WORD: Thrive of the Method

Yesterday, I found myself attempting to watch the documentary "Thrive" (if you can call it a "documentary"). Considering its contents, I thought I'd relate, maybe learn something new. It is about the new world order, conspiracies, aliens coming to rescue us, secret technologies, David Icke, and all the usual associated issues. I'm not sure if you are familiar with these or not, but on the net, it's hard not to hear of all these.

Well, I did learn something new, but not in the way I expected it. The thing is, that as I was watching this documentary, I kept comparing the notions it proposed, with my own theories, and experience, and as usual, I found that "the devil was in the details".

What do I mean?
Well, I think it is best I begin with the least significant, as once I'm done with the significant issues, I believe returning to these, would be inappropriate. Therefore, let me begin with the "creator"/"director"/"narrator" of this film, Foster Gamble. The charisma I got Foster was a BIG alarm sign, saying "don't believe this guy, he's lying". Why do I say that? Well, the concepts he proposed, were nothing less of an ongoing genocide and apocalypse, yet the guy remained as calm as palm tree on a clear day at the beach. In other words, he radiated he does not care for any of the atrocities he described, yet he used them to justify his arguments. Of course, on the literal level, the guy was 100% politically correct, but you can easily read through that (I'm beginning to wonder, if that was not the whole point, but I'll get to that). Sure, none of the issues he described were new, but then again, nothing has changed in that sense, in our contemporary reality, to better the global-social-economic problems he described, so I guess, either you care for it or not. While the moment you "discover" this the first time, might be "paradigm shattering", there is much more at stake than our personal perspectives, especially for people, whose life depends on, or are at risk, due to these issues.

In addition, I would like to stress, the use of imagery was stressing the term cliché, to outrageous levels. For example, I remember hearing Foster saying humans have compassion, and the imagery was of a monkey in a cradle sucking milk from a bottle. I mean, come on. Compassion means much more than being an animal lover, if being an animal lover as anything to do with it all (actually, from my experience, the opposite is true. I found usually, that the more people care for animals, the lower is their general attitude towards other humans, as if saying, "humans are crap, animals AND ME - are pure").


Yes, this is all a matter of my personal taste, and lacks any rational argumentative validity. Ok, let's continue to the "real issues", starting with the Torus, which is the technological "leap", the creator of this documentary suggested, as means to "alleviate humanity", or as the movie defined it, "to allow us to thrive". Actually, before I continue, let me complain about one more insignificant issue: the use of the word "thrive":

WAKE UP!
Humanity has been thriving like mad! There are more of us today than there ever were on this planet AND THIS IS WHAT THE WORD THRIVE MEANS. The very suggestion something is stopping us from thriving, is misleading. It causes us to assume the existence of a problem, before we understand there is a problem, or that we should think there is, or what it is, kind of like marking the target around the arrow, after taking the time to decide where to plant it, to best serve your interests. Actually, this is quite remarkable, as in the same documentary, David Icke raises the same exact argument, against the leaders of the new world order, the corporatocracy, or however you want to call it (in "Loki", I used the slightly shorter term "corporatracy"). In short, generally, something seems "wrong" in this documentary, from the very beginning.

Now, let me make it clear. There are problems. Sure there are. And I have mentioned these several times in my past works. One of them, is the deluded messianic sense too many people share today, which in the book "inconsistent", I defined as "auto-angelic tendencies". And this documentary "Thrive", is bloated with such tendencies, to horrific levels. The problem with auto-angelic tendencies, is that they make us fight to convince and persuade others, to behave in irrational manners. For the barer of an auto-angelic tendency, this provides great comfort, as the following of others, makes an auto-angel (meaning, a person with auto-angelic tendencies), temporally believe the message, which essentially, is biased and irrational, feel it is, in fact, the truth.

This happens a lot in the movie "Thrive", but not from the direction Foster expects, but rather from the opposite direction. To explain, the corporatocracy surely does exist, one way or another, and no, I don't think anyone in their right mind and conscience would support its actions, from a straightforward perspective. I mean, yes. The direction into which America, Europe, Russia, China, the Rothschilds, etc., lead us, is "mean", to say the least. However, the alternative "Thrive", and MANY MANY OTHERS suggest, is simply a load of bullocks, which following can only result with an even worse fate than that our contemporary reality offers us.

But again, why? Well, first, let us discuss the technology Foster proposed, meaning, the Torus. The truth is, I have no idea what the Foster's concept of free energy refers to. Still, there is one thing I am sure of, and that is, that considering the size of the devices "Thrive" suggests, it does not discuss contingent dimensional technologies, which according to my empirically unproven, yet rigorously explained theory, involve devices who manipulate elements on the quantum levels. The devices the "Thrive" suggests are way way bigger. The size of engines. I am saying this because my theory also suggests we can create Perpetuum-mobile devices, by manipulating the physical imperative of particles to move in space. Still, again, none of the devices mentioned in "Thrive" mention anything of the sort.

Still, as I already confessed in my books, I lack the knowledge and technical capability, to refute the feasibility of devices I have not seen, and hence, my understandings cannot refute the claim for the feasibility of "free energy", in the manner suggested in "Thrive". It just means, I can't determine anything about it, without more information regarding the design and principles such devices implement.

