Hello once again and yet again. This is JLL coming to you with Gnostic Intel on the Internet. It's the 2nd of August 2017 and I'm here with installment number 52 in the ongoing series on Mandela Effect Decoded.
I'm going to talk about the Mandelic Riddle with the specific aim of providing some operative terms, some operative language for the concept of the alt-real. Now you've heard about the alt-right. You haven't heard about the ult-right yet.
That's a little treat I've got cooking on the back burner. What is the ult-right? ULT. But you've heard about the alt-right. You know that I'm somewhat aligned to the alt-right in a certain respect.
I make a strong distinction between what is right and what is righteous, and I'll have something to say about this term, righteous, in the course of this talk. The mandelic riddle concerns the alt-real. So I'm just going to float that term in quotes. What is the alt-real?
Well, obviously it refers to some kind of alternate or alternative reality, right? I don't know how you say that out there when you're chatting about these matters in your own mind or with your friends.
Do you say alternate reality or alternative reality? Anyway, obviously, alt-real is a short, nifty term for that.
So let that term float for a moment, and I propose to you to delve directly into a rich vein of planetary tantra syntax, and that concerns the definition of humanity according to truth. I could start out with an old joke, it's not really a joke, it's kind of more like a humorous ploy, and it goes like this.
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who say there are two kinds of people in the world, and those who don't. Or to put it another way, two kinds of people in the world, those who divide humanity into two kinds of people, and those who don't. I'd rather not divide humanity at all.
However, the great problem on this planet is that humanity is divided against itself. The Mandelic riddle in which you are now involved is an opportunity to look at the cause of that division. I'm going to point, I'm going to take you today right to the cause of that division of humanity. And on the basis of the picture of the description that I offer, the diagnosis of division within the ranks of the human species, if you will. On the basis of that description, I'm going to go further into the mystery of the so-called Mandela effect.
As I've said, properly, let's call it the correction effect. You know, it could also be called the Sophia Effect.
However, it so happens that there's a couple of people on the Internet, cult members of Anthroposophy, which is a cult, I know, I was associated with it for 20 years or so, and these Anthropops these devotees of Rudolf Steiner have actually associated the term Sophia effect with the Mandela effect.
Well you and I in this investigation know that the Mandela effect is the evidence that can be detected in the ordinary world and even on the internet of Sophia's correction. So you could call it the Sophia effect but I urge you to adopt the term correction effect and we can leave the Sophia effect to that couple of anthroposophists and see where they go with it.
I have no need or desire to compete with anyone. I don't compete. I accept peaceful coexistence up to a certain point and then there is a certain type of interference that I do not accept.
So the notion of interference in your personal reality, an interference in the social reality of the world, an interference in the divine experiment, that notion plays into the point that I'm seeking to make in this talk about the division of humanity according to truth.
Now in order to do that, it's my pleasure and privilege to provide you with a little kit, a skill set, a set of conceptual tools. But I want you to understand at the outset that this is not merely a conceptual process and it certainly is not an abstract or metaphysical exercise.
So you will see if you follow closely what I'm saying that I use no metaphysics whatsoever. The language that I'm going to use is clear, simplific, lucid and impeccable. And it's the same language that you can use to unlock your own innate knowledge.
So I'm not telling you what to say and telling you what to think when I do this, which is typical of the method of the Gnostic teacher. When I provide syntax, which is operative language, it gives you a skill set to operate within your own field of consciousness and to unlock your own talents and insights.
That's all it does.
I insist or I invite you, don't insist, okay, I invite you to use the syntax I provide rigorously because it's honed and custom designed to unlock the powers of your own mind and your own scope of understanding and your scope of insight and your own Gnostic talents. This is how to propagate Gnosis.
Once we have, we Gnostics, you and I as Gnostics, teacher and student, learning together, once you and I have this operative language and we agree on it as we would agree on a set of tools chosen out of a toolkit to perform a particular task, well then each and every one of you does as you wish with those tools. But the first step is to acquire those tools.
This is a key talk in the MED series in that respect. So let's start out with this problematical word, truth.
There's a lot of unfortunate haggling and obfuscation about the word truth. Oh, who knows the truth? Oh, nobody can know the truth. Do you know people who say, that John Lash cannot be right because he's insisting that the Sophianic vision story is the only complete cosmological and evolutionary narrative ever produced by the human mind and it is the single and sole story that tells us about ourselves and our planet.
