Session 6 July 2024

(Z...) Can we ask if they can maybe give us some pointers on how we could upregulate those genes?

A: Wait for the wave to do its work, but in the meantime continue to network about health.

Upregulation of genes was mentioned in this session:

Q: (gottathink) Older transcripts refer to a genetic alteration that caused truncated fluid flow. Is the fluid being referred to the cerebral spinal fluid?

A: No.

Q: (L) Well then that eliminates the next question, which was a follow up. What fluid flow is it?

A: As yet unknown organic structure throughout the body carrying a different fluid other than blood or lymph that is related to light. Your ancestors glowed and transmitted light and power.

Q: (Joe) Was that related to the veins? They were talking about blue veins or the light coming from them... Wasn't there some session about it?

(L) There was, there was something about it. I think we were talking about dancing once and they were talking about some kind of energy flow that came through the arms that allowed them to be able to levitate.

(Joe) Yeah, that was the spear-handed Maruts and stuff like that.

(L) Is that why, or the means by which, some odd people throughout history have been able to levitate because they had some genetic quirk that allowed this system to be operational?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) I mean, just like some people can transmit healing power and so forth. So there's a whole other different thing that's going on in the body that people are not aware of. Is that because the fluid is something other than what we think of as fluid? It's more like...

(Andromeda) Energy?

(L) Yeah, or more like...

A: Difficult to explain since you don't have the concepts.

Q: (Joe) It's based on an unknown structure...

(L) A structure throughout the body that carries a fluid, or something like something like a fluid... Is it because it's not exactly like a fluid as we know it?

A: Yes

Q: (L) Is it something that's more like, say, a 4th density fluid?

A: Yes

Q: (L) And the structure itself is fourth density when it exists in the body?

A: Yes

Q: (L) And we have the potential for this if the DNA were to be upregulated?

A: Yes

Q: (Joe) Untruncated.

(L) Untruncated, yeah, and some rare individuals accidentally by genetic recombination have this...

(Andromeda) Have you ever heard of anybody glowing?

(Joe) No.

(Andromeda) There are halos.

(L) There are halos and then there are ancient stories of people glowing, you know? But I would say... Well actually, yes I have because some of these stories like for example, some of the people who levitate or like Padre Pio and others like that, there have been people who say that they saw the person glowing. Anybody ever heard of that or read of it? Yes? Yeah. Okay. Aeneas has. Okay, so it's not absolutely unheard of. Well that's very interesting. Okay, next question:

(gottathink) Dentist Weston Price has documented the drastic change in jaw structure following the introduction of agrarian diets to groups of peoples. Is this one of the causes of the DNA damage causing truncated fluid flow?

(L) Well, that's based on the question which we've already rejected. So I guess in a sense that question is unaskable as it's written... But the question is still valid: Does the introduction of agrarian diets help perpetuate this condition or this truncation, this genetic deficiency or lack of upregulation of the genes that allow for this?

A: Yes

Q: (L) So agrarian diets are wholly responsible?

A: No

Q: (L) Partly responsible?

A: Yes. The mindset of the purpose of the agrarian diet is related.

Q: (Joe) Lack. A lack of an abundance mindset.

(L) Yeah. Yeah, they've gotta hoard things. They've gotta grow more and hoard it, store grain, all that sort of thing.

(Niall) Invent money then.

(Joe) Then the mindset of scarcity...

(L) Yeah. Okay, so that's essentially kind of an STS perspective on the Earth and would be related to the reduction in power and abilities, I guess.

A: Yes

Session 13 January 2024

Since my theory is that a lack of fresh grass in the agrarian diet of animals is the cause of many health problems of modern humans, and that reintroduction of this factor could be beneficial for our health, perhaps this grass factor could also be used for the upregulation of genes connected with this fluid that is related to light? Two major things which are lost in dried grass are chlorophyll and carotene, and both are related to light:


So in order to activate genes in ourselves which are related to light, we need some kind of information in the plants that is connected with things which are related to light?
 
If you are discussing the percentage of OPs in the population, both MJF and Wandering Star is correct. From what I could tell there is no percentage as such. What was said in this session does discuss it a bit:
Indeed , my apologies for the noise ( years ago i factored in the darker reflections of the 2x major groups , respectively sociopaths and psychopaths , thus such an approximate number , somehow eventually conflated with having read it on Mrs. LKJ's work )
 
(A Jay) A number of people across the internet have claimed they have no inner monologue. Similarly, a researcher specializing in inner experience claims that some people never experience inner speech. Both claims, however, rely solely on people's self reports. Is it true that some people never experience inner speech?
A: Yes

Q: (A Jay) If so, why?
A: OP.

