September 1929, December 7 1941, September 11 2001, December 2007. All dates that will live in infamy. Why are these dates and occurrences {only to list a comparative few} so indelible in the minds of so many Americans in particular? Tragic they are, to be sure, however there is another important element. Beforehand, portions of the public were so high they failed to realize the ever-present, potent enemy who always traverses the ground as a venomous snake. Carried away with merriment, lost in the clouds, entranced, blind to the stark reality, the truth about life, real life, not imagined.

When people utter such things as, “I didn’t think it could happen here,” they are saying a lot about themselves. One may reasonably query as to, why not? Or even, “Where were you?” Another saying that one finds perplexing is, “this is the greatest time to be alive.” This one is gaining currency today owing to luxury and technological advances. Should one take this proposition to a Children’s Hospital, a funeral procession, a critical care unit, amid a world-wide pandemic, with increasing rates of suicide and criminality, {just to list a comparative few} it would not resonate well with those afflicted. It speaks of a parochial view of life, whittled to one’s personally fortunate circumstances as a metric–all others damned!

Scripture reminds and thus keeps one grounded, where we should be, with the adversary, in reality. Not with our head in the clouds, but with our head affixed to our body, not separated. There is awareness, a corresponding sobriety with a healthy concern for all others, of all circumstances, at all times, home and abroad–Sobriety.

A partial face cover {PFC}, thermometer, and individual will. What do these things add up to?

Let us examine the practice of many people concerning these substances and their enrollment in the private environment.

The homeowner establishes particular means and governs the posture towards them for all concerned; whether it be boarders or even family members who occupy and share communal spaces, a spouse or intimate; the two sharing the same bedroom and all items that pertain to it. Typically, those who are in authority will engage rules of conduct that vary from that which they impose on others who may enter the home as welcomed visitors.

For example, the leadership dispenses with PFCs, and will not check their own temperature upon returning home from an excursion. This variance from the proclaimed public rule may apply to those who live in the same home as well. However, a visitor who crosses the threshold will have to don a PFC, submit to a general medical examination, and uphold an injunction to not touch certain surfaces; all in the name of personal safety. Withal, in a bizarre twist, all those who live in the home {including the owner} suddenly shift their posture and use a PFC for no other reason than a visitor has entered their environment.

Observed by any reasonable person, a double standard is patently in effect. We have one common denominator as a contagion. However, the leadership arbitrarily chooses not to submit themselves to a general medical examination upon entering their home from an excursion, and they set aside PFCs. Yet, when a visitor arrives, there is a capricious change in posture by all residents.

Ultimately, control is the motivating factor in the leadership’s mind; the contagion acts as a pretense for one to impose their will on others, and this produces immense self-gratification. All things being equal, the same standards would apply to everyone, yet there is an appalling absence of equality; stark contrast regarding the application of safety measures between leadership and those governed. The one who is in control will automatically grant themselves a dispensation simply because they can; and no other reason exists; it is pure partisanship.

Individual life is a microcosm of the world. One can adduce that those who set public policy regarding safety behave in accord with the narcistic principle that the rules do not apply to them, only to those they may control; and this brings them immense self-satisfaction. The public goes the way of their appointed leaders; they act the same way in their microscopic empires.

Elementary: the principle that those who are on top set the tone for those beneath; leaders lead and the followers follow enacting the same behaviors towards others as their leaders. Public officials use the plague as a pretext for exerting control over the public. Intrinsically, their mindset filters down, and pervades the views of the public. Observed in the preceding examination, those in control at any level adopt the mindset of their appointed leaders and thus operate in the same manner towards others.

We draw to a close with a statement of fact from a close friend who uses the term, “little Nazis” regarding those who take pride in inflicting upon others that which they choose not to inflict upon themselves.

It would surprise should a congressional leader fail in providing correct answers regarding how much money the government spent in 2019, where it came from, and what sectors of economic activity benefitted the most. The same would be true regarding the number of public laws enacted by the 116th congress since 03 January 2019 to 02 January 2021.

