the metaphysical in one (programmed) specific way.”


“Most of the new age stuff is based on many ancient systems like the kabbala which was created by the ego of man which also “created” gods and hiarchies as thought forms or archons so man becomes controlled by his own creation? just a thought.”

Read the whole thread to get the context.

The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion ~ Miles Mathis

We’ve been looking into this subject for many months and intending to write about this subject but have kept putting it to the back of our “to-do” list. Miles has beaten us to it so now we don’t have to and done a far better job of it to boot! Many, many thanks Miles!

Click to access protocols.pdf

First written April 25, 2015
This paper is by request. One of my regular readers asked me my opinion of the Protocols, and I thought it was time I had one. Up until today, I didn’t. I can see why my readers would wish for an opinion on this, and assume I had one, especially considering my recent paper on Karl Marx—which sort of plays right into the theme of the Protocols. But although I have long known of the Protocols, I have never really studied them. I think today was the first time I read them all the way through. Some will think this makes me a naif, but I just think it allows me to look at them with a fresh eye. Either way, as usual I will come down on a third side. I think I will be able to say some things about them that aren’t usually said, which is the only excuse for adding to the literature on any subject.
For a grin, I will tell you exactly what my reader said when requesting this paper. He said,
“If there’s one person on the planet I trust to do an honest review of that, it’d be you. Figured I’d mention it. Keep up the awesome work in the service of truth.”
So here goes. The usual argument concerning the Protocols seems to be concerning their authenticity. The promoted mainstream opinion is that they are a hoax and a forgery. Others find them genuine. Although I will choose a side here, I don’t think that is the most important question. Even “forged” documents can be interesting, provided that they contain some amount of truth. We will see how much
truth the documents contain, and where that truth leads us.
For those who don’t know, the Protocols are a sort of game plan of world domination, said to have been leaked from a meeting of Jewish or Zionist leaders in the late 19th century. For several decades they were sold as genuine. Henry Ford accepted their authenticity and republished them. In the 1920’s they were exposed as a forgery in mainstream publications. But since these publications usually were controlled by Jewish interests, this debunking was not seen as definitive. It was argued that those trying to quash the Protocols had a vested interest in doing so, which was true enough.
One of the main arguments against the Protocols has been that they mirror Maurice Joly’s Dialogue in Hell in several passages, as well as borrowing from other works. Although this is true, it isn’t really to the point. Almost everything that has ever been written has borrowed from previous works, sometimes quoting from them, and sometimes just borrowing from them with no credit or footnote. Since this was never sold as a scholarly work, the lack of footnotes should be no surprise. Leaked notes from a secret meeting would not be expected to be annotated. Just because a document lacks footnotes or borrows from previous writings does not make it a hoax or a forgery. If the Elders of some group had decided to create a white paper, they might have used a previous document as a starting point or outline, retaining some traces of the older document in the newer. This is how the world works, so finding traces like this is proof of nothing.
In my opinion, the Protocols are neither a hoax nor a forgery. They are not what they claim to be, but that does not make them a hoax or a forgery. What they are, technically, is a political feint.
What I mean by that is this: the Protocols appear to me to be a cloaked attack. They are an attack by the aristocracy upon the financiers that had just defeated them. More than that, they are a focused attack upon one party of the financiers: the Jewish financiers.
In this sense, they are exactly what the Anti-Defamation League says they are. They are an attack upon Jewish (financial) leadership, and they are not the minutes or white paper of any real Jewish conference. They are a fiction.
I will be told I am contradicting myself already. I have said they are not a hoax or a forgery, but that they are a fiction. What could I possibly mean? Well, I consider “hoax” too strong a dismissal, since a hoax is normally something completely or mostly false sold as true. I will show this doesn’t apply to the Protocols, since although they are credited to the wrong party, they contain a lot of truth. And they aren’t a forgery, since a forgery is a document signed by someone who didn’t write it. No one signed the Protocols, that I know of. The Protocols are not forged, they are misdirected. You may find the difference subtle, but I don’t. By calling the Protocols a hoax or a forgery, it is implied they are false, unimportant, and uninteresting. I will show they are none of those things.
First things first. Why do I think the Protocols are fiction? Because they taste like fiction. They don’t read like the real minutes of a meeting, nor like a game plan, nor like a white paper. The psychology is all wrong. People don’t talk about themselves this way. Jewish leaders would whitewash their own actions far better than this, even talking amongst themselves. Despots never call themselves despots, for example. No matter how Machiavellian leaders are, they always try to sugarcoat their actions, especially to themselves. As an example, we can study Protocol 4:
But even freedom might be harmless and have its place in the State economy without injury to the well-being of the peoples if it rested upon the foundation of faith in God, upon the brotherhood of humanity, unconnected with the conception of equality, which is negatived by the very laws of creation, for they have established subordination. With such a faith as this a people might be governed by a wardship of parishes, and would walk contentedly and humbly under the guiding hand of its spiritual pastor submitting to the dispositions of God upon earth. This is the reason why IT IS INDISPENSABLE FOR US TO UNDERMINE ALL FAITH, TO TEAR OUT OF THE MIND OF THE “GOYIM” THE VERY PRINCIPLE OF GOD-HEAD AND THE SPIRIT, AND TO PUT IN ITS PLACE ARITHMETICAL CALCULATIONS AND MATERIAL NEEDS.
Although most readers focus on the last part, it is the first part that sticks out like a sore thumb. If this were really written by Jewish materialists, why would they insert this little idyll concerning the brotherhood of humanity, with a wardship of parishes and the guiding hand of a spiritual pastor? These two sentences blow the entire document.
In the same way, the title “WE SHALL DESTROY GOD” is overplayed. Although I think the financiers have long been trying to destroy organized religion, I do not think they would put it this way in their own documents. They don’t need to “destroy God,” since they don’t believe in him. They might talk about destroying Christianity, or destroying belief in God, but not about destroying God. For them, that would be like saying WE SHALL DESTROY SANTA CLAUS.
Protocol 4 was obviously written by someone who believed in God as a real entity, and who was trying to insert a subtle promotion of the “brotherhood of humanity.” In hindsight, it lacked all subtlety.
So, on to the next question. Why do I think this was written by the aristocracy? Well, the clue is in the Preface, where we are told the Protocols were translated from the Russian by one Victor E. Marsden. Victor E? Victory? C’mon, why not be obvious? They are hoping for a Victory in the Den of Mars. Mars is the Roman god of war, of course. This document is an early infowar.
This is also curious:
Mr. Marsden’s connection with the MORNING POST was not severed by his return to England, and he was well enough to accept the post of special correspondent of that journal in the suite of H.R.H., the Prince of Wales on his Empire tour. From this he returned with the Prince, apparently in much better health, but within a few days of his landing he was taken suddenly ill, and died after a very brief illness.
They admit Marsden was special correspondent to the Prince of Wales, but then they expect you to be too stupid to draw the obvious conclusion from that connection: the Protocols were written at the behest of the Prince of Wales, as part of a wider operation ongoing at the time. We see more indication of that in the body of the text, where the aristocracy is whitewashed again and again.
For example, in Protocol 1.21, we find this:
from this the conclusion is inevitable that a satisfactory form of government for any country is one that concentrates in the hands of one responsible person. Without an absolute despotism there can be no existence for civilization which is carried on not by the masses but by their guide, whosoever that person may be. The mob is savage, and displays its savagery at every opportunity. The moment the mob seizes freedom in its hands it quickly turns to anarchy, which in itself is the highest degree of savagery.
Hmmm. Curious that this cabal of Jewish financiers would be promoting monarchy, isn’t it? “One responsible person” isn’t a cabal of financiers, it is a King or autocrat. But the financiers don’t promote autocrats, except as figureheads behind which they can hide. In their own meetings, the Jewish financiers wouldn’t be promoting absolute monarchy, would they?
And again in Protocol 1.26:
As you will see later, this helped us to our triumph: it gave us the possibility, among other things, of getting into our hands the master card – the destruction of the privileges, or in other words of the very existence of the aristocracy of the GOYIM, that class which was the only defense peoples and countries had against us. On the ruins of the natural and genealogical aristocracy of the GOYIM we have set up the aristocracy of our educated class headed by the aristocracy of money. The qualifications for this aristocracy we have established in wealth, which is dependent upon us, and in knowledge, for which our learned elders provide the motive force.
The aristocracy is the only defense against these Elders of Zion? Interesting. Also notice that the aristocracy is called here “natural and genealogical.” Would the real Elders of Zion call the aristocracy “natural”?