Q: (L) Does that mean that they just think in images?
A: Yes
I'm currently reading The Chrysalids (1955) by John Wyndham.
The Chysalids is a post-nuclear apocalypse story of genetic mutation in a devastated world and explores the lengths the intolerant will go to to keep themselves pure.
On page 31, there is a dialogue between David Strorm and Uncle Axel:
[Uncle Axel] "It would be best if you could forget it altogether."
[David Strorm] I thought that over, and then shook my head.
[David Strorm] "I don't think I could, Uncle Axel. Not really. I mean, it just is. It'd be like trying to forget -" I broke off, unable to express what I wanted to.
[Uncle Axel] "Like trying to forget how to talk, or how to hear, perhaps?" he suggested.
[David Strorm] "Rather like that - only different," I admitted.
[Uncle Axel] "You hear the words inside your head?" he asked.
[David Strorm] "Well, not exactly 'hear', and not exactly 'see', I told him. "There are - well, sort of shapes - and if you use words you make them clearer so that they're easier to understand."
[Uncle Axel] "But you don't have to use words - not say them out loud as you were doing just now?"
[David Strorm] "Oh, no - it just helps to make it clearer sometimes."
In the book, David has telepathic abilities which he is trying to hide in order not to be considered a 'mutant'. Has the author, by attempting to portray the 'symptoms' of telepathy, inadvertently described how Organic Portals process words? 🤔

Since Organic Portals are "closer" to the 2D animal realm than individuated souls, is thinking-in-images a remnant of their past telepathic abilities?
Q: (L) Is there some way to communicate with whales or dolphins and can one find a way to translate the differences and have a reasonable, intelligent exchange with a whale or a dolphin or even an elephant?
A: You don't need conversation "with" when a higher telepathic level.

Q: (L) Dolphins and whales communicate telepathically?
A: Yes. So do dogs and cats and snakes etc. etc. only humans have learned the "superior" art of verbal communication.

Q: (L) But, at the same time, verbal communication can be quite limiting, is that correct?
A: That is the point.
 
Upregulation of genes is also mentioned in this session:

(Pierre) In previous sessions, the Cs mentioned that some of us (Laura and Joe) were growing additional strands of DNA. In that session, it was mentioned that the Cs were not referring to physical strands of DNA. So, can the Cs clarify what kind of additional strands they're talking about?

A: DNA codons that are otherwise truncated. Think transposons that jump and restore original or new codes.

Q: (L) So, basically you're saying that DNA can be changed? Well, we know it can, because I read the books. But in other words, you're saying that it can be changed by changes in your thinking, understanding, and level of knowledge?

A: Information is the most important factor.

Q: (L) You mean gathering information, researching, and learning is the most important factor?

A: Yes and applying what is learned.

Q: (L) So information is like filling up the gas tank, and applying what you've learned is like starting the engine and pushing on the gas pedal?

A: Yes

Q: (Pierre) That makes me think of something. The key for DNA transformation, the most important factor, is information. At the same time, DNA is the intermediary or the receiver to the information field. It evokes to me some kind of mirroring where the individual gathers information in the world which then improves his connection to the information field and allows him to gather even more information? Like a circle?

A: Yes. It is like building an antenna.

Q: (L) So the more knowledge you gather, your antenna changes. But it depends upon using it because building the antenna is a product of using what you've learned.

A: Yes

Q: (L) That's what makes the changes.

(Artemis) You can't just sit around and read and do nothing about what you're learning all day. You have to do something.

(Pierre) In a recent scientific paper from this year, it was discovered there is a burst of gene transcription about 24 hours after a living creature dies. I would like to know why?

A: Related to the releasing of the energy field.

Q: (Pierre) Here they're alluding to the relation between the information field and DNA. There seems to be some kind of bond. And when the...

(L) I guess when the soul releases and everything, the genes and everything are like...

(Joe) A blueprint...

(L) They're turned loose and they do one burst of...

(Pierre) The disconnection burst. They disconnect from the information field because there are no more exchanges necessary.

Session 11 August 2018


Since our results show that the system has not reached equilibrium yet, it would be interesting to address the following question: what would happen if we arrested the process of dying by providing nutrients and oxygen to tissues? It might be possible for cells to revert back to life or take some interesting path to differentiating into something new or lose differentiation altogether, such as in cancer. We speculate that the recovering cells will likely depend on the postmortem time – at least when such potentially interesting effects might be seen.


The C's said that information is the most important factor for changing the DNA. But what kind of information? And how to apply it? Perhaps what is needed is not just gathering knowledge in our head, but consuming the information, like food, in a literal sense.

