As we continue to hurtle through 2016, we are, as usual, entranced by big televised events — each time “trying to figure out what really happened — and why.” This is as good a phrase as any to characterize the intensification of this process via the current “T-cross in mutable signs” involving Saturn, Jupiter and Neptune. (A T-cross occurs when two planets oppose (180°) each other, and a third “squares” (90°) the other two, fueling friction among all three.)
Saturn in Sagittarius: the big picture, why it happened. Our fundamentalist craving for intellectual certainty (actually an unrecognized substitute for emotional security) is so powerful that we can’t help but try to lock in an (inherently limited) perspective that makes supposedly overall sense. But it’s impossible, since there are an infinite number of “points of view” — where are you standing? That’s your “point of view” — from which anything can be seen, no matter how large or complex! Thus, inevitably, perspectives seem to contradict each other. Subjectivity infects so-called “objectivity.” There’s no such thing as objectivity.
Jupiter in Virgo: what really happened? We get sucked (suckered?) down rabbit holes, one after another; where’s the bottom — the “bottom line”? — to this sticky, infinitely detailed and complex morass of endless analysis of proliferating true? false? “data points” that we then use to try to “justify” or “prove” one Saturn in Sagittarius perspective over all the others? But our effort is in vain, inherently dumbfounding. There’s no “logical” end to the analysis of infinitely rolling data points inside or beside or underneath others. In fact, to “figure it out,” to “make sure we’ve got it right, that no stone has been left unturned,” is impossible! There’s no such thing as “proof!” The assumptions of any system can’t themselves be proved! Assumptions float in space, protective containers for “theories,” to grow inside them! It’s either that or the dreaded “infinite regress”of assumptions. See above.
Neptune in Pisces: Oh! Oh! It’s all so confusing! One shooter or five? Makes me feel terrible, in despair. Oh those poor people. Let us pray. Was the shooter(?) homophobic or homo? Both? Crisis actor? Mind-controlled Manchurian candidate? How many people really died? Where is the blood? Oh god, it just makes me so tired to even think about what happened there. Instead, I’ll distract myself in some other way . . .
Thus do we react to the Orlando massacre, one among many; most shootings we don’t even notice anymore. It takes more and more horrific murderous rampages to even refocus attention from our riveting addiction to violent football games, violent video games, violent movies; chest-thumping robotic calls for “freedom” to keep our guns, to make more and better guns, to sell them to each other and to other countries. To kill off all the offending hordes who threaten our borders, or our way of life, or our religion, or our sexual taste, or our — haha! — yep, you got it, “NATIONAL SECURITY.”
It’s pretty well been decided by the alternative press at least, that the Orlando event was a psy-op. And the predictable controversy as to just how it was done rages on and on until the next ghastly event that the MSM decrees worthy of note, and to which it will then duly direct our (short) entrained sheeple attention spans.
Now, here’s where it gets interesting.
What if these psy-ops are designed to be confusing, to give us lots of true or false clues in different directions, to keep us guessing, fascinated, and distracted. Meanwhile, who knows what slight of hand each one fulfills, to cover crucial news that remains unrecognized, while we spend our precious time second-guessing the past while thinking we’re really smart to not believe whatever the talking heads say.
Now let’s go one step further. What if, as this next article points out, the entire technological/computer/internet surveillance state that has infiltrated not just our homes and phones and computers, but our very cells, is itself a psy-op? Though announced and focused through a witting or unwitting Edward Snowden, its reach is literally everywhere.
David Thrussell is not the first to see the Snowden saga as a snow job, way too convenient and peculiar. Google “Jon Rappoport and Snowden,” for example. I count seven articles by Rappoport. And I doubt Thrussell is the first to conjecture that the deep state used Snowden to unveil the panopti-con in order to dampen down anyone who even dares to speak up. But I, for one, very much appreciate his provocative and deeply articulate presentation of what we’re all “up against” until, I would add, we see through our left brain entrainment to the open, compassionate heart that feels everything, not just sees everything, everything! — both material and energetic! — as one gigantic living, breathing body of the cosmic divine.