No, the Protocols are a pretty transparent fiction, and it is clear they were written and promoted by the aristocracy. But does this make the aristocracy the bad guys and the Jewish financiers the good guys? No.
As I have said before, when you get these warring parties, they often tell the truth about eachother, but lie about themselves. We see the same thing here. Like almost everything else promoted in the past two centuries, this document is a strange mixture of truth and propaganda, and you have to enter the bog with a pretty good map to make it to the other side. The aristocrats who wrote and promoted this document are revealing a great deal of genuine information about how the world is being controlled, and by whom. This is why when Henry Ford was asked about the Protocols, he said only, “They fit in with what is going on.” True enough. A reader comes away with the idea—not promoted until then— that the world was being run by a group of powerful and hidden financiers intent upon remolding the world on a master plan. The reader also came away with the idea that this plan included destroying religion, undermining education, quashing liberalism and Republicanism, and hiding behind Marxism. In addition, this plan included controlling the press and all other information, lying as a primary form of governance, and a total destruction of the individual.
All true.
Yes, the big things the aristocracy is leaking here are all true, which is why I say the document is both important and interesting despite the fact that it is fiction. It is a fiction that is mostly true.
For many people, that will seem like a contradiction, but it isn’t. Many people think that anything that is fiction is false. But just because something is fiction doesn’t mean it is false. You can make up a story to tell the truth, or you can make up a story to lie. The fact that you made it up doesn’t make it false. If you then tell your readers that God wrote it, say, that part is a lie. But the story itself could be either true or false.
That is what we see here. The claim that this document is a white paper from a Jewish meeting is false. And yet many of the facts about world governance leaked in the document are true. That is the way
things are in real life. They are a mixture, and you have to sort through them. As we have seen again and again, they are usually a very tangled mess of a mixture, and the tangle is purposely tangled more and more by those who come after, to prevent you from unwinding it. But with some effort—and a constant nod to logic—we can unwind any tangle.
So let’s unwind the next tangle. I have said that the aristocrats have leaked a lot of true information about their opponents. But does that mean that everything they say here is true? Of course not. To start with, they are trying to pin everything on the Jews, but we know that all the top financiers are not Jews. So why would the aristocrats imply they are? Because some of the top financiers are Gentiles who ditched the aristocracy and put their cards in with the new money. But since the aristocrats are all about blood, they don’t wish to attack their own. In this way, they are like the Jews they criticize. For all of them, blood is blood, even after it has committed treason. Maybe they hope to turn these treasonous Gentile bluebloods back to the true path. More likely they hope to shame them for the alliances they have made with the Jews.
That is a big lie, but it isn’t the biggest lie the aristocrats are telling here. The biggest lie concerns human nature. The entire document is set up as Old World versus New World. They want to expose the New World as a fraud perpetrated by financiers. But once they have convinced you of that fraud, they want you to go back to the Old World, which they ruled. So they repeat all the Old World myths about mob rule, about the majority of people being bad, and so on. They mix this with some half- truths about hierarchies, and the reader is expected to give up on liberalism, Republicanism, freedom, and individualism once and for all.
In this way the document is very seductive. It tells you a lot of truth about the way the world works, it gives you a clear enemy, and then shows you what looks like a logical path beyond the muddle. This is what most people want. But the solution here is just one more conjob—a very old conjob at that. It is the conjob of blood and old families—which is just the conjob of GOLD with a subtle twist.
Remember, the aristocrats are blackwashing GOLD and GREED, because they know those two words are easy to connect to the Jews. But how did the aristocrats get where they were? That’s right. GOLD and GREED. Blue blood is just blood that has had GOLD for many generations. It is OLD MONEY instead of NEW MONEY. But still, it is all about money. Blue blood is no guarantee of ability of any kind, as we know. Or, it is about the ability to steal and hoard gold and nothing else.
What these aristocrats who wrote the Protocols are trying to do is connect natural hierarchy to ruling families, but there is no such connection. Yes, there are natural hierarchies. Yes, people are not equal and never will be. Yes, some people are adept at some jobs and some are adept at others. Yes, society should be led by leaders, and not all people are leaders. Yes, democracy—taken too far—leads to endless squabbles and chronic inefficiency. But does that mean the only viable government is a vicious top-down control by vulgar rich people who a) don’t believe in God, or b) believe they are God’s chosen rulers? No and a thousand times no. The answer is not either an anointed aristocracy or a self-appointed cabal of financiers. The answer is NEITHER.
The rather obvious fact of the matter is that neither the aristocrats nor the financiers have done a good job of ruling. They have only done a good job at tooting their own horns and preying on the rest of us. I have news for both of them: looting your constituency is not governing it. Strip-mining the world is not governing it. Lying all the live-long day is not governing.
I have made some nods to the aristocracy recently, admitting that art was far more healthy under it than under the financiers. But even so, I would not wish this to be read as an apology or promotion of the aristocracy. If pressed, I would probably choose the aristocracy over the financiers, but that is likely due to two specific factors that are prejudicial. One, I am an artist. Although a chosen few artists were better off under the aristocrats, it doesn’t mean the average person was. Two, I have lived under the financiers and know what a disaster it is. If I lived under the Kings and Popes in a past life, I don’t remember it and no longer feel it keenly. But from reading history we know it wasn’t anything to brag about.
What I do know is that both have been tried and neither has been any sort of success, by any meaningful standard. Just the opposite. Both have been nightmares. The arguments and excuses both groups have made and continue to make are pathetic, and no sane person would listen to more of them for a moment. Both have made such a bad job of governing that most people now believe this world is a predestined hell, including the governors. Even the financiers and aristocrats believe this is some predestined armpit of the universe, which not even their genius can mitigate.
But I don’t. It is their predation posing as governance that has made it a hell, not any old curse or predestination. With a small dose of beneficent governance, 9/10ths of the misery would immediately evaporate. Yes, this beneficent governance would have to include a large dose of new discipline, but most humans have a natural talent for discipline when it is required and encouraged. Even now, when it is least encouraged, most people show incredible amounts of discipline and restraint—which is what the false governors rely on.
You will say that Modern people, especially Americans, are fat, lazy, no-nothing louts who will have to be forced to do anything good or meaningful. And while I admit that the contemporary human being is not a proud beast, not one to immediately give one confidence, I think he retains all the potential he ever had—which is to say a great deal.
Let me put it this way: did anyone have to force all these louts to buy all the shit they have bought, enriching the billionaires and debasing themselves in the process? No. Our corrupt leaders only had to suggest that everyone go out and buy everything on the shelves, and they did. You may not think that is a great argument in favor of the louts, but just reverse the process. Instead of suggesting to the people that they go out and make constant fools of themselves, new beneficent leaders could suggest they do the opposite. Instead of using all the media and the government to corrupt and vulgarize the populace, our leaders could be using them to un-corrupt and un-vulgarize the populace. Since people are suggestible, they can be moved either way. The point being that force is not required. Good leaders will move them toward the good and bad leaders will move them toward the bad.
As a good analogy, think of domestic pets. Dogs or cats in a house run by intelligent and kind people are glorious little beasts, loving and happy around the clock. Their fur glows, they are beautiful and shining, and they purr or wag for hours on end. Conversely, dogs or cats in a house run by corrupt and predatory people are likewise corrupt. They are dirty, ugly and miserable. They tend to be either vicious or neurotic.
Well, don’t we see precisely the same thing in human society? Yes, in contemporary society, we see a fantastic number of vicious or neurotic people: miserable, ugly, and shedding their anger and discontent all over the house and town. But does this mean that people are naturally bad? No, not any more than the vicious and neurotic dogs and cats mean that dogs and cats are naturally bad.
As pets are a reflection of their owners, citizens are a reflection of their leaders.
A well-run society will still have problems. It will still have its bad apples, since nurture is not everything. But such a society will look and act nothing like our current society.
The problems in the world now are, by and large, not problems that come from human nature. Yes, there are problems with human nature, and those problems will persist under any governance, benevolent or not. But the wickedness of human nature has been vastly oversold, and it has been oversold to mask the real cause of wickedness in the world: leadership by the corrupt. The more corrupt the leadership is, the more it tries to sell you the idea of corrupt human nature.
