The Consortium, the Quorum, the alien interface, depicted in 'romantic' fiction - what the heck?!

[zak]

Once again, by making the parallel of the novels with reality, I found that the conference of Pierre Hillard on the topic of "Pandemic and globalism" brought a little more water to the mill of this history of russians and Putin in these novels.

And possibly, "the Sons of El" would be a stand-in for secular Judaism?

There are several fractions of the upper sphere which are opposed to each other, to appropriate the biggest part of the cake, but not only because the religious side is very important.
These fractions can be separated into two families, even more into two messianic branches.
The Rothschild/Barrington family, which is impalpable but very present in the novels, and the Loubavitch Habad family, which I did not know existed.

A: They keep hitting snags. It's not nice to try to control Mother Nature.
Q: (L) So Mother Nature... Nature is getting in the way.

Both want world governance, but not in the same way. To understand this, you have to know that Jews are still waiting for their messiah.
The Rothschild branch does not want to reach the return of their messiah, and prefers the hubris mode, here is its definition in Pierre's splendid article "RNA Vaccines, Obedience and Eugenics":

By attempting to alter the very genome of human beings, the elites are playing God and trying to fool Mother Nature. In Ancient Greece this attitude was called "hubris":

Hubris, in Greek tragedy, is the excessive pride towards or defiance of the gods [...] The overbearing pride which leads humans to follow a path or projects which lead to certain self-destruction. In this sense, hubris is a crime of power. [...] Hubris is the extreme pride or self-confidence of an individual character which, when it offends the gods, that character is usually punished severely. The central meaning of hubris is doing deeds and thinking thoughts more than a mere mortal human should do and think, thereby showing impiety towards the gods. Hubris leads to nemesis, the inescapable agent of someone's downfall. Nemesis was the goddess or spirit of divine retribution [...][49]

I would add that also:
"In ancient Greece, from a legal point of view, hubris referred to a violent transgressive act considered a crime. This concept covered violations such as assault, sexual assault, and theft of public or sacred property."

And Aristotle: "V. He who outrages (hybris) despises. For contempt is the mistreatment and affliction of circumstances which cause shame to the object of it, and this not for the purpose of procuring anything other than this result, but for the purpose of finding pleasure in it. Those who retaliate do not act in contempt, but in revenge.
VI. The cause of the pleasure which is experienced by those who offend is that they think they are giving themselves an additional advantage over those whom they wrong. This is why young people and rich people are prone to insolence. They think that their insults give them superiority. To insult is connected the fact of dishonouring, for he who dishonours despises, and that which is worthless lends itself to no estimation, either good or bad."
DeepL.
Hybris — Wikipédia

Whereas the Lubavitch Habad branch, prefers to wait, and thus wants a global but multi-polarised governance, where some balance of power will naturally fall into place by all cooperating together.
And it seems that Putin is connected to this branch, and in a way Trump too.

Georgia Le Carre may have had a back door to bring some of the Barrington/Rothschild information and facts to light for the general public.

I focused on the dangers the author faced in revealing, but perhaps like Lana, she too is protected by a "Blake".

And that maybe, yes maybe, that's why some of the heroes of these romances, like Konstantin and Alexendr Malenkov/Zane, are Russian, and maybe that's why we find positive things about Putin.

By the way, I skipped "Redemption" without realizing it.

Here is Pierre Hillard's video in French:

 

[gottathink]

And there is Lana as totally opposite character from Blake and his family. I think it is a good representation of a young woman falling in love with a psychopath. The author is describing what she feels when she is near him.

I interpreted Blake as a very damaged person rather than a psychopath. His younger brother told Lana, “he’s not like them , he never has been..”. There is also the passage that he reflects on how he feels about his son and Lana and the only other time he felt like that was when he as a boy rescued an injured baby bird and nursed it although it passed away the next day. I think that when he met Lana it ignited a humanity in him long forgotten. It also makes sense that a person as damaged as he was as a child it is only through the intense sex that they have that he starts to feel again. To me this makes sense in light of what we know about the lower centres having to develop first before the higher centres can develop.
Because of the connection she feels for him they explore some of their darker nature together and then end up evolving as a couple. She completely surrenders to him and he completely dominates her and then they start to evolve.

