Covid LANGUAGE in The New Golden Age Virus Colony of Angels. Inhabitants of the Colonies. Angel Empires1) Thought is a circus of barkers
2) announcing the
remnants of cartoons
3) in a big top
4) to an audience of languages.
The thought remnants are cartoons because their true nature
of existence derives from another plane, which cannot be expressed by words.
“If you do not try to utter what is unutterable, then
nothing gets lost. But the unutterable
will be—unutterably—contained in what has been uttered.” (Wittgenstein wrote to his friend Paul
Engelmann).
Otherwise, "the Il ya of parabolas
intersecting at their bases, open at the top and at the base, transcendence and
transdescendence, the other human being not Being,
that produces Ille-ity, “that
man; he,” external embodiment of the self, horizon mirrored in open space at
the base of the parabolic," is he.
The thought remnants of this must be taken captive, then it is like the fly bottle, or fly in a bottle trying to escape “What is your aim in Philosophy?”
“To show the fly the way out of the fly-bottle” (Philosophical Investigations) – Wittgenstein
Consider the bottle has its house and the fly inside goes like this:
“To show the fly the way out of the fly-bottle” (Philosophical Investigations) – Wittgenstein
Consider the bottle has its house and the fly inside goes like this:
FLY
If you come home
to a fly in your house
open the window
so it flies out itself
if not and the fly
is trapped inside
you’ll be the host
of an unflying fly.
If you think thought has already been captured, controlled
and must be freed that is just reversed. Thought doesn't capture anything,
people do. They may control their cartoon remnants to capture them, not without
effort. The cartoons are an entity of their own, on a different plane
from language. Remnants of thought. Language can be measured at least the sound of it. Language is a
[<perfect>] lie detector of speech.
A Taurobolium is an example of this livid cartoon just down from thought that plays in brilliant color and sound instantaneously, which does not mean it is true, not at all, but it, the clown, cannot leave its own world. It needs a bridge to translate it. What remains when language assesses is a version, that translates the clown circus of thought-imagination, a completely arbitrary statement dependent utterly on personality inclinations, the filter of the speaker. And this is also true of the thoughts of that speaker, which have their own individual clowns. Even though these can't be known, only guessed, all individual dependent, tailored thoughts from that sensorium, not held in common with another, derive from the mental pathways, whose associations walked, blocked, diverted, overwhelm in play especially. This is an ocean of simultaneity where that which is can be, and not be. But it has particularity, that is, point of view, so it is in no way universal. Since we have no necessary assurance that thoughts are true they are like a clown speaking a cartoon. All thought must be brought into captivity.
See:
We're picking on DARPA because they once advertised for writers to figure out how “narratives,” oral stories, speeches, propaganda, books, can interdict, supplant and counter with “better” messages. that is how they could lie better. This is also called hijacking, Overwriting Hard Drive, and is one strain of the Wm. Burroughs' language virus "from outer space" of totalitarian systems used for control. Understand however, that that very statement is a virus. Burroughs used to load his shotgun and fire at targets to design art. He learned to cut up typed sentences, and hand written, and put parts willy nilly together and called this composition. He is doing outwardly in this what the mind can do inwardly but at gargantuan speeds beyond comprehension. The mind can grasp and comprehend simultaneous waves and depths of this ocean and hold for contemplation the way a first baseman holds the ball in his glove after the catch, snug, complete. Then he takes the ball out and throws it and the glove is empty. This occurs too with the mind which has at best partial memory of what just happened. When Agamben says "the very matter-- or the potentiality-- of thought (la materia stressa o la potenza del pensiero") is of language being thought, not thought being thought, this is completely wrong. Language is not thought, has nothing to do with thought unless you debase thought into a counterfeit of itself. Language is not even a good translation of thought, even if language, rather speech, is the hallmark of intelligence.