Which is probably why the Protocols have never been suppressed in the United States. Within a few decades of their publication, the war between the aristocrats and financiers was over, ending roughly with the fall of the Romanovs and the end of WW1. Yes, the financiers won, and they won pretty decisively. But the aristocrats were able to strike a bargain, by which they saved face and kept a tithe of their old privilege. They were able to do this only because the financiers needed someone to hide behind. Having all the charisma of a bag of dirty socks, they could not rule in the open. So they have ruled since then by hiding behind Kings and Queens and Presidents and Parliaments and Congresses, padding the Congresses with actors and other celebrities. In exchange for this, the aristocrats agreed to no longer trouble the financiers with their plots and schemes. Both the financiers and the aristocrats conspire to build the MATRIX you live in, and all you have to do is follow their suggestions.
Well, the Protocols have now been subsumed within that MATRIX. Some Jews still don’t like them, for obvious reasons, but the Protocols are actually more useful to the ruling class than not, since they so successfully sell the idea of corrupt human nature. As you have seen, that idea is useful to the aristocrats and financiers both, since it acts to misdirect blame away from them. According to the Protocols and similar documents, the problem isn’t that corrupt governors have sucked you dry of all useful property and inspiration, or that they have mis-educated you via a constant confusion into an intellectual coma. No, according to them the problem is that you are a wretched human, born to misery. You are paying for the sins of your fathers. You are on a cursed planet, cast out of all rational society. You are stuck in a hellish cycle of repetition, a cycle you can only break by renouncing all earthly connections, giving your last dime and crust of bread to a billionaire, and floating away on the wind like a leaf in autumn.
You see, no matter what country you were born in, you are raised on the same lies. Both Christ and the Buddha—as promoted now—have no good advice for you beyond that you give Caesar more of what he already has and go live under a Banyan tree, eating grubs. That’s convenient for the Caesars and the Brahmins, wouldn’t you say?
But it isn’t mainly human nature that is corrupt. It is specific individuals in the ruling class that are corrupt. You can’t address general corruption, anyway: you can only address specific corruption. I am telling you that is the specific corruption that must be addressed.
If aliens are watching us—as some think—and if they were given permission to break the non- interference clause, they would change human society most quickly by targeting a few dozen people. If they replaced the right 50 people, say, with benevolent look-alikes, human history would reverse overnight.
With that idea in mind, ask yourself how that could be achieved without alien interference. It won’t be achieved by voting, will it, since those 50 people aren’t elected. It won’t be achieved by murder, since
even if those 50 could be killed, they would just be replaced by the corrupt ones around them. It won’t be achieved by legislation, since those 50 are above all laws. It won’t be achieved by an infowar, since those people and their minions control far more means of suggestion and influence than you and yours ever will.
Seems like a stumper, doesn’t it?
But here’s an idea: why not talk to those 50 directly, as if they are actually human beings? Instead of assuming they are evil lizard people, transported from the 9th circle of Hell, why not talk to them as if they have ears and a conscience? You plant the seed where it has to grow.
You see, the irony of it is, if you can convince them that They Will be Happier Themselves after the revolution, you don’t even have to have a revolution. A revolution that takes place in the heads of those 50 people is already done, and the streets don’t even have to be swept afterwards.
Of course, to convince those 50 of it, you have to believe it yourself, which may be an even bigger revolution. I have met very few people who genuinely believed it; perhaps none. So here is another question to ask yourself: why should those 50 believe it if you don’t?
The thing is, I DO BELIEVE IT. I believe it can happen and I believe it will happen. I don’t believe it will happen just because I believe it. I am not selling you a “happy thoughts” philosophy, understand. I don’t believe you can change the world just by sending out a positive vibe (although that doesn’t hurt). I am also not selling you an age of Aquarius, where everything is perfect. When I say I believe, I don’t mean I believe all problems will be solved and everyone will be blissful. I just mean I believe things don’t have to be like this. The ways things currently are is not the way things must be. Life on this planet can be much much better than it is, and it actually wouldn’t take much to bump it up. Technology is not the answer. Better governance is.
If those aliens are watching, they are waiting for us to make that jump and finally show the potential we have. I suspect they are amazed we have been stalled for so long. They must be amazed that an entire planet can be purposely stalled by a few families for many centuries, just for their personal enrichment —while those same families remain miserable. We are all caught in the manufactured nightmare of a few hundred related people, and since they cannot wake we also cannot. A strange circumstance, assuredly, but nothing is predestined or necessary about it. It could end at any moment.
As I say, I believe it will end; but it won’t end because of my belief or yours either. It will end because something changes, and something will change because something new will get done. In each of our minds, something must change which will change our actions. You have to get yourself to a point where you see a solution, you believe in the solution, and you act on it. This paper is not me sending out a positive vibe. This paper is an action.
How is that, you may ask? Well, I know the aristocrats and financiers are reading my papers. Or, at least some of their hostages in Intelligence are. They have to read them to plan their little operations of misdirection and inundation. So I talk to them directly. These papers are not just written as letters to the other side of my brain. And they aren’t written to my choir of fellow travelers, either—although I love you guys. They are written to those people in Intelligence, too, and to those they report to. My papers are—in part—a seed posted to the 50.
If you have read a lot of my papers, you know I include asides to these people in Intelligence and to their masters. Although I am resisting them, that doesn’t mean I think they are soulless automatons who hate me because they are ordered to. Nor are they Satanists who must do evil because they were born to it. Maybe they hate me for the moment and maybe they don’t, but that isn’t what matters. What matters is that I assume they are intelligent enough to recognize a reasonable argument when they see it. They are, after all, made of the same stuff as you and me. The same charge pulses through their molecules, the same mitochondria drive their cells, the same Muses guide them who guide us all. So if I am hurling seeds to the winds, why hurl them only to the most fertile fields? Isn’t the most logical thing to hurl them to the so-far barren fields as well? Isn’t that the only place new shoots can grow?
Christ damned the fig tree for failing to bear fruit, but that has never been my favorite passage in the literature. If Christ could pour wine from water flasks, and raise Lazarus from the dead, couldn’t he exhort the poor fruit tree to wake up and do better next season, giving it a bit of water and a gulp of fertilizer while he was at it?
Some will accuse me of blasphemy for second-guessing scripture, but we are at a point in history where all scripture must be second-guessed. My Muses have tapped me to second-guess all scripture from all sources, sacred and profane—though you will have to take my word for it. Although I am far more interested in second-guessing profane scripture—which is what the Protocols might be called—no document in history is too sacred to be looked at in the light of reason. No bald contradiction like the fruit tree should be allowed to stand, since it is these contradictions that perpetuate the old confusions.
So, to anyone reading this for whatever reason, the near future I foresee is not one where everyone is living in the same size house on the same meager rations. It is not one where all the rich are marched over a cliff or stripped of their possessions. It is not a Marxist or Socialist revenge, where the meek inherit the Earth and turn it into a vast mediocrity. All the dystopiae you have seen in the movies and literature have been manufactured to make you fear the future, so that you will accept the slightly less repellent present. But I foresee none of that. Nor do I see a plastic neverland of automation and robots, with people relegated to some form of navel gazing. Again, that is a Hollywood future manufactured to make you glad things aren’t worse than they are.
No, the future I see is just a subtle nudge from what we have, but so much better. For instance, if the looting by the rich were to stop, trillions would immediately be freed up to be spent on necessary projects. If the looting were to stop, all the projects by which they currently loot would also stop, including the planned destruction of art history, the planned misdirection of science, the planned misdirection of literature and poetry, the planned misdirection of farming, and the planned misdirection of environmentalism. All the fake drugs would go away, all the fake psychiatry, all the fake food, all the fake advertising. The military would shrink by 95% and the spy agencies by a similar amount. By the same token, all the lies told to promote all these things would go away, as well as all the lies told about history—which are mainly cover for the looting projects.
You will say that if all these things go away, the economy will collapse. But that isn’t true. That is just one more lie you are told by the superrich to protect their looting projects. Only the false economy that enriches the billionaires way beyond their needs would go away. The real economy would remain, and that is the only economy that touches you in any positive way. In fact, that economy would expand greatly, since it would no longer be sucked dry by the fake economy. As I said, trillions would be freed up yearly to be spent on useful projects. Those useful projects would be part of the economy, of course. Those trillions wouldn’t just evaporate, would they? No, they would simply be redirected away from the billionaires and into real projects.