To me it looks like a polar complement relationship that the intensity of their connection drives an evolution that is unstoppable. But just my interpretation.

 

[Paweł]

Paweł said:
Maybe El is "L" - "L" like Lucifer.

Q: (L) Who is Lucifer?

A: You. The human race.

Yes, forest_light, we on this forum know that. But isn't it that these people at the top of the power pyramid believe in and worship their own version of Lucifer? It reminds me of a quote:

 

[Windmill knight]

It's been a few weeks since I finished all the Banker Billionaire series, as well as Blackmailed by the Beast, The Other Side of Midnight and The Russian Billionaire. There really was something unsettling (as in 'disturbing') about the behaviour of the powerful as presented in these books that lingered in my mind for a while. I suppose the description is pretty close to the mark, considering the results of the things we see 'they' do (even if we don't always see them doing it, like wars, engineered poverty, etc), as well as the 'insider' sort of rumours we hear (e.g. pizzagate ).

Also, there's a lot of sex and eroticism in these books, but that's no news, and underneath it, stories of love, based on the theme of the woman's sincerity being put into question, and how the redeemed man (cause he was 'bad' but found meaning and a new path in her) chooses to trust her and thus love prevails.

In regards to the author's perspective about the threats to humanity, there is an obvious concern with...

Spoiler: Spoiler

...the transhumanist nightmare, as well as AI as the genie out of the bottle that will ultimately enslave us. That has given me much food for thought. It is an issue that we already had in the radar, but since she mentions it repeatedly, I have been paying attention more closely to 'technocratic' ideas/memes floating around global society, especially when they come from public figures like Bill Gates, 'The Schwabb' or any of the puppet PMs or presidents parroting 'Build Back Better'. Also, the totally creepy push not only to vaccinate people, but to use that as an excuse to get everyone on some database or another, and to condition such basic things like access to travel or work to that.

If the global technological infrastructure doesn't collapse soon, then yeah, where we are headed appears to be some sort of Matrix-type scenario - or should I say 'Meta'? Yet, Mother Nature is already quite active, and the collapse of one or many of a number of systems seems imminent - the weather, the economy, the global food supply, geology, perhaps even the 'cosmic weather', etc. So what sort of 'Meta-verse' do these crazies expect us to be plugged into? Without food supplies or a reasonably stable weather and economy, those virtual fantasies cannot stand. And even if they do manage to 'plug' people into some sort of super-intrusive digital system, it seems unlikely it will be for everyone. If you live in the rural area of a developing or poor country, how long will it take all those gizmos to find their way into your home? What interest will people have in that if they need to work the land or raise animals to get by?

It's a race of sorts, I suppose, but at the moment I'm betting that the transhumanist totalitarian global regime will not get very far, or it won't last long. Mother Nature and the material (as opposed to virtual) world will have the last word. Even if it's catastrophic, I think it's preferable to the alternative.

 

[lilies]

Finished all the ten approved books - 285-295 - in the series. Thank You, Laura, for making us aware of these books. It was an enriching experience. Especially the constant comparing, what the rich have and we don't have.
These books made me read the news with fresh eyes. Everything the elite does in the world that's being reported about I've become sensitized to. Like the weird deaths of the super rich in plane crashes, since this project began. How Establishment secrets are now revealed via their decrees and publications, their real deeds are more clearly showing through in the news.

Especially pondered for how long time the Establishment had to prepare for this world-wide dictatorship they are ushering in and they used professionals, who spent their lives in training. Killers, scientists, operators, banksters, hackers etc.. in secret agencies, shadow groups. I compared these large bunch of Deep State Professionals to the hapless billions of citizens chasing TV Shows, car races, sports events and useless hobbies. We have no chance against them. Except the Murphy's Laws cases in action movies, when untrained civilians beat trained professionals by both making mistakes - in dangerous-hazardous environments / traffic / high buildings / fire / water, etc.. , which accidentally proves fatal for the hired assassin chasing them. Maybe we have that chance: what the professional Deep Staters haven't planned for, by us being just there making our silly-unprofessional mistakes, - Real Life - those hopefully will be their demise.

Lately as the world turns darker, I was lamenting the happiness and the amazing trips, the restaurants, scenes of enjoying life in society etc.. described in the last books. These luxuries now read like ghost stories in ghost world. Since it became clear the hedonistic world these books describe, the indulgences, the luxury, the tourist trips are forever gone.