He can't be right because that's a totalitarian viewpoint. He's saying he knows what is true and no one else knows what is true but him. But that is not at all the case. That's a false argument. I can show the falsity of that argument simply by giving you a working definition of truth.
How do I know in any instance what is true and what truth is, the truth of a situation, the truth of a story, the truth of a narrative. How do I know?
Well, in the first place, I need the seminal tool that allows me to grasp truth. We are human animals and we have an extraordinary gift of thinking, the man factor. M-A-N is the Indo-European root that defines the human capacity to think, to conceptualize and to conceive and preconceive, hence plan a course of events and thus to achieve a preconceived goal.
For instance, the Golden Gate Bridge. Before the Golden Gate Bridge existed now as a physical object in the world, it only existed in thought. And the extraordinary capacity of the human animal is to go from thought, which is in a way you could say immaterial, and to materialize thought in action. This is the faculty of man.
Now, how does the human animal in its creative conceptual capacity get from the idea or thought to the event or thing or product of that thought? The way this is done is the same for everyone. It is generic to the human species. You get from thought to action or from thought to product of thought by description.
Description is the key. Truth itself is just a description, but it is a description qualified in a particular way. It is a description according to a particular standard, and that standard is what you call evidence, facts.
So the truth in any situation is a description of the situation, of the event, of the behavior based on evidence and based on facts. And if the description of the event is not based on fact, then it cannot qualify as truth because it does not meet the standard of truth.
So there you have it. You have quintessentially the standard of all truth. All truth in the human realm, in human reality if you will, comes to be stated and must be stated in a description based on evidence and fact.
For instance, to ask you this question, hey, what is the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy? Well, the truth is a narrative, a plot, a series of events put into a description that is based on the actual evidence that's available, based on the facts that can be identified relating to the assassination of JFK.
And the same thing is true all along the way. It's true in terms of events that we're trying to understand, things that happened in the past.
What is the truth about Nelson Mandela? Well it's not the majority report which was submitted by 9 out of 10 people when I proposed the PSY-Q test at the beginning of this channel. It's not the majority report because the majority report about the life and purpose of Nelson Mandela, his mission in life and his achievements is a description of his personality and his actions that is not based on facts and evidence. It is a contrived narrative.
By contrast, the minority report that was submitted by one out of ten people who answered the questionnaire is based on the actual facts, on the actual evidence.
So, truth is a description based on evidence and facts, period. That is the case of what I call the truth.
Now there is a difference between the truth and truth as such. I'm not going to go into that now, but I have talked about that off and on through the years. I believe in the GNE briefings I talked about that here and there.
It goes back to a valuable distinction that you find in Buddhism between what they call conventional truth or samvritti satya, that means truth according to the impressions of things. Samvritti, means the impressions, the evidence that you can acquire about an event. Contrasting to absolute truth or paramatthasacca, which means truth according to the ultimate basis of things.
Okay, so the difference between the truth and truth is an important distinction in Gnostic discourse, but I'm not going to go there right now. We're concentrating now on the conventional truth.
We're concentrating on the truth that can be determined by description based on evidence. Tak.
So far so good.
Now you and I stand before a great question. It's easy to formulate this question. The language for phrasing it is simple and direct.
What determines the natural division in the human species? I'm proposing that there is a natural division and then, later on, after we establish what the natural division is, I want to show that there is an unnatural division, which is really the great problem in the divine experiment.
The fact that there is a natural division in the human species is not a problem in the divine experiment. As a matter of fact, it is an aspect of that experiment. It is an aspect of the test and the challenge that adheres in the divine experiment from the viewpoint of those Aeonic gods who designed it. What determines the natural division in the human species?
Well, you already have the answer in the syntax I just provided. I provided the syntax for a quintessential generic standard of the truth. The truth, in any case, in any instance, is a description based on evidence. Well, what is the natural division in the human species? It arises from the capacity to construct that description.
Some members of the human species have the capacity in their probative faculty to construct a description of any event or action or behavior based on evidence and facts, and other members of the human species are weak or entirely lacking in that capacity.
That is the natural and inherent division in the human species and it is not in itself problematic. It is in fact quite natural. It is a result of the way this experiment has been set up in the first place. No problem there. No problem with the natural division.
Those, the entire human species to begin with, genomically, from its moment of design in the galactic core is endowed with a probative faculty. This is one of the seven faculties calibrated into the human genome according to Gnostic research.
