October 2, 2014 by Crystal Clark


Reality revisions are agenda-driven and thereby fictitious narratives carefully scripted to revise an entire global reality in order to meet or fulfill that agenda. These are major, major paradigm shifts of generational proportions that summarily pre and re-define the future victor and victimhood status of billions. These shifts aren’t meant to change the perception and therefore direction of reality for a day, week, or months, but permanently. These revisions are as horrendous as they are gargantuan in sheer size and scope, their purpose is to forever alter the organic course of the human race in the writers’ favors, and with a body count already in the multi-millions, will stop at nothing to achieve it.

The purpose of this article is to explain why and how these revisions are made, with a healthy reminder that they can’t continue without your participation, nor will there be ANY victors left standing if they do continue.


These revisions are not only the cause of every major war this planet has ever seen (including class and weather warfare) but have also repeatedly ensured the wrong people were targeted in nearly every case—that would be the competition or “competing reality,” up to and including actions that support it and those who know what it is. Reality revisions have become so pervasive, the word “suicided” has become a permanent fixture of our lexicon in response to the presence, affectations and reverberations of these revisions, and are why we feel increasingly haunted by an Orwellian ghost reminding us that in times of universal deceit, telling the truth is revolutionary act. Furthermore, if these revisions were not really happening, neither would the global mass-surveillance system and the life it breathes into the pre-crime, thought-police-state necessary to enforce it. This includes indefinite detentions and sanctioned drone strikes (murder) without a trial first.

This is going to be a lengthy article, but should your reading experience parallel my own while writing it, I suspect you’ll have your own personal encounters with Orwellian ghosts of realities passed. As the phrase, “I write to discover what I know” floated in, I suddenly found myself reflecting back to a book I wrote several years ago about competing realities and a group of characters referred to as “simuls”—an odd group of people who could recall two different realities simultaneously. Perhaps it meant more than I thought it did at the time. Ironically (or not) the title was When Tomorrow Comes, and I can’t help but wonder if “tomorrow” has finally arrived and I’ve somehow managed to catch up with myself.  Stanger things have happened, of that I’m sure.


Pulling off a reality revision is no small feat, which is why mistakes are inevitably made. That being the case, like any other criminal endeavor, traces of evidence are always left behind. These can be found in  irreconcilable anomaly or discontinuity in the story line or replacement narrative—a fact exquisitely portrayed in the Matrix Trilogy when Neo became confused at seeing the exact same black cat walk by twice, and was then told it was a glitch (in continuity) indicating they “changed something”. My friend and colleague James Horak refers to these discontinuities as anomaly, while I may refer to them as holes or gaps in the story/narrative. Regardless of what we call them, they do in fact exist, and as the late (and great) Kevin Smith would also often point out, wherever he found one of these black holes, he knew they were hiding the truth, and therefore had to be investigated to find it. This is a true understanding of our predicament and the mark of both research and researcher without an opposing agenda.

Reality revisions are the result of carefully scripted changes in the predominant, widely held narrative. I used the term ‘widely held narrative’ rather than the word reality because as it stands, so many revisions have already occurred that the truth and narrative not only vary wildly, but belief in the scripted narrative (revised reality) is now the predominant view.

Unsurprisingly, reality revisions are handled and treated in much the same manner as a literal script. This means that the story/plot and characters must be carefully and methodically developed over time, regardless of the size of the climax, main event or ‘tipping point’ in the story. Failure to perform the pre-climax set-up properly, means the difference between a mega revenue-generating blockbuster and a B-rated movie, or in the case of a reality revision, the difference between success and failure. In other words, the story has to be sold properly—it has to be believable to the audience. With this in mind we know that changes in the narrative (or changes in language, as Orwell pointed out) are slowly building and creating a new reality revision and require the following:

  1. Originators/imaginers/benefactors of the new story
  2. Funding/wealth transfers (size of the production equal to the size of the funding or transfer)
  3. Script writers
  4. Managing agents
  5. Props & sets
  6. Lead actors/actresses
  7. Supporting actors/actresses
  8. Opposing ideologies
  9. Heroes & villains
  10. Victims & victors
  11. Theaters, venues, showcases
  12. Sales force & Marketing for repetitive reference
  13. Lateral narrative binders

Lateral Narrative Binders

As the ‘real world’ audience is in the billions, certainly operating in this particular theater is a little more complicated, and therefore requires the use of something I refer to as narrative binders. These are beyond the roles of lead or supporting actors, and operate outside of normal marketing parameters. Their function is to reinforce the narrative while operating both subliminally and in the margins, for differing reasons and in several unique ways:

  • Narrative binders are the glue and filler used to bind the narrative together tight enough that the holes or breaks in continuity become imperceptible; install and/or create psychic (psyche) blocks within the minds of the intended audience through constant redirection back to the new narrative or revision; the mortar filling/hiding the spaces (discontinuity) between the bricks.
  • In a real-world scenario, lateral narrative binders surround and infiltrate the daily personal lives (margins) of the audience, both before the audience member has shown up to watch the production, and continue long ‘after they have left the theater,’ so to speak.