Still, there are other problems "Thrive" impose us with (and when I say "Thrive", I mean all the individuals participating, or supporting it). These problems are of a more "narrative" nature, and I agree, might seem subjective, but when taken in the context of this "documentary", become a real cause for concern.

Let me explain what I mean. First, let us consider the extraterrestrial narrative, who for some reason, wish to share the Torus technology with us, and which according to "Thrive", have been involved with us, from the dawn of human civilization. "Thrive" suggests this ancient link, not me, as well as adding the hypothesis, these "ancient aliens" are our benefactors, or something like that.

And this is the problem. According to the Sumerian mythologies, these same "ancient aliens", created us as a slave race. The same notion reflects again in the bible, where "man is punished for eating the fruit of knowledge", exposing a genuine desire of "ancient aliens", to restrict us from gaining access to such technologies. However, according to the proposed historical narrative of "Thrive", these same ancient aliens, now want to share this technology with us.

So what is the score? The same alien race which created us to be dumb slaves, now wants us to become masters of the universe as them? To have the same technologies? Why? Have we shown any signs we know what to do with such technologies, other than destroy our planet? "Thrive" suggests we have, but there is no proof, just wishful thinking. In other words, historically, these "ancient aliens" are not our benefactors, and if they now offer us technology, we would be wise to doubt their intentions. Moreover, considering the technology "they offer", both suggests free energy, while refraining from utilizing contingent dimensional technologies, suggests it is a hoax, perhaps of an extraterrestrial scale.

You might wonder why I even mention this. Well, the truth is, I have seen U F Os above my flat in Tel Aviv, in 2009, and hence, I cannot dismiss their existence anymore. On the other hand, to the best of my knowledge, they have not "abducted" me, and therefore, I can't really determine what I saw, other than they seem like so many other reports of what is known as "flying triangles". I don't know what these were, who piloted them (if they were piloted at all, and not merely lights, or some type of light pulsating beings). I simply don't know anything. What I do know however, is that they have not brought joy into my life, and by taking my sightings too seriously (due to emotional circumstances which preceded these sighting), I did myself damage. In other words, they are definitely not "guarding angels", in the spiritual sense. That much I know (and if you need clarifications, check the last episode of inconsistent, closure).

I’m saying this, because undoubtedly, there is some kind of spiritual association between U F O sightings, the global December 12, 2012 anticipation, apocalyptic prophecies, and the likes, which might serve as some type of an oratory method, to make us put more meaning in these U F O sightings, than there really should be. According to historical records, there is nothing essentially special about our current time, with respect to U F O sightings, as they have been reported throughout the ages. It does not seem U F Os have ever really left the earth, suggesting that while their technology is advanced, it might not be as advance as “Thrive” assumes, meaning, a technology, which allows vehicles to travel faster than the speed of causality (which up until not so long ago, was considered also as “the speed of light”, although new discoveries have seriously challenged this assertion). Moreover, if that is the case, it might suggest, these aliens are really close, in interstellar terms, perhaps they are even from our own solar system. I mean, why not? Is it because in ancient times, “the gods” said they are from Orion? The same “gods” who gave us zilch of their technology? Would it be such a surprise to learn, these “gods” were from Mars? Jupiter? Saturn? Why? I mean, if the gods of our mythologies are really “ancient aliens”, it means, these planets are fucking named after them!

The whole discussion regarding U F Os has only begun in the last 200 years, suggesting that even if we have historical data dating from before those times, nothing can guarantee these old reports are genuine, meaning, that they have not been added to ancient texts, only in the last 200 years or so. This might even include the very existence of the Mayan calendar, which may have been either reinterpreted, or forged, in these last 200 years, just as it can be genuine.

You might think I am contradicting myself, once claiming U F Os exist, while another time claiming they are fabricated, and in a way you are correct, but my point is different. What I am implying, is that we simply don’t have a well-defined, or even reasonable narrative, to contemporary U F O sightings. We don’t even know if all genuine U F O sightings refer to extraterrestrials, as it is just as possible, that humanity has come up with a strange technology, which is similar in some sense to extraterrestrial technology, meaning, both humans, and aliens, fly these U F Os. We don’t know, and we don’t even know when this all begun, in the sense, that it is just as possible, secret human cultures exist on earth (say for example, in Antarctica), which possess and utilize technologies way more advanced than our own, and have been living side by side along our civilizations, meaning, there are no aliens at all. Again, we don’t know, and neither does Foster.

Moreover, even if aliens were to tell us a message, why should we believe them? Why do we immediately assume, that if a culture of superior technology does not wipe us out, it means it is here to “help”. Can’t we consider the possibility that our planet is simply not worth an “invasion”? Why not? Because it is green? What’s so great about green?
All in all, it seems the manner pop culture and underground culture has deciphered U F O sightings, is not that different from the way our ancestors deciphered their gods, immediately placing ourselves at the mercy of the capabilities they have, and we do not. No one even considers, the levels of submission we show these flying...whatever they are. Is it possible that this is exactly what our governments are attempting to fight? Our enslavement to a civilization, which is neither from a far-away solar system, nor benevolent, yet with fucking great public relations? I don’t know, and neither can I prove (at least to myself) anyone else does.