And then the interesting thing, one of the interesting things is, well, how does this probative faculty work itself out over the course of time? As the human species propagates and multiplies, how do certain individual members of the species exhibit the excellence of that faculty, whereas others may develop it or manifest it in a mediocre way, and others may not manifest it at all?
The Aeonic powers witnessing the divine experiment are intensely and passionately concerned with individual achievement. They are concerned with the achievement of individual specimens of the species. And they realize that some specimens will take that probative capacity and run with it and develop it to a high standard of excellence and others will not.
So ultimately in the great picture of things, in a generalization, there will be a division of humanity between those who own and exercise the probative faculty which gives you the ability to construct a description of the truth and those who don't. And so there is a natural division in human societies and there is a natural elitism inherent to the social order of human societies.
There's a natural elitism because those who develop the probative faculty and those who are able to ascertain the truth will stand as an elite, a select and small group distinct from those who do not exercise that faculty in any significant way. Get the picture?
Now at the risk of a short digression here, I feel compelled to refer you to a certain author. His name is Richard Heinberg. H-E-I-N-B-E-R-G. He was born in 1950s in America. He wrote a book called “Memories and Visions of Paradise”, exploring the universal myth of a lost golden age. I've discussed this book here and there on metahistory.org.
I just want to point out in this context something that Heinberg reveals in this book, which to my knowledge has not been treated accurately or adequately by other authors. He points out, and I have elaborated the same point in my own way in other writings, that the notion that, “humanity progresses toward the better or toward a higher condition over time”, is not true, or at least that view has not been held by the wide majority of societies and civilizations in the past”.
In fact, it can be shown that this notion of progress toward some utopian condition of higher evolution is really recent and dates, I believe, from the French Revolution suspiciously. And also it can be shown that the leftist Marxist rhetoric of today, which claims to stand upon this notion of a progressive society moving always toward improvement, is actually not only a lie and a deception, but it is contrary to the generic and indigenous wisdom of the species.
Heinberg shows in his overview of the universal myth of the lost golden age that almost all cultures from China to the Celtic civilization to the Hindus to the Aztecs, almost all ancient cultures of the past and high civilizations have maintained a paradigm of world ages which exhibit a declining or degenerating trajectory.
Give you just a quick example because I don't want to go into a big digression here. But in the Hindu scheme of the yugas, there are generally four yugas. And it is said that the four yugas correspond to the four throws of a dice, which has four dots on it. One, two, three, and four dots on it. This is the Kali dice.
So the first throw is the Satya Yuga and that every epoch of time, every Kalpa according to this Hindu paradigm of world ages begins at a peak. It begins in the Satya Yuga. The Kalpa begins in the Satya Yuga. Satya means truth, remember? Paramatma Satya, somebody Satya.
In the Satya Yuga, the probative capacity of the human species is fresh and young and vibrant and therefore in the Satya Yuga, truth prevails. It is the golden age because the capacity to construct a description of the truth is vital and dominant. But then in the subsequent yugas or ages of time, coming down to the Kali Yuga, this capacity wears down and the balance changes in society.
At the beginning of any kalpa, that is any inception of any divine experiment with the human species, which goes through many long-term phases, at the beginning of any one of these long-term phases, the probative capacity is operating at peak level.
Therefore you will have societies which are dominated by an elite that is not a minor faction, but in fact the elite and those who go along with the elite gnosis, the elite of the knowers, is a majority faction of society.
Then you come down to Kali Yuga where we are today, where those human animals, one person at a time, individual specimens who can own, develop and maintain a description of truth are few and rare. And those who cannot are massively preponderant.
That is the characteristic of Kali Yuga. Those who cannot hold and uphold. Uphold is a word. Those who cannot uphold a genuine description of the truth are massively in the majority in Kali Yuga and we are at the end of Kali Yuga now.
So, not to digress, as I said, the point I want to make is that Richard Heinberg in this book, which is well worth reading, explains that the notion that things get better is in fact a deceitful notion or I would say based on what Heinberg says that the notion that things get better and that we can go towards some utopian state of diversity and equality and communist unity is a horrific and murderous deceit that arises at the end of Kali Yuga because the vast majority of human creatures are incapable of exercising their probative faculty and owning and upholding a genuine description of the truth.