You will say the billionaires, the military, and the spy agencies will never allow that.
They will if they are convinced that future is better for them as well. You see, I don’t think anyone yet understands what that economic expansion will entail, or how magnificent it will be. Just think about it: the trillions looted yearly by the very wealthy are looted from real sources: taxdollars, natural resources, goods manufactured from those resources, and human productivity. Well, all that will remain in the new economy, it just isn’t siphoned off by the four hundred families. Those families will live off accumulated fat for a few hundred years while they develop some useful skills. In the meantime, those trillions start going to real projects. Anyone can get involved in those new projects that wants to, including ex-military, ex-Intelligence, or ex-looters. I am not suggesting that everyone in the military and Intelligence go on unemployment or go to jail. I am suggesting they redirect their energies, and it may be they wish to redirect their energies. It may be that the majority of them would welcome new work, if it were both interesting and lucrative.
Yes, I said lucrative. Many people seem to think that “the brotherhood of man” entails everyone work for minimum wage, live in a hut and eat dry beans. But just the opposite is true. Your average person will be far richer under a brotherhood of man, simply because his paycheck won’t be looted first by the billionaires. And he will be far happier, because the work he is doing is necessary and he knows it. He won’t be spying on people who are doing nothing, making weapons to stockpile, or marching around foolishly and aimlessly, firing expensive ammunition at targets. He won’t be manufacturing events, inciting fake wars, or stealing resources from poor black people in far-off lands who need them far more than he does.
Even the billionaires will be happier, because they will find that by turning off the money faucet, the manufactured nightmare in their heads begins to end. The constant call of the coin subsides, and they begin to hear other voices. They may begin to hear their Muses speak to them, and those Muses will tell them what they should have been doing all along.
As their nightmare ends, so does everyone’s nightmare.
You will say I am just exhibiting my naivete again. I will be told the privileged will never give up their privileges, whether they are miserable or not. I will be told that people like this never quit: they have to be defeated. That is what history tells us.
But again, that is not exactly true. History probably does give us more examples of the latter, but it is not without examples of the former. People—including rich people—do quit sometimes. Sometimes they concede a bad position, and sometimes they just get tired of defending it. And so it may seem that they allow themselves to be defeated without that much effort. Sometimes when people are in the wrong, they stop believing in themselves. The late Roman Empire gives us many, many examples that could be read that way, and that often are read that way even by mainstream historians. More recent examples will come to mind without much effort.
In fact, the fall of the aristocracy can be read that way. Could the financiers have so quickly defeated a power structure so long entrenched if the aristocrats had still believed in themselves? It is doubtful. More than anything, the financiers simply inserted themselves into a void that was already there, and which only they perceived.
You also have to consider the fact that all the privileged people do not have to decide simultaneously to quit looting the world. If that were necessary, of course it would never happen. But since we are
indeed talking about a hierarchy here, with top-down control, only a handful of top people would have to decide to make a change. If the captains decide, it is done. When the captains decide they are harming their own interests and their own children by looting the world they live in, they will begin the clean-up. I have to think that some of them aren’t that far from that realization now.
Again, I beg you to notice the wording I used in that last paragraph. I am not naïve enough to think that the superwealthy will suddenly become altruistic overnight. I am not completely unaware of human nature and its limitations. If these people stop, it will not be because they are concerned that you are miserable. They have ways to put that out of mind. It will be because they are concerned that they are miserable. They have purchased every other form of mitigation for their misery, to no effect, so they may be intrigued by my claim of a cure—even though I offer it to them for free. They may be the more intrigued in that it is neither an old or new age religion, and that I am not a guru or a priest.
In fact, it is entirely possible I am a turned demon.
It is possible we all are.
By that I do not mean that we were actual consorts of Satan; only that we are beings that chose to leave the dark side because it wasn’t doing anything for us. We were assured that wearing the black hat was more thrilling, but found with experience it wasn’t so. Even Yoda tells us the dark side is more seductive. But is it? Not really. It is sold with a greater fanfare, but I have found its levels of seduction to be minimal. I am a demon that has been seduced by the light side.
I like to simplify things down to a bare minimum, so let me do that again here. I talked about household pets above, since most of us have them. You have a choice how to live with those pets, and that choice is pretty much a one-way street. You have the power, and they don’t have much to say about it. In most cases, they can’t harm you, so you can do whatever you like. So if you treat them well, that is only because you choose to. You like to be the generous guy who is kind to his pets, because you like that image of yourself. But it goes beyond that. You like the response from your pets, who treat you like a god. They come when you call (even if they are cats)*, they sleep next to you like loving children, and they fill the house with beauty and contentedness. You feel like a beneficent ruler of your house, where all is magical and blessed. You amaze yourself that you created that. No, you didn’t create the pets or their responses, but you created the atmosphere, and you didn’t have to. Many people don’t.
But unless you really are a saint, odds are you created that atmosphere mainly for yourself. That sort of household appeals to you not because you are so concerned for the well being of those beasts, but because you are so concerned about your self image and your own contentedness. You find that household preferable for yourself.
Now, that is putting it bluntly and perhaps overstating it for effect. I think I do care for the well being of other creatures. But I think I would act the same way even if I didn’t. That is what I mean by being a turned demon. A saint treats all creatures well only because he or she loves them, and for no other reason. A turned demon treats all creatures well because he likes how it makes him feel. He chooses the light side not because it is the only thing he can do, but because it is better for him than the dark side.
It is doubtful a saint ever chooses the light side. It is more likely a saint was born to the light side, and couldn’t think a dark thought if he wanted to. But a turned demon must choose. And, as it turns out, a
demon can choose. In fact, it is marvelously easy. As soon as the demon starts being nice, the hellish household or society evaporates and is replaced by a domain of health and vigor.
In this as in everything, there are hierarchies, and all of us (who treat our pets well) fall somewhere between saint and demon.
Of course, not all of us treat our pets well. If you are one of those, you have to step up to even become a turned demon.
Anyway, I don’t think it is hard to blow this household pet story up into an analogy of human society. You probably saw where I was going before I got there. Those currently running society don’t suddenly have to become saints for things to change. They just have to come to the (perhaps wholly selfish) realization that ruling a contented society is far more pleasant and satisfying for them than tyrannizing one.
We know these people have god complexes, but rather than ridicule that, I would work with it. I would say to them that this god complex would be far easier to maintain—and to sell to themselves—if they looked more like gods in their own eyes. To see what I mean, return to the pet analogy. Does someone who tyrannizes his pets look like a god to anyone? Does he look like a god to the pets? No. Does he look like a god to himself? No. He just looks like a sad human being picking on those weaker than him.
But again, it isn’t that “being a good ruler is its own reward.” That may or may not be true, but there are loads of more tangible rewards. Good rulers are more likely to like themselves and be surrounded by people who like them, which is not an intangible reward. Because of this they are more likely to sleep well and have good digestion. This leads to fewer ailments, better health, and higher levels of physical beauty. All tangible. They also age more slowly, which appears to be high on the list of the superwealthy.
Because they aren’t looting the world, they also aren’t polluting it to the same extent, which means they themselves don’t have to dodge those pollutants. Again, better health for them and their children, which is tangible.
For the same reason, they don’t have to worry so much about security. Loved rulers need far less security than hated ones. Spying on your constituents all day and night takes a lot out of you. If the superwealthy wish to live longer and healthier, they should start by being better rulers. Just think about it: If you aren’t lying and stealing all the time, you don’t need all the security and spying. Once all that is gone, it will be like removing a clamp from your chest: you will breathe so much easier. Tangible.
*Yes, my cats come when I call them. If your cats don’t come when you call them, it isn’t because they are “independent”: it may be because they don’t like you very much.

