posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 06:06 PM
I'm reticent to believe that someone who named her child Canaan is really interested in helping the people.
The "good guys" apparently are Bill Gates, George Soros, Warren Buffet and Oprah Winfrey.
But how do I know that Oprah isn't herself a Hillary Clinton - corporate and a part of the establishment? If all I knew was that she named her child
Canaan, the biblical and kabbalistic associations associated with that name would imply that she is in league with the other elite.
This idea can seem paranoid, which is why I am only tentatively wedded to it; logically, its possible that I am wrong, but I don't the idea of genuine
paranoia can be invoked when an "illuminati" is a genuinely real thing, based in a genuinely real Satanism which seems genuinely effective at
propagating its ideology/values in the world.
Ultimately, if reality can be represented - or understood - at a linguistic level, then the ins and outs of human functioning can be engineered, so
long as you know that the organism is a torus - like the universe itself - and so the objects and interactions of the world constitute and form the
way and manner the self makes meaning; a big semiotic loop a - a spirit torus - forms between the organism and the objects around it; completing the
process of being and self.
Since the elite are aware of this, and actively manipulate the world and the spirit which emerges from it, one can then wonder: is Oprah their silver
bullet? Is she the candidate made to look so good against the contrast of the repugnant Donald Trump? Is this a Hegelian dialectic?
None of this may be true, and I may be assuming a sort of control that doesn't exist. Maybe Oprah would be a socialist-democrat. Or maybe she would
pull a big U-turn and act in the interests of the existing corporate/banking/military structure.
I don't think she would be a fascist; something like Obama - a liberal with moderate democratic views with a whole lot of behind-the-scenes
deal-making with private interests.