Now, I propose to you, my friends out there, friends I will never meet in flesh and blood, friends in my tree, the spirit of the friendship of shared enlightenment, I propose to you the pleasure of having a part in the Aeonic perspective on this experiment.
What a thrill that is and how liberating is that? To understand that it is natural for the probative faculty to decline in the course of a kalpa. The extent of a kalpa is 26,000 years and we are now in the last 11 minutes or 216 years, roughly, of this kalpa. And that is the conclusion of Kali Yuga.
And in the conclusion of Kali Yuga, the quotient of the probative faculty that was endowed in the human species for this phase of the experiment is running down to nothing. And so it is extremely rare for there to be true Gnostics, those who are dedicated to the truth in this time.
And there is a natural division of humanity. The natural division of humanity evolves or you could say devolves in the course of every kalpa. Accept it. It's not a problem in and of itself. We’re getting to the problem, where the problem comes from, soon enough. It just makes it more interesting. It's like a throw of the dice.
You see, the Kali dice, a die has six faces, right? It's a cube. But the Kali die, which is the singular for a pair of dice, has only four dots on four faces. A one dot, a two dot, a three dot, and a four dot face.
And in the beginning, you could say, well, you could say, the dice are kind of rigged. Because in the beginning of the dice are loaded, isn't that the term? Yeah, the dice are in the cosmic game are loaded. Get that. What a fucking wild idea is that? The dice are loaded in favor of the best possible outcome for the experimental species.
So, when they begin a game in a kalpa, which is a hand, like a hand of poker, a round of poker, they load the dice so that the human capacity to excel in truth is favored. And then they watch the results, and that’s really interesting. But then as time goes by, they diminish the odds that certain human specimens will be able to own the truth and uphold the truth through the probative capacity.
I highlight to you, I remind you, I underscore in your mind this quintessential proposition. There is nothing to be said about truth. There is nothing to be debated about it. If you cannot construct a description that is true according to evidence and facts, then there's no point talking about truth. It's just bullshit. It's just blowing smoke up your own ass.
But the pleromic Aeons understand what is real truth and the value of truth as lived by the specimens in their experiments.
So at the beginning, the experiment manifests of vigorous and vibrant demonstration of the probative faculty of the human animal. But then over time, well the faculty wears down, but that’s also extremely interesting to the Aeonic witnesses, because because the odds get lower and lower. The odds for truth against deceit, for truth against error, get lower and lower.
By the way, the formula truth versus error needs to be separated from the formula truth versus deceit. And I'll get to that by the end of this talk. Believe me, I will.
So, the point I'm making here is that it is perfectly natural to have elitist and non-democratic societies. In fact, democracy is not only an illusion, but it's a horrific deceit. Evil operating on this planet, I want to say extra-human evil, the evil that derives from the Archons operates through deceit at three levels.
Evil wears three masks, and the first mask of evil, the deceitful mask, is democracy. See, democracy in the Satya Yuga would be true. You get the picture now. You see? Isn't it obvious?
In the Satya Yuga or golden age of truth when the Kalpa begins, well, the vast majority of human animals have a vibrant and active probative faculty. Therefore, they will be the majority of society and therefore democracy would work in the Satya Yuga.
The greater good of all society would be decided by the majority rule in the case where the majority rule shows the excellence of their probative faculties. Ha! Okay, great.
Now wind the cosmic clock all the way around to 11 minutes before midnight, which is where we stand right now, in the depths of Kali Yuga. The majority of human animals, and I mean the majority by billions, are either indifferent to the genuine description of truth or incapable of looking for the evidence and admitting the evidence when they see it.
Therefore, democracy, the rulership of the majority in Kali Yuga, can be nothing but, first of all, an enormous error that does not fit the conditions of the experiment at this time, but worse, even worse, a terrific deceit.
So, democracy is the first mask of evil. And when you take off that mask, you see beneath it, the illusion of equality. Each mask of evil depends on an illusion. So democracy is based on the illusion of equality. What is the false illusion of equality?
Well, it's the illusion that every single member of human society is equally capable of exercising the probative faculty in arriving at a genuine and adequate description of truth. There you go.
You can take that conceptual tool and apply it to every situation in human society. And that's what I'm going to do right now. And in doing so, I intend to show you that there's something else that comes into play. Something else that is treacherous and deceitful that comes into play, that comes into the equation of truth.
You know, the equation of truth is a universal factor in the dynamic of our reality as human beings. And the equation of truth can change.