That study about bursting of genes is done on animals, but we can assume that the same happens with plants. So when the plants die, there is a burst of genes, but it doesn't last forever. After some time, that burst of information disappears. So, when the animals eat dried grass, some kind of information becomes missing in their diet, and they become sick and their meat becomes less nutritious.

In experiments, when the water is given to dehydrated grass, the grass comes alive and consumes oxygen. So at least we know that plant cells can revert back to life. But can this phenomenon be useful for animals or us?
 
Can you say a bit about who Schneider is and what he says about 2029?

Right.

Phil Schneider:
  1. Geologist, metallurgist, engineer, estimated IQ: 163.
  2. Son of a nazi engineer and later M.D. (Oscar 'Otto' Schneider) who was a "u-boat captain in Hitler's navy", captured by the French and handed over to the US, later becoming involved in the Philadelphia experiment. He confessed this to Phil a couple of weeks before he died.
    - Oscar's true past is highly controversial.
    - While Cynthia Drayer (Phil's ex-wife) believed most of Phil's stories, she apparently found out that the 'u-boat' story is not true.
  3. Worked on various black projects in underground bases, including Groom Lake, Los Alamos and the infamous Dulce base, defected after 17 years of service.
  4. Was badly injured during a subterranean altercation with a couple of greys in 1979.
  5. Possessed samples of exotic materials (mostly of extra-terrestrial origin) and various documents which he would showcase during his lectures.
  6. Claimed there are 11 races involved with the manipulation of mankind, with the majority of them being bad news.
  7. Claimed to have met Valiant Thor once, providing several details pertaining to his biological composition.
  8. Said that the human population is headed for a ~85% reduction by 2029 and that the US government has known about this since the 50s (US-alien abduction treaty -1954). Survivors are to be enslaved.
  9. Was found dead in 1996 in his house with bruises and a catheter hose wrapped around his neck. Official cause of death ranges from: "natural causes" to "unknown" to "asphyxiation" to "strangulation" to "stroke" to "suicide".
  10. His last known lecture (Denver, November 1995) was "recovered" and published several months after his death.
According to the Cs, both his employment at Dulce and his firefight with the greys checks out.

Q: (Approaching Infinity) Did Phil Schneider do work for the Dulce base?
A: Yes
Q: (Approaching Infinity) Did he survive the firefight as he claimed?
A: Yes

His memory was all over the place after the altercation. He suffered from cancer and other ailments which he was medicated for. According to Cynthia, he regained a lot of it back once he stopped taking some of the medication. It was something that was eventually used against him by various forces, reducing his claims to 'schizophrenic fiction'. Unlike many modern-day UFO "whistleblowers" (backed by CIA or Gaia and the like), it seems that he was mostly a lone crusader and was as honest and brave as he could be under the circumstances, surviving multiple attempts on his life.

Anyway, It's been nearly 30 years since he died. After all this time and research, back and forth debates in UFO circles oscillating between 'total fraud' and 'hero', I personally operate under the assumption that the bulk of his testimony, motivation and demeanor was sincere. There might have been some lies, inconsistencies and things that he twisted or held back here and there, deliberately or unintentionally, but imo, it was either for a noble cause or due to mk-ultra, misinformation and 'need-to-know' half-truths he was fed himself, as is the case for most of us. He pretty much admits the latter throughout his lectures. Compartmentalization is just too effective at every level of governance. We're all fragmented pawns to one degree or another with small pieces of the bigger picture.

At any rate, it's a near-certainty he was murdered, and his ex-wife attests to that.

Lectures:
Other material:

- Cynthia Drayer (ex-wife) interview
- The Underground (2021) documentary on his life and D.U.M.B.S - available here. In an interview with Kerry Cassidy, the makers of the documentary are teetering between impartiality and compassion toward Schneider and his family, saying that he's "kind of undebunked".
- Projectavalon (another forum I frequent) threads worth looking into:
 
Last edited:
I like that personality modeling way to illustrate what's going. I could see it fitting with things I and my wife like to do to reset from our particular personalities' unhealthy side. That show opens a complicated discussion even by your show's standards.

Glad the show stirred up some interesting conversations. The subject is a can of worms with some real potential for beneficial insights if Dr. Hurlburt's methods were more widely adopted and applied.

In case you're interested, the new MindMatters interview is out.


In the book, David has telepathic abilities which he is trying to hide in order not to be considered a 'mutant'. Has the author, by attempting to portray the 'symptoms' of telepathy, inadvertently described how Organic Portals process words? 🤔

Interesting connection but I don't think so. There's a vast difference between shapes (which is what the telepathic David describes) and the images described by those interviewed by Hurlburt and who have no inner monologue.