Being that in reality an individual’s entire life and world are the stage, for our purposes here, television news outlets suffice as the theater and the home viewer as the audience member. (Note that television news outlets are owned and operated by #1 on the previous list, and are used to satisfy requirements #4, #7 and #11 of successful story writing). Ironically (or not, again), lateral narrative binders working in the periphery or margins of audience member personal experiences, both pre and post event, are often blockbuster movies all repeating (pre-marketing) or pre-seeding a theme central to the coming reality revision that will later be broadcast through the news as a real event.

Pre-event lateral narrative binders are, in and of themselves, a form of subliminal “pre-selling” of an event that has yet to happen—an event the audience member does not yet know is going to happen—and are consequently extremely effective mechanisms of steering thought and perceptions in a pre-determined direction to achieve maximum “buy-in” during the actual revision attempt.


An example of this would include pre-seeding a narrative binder into a newspaper, in the form of a claim that a specific country (character), which the new narrative has already begun to pre and redefine as the villain (terrorist), “has weapons of mass destruction,” prior to the intended reality revision (war against a competing reality). If a recognized authority figure (lead actor) were to later appear on a news program (enter the stage of the theater) to sell this new war or reality revision, they would then quote the previously seeded source (pre-event narrative binder) as proof the reasons for the intended revision are already well-known and documented by others.

Considering that example was based on real events it may sound familiar. Not only was the Iraq war started over a lie, but was also the beginning of a massive global reality revision responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people competing for, and living in, a different reality than the one the revision created—their reality was stolen and replaced with someone else’s version.

Other examples of previous and current narrative binders, which indicate an intended reality revision is about to occur—can be found in everything from the Nike poster marketing footwear on a human calf with the flesh blown off, before the Boston Marathon bombing happened, cartoons and television programs showing the destruction of the twin towers prior to 911, over-hyping and over-televising minuscule opposition to referendums to prevent discussion or investigation of an opposing reality revision (in the form of rigged election results) to even the constant barrage of a (trending) “hostile alien” meme (a villain bait-and-switch in the “terror” narrative) found in several major motion pictures in the last two years. This is alongside a marked increase in major class division/warfare dramas being played out in post-apocalyptic and dystopian themes; sometimes a combination of them all in the same film or series.

Reality revisionists have, as arrogantly expressed in their own writings, given themselves—and only themselves—the power to mold and shape the reality narrative so completely they refer to the rest of us as mere onlookers and spectators. Additionally, given some serious thought, we may ultimately discover that it is this very specific distinction (between the writers, performers and spectators) underlying the entire premise behind ‘class warfare’ to begin with.

Their preference for the word “theater,” especially in military or wartime operations, is rooted in the reality revisionist mindset and their painfully blatant use of ‘crisis actors’ (supporting actors used to sell the revision) confirms it. They have made themselves the sole writers, producers, financiers/lenders, lead actors and beneficiaries of a fictional reality narrative that we, the audience, are expected to believe is real.  And I do mean expected. That’s what the thought police, data-mining fusion centers, and giddily awaited pre-crime divisions are for.

As explained many times before, in both written articles and radio shows, THIS is what the global surveillance network is really for—it’s being used to identify and weed out the dissenters and heretics from the official narrative of reality. It’s not being used to catch international or homegrown “terrorists,” which is why they never manage to find any they haven’t purposefully and personally funded and written into the script as supporting actors. That will only remain true, however, until the next revision is complete, and I can assure you it’s already underway.


We have seen extremely blatant examples of rebranding coming from our government(s) the past decade, an example I point to often being the President’s rebranding of a Dronestrike Kill List to a Disposition Matrix. Rebranding is often thought of as a method whereby a harsh truth can be softened and made to become more palatable. This is certainly true, happens often and quells resistance. But what about the kind of rebranding one finds in the old bait-and-switch technique, which is, in itself, a pre-condition or necessary companion of a reality revision?

Rebranding for the sake of redefining can be read as a harbinger of reality narrative revisions. This is important: rebranding for the sake of redefining can be read as a harbinger of reality narrative revisions. For example, when a storyline is becoming more complicated to set the expectation of a nearing twist or drama, either a new character is introduced or an existing character is redefined as somehow being duplicitous or disloyal to the others—this is where the plot thickens. With that in mind, let’s apply the previous 13 reality revision requirements to the 911 (narrative) chapter of the script.

