That drat “virus” has the whole world bamboozled!

Are you still a sucker? Then you haven’t read enough Jon Rappoport, who, to my mind, is THE voice of both expertise and sanity during this latest drummed up global hysteria.

Here’s two more:

The Virus first, last, and always in the hearts of our Countrymen


People dying equals coronavirus?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to That drat “virus” has the whole world bamboozled!

  1. Stunned at Sunset says:

    Dear Ann,

    I wanted to share my thoughts with you as a response to this curious Weltanschauung, coming–as it does–on the heels of the apocolyptic prophetic utterances of Greta Thunberg–our own 21st Century juvinile oracle. On a few occasions, I had written about such naivety before but I never really believed that anyone, who agreed with my suppositions, actually knew what was going on. Prophecy (or “Determination” if you prefer) is a tricky thing in which to engage one’s intellectual capacity and I explain why in this commentary.

    I’ll entitle this comment: “On Creating Amenity” even though, I’ll admit, a person’s thoughtflow, like Greta for example, might not actually be engaging such a process of reconciliation to address such circumstances. It’s because their are many of our kind who don’t seem to understand the “Cosmology,” or how things work in a Universe of what we perceive to be “real” but actually shrouded in both myth and mystery (some call it “The Veil “).

    There may be many of your subscribers that disagree with the premise of this comment, chastening me for couching an opinion that may fly in the face of their belief system but I believe that the pundits have it all wrong. All the most recent news concerning the fall of Western Civilization is very interesting information but it is the product of “left-brain” thinking.

    At some point in the time that all of us have remaining, we are going to have to make a series of decisions on the believability of several presumptions: Do we ignore the choice point required of us? Or, do we choose in which direction our thoughts will amble? Will we regiment our thinking to conform to some sort of calculus—applying the metrics of this “System of Things,” to the rationalization of our subsequent worldview? Or, do we embrace the admonitions of our gifted “seers” who caution that the Universe, as we know it, is not a physical fabrication of an externalized and ruthless God of Judgment but an illusory and holographic construct of a collective mind? It’s tough to say, isn’t it? We can extrapolate trends from numerically categorized data all day long but, in the end, we really don’t know. Do we? No, I guess we don’t. Confirmation of the true nature of our cosmology, like everything else, is predicated on our belief system; the evidence, material, empirical, or otherwise, is permitted to influence our thought flow in accordance with that method of reconciliation. It’s arbitrary.

    Science would seem to suggest the latter interpretation. It has investigated the likelihood of such a theme at levels of observation that penetrate the quantum world of our reality. Sometimes, our reality isn’t very “scientific” and, very often, nothing makes any sense to us. In the 1980’s, Roger Lewin—a British anthropologist—published a scientific paper entitled: “Is Your Brain Really Necessary?” in the journal Science. In this paper, he discussed the work of Doctor John Lorber, a preeminent expert on a physical abnormality called hydrocephalus—in non-technical language, “water on the brain.” One of his studies involved a young man attending University diagnosed as having had this condition in his earlier years. Doctor Lorber’s research produced a remarkable finding. He discovered that this young student possessed a “brain” that was little more than a thin layer of “mantle” perhaps a millimeter thick between the ventricles and cortical surface; the rest of his cranium was filled with cerebrospinal fluid. In other words, this young fellow possessed a “brain” that was only a one-millimeter thick covering on the inside edge of his skull! The young man had an IQ of 126! [David Wilcock; The Source Field Investigations: 2011]

    Now, having been told this; having been appraised of the material and empirical evidence that such a unique and bizarre condition can exist in a world dominated by gratuitous skepticism and “hard science,” are you going to shake your head in disbelief? Would you continue to assert that we must use the metrics of perfunctory thinking—applied through some kind of calculus—to modify the conditions of our physical experience? Or, in the presence of such wonder, might you concede and accept the claims of these same scientists who proffer the possibility that the Universe is a hologram? [Michael Talbot; The Holographic Universe: 1991].

    Here is where our “opinions” may diverge. I believe in the product of scientific discovery and empirical inquiry: Our reality is a holographic and illusory image whose architecture is the product of collective consensus—an invention of our consciousness at a level of Unity. From this point of view, one can assume (read: “rationalize”) that the universal laws governing the manifestation of a hologram, as it exists within our awareness, can also be applied to the construction of everything around us. We can understand the properties of this phenomenon—the architecture, the effects, the manifestations, and all other such sensual expectations as is commonly experienced by our five senses, to be the experience of our “perception” of it as we plod along the pathways of our third density, four-dimensional, prescriptive existence.