For instance, even in the Satya Yuga, when the majority of people are capable of upholding the truth, and in the Kali Yuga, when only a small minority are capable, the equation of truth is intact. It is still a workable equation in human society.
You just have to see and realize the obvious, I mean I think it's pretty obvious, that human society would be organized in a different way in the Golden Age than it is at the end of Kali Yuga. What is required at the end of Kali Yuga is the Kali Kalki avatar, that is to say the nationalist racial leader who belongs to the elite who have their probative faculties operating and who can then lead the vast majority of society in a benevolent manner to the benefit of those who follow the leader because they themselves are incapable of arriving at a description of truth. However, however, they will respond to truth when it is shown to them, as did the German people in the 1930s, you see.
Now another thing I want to point out about truth as I shift now from a generic mode of discourse, not abstract, not metaphysical, but a generic mode of discourse to an existential mode, I want to point out that the truth is existential.
The truth in any situation derives from the particular and specific conditions of that situation. This is a really important factor to bear in mind in the shift I'm making right now. So I'm going to go from kind of a generic overview of the topic of truth and the equation of truth into a specific instance.
For instance, let's consider racial conflict in human society. Let's consider racial differences and racial problems. This is a much debated and highly incendiary issue. Let's move into it delicately, keeping in mind the tools that I provided up to this point in this talk.
Now, two vivid examples of racial conflict in society could be, say, the southern part of the United States during the era of the Civil Rights Movement in the 50s and 60s. Or equally so, South Africa during the period of apartheid. You know, apartheid just means segregation. So the issue of segregation is a divisive social issue, right?
Division of white-skinned people from black-skinned people in the same social environment, in the same state of the union, the same country, the same region. So apartheid and segregation are issues of division. Now how do these issues of division get resolved?
Well, let's say that you assume that the issue is literally defined by race, which is in turn defined by skin color. So there are some white-skinned people living in the southern United States and some black-skinned people, and there are some issues and problems and conflicts between them, likewise in South Africa.
The condition of apartheid in South Africa was set up by the white minority and it was imposed upon the black majority. Was it imposed upon them cruelly and brutally? Or was it imposed upon them with benevolence? Was there a degree of benevolence and a degree of advantage in apartheid for the black skinned members of South Africa? Or was it totally and exclusively a system of horrific cruelty and oppression?
Well, you have to go and look at the evidence and look at the facts there. But for right now, let's just say that there was a racial problem due to division, due to differences. Now differences in race and differences in IQ, differences in customs and manners, differences in ways of eating, differences in sexual mores are just differences. Differences do not necessarily produce division.
In fact, difference can be a good thing because it means that there is variety in a society. But the differences on racial terms generally carry quite a strong charge on both sides and they need to be negotiated.
So the situation of racial conflict and division in the southern United States in the 50s and 60s reached a critical state and needed to be negotiated.
The conditions of society in those areas where blacks and whites lived in proximity needed to be renegotiated.
Well this is very typical, this happens all the time. The way that human societies develop is through periods of change and then periods of normalization followed again by periods of change or periods of adjustment.
So any society survives and thrives depending on those adjustments being beneficial to the society as a whole. By the way, the word normalization corresponds to the Greek word orthosis, which is in the formula of correction. Remember, the Greek word for, suffice correction, is diorthosis. So it is a two-track solution, a two-track normalization.
Whenever a society is formed, it goes through a dynamic period then the conditions normalize. Then within those normalized conditions certain problems and issues arise and that requires negotiations to take the society to its next level and in that process the society builds into a more healthy society or if the correct solutions are not found the correct orthosis, then the society degenerates becomes more and more divided and more and more unsustainable
So let's just say that certain historical conditions going back, what, into the beginning of the 18th century resulted in the presence of a black African population in the United States of America in the newly formed colonies and that population was concentrated in the south. How did it happen that this black African so-called slave population got there at all?
Well, you have to go look at the facts there. You have to see who was running the slave trade out of Africa. Who was running it? Who brought those slaves to the United States? And in turn, who kept slaves once the black population began to be present in the country. You know, the correct term is indentured servant. So what was the condition of the black indentured servants?
Here again, you are dependent, each of you is dependent upon your probative faculty, your ability to construct a description of slavery in the United States that is based on evidence and facts, rather than to accept blindly and without criticism the narrative that has probably been sold to you.