 GLOBAL GOVERNANCE FOR & BY THE ELITE:  Chapter 911 (Written by the elite)

  1. Originators/imaginers/benefactors of the new story: Elite championing for their New World Order Nirvana (Global Governance)
  2. Funding/wealth transfers (size of the production equal to the size of the funding or transfer): Bribes and global surveillance systems are expensive, and we know that just before (pre-event) 911, Rumsfeld announced the “loss” of 3 trillion dollars. After 911 there have been massive transfers of wealth from the housing crisis, bank bailouts, declaration of perpetual war for the MIC, and several more trillions of dollars have been lost again. These transfers indicate expected continuing production costs.
  3. Script writers: Social Engineers (members of CFR & TC), think-tanks
  4. Managing Agents: Social Engineers, Corporate heads, media moguls, officials
  5. Props and sets: non-existent airplanes
  6. Lead actors/actresses: social engineers, media moguls and officials
  7. Supporting actors/actresses: News anchors (teleprompter/script readers), disinformation agents, controlled opposition
  8. Opposing Ideologies: Islam vs. Christianity
  9. Heroes and villains: Heroes: people willing to fight for white American Christians. Villains: people willing to fight for brown Islamic Arabs
  10. Victims & Victors: The original narrative proclaimed white, freedom-loving, Christian Americans as both victim and victor; true victims are the millions of middle-eastern people whose countries are destroyed and family members are dead
  11. Theaters, Venues & Showcases: Middle-Eastern war theater, Zionist Christian churches, all forms of media
  12. Sales force & Marketing for repetitive reference: see numbers 4, 6, 7, and 11
  13. Lateral narrative binders: coming from enumerable sources; usage example previously provided

The events of 911 were a tipping point in a missive, GLOBAL reality revision meant to change the perception and therefore direction of reality permanently, and it isn’t the first. Repeatedly we were told these heinous acts of terrorism were committed by those who hate freedom and free people, which is the one thing they actually told the truth about. It’s important to remember that reality revisionists use these revisions to eliminate the competition or competing reality. It is an impossibility for an oppressive, elitist global government (for and by the elite) to establish itself among free peoples with governance established for and by the people. Their power ends where our freedoms begin—it’s like turning a dial—when you turn our freedoms down you turn their power up, and when you turn our freedoms up you dial their power down. These reality revisions are designed not to simply turn the freedom dial down, but to ultimately turn it off. The last few major revisions are meant to accomplish this, one of which is currently in progress and accelerating.

THE NEXT REALITY REVISION: The Coming Digital Age, Net Neutrality & the Growing Problem of Freedom of Speech and Thought

In the same way changes in the ‘official narrative’ are used to build (up to) a reality revision, so too do reality revisions build on one another—they are progressive, each paving the way for the next. If the reality revision currently underway completes, the institution of which would have been impossible without the last one, the freedom dial will be turned so low it will become nearly imperceptible. This revision has been planned for some time and has been written about extensively by those involved in its facilitation. There have been marked increases in the narrative associated with this revision, changes in the narrative including the rebranding and redefining needed to set up the revision, and lateral narrative binders are seeping out with increased regularity.

This revision is something I have written about before and discussed several times in radio interviews in the last couple of years. It’s also why I have been so vocal about the misplaced trust in digital currencies—even bitcoin. My extremely strong opposition to the idea doesn’t stem from an inability to see the need for alternatives, but rather the ability to perceive that as these alternatives continue to develop in the wrong narrative of reality, they are consequently helping to feed and enable it. Right idea, wrong circumstances. It is imperative to recognize that reality revisions are carefully designed to eliminate a competing reality. Given the aim of the current revision underway, I can assure you that in no way are digital currencies (or digital anything for that matter) competing with the intended changes, and quite frankly, I’ve found it rather astonishing that more people don’t recognize this. If the current revision goes off without a hitch, in time we may look back on digital crypto currency as one of the most successful lateral narrative binders ever employed.

One Revision Begets Another: We are either with them, or against them

Not long after the 911 global reality revision, world leaders rolled out their own special version of Orwell’s 1984, complete with mass surveillance and invigorating patriotic chants of, “you’re either with us or against us”. They were careful and precise as to how they sold this new ‘terrorist’ threat in the beginning—freedom-hating, murderous, duplicitous, well-defined and middle-eastern characters the audience was expected to believe killed over two-thousand people by flying airplanes into the twin towers (building 7 apparently being written off as a sympathy collapse). Because evidence of a revision is always left behind in the form of anomalous holes or discontinuities in the new narrative, we now know the story surrounding the event was a fiction (hence the reality revision) yet it was a precondition to pave the way for other future revisions in the form of rebranding and redefining. Certainly you can’t rebrand the image of a terrorist in a story line that never introduced them to begin with.