Take one of Hurlburt's interviewees, Lena, as an example. At the beginning of her fifth sampling day (her 7th interview) she describes the moment of the beep occurring while she was reading with comprehension Epicurus' teachings and at the same time also visualizing Epicurus in a white robe teaching students in his garden.

In delving into this experience and at 12:34 in the video, Dr. Hurlburt asks Lena directly if she experiences the processing of the information she had said she was doing while reading and visualizing. Her response is quite interesting because she says she experiences the visualizing of Epicurus as the processing of what she was reading. In other words, thinking for her in this case is a visual process.

The exchange about how she experiences the processing of the information only covers two minutes and it seems to be an accurate representation of her experience of thinking. Which, if she's to be taken as an example, is probably similar to how OPs experience thinking.

Posting the video to the thread so peeps don't have to open a separate tab if they don't want to:


Two things that remain for me to wrap my mind around is the difference between thinking in visualizations versus the use of words as well as a bit of information that I didn't get across in the session regarding those who Dr. Hurlburt describes as having no inner experience aside from the welter of background information processing.

I've started going through the interviews with Mel, a woman described by Dr. Hurlburt in our recent interview as being a case of someone who doesn't have what he would call inner experiences, to try and get a better understanding of what her experience is like for her as she experiences it. It's these people I wanted my follow up questions to be about.

Before going into the session, I thought that it was too simple to be true that a person could be identified as an OP simply by knowing whether they were lacking an internal monologue. In fact, I started researching this stuff to prove that the connection made between the two was fallacious.

Then I came across the individuals Dr. Hurlburt described as having no experience which rises above the welter of background information processing and I thought that these people sounded more like OPs. But there was a big problem with that idea because if such people were OPs and they made up 50% of the population then Dr. Hurlburt was deliberately skewing his data in a major way which was antithetical to his approach and research. Things weren't adding up so I just asked about the people without an inner monologue and hoped it would provide enough information to help me sort it out.

Well, I got what I wanted. A definitive answer on the inner monologue question and some direction about where to take further research on the question of those without an inner experience.

It's probably not possible to confirm what I'm thinking beyond asking the C's because of how little data of this kind there is available, but taking what the C's said as well as what Dr. Hurlburt said in our interview I think that these people are failures in some kind of way.

Not like psychopaths, but perhaps something like it. We'll see. I was wrong before. :lol: :whistle:
 
In case you're interested, the new MindMatters interview is out.
That was a fascinating interview. The processing information part vs experiencing I think it’s better explained in the book Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel kahnimal, with the type of perception/experience A and B, whether A it’s the “automatic” information gathering process, and B the conscious experience of that information. It’s not worded like that 100% but it’s very related to the subject.

Added: Also like that Dr Hurlburt is very cautious with his explanations and doesn’t place everything on a set stone.
 
Last edited:
In the book, David has telepathic abilities which he is trying to hide in order not to be considered a 'mutant'. Has the author, by attempting to portray the 'symptoms' of telepathy, inadvertently described how Organic Portals process words? 🤔
I think a more likely answer is that he simply described how he himself was thinking.

Since Organic Portals are "closer" to the 2D animal realm than individuated souls, is thinking-in-images a remnant of their past telepathic abilities?
If it was as simple as that, shouldn't OPs have telepathy like animals do? And wouldn't that also make OPs basically incorruptible, because they act in unison?
Yet, look at this world. Even your own family might treat you as "food", and the only "unity" is offered through nefarious ideologues that seek only to "fill the empty vessels" with their own mind virus.

It looks to me that the point of the world we live in today is to completely cut off people from any and all telepathy, so humanity can be kept divided and atomized. Thus, we shouldn't try to make parallels between telepathy and inner experience of OPs - modern humans are almost completely separated from animal life and natural world, and so will OPs.
In fact, in such world, OPs might be the least telepathic of all!

Perhaps that's what the whole Tower of Babel tale is about - humanity and OPs being cut off from telepathy, so they become separated, unable to understand each other, and forced to fight for everything.

But isolation also means an environment where individualization of souls can happen at an accelerated rate. When everyone is united, there is no incentive to grow out of what is comfortable, but when everyone is at each other's throats and nobody trusts anyone, souls will "grow up" much faster.
And it's up to the souled individuals to relearn and regain that telepathy, because OPs cannot do it themselves.

Then, once they understand eachother, humans can unite once again. Not as a 2D collective that has no choice, but a 3D individuals that choose to.
In fact, i think collectivist thinking and inability to see the world other than "us vs them" are a far better indicator of being an OP than thinking in images (which itself might not be related to being an OP, but to genes, or brain hemisphere preferences).
 