So in any case, we're not going to go into the antecedent conditions of the problem of racial conflict in the United States or in South Africa. We're just going to say at a certain moment that society, those two societies, reached a state where a new order, a new social order, a new adaptation of society had to be achieved for the benefit of all members of society.
So apartheid ran its course and then when it came time in 1994 with the elevation of Nelson Mandela to a national hero, indeed to a global hero, when it became time to go beyond apartheid and negotiate another system.
Well, that was the moment when the equation of truth ought to have come into play. How so?
Well, at the moment that the end of apartheid arrived, or some people demanded the end of apartheid, there were a majority of people in South Africa, both black and white, who did not know the truth of their social situation. And there was a minority of people, both black and white, who knew the truth.
So in that situation, the equation of truth was balanced in that way, and a positive and beneficial solution for everyone depended on those who knew the truth, those who could see the truth and were honest and had goodness as their motivation because truth and goodness go together, would have to play the role of the negotiators and they would negotiate with the majority and in behalf of the majority to arrive at a beneficial solution, a fair and beneficial solution for everyone.
Likewise, the same thing, when segregation became a problem, when it came to be viewed as a problem, as something that was unacceptable in the southern United States, the same situation prevailed. There was a great majority of both black and white people who did not have the capacity to form a description of the truth about that situation. And if you can't have the truth about a situation or a problem, if you can't formulate the truth about a situation or a problem, well, you can't reach a solution.
So the majority couldn't, but there was a minority who knew. There was a minority who cared about the truth and who wanted to make the situation better. Great!
This is how society, human societies in the divine experiment are intended to operate by a self-correcting, self-adjusting process. And in this process there are always two parties involved.
There is the party of the truth holders, let's call them the Gnostics, the ones who know what's really happening and what really needs to be done, and there is the party of the majority, well in the Kali Yuga they're the vast majority, of those who either don't know, are incapable of knowing, don't care or whatever and yet the solution that would be proposed by the Gnostic faction of society is for the benefit of the entire group, not merely for their own benefit as an elite, but for the benefit of the entire group.
And so transactions must occur, discussions must occur between the two parties on the two sides of the equation of truth. And out of that comes a solution. But guess what? That doesn't happen. It never happens that way. It never actually unfolds in that way, which is the natural self-adjusting process of any organic human society.
A human society, a nation, a country, a state, a community, these are social organisms and as organisms they operate by laws of adaptation. All organisms adapt to their environment. Social organisms adapt to their environment and they adapt to their internal environment as well as their external environment.
But this process of constructive and creative adaptation guided and led by the elite faction of the society who is capable of owning and upholding the truth does not get the chance to play itself out. Why not?
If you look at the situation in South Africa, if you look at the situation in the United States during the so-called civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King, you will see that the facts on the ground and the evidence, which is plain as day to those who care and dare to find it, shows the intervention of a third party.
If there is an intervention of a third party that comes from outside the equation of truth, then the transactions of social adjustment will be perverted and deviated. There is no necessity for the intervention of a third party. It destroys the integrity of the process of social organization that is inherent to human animals who are intensely social animals.
As long as the intrusion or intervention of a third party comes into play, then this natural organic process of self-adjustment is thwarted, it's thwarted and deviated and it can never work out.
So I can say to you with confidence in this perspective, yeah there seems to have been a problem, a racial problem between the blacks and the whites in the southern United States and the fact is that the people involved in that problem never got a chance to work it out between themselves, and so the problem was never solved and it continues to fester to this day and is in fact, that problem is in fact being viciously reactivated to this day, the problem of segregation.
Why are black college students who are privileged young people in the United States demanding segregated areas on their campuses? I mean, how insane is this? You look at it and you say, this doesn't make any sense. But it does make sense.
It makes sense when you see that the parties involved and responsible for directing a dialogue over politics and policies that would lead to a resolution of the racial problem in the United States were never allowed to carry out the necessary transactions between themselves.
So if there were a small number of black people, and I'm sure there were, brilliant, compassionate, deeply insightful, well-educated black people as well as a small number of white people standing shoulder to shoulder with them in that era of the 50s and 60s who could have opened up a dialogue with the majority of people and could have directed the transactions of society toward a solution for all did not do so. Why not? Because they were not allowed to do so due to the interference of a third party, a third party that hijacked the process of social transactions.
So I want to point out to you that the divisions in the human race determined on the standard of truth are natural and essential, and all other divisions and problems can be negotiated and worked out as long as that elementary formula of truth, the equation of truth is preserved.