The same would not be surprising, however, of anyone of the public. Rather, this would be typical. Who amid the public bothers to track legislation and respond with a yea or nay via phone, E-mail, or written letter to their public officials? Simply taking one hour of one particular day every four years to take part in a referendum does not make up engagement by any reasonable standard.

If anyone of the public finds these words offensive, it shouldn’t be. Only a small percentage in any synthesis of people are civic-minded enough to apprehend such knowledge and communicate in some form with their political leaders. This is simply natural; there are leaders and followers. If someone takes offense, it is because they have built themselves into something they are not. Politics is for politicians, surgery is for surgeons, and law is for lawyers. We call few into any field of endeavor, all things being relative.

The key for those not politically minded is to realize and accept the category they belong to. Are you in the minority; tracking legislation and communicating regularly with political officials? Or, the vast majority who prefer to vote once every four years in November and sit and watch all things politically unfold on tellavision?

Should one be in the majority, this is not something to be ashamed of; one is being true to one’s self. Acceptance will lead to a proper view of your role in leadership, which is scant. We should not amuse ourselves with fancy; exalting ourselves as influential and powerful people when in fact the opposite is the case. The average citizen has virtually no power whatever. Voting is a public declaration of faith in the system. Any sober person who studies the voting process regarding presidential elections, and comes to understand the role of delegates, and electors should realize that public prestige is merely an abstraction.  

Observe that there are two groups of people in the public orbit. Group One arrayed in partial face coverings {PFCs} disguise themselves as potentially toxic entities deemed unfit for social contact. Group Two also adorns PFCs disguising themselves as prospective victims; perceiving social contact with others as chancy.

However, in the private domain, both groups find resolve amid family members, roommates and so forth. Spouses and couples even share the same bed; there is no PFC obligation in private. Logic dictates, however, that concern for others in shared public spaces equals concern for others in shared private spaces. Any reasonable person, in fact, would conclude that such concern becomes magnified in personal settings.

So, by comparing the public behavior with the private behavior of both groups regarding PFCs, we immediately realize contrast, an inconsistency regarding conduct. Why cover up when around strangers and not cover up amid friends, family, one’s spouse? Why is there more concern practiced among strangers than intimates? This is backwards. By deduction, it becomes abundantly clear that people fear contamination, yet not so much contaminating others.

What then are the actual motives for wearing PFCs in public? Government control, of course. Political authorities set public policy regarding PFCs under the mantra of public safety, and people are wont to conform. However, in private individual choice remains, and despite the outbreak people invariably choose not to wear PFCs in the most intimate of settings.

Therefore, donning PFCs is actually a public display of conformity, suspended as soon as we cross the threshold into our private sanctuaries until the next public excursion. PFCs disguise one’s true rationale regarding social conduct amid the outbreak.

Rising to the view of legislators, the central issue at hand is not the dreaded plague but individual liberty. Political leaders have employed measures that quash natural liberty under the mantra of public safety. One apt quote regarding political maneuvering is, “visible principles over invisible purposes.”

People go along with the public deception for two reasons alluded to in the first paragraph. The first group comprises contrarians primarily motivated by a need for material sustenance. The second group comprises conformists primarily motivated by a need for social acceptance. There are two commonalities of both groups. Both share the need for material sustenance. The second shared attribute is that the ultimate motives of either group will remain fixed even under duress.

Presently, political leaders are exerting pressure on all to conform through public policy measures, most notably, PFCs. PFCs have not proven effective as reports show an increase in confirmed cases of the plague compared to last year’s findings. Surely, if PFCs were effective in any measure, we would have witnessed a requisite measure of improvement. Yet, PFCs did not ease the situation. Perhaps PFCs only exacerbating the problem, as reports also show the appearance of more hostile strains of the plague.

The promise of the future is a vaccine that will cope with the outbreak, even to the extent of eliminating PFCs altogether. This proposal does not, however, deal with the fundamental issue of intrinsic liberty; it only increases the risk posed to all that began with PFCs.

Vaccinations are minimally invasive, while PFCs are non-invasive. Essentially, we can characterize this as a progression countermanding innate liberty. Naturally, one may expect a rise in disenchantment regarding this budding option versus PFCs.