We can have no record of thought. It is like turning a cartoon into a TV ad. Thought exists on a wholly other plane from language. Whatever the thought is, the language is not, but that does not deny that the language is something. Whatever it is, language is known. It is a sound signal with deep structures that can be synthetically reproduced. There is no record of thought however at all. What passes as the thoughts of great thinkers like Wittgenstein is mere language. This being said is made further complicated by all the false languages that pass for true expression that abound. What are false languages? Language used for some other purpose expropriated, the "expropriation of language" for commercial purposes, is the problem of media speech, entertainment speech per se that it is language drained of meaning, where words become nonsense, untruth, falsity, and purposefully so. This theft, or expropriation, makes language into deceit with all its trappings to be unmasked for Language, communicates everything, both true and false, in other words language against itself.
This permeates every science too and is the essence of art. DARPA cannot grasp for a minute that its notion of language is like of Doktor Kurt Unruh von Steinplatz, of William Burroughs fame, a virus. Let us advance our appreciation of false language by seeing it as a scute, a shell, of troglodytes whose leather shells scupper an alternate false universe. That might serve as Burroughs' virus from alien space. But it is a universe not above, but below ours, of the qlippot. Qlippot are metaphorical "shells" surrounding holiness. Compare the chaff around the corn of wheat. Literally "Peels," "Shells" or "Husks" represent impure spiritual forces (which have been taken as the material world-but to grasp language as a rung in the physical-spiritual tug of war takes it out the concern for mere language here. The true redeemed spiritual nature of a man is however worth finding out). That is, the Q anatomical counterpart would be the physiological inner throat structure, the hyoid bone altered, which takes us back to where those Concepts of the Subfornical whose examples include large scale systems for language understanding, information extraction, and machine translation, as well as computational linguistics, pretend as the reconstruction of ancient language. What indeed are we speaking? One of the best known results was to show that human grammars could be learned by statistical methods. ” Dan Klein, Online Artificial Intelligence. What other way was there? Answer: Vertical retraction, mandibular debasement, pharyngular twists. Anomalies that impacted skull structures and jaw formation, oral vs. literal dissociates at the skull base, orthognathous vs. prognathous. It's all in the effort at predictability, call it scientific method where Faulkner is generated on demand, or who do you like, but not of course those who do not yet exist. The DARPA virus look a likes cannot copy a future state, even if they know it exists, like the Last Judgment. They can mimic it. We know from this that the purpose of science is to prevent any new existence in the interest of control of the experiment and predictability. By looking away. The virologists of control select out and bend in anything unreal to make it seem real.
Let's get the difference for the moment. Agamben says that language is "the rendering common of what one thought of as one's own" (181). But is it? I hear language and take it for a fact in itself, not a conveyor of meaning, not some other that it pretends to be, but an overwhelming social fact.
People work at this riddle that language is an infallible lie detector from all sides. This is not research which includes a grasp of current scholarship on the subject. All that scholarship is corrupt, a rehash, a rethought of the very control mechanisms of language drained of meaning which is an "expropriation of language" for commercial purposes, for scholarship is commerce.
Probing beneath the surface of language events reveals no true purpose, whether in the castles of Europe, asteroids, or government. We haven't found out anything except the fantasies of thought mules speaking, mice singing and men on a factory line assembling severed heads. These are metaphors, but the mules, the mice and the men are sublime. The thing at issue here is love and immersion in language. Language reveals itself in this immersion and discovers and discerns the revelation of language. Out of the abundance of heart the mouth speaks. The Word that is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
"The problem is how to liberate [the means] of communication so it does not again fall prey to the theft of this isolation and separation" (182), but language is already liberated, literate/liberate in itself. It is rather deceit that must be shorn. Something deeper than language is at play if language seems so manipulated against itself. Language still reveals this deceit in all speakers in common. "Thought finds itself for the first time, today, confronted by its task without any illusion and without any possible alibi" (182)...forfeiting every imaginary integrity...of home, race, class." So saying there is "no biological destiny that humans must enact or realize (Coming Community, 43). This could be bad news for evolutionists and transhumanists! De la Durantaye says what everyone thinks, "the impoverishment of political discourse, and the increasing reliance on spectacular situations, sound bites" (182) is a crisis. But there are always crises. Wasn't *Crises the name of Antigone's father? [!]