I think a more likely answer is that he simply described how he himself was thinking.


If it was as simple as that, shouldn't OPs have telepathy like animals do? And wouldn't that also make OPs basically incorruptible, because they act in unison?
Yet, look at this world. Even your own family might treat you as "food", and the only "unity" is offered through nefarious ideologues that seek only to "fill the empty vessels" with their own mind virus.

It looks to me that the point of the world we live in today is to completely cut off people from any and all telepathy, so humanity can be kept divided and atomized. Thus, we shouldn't try to make parallels between telepathy and inner experience of OPs - modern humans are almost completely separated from animal life and natural world, and so will OPs.
In fact, in such world, OPs might be the least telepathic of all!

Perhaps that's what the whole Tower of Babel tale is about - humanity and OPs being cut off from telepathy, so they become separated, unable to understand each other, and forced to fight for everything.

But isolation also means an environment where individualization of souls can happen at an accelerated rate. When everyone is united, there is no incentive to grow out of what is comfortable, but when everyone is at each other's throats and nobody trusts anyone, souls will "grow up" much faster.
And it's up to the souled individuals to relearn and regain that telepathy, because OPs cannot do it themselves.

Then, once they understand eachother, humans can unite once again. Not as a 2D collective that has no choice, but a 3D individuals that choose to.
In fact, i think collectivist thinking and inability to see the world other than "us vs them" are a far better indicator of being an OP than thinking in images (which itself might not be related to being an OP, but to genes, or brain hemisphere preferences).
My 2x cents , here i'd disagree, :P , ie 6th density sto , re telepathy , cleaning the athanor will do it tho , however , in this environment is that a good thing XD.
 
That was a fascinating interview.

Glad you liked it! :cool2:

The processing information part vs experiencing I think it’s better explained in the book Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel kahnimal, with the type of perception/experience A and B, whether A it’s the “automatic” information gathering process, and B the conscious experience of that information. It’s not worded like that 100% but it’s very related to the subject.

I made a similar connection to Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking Fast and Slow but I'm not sure how to put the pieces together.

Do you have the timestamp for this section of the interview so I can reference later?

Want to go back through Kahneman’s book with Dr. Hurlburt's explanations at hand so I can see what, if anything, is there that might shed some light on the topic.

Added: Also like that Dr Hurlburt is very cautious with his explanations and doesn’t place everything on a set stone.

Yeah, his cautious explanations are great because they keep us from jumping to any conclusions based on preconceptions or biases which might prevent us from really understanding what's actually going on.

He's a scientist through and through. For better and for worse. :lol:
 
Do you have the timestamp for this section of the interview so I can reference later?
I do, right when you asked on the minute 20:00 about inner experience vs information processing.

Expanding a little on the reason why I brought the connection between this and Daniel’s book; I think the way Daniel describes it or called it, the 2 systems, like mentioned in the previous post, an A and B system.
I might be wrong mentioning which one does what, but if I recall correctly, our system A is the one that perceives information through our senses and we act automatically upon that, example of the driver the dr gave on this interview answering your question, the driver can see the road and feel the instrument of the vehicle with the hands, system A is the automation of that, the driver unconsciously is driving the vehicle thanks to the information gathered through the senses, however system B is what we are consciously do or take control of, on this case can be translated to what the driver is paying attention to or experiencing, which is really having a conversation with the passenger (following the example) so the 2 systems are acting together here but the inner experience is focused on “the conversation” itself while driving. If that makes sense.
 
I do, right when you asked on the minute 20:00 about inner experience vs information processing.

Gracias!

Expanding a little on the reason why I brought the connection between this and Daniel’s book; I think the way Daniel describes it or called it, the 2 systems, like mentioned in the previous post, an A and B system.
I might be wrong mentioning which one does what, but if I recall correctly, our system A is the one that perceives information through our senses and we act automatically upon that, example of the driver the dr gave on this interview answering your question, the driver can see the road and feel the instrument of the vehicle with the hands, system A is the automation of that, the driver unconsciously is driving the vehicle thanks to the information gathered through the senses, however system B is what we are consciously do or take control of, on this case can be translated to what the driver is paying attention to or experiencing, which is really having a conversation with the passenger (following the example) so the 2 systems are acting together here but the inner experience is focused on “the conversation” itself while driving. If that makes sense.

Made total sense and was the parallel I made as well.

But how appropriate is the comparison? Would it be correct to say that those whose inner world doesn't extend beyond autopilot functioning have no System 2 (system B), or is that taking the parallel too far?

That's the kind of thing I'd like to, if possible, find out.
 