See also this link

Arthur Cristian – The Most Powerful Video On Spirituality And Happiness FOR SLAVES…

Or How to Acept Slavery and be Happy About It

“We were asked by Dana….

“Arthur, have you ever seen this Eckhart Tolle video before? Although he does (only very briefly) mention a few constructs of the system, such as Jesus and Buddha, i think a lot of what he shares could really be helpful for people trying to break free of the illusion, and – even more so – the trauma. ”

We replied…………

You won’t see him point out all the nefarious psyops programs that locks the duped into “The System”. He maybe innocent of his duplicity but his work prepares the duped to enter the NWO without realising the psyops programs currently compelling them to continue their/our/MANS enslavement. The Dalai Lama is another blatant mis-leader using almost the same type of psyops programming tactics Echart Tolle is working with.

Everything gets incredibly simple, uncomplicated and easy when fallen-MAN can recognise the clearly defined distinction between SENSE & NON-SENSE, between sensory images and non-sensory images.

“The System” is trauma based and everything of “The System” is reaction to trauma which is all about giving our life-force-energy to non-sensory-images (darkness) to set them into motion.”

continued at the link above.

A Higher Conscious Conversation – YT


Published on Jan 9, 2013

What highly conscious people talk about.

From the film My Dinner With Andre.

All credits to appropriate people. Only uploaded to further educate. No credit taken..
“Invisible Planets” by Cristian Vogel (Google Play • eMusic • iTunes)
Standard YouTube License

Beware of ‘gurus’….

Blowing the Whistle, Chpt. 1: The Hidden Agenda of Mantra Meditation

This is the first chapter in an online book,

Blowing the Whistle on Enlightenment: Confessions of a New Age Heretic,” by Bronte Baxter.

What I expected to see when I came back to the Fairfield scene after 20 years away from Transcendental Meditation was a group of mainstay meditators true-blue to Maharishi and a group of robust dissenters, whose minds questioned everything they learned from their guru days. Instead, I found the true-blue meditators, but not the kind of dissenters I anticipated. I encountered people who had left the TM movement but hadn’t substantially changed their belief system. This latter group had changed in the way that people change hats, or redecorate their homes, leaving unaltered the structure underneath.

The dissenters had splintered into a myriad of Eastern or Eastern-related philosophies: Eckhart Tolle, Byron Katie and Andrew Cohen were popular, and Neo-Advaitin gurus had rallied many behind their minimalist philosophy. “Saints” like Ammachi visit Fairfield regularly, dispensing dharshan and picking up new recruits. Across town, small groups meet in “satsangs” to discuss their growing enlightenment or to chant songs to the gods. Heated debate is common between adherents of competing gurus, and people grow vitriolic over whether Maharishi has slept with young women or not. There is a smattering of hedonists and atheists, but ex-TMers in the Fairfield circuit mostly show up with an intact Vedic worldview. That worldview is a lens through which they perceive and measure all gurus and reality itself.

I find this disturbing. It’s rather like people who’ve been swindled by a con man, despising him for how they were treated while they continue to invest money in the enterprise he sold them on. Why doesn’t the skepticism extend beyond the procurer, to that which he procured for?

And what did Maharishi procure for? The Vedic gods. He sold us a meaningless word that was supposed to guide our minds to transcend superficial consciousness. Later we learned those meaningless words, our mantras, were names of deities. He taught us advanced techniques with the Sanskrit word “namah” at their core: “I bow down.” Mantra meditation is a form of paying worship to those who call themselves gods. When you scrape away all the fancy and misleading explanations – like “meaningless sounds” and “impulses of creative intelligence,” what you get very simply is people with their eyes closed bowing down in their minds to an assigned Hindu deity.

Of course we can explain this away using TM explanations, much like the townsfolk explained away the emperor’s nakedness using the reasoning they were fed by the tricksters who paraded him through the town. But the emperor has no clothes. Mantras worship the gods. “Namah” means “bow down.” It’s right there on the surface for anyone to see if we toss out the excuses we were handed and look at the situation with even a shred of unbiased observation.

Who are these gods, that we’re so willing to explain away as “impulses of our own consciousness”? The same gods have appeared in other religions and cultures, even in societies that had no contact with each other. They go by different names, but the entities are the same. In Hinduism, you have Indra, god of thunder, ruler of the gods, married to Indrani, queen of the gods, known for her jealousy. In Greek mythology, you have Zeus, god of thunder, ruler of the gods, married to Hera, queen of the gods, known for her jealousy. One-to-one correspondence like this is common. The gods are a global phenomenon, with their imprints on every society.

Historically, the gods exacted worship and sacrifice – blood sacrifice commonly, including the murder of humans. While Hinduism has a history of human sacrifice, it has been reduced today to worship of Kali, the goddess with her bloody tongue hanging out, whose body is adorned with a necklace of bleeding, decapitated human heads. Or Shiva, adorned with serpents, who dances on graves. Or Vishnu, whom Arjuna perceived in His cosmic form with pieces of devoured victims’ flesh sticking between his teeth. Gods feed on the energy of suffering, the fearful energy of the victim. In one South American sacrificial ritual, a bull has his throat slit, as slowly as possible. The reasoning given is that the gods cherish “live blood” as the blood with the greatest energy, so the animal must be kept alive while the blood drips from its body. In other words, the greater the fear and suffering of the sacrificial beast, the greater is the pleasure of the gods.

The Shrimad-Bhagavatum, among other scriptures, explains the antipathy of the gods for human enlightenment. According to the Vedas and the mythology of other cultures, the gods feel threatened by the human race, afraid mankind might grow as powerful as they. The gods want humans to remain ignorant and “inferior” because if man realized his intrinsic nature as consciousness, he would no longer be subject to deva control. The devas wish us to believe, and have told us throughout scripture, that their divine hands manipulate and guide the laws of nature – creation itself. For this reason we should worship them, chant to them, send them our soma (subtle energy generated in meditation). Because our energy feeds the gods and is needed by them to stay strong and in control of this material dimension. And they wish us to believe that their control is in our best interest.

Who would make the rains come or the sun shine if the gods are rightful stewards of those things and we humans didn’t support them? All creation would crumble without the blessing of the gods. That, scriptures tell us, is why we should worship, which is equivalent to paying an energy-tithe. It’s the same reasoning human warlords use against the people they dominate: pay your tax, because you need us; we will protect you. Don’t pay the tax, and we will punish you. The gods threaten to punish, even destroy mankind if he doesn’t bend before their yoke and serve them. They fulfilled that threat in the Great Flood (a story which appears in disparate cultures) and in other visitations of divine vengeance recorded in countless tales throughout cultural history.

But really, who are these characters? And do they really exist? The modern mind relegates “gods” to the overactive imaginations of pre-civilized peoples, and in so doing, dismisses the concept. But actually, deities appear in highly civilized early societies, including Sumeria, Babylon, Greece and Egypt. Isn’t it ethnocentric of us to suggest that civilizations capable of constructing the pyramids or accurately charting the course of the stars for centuries into the future, should be dismissed as childlike and ignorant when they write of their experiences with other-worldly beings? Archeologist Zechariah Sitchen, in his voluminous tomes, details the countless references in ancient writings and artifacts to beings who visited this world in fiery flying ships, who taught mankind, interbred with humans, and set up a government of divine-right kingship. Visiting beings who called themselves gods.

Kings were considered “sons of the gods,” connected to the deities by bloodline, hence their right to rule. In the Mahabharata, Arjuna’s mother was said to conceive her numerous sons by intercourse with several different deities. The first chapter of Genesis speaks of the Nefelim, a giant race that interbred with early humans. In Egypt, the pharaohs were literally “sons of the gods.” We find stories of gods interbreeding with humans to create a kingly line in Zulu shamanism and in South American Indian lore.