He's saying don't get off the bus yet. The destruction by the global that "empties traditions and beliefs, ideologies and religions, identities and communities" (Coming Community 83) must be carried through to its utter unclothing, "not remaining unveiled in its nothingness [deceit speech]" (183).
Human ethos is "human speech itself" [in Language and Death] and a social relation. Language, death, society are functions of each other and must "become transparent to themselves." Thus philosophy is the attempt "to become conscious of the meaning of the fact that human beings speak" (180). The experience of "language itself" is a joy even if you do not remember acquiring it. You have heard it done in children and know intuitively the language universals that exist in the child's acquisition. The mama and papa of our being are also the first sounds of the child. These fundamental identity factors overwhelm philosophy, but language itself, sound and meaning connect as cells connect to tissue. Language is sewn into a person, tailored with age and becomes the expressive marvel of its being to no purpose other than to be language. That is language itself is "being conscious of the fact that human beings speak." The first human concern is the fact itself of speaking, the event of language.
So there's no need for some researcher to uncover the occult thing or event. The hidden is already revealed in the event of language. The hypothetical person who can hide language and its ultimate revelation of themselves would be a demigod. For language is the revelation of everything.
We can't learn much or anything about you if your speech is honest, but if it is deceitful the whole is on display. Hence one can say that there is a person to whom language is no revelation because they are honest. That's because there's nothing to reveal. To deliberate on this, after enlisting in 1914 Wittgenstein wrote “now I have a chance to be a decent human being and stand eye to eye with death.” He bought the Gospels by Tolstoy on the Russian front, had it always with him: “this world exists,’…but meaning does not lie in it but outside it…good and evil are connected with the meaning of the world…." We address the problem of evil and language deceit this way, that evil is a transfer of intelligence, that if rejected changes nothing, but if accepted changes everything. Abundant life changes of American and world moral landscapes demonstrate how those who transferred intelligence for something greater, wreaked their own destruction in all trans-thought where the identity is offered a trade, a spirit trade from one body for another. This of course a blind because it is your own spirit that is elicited, not anothers, and the trade is offered by a disembodied presence, a voice that presents as a possible option what ordinarily would be considered impossible. The voice does not identify itself. It sounds authoritative but reasonable, much as Satan must have seemed in the garden. What is the purpose of transfer? Happily one who rejects it doesn’t find out, but Adam/Eve did. The notion that the spirits of the two people could be transferred to each other, switched, is in the background. It is all naked speaking. Intelligence is the right word to describe the temptation, even if it is an unknown voice. Since it is spirit engineered, couched in the right circumstance of moonlight, acid, sex, nature or whatever goes, it presents the test to either accept or reject. Apparently it cannot be forced, it must be invited. If Eve had rejected the intelligence nothing would have happened and it would seem to her, as it does here to us, that a kind of hallucination of a beast spoke. If accepted, which also means not consciously rejected, life must be undergone in a completely different mind/body.
We argue there is no language of thought, nor can be, but that inquiry doesn't have to fit here, here for it is necessary to examine events larger than the individuals of whom Giorgio Agamben said, "the truth of language is that it unveils the Nothing of all things...Nothing as the final veil, the final name of language" (Leland De la Durantaye. A Critical Introduction 179). "Nothing to reveal" means the idea is false that "human history is unfolding with a progressive purpose in view," a suspicion of history and civilization held by Benjamin also, that "the world is an endless series of facts congealed in the form of things," which residue is the history of civilization "strangely altered." Phantasmagorias of marketplace and of the interior private existence of the individual are all wrapped together in the phantasmagoria of civilization (Arcades, 14-15).
Which is rather like saying that the no is the yes in these matters as much as the yes is the no.