Reading about the obscene luxury it hit me: the air of these Übermensch characters - impossibly highly trained mentally and physically - living in a grand environment. The elect world these rich bankers / gangsters exist in, their clubs and establishments.. I was filled with loathing toward their kind. Rather I was feeling compassion toward the servant characters in these books, how much they had to slave away to feed / clean / manage / cloth / the super-rich people, their houses, environment, so the protagonists could lead an elevated lifestyle.

The super-rich attained their 'Life of a Breakaway Civilization' which the common people will never have, will never experience. All their castles and residences with high-ceilings and large halls with millions in modern art hanging on the walls. The bodyguards running around to serve them. I'm still laughing about such obscene richness.

I was glad at first that the sex scenes were placed in a contemporary setting, but there were so many of them, they quickly became a chore / swamp to wade through. I kept postponing them in the later books, when I encountered such an "Ugh..not another!" sex scene. Plus the longing - as I'm living alone - didn't help, as these books describe amazing lovely "everyday" scenes between the protagonists, the knowing I'll never have the chance now - it appears - to achieve something remotely similar.

 

[Laura]

Meanwhile, there is something else going on. After reading the books in this series, amazon served me some other, similar books and I sampled some from a variety of authors. I'm not going to name them or the authors because they are, quite frankly, not really worth reading. I just want to say a few things about a whole genre that is apparently serving a demographic that I can't quite define yet.

They are "dark mafia" (Italian, Irish, Polish, whatever), or Russian Bratva, or South American cartel oriented. The main heroes are usually very powerful, dark, alpha type males who, for some bizarre reason, make love like caring men. Or, conversely, they are brutal and into very rough sex which the female character craves. Several variations.

Often, the male protagonist is depicted as damaged in some way that made him dark and deadly. The female protagonist is depicted as either a total innocent, or a woman damaged by life whose faith is restored by the male somehow.

A large part of these books is taken up by the female protagonist thinking thoughts about how wrong it is to care about someone so dark and evil and how can she possibly tolerate the dark, evil things he does on a daily (or hourly) basis. Usually, in the end, she just somehow decides that what he does is okay and she is madly in love with him, and gee, isn't it great to be in love with a murdering psychopath because he makes her feel so safe because, of course, he will never murder her. And the people getting murdered are depicted as somehow worse than the ones doing the murdering. Well, it's often a bit more complicated than that, but you get the idea. Governments, legal systems, police, schools, churches, etc, are mostly depicted as corrupt and deserving of what amounts to vigilante justice. And heck, who is to gainsay that for the most part.

For the most part, the books are loaded with action of the violent kind, and sex which can be violent or not, or extremely kinky or not. BUT, they are very badly written and that leads to what sticks out to me like a sore thumb.

There are dozens of different authors, but they all seem to have the same problem: their grasp of the English language is very weird and twisted. The MAIN issues are: 1) verb/adverb/adjective reconciliation; 2) pure out and out bizarre malapropism. This last is so prevalent that there are probably 3 or 4 examples on nearly every page. In order to read the darn things, you have to constantly mentally correct. One example that comes to mind is one author's use of "lauded". She wrote something like "The statue of Mary Magdalene lauded over the chapel." Now, obviously, what she meant was that the statue was prominent and dominated the chapel. But "lauded"? Then, she used that same word numerous times in places where it was clear that she meant that something dominated the scene.

Another is the issue between imminent and eminent.

Here are a few links to the issue of malapropisms: Malapropism - Wikipedia

What Is a Malapropism? Understand These Funny (and Common) Errors

The term malapropism refers to the incorrect use of a word in place of a similar-sounding word, typically with a humorous result.

www.thoughtco.com

In the following, there are excellent examples of exactly what I am finding in these books:

Examples of Malapropism

You’ve likely used a malapropism if you’ve ever mixed-up words that had similar pronunciations. Find some common malapropism examples you may say here.