The same two senses of approach: those concerned primarily about sustenance and those concerned primarily about acceptance will become more acute and inevitably clash; not in the current acquiescent manner, but in an active manner. Such clashes will cause government intervention in order to maintain order. The outcome for contrarians is bleak. For conformists, the result will be the cherished acceptance only at the expense of personal liberty which will continue to erode, dissolving at last into nothing.

Does one provide or does one pay others to supply provisions like water, food, clothing, and shelter? Historically, individuals engaged these substances directly. However, near 1840, businesses have continued to take direct control of critical resources primarily for profit motives. Individual labor shifted from individual, or family concerns to business concerns. Provisions were one’s primary motivation, yet today the motivation is money which enables acquisition of said provisions. The basics in life are no longer primarily the individual’s concern, since relegated to secondary status in favor of the profit motive of businesses which prosper on a person’s need for the resources under their direct control.

Businesses provide, and the people pay. This leaves the public with much spare time; no scouting for, and dressing of game, no pumping and transporting water, homes prefabricated, clothes readymade, heat via a dial, water by a key and light by a switch, machines launder, motor vehicles transport; and the list goes on far beyond one’s necessities. Societies are awash with businesses that cater to every whim of the imagination.

Notwithstanding all the inventions over the last 180 years, there is much talk within the public orbit about how strenuous life is today. It seems we will not be content until a virtual assistant activates all things electrical; sparing ourselves such indignities as inverting switches, wrenching knobs, and depressing buttons – Siri-o-u-sly!

Myriads look with sadness upon a comatose patient. Still, inside their minds lies a dark, penetrating desire to be nearly identical – save the severe injury, inexorable drooling, and unruly flatulence – a deep state of unconsciousness is a concept worth ripening.

Virus or bacteria; perhaps even a disease like cancer. Contagious or non-contagious? Many viruses are, and many are not. The same is true for bacteria. A disease like cancer is not contagious {not transmitted by direct contact}. Once more, it is not a simple thing for professional workers in medicine to determine virus or bacteria. There have been many recorded instances of treating one like the other, which only exacerbated the issue.

These questions have not possessed the minds of people simply because of the absolute faith given to voguish news media sources who report the findings of government and non-government institutions. Should one make up one’s mind without conducting some research and analysis of their own? Is it not recommended that one gain a second opinion regarding a serious medical issue and engage in some personal research and study?

Medical journals abound, which provide determinations by professionals based on careful analysis of empirical data, and most times these publications are free to the public. Regarding the potential hazards of radiation: policy decisions come by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection; a non-government organization with close ties to the telecommunications industry. The ICNIRP proffers a “minority view” or popular view. However, the majority view comes from the researchers and scientists, and there is a dichotomy between the two regarding policy. Researchers and scientists who submit their findings to the International Commission call for stringent controls, only to have their determinations watered down by the same Commission that ultimately sets public policy.

We see this same principle invoked by the Center for Disease Control and the World Health Organization. CDC is a U.S. government agency whose director is a political appointee and not subject to Senate confirmation. The WHO is an agency of the United Nations whose director is also a political appointee elected by the World Health Assembly. We owe the dichotomy here between the minority and the majority views to the lack of autopsies conducted on those who died of what we call COVID-19. Autopsies are the gold standard for determining cause of death. Mainly hospitals and morgues lack the facilities, personnel, money, and other resources in order to practice this endeavor in the current environment. As a result, there is concern over the reliability of statistical information released to the public regarding cause of death in COVID-19 cases. The lack of autopsies also hampers knowledge concerning how COVID-19 actually behaves.

People tend not to question those in positions of authority when a perceived threat to money or personal health looms. Yet, in matters such as these, critical analysis within the public becomes even more important. After all, these are just finite human beings like us, not the infinite God we may know by the Holy Spirit and through Scripture.

I am astounded by those who simply volunteer that, “this will all be over in four or five years.” Or “when this is over…” There is no question in their minds, yet there has been no personal analysis or questioning of perceived authorities. There is reasonable cause for debate within the public, however, this rarely takes place. The zeitgeist of the times is to follow admired media outlets wherever they may lead.