Grammar out of Statistics
First off the golden age is a maneuver. It means control. When the genome is corrupted language is next, or was it already first. Philosophy has long gone. DARPA twists Aristotle to control minds, manipulate emotions by image, phoneme, syntax and rhetoric, or wants to, aided by the notion that grammar can be built statistically by “computational methods to automatically acquire models of human languages," precursor to inchoate microwave (They had a call for papers to this effect some years ago).
Still not clear?
Yeats and Baal
Were Isaiah commenting on Yeats’ life he would say “those who pursue their own imaginations…who sit among the graves and spend their nights keeping secret vigil…who spread a table for Fortune and fill bowls of mixed wine for Destiny…are too sacred” (Isaiah 65). Being too sacred means attributing metaphysical origins to acts in foretelling an imputed result, were that action to occur. That is, divination. Yeats does not expressly call this the religion of Baal. Baal Gad, Baal of fortune resides below Mount Hermon, not Ben Bulben: ” Ba’al (Bel, Belos) was the ancestral and national deity of the Semites, the founder of Babel (Babylon), according to secular history, identified with Zeus, Jupiter, Ammon, Asshur, Assur, Kronos, and Bel-Marduk. Morris Jastrow, Max Müller, and W. H. Roscher all agree: Baal is the Babylonian sun deity. The Ba’als of the nations were sun deities, and Ba’al worship means sun worship.”
That there may be acts not sacred enough is a possibility, but too sacred means a subversion of the will and responsibility for the choices believed to lie outside the human. All of the energies of Yeats sacred secret society that he belonged to for thirty years taught these mechanics of foretelling. The odor of the sacred overhangs him not only in his notion of opposite states, which resembles Blake, without contraries is no progression, but Yeats vests the poles with equality. Nobody wants to blame this gnostic stupidity on Yeats, but he bought it anyway. If you think the poles are equal or even if there are poles beyond the magnetic earth sense then consider YHVH. Sources no one would want to admit sharing with Yeats include G.R.S. Mead, Paul Foster Case, Israel Regardie, S.L. Mathers and intrigues for and against Crowley. Their private gibberings give understanding of the delusions and illusions they suffered, but there is no formula for human existence or art.
Curses and rituals rebound upon the doer and speaker, and blessings do too. So for all the effort Yeats’ wife Georgie made to influence him toward child bearing, the blown up prophecies of children starting with the fatuity of the birth of Ann, their first child, who was to be…a boy, “the son…”the Arabic astronomer,” the “avatar,” “savior for Ireland” (Brenda Maddox, Yeats’s Ghosts, 127) that he and George were to “reincarnate” (Maddox, 123) a seer, Yeats never spent much time with his son Michael ( born second), who became a barrister, until he was 17. This is pathos. Not that it differs much from the unspoken illusions of every parent, except Yeats’ high opinion of himself documented in his letters, vision writings and tales is the fodder told by scholars on every occasion, as if Yeats were an agent run by controllers who manipulated him to their own ends. Georgie however was his controller and he the willing occult subject. So she would have had their first child to be a boy to fulfill Yeats’ name and her position as wife and mother of a son. This line was foisted by her upon her invented controllers of the automatic script, as all the while Yeats incorporated her invented controls into his poems, Thomas, Rose, Aymor, “the symbols he had been receiving through the Script since his marriage’ (Maddox, 131). It was really George. That the birth prophecy was wrong and the child was a girl and Yeats last poems are informed with philosophical might from this whole process is just another contradiction explained by the wonder of belief.