But if something comes into the social order of any country, any community, any family from an external, extraneous and alien viewpoint and imposes itself as the agency that's providing solution then there is no possible outcome other than destruction of the society which has been in that manner intersected by an alien force.
And there is in fact an alien force operating in the social order of all countries and nations of this world.
The Sophianic vision story warns about the intrusion of this alien force. They warn about, they profile the nature of this alien force and how it intrudes upon humanity. And the Gnostics in that narrative present a clear scenario of the extraterrestrial and alien dimension of this intrusion through the Archons. And they point to how the intrusion works through human proxies of the Archons.
Since the Archons themselves cannot invade and take over the Earth literally as would happen in some science fiction scenario like “War of the Worlds”, they have to use human proxies, that is to say, those who are infected by the Archontic virus.
Now bear in mind, and bear closely in mind, that the intrusion of this third party factor in human affairs has not always been the case throughout human history. In fact, it's relatively recent in the long, long story of our species.
In historical terms, the inception of that intrusion of the Archontic intervention goes back to about 1800 BC. But what interests us today, what you need to look at today and focus on is the more recent manifestations of this intrusion.
Rather than going way, way back and tracing it forward, you can do that. I've done that many times. Other people have tried to do that in various ways. But I guarantee you that it's more productive to concentrate on the more recent examples of how this intrusion operated.
I'll give you another instance. Prior to what is wrongly called the Russian Revolution, there was no such thing as a Russian Revolution. There was a Bolshevik takeover of the Russian Empire. There was no revolution by the Russian people. The Communist Revolution was an event initiated, organized, and directed by a third party.
Go back to 1860, around the time when Abraham Lincoln so-called freed the slaves, you know, in the United States, the Emancipation Proclamation. Also, I believe it's in exactly the same year that the Tsar, it would have been Nicholas 102, emancipated the serfs in Russia.
So the Tsar emancipates the serfs around 1860 and then 1870, 1880, 1890, what do you have? Well, you have a situation in Russia where the social order is unstable. The norm has been changed. Before the emancipation of the serfs, it was the norm for there to be serfs or kulaks. And after that, that's no longer the norm.
So there has to be a period of adjustment. So, what happened with the period of adjustment? Well, who needed to make that adjustment?
Well, the adjustment needed to be made between the Russian serfs who were liberated, who were in a vast majority, and the rest of the Russian people who did not belong to that class, the merchant class and the intellectuals, who were a minority.
And many of those Russian intellectuals in the minority belonged to a Gnostic elite. They were highly educated people. They were humane. They were humanitarians. They had a compassionate and encompassing view of the human species. They were profound people. They were inspired by the mystical vision of Sophia, which is a theme that came up at that time in Russian civilization.
So there was a situation in Russia prior to the Bolshevik takeover when society had to be normalized and it had to be normalized by negotiations between the serfs who have been liberated, the majority who didn't have a clue as to how their society operated and didn't know how to even live as free people, and the minority some of whom did know the truth and wish for a good outcome for everyone. That was the situation in the 1860s and 70s and 80s in Russia and what happened?
Those two factions based on the equation of truth never got an opportunity to work out a solution between themselves due to the intervention of a third party. Everywhere you look, I assure you, everywhere you look, in every issue today that divides societies, the issue of immigration, the issue of how the finances of the United States are run through the Federal Reserve Bank. What is the Federal Reserve Bank?
Well, it is the organ of an agency that intervenes between the American people and their government. It's not an organ of the American government.
So the American people, who is the majority, and their government, who is a minority of leaders, need to work out a solution for the economy of the country. But they can never work that solution out because they are not left alone on their own terms to do so.
So the theme of the intervention of the third party is a tremendous tool to use for the perception of social problems. It's also an essential tool to carry forward as we conclude this investigation of the so-called Mandela Effect and see where the Mandela Effect is taking us, to see how deep this phenomenon goes because we've already seen, I remind you, not because, but I remind you that we've already seen the theme of mitosis or division figure strongly in the clues of the first super-cluster, haven't we?
The planet itself is undergoing some kind of division. And in this process of division, the issue of division within human society comes to the forefront. It's something that you need to understand and you need to understand it at a profound level.
Let me give you another example to take away with you of how revealing it is to apply this concept, the intrusion of the third party.
