(continued from previous post)
There are so many more things that I could bring up about that incident that have extremely low probability in the official version, but with just
these few items alone, if the official story is true, probability was skewed into astronomical ranges over many events through that period when added
together. If one presumes a conspiracy of individuals in our government and media, the odds of all this become virtually 1:1.
If one looks at all the seemingly anomalous occurrences of that day (and those surrounding it), the official story asks that we believe that that
incident wildly ignored probability, whereas looking at it from a standpoint of conspiracy, the probabilities fall exactly where they should be.
The reason I wanted to make this point was to bring home the fact that there are some very evil, twisted Beings in control of humanity, sending our
finest to kill other Beings (in violation of the first Law). And we allow it because we just don’t want to face the depth of the evil – for it
would shatter this Disneyfied world view we cling to for what comfort we can eke out of the slave life we’re given. The government always works in
our interest. It protects us… We would be told all the truth!
What are the probabilities that forcing cancer-prone rodents to breathe tobacco smoke 24/7 would not yield a statistically significant increase in
observed cancers in over 50 years of trying – IF tobacco, alone and pure, causes cancer? Pretty damned low, I say, and yet they have not a single
study over that timeframe showing this. Our government does not tell us this and blamed tobacco (being the most common inhaled substance in the
1940’s and 50’s) and the sun for the cancers that began to crop up as a result of the high-atmosphere explosion of the Trinity nuclear device.
Radioactive particles are very much proven to cause cancer. But the government did not want to have their weapons testing shut down… So they
“protected” us with lies.
And to keep this myth alive, they have added cancer-causing chemicals, carcinogenic fiberglass filters, radioactive fertilizer, and probably had other
evil ideas about how to make smoking cause cancer. Now they use it to divide us, as well, casting the smoker as pariah and setting us against one
another. They have whipped up such fervor in some that they have become what I call Tobacco Terrorists, passing laws that remove freedom (in our
“land of the free”). Jihad on smokers, yes indeed.
We waste our personal energy, what little is left after we have slaved at our jobs for diminishing returns, fighting over non-issues, with bread
through food stamps and circuses in all shows they broadcast, keeping us from applying ourselves to joining in an overarching solution.
What are the odds of a plant, the use of which shows a plethora of easement of human woes and no adverse side effects, be illegal once the fact of its
many benefits is shown with no question? Why would anyone not want to enthusiastically report this and suggest we embrace this plant? What
explanations might we come up with and what are their probabilities?
That “God” declared this plant verboten? How unlikely given the wide range of issues it handles, often better than the “legal”
pharmaceuticals… Really? And where is it written, for that matter? Some have merely extrapolated an interpretation of other words to mean
marijuana. Nowhere is it written that this plant is so verboten that we should hunt, sting, arrest, try and house (if found guilty) those who grow,
sell and use this plant – to phenomenal social cost, in terms of money/energy/power, social coherence, erosion of the purpose of our police,
corruption, and individual hell.
So I have to ask myself why we haven’t seen this change. Having dismissed the “God” explanation as about 0.05 likelihood, say, I ask myself if
it makes any probabilistic sense, if the Disneyfied view is the correct one: that Big Brother loves us and though some individuals may be corrupt,
the best interest of the average human will happen, including information dissemination. In fact, given by the fact that a great deal of
marijuana’s benefits were known in the 1970’s, and the push to keep it illegal continues in a fevered if more visceral pace, that there is a
Having gone from outright lies – Reefer Madness – to subtle implications of some mysterious problem, such as sad looking doggies voiced over with
a plea to their master not to use marijuana because they “don’t like you when you’re stoned,” they keep on as if this is some horrid taint
with no equal campaign funded to show the benefits of letting it go, and the cost to keep clinging. (Puh-leez, doggy, show me the objectionable
behavior. I can see the commercial with the doggy watching a man beat up his wife while drunk and saying something along those lines, but the use of
marijuana has no behaviors associated with it that would upset any animal, human or otherwise.)
Alright. I have to conclude that a large part of the explanation lies in money/power/energy (deeper) plots than in what Disney fantasia might lead us
to believe (remember the end of that film? The ghostly and monstrous being consuming the little Disneyworld denizens?).
Perhaps it’s merely a money thing… Drug cartels don’t want to see legalization and pressure our lawmaker/breakers to keep the status quo by
manipulating what we are told. Maybe the evil is purely money driven. That has good probabilities. Still, I would think that even if it is the
money alone, a greater flow of information would be seen and the honest, logical approach would have a stronger following.
Perhaps it is a truly evil agenda, bent on the thrill of anguished energy of the Beings caught in their money/power/energy net. I give that a good
probability, too. In fact, more than the “money alone” picture. This has a lot to do with other data about the universe that I have correlated,
and if you need examples, feel free to ask.
So lessee, I give the “God” thing statistically nothing, and the money-as-sole-motive about 25%, with the “deeper plot” assigned 70%. (The
rest is left to the uncertainty factor.)
What are the odds that a relatively short span of time would see pharmaceuticals at high levels in water supplies in a number of cities? Different
drugs in each city? The excuse we are given is that these are drugs flushed into the waste water via urination and then persist in the reclamation.
I give little probability to that explanation because, first, statistically, every city uses roughly the same percentage of drugs, so finding one city
with extremely high levels of one drug and another city with extremely high levels of another drug suggests a different scenario. Also, why would the
filtration of reclamation fail so completely to clean out the other waste – but not a specific drug?
I give much higher odds that this was a test to see how long, from the time an agent is released into a water supply until detection, it takes. If
there was a stand-alone case of high levels of some specific pharmaceutical (or if the cases persisted over time, but there was a spate of them and
then nothing), that would be a much lower probability, but there was that rash of them.
I contemplate the motives of an individual who would deliberately set up an accident. Why would anyone choose that behavior? Instantly, I remember
that virtually all cases of this behavior involved making claims for money. Would such behavior be seen in a society where no one had the need for
money to get what they wanted? Where no one had any reason to keep track of how much your unit of conscious flesh cost and you could create bliss by
doing what made you…well, er…blissful.? Where there is no need to contribute labor, and with joyous acceptance of our strongest connections
individually polarizing into a stable state of love?
Would such behavior be seen much in a paradigm, an embracement, of abundance?
No, I think. Such dastardly deeds have no motivation. Oh, sure, for sour relationship, people may still choose to cause damage to another Being, but
good grief! With the need for money out of the picture, why would one choose this behavior, except in a pique of passion? (How many cases of piqued
passion have been over money? – if we get rid of money…)
Thrills, maybe? I suppose, but if we hold to ethics as our Law, as a rule, that sort of choice for a thrill will generally lead to being avoided.
Pariahhood is earned by the choices of behavior which step outside of ethics. And even pariahs can change, so one is never completely abandoned but
just generally avoided. I mean, each of us, moment to moment, controls how we behave – so in any given Now, the pariahs can choose to become
gracious. (A state of grace is a choosing of behaviors that are ethical, that are within the three Laws.)
Ah. The abundance paradigm. I do want to see it take off, because I so fully grasp the inextricable intertwining of available energy and any
“monetary” system – goods, shells, sex, time. And knowing that energy, the force that keeps the universe spinning, is available to all Beings
through what has variously been called the Higgs Field, the Zero Point Field, “Dark” Energy, and the Cosmological Constant, knowing that methods
of extracting from this eternal font have been developed (very high probability), and knowing (via much consideration) what a beautiful thing it would
be to be free of money and have the world available, I am motivated to promote that choice.
(continued next post)