Passivity is a necessity underlying the attitude of magic, except perhaps among its leaders, Mathers, Blavatsky, Crowley, Huysmans, who practice mania. There is a long list. The underlying premise is that to reach the ground of the spirit a man must be passive, a stance identified with the feminine, which it is said, more directly apprehends the face of light, very like a psychology of the Trojan Horse, the whole feminine spiritual thing is a deception. The sentences themselves are passive. So the man says with the woman in the creed, “through me its unfailing wisdom takes form in thought and word,” “I am guided moment by moment along the path of liberation,” “I draw all things needful,” “the kingdom of spirit is embodied in my flesh. This making passive is seen (!) when the masculine and feminine are paired in those metaphysical pics where the woman looks up, or over, or in, and the man looks out, signifying opposites of action and meditation, which becomes convincing in popular psychology when the outward is contemplated with the inward.. The exoteric is the outer world of fortune telling and divination; the esoteric the inward state of idea, not however as a form of divination, that debased act which masks, as taught, the truth of the self as fortune. Baal again. Turning philosophy into divination was the essence of these secret societies as they were pitched. Divination consumed Yeats, who wanted to know from his sources what to do, when to do it and why he did it. As with every mania this consumed in practice all, except those it didn’t, that is, perhaps only Yeats himself. The paradox is his sometime escape even when preoccupied withal. If you could know the future would you want to? This presumes it is worth, as Yeats sought, knowing the sex and destiny of his children and a thousand other questions for which he cast his hoary charts, when to get his tonsils out, on and on. Let it be said sooner rather than late that what you know you cannot unknow; so the future hung over Yeats like a sword, only countered by another cast of fate, whether Tarot, astrology or some other. Not to know the future and live in faith would have been his single greatest gift. The betrayal of the inner for the outer trumps occurs dramatically also in the novels of Charles Williams, another member of that society, and associate of Yeats.
Divination is its own curse. Drug prophecy the same. No better example exists than Yeats, but there’s no question he exhibited a massive synthetic intelligence. Occult mechanisms functioned as his images much as Faulkner used bourbon, a quart a day, but no one else can do it. There’s no way to compare Yeats to an average case. His mass of sexual insecurities, automatic writing, tarot, hypnotism, astrology, magic rituals, infused with a love of the dramatic and social life and philosophies collected in his own folklorish research, thirty years in the Golden Dawn, reveal he had no talent of his own for the gift of prophecy, unlike Balaam say. His wife George and the Stella Matutina were his graduate school and college wrapped into images of the gyre and its surroundings. That he turned this drudging hodgepodge into the melancholy measure of his later appealing work is his own doing. His life divides this way especially after his marriage, itself a studied affair, in 1917. But while this is said about him, he rings authentic.
The foundation of Yeats’ philosophy abstracted to its source, spins off the creed of Blavatsky, QAB, and pop churches like the Liberal Catholic Church and BOTA as the number series 0 to ten and the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. How the Romantic poets concocted their own religion out of poetry is thus superseded by Yeats, who went them one better, creating a poetry out of rituals and symbols of Irish myth, Madam Blavatsky and the Golden Dawn with “lashings of Blake and bits of Freud, Boehme, Swedenborg and Nietzsche.” (Brenda Maddox. Yeats’ Ghosts, 89). There is however in this a set of attitudes as important as their ideas.
Audacity
When the prophet Isaiah and the poet David speak of the ground of the spirit with masculine daring, boldness and cutting edge intention they say things no one would dare to say. In this they depict the ultimate daring of Yeshua who exceeds them in audacity. This is to say the masculine penetrating audacious speaking of the prophets, copied by Milton and Blake, is in direct opposition to all the spiritual wisdom offered in the (Babel) occult creeds. He commands the sea, tells them, “you give them to eat,” nothing but audacious, and this of Paul, “we sit together with him in heavenly places,” and Peter, “rise up and walk.” It is the audacity of the Exodus, “both horse and rider he has cast into the sea,” the judgment of Balaam, obviated for a time, the OT equivalent of the NT Saul suborning the faith of the first believers. It is the entire speaking of Jesus, active and penetrating. So saying Bereshith barah Elohim is audacity itself. In short, this masculine speaking is the opposite of its imitations and subversions catcalled as the onus of the desert religions: Jew, Christian, Muslim become not Babylonian and pagan, but a contrast of truth against the world that styles an ultimate conflict misunderstood in every way, world being understood as the path of indulgence and sensuality. Masculine and Monotheism, Freud did not write, but a hundred others have.