Time and again, in culture after culture, the gods appear doing the same things, demanding the same things. Even Christianity springs from a pantheistic tradition: Jehovah was one god among many for the Hebrews. A self-righteous fellow fond of war and genocide, he had to compete with the other local gods for the Hebrews’allegiance. Today, having beat out the competition, revered as “God” by his followers, Jehovah garners the worship not just of Jews but Protestants and Catholics as well.

How foolish and arrogant is it to laugh off the existence of a race of beings who appear in the annals of every civilization? I was amazed to see ex-TMers, who spent years feeding soma to devas through chants and mantras, whose walls are still plastered with pictures of Lakshmi, Kali and Shiva, dismiss with a toss of their head the idea that gods might exist as real persons.

Who, in truth, are the gods, and what do they want from us? Do “deities” sit at the controls of the universe, managing the laws of nature? Beings with such awesome power that our lives are in their hands? Entities we must never challenge at the risk of losing all we hold dear? I suggest, if the gods are innately as powerful as they purport to be, they would not need human worship to survive. They would be self-sufficient, drawing on the Infinite within them for every need. Instead, they tell mankind to bow down and pay tithe, and threaten in the scriptures to destroy us if we don’t. What kind of power is it, that can’t exist without feeding?

It sounds more like psychic enslavement to me. Convince the people whose world you contrive to control that they are powerless without you, that the rains won’t come and the sun will go dark if they don’t please you. Drink their soma, the positive energy of worship, and drink their negative energy, too, when you can incite it and siphon it off. Feed yourself on human astral energy, whatever the quality, and you and your race can control human life as long as the system remains intact. Planetary farming. If anyone starts to wake up a little, divert their efforts at spiritual independence by luring them into mantra meditation.

Consider this quote by the currently popular guru, Ramana Maharshi: “Repetition aloud of His name is better than praise. Better still is its faint murmur. But the best is repetition within the mind — and that is meditation. Better than such broken thought is its steady and continuous flow like the flow of oil or of a perennial stream.”

Ramana Maharshi’s statement represents mantra meditation’s goal: a state where the mind is timelessly identified with surrender to the name of one’s god – identical with the god himself. The mind itself has become self-negation at the feet of the deity. Empty of original thought and dynamic desire, the “liberated” person’s ego is dissolved: the very thing that made him or her human. All that is left is a mind-body shell, a meat-robot, that moves through life as a surrendered instrument of some greater will. I suggest the greater will is not that of the Infinite. It is the will of the god who has taken the place of one’s mind.

Does this sound like possession? It surely appears to be. Think of all the gurus you’ve met with their palpable shakti. An energy so real no one who experiences it can deny it. What is that light in their eye, a light beyond this world? Whose is that power they touch you with, embrace you with? Is it the shakti of Brahman, the light of pure consciousness? Or is it the power of Kali or one of her friends? Gurus often say they are the embodiment of Shiva, Kali, or some other god. Why do we not take them at their word?

I would like to suggest that mantra meditation turns humans into zombies who serve the agenda of the gods. That agenda is procurement of more humans and more human energy. This explains the common phenomenon of proselytizing by the religious, including fundamentalist Christians, TMers, and disciples of other varieties. Servants of “God” or the gods feel a driving need to bring in more recruits. The god that moves through them fills them with this zeal, as a hungry stomach fills the mind with an overwhelming need to procure dinner.

There are no gods, in the sense the gods would have us think of them. No one has been designated by the Infinite to control creation and administer the laws of nature. The sun shines by itself as an entity with its own consciousness. The rain and wind don’t need a god to direct them; they move where they will in harmony with their fellow elements. All things are children of the Infinite, spirits or egos in their own unique right, expressing in physical form and also in astral dimensions.

The gods are spirits/egos like everybody else. Most of the time they dwell on astral planes, which is why human senses normally don’t perceive them. According to ancient records, they have visited the earth in ages past in physical forms of their own, as entities from the stars.

They are no more divine than a ghost, no more cosmic than you or I, and no more entitled or intended to run the universe than any other gang of warlords might be. Somehow they’ve gained control of this planet, and have held that control at least since the beginning of recorded human history. But that is no reason to think the Infinite wants it that way, or that life needs to continue that way.

True empowerment is not the Indian concept of enlightenment. It is knowing what we are and living from there. We are spirit: individual and eternal, moving within the consciousness of That which created, sustains and pervades all life. Knowing this is not difficult. It only requires putting attention on that which is beneath the content of thought. Acting from this place of empowerment is natural: we can ordain reality from that quantum level. Everyone can do it. Everyone is equally powerful moving and creating in the depths of their own consciousness.

Unfortunately, people rarely do that, though, as the mass hypnosis that governs human life convinces us that karma, fate or the will of God runs the world, that we as individuals have little direct control over what happens to us. The gods are the purveyors of this global hypnosis. It serves their agenda of control. True liberation does not mean rising above the illusion of ourselves as egos. It means rising above the illusion that as egos we are cut off from the powerhouse of creation. That as individuals we are something less than pure, eternal, powerful spirits – in our own right, very much gods. Gods with a global case of amnesia.

The “enlightened” have surrendered their personhood to the deities who control their meditations. Their bliss is the euphoric stupor which their appeased deities grant them as reward. The words, the thoughts, the desires of the enlightened are not their own any longer, but those of their controlling god. The word “zombie” is appropriate because of its meaning as the walking dead.

But all is not lost for such people. No one can keep the human soul enslaved against its will. An act of personal empowerment, of willfully recalling one’s ego, must surely destroy enslavement by any possessing entity. One can recall surrendered pieces of one’s being as a magnet can recall iron filings. Native American traditions speak of our ability to do just this, calling back the parts of our lost personhood.

When people cease to surrender their energy and spirit to those who call themselves gods, the deceivers will lose their power over this dimension. They will shrink back to “normal size,” entities responsible for themselves like everybody else. Our world will know a freedom, creativity, harmony and joy it has never demonstrated in its history, because interdimensional manipulation will cease. The suffering on this planet, god-inspired and god-feeding, will dwindle and disappear. The need to kill to eat will no longer exist. Sickness, aging and death will have no substructure. Each wonderful created being – animal, human or astral – will thrive on the power of the Infinite source within itself, and victim/tyrant relationships, which ran the planet for eons, will fade into thin air. Living will become what surely the Infinite intended in Its original vision for the universe: a symphony of minds, not a competition; a tapestry of spirits, not a hierarchy; a garden of consciousness, not a painful struggle.

When I hear “the enlightened” excuse all the atrocities of this world by saying that in their exalted perception, everything is “perfect” just as it is, I hear “fraud.” The God I perceive in the depths of my being is not a God who is content with fathers raping infants, animals being ripped apart alive, or human sorrow so great only suicide can quell it. This kind of world is not perfect, and anyone who sees it as such has something seriously wrong with them. If the gods were really beneficent and powerful, they would not operate a world that runs like this. When their mouthpieces and procurers tell us this world is just as it should be – that shows you the true nature of the gods.

These beings are not our friends, though surely, if there are scoundrels in astral dimensions, there must be virtuous entities there as well. Perhaps the ones who don’t seek lordship over this planet are watching to see if humans take back control of our world or continue to surrender it, piece by piece, to the cosmic band of thugs who want to own it. Will we continue surrendering our governments, media, schools, workplaces, taxes and spirituality to those who would lead us farther away from personal freedom and self-actualization, closer to a world without responsibility, originality or joy? Such a world is the goal of the gods, because it’s more controllable.

Their lackeys in the political arena (many – George Bush, for instance – are genetically linked to European royal families and the god-engendered lines of divine-right kings) call this future society the New World Order. Centralized control, humans functioning on autopilot. The death of free will, passion, desire and originality – sounds a lot like enlightenment, doesn’t it. The surrender of the individual to the collective. Control of the collective by divine-right rulers, and control of those rulers by the cosmic band of thugs themselves. The rise of the great Fourth Reich.

Who were the mystical entities Hitler conversed with and took guidance from? Why was group meditation a part of Nazi protocol? Why were many TM/ New Age slogans (“established in Being, perform action,” for instance) also slogans of the Third Reich?