Catalyst for World Domination

To 95% of any population: linear thinking governs; cause and effect, a straight line; with no deviations. We can call these conformists, or followers.

To the 5%: spherical thinking governs; 3 dimensional, seeing all sides and all angles. We can call these contrarians, or leaders.

Biological reasoning in its two facets predetermines linear and spherical margins. We can make an analogy in that the threshold for physical pain varies in degrees from person to person. One merely lives within their own predetermined margins. This is but one cardinal truth that is typically unappreciated. We can make enhancements in order to further develop each sense. However, the linear facet inclines feelings, emotions. Comparatively, the spherical facet inspires logic and reason. Elitists rely on these natural causes and thus can mold societies. The elite are not favorable towards the spherical thinking populace and purpose to side-track these individuals at every level.

A group of elitists formed the United States. The ultimate aim: to create a foundation which would act as a springboard for themselves and future like-minded individuals whose maxim is Illuminist in quintessence. In muted form: their aim is to assume control over every human being on the planet. They are patient in that those who champion this aim accept that the overall (pardon the pun) aim is not to be ripen fully in their lifetime. Rather, they resign to move the agenda forward, only to pass the initiative on to the next generation of relatives and those like-minded.

The illuminati today, so vast and entrenched, has reified over centuries. These “illumined ones” have infiltrated all viable institutions to include the upper-echelons of government and religious institutions. Any workable institution has illuminists in it. In a practical manner; if you can name it, they are present at some level.

The institution of the United States; grounded accordingly on the following universal fact: Out of any union of people, a majority of 95% choose to follow. Capitalizing on this natural regulation, the elitists had only to define themselves as the trusted authority (the public elected them, not) and introduced the constitution in like manner. They conceived a conciliatory narrative of an American way of life for all eyes to distinguish, for consumption by the masses; the public to fulfil the embodiment in high hopes of establishing a great nation of people all striving together for resplendence.

Particularly, the constitution implies that an active and informed public ensures representation by the people, and for the people. Now it is here that biological reasoning managed by the elitists proved unerring in that only 5% of any amalgam of people will take a truly active role in politics. Intrinsically, the value negates proposed fair representation. A fitting quote from a notable author and historian regarding political posturing, “Visible principles over invisible purposes.” 

One look at your life today would only prove to corroborate both why the United States started and that out of any fusion of people the vast majority naturally choose to follow. First verification: Most material wealth to include vital resources is in the elite’s control. Second verification: we owe it to the alacrity of the preponderance who live their lives in accord with the fictional portrait, making the first verification possible. The fictional portrait serves to inveigle the population to engage the motivations of the elite.

A brief consideration of the president. To the conformist, the president is the most powerful man in the world. To the contrarian, the president serves as a front man for the public to admire. An obsequious skipper for the elite as it is the elite who determine the direction of the ship called, “The United States” and the skipper who merely steers the ship according to the prescribed manner.

I would advance that the aristocracy seized upon the Christian bible, diluted, dismissed, even reversed truths; creating their own personal volume; a working model placing man himself at the center. Indelibly, true Christian faith weakened. This counterfeit appeared more palatable to the natural man who unwittingly adopted it as his own.

People live their lives solely within the context of the framework fabricated for them, being told what to think, as opposed to being educated in how to think. Views on life absorbed primarily through formal education, mass commercial media, advertising and the entertainment industry.  

Practically all opportunity to live naturally has removed and serves to remind the conformist and coerce the contrarian to continue steadfast in the program. You labor for money, use it to pay providers who profit on your needs and desires. It is a life of privilege by paying others and/or machines to do what we prefer, not. Conformists take great pride in dependency; losing control over vital resources is of no consequence, as a privileged life seems easier. Contrarians, however, view dependence as a setback.

With the advance of credit creation, especially in the 1980s, an individual could possess their very own living space and all material goods that pertain. To the conformist, this is progress. To the contrarian, individualism took precedent over family; the W in we inverted to spell me.