Suppose that you go back into the United States in the time before colonialists came from Europe. And there you have somewhat 600 different tribes living, the Native American tribes. And let's say there are the Comanches and the Navajo and the Comanches and the Navajo are different tribes, but they coexist and they share territory and they have boundaries and so forth and sometimes conflicts arise between the Comanches and the Apaches.
So there are raiding parties. Some of the conflicts are resolved by negotiation, pow wows around a fire under the teepee. Some are resolved by force. In some cases, the only way to resolve differences in conflicts in social order is by the use of violent force. That happens.
But at least they are resolving the conflicts between themselves. No one else is involved. There's no third party involved.
Now, you may say you don't like this example because you don't want the Comanches and the Navajo to be fighting. Well, that's a utopian position, you know. Conflicts do occur in human society. And to try to imagine a world without conflict is not realistic.
The real challenge is not to dream of some utopian situation without conflict that can never be attained. The real challenge is to know in depth how social problems can be resolved, to see them for what they really are.
Now imagine that the Comanches and the Navajo are really having a lot of problems. And so they're having more than just raiding parties, but you know, they're starting to go into a larger scale war against each other. And so people die on both sides. And maybe one tribe gets almost obliterated. Maybe the Navajo get almost wiped out by the Comanches. Okay.
That's a situation. That's something that can happen. But suppose that a third party came in to the conflict between the Navajos and the Comanches and set up the equation in a different way by introduction of a third factor that doesn't belong in the equation. And the third party came in.
And due to some diabolical cleverness, they were able to cause the Comanches and the Navajos to wipe each other out. And then they take everything that's left. Can you see that?
That kind of conflict, that kind of division, that kind of racial and tribal division on this planet is rampant today. You might be hearing news over the next few days of things that are happening in South Africa and it's likely, almost certain that you're going to hear that there is a racially motivated civil war.
But that is not true.
A racially motivated civil war would be a war within the country, confined to the inhabitants of the country, in which the black population and the white population were in violent conflict. But that's not what is happening in South Africa. It hasn't been set up that way.
In fact, it's been set up by a third party to the advantage of the third party. So, the racial conflict is orchestrated so that the blacks and the whites destroy each other to suit the agenda of a third party.
This term, third party, I'm going to carry over into the next talk. In fact, I'm going to entitle it, The Righteous Third Party. This concept is problematical, or I don't want this concept to be problematical.
I know that there is a lot of confusion and argument and obscuration and deceit and disinformation about the identity of the third party. So I'm going to propose a term to use to clear out the syntax, the corrupted and unusable syntax that has accumulated around this theme.
I'm going to propose the term Xenosh. It's based on the root xeno, X-E-N-O, which is the root of the word xenophobia. So xenophobia means a fear, phobia of xenos and xenos means anything that is strange or alien or outside your group, anything that's unfamiliar to you.
So take the Greek prefix xeno and make a word out of it, a word that describes a group, an entity. This is not a word you've ever heard before. The advantage of introducing into a language a new term presents the opportunity to clear the accumulated confusion around this topic.
So I propose the term XENOSH. X-E-N-O-S-H. It's both plural and singular. You can say the XENOSH is a group and the Xenosh is an individual in that group. Xenosh is the third party of an alien and extraneous nature that intervenes in human social interactions and wrecks them. It wrecks them in such a way that the human participants in any conflict cannot solve their problems on their own terms.
Now the intervention of the Xenosh is going to be a key theme in the remainder of this investigation and it may not be evident now how this refers to the so-called Mandela effect, but I assure you what can be learned from adopting this term, Xenosh, goes right to the heart of the Mandela effect.
Bear in mind what I indicated in the last talk. You can distinguish the Mandela meme from the genuine effect. The Mandela meme is like the hard nut that you have to crack to get to the fruit inside.
The Mandela Meme was originally intended as a psyop with the purpose of destroying human confidence in historical memory and making it impossible to determine the truth based on evidence.
As I said, it's an attack. The Mandela Meme is an attack on your faculty of memory. But by a really wonderful and bizarre turn of events, that meme was co-opted and directed toward another purpose, which is the correction effect.
And in the correction effect, this theme of the Xenosh is really, really important. It's really illuminating and helpful. At least I trust that it will become so.
So I'm going to tie it up right here right now and continue on this same theme in talk number 53. And until then……
#55 - MED - Mandelic riddle, the division of humanity according to truth