examples.yourdictionary.com

• Mrs. Malaprop said, "Illiterate him quite from your memory" (obliterate) and "She's as headstrong as an allegory" (alligator)
• Officer Dogberry said, "Our watch, sir, have indeed comprehended two auspicious persons" (apprehended two suspicious persons)
• Rainy weather can be hard on the sciences. (sinuses)
• Alice said she couldn't eat crabs or any other crushed Asians. (crustaceans)
• I have no delusions to the past. (allusions)
• You could have knocked me over with a fender. (feather)
• You lead the way and we'll precede. (proceed)
• Unfortunately, my affluence over my niece is very small. (influence)
• A rolling stone gathers no moths. (moss)
• Good punctuation means not to be late. (punctuality)
• Having one wife is called monotony. (monogamy)
• The flood damage was so bad they had to evaporate the city. (evacuate)
• Dad says the monster is just a pigment of my imagination. (figment)
• Everybody in the company has their own cuticle. (cubicle)
• Tom is the very pineapple of politeness. (pinnacle)
• I remember because I have photogenic memory. (photographic)
• Flying saucers are just an optical conclusion. (illusion)

Now, please, what does this kind of butchering of the language that occurs so consistently and repeatedly across the works of dozens of different authors of a particular genre suggest to you? It is so bizarre, and so prevalent that it is really staggering.

 

[Jones]

Now, please, what does this kind of butchering of the language that occurs so consistently and repeatedly across the works of dozens of different authors of a particular genre suggest to you? It is so bizarre, and so prevalent that it is really staggering.

Psychopathy.

 

[Andrian]

Psychopathy.

Agree, the ponerization process reaching every aspect and branch of society globally this time. Can't wait for some changes to take place. Enough is enough.

 

[Mari]

Being not a native english speaker, this, first of all, is very confusing to me.

Secondly, when reading this, I remembered this article Psychopathy and the Origins of Totalitarianism.
In article, the author also points to distortion of the language:

Pseudo-realities as Language Games

As implied by Pieper, as can be seen even in the title of his essay from which we're taking the term "pseudo-reality" ("Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power") these constructions tend to arise out of abuses of language that enable abuses of power. These manipulations are therefore attractive to people with strong inclinations to control other people or to take power, particularly when they are of moderately high intelligence, relatively well-off, and linguistically savvy (while, perhaps, lacking in other more concretely valuable skills). That is, pseudo-realities are constructed by linguistically capable manipulators who wish to control other people, and it's reasonable to assume that a sufficiently convincing (and convicting) pseudo-reality will then draw in more such people who are able to develop the pseudo-world and its fictions and then convince people it maps meaningfully onto reality in a way that it does not. The process by which they do this might most accurately be called discourse engineering, with the exact same connotation that we usually attach to the bigger project it facilitates, social engineering. Some specific types of these language games, to borrow a phrase from Wittgenstein, were mentioned briefly above.

These behaviors, even when done by the sincere person who has confused reality for a pseudo-reality, should all be seen as manipulations and abuses, though it's always important to recognize that intention of each participating individual matters in the moral ramifications that follow from this fact. Pseudo-real world-builders tend to manipulate people upon their vulnerabilities, which is a well-known fact of cult recruitment. Thus, they are most effective on people who have an underlying baseline of psychological, emotional, or spiritual illness, particularly of the kinds that relate poorly to the real world and the rough-and-tumble social realities within it. As noted, these are also often manufactured to purpose and target the psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually susceptible, along with the naive, the angry, and the aggrieved. It is in such minds where pseudo-realist manipulations are most effective and can generate a sizable sympathizer base among otherwise normal people, some of whom will be induced into the psychopathologies that underlie the whole project. This is the real alchemy of the pseudo-realist ideological project: turning normal, mostly healthy people into psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually broken water-carriers who can no longer cope adequately with the features of reality and thus must prefer the pseudo-reality that was built to receive them — and, more importantly, to make strategic use of them.

 

[Laura]

I agree: psychopathy appears to be at the root of this sort of literature. And the aim appears to be to normalize, or even glorify, psychopathy, and excuse it too. Another aim appears to be normalizing ideas of total anarchy and to make killing others just "all in a day's work".

But, I don't think that all of the authors are psychopaths, though certainly they are influenced by psychopathic thinking. I'm reminded of what Lobaczewski said about schizoid psychopathy and what happens when they turn their energies to writing...

Again, the bizarre thing is the apparent inability to interface with reality via language and how telling a clue that must be if only the reader was paying attention (which I was). Some of the authors were better than others, but all of them had this problem.

 

[brandon]

One example that comes to mind is one author's use of "lauded". She wrote something like "The statue of Mary Magdalene lauded over the chapel." Now, obviously, what she meant was that the statue was prominent and dominated the chapel. But "lauded"? Then, she used that same word numerous times in places where it was clear that she meant that something dominated the scene.

Maybe she's seen the word "lauded" and thinks it's the word people are saying when they say a person "lorded it over" someone.. (and then further misused the phrase or just didn't quite have a handle on the feeling of it..)

My grandma and I were talking about this the other day, because it seems really common.. She had joined a local facebook group and was shocked at the spelling & vocabulary of most members.. We figured most people (here, at least) just don't read books any more. Or not a wide range of them..

 

[thorbiorn]

Now, please, what does this kind of butchering of the language that occurs so consistently and repeatedly across the works of dozens of different authors of a particular genre suggest to you? It is so bizarre, and so prevalent that it is really staggering.

I have also been puzzled sometimes, and among these books I only read the recommended, but how much can one conclude?

The problem is complex because we live at a time:

• when English is becoming a world language,
• when the educational systems even in English-speaking countries often slips,
• when the reading of large amounts of written fiction is no longer a priority,
• when papers with just a few pictures have been replaced by TV, radio, and papers and news sites having little text and many pictures,
• when visual media occupies a greater share of the market and people spend more time on it,
• when the written communication between people has moved from oral, letters, to email, to SMS, to messengers,
• when we regularly communicate with phones, and services like Skype and Zoom, or we skip it altogether and just go for an afternoon visit so far away it would have taken us two weeks by horse,
• when people who are not native English speakers have to write in English to reach an audience,
• when the writing and the printing of books has become so much easier and many more people can publish.

If there are many errors in the books, it could also be a matter of a missing critical audience. Or is it an outcome of a multicultural society where one truth is as good as any other, where the editors and authors work to the bare level of "good enough for the audience"? Or are the mistakes really a function of deeper psychological problems? One does not exclude the other.

It can take a long time to learn a language really well. For me, it is a lifelong process, and that includes my native language. Learners of a language can make errors. I once heard a school teacher say that the worst was to use a word wrongly. Okay, but if one wishes to learn a language, one has to risk sometimes.

Regarding Georgia Le Carre, I am not convinced she is a native English speaker. Or if she is, that her family was. She writes in her dedication at the beginning of You Don't Own Me "For my gorgeous muse, Snjezana Sute aka Snow." We don't know how much truth there is in this, but Snjezana reminded me of снег (transliterated as sneg) which means snow. I tried to enter "Snjezana Sute" into translate.google,com and it registered "Snjezana Sute" as Croatian and changed it to: Snježana Šute
Snježana is listed as a first name by the Wiki:

Female forms: Сніжанна, Сніжана, (Ukrainian) Снежа́на, Снежа́нна. Снежок, Снежа́ночка are diminutives. (Russian) Snežana, Sneža, (Slovenian) Snežana, Снежана, (Serbian, Bosnian and Macedonian) Snježana, Sniježana, (Croatian and Bosnian) Снежана, (Bulgarian) Sněžana, (Czech) Sneža, Снежа, Snežanka, Snežica, Snežka, Снежка, Snežna - diminutives

Šute is a family surname according to Surname Šute @ Acta Croatica which mentions:

Surname Šute in modern Croatia
In Croatia, Šute families are almost entirely Croats (from Ogulin area ), barely Slovenes (from Zagreb ). In the past century, relatively most of Croatian residents bearing this family name were born in Zagreb and in Ogulin area.

The site mentions the name can be found in 98 countries, but it is not very common overall.

Outside Croatia
Family name Šute (including: Sute , Shute , Schute , Sutte , Suthe , Schuthe , Schuete , Suete , Sutee and Shuthe ) is present in 98 countries worldwide. The family name "Sute " is used by some 500 people in Indonesia , about 100 in the United States , and some 100 people in Malaysia. "Shute " is used by some 4000 people in the United States , about 600 in Great Britain , and some 500 people in Canada. "Schute " is used by some 500 people in Germany , about 300 in the United States , and some 200 people in Iraq.