How is it then that the truth seems so well hidden? One point to ponder is that most people believe that they have minds of their own. However, there is an understated view; perhaps it may be wise to realize that your mind has a mind of its own, and if you don’t control it, then somebody else will. To put it simply, your mind reacts to certain stimuli independent of your conscious. For example, if you place your hand on a hot stove, the mind automatically prompts a saving reaction, overriding any conscious thought process of determination. The elite use this fundamental to influence your behavior by introducing certain stimuli into the controlled environment one lives in.

To the aristocracy, the public is fish in a bowl; considered, probed, documented, and subsequently controlled by various, subversive behavioral modification techniques. Your personal/family life is only a microcosm of life in the United States and the world.

The elite systematically endeavor to shape human minds, and this will only get progressively worse. To engage in practices that lead to redesigning the human mind is contrary to nature. Most practices are quite ancient, as rulers on earth have always minded the possibility of controlling human behavior. Of course, rulers have changed over centuries, yet this endeavor by rulers has remained a constant. Technology has proved highly beneficial to those in power; used most effectively on the public through an array of instruments and devices. The nature of such schemes is insidious and the means subtle. 

Any single person, particularly in the modern era, has not been themselves a day in their life. You most likely entered the school system when you were 5. From then on, your mind belonged to the state. The Secondary Education Act of 1965 featured core curriculum that was in fact established by business leaders and implemented by the federal authorities. It remains the most expensive education bill to date; enacted less than three months after being introduced. This initiative has mechanisms designed to promote and reward compliance. The impetus for the elite in strategizing regarding the SEA was to identify, and then target for exclusion contrarians at an early age and also to enhance the linear thinking of the conformists.

Passage of the SEA marked a shift in the paradigm as the elite took increased strides to further the development of linear thinking in people while simply ignoring those of a spherical mindset. They reward conformists while discriminating against contrarians. Another quote from a notable author and historian, “Permanent progress results from education, not legislation. Education is not the programming of individuals for mere economic survival. The greater spiritual, nonmaterial part deals in the intangibles of right motivation and right use. No individual who exercises wrong motives and misuses privileges attains to wisdom, regardless of the amount of formal schooling received.”

Envisage the risks taken by colonists who forged West and took part in forming the U.S. Knowledgeable of extreme hazards, they advanced, guided by promise rather than fear. There was no mandate that all should take part, nor was this necessary.

During this visitation and allowed individual choice, many would continue; guided by promise as before. However, intervention strategies imposed on the public by ruling parties repress individual spirit and promote fear.

Resources spent on subvention may have gone towards other spheres of endeavor. For example, the majority within the medical research field favors more autopsies {autopsies being the gold standard for determining death}. However, the facilities, personnel, and equipment are thin to the ground. This leads to ambiguous tallies of deaths associated with the outbreak. Once more, this circumstance undermines decisive analysis of the ailment’s processes.

Promise subjugated by fear. This is like forcing those who preferred the challenge of going West to stay in the East. Things would have been quite different should this had taken place.

Those with promise today are being stifled. Yet, the danger is that the perspective is precisely backwards in the minds of the fearful.

The oft-repeated claim is that one takes precautions out of concern for others {a disinterested action}. Should you walk along the same sidewalk as one of these reformers, show gratitude when they abruptly veer off – in what we may characterize as a football move – and praise them for their kind consideration.

The preponderance has a full understanding of what “for the people” means given the expectations placed upon government leaders in Washington D.C. However, only a faint understanding regarding “by the people.” To the public, political affairs comprise nothing more than taking part in a referendum every four years in November and watching the diplomatic spectacle unfold on television.

One cannot read The Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, The Federalist, and Constitution of the United States without realizing the serious implications involved in governance.

Public responsibility involves tracking, due consideration of, and responding in favor or against legislation put forward by elected officials. This process has become easier because of advancements in telecommunications.

The zeitgeist of the public is to attain to the basics. The ape in the wild holds the same outlook on life and just like human beings, apes have survived over the centuries. Government officials appreciate that which separates human beings from animals; moving beyond the basics, shaping the world to their liking.

Voting every four years is the absolute least one can do regarding public participation in government. How would you respond should your choice for president appear before you and pose the question, ‘what is your level of engagement concerning government policy decisions?’