Now that the terrorist or primary villain has been introduced, careful and deliberate rebranding is being used to broaden its scope and definition—the action is picking up. Wildly redefining the behavioral patterns of a terrorist now puts Christians, protesters, returning veterans, and basically EVERY victim of the revision, who are now waking up simply because they have been victimized by it, in the same category as a terrorist. This is a bait-and-switch altering the official terrorist narrative to now include ordinary people—this introduces a plot twist known as the homegrown threat.

This too was done to engender, within the audience and/or spectators, the expectation of another drama in the near future, and that drama is here. Remember, this rebranding or change in the terrorist narrative began at least a couple of years ago and is now working its way to a climax. Very specific lines are being drawn in the sand between your future place as an audience member/spectator, and their future place as writers, directors and producers of a film called The New World Order (global governance for and by the elite): you are either with them, or against them.

What I’m hoping to make abundantly clear at this point, is what this revision is ultimately for and about: putting you in your place as a spectator or member of the spectator class, and ensuring you stay there. Attempts to maintain, or create a competing reality, or interfere with their own reality revisions in any way—in thought, deed, or protest— will mean you are over-stepping your spectator class boundaries and are therefore against them. THAT is the line being drawn, and the system necessary to enforce it is almost complete. Moreover, if you continue to abide by your invisible (and currently *self-imposed*) spectator class boundaries, there will be absolutely nothing to prevent it. This is a major, major reality revision with extremely undesirable consequences, even for those that don’t see it. Below is a brief look at the progression of the narrative in this regard.

The following statements come from an article titled: Obama lays framework for purge of online opponents, and was written February 13, 2013—almost two years ago:

Under the guise of curbing the “radicalization” of U.S. citizens and identifying and purging potentially violent persons from the Internet, the White House has initiated the creation of a new interagency working group to address what it calls a growing problem.

The White House issued a fact sheet delineating the broad objectives of the plan.

If Wiktorowics were referring exclusively to terrorist groups such as al Qaeda, then no red flags would be raised whatsoever concerning the new program. But he never specified nor defined terms such as “violent supremacist groups” or “violent sovereign citizens.”

The Obama Administration has already caused the alarm bells to ring on several occasions as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released several internal memos referring to conservative Christians who believe the Bible, pro-life citizens who are against abortion, Tea Party activists, and political conservatives who believe in a strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution as “potential homegrown terrorists.”

And in the current gun rights debate, sovereign citizens have gone on the record to oppose the Obama administration’s all-out assault on the Second Amendment, vowing to disobey any law that would violate their unfettered rights to keep and bear firearms.

It would be difficult to imagine this administration, with its radical leftwing mindset and agenda, viewing such widespread displays of defiance as anything other than a direct threat to its power, and thus, a perfect motivation for declaring such citizens to be potentially “violent sovereign citizens.”

Remember that reality revisions are designed to cause global changes. These next statements were taken from the September 26,, 2014 edition of the Sidney Morning Gazette (Australia) in an article titled, Terror laws clear Senate, enabling entire Australian web to be monitored and whistleblowers to be jailed

Australian spies will soon have the power to monitor the entire Australian internet with just one warrant, and journalists and whistleblowers will face up to 10 years’ jail for disclosing classified information.

The government’s first tranche of tougher anti-terrorism bills, which will beef up the powers of the domestic spy agency ASIO, passed the Senate by 44 votes to 12 on Thursday night with bipartisan support from Labor.

Anyone – including journalists, whistleblowers and bloggers – who “recklessly” discloses “information … [that] relates to a special intelligence operation” faces up to 10 years’ jail.

Any operation can be declared “special” by an authorised ASIO officer

The new bill also allows ASIO to seek just one warrant to access a limitless number of computers on a computer network when attempting to monitor a target, which lawyers, rights groups, academics and Australian media organisations have condemned.

They said this would effectively allow the entire internet to be monitored, as it is a “network of networks” and the bill does not specifically define what a computer network is.

ASIO will also be able to copy, delete, or modify the data held on any of the computers it has a warrant to monitor.

The bill also allows ASIO to disrupt target computers, and use innocent third-party computers not targeted in order to access a target computer.

This is where narrative changes begin to progress even further towards the coming revision, as foretold in the book, The New Digital Age. These words came from Britain’s Home Secretary Theresa May leaves Downing Street in London, September 25, 2014 (Reuters/Luke MacGregor) as reported by RT in an article titled: Extremists may face broadcast ban, social media vetting – home secretary [Published September 30, 2014 11:18}

Powers banning extremists from appearing on TV and which allow police to vet “harmful” Individuals’ social media activity would be enforced if the Conservatives return to power next year, Home Secretary Theresa May is set to announce.

The party manifesto will also pledge to introduce time-limited Extremist Disruption Orders to curb individuals’ right to speak at public events and control their social media usage. The maximum sentence could be up to 10 years in prison for breaking a banning order.

Announcing the plans at the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham on Tuesday, May will also promise greater powers for British police to access internet data.