This directly contrasts the creeds above, and Yeats experience, which however are attractive and appealing as Ishtar. How else understand the LCC, “we hold the fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man. We hold that we do serve him best when best we serve our fellow man. So shall his blessing rest on us and peace for ever more.” What more appealing statement can there be than a subtle encouragement of passivity?
Presumably there is a novel sensation which appeals only if the outer words are real. But anyone can say words. If however there is an inward reality where the communication is not physical or spiritual, whose command is self-denial, self-sacrifice, self-surrender, which sounds passive, we must then beware the trick of words, which mean nothing in themselves. Direct speaking without trickery and vulnerability are dangerous alternatives. Their opposite, indirection, or feminizing the masculine, was a major concern of the renaissance where love was viewed as weakening the power of will. Sidney complains of his weakness in writing “whining poetry.” These masculine states replaced with the feminine, a more socially justified view, it is hard to consider the masculine without compounding it with the greatest depraved cases. It’s not the masculine mind that offends, but the mouth. Be as masculine as you want as long as you don’t talk.
Not necessarily a straight line, memory is even trickier than occult deceit, as if there were no such fact as a datum remembered, but merely its versions. So an event exists in its interpretations.Truth in the relative mind is like memory, an essential denial of natural law, but gravity for instance is like Truth made weak in those who profess it, either by dogma or relativism or no truth. Memory however is the highest fact of our existence.
The occult origins of fiction, philosophy, fantasy and science fiction in all the university faculty clubs and writers cliques inform the search for the spirit as a means of social control encouraging the feminine but not masculine direct apprehension. The occult imitates the real prophetic by inversion.
II.
Surprisingly evil is not what we think, personal corruption notwithstanding and its sins. Evil is spiritual in high places, it says somewhere, connoting the asherahs of Palestine. High places give a vista of control and themselves are a metaphor of counsels, rulers, leaders and their intrigues. Consider Mount Hermon high above Baal Gad. If we perceive a conspiracy in high places, its purpose is evasive, unless we take it is “against YHVH and his anointed.” Some striking cases occur. In the case of Balaam we at least know the purpose was payback, payoff, and power and influence with the king of Midianites.
Psychic gifts are notoriously uncertain, part of the passivity routine. A clairvoyant might have no knowledge of the effects of an eclipse, that is of the seen, but may know perfectly well exactly what had occurred in someone’s mind that could not be seen. A pastor with prophetic utterance may be utterly unable to discern the dissembling elder in front of him, even to the point of outright fraud. What matters most is accuracy.
Two Babylons
Washington Ascending To Heaven in the US capitol dome, and the architecture of steles and obelisks in the Vatican Mall harbinger the new Osiris, of many gods and religions. Seers left it to Gurdjieff to conclude the origins of civilization must be in Egypt not Babylon. How do we know he didn’t steal this from Isaiah, who quietly says, “The Egyptians will no longer speak Egyptian…they will be one with the Jews….” Edward J. Young says, “There will be an altar in Egypt dedicated to the LORD, and near the boundary of Egypt a pillar devoted (37) that “God is the Lord of Hosts over against the nothingness of Egypt’s idols.” (The Book of Isaiah, II, 35). Gurdjieff was right! Still we keep hearing of two Babylons, one the B-Assyrian Sumerian glyphs, rediscovered 150 years ago, prone to all kinds of gaps fueled by German archeologists afraid in the desert, and another, secluded in Labs by night, where modern Babylonian prophets expand to UFOs planetary resources and hybridizations, paying no heed to the Babylon allied with Egypt that Elijah mocked. On Mount Carmel overlooking Megiddo, the valley of Armageddon, Elijah said, kidding the priests of Baal.
“Maybe your gods are sleeping,
maybe they’re out for a walk.
Maybe they got swallowed up!”