    Permit me to pause so that I can attempt to make a distinction between concepts. Empirical diagnosis, the likes of which I’ve just described, is conducted within the context of “discovery.” This produces an “edifying experience” very different from the deterministic machinations of someone who is trying to augur the future through speculation and arithmetical calculation. Both think logically but in the first instance, the person is trying to ascertain the quality and disposition of any particular condition by studying its manifestation to divine the nature of the consequence their discovery enables. In the second case, the individual is plumbing the depths of ignorance to identify a probability that will permit them to control the outcome. The results of discovery are often extemporaneous whereas the “determination” of an assessment is deliberate and relevant only to a specific pre-determined context; it is speculation. One “uncovers” a universal, reproducible truth; the other orchestrates a resolution to a manufactured problem—a problem conceived within the context of a closed universe of ideas; the boundaries of our ignorance. The research scientist is working with an “open universe” in which anything is possible as a causal influence. The “risk manager” is working within the context of a “closed universe” of a specific operational complexity in an attempt to rationalize a “preferred” outcome (i.e., he is working on the effect). Given these attributes of our collective reality, within the context of this (my) opinion, we are permitted the latitude of “vision” to co-create any improvements to our condition.

    In his visual presentation in the Video, Entanglement, Gregg Braden explains the functional characteristics of a hologram. You see, a hologram is a phenomenon that embodies the complete information of the image from which it was created. That is, it can reflect—within the constraints of the physical science of space/time—a perfect image of its original subject. Within this remarkable expression of light and wonder, the image can be reduced into any number of subordinate pieces and every piece will contain all of the information that is contained within the whole. Even more remarkable is the fact that a change, however subtle, to any one of these subordinate pieces will be reproduced within every other piece as well as within the whole!
    This isn’t the product of human speculation; these are the empirical results garnered through scientific observation and practical research. On a two-dimensional level of understanding, these unique properties can be expressed mathematically within the Mandelbrot fractal as a set of points whose boundary is distinctive and easily recognizable.


    The reader may want to spend a bit of time examining this example in detail.
    These aren’t the cheap tricks of a stand-up illusionist. Mathematics is the language of the Cosmos. This is actually how our Universe works. To suggest otherwise is to reject the rational image of reality our discerning revelations expose. In this case, traditional science is the tool used by our species to pull back the veil of illusion. The veil, once removed simply stuns our comprehension! We are made privy to the conscious, pragmatic inner workings of the All-Mind, the Collective Consciousness, The One Infinite Creator. Knowing this, can we argue that it is more practical to ignore this “collective truth” and abandon our progress of the ages—Enlightenment? I think not.

    Presently, we are vexed with a third density construct within which we have come to discern our preferences for a greater “Universal” expression of Cosmic Harmony. We quip and whine about our human condition declaring a prevalent and caustic bitterness against our fellows that manifests its dark properties as resentment, contempt, and sometimes, outright hatred. I submit to all of you that this is not constructive thought. If we are smaller, somewhat subordinate pieces of a comprehensive whole—the ONE—than any constructive change we make within the confines of our boundaries as Sovereign Integrals of the ONE, will manifest itself within the whole. This is our innate power of co-creation. Is there any need, real or imagined, for protracted periods of retribution against those of our kind who have done us harm? No, there is not. Such an attitude would underwrite a colossal waste of human effort. We are a fragment of the Universe; a part of the “whole.” Through the harmony of practical reason and holistic thinking, our entire human experience can change in ways that are not immediately apparent to those of us who have chosen to explore the wisdom of separation and view Creation through the caliginous lens of human speculation.

    There will be no holocaust, no Armageddon, no brutal totalitarian regime for our collective future if we but think of such positive alternatives as are suitable to a future prospect in which the governing characteristics are equity, harmony, abundance, tranquility, and unconditional love. If we, indeed, are pieces of a greater whole then we must accept that our power to create something wondrous and beautiful lies within the Cosmic Laws that govern our awareness and gives our thoughts to the greater good.

    It doesn’t matter a tinker’s damn what these sophists do as they presume calamity and plan for catastrophic upheaval. Our thoughts take a pathway toward co-creation—with each other, with our host consciousness, with the angels in the heavens above us. A being that can co-create is a Cosmic Builder governed by the principles of understanding and enlightenment—the presence of “Good.” Who do we perceive ourselves to be on this day—and tomorrow? Are we the menial slaves of a simplistic and interminable fabrication of vapid prophecy or are we artisans empowered, by the ONE, to create beauty in the presence of all who care to appreciate the product of our noble work? I think we are the latter but then, this is my opinion.

    In Lak’ech Ala K’in,
    Stunned at Sunset

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *