Session: Word Meanings, Definition by Alignment …


Jedi Master
Hello everybody, good wishes upon everyone … I wanted to do a session on words, on what they mean to us, the other-serving part of society, and how that differs for the self-serving. Today we examine the word ‘Allies’.

A plump man enters the stage from the side and makes his way over to the podium. At the podium was Bob, he was messing with some wires on the microphone. He lifted his head and stated to me, “The microphone’s dead, wire or something.” I told him I could live without it for this session, I will just speak louder so everyone can hear. Bob turned and left the stage, “I’ll have this fixed for next time,” he said as he disappeared behind a curtain.

CAN YOU HEAR ME UP THERE IN THE BACK! YES, good, I’ll get started …

I was watching the news the other day and I saw an important figurehead of a country who was discussing their partnership with another country and used the word Allies to define this other country. It was used many times in the news clip like someone was using it to make a point to someone out there. One item, I have followed both of these countries for some time now and they are anything but friends to each other. So, what is the beef here, or am I misunderstanding the usage of the term.

Now the figurehead talking was from what I would call a larger country in worldwide standing. And the other country was a lower defined one. The way the figurehead was using the term, the emotion used with it, made it seem like this term was being used in a threatening manor, at times.

In my young life I read encyclopedias and dictionaries. It was a deprived life but educational. I thought I knew material from the dictionary. The word Allies to me meant a friend, a partner, a co-worker or helper. Someone who was willing to work with you when you needed help in a situation. Even down to the guy that will drive out to help you when you are broke down on the side of the road. I thought that this meant that you are one of the good guys.

Today I am seeing this figurehead using it and I do not believe that it means the same thing, as they are using it. I rewound the news and had to watch it again.

There it was they used the term in a most unfriendly manor, right there. I paused the news.

They were using this word in an unfamiliar way almost like this other was an accessory or an accomplice in some unknown action. Maybe something to be held over the lesser that might not be acceptable behavior. I would almost say that this figurehead was kind of using it like someone who was applying force upon another. There was a pressure here and it insinuated that it would increase if the predefined course was not traveled. I kept rewinding the news story, watching it completely, must have been a dozen times.

I was not seeing things here, this figurehead was subtly presenting this force but not enough to draw in issues with others above their stature, I figured. There were allowable limits to what could be stated openly.

A week passes and another figurehead used the same term in a similar manor to someone that I would have thought would not like the statement. They didn’t and denied their alliance.

Now, when I hear Allies being stated in the news I stop and see how they are using it. I have seen this over ten times since I first saw it. I am drawn to it now, watching the news (sic) just to hear someone referencing it.

I sit back in my chair and contemplate this. Right about now I am longing for my old books of my youth. The encyclopedias were a Collier’s hard cover set that we got from the good will, hand-me-downs or discarded, I would speculate that they were published in the 1960’s. My dictionary was split into two sections, about five inches total in thickness, very warn from use. The dictionary was probably older, something from the fifties. I would love to have them still just to review past knowledge to current knowledge from internet sources. You know changes have been made, the hidden rewriting of knowledge to suit a different need.

I have to wonder if I was cherry picking the knowledge that I found in my youth, taking in only the good side of the knowledge.

I continued my research on-line. My destination was, I found this …

Allies: plural noun

  • (in World War I) the powers of the Triple Entente (Great Britain, France, Russia), with the nations allied with them (Belgium, Serbia, Japan, Italy, etc., not including the United States), or, loosely, with all the nations (including the United States) allied or associated with them as opposed to the Central Powers.
  • the 26 nations that fought against the Axis in World War II and, with subsequent additions, signed the charter of the United Nations in San Francisco in 1945.
  • the member nations of NATO.
It clearly identifies an STS intent. The first two are war events and the last one is the war mongers looking to do it again. The current definition of Allies is defined best by wars, I do not remember it this way. The following graph has a mentions of the statement to a timeline.


You can clearly see the events of WWI and WWII were peaks in its usage, almost defining its increased usage to these war events. But what about the early peaks in the 1800’s, what was the cause of them.

Changing world financial order is currently under American control since 1944, before that it was the English UK around 1850, before that it was the Dutch. These show in the chart but not as the major events. WWI is well defined and in the early 1800’s it is the French invasion of Russia in 1812, the war of sixth coalition ending in 1814 and the 100-day war of 1815. The major peaks were wars that look like they were control efforts, taking care of someone who was not following the order. The lesser peaks in the chart are the times of the change in the world financial order and the reserve currency. I expect that the current peak is following this same level. Kind of what I am seeing right now.

(You have to wonder just how they got the information for this chart, what defined a mention, not to mention, how did they do this two hundred years ago. I will continue, just wanted to note that to everyone.)

But clearly from this chart is that fact that usage of this word, or certain other words, really are a commitment to war, the more that they are used increases the risk of it actually happening.

So, my definition of Allies is softly accurate, but only to those that rarely use it, like us.

For those that use it, the self-serving society and those in-charge, it starts out meaning a special engagement has been made within a control structure. This then turns to force or pressure to maintain a specific direction. As pressures increase it turns to aggression and disruption which eventually leads to war for control needs or a change in the world order.

It looks like their definition has been around for more years than we can identify. The PTB or those in charge have passed this definition down throughout the centuries. Yea, they allow a cleaned-up definition, but that looks to only be so they can continue to use it for their needs. They know that we will think of it the nice way, they will continue to use it to pressure others.

Now, when I watch the news and that dignitary, politician or figurehead states this, I have to only wonder at what level are they using it as and how close to a physical altercation that they are at.

When I started this session, I had no understanding of ‘Allies’ but a simple definition, I could not have been more wrong. Other words are in-process, to be released later.

I look down and see Bob sitting in the first row, he gives a nod of approval. I pick up my things and depart the stage.

(I see Meta elbowing in on using this hall for their purpose. The Impact Will Be Real - YouTube) Haiku …
yet another demonstration of transmarginal inhibition as it relates to language, authority, etc so common in politics or the tv, it get's to be funny the party head speaking like an automaton, till you realize there are ppl who buy it and get real addicted akin to a drug

reminds me of a middle aged teacher i had once that couldn't stop her antidepressants or she'd get catatonic walking on the streets like a lost person, stories she openly told while endorsing everyone to get on meds, quite the "living program"
This is a quick one. When is ‘Deleted’, not.

I am reading the news, I see a story about a committee, I think that you know who I am talking about. Their statement was that they wanted deleted information from a specific group.

Excuse me, do you realize how idiotic that sounds.

I know what deleted means, you know what deleted means. But this select group seems to have another understanding, a unwritten definition of this word.

Are you kidding me! Your statement is clearly defining that these deleted items are not really deleted in the form that we know it. They are insinuating that this data is there still somehow. How could that be! If the original information was deleted from the source, then who would have them!

To me this is stating that there is some source that might have made a copy of this data that someone knows about but was not allowed to specify. So, they had to state it in this absurd way to cover up this source?

People are lost if they do not see that these statements are describing to me that if I delete a file, no matter where it is, no matter who did it, that it is not deleted totally. And that this not totally deleted file still exists somewhere because it was saved to some central group location. You have to feel sorry for the souls that do not see this.

Either way this states that someone is lying about not deleting this data or there is a secret group copying all our files. Sounds about right for a deceit-filled world.

I am still waiting for Rod Serling to stop by, tell me that this some kind of macabre dream, Haiku …
If you delete a file you always can get it back as long as it is not overwritten several times.
So when you delete something it will be marked as invisible and as free space to save new data, but when you don't follow the step above or distroy the storing medium completely, there is always a way to get the data back. It could be that that is realy expensive.
And then, nower days, it is very possible, that your data get's mirrored somewere withaut your knowledge.
Another word that has changed meaning significantly.
The meek will inherit the earth and delight themselves in the abundance of peace.
Psalm 37:11 (KJV and Lamsa versions).
I just started reading “The Stairway of Perfection,” by Walter Hilton, an English mystic. Written in the
mid 14th century and translated by M.L. Del Mastro in 1979.
In “The Stairway of Perfection,” Del Mastro writes (page 18 of the introduction in the paperback copy):

“Meekness (also called humility) has fallen somewhat into disrepute in the 20th century….
“Meekness in late 14th century England was the virtue of the strong. The man, self-disciplined and firm-
willed enough to hold not only his hand and his tongue but the very resentments of his heart at
unwarranted injury or reproach, who could be gentle, courteous, and kind to all his fellow Christians,
whatever his provocation, who could cheerfully bend his will to God’s and his lawful superior’s – he
alone is meek.
“…for Hilton, meekness is essentially the grace to see truth, see it as whole, as it is in itself, and to
respond appropriately to it.”

This has been helpful in many ways; for example, avoiding taking things personally. I all too often took offense at comments because I focused on the delivery rather than the message. If had paid attention and considered the message (which at best, often was good advice, and at worst valuable insight into the other person’s thought processes) I would have saved a lot of energy. If I remember to pause before responding, especially if I can be AWARE of the fact that I am having an invalid reaction, then a valid response will generally present itself to me. If an opinion is offered, I can consider whether it is applicable or not. If it is, I have an opportunity to grow in knowledge of myself. If not, nothing lost.

I have also learned that it is helpful to depersonalize other’s reactions by replacing “Why is he criticizing, judging, yelling AT ME”), with the less personal question, “Why is he yelling?”

To me, one of the most obvious examples of meekness (humility) as strength is the manner in which V. Putin has conducted himself during the SMO in Ukraine. False and derogatory MSM allegations have not engendered an emotional response. There is simply a focus that demonstrates, in Hilton’s words, “…the grace to see truth, see it as whole, as it is in itself, and to respond appropriately to it.”
Top Bottom