Total control and spiritual domination. The destruction of everything that makes life worth living. Creation imploding on itself, like a snake swallowing its tail. That actually is a symbol found in mystery schools, which were controlled by the gods.

It’s time to give up beads and mantras, chanting and bowing down to dirty feet. It’s time to fire the gurus, stand up and be the powerful, sublime individuals we are. It’s time to question the dogmas we swallowed whole from Vedic tradition and take a closer look at what is happening when we meditate.

It’s time to reclaim our birthright, our divinity and this Earth. Only we can do it, as the conscious beings we are. As Alice in Wonderland said, turning and facing the Red Queen’s army that was hot on her heels, “Pooh! You’re nothing but a pack of old cards.” That army toppled, turning into a heap of playing cards the moment the girl broke through her bad dream. Our controllers too will topple, and dragons will turn into geckos. It’s time to give up the cosmic illusion and de-hypnotise.


Blowing the Whistle, Chpt. 2: Where Have All the Flower Children Gone? 

This is the second chapter in an online book,

Blowing the Whistle on Enlightenment: Confessions of a New Age Heretic,” by Bronte Baxter.

The climate of the 60s: America’s youth uprising. Questioning everything, challenging “the system” and the established worldview. Refusing to serve in a war, bringing about the end of it. Experimenting with sex and drugs, toying with every new or forbidden philosophy. A better world was around the corner – we were sure of it. Soon we’d be, as Arlo sang, “walking hand in hand with every man, sleeping in the sun with everyone.” The times, they were a’changin’.

Fifty years later, the world is no utopia. We’ve had two more wars. The only sleeping in the sun we do is on vacations. There’s less freedom, more surveillance. Independent journalism has virtually disappeared, original voices in the press replaced by dumbed-down TV nightly news. Our schoolteachers teach to standardized tests instead of teaching to kids.

What happened? Where have all the flowers gone, and all the flower children? How did something as radical, colorful and vital as the hippy movement simply vanish one day when no one was looking? Perhaps the answer lies with the Maharishi.

Maharishi MaheshYogi, 1970s version. Founder of Transcendental Meditation and the Students International Meditation Society. SIMS was an organization that descended on US campuses, grabbed pothead kids by the scruff of their raggedy necks, cleaned them up and turned them into upstanding members of society.

Just by giving them a mantra and teaching them to meditate. It soon became the rage – hippies converting to TM, trading in swear words for mantras, tie-dyed shirts for three-piece suits. Most kids were recruited to become teachers, pulling in still more people.

In 1975, Merv Griffin featured Maharishi on his prime-time TV show then started TM himself. First promoted by the Beatles, the giggling guru’s meditation program grew mainstream, with courses taught in corporations and schools so executives could relax and students could focus.

A virtual army of TM teachers covered the globe, with centers in every major city, talks in every suburb. Maharishi said that world peace would happen – better yet, an ideal world – when enough people globally found inner peace by practicing TM.

I was among that army, personally instructing 350 people in the course of six years. I fell in love with a starry-eyed boy, and we were going to create utopia together. We preached the message of transcendence: taking the mind inward to bask in its Source, the state of pure awareness, from which all good things spring. We drank of those waters daily. Refreshed from contact with the supreme, we’d return to the world energized for more lectures and teaching.

It was a glorious time. Hope was everywhere. Gone was the contentiousness of our generation. We were avant-garde leaders now, shouting a new message, a new answer, to the world. Challenging authority became a thing of the past. (Maharishi taught that people should respect it.) Working within the system, we were told we would bring about change, and change would happen by raising people’s consciousness. Get them all to meditate, and problems would vanish from this earth.

We truly believed it. The idea was radical, new, and to our young minds it made sense. TM opened a brand-new vista on the future, where troubles, all born of man’s separation from his pure infinite nature, would spontaneously disappear. The ex-hippie army was passionate: our full love and energy went into achieving Maharishi’s dream for the world.

Hippie recruits who didn’t feel called to become teachers found their way in businesses and vocations, becoming productive members of society. Those from wealthy families supported the movement with gargantuan donations, and received places of influence directly under Maharishi. It was only a matter of time until the world would be transformed and mankind would enter a New Age. Maharishi called it The Age of Enlightenment.

But something happened on the way to paradise. Slowly and subtly, the tone of the guru’s teachings changed. What used to be 20 minutes twice a day became hour-long, then 90-minute, meditations. The mantras were reshaped into “advanced techniques,” and chanting and Vedic readings (hymns to the gods) began. In a bold move, Maharishi began teaching courses in TM-Siddhis, a slew of paranormal abilities which he said humans could develop. Turning invisible was one of the siddhis; levitation was another.

People took the siddhi training, told that it would elevate their consciousness. But instead of flying, people were bouncing around cross-legged on foam rubber mats on their posteriors. Flying is coming, Maharishi promised – keep practicing: frog-hopping is only the beginning stage. No one turned invisible, and no one demonstrated the other special abilities the several-thousand-dollar siddhi course was supposed to teach. At the time of this writing, 30 years after the inception of the TM-siddhis, no one in Maharishi’s organization has yet demonstrated any levitation beyond frog-hopping.

Meanwhile the movement snapped photos of smiling butt-bouncers caught in mid-air and plastered the pictures on posters and fliers as advertisements: “Come learn yogic flying.” TM teachers who completed siddhi training were called “Governors of the Age of Enlightenment,” because Maharishi said our elevated consciousness would regulate negative tendencies in the world. Governors were told not to reveal to TM teachers or meditators that butt-bouncing was all that was being achieved on the siddhi courses to date. That would spoil the innocence of the new initiates, interfering with their ability to learn.

For the first time, more than a few disciples started questioning. Why was TM deceitful in its advertising, pretending that people were flying? Why were we asked to pay thousands of dollars for something that didn’t work? And how had a simple meditation technique, that was supposed to be all we needed for cosmic consciousness, gotten so complicated?

Originally, we signed on for a nonreligious “relaxation technique” practiced a few minutes twice daily as an adjunct to dynamic activity. TM had its roots in Hinduism, but we had ignored that. As teachers or “initiators,” we had to perform a “puja,” a ritual of offerings performed on an altar before a picture of Guru Dev, Maharishi’s master. We were ordered to do this in the presence of every new initiate before dispensing their mantra. We were to kneel down and bow before the picture, making a hand gesture to indicate that the student was expected to kneel down, too.

At the time we teachers convinced ourselves that we weren’t being deceptive. Maharishi said the initiates would understand in time, after their consciousness was raised through meditation. He repeatedly told us that TM was not a religion. As if saying it enough would make it so!

But when the TM-Siddhis started, things got even more religious. We were instructed to read prayers to the gods after every meditation and to listen to audiotapes of chants to Hindu deities as we fell asleep at night. Maharishi reassured us: the gods are not actual personal entities but “impulses of creative intelligence” that exist within ourselves. The fact that Hinduism anthropomorphizes deities just signals immature consciousness, he said, and that, of course, was something the movement was far too sophisticated to be guilty of.

The changes in the movement were so gradual that I hardly blinked an eye the day I got my own advanced technique, which consisted of adding the Sanskrit word “namah” to my original mantra. I didn’t quite understand, as I was told the mantras were meaningless sounds that have a beneficial effect on the nervous system. I didn’t know any translation for my mantra “Eima,” but I did know, from the puja, what “namah” meant in English. It means, “I bow down.” Who was I bowing down to, I wondered? Well, it must be a god. “Eima” must be a name for her, and she must be my escort on the path to higher consciousness. Another hidden teaching, obvious only to an advanced spiritual aspirant. I felt privileged and superior to be let in on the secret.

Around this time in the movement, many people started to complain of physical problems, as well as irritability and/or depression. Once I was assigned to spend the night guarding one meditator who was being sent home from a siddhi course because she was “unstable.” She was being shipped out the following day, and course leaders were concerned that she might harm herself or create an embarrassing scene in the meantime, hence her need for a “guard.”