I don't know if there is anything to this dedication, but it might be one more indication that the author is not a native English speaker. Who knows, maybe the first drafts were not even in English?

 

[Laura]

The idea that the authors might not be native English speakers has also occurred to me. But then that means that there is a whole stable of foreign writers pumping this stuff out like crazy for the English, mainly American, audience. That suggests something like psy-ops.

 

[Juba]

Now, please, what does this kind of butchering of the language that occurs so consistently and repeatedly across the works of dozens of different authors of a particular genre suggest to you? It is so bizarre, and so prevalent that it is really staggering.

This is interesting, and for sure psychopathy could be real answer, although it remind me on language used by Microsoft's bot Tay - "worked" on Twitter during 2016. https/www.fudzilla.com/news/40302-ai-assistant-turned-fascist-sex-slave-on-twitter
Same thing with MIT's Norman the AI bot who "worked" on Reddit and "becomes psychopath”.
https://-nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2018/06/07/norman-the-ai-bot-reads-reddit-becomes-psychopath/
On the other hand, these bots represent the "program language" of their designers and could be just a reflection of their psychopathy. Basically, bots are the same as the people who make them.

 

[loreta]

Meanwhile, there is something else going on. After reading the books in this series, amazon served me some other, similar books and I sampled some from a variety of authors. I'm not going to name them or the authors because they are, quite frankly, not really worth reading. I just want to say a few things about a whole genre that is apparently serving a demographic that I can't quite define yet.

They are "dark mafia" (Italian, Irish, Polish, whatever), or Russian Bratva, or South American cartel oriented. The main heroes are usually very powerful, dark, alpha type males who, for some bizarre reason, make love like caring men. Or, conversely, they are brutal and into very rough sex which the female character craves. Several variations.

Often, the male protagonist is depicted as damaged in some way that made him dark and deadly. The female protagonist is depicted as either a total innocent, or a woman damaged by life whose faith is restored by the male somehow.

A large part of these books is taken up by the female protagonist thinking thoughts about how wrong it is to care about someone so dark and evil and how can she possibly tolerate the dark, evil things he does on a daily (or hourly) basis. Usually, in the end, she just somehow decides that what he does is okay and she is madly in love with him, and gee, isn't it great to be in love with a murdering psychopath because he makes her feel so safe because, of course, he will never murder her. And the people getting murdered are depicted as somehow worse than the ones doing the murdering. Well, it's often a bit more complicated than that, but you get the idea. Governments, legal systems, police, schools, churches, etc, are mostly depicted as corrupt and deserving of what amounts to vigilante justice. And heck, who is to gainsay that for the most part.

For the most part, the books are loaded with action of the violent kind, and sex which can be violent or not, or extremely kinky or not. BUT, they are very badly written and that leads to what sticks out to me like a sore thumb.

There are dozens of different authors, but they all seem to have the same problem: their grasp of the English language is very weird and twisted. The MAIN issues are: 1) verb/adverb/adjective reconciliation; 2) pure out and out bizarre malapropism. This last is so prevalent that there are probably 3 or 4 examples on nearly every page. In order to read the darn things, you have to constantly mentally correct. One example that comes to mind is one author's use of "lauded". She wrote something like "The statue of Mary Magdalene lauded over the chapel." Now, obviously, what she meant was that the statue was prominent and dominated the chapel. But "lauded"? Then, she used that same word numerous times in places where it was clear that she meant that something dominated the scene.

Another is the issue between imminent and eminent.

Here are a few links to the issue of malapropisms: Malapropism - Wikipedia

What Is a Malapropism? Understand These Funny (and Common) Errors

The term malapropism refers to the incorrect use of a word in place of a similar-sounding word, typically with a humorous result.

www.thoughtco.com

In the following, there are excellent examples of exactly what I am finding in these books:



Now, please, what does this kind of butchering of the language that occurs so consistently and repeatedly across the works of dozens of different authors of a particular genre suggest to you? It is so bizarre, and so prevalent that it is really staggering.

People that are ignorant of the language, maybe young people that work with a computer and surely they are not English native, and if they are English native they do not know the sense of the words so they have a sort of handicap, a mental handicap. It can be writers (if we can name them writers! )maybe from other countries and using a translator. But are incapable of reading again what they have written. Or maybe these books are written by a robot.