Back to the subject of the technology, the narrative Foster suggested, was of working technologies of free energy, being confiscated by governments, the same governments which are run by the corporatocracy, which want our planet to be run by one shadow government, by causing some type of genocide type cataclysmic change on our world, by poisoning our earth with the damages of fossil fuel usage, and many other vile things. Now, I am not saying it isn’t true. However, it seems improbable that these technologies would not be in use.
On the contrary. Supposing I was to attempt to cause the entire world to suffer from energy becoming ever more expensive. Would I pay this price as well, when I have free energy generators in my “confiscation garage”? What for? I can sell my own fossil fuel, fake my use of fossil fuels, and use my free energy generators instead, as that would both make me more rich and powerful, and ensure my plan carries out as intended. However, no record of such use is mentioned in the film, or in any other similar message.
Of course, we can argue against this possibility, claiming it might “leak” to the public. However, why is that so improbable, while the public existence of a movie such as “Thrive” is not improbable? To explain, according to the movie “Thrive”, the leaders of the “new world order”, have secured enough dominance, to silence any opposition. This includes, making sure, specific individuals “disappear”. This includes, shutting down the internet, or any other channel, for anyone who imposes a real risk to the corporatocracy. Still, this movie is available, on the internet, the same internet, built by the United States Army, and controlled by the corporatocracy, as far as infrastructures are concerned. And yet, movies such as “Thrive”, thrive on the internet (I am referring to films such as “Zeitgeist”, part one, two, and three, and the likes). Moreover, even specific individuals, such as David Icke, for example, are “left to carry their message”. If their message was so true, if it would have imposed a real risk, it would not have been “out”. YouTube, would not be allowed to broadcast it. There is no real problem silencing anything, and if someone thinks otherwise, I suggest he or she grows up.
The fact is, the corporatocracy can silence this “movement”, if it wishes it. The corporatocracy can silence all our rebellious members, be it hackers such as today’s pop icons “anonymous” (who took their imagery from the Hollywood film “V for Vendetta”, as if that is not a red flag saying “we’re fake”), and had it wished it, the corporatocracy could have issued world-wide genocide much sooner (just use some germ or virus, vaccine some and not others, and everything is done), but it doesn’t, and the reason it doesn’t, is I believe, simply because, that is not its goal.
The reason the current banking system exists, is not because it is just, or because it is rational, but simply because it keeps the order, and allows humanity to “thrive”. Of course, many get screwed by this, but many would have gotten screwed regardless. To explain, the truth is, humans don’t really need much more than they already have, almost everywhere on earth. If they can reproduce, and if they are accustomed to die at a specific age (be it 30 or 120), they have what they need to “thrive”.
However, this would not make them happy. We always want to be more than our surroundings, and if we would all be equal, we would not be happy. Within our current system, we blame our lack of happiness on the fact we don’t have enough money to get what we want. However, if this could no longer serve as an excuse, we would simply blame each other, and start fighting each other, like humans have done from the dawn of human history. I believe, the corporatocracy understood this principle, and found a way to reduce these conflicts, from total wars, such as those we knew until the two world wars, to local struggles, and relatively limited conflicts. Sure, they fuck us all in the process. But we would have fucked ourselves much worse otherwise, and we have a long history to show this.
Now, I know this last statement is infuriating, and you know what? Maybe it is invalid. However, I seriously believe, this is what the corporatocracy sees as their agenda, not the quest for power, not the destruction of earth, but rather a perhaps misleaded sense of responsibility.
Still, I am worried. To explain, the growing popularity of notions such as those “Thrive” proposes, suggests, something else is happening in the background, which is neither the corporatocracy, nor this free energy "save our planet" agenda. Something allows both sides of this conflict to “thrive”, as it understands, neither sides impose a risk to it. Everything points out to its existence, yet no one speaks of it, which is exactly what I would expect of a real source of power. This is what I referred to, in one of my songs from “Loki”, as “the method”.

To explain, I believe, there is a third force, larger than the corporatocracy, David Icke, Foster, and all these guys put together, which due to our concentration over this conflict, we refrain from acknowledging, allowing it to “thrive” uninterrupted. I seriously don’t know what this source of power is (social power that is), if it is human, nothing. Again, everything points out to its existence, and it is the real force pulling the strings behind our society. We don’t know its agenda, but we sure do know it wants us to feel panic and reactionary. To explain, the message movies like “Thrive” deliver, requests our personal involvement in a conflict, which to me, everything shows, is a wild goose chase. Of course, the corporatocracy are no different, making us fight against enemies we single handedly created.

To explain, don’t misunderstand this text, as supporting our government. I’m just suggesting, we should not merely switch masters between our governments and free energy enthusiasts. There must be a different, more plausible narrative, and while I have yet to have heard of it, I am sure, once it will be revealed, everything will make much more sense, as senseless, horrible, or funny as it may be.