In 1978, an article appeared in Psychology Today reporting that “a substantial number” of individuals develop “anxiety, depression, physical and mental tension and other adverse effects” from meditating. (San Francisco Examiner, September 10, 1989) The scientific criticism was just starting. While over a hundred studies had been done by TM scientists showing outstanding benefits from TM for mind and body, new studies by independent researchers failed to corroborate such claims. Some new studies even suggested adverse mental and physical effects resulting from meditation (depersonalization, the onset of mental difficulties, psychological disorders). TM was accused of failing to conduct double-blind experiments, and of influencing test results with the prejudice of the tester.

One insider, a friend of mine who was exceptionally devoted to Maharishi and who worked with TM psychologists as their research assistant, became shaken and left the movement when she found the scientists she worked with doctoring test results to make them better conform to Maharishi’s desired outcomes. (See the following site for more about independent studies done on meditators:

Around this time, people started leaving the movement, but most of us held strong. A meditating community had sprung up in Fairfield, Iowa within and on the borders of MaharishiInternationalUniversity. The town became home to a thousand meditators, teachers and TM “governors,” many of whom had a hard time fitting into normal jobs and living situations in the world. We were told to meditate and “fly” together daily. That was the new strategy to create world peace as well as success in our lives.

Maharishi began mens’ and women’s monastic groups (the Purusha and Mother Divine programs) and encouraged people to join them as “the most rapid lifestyle for unfolding enlightenment.” People gave up dreams of love and a family to follow their guru’s advice, believing they were serving their enlightenment and the highest social good. My best friend, intensely in love with her husband, was divorced by him when the monastic programs started. He became a celibate, while my friend tried to live as a nun with her broken heart. Within months she developed cancer, dying a couple years later. She forewent Western treatment to pursue an alternative healing system: Ayurveda, India’s ancient “world medicine” which then was being revived by Maharishi. Her physician was Deepak Chopra, at the time TM’s poster boy and its leading Ayurvedic physician. My friend Sharon withered away and died, but Ayurveda grew in popularity.

What troubled me most about the movement in the 80s was a growing sense of subterfuge and surveillance amidst an atmosphere of increasingly artificial “positivity.” Movement leaders instructed the rank and file to “never entertain negativity,” which meant never criticize and always wear a happy face.There was a sense that we were being watched, that unknown people within the organization had been assigned as spies for the rest of us. Any person suspected of entertaining doubts about Maharishi and the movement or visiting other spiritual teachers would find themselves refused admittance to new courses or group meditations in the central “flying” hall. The outcasts were never told what they had done to merit excommunication. “You know,” was the cryptic reply, or “Reapply in a few months” whenever the rejects asked, “But what did I do?”

The significance of being tossed out by the TM movement was devastating to those it happened to. The depth of their turmoil can only be fathomed by understanding that Maharishi was teaching then that two twenty-minute meditations a day no longer would cut it. Regular expensive advanced courses and meditating with the group in the flying hall had become pre-requisites not just for world peace but also for personal salvation. Unless you wanted condemned to many future lifetimes of ignorance and suffering, it was vital to keep up with the program. Our goal was liberation, enlightenment: an egoless state where blissful “pure consciousness” suffuses the awareness at all times, trivializing everything that used to seem important. In enlightenment, nothing touches you, success and loss don’t affect you.

Because liberation in this lifetime required staying on the good side of the TM “gestapo,” people became artificial and prone to quoting movement slogans in front of each other. Everyone wanted to appear kosher so they could stay on the campus and evolve.

The movie Man on the Moon depicts what happened to Andy Kaufman, a Hollywood comedian and TM governor who after years of movement involvement was found to be mysteriously wanting. There is a scene where a smiling TM-Siddhi administrator informs him he is not welcome on Maharishi’s campus anymore, no reason given. For an earnest meditator, that was like telling a cancer patient the drug he needs to live is being withdrawn.

In 1987, when I left TM and Fairfield, I had lived 17 years within the movement’s perimeters. I’d seen the world go from flower power to mantra power. My friends had changed from buoyant folks delighting in free expression to paranoid people with phony smiles and legislated attitudes. It took me two years to break free of the thinking that kept me in Maharishi’s orbit. It felt traumatic, like a failed marriage. I didn’t know what was happening, but I knew I could no longer be part of it.

In the 20 years since I left the Transcendental Meditation movement, Maharishi raised the price for learning to meditate into the thousands. Disciples able and willing to kick in a million dollars (apiece) were offered (in the last years of the guru’s life) proximity to him, a golden crown to wear, and the title of “raja” or “king”. Maharishi had created a “world government” he called “The Global Country of World Peace,” and his rajas are the rulers.

I’ve come to personally know two women who confide they were sexually propositioned by the “lifelong monk.” One of Maharishi’s closest disciples from the 70s, a Swedish man named Conny Larson, published an autobiography in which he says he left the TM movement when he realized the girls who came into Maharishi’s room in the wee hours, leaving disheveled, weren’t really in there “reading him his mail.” Since Maharishi’s death last February, one of his former girlfriends, Linda Pearce, is expected to come forward with her full story (first covered in a newspaper article in 1981, some years after John Lennon announced in a Rolling Stone interview that the Beatles believed Maharishi had tried to rape Mia Farrow).

In the years since I left the movement, the truth about the mantras has also come out. The mantras (which Maharishi gave to the teachers to give in turn to the lower initiates) turn out not to be “meaningless sounds with life-supporting qualities” as he said. They are, rather, names of Hindu gods, a fact made public with the advent of the Internet. Wikipedia, in its section on mantras, lists three of the mantras Maharishi gave me and other teachers to dispense: Eim, Hrim, and Shreem. Eim, says Wikipedia, is the Hindu goddess Saraswati, Hrim is the goddess Durga, and Shreem is the goddess Kali. (Wikipedia quotes these facts from “The Shakti Mantras,” by Thomas Ashley Farrand, Ballantine Books, 2003, pages 43, 124 and 138, but you can find the same information appearing dozens of places in a simple Google search.)

This intentional deception by Maharishi, perpetrated on his teachers and through them on the public, is to me the worst thing this “man of God” did to society. Through this lie, telling us that the mantras were “meaningless sounds,” Maharishi got unsuspecting Westerners to worship his gods under the guise of teaching them a “simple relaxation technique.” This is even more reprehensible than sex seduction of young disciples. He seduced the minds of 6 million people, or should we call it rape?

I’ve written elsewhere about the hidden agenda of mantra meditation, how it connects with psychic realms and why it was important to Maharishi to pass this lie off to the world. The power of recitation of the name of a god in meditation is very real power indeed. It connects a person to trans-physical dimensions, where vital energy is siphoned off, eventually crippling and destroying the personality. As individual identity disintegrates, the meditator continues his practice, because, he’s told, this implosion is a good thing. Oneness consciousness is taking the place of his formerly “limited” self. He is nearing his goal: universal awareness, the death of ego, annihilation of “the illusion of I.”

This is why the flower children disappeared. Maharishi transformed a generation of dissenters, the hippie generation, into pimps for the gods. He turned their spiritual yearnings into spiritual servitude. The ambition of 60s/70s youth to make a better world was undermined first by drugs and then by mantras that freed from drugs but turned the saved into thralls of invisible forces. Grateful thralls to boot, who would always remember that they were rescued and how much they owed to their guru.

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi: diverter of seekers, seducer of minds, stealer of souls. Any of those would be an appropriate epitaph. The mainstreaming of meditation in Western culture is this man’s questionable legacy.

Bronte Baxter

© Bronte Baxter 2008

(see the comments under the articles for follow-on discussion)

In fact, thinking about this some more, abuse by religious hierarchy has been perpetrated on their followers since human-kind first developed the need to worship a god or deity of some sort or follow that man or woman who seems to have all the answers everyone else is struggling to find.  Whomever or whatever sowed the first doubt-seed into the mind of human-kind that we need something ‘better’ than little old us, something to save us from ourselves, has a lot to answer for.  But then so do we for believing it.  Are we learning any lessons or do we just pay lip-service to it?  ‘Oh! No! I don’t follow anyone!  I’m not a sheeple!’ Then in the next sentence the same one refers us for the umpteenth time to the their favourite ‘guru’!

© 2014