Police and intelligence services would accrue greater access to details of when and where phone calls and emails are sent, but not their content.

Targeted individuals could be banned from taking part in public protests, certain public spaces, from associating with named people and from using broadcast media if deemed a threat to “the functioning of democracy.”

The Home Office counter-extremism strategy would encompass “the full spectrum of extremism” extending beyond radical Islamism to include far-right and fascist organizations.

Orders would target those who undertake activities “for the purpose of overthrowing democracy,” a broad definition that could encompass political activists of many different stripes.

Net Neutrality & the coming digital age

One of the best ways to prevent this revision from happening is to stop net neutrality in its tracks. This is critical as its entire purpose is to neutralize individual efforts to operate beyond their designated spectator class distinctions. If you want to end the progression of reality revisions altogether, preventing the fruition of treaties that amount to nothing less than a corporate charter for this new global governance, like the Trans Pacific Partnership (which also supports net neutrality), is critical. Additionally, as the statements in the previous articles highly suggest, synchronized moves by other governments around the globe are their own form of lateral narrative binders. Below is a segment of a recent speech given by the UK Prime Minister that echoes the same mindset. Listen carefully to how the narrative is set up and slowly changes to introduce the term “non-violent extremists”:

All of this synchronistically parallels statements made in a book published by Eric Schmidt (of Google) and Jared Cohen: THE NEW DIGITAL AGE. The book was published last year (2013) and the Copyright is shared between Google and Jared Cohen.  The introduction of the book begins making a case for the dangers of an internet lacking “top down control” and discusses how the spread of communication technology has served to “reallocate the concentration of power away from states and institutions and transfer it to individuals,” further explaining that as a result [of that power transfer] ‘authoritarian governments’ will find a technologically connected population “more difficult to control, repress and influence…”.

I can’t recommend the book enough for a spectacular glimpse of planned future reality revisions, and the authors were even kind enough to help us redefine the three *new* classes of people in this heavily neutralized internet future—the lowest class being called the “aspiring majority”.  I expect you’ll note the masterful rebranding of the spectator class in that one. This is doubly true when one realizes, as their own writings state, that people the government doesn’t like will have their access to the internet removed—that’s code for being forced into the aspiring majority class—punishment for forgetting one’s place. That may not seem like cruel and unusual punishment at the moment, but if and when the transition to a fully digital currency is made, it will be. This is an intended goal that is being furthered and encouraged by people like Bill Gates via the Better Than Cash Alliance.

Lateral narrative binders in this regard have been seeping out everywhere in the past few years, from the Behavioral Policy Agreement found in the Windows 8 release, to the pressure of having a singular and trackable online ID for access. The latter is associated with past and current narrative binders in the idea that those online or virtual personas may be kidnapped and held for ransom (according to Eric Schmit) and re-affirming lateral binders in the MSM reporting things like millions of gmail accounts being hacked, are all clearly moving the narrative in this direction.

In summary, the fact of the matter is, there are, and always have been, two completely different realities competing for full manifestation. I ask you once more to give them both, and their inevitable outcomes, some serious consideration and deliberation while the choices are easier to make and still available. The crossroad is on (y)our doorstep, so please, share this information with others so they may do the same. Do we really want to live in a world where our personal right to self-determination—and everything that right represents—has been written out of the script?



Crystal Clark, April 12, 2013
bitcoinI am often privately asked for my perspective on bitcoin, so I have posted my personal assessment here for others with a similar curiosity. That said, this article isn’t solely focused on bitcoin, but rather the role it would have played in shoring up a greater social construct, including an in-depth look at that construct and whom it will ultimately serve.

In a reality where everything is connected to everything else in one way or another, attempting to place value on a singular segment or piece without the perspective of associations found in the broader overview, is similar to again drinking from the same well in which phrases about repeating history and the value of hindsight, originally sprang.

Where bitcoin is concerned we find another form of *virtual* currency that is backed by belief—the belief that because it is an alternative to our current system it is therefore actually safer and better. However, are we looking at a genuine alternative or simply more of the same through effective political spin and rebranding? Did aspartame become safer and better when it was relabeled neotame and provided in containers that didn’t force the consumer to use it in premeasured increments? Was the reality of weather modification unearthed when global warming was relabeled climate change? Is something really better just because a marketing guru versed in the ways of perception management slapped the word “green” or “sustainable” or “alternative” on it?

Bitcoin being a fully virtual currency, how even semi-virtual currencies have served us in the past is certainly a necessary component of the discussion. Another equally pressing and relevant component to the dialogue, is how virtual currencies are the preferred mechanism of the totalitarian future being planned by the only people it will actually benefit.