Given that the C's said the following only a month ago now, what is happening in my country, the United Kingdom, at the present time is quite fascinating:​

Q: (L) Does it mean that from our perspective they're going to effect, or make some nefarious plans in the direction of greater control of human beings?

A: Close.

Q: (L) Is it because there is too much resistance against the increasing control, or not enough?

A: Not enough for balance.

Q: (L) So, based on things you've said in the past, does that mean there needs to be more suffering so that more people wake up?

A: Close.

Q: (L) Well, swell!

[....]

A: There needs to be balance.

Q: (Joe) There needs to be balance, but they said there's not enough resistance from people, right?

(Chu) Yeah.

(Joe) And there's not enough resistance for balance. And there needs to be balance. So...

(L) They need to make more resistance.

(Joe) Well, these people aren't intending to produce more resistance. They're probably intending to create more control, but by trying to do that, they'll provoke more resistance.

A: Yes.

Q: (L) So the controls may get tighter.

(Joe) And then people will rebel more.

(L) Well, swell! There went my retirement!


If Forum members are not aware, there are serious disturbances up and down the country involving mainly white working class British people. They started in the city of Leeds a few weeks ago when the authorities attempted to take the children of a Romani family into protective custody. It led to a serious riot with things getting quickly out of control. However, worse was to come days later after a young black man (the British born son of Rwandan immigrants) walked into a dance studio for young girls who were engaged in a Taylor Swift dance class and callously stabbed three of the girls to death, wounding several other participants. The crime, which took place in Southport, near Liverpool, shocked the nation but worse was to come when word spread on social media that the assailant was a young Moslem man who had entered the country as an illegal migrant on a boat from France. Although untrue, the rumour spread quickly and led to a large crowd gathering at the scene who then attacked a local mosque and the police who were trying to defend it.

I should add first that this incident was on top of other recent incidents including one at Manchester Airport where a young man of Pakistani heritage got into a fracas with police officers, which saw several police officers assaulted in the process of trying to arrest him. The media only showed at first what appeared to be a clip of a police officer stamping on the young man's head. This provoked outrage amongst the local Moslem community who marched on the police station to protest. Subsequently, the media showed the whole incident, which painted the matter in a different light since it became quite obvious that the man was a thug running amok and freely punching the police officers who were trying to restrain him, including breaking a young policewoman's nose. Before this, a British Army colonel was attacked just outside of his regimental barracks by a young black man wielding a machete, with the officer sustaining life threatening injuries. There has been a deafening silence about the motives for the attack save for a brief mention of mental health issues.

The previous Conservative government had completely failed to prevent boatloads of illegal migrants crossing the English Channel from France, leading to a sense among the population that our borders were now effectively unprotected. As a result, the Conservatives suffered their worst defeat in electoral history gifting the new Labour Party, led by Sir Keir Starmer, a massive majority in the House of Commons. Starmer immediately scrapped the previous government's plan to deport illegal migrants to Rwanda in Central Africa where their asylum claims would be processed by British officials. Instead Starmer claimed that he would smash the people trafficking gangs who run the migrant operations but failed to explain how exactly he would do this and what deterrents he would put in place. In a European heads of government meeting he hosted at Blenheim Palace the week after he became Prime Minister, he reached out to his fellow European leaders for help in stopping the people smuggling gangs, seeking closer cooperation in deterring migrants from making the Channel crossing. However, since the United Kingdom has exited the European Union and with it the Union's policy of free movement of peoples between member states, his calls for help fell on death ears. In fairness, illegal migration into Europe is a major issue at the moment for all the countries of the European Union. Hence, although there may be some sympathy for Britain, each European country is beset by its own migration issues, a matter which is becoming a major bone of contention throughout the EU and is causing serious political cracks and divisions to open up within the Union.

There is also a serious security issue involved with this illegal migration, since many of the migrants are young men of military age who arrive without any identification documents. Thus, national authorities cannot determine who they are, where they come from and whether they may have a criminal record. Worse, some of them may be Jihadist terrorists entering Europe as sleeper agents (you may recall here that the C's said 10% of the asylum seekers who Chancellor Angela Merkel let into Germany, i.e., 60,000 people, were Islamic extremists). This is a very similar situation to the illegal migrants crossing the Mexican border into the southern United States, where the C's said recently that the Democrats who have encouraged such migration by lax border controls (useful new Democrat voters for a coming presidential election perhaps?) may find they have a 'tiger by the tail'. The same may well be true of the new Labour administration in the UK since they are traditionally considered to be softer on immigration (legal or illegal) than the Conservatives and our new Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, who is in charge of migration once held up a placard saying "asylum seekers welcome in Britain" (she and Keir Starmer also had their photograph taken with George Soros and Bill Gates at the recent Davos Meeting of the World Economic Forum, but that is another matter - nudge, nudge, wink, wink:-D). That being said, the last Tory administration under Prime Minister Rishi Sunak (the son of Indian migrants himself) allowed 90,000 migrants to enter the country illegally and in the space of two years also granted 2.3 million visas to foreign nationals to enter the UK for work and study etc. This stoked the general feeling that the government had lost control of our borders, something Boris Johnson, as Prime Minister, had promised to reinstate when he took the country out of the European Union after the Brexit vote.