They wouldn’t hear. They heard instead from Isaiah (14) that “the man
who made the world a desert,” the so-called King of Babylon who revives
all the old practices, was astir:
The grave below is astir to meet you. At your coming,
the dead kings rise from their thrones to mock,
you’re as weak as we are o morning star
that once laid low the nations
who said in your heart, I will be a god.
What’s the cause of simplicity in priests? Go to the library.
Naïveté is illustrated in Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian King who asked
the Hebrew captives to interpret his dream about a statue of the
kingdoms of earth. As soon as he heard he was the head of gold he made a statue of himself 90 feet tall of gold and commanded everybody to lie down in front of it and worship.How many Babylons? One. Nebuchadnezzar fell prostrate before Daniel (2.46) praising Daniel’s YHVH Elohim, but then, when his astrologers announced the Hebrews were still standing, threw them in the furnace. Told again and again, “we will not serve your gods” (3.18) it is clear the Babylonians heard the One name twice.
Nebuchadnezzar dreamed that the cut down tree which Daniel identified needed humility, but he was on his roof overseeing Babylon’s grandeur when the thought struck “is not this the great Babylon I built” (4.30) and lost his reason for seven years. After seven years as beast he was again back in Babylon praising the YHVH Elohim. Want to make up your mind? He had more chances than Saddam Hussein.
There is little record in Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar’s madness or in Egypt of Egypt’s humiliation at the Hebrew exodus, and no record of Daniel, whether in cuneiform or pyramid or even in the modern Babylonian labs. They have their own amnesia walls. Nebuchadnezzar’s son Belshazzar does pretty much the same as his father with the handwriting that appears suddenly on the wall and it all happens again. When will they ever learn?
Babylon is the seat of the Beast. This is no more difficult than those affairs in Egypt concerning Moses’ decrees and the magicians. Moses knew as much Egyptian as Daniel did Babylonian, both being raised there, but neither bowed to those gods. This goes on and on. Elijah, Daniel, Moses, Abraham. But the one the new Babylonians didn’t anticipate arriving was Jesus. They had instead their own messiah, the “Shiners.”
Looking at the past to expand the present and understand the future is defensible in literature when the past refers to myth, there being no immediate cause and effect. But rising from base beliefs about pollution and extinction the human makes the future so. Literature shows the incredible quests of life and death, slavery and freedom, invasion and resistance.
Living or dying has always been the choice but the means were to be selected. Years could be lengthened. Worship or die! You can get extra years now if you think you’re transmortal and surrender ahead of the truth, thinking science will make you live. But you’re going to die. He that saves his life will lose it. Mennonites kept doing that to the distress of the kingdoms, surrendering like Shadrach and those boys, and Daniel to lions, and Abraham in the extra furnace, and Jesus to the cross. The opposite of immortality is self surrender. It must be tormenting for the gods to maintain their immortality, looking out for dangers, when even stars are wary of black holes.
So what is the underlying cause of fate that literature reveals? Those who write such tales have a thing in common with Milton, that being the self-reflexive, or in terms of our demagogues, self-exaltation. Which of them has not told us everything about themselves? It might be said to be humanizing, but when you’re on the stage like Shakespeare, never say anything about yourself without a cover-up.
The cover-up is dressed to kill in its metaphysical opposites. What costume doesn’t the fish monster wear on the Ishtar Gate with the Documentary Hypothesis and Marduk riding to the O’Briens “Shining,” Terrance McKenna writhing in the I Ching? Time’s up!
The revelation out of Delitzsch’s Babel and Bible, that the name of God “was nothing special” (Genes, 21) because it occurred according to the Documentary timetable long before that dating of Exodus where it was revealed to Moses, and that this proves the Hebrews were members of a cosmic elite which will deploy lost spaceman technology to recreate chimeras from Babylonia, belongs in this, repeated self exaltation to the core. It is also a wonderful example of short shrift and changing the context for the gullible. If it doesn’t fit just leave it out. Consider with the erudite the Assyro-Babylonian Cuneiform Inscriptions.