It’s important to remember that social engineering uses endless forms of psychological manipulation for the sole purpose of getting the general populace to come to *pre-determined* views, conclusions and therefore participation in pre-planned outcome(s), and do so in ways that allow them to feel as though they chose it for themselves. Moreover, the willing transition to an entirely virtual monetary system happens to be one of those pre-determined choices/outcomes, with one primary objective: installing and enforcing a system with more effective means to monitor and control every aspect of (y)our lives.

An especially telling example popped up when DHS began using the main stream media to seed ideas into the collective mind (through fear mongering) that people who pay for a cup of coffee with cash might be terrorists. In other words, in the overall scheme of things, people being demonized for failure to support and use a cashless system—before the system is fully implemented—is synonymous with being told that a cashless system is in your future, and if you refuse to go along with it, you WILL be ostracized and singled out as a potential terrorist to force your conformity. These ominous overtones of things to come can be directly connected back to numerous public statements made by several well-known social engineers, including Henry Kissinger’s proclamation that who they refer to as terrorists, are simply those opposed to their version of a new world order. What we should be asking ourselves then, is what that version will look like, and where we fit into it.

The Power of Rebranding: What Was Old Becomes New Again

It is said that absolute power corrupts absolutely, but I agree with other philosophers who insist this isn’t really the problem, rather it’s that power has a tendency to attract the wrong kind of people to begin with. But what IS power, and who decides? Is it really money? To a large degree it is at the moment, but the underbelly of the beast is actually based on the self-proclaimed notion of noble birth—the same ideology behind divine right of kingship claims—both being the central core or hub in the global wheel of class warfare. This is about making sure we know who our imposed “betters” are, and not much else.

Knowing the media, which includes news, film, commercial and television producers, serve as parroting, trumpet-blowing mouthpieces in the royal court of our noble ‘betters’, I remain unconvinced that the destruction of the middle class, the rise of the police state and loss of more freedoms, and relentless film/television programming reminding the common man of his true place, are all happening simultaneously out of sheer coincidence. This is doubly true when considering the brazen and recent reemergence of thought police (censorship and penalties), witch-hunts and inquisitions in the form of no-fly lists, unwarranted searches and confiscation of personal property without conviction, and mass surveillance with the stated goal of weeding out heretics and dissenters commonly referred to as terrorists or extremists. This began with the mythical Al Qaeda and associated Muslims/Arab stereotyping and vilification, and has since expanded to include everyone from returning veterans, constitutionalists, raw milk and organic food farmers, and even evangelical Christians.

The exceptional number of films and television shows with themes harkening back to the days of serfdom and feudal societies being so heavily marketed and broadcast at the same time these other events are taking place, in conjunction with things like Agenda 21, the NDAA and Patriot Act, should more than raise an eyebrow in a “free” society. I can only assume our global handlers were convinced that by throwing in some fantastical sorcery, zombies and dragons, we wouldn’t notice the underlying yet consistent theme trending in our edutainment of late. To some degree, maybe they were right.

This includes (but is not limited to) the Merlin series, The Tudors, Game of Thrones, and of course the recent box office hit The Hunger Games. In every case the viewer is presented with endless versions of subjects being forced to consistently bend their knees, backs and wills to the self-serving, spoiled and bizarre whims of a ruling class, or face the dire consequences of defiance. The best life that persons of non-noble birth can hope for in this type of scenario is to be chosen to serve the nobles in their courts doing exactly that—becoming servants. Their noble and royal highnesses neither cook, clean, labor in the field, fill their own glasses or dress themselves—that’s what everyone else is for. Additionally, after having achieved this power, nearly every moment of their lives is spent scheming and worrying over how to keep it. This often necessitates arranged marriages to ensure global alliances are kept that will maintain a system whereby ONLY those of noble birth can rise to the top and become rulers. Their thrones and financial dynasties are passed on to their sons, not because they have proven themselves to be just and capable leaders, but because they have the same last name.

But what IS noble birth, and what could it possibly have to do with a cashless society? Noble birth is whatever those in power say it is, and have the wealth needed to secure the minions and armies necessary to force compliance with that belief on others. For the Nazi’s it was the German race, and apparently Zionist Jews feel similarly self-entitled. There are others of course, as a 12-year old girl recently discovered that all of our US Presidents (with the exception of Martin Van Buren) have been related to John Plantagenet, the King of England in 1166.

There are several underlying issues in this regard, the most obvious being that when it comes to the majority of the people on this planet living under the rule of self-professed nobility, between then and now, only the dates and names have changed. Class warfare begins and ends with this form of elitist narcissism, and at some point, genocide becomes the result. We saw it with the Nazi’s and we’re seeing it now in Gaza. Those are not the only examples by any means, and the common theme is always the same: Those who believe themselves to be the betters of others will inevitably take more and more drastic measures to prove it by putting their lessers in their proper place at the bottom, out of fear of losing their own place at the top.