I need to stress here that there has never been a national debate in the UK about migration. It has traditionally been a taboo subject around which the charge of racism was ever present for those who dared to mention the topic. Thus, over the years millions of migrants have poured into the country, mainly settling in the large urban areas, cities and towns. Indeed, Tony Blair invited 4 million migrants alone into the country during his years as Prime Minister. One of his closest aides during this time admitted subsequently that it was a policy he deliberately pursued in order to "gerrymander" numerous political constituencies (i.e. the political manipulation of electoral district boundaries with the intent to create undue advantage for a party, group, or socioeconomic class within the constituency thus diluting the voting power of the opposing party) mainly in the large cities where immigrants tend to settle. It is a matter of record that he said he wanted to "rub the Conservatives noses in it and keep them out of power forever". The result has been that migrants prepared to work for lower wages have often taken jobs that would otherwise have gone to indigenous Britons. Because of the cult of multiculturalism, as pursued by the liberal elite and the socialists over the years, many migrants have failed to assimilate and ghettoes have emerged in many of our major cities. Numerous towns, especially in the north of Britain, have become divided places where immigrants and indigenous Britons live in parallel worlds where the twain seldom meets. This is particularly an issue where there are large Moslem communities, whereby strict Islamic religious laws and customs often act as a barrier to integration between communities. For example, in a strict Moslem household, women are not allowed out of the house unless they are in the company of a husband, father or older brother, which cuts down the opportunity to meet and socialise with indigenous Britons. Likewise there are issues around the food served at schools and colleges, where Moslem pupils and students may only eat Halal food. In the main, the authorities have tended to bend over backwards to accommodate Moslem practices often to the annoyance of indigenous Britons. For example, many left-leaning local authorities now ban Christmas decorations in public buildings during the Christmas season out of the perceived fear of offending Moslems and other non-Christians. This thinking can also be linked with changes to educational policies and the curricula in British schools and colleges where political correctness, diversity, critical race theory and notions of 'white privilege' are now the norm and not the exception. Things are only set to get worse under the new Labour administration since Starmer is appointing a new education advisor who will rewrite the current schools curricula in order to promote even more of this woke ideology.

As a result of all of this, it is now more and more evident that social cohesion is breaking down rapidly in this country. Many white working class people feel ignored and abandoned by all political parties (save perhaps for the new Reform Party) and especially by the Labour Party, the one party who you think would have their best interests at heart. However, the Labour Party in Parliament is no longer representative of working people as it once was, since it is populated now primarily by middle class socialist idealists who exist in a little "chatterati" bubble in Westminster that is completely removed from the lives of ordinary people. Although Labour won a huge majority, they actually polled fewer votes than when they lost the last two elections to the Conservatives. Their huge majority is really down to the vagaries of the "first past the post" voting system, which is the polar opposite of proportional representation voting systems. In reality, only 20% of the electorate entitled to vote voted for Labour. That is not an overwhelming endorsement in spite of their huge majority.

It is against this background that the rioting at Southport has now spread to numerous other cities and towns throughout the country. A migrant hostel was, for example, attacked and set on fire in Rotherham in Yorkshire, a town where not long ago several Pakistani men were convicted and jailed for grooming and raping underage white girls. A police station was also set on fire in Sunderland. Starmer's reaction to this has been to dub all the protestors as "right wing thugs". There is no doubt that certain extreme right wing groups are manipulating things behind the scenes. For example, the media spotlight has been thrown on Tommy Robinson, the former leader of the right wing English Defence League (which I think is really controlled opposition), who was arrested after leading a large scale protest march in London recently and is now outside of the country. However, to label all protestors as right wing thugs is a great oversimplification. Many of the protestors have been ordinary people who are genuinely fearful for their and their children's' future, who have born the brunt of uncontrolled mass migration in terms of crumbling public services and creaking infrastructure. They have seen their standards of living dramatically decline since Covid and the war in the Ukraine. Mortgage rates have soared, inflation has eroded wages and taxes have been at an all time high, with more increases to come. These people, many of whom are struggling to feed themselves and their families, naturally feel that there is nobody in authority listening to them or who cares about their plight. There is a general sense of hopelessness for many of them. As one astute Jewish business commentator said on GB News only tonight, when people have nothing, they have nothing to lose and a spell in prison is not going to deter them. Perhaps this is what the C's had in mind when they said "yes" to Laura's question when she had said: "They're probably intending to create more control, but by trying to do that, they'll provoke more resistance. Certainly, this is one of the first occasions in recent times that I have seen the sheeple of this country show resistance to an overpowerful establishment, which serves the interests of the elite. If things continue as they are, I can see Starmer adopting more draconian measures. Perhaps it is time to fetch out the Guy Fawkes mask! :-D