Attempts have also been made to explain the Divine Name as Hittite, Persian, Egyptian, and even as Greek; but these assumptions are now absolutely set aside, since the name is at all events Semitic. The question remains, however, whether it is Israelitish or was borrowed. Friedrich Delitzsch, in discussing this question, asserts that the Semitic tribes from whom the family of Hammurabi came, and who entered Babylon 2500 B.C., knew and worshiped the god Ya’ve, Ya’u (i.e., Yhwh, Yahu; “Babel und Bibel,” 5th ed., i. 78 et seq.); and Zimmern (in Schrader, “K. A. T.” 3d ed., pp. 465-468) reaches the conclusion that “Yahu” or “Yhwh” is found in Babylonian only as the name of a foreign deity, a view with which Delitzsch agrees in his third and final lecture on “Babel und Bibel” (pp. 39, 60, Stuttgart, 1905). Assyriologists are still divided on this point, however; and no definite conclusions have as yet been reached (comp. the voluminous literature on “Babel und Bibel”).
Subscriptions to the Genesis borrowings idea, that the biblical assumes the Sumerian and Akkadian ideas of the One Name, to justify calling the Elohim space travelers, these two ideas are both confuted, the Sumerian here http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/Genesis… and the Elohim here http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/Elohim/Elohim.htm
But of course who does not also know that such selective disinformations occur all over the ancient revisions from Niburu.
How to use the cuniform lexicography Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (CAD) materials here.
Also see Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (ETCSL)
Time-polarized EM Dedifferentiates
Just to rough out the thing, leave the specs to later, the Rife Machine thinks to cure disease by restoring healthy tissue from the diseased, either by killing its afflicting virus or some other. The notion of interest is that the tissue once was healthy, became diseased, was again healthy, hence in some sense the thissue is being returned to an earlier state of health, hence re generated, thus the disease is regressed in time which seems to be somewhat the notion behind the optical box separated by quartz lenses. To connect this to the Kaznacheyev experiments and the affiliate idea that there is an electromagnetic signature for every disease and for health.
This resembles quantum “entanglement” or spooky action where one particle interacting with another affects a third.
Becker-potentials placed across intractable bone fractures directly generated such effects in red blood cells entering the injury site. . First the cells “dedifferentiated” back to an earlier form, growing a nucleus and shucking their hemoglobin. Then these new cells “differentiated” forward to form the type of cells that make cartilage. Then these cells further differentiated forward to form the type of cells that make bone. They were then deposited in the fracture site to heal the fracture. Becker was nominated for a Nobel Prize for this incredible work.
Antoine Priore discovered how to directly amplify that “cellular regenerative” process in the laboratory. introduced a longitudinal EM wave structure inside the plasma, adding to its field structures.amplification of the body’s own cellular regeneration mechanism.unparalleled healing of disease occurred, in thousands of laboratory animal experiments rigorously performed at the University of Bordeaux
time decay-blood from a rat successfully healed of a terrible terminal cancer could then be injected into another rat with the same disease, and that rat would also start to get well and get rid of the cancer. This “pass it along” effect lasted for some weeks. But the experiments clearly showed that the necessary “antiengine” had been created in the original treated rat, and that it was actually present everywhere in that rat, in its blood and elsewhere, and only gradually “dissipated” by diffusion reactions as time passes.
why Myron Evans’ work is so important. For the first time, his work will allow the direct modeling (and fitting of the model to experiment) for a large number of scientific areas that are of enormous importance to not only science but to the entire human race. He has already rigorously shown that real EM energy can be extracted from the active vacuum.
Yet there is no OBSERVABLE energy input to the charge. Hence either one must discard the entire conservation of energy law, or one must explain how the virtual state energy of the vacuum is continuously absorbed,every charge in the universe continuously produces negative entropy.
Remember, the languages are eating bratwurst.
 |
| Wm Burroughs Armed |
No comments:
Post a Comment