Spreading the Cancer of Elitism

Fast & FuriosFurther, this phenomenon has a tendency to give rise to another, equally disturbing trend: creating false friendships and alliances that instill the same beliefs in others. They will intentionally befriend certain of their (perceived) lessers and teach them to behave the same way as though they are equals, for the sole purpose of having them do their dirty work; for the sole purpose of having their new-found friend kill off or enslave what he now believes to be his own lessers. Should this individual cease to be of use in this regard, he will immediately “lose their favor” and discover, likely on the chopping block, that they never thought of him as equal—he was manipulated into serving them the same way all of their other lessers are.

Does this explain why so many friends who were once treated as allies and dignitaries, seen smiling in photographs taken with our leaders as they shook hands, were later publicly vilified, branded dictators and murdered? Is this what happened to Saddam Hussein and Kaddafi? Probably. Is that why (y)our leaders are taking (y)our rights away to protect us from the evil (and mythical) terrorists one day, and then funding those very same terrorist groups the next? Most certainly—the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” kind of thing. There is of course a little more to it, especially in the “if you can’t turn them, burn them” department, which also goes back to previous flag-waving and patriotic fervor insisting that whoever isn’t for them is against them. This exact same ideology was also expressed a moment ago when referring to Kissinger’s definition of a terrorist.

Another important factor in the manipulation process goes back to how an extremely deep-seated personal need to be accepted by groups we wish to part of, is one of the most easily and consistently manipulated desires a human being has. And, we should never underestimate how far a person will go to “prove” they are as good as others, nor how far those others will go to use that to their benefit. Additionally, intentionally creating a consumer society was achieved using the same approach.

The masses are constantly told that unless they have and use specific products, society will shun them and they will miss out. This form of marketing (marketing=emotional manipulation) has been so successful that it actually came true simply because people bought into it, something that has been proven over and over in social experiments. A poorly dressed man lying in the street pretending to be unconscious will rarely be approached to see if he needs aid, but if you dress him up in a suit he’ll attract a crowd of helpful do-gooders within minutes. But, even then, there are still some things that no amount of money can buy—still some clubs you can’t bribe or pay your way into—like the Noble Birther Club.

Catering to the Imaginary Gap between Noble & Ignoble Ensures a Bereft Future

Members of the NBC (Noble Birther Club) go by several other names, and I remember being confused the first time I heard them referred to as MJ12—a term I had previously only heard in relation to ufology. My confusion was cleared up straight away when it was explained to me (by an individual in a very high station) that there are twelve ruling families that run the planet and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. Some refer to them as TPTB (the powers that be), others call them the shadow government or the hidden hand. This is something most people are aware (or becoming aware) of, so I feel more compelled to focus on how far a person might actually go to please the NBCers when driven by the psychological need to be (considered) one of them. Further, I find it important to ascertain who the eager-to-please individuals might be, because it will be their actions as facilitators that are the most telling in terms of which *pre-determined* direction all things life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are intended to go.

Aside from having a net worth over $60 billion dollars and investing large portions of it into bio-technologies that have been documented to cause disease and infertility, and aside from his public statements that global population could be reduced with vaccines or even how we need to sacrifice the middle class to save the planet (!), I find Mr. Gates’ recent project, the Better Than Cash Alliance, to be especially significant in this regard. It’s based on the idea that the best way to help the poor people on this planet, is to give them immediate access to a central bank. It hasn’t escaped my attention that this is being done in combination with wars against countries considered part of the axis of evil that coincidentally, were the only ones who didn’t have a central bank before we liberated them.

This is happening at the same time the head of Google, Mr. Schmidt, has recently been traveling the world to share his vision of the future with the public. That vision includes cyber-terrorists murdered with drone strikes, the theft or virtual kidnapping of online identities, and understanding that in a future in which no “delete” button or privacy exists, because everything can and will be used against us at some point, parents will feel compelled to address the subject of online privacy with their children before addressing the subject of sex. [Note: A myriad of articles on the subject can be found by searching for the phrase Erich Schmidt’s vision of the future—you can also pre-order the book due out this month.].

Writers from captured more on this from the vision Schmidt presented at the World Congress in Barcelona:

thCAKTL0NJ“In Schmidt’s vision, societies will be split into three strata in the future and will be divided by how they use technology and how much access to it they have.”

Schmidt referred to the first class (here rebranded as “strata”) as the hyper-connected, the second class as the well-connected who will ultimately form the new global middle class and focus less on building and producing things (?), and the third class as the aspiring majority who will have limited or no access to technology at all. Through deliberately defining the three new classes of the future we find absolutely no evidence of attempts to honorably use these advanced technologies to bridge the gap between classes as a means to prevent or remove class barriers and distinctions in this visionary new future, and we shouldn’t pass over the inclusion of the word “majority” when defining the third class of aspirers.