I do not wish to single out the Labour Party solely for blame here since they have been out of power for the last 14 years until their victory in early July. The Conservatives must take most of the blame since they repeatedly promised to crack down on immigration during their years in power, yet record numbers of migrants still poured into the country on their watch, changing the face of the country and undermining social cohesion. David Cameron, our former prime minister and now a Lord in the House of Lords (the second government chamber) famously declared that the United Kingdom was the most successful multicultural country in the world. That boast looks pretty hollow now. The truth is that migrants to this country were never encouraged to assimilate and integrate into British society as they are required to do in most other countries. This has often led to distrust between indigenous Britons and the new arrivals. Indeed, one cry that has been heard time and again during these protests is enough is enough "we want our country back".

One of the particular targets for the protestors has been Islamic mosques. Unfortunately for the Moslem community, most terrorist attacks in Britain in recent years have been carried out by Islamic extremists (although no doubt some of them were perpetrated by other actors - think of our favourite Zionist organisation here). By way of contrast, there have been no terrorist attacks by Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist religionists in the UK that I am aware of. I have no doubt that the elite, globalists, the Illuminati etc. have exploited the situation for their own ends in pursuit of their agendas and that the Moslems in the UK may find themselves being set up as the fall guys. However, it is concerning to note that tonight in Birmingham, England's second major city, numerous young Moslem men were out and about in the city attacking reporters and motor vehicles in a show of defiance. It may take just one spark to set the whole country ablaze. Indeed, the tycoon Elon Musk has just stepped into the fray, and by doing so has incensed Keir Starmer, by stating that he thinks Britain is heading for a civil war.

This may just be a passing phase during a long, not so hot, summer but certainly things do feel different here. My son phoned me up tonight to say that he feels very uneasy about the whole situation. These spontaneous UK protests have made for strange bedfellows though. I never felt, for example, that I would see the day when Northern Irish people protesting against mass immigration would have protestors carrying the Irish Tricolour, usually only flown by Catholic Nationalists, standing side by side with Protestant Unionists carrying the Ulster flag. Perversely, concerns about the impact of mass migration have brought both sides of this divided community together for a welcome change. At least that is one silver lining.
MJF,

I would like to add my thanks for your concise synopsis of the powder keg situation in Britain. I’ve been picking up the pieces f the events there from various sources. You gave a clear run down that is easy to follow. Much appreciated.
 
But how appropriate is the comparison? Would it be correct to say that those whose inner world doesn't extend beyond autopilot functioning have no System 2 (system B), or is that taking the parallel too far?

Perhaps is not so much a black and white thing. Maybe the question would be: how much of a “system B” in a person can be separated from the system A? Because, the 2 systems always are going to be present in some capacity whether someone have or don't some type of inner experience. Maybe someone who doesn’t have a type of inner experience could have the 2 systems almost combined?

The book basically has the general idea of the observation of these 2 systems acting together and by observing this in ourselves, we can take more control of our “programs”, in detecting how your act or react to things, which system takes control or not depending which situation.

One of the things, could be for example an automatic emotional reaction to something without really consciously taking control over it, and following that example; would be like when someone takes food away from you and your system A reacts from it, anger, trying to take it back, etc but your mind (system B) might be thinking; why is he/she doing that? How dare “him/her”?, perhaps some people don’t rationalize the “why that happened” but only see it as “that just happened” and that’s it, OR perhaps someone can rationalize what happened but just to a minimal level. So there could be a clue in there..

I don’t think a person who it’s not able to have any type of inner experience would be able to observe and for that, detect and separate these 2 systems ever.

But on this subject, there is another book I was beginning to read but stoped a while ago because started reading other books (I need to get it together :lol:) but reminds me of Hurtbult’s work somehow, the name of the book is The Road to Character by David Brooks. You might also want to check that one out.

That book focus on how to build your character by analyzing your inner personality, weakness and struggles, but if we translate that to the bigger picture, it may have clues on perhaps how people who can’t experience any type of inner struggles, build their personalities or “character” to survive.
 
Back
Top Bottom