Many astute reporters in the tech industry attending one of several venues at which Schmidt was a guest speaker, noted early on that individual privacy was missing from most of what he had to say regardless of the consistent and liberal application of Orwellian spin. Even techies know that denial isn’t a river in Africa and realize, due to the times we live in, privacy double-speak about protecting us from all the bad hackers and terrorists out there, has a tendency to end up violating more privacy than it actually protects. Those nasty (and likely pre-arranged) threats will have to be dealt with of course, and that will require an online ID to prove you are who you say are; anonymous is synonymous with terrorism now—would-be whistleblowers take note.

thCAMBP6CRIn summary, what is emerging on this planet is a technopathic control grid from which no human being will be able to escape once it is fully up and running, and it will be more vicious than anything Orwell imagined. Moreover, it is being instituted by the only people who will actually achieve more power and benefit from it, which means it only applies to us. This is no different than a Congress that forces the people into a watered down health care system (complete with death panels) that they are personally exempt from. A similar and even more shocking example of this can be found in the recent Cypress bailouts (rebranded as “bail-ins”) in which their government is confiscating up to 10% of every citizen’s personal bank savings to cover the losses of corporations, but a long list of wealthy people took their own money out of the banks before it happened. This is happening at the same time you can bet on the weather in the stock market, but to date nobody has checked to see if any of the companies you can hire to modify the weather are betting (and profiting) from the very same changes they are making.

In the face of everything else going on, including consistent abuses of military and political power, outright theft of personal funds, loss of *trillions* of taxpayer dollars with no accountability, a massive global surveillance system already being used to assemble ‘disposition matrixes’ on private citizens to populate a kill list for drone strikes without the right to a trial first, and a host of other things too numerous to list here, I can’t for the life of me understand why anyone would willingly cooperate with the installation of a completely cashless system, and that includes the use of bitcoin.

The dutiful facilitators and builders of our cage are telling us, openly and repeatedly, that their intent is to move everything to a virtual system, and to do so in a way that we will ultimately have no privacy in, and no control over. I highly recommend taking them at their word in that regard, and doing everything you can to prevent it. As it stands now, if you think or feel that your money isn’t safe in a bank, you can remove it and place it elsewhere—especially before your government decides to steal 10% of it to bail out more of their associates.

thCADKIY4EIf and when a completely cashless system is set up, we will lose even that ability, and once that happens, how exactly are we going to be doing all the “protesting” Mr. Schmidt goes on about, when our ability to access our money to buy food—or even the internet to make car, home and utility payments—is cut off because the folks in charge don’t appreciate us criticizing the way they are using their supposed diving right to rule over us?

At first, Al Qaeda (presented as Muslim extremists) was the terrorist threat—and people bought into it and all that went with it, including the Anglo-Christian superiority complex. Not long after, the definition of extremist/terrorist was expanded to include people who pay for things with cash. Now, the definition has been expanded to include hackers, constitutionalists, evangelical Christians, OWS protesters, whistle-blowers, survivalists and preppers, returning veterans and gun owners. More importantly, all of this was sold the same old way it always has been, either through false-flag fear tactics, and/or the betters selling their lessers on the idea that they have lessers of their own that need to be put in their proper place. This is the divide-and-conquer model the NBCers use to instill and infect their subjects with their sickness—we end up viewing our fellow man through the same filters of superiority that we are also viewed with, and end up doing to others exactly what is being done to us. This reminds me of a very famous poem, the history of which is below and comes from Wikipedia. I recommend adding the above  words (in bold) to the poem to give it a modern perspective.

“First they came…” is a famous statement and provocative poem attributed to pastor Martin Niemoller (1892–1984) about the sloth of German intellectuals following the Nazi’s ‘s rise to power and the subsequent purging of their chosen targets, group after group.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Catholic.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

Lastly, having recently had this conversation with others and therefore in anticipation of the question that comes next, I would be remiss not to answer it here. Very much like the flexibility of the previous poem however, the answer applies to more than a virtual currency like bitcoin.

The Current Question: If the answer to a piece of paper used to create debt slavery, that is also backed by belief, isn’t a virtual currency created and traded by the people, then what is?

Examples of its Counterparts:

If the answer to resource-depleting and polluting fuels forced on us by those who maintain a monopoly over others, isn’t free energy technology made by and for the people, then what is?

If the answer to genetically modified foods and dairy products injected with antibiotics and hormones, isn’t people growing and/or buying from local organic farms, then what is?

The answer: Until the dichotomy of the master—slave construct is abolished, you will always know the answer when you find it, because if it really is the answer (consequently offering you more freedom than your assumed betters can tolerate), you will never be allowed to do it.

In other words, is the right question being asked?

Perhaps it is the gift and the curse of creative human beings to have already built an elaborate cart in their minds, long before acquiring